Here's a picture I took at our 3-year old, $12M landfill a couple of weeks ago. Test your solid waste acumen, and tell me what is wrong with this picture. There may be more than one correct answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Environmental test question
- Thread starter Dleg
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
RIP - VTEnviro
His Memory Eternal
I can't see the picture Dleg.
Hence I say the problem with your landfill, is that it's invisible.
Hence I say the problem with your landfill, is that it's invisible.
T
tmckeon_PE
To begin with, where is the path for trucks to get in and out of the pit area?
The temporary road is kind of hidden, but it's there. That's not the problem. I'll share another photo from the opposite side of the landfill that shows it better, but it will raise another (easier) problem. You still need to answer the original question, but you get bonus points for pointing out the problem(s) this photo illustrates:
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
From the first picture:
1. Owners/Operators of a landfill must constuct/maintain a control system to prevent stormwaters from running onto the active part of the landfill. The system must be designed for a 25-yr return period.
2. ** possible ** Daily cover requirement doesn't look like it is being met at the bottom of the picture since you have two areas of waste management and the one at the bottom of the picture looks "inactive".
From the 2nd picture:
1. Owners/Operators of a landfill must construct/maintain a surface water run-off
control system that can collect and control, at a minimum, the surface water
volume that results from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. The water must be managed in accordance with the Clean Water Act.
2. You got any wetlands around them thar trees ?? <_<
3. LFG monitoring ?? Picture might not pan out far enough to show.
That's my short response ...
h43r:
Dleg --
Do you also do enforcement ? :tone:
JR
1. Owners/Operators of a landfill must constuct/maintain a control system to prevent stormwaters from running onto the active part of the landfill. The system must be designed for a 25-yr return period.
2. ** possible ** Daily cover requirement doesn't look like it is being met at the bottom of the picture since you have two areas of waste management and the one at the bottom of the picture looks "inactive".
From the 2nd picture:
1. Owners/Operators of a landfill must construct/maintain a surface water run-off
control system that can collect and control, at a minimum, the surface water
volume that results from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. The water must be managed in accordance with the Clean Water Act.
2. You got any wetlands around them thar trees ?? <_<
3. LFG monitoring ?? Picture might not pan out far enough to show.
That's my short response ...
h43r:Dleg --
Do you also do enforcement ? :tone:
JR
Last edited:
M
MetroRAFB
Where are the steaming mounds of garbage? And the seagulls?
RIP - VTEnviro
His Memory Eternal
Now that I can see them you've already spilled the beans.
I was going to say daily cover for the first picture. And lake leachate on the second picture.
Also, where are the vents?
I was going to say daily cover for the first picture. And lake leachate on the second picture.
Also, where are the vents?
G
Guest
Yeah, I was wondering about LFG too - don't see any flares in the picture.
I was also wondering if there Postclosure Financial Assurance was up to par. I am thinking it is not
h43r: h43r: h43r: h43r:Do I win a prize for correct answers ??!!
JR
RIP - VTEnviro
His Memory Eternal
Yeah, you win a pint of collected leachate for your drinking pleasure.
G
Guest
Icky !!
Did you TCLP the leachate ??!!
h43r: h43r: h43r: h43r:If not, that is transporting a hazardous waste without proper registration !
JR
Fudgey
Master of Disaster
I had to poop real bad one day. But had to hold it in for a few hours for various reasons. Couldn't find a men's room, was on the road, just plain forgot at one point.
Does that count as carrying around hazardous waste?
Can someone really fine me for carrying around a couple mud monkeys without a permit?
Does that count as carrying around hazardous waste?
Can someone really fine me for carrying around a couple mud monkeys without a permit?
G
Guest
From the anecdotal information you have provided fudgepump, you would be OPERATING a hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility (TSDF) without a license. :ruh:I had to poop real bad one day. But had to hold it in for a few hours for various reasons. Couldn't find a men's room, was on the road, just plain forgot at one point.
Does that count as carrying around hazardous waste?
Can someone really fine me for carrying around a couple mud monkeys without a permit?
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
If you provide me with your place of business, I would be happy to come help you come back into compliance.
h43r: h43r: h43r:JR
Fudgey
Master of Disaster
Well, when I finally did get the chance to go, it was in the bushes.
So if you're gonna bust me, it should be for for an unauthorized discharge of raw sewage, in this case a couple of chocolate hot dogs, as well.
So if you're gonna bust me, it should be for for an unauthorized discharge of raw sewage, in this case a couple of chocolate hot dogs, as well.
Well,
jregieng hinted at it. VTEnviro pretty much nailed it. Fudgepump needs to eat more fiber, I think.
The only answers were the ones that were obvious from the pictures. You could even use your ENVRM to find the answers. In short, the answers cover the primary operating requirements for a landfill: daily cover, lift construction, and runoff/leachate management.
In the first picture, there are two big problems:
1. Notice that ridiculous little "tarp" out in the middle of the waste pile in the foreground? That's the "alternative daily cover" that we approved a couple years back, to help conserve airspace. Back when the landfill was being managed properly by an experienced contractor, the working face was small enough to be covered by that one section of tarpaulin. Now that the contractor has been run off and our Public Works is running the joint, the situation has come to this. I literally laughed out loud when I saw this. They've got to be kidding. Right? Ugghh.
2. Notice the large area of uncovered trash all over the place. But it goes beyond the daily cover requirement. Check out the lift construction. Basically, there is no organized lift construction. The pile in the foreground is just that - a pile, spread all around horizontally. The "lift" in the background is a little better, but hardly. Not really a permit requirement, but just bad practice. These guys should know better - we've had George Savage himself out here several times to train them.
3. Bonus point: a) look at all the holes and tears in the alternative cover. Not very effective at meeting the vector or odor control requirements. But that may be hard to tell at the reduced scale.
In the second picture, the "lake" at the bottom illustrates another big problem:
4. Under previous management, the landfill was operated such that the lake in the picture was composed only of clean runoff from the unused cell 2. It could just be pumped into the unlined cell 3 for disposal (good perc rate). Now, however, the poor lift construction in cell 1 has directed all runoff from cell 1 into cell 2, which includes a number of surface leachate seeps. So that water is now leachate. Diluted leachate, to be sure, but leachate nonetheless. Which means that the other main landfill design/operating parameter of maintaining a depth of leachate no greater than 30 cm above the liner is not being met. (the HDPE liner is about 4 feet below the aggregate layer shown, which is maybe another 2 feet below the surface of the lake). And, even worse, the leachate pumps for cell 2 have been canibalized to fix the cell 1 pumps, so there is no way to fix the problem until another pump can be obtained, but you can't see that in the picture, so nevermind.
Good calls on all the other guesses, but if you can't see it from the picture, it doesn't count. But you're pretty much right. Anything that can be wrong IS wrong right now. I could go on and on, but I've got to run off for a meeting. :brick:
Edit - I just noticed that two of you asked where the vents are. There are none. The landfill opened up in 2003, and until now, I hdan't really thought about it. We had an experienced contractor running it for a while, and he said we wouldn't need to worry about it for a few more years. But he's been booted out now, so maybe I'd better start worrying about that now. Thanks for the heads up.
jregieng hinted at it. VTEnviro pretty much nailed it. Fudgepump needs to eat more fiber, I think.
The only answers were the ones that were obvious from the pictures. You could even use your ENVRM to find the answers. In short, the answers cover the primary operating requirements for a landfill: daily cover, lift construction, and runoff/leachate management.
In the first picture, there are two big problems:
1. Notice that ridiculous little "tarp" out in the middle of the waste pile in the foreground? That's the "alternative daily cover" that we approved a couple years back, to help conserve airspace. Back when the landfill was being managed properly by an experienced contractor, the working face was small enough to be covered by that one section of tarpaulin. Now that the contractor has been run off and our Public Works is running the joint, the situation has come to this. I literally laughed out loud when I saw this. They've got to be kidding. Right? Ugghh.
2. Notice the large area of uncovered trash all over the place. But it goes beyond the daily cover requirement. Check out the lift construction. Basically, there is no organized lift construction. The pile in the foreground is just that - a pile, spread all around horizontally. The "lift" in the background is a little better, but hardly. Not really a permit requirement, but just bad practice. These guys should know better - we've had George Savage himself out here several times to train them.
3. Bonus point: a) look at all the holes and tears in the alternative cover. Not very effective at meeting the vector or odor control requirements. But that may be hard to tell at the reduced scale.
In the second picture, the "lake" at the bottom illustrates another big problem:
4. Under previous management, the landfill was operated such that the lake in the picture was composed only of clean runoff from the unused cell 2. It could just be pumped into the unlined cell 3 for disposal (good perc rate). Now, however, the poor lift construction in cell 1 has directed all runoff from cell 1 into cell 2, which includes a number of surface leachate seeps. So that water is now leachate. Diluted leachate, to be sure, but leachate nonetheless. Which means that the other main landfill design/operating parameter of maintaining a depth of leachate no greater than 30 cm above the liner is not being met. (the HDPE liner is about 4 feet below the aggregate layer shown, which is maybe another 2 feet below the surface of the lake). And, even worse, the leachate pumps for cell 2 have been canibalized to fix the cell 1 pumps, so there is no way to fix the problem until another pump can be obtained, but you can't see that in the picture, so nevermind.
Good calls on all the other guesses, but if you can't see it from the picture, it doesn't count. But you're pretty much right. Anything that can be wrong IS wrong right now. I could go on and on, but I've got to run off for a meeting. :brick:
Edit - I just noticed that two of you asked where the vents are. There are none. The landfill opened up in 2003, and until now, I hdan't really thought about it. We had an experienced contractor running it for a while, and he said we wouldn't need to worry about it for a few more years. But he's been booted out now, so maybe I'd better start worrying about that now. Thanks for the heads up.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Dleg --
I just got back into the swing of things for finishing up my thesis now that study for the PE Exam is mitigated for at least 8 weeks.
My thesis research highlights results from an alternative cover field demonstration for a Subtitle C landfill. Essentially, the four year study measured the water balance for an alternative ET cover (primarily silt with a cover crop - sponge & pump effect) and a conventional, prescriptive cover consisting of compacted clay. Funny thing, there was a severe drought 3 months into the field study causing each of the covers to severly desiccate and crack - so much so that the probes measuring water content in each lift would reflect sharp increases in water content right after a rain event. It is clear that each of the covers were leaking by 2nd year - a major problem in terms of modeling the water balance and showing < 1.5 mm/yr flux. :true:
I just met with my advisor yesterday to square away the remaining details for an alternate course of action (no pun intended), so I can hopefully have a good draft in to him before the campus shuts down for Christams :woot: And then late January - early February defense would suit me just fine :congrats:
You said you approved the alternative cover. How did you accomplish demonstrating that the alternative cover was "equivalent" to a prescribed cover?
Just curious.
JR
I just got back into the swing of things for finishing up my thesis now that study for the PE Exam is mitigated for at least 8 weeks.
My thesis research highlights results from an alternative cover field demonstration for a Subtitle C landfill. Essentially, the four year study measured the water balance for an alternative ET cover (primarily silt with a cover crop - sponge & pump effect) and a conventional, prescriptive cover consisting of compacted clay. Funny thing, there was a severe drought 3 months into the field study causing each of the covers to severly desiccate and crack - so much so that the probes measuring water content in each lift would reflect sharp increases in water content right after a rain event. It is clear that each of the covers were leaking by 2nd year - a major problem in terms of modeling the water balance and showing < 1.5 mm/yr flux. :true:
I just met with my advisor yesterday to square away the remaining details for an alternate course of action (no pun intended), so I can hopefully have a good draft in to him before the campus shuts down for Christams :woot: And then late January - early February defense would suit me just fine :congrats:
You said you approved the alternative cover. How did you accomplish demonstrating that the alternative cover was "equivalent" to a prescribed cover?
Just curious.
JR
Well, It's been a while but I think what I did was search around for other states alternative cover approvals, and basically go by "precedence." The type of tarpaulin material was something made for the purpose called 'Gryfolin' something or other, which I was able to find approvals for from a few other states. I also just followed the regulations for approving an alternative daily cover. (Remember, this is RCRA-D we're talking about. I don't know nuthin about subtitle C, except what I studied for the exam!)
Since I'm still in study mode, let's look it up. 40 CFR 258.21 part b (don't use a parenthesis b, or you get this: (B)) lays out the requirements for approving an alternative daily cover. The cover must be demonstrated to be able to "control disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging." A tarp can do all of those things except fire and scavenging prevention, as long as it is securely placed every night (they weight it down on the edges with used tires, and throw a few tires out into the middle too.)
For fire control, what I did was require soil cover every 5 days - really the only fire control benefit to daily cover, aside from basic cover, is that it compartmentalizes the lifts. So we have slightly larger compartments now. (it also helps with the vector control)
Scavenging was taken care of already with a full perimeter fence and night watchman.
Odor could arguably be a problem, but our landfill is located far enough from any receptors that we deemed the "odor risk" to be worth the savings in airspace, which are huge. The last thing we need is to fill the landfill up any faster than it already is. They're gong to have to start construction on cells 3 and 4 in the next five years or so, and they haven't even begun planning or budgeting for it.
Since I'm still in study mode, let's look it up. 40 CFR 258.21 part b (don't use a parenthesis b, or you get this: (B)) lays out the requirements for approving an alternative daily cover. The cover must be demonstrated to be able to "control disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging." A tarp can do all of those things except fire and scavenging prevention, as long as it is securely placed every night (they weight it down on the edges with used tires, and throw a few tires out into the middle too.)
For fire control, what I did was require soil cover every 5 days - really the only fire control benefit to daily cover, aside from basic cover, is that it compartmentalizes the lifts. So we have slightly larger compartments now. (it also helps with the vector control)
Scavenging was taken care of already with a full perimeter fence and night watchman.
Odor could arguably be a problem, but our landfill is located far enough from any receptors that we deemed the "odor risk" to be worth the savings in airspace, which are huge. The last thing we need is to fill the landfill up any faster than it already is. They're gong to have to start construction on cells 3 and 4 in the next five years or so, and they haven't even begun planning or budgeting for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
You did say daily cover :duhh:
My thesis project is looking at the final covers - the equivalency demonstration does apply to Subtitle D as well as Subtitle C. It just happens that this site was on the CERCLA NPL list - it was primarily used for MSW.
Those final phases are going to be tough. Siting requirements + very little available land area ... wow !!! Somebody is going to be feeling that !! :tone:
Regards,
JR
Oh. That would explain it! I have to review the design for final cover of our old municipal landfill in the next few weeks. I think the designers were going to propose GCL on the side slopes (which will be kind of steep due to the site, right next to the ocean) and HPDE on the top.
Any wisdom to share on GCL as final cover material?
Any wisdom to share on GCL as final cover material?
G
Guest
I am by no means the most knowledgable person regarding GCLs - but I have certainly dealt with some design and construction issues.
I will send e-mail for responses - this thread could REALLY get stretched out
Regards,
JR
I will send e-mail for responses - this thread could REALLY get stretched out
Regards,
JR
