FINAL REPORT
US-Jordan Municipal Solid Waste Management Collaborative Research by
Manoj Chopra, Ph.D., P.E. University of Central Florida Debra Reinhart, Ph.D., P.E. University of Central Florida Wail Abu-El-Shaar, Ph.D. Jordan University of Science and Technology Submitted to
The National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230
October 31, 2001 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida 32816-2450 Phone: (407) 823-5037; Fax: (407) 823-3315; Suncom: 345-5037 E/Mail:
[email protected]
Acknowledgments This project was funded by the United States National Science Foundation. The principal investigators will like to express their gratitude to the NSF for the financial support for this research. The assistance, guidance and collaboration of Dr. Osman Shinaishin (Senior Program Manager) are also gratefully acknowledged.
2
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction
3
1.1
Background Information
3
1.2
Description of Trips
5
Chapter 2 – Overview of Solid Waste Management in Jordan
7
2.1
Waste Generation Sources
7
2.2
MSW Generation Rates
7
2.3
Recycling
9
2.4
Final Disposal
10
Chapter 3 – Landfill Management in Jordan
12
3.1
Location and Site Selection
12
3.2
Landfilling Practices
13
Chapter 4 – Emissions Analysis
21
4.1
HELP Model
21
4.2
Life Cycle Inventory
24
4.3
International Panel on Climate Control Analysis
25
4.4
First-order Decay Analysis
26
4.5
Impact of Improved Recycling on Emissions
30
4.6
Impact of Wetting on Emissions
31
Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations
32
5.1
Conclusions
32
5.2
Recommendations
33
Chapter 6 – References
34
3
Chapter 1- Introduction 1.1 Background Information A sanitary landfill is an engineered land disposal method for solid or hazardous wastes in a manner that protects the environment. Within the landfill, biological, chemical, and physical processes occur that promote the degradation of wastes and result in the production of leachate (contaminated liquid passing through solid wastes) and gases (the result of biological degradation of waste). Thus, landfill design and construction must include elements that permit control of landfill leachate and gas. The sanitary landfill is well suited to developing countries because of its simple operation and relatively low cost. However one impediment to its successful implementation is a lack of information and training of operating personnel. Without proper control of emissions from a sanitary landfill, leachate can adversely impact groundwater and surface waters, and gas can aggravate global warming, produce noxious odors, and impact human health. In the US, approximately one out of five contaminated sites placed on the Superfund National Priority List is a municipal landfill. The gas emitted from a landfill is approximately half methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Landfill gas is estimated to be the largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the US and third largest in the world. The Jordan Environment Law, issued in late 1995, established the General Corporation for the Environment Protection (GCEP) as the sole government body responsible for the protection of the environment. Since then GCEP personnel have been working on different regulations that will enable them to enforce the law. Currently, solid waste management is the responsibility of the local municipalities under the umbrella of the Ministry of Rural Affairs and the Environment. Typically, solid waste is collected from major cities and transported to landfills that, by US standards, may be considered to be dump sites. The confluence of US and Jordanian scientists in this cooperative activity permitted the exchange of ideas and technology in the field of solid waste management. This project gave US researchers unique access to data from a developing international country and one with environmental conditions significantly different from most US locations. In turn, work in the US provided opportunity for Jordanian researchers to interact with US researchers and practitioners with expertise in the MSW management field The objective of the proposed research is to gather information and data related to landfill leachate and gas data necessary to assess the impact of Jordanian solid waste landfills on the environment. A secondary objective is to provide design and operational guidance to minimize future impacts. This research was accomplished by a visit to Jordan by the principal investigators for data gathering followed by an exchange visit from Jordanian scientists to assist in the data analysis.
4
1.2 Description of Trips The US participants on this research project visited Jordan in late September 2000 and again in June 2001. The Jordanian counterparts visited the US during the period JulySeptember 2001. The first visit to Jordan lasted two weeks and included meetings with Jordanian scientists, consultants and regulators. The outline of the activities on this visit is presented in Table 1-1 below. Table 1-1. Outline of Activities on the First Visit to Jordan Date
Item
Purpose
29-Sep Depart for Amman 30-Sep Arrive in Amman 01-Oct Meetings at JUST and US Embassy 02-Oct GCEP Meetings 03-Oct US Embassy and Badia Project 04-Oct Badia Project at Safawi 05-Oct Visit Hazardous Waste Landfill Site at Swaqa with GCEP 06-Oct Rest 07-Oct Meeting with PSUCT and Princess Sharifa 08-Oct JUST and US Embassy 09-Oct Visit Landfill Site 2 at Russeifeh 10-Oct Visit Landfill Site 3 at Al-Akhaidar And exit meeting at JUST 11-Oct Depart for Orlando
Planning Seminar Meetings Research Team Planning Data and Information
Meetings and Discussions Research Team Planning Data and Information Data and Information
During the two visits to the US Embassy in Amman, the researchers met with personnel from several agencies such as USAID, USIS and the Middle East Research Collaboration (MERC) programs through the Environmental Program Office of the Embassy. The researchers explored the possibilities of future research on issues that are of great significance to both nations such as education and training of MSW personnel in Jordan, the transfer of technologies from the current research and the exchange of students between the two countries. The meeting with the General Corporation for Environmental Protection (GCEP), which is the regulating agency for the environment in Jordan, centered around discussions on MSW management practices in Jordan and gathering data and information for this project. GCEP arranged for a visit to the hazardous waste landfill site at Swaqa for the researchers.
5
The second visit to Jordan by the US engineers was intended as a follow-up trip to gather more specific information on certain aspects of the MSW management practices. This visit lasted one week and consisted of meetings with the Jordanian counterparts and site visits to more landfills. The outline of this follow-up visit is presented in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2. Outline of the Second Visit to Jordan Date Item 29-May Depart for Amman 30-May Arrive in Amman 31-May Return Site Visit to Al-Akhaidar Landfill in Irbid 01-Jun Meeting with JUST Faculty 02-Jun Meeting with GCEP 03-Jun Visit MS Waste Landfill Site at Madaba 05-Jun Visit University of Jordan and Exit Meeting at JUST 06-Jun Depart for Orlando
Purpose
Data and Information Discussion and Analysis Meetings Data and Information Future Collaborations
The Jordanian researchers visited the US for a period of two months. They visited two landfills in Florida and collaborated with the US engineers on the analysis of the data on emissions and leachate generation in Jordanian landfills. They also presented two seminars for the environmental community at the University of Central Florida. They had several meetings with the US engineers on future collaborative research. In particular, they worked with their US counterparts on a follow-up research proposal to the National Science Foundation to study the hazardous waste management practices in Jordan.
6
Chapter 2 - Overview of Solid Waste Management in Jordan 2.1 Waste Generation Sources Jordan has been facing a unique situation in the region as a result of distinct and sudden population increases due to three waves of immigration. The first wave occurred in 1948 from Palestine, the second in 1976 from the West Bank (part of the Kingdom of Jordan at that time), and the last following the invasion of Iraq on Kuwait. The latter brought back to the country approximately 450,000 people (representing nearly 15% increase in the population) over the short period of a few months (UNDP, 1997). These population increases, together with other economical and technical constraints, have challenged planners and decision makers to develop strategies to solve many of the difficult problems in Jordan, and in particular address solid waste management issues (UNDP, 1997). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management has been complicated by the sharp increases in the volumes of the generated solid wastes as well as the qualitative changes in the composition of these wastes due to significant changes in the living standards and conditions (Ministies, 2000). Financial constraints, shortage of adequate and proper equipment, and the limited availability of trained and skilled manpower have contributed much to the poor solid waste management programs in Jordan. Low level of awareness and education in the communities regarding the health and environmental impacts of improper management of solid wastes has also made it difficult to implement recycling and disposal programs that require the cooperation of these communities to ensure the success of such programs. MSW waste in Jordan is generated from the following sources: ! Residential (single family homes, multi-family homes, parks, ! Commercial (shops, offices, retail stores, parks, landscaping, restaurants, hotels, slaughterhouses, services stations, green markets) ! Wastewater treatment facilities (residuals) ! Industrial (small-scale manufacturing, trades and crafts) ! Institutional (universities, schools, hospitals, prisons) ! Agricultural (animal farm wastes, plant nurseries, olive mills) 2.2 MSW Generation Rates Solid waste is collected in containers and transported to an intermediate dump station. Work crews clean the streets and collect the residential wastes, which are transported by dump trucks, waste compactors, and carts for disposal (Figure 2-1). The local municipality councils are usually responsible for providing the collection services. However, there are some cases in which private contractors carry out this task for the entire city, for example Aqaba and for a part of the city, for example, Zarqa. The average generation rate of solid waste in Jordan ranges from 0.34 Kg/cap/d to 1.07 Kg/cap/d with an average value of 0.91 Kg/cap/d. As seen in Table 2-1, the Jordan per
7
capita production rate is similar to rates of other economically developing countries but significantly less than those of more developed countries. Waste generation rates have been found to be strongly correlated with economic development. The total estimated daily generation of municipal solid waste in Jordan is about 3700 tonnes/day, disposed at 24 sites. The northern region contributes about 680 tonnes/day, the middle region totals about 2620 tonnes/day, and the southern region contributes about 400 tonnes/day.
Figure 2-1. Example of MSW Waste Container arriving at a Jordan Landfill (Ruseifeh) Table 2-1. Comparison of MSW Generation Rates (Diaz et al, 1996) Location
Per Capita Generation Rates, g/cap/day 910 400 400 400 460 2000 1180 680 1430 1870 2000
Jordan Bangalore, India Israel Manila, Philippines Asuncion, Paraguay Seoul, Korea Vienna, Austria Mexico City, Mexico Paris, France Australia Sunnyvale, California, USA
8
Waste Characteristics Figure 2-2 presents MSW composition as a weighted average of waste placed at all final disposal sites. As can be seen in Figure 2-2, MSW in Jordan is characterized by a high organic content. Food waste constitutes almost 60% of the total waste at most disposal sites (Table 4-1). The only exception is waste disposed at Ruseifeh, the landfill serving Amman and Zarqa, where the food fraction was about 53%. One possible explanation of this variation can be attributed to the nature of activities of both Amman and Zarqa; the two are relatively highly industrialized, and are very busy commercial centers. Plastic, paper, and kitchen garbage form the bulk of the municipal solid waste, suggesting that the combustible matter is very high [8]. Jordan MSW composition is typical of a warm, dry climate in an economically developing country. Little yard waste is seen, a high food waste fraction, and much less paper waste than developed countries (typically 30-40 %). Untreated medical waste generated at hospitals and medical institutions, such as specialized health centers and medical laboratories, is also placed in landfills, regardless of the nature of that waste. Bulk density of the municipal solid waste is about 0.37 Kg/m3 as generated, but it was found to be 0.6 Kg/m3 in the collection vehicles after some compaction (UNDP, 1997).
Metal Glass
5%
Other 2%
7%
Fiber 1%
Paper 16%
Food 56%
Plastic 13%
Figure 2-2. MSW Composition in Jordan (% by weight) 2.3 Recycling There are many recycling activities going on for various components of the solid waste stream at different stages of the waste management process in Jordan. However this process is not well managed, rather, private individuals perform it on an ad-hoc basis. Some of the recycling is carried out before the solid waste reaches the final disposal sites, however, much is done at the disposal sites by individuals (including entire families) who live near or even at the disposal site (Figure 2-3). Private individuals are contracted to
9
remove recyclables from the waste. Waste is actually sorted at the landfill face prior to compaction (Figure 2-4). An example of the recycling activities is the reuse of soft drinks glass bottles (about 98% of these bottles usually are returned to the bottling company for reuse). Another example is the production of cardboard, school copybooks, and egg dishes from recycled papers collected from schools, universities, offices, etc. The recycling of glass, waste of poultry packing plants, and aluminum cans is also on the rise and very high portion of these types of waste is being utilized in different manufacturing processes. Many metal wastes such as iron, copper, and red cooper are recycled as well. Recycling of olive mill wastes is an important waste reduction practice specific to Mediterranean countries. Most of this waste is utilized in producing food for humans and also as a coal substitute for heating and cooking. Composting is also accomplished in some areas, removing many organic constituents from the waste stream.
2.4 Final Disposal Waste that is not recycled is placed in landfills located throughout the country. There are 24 sites for municipal solid waste disposal in Jordan; seven of them in the northern region, seven in the middle region, and ten in the southern region. Municipality councils (called common services councils, CSC) usually manage these landfills. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the landfills.
10
Figure 2-3. Scavengers Removing Recyclables from Landfill Face (Al Akaider)
Figure 2-4. Separation of Recyclables on Landfill Face
11
Chapter 3 - Landfill Management in Jordan Sanitary landfilling of municipal solid waste has evolved over the past 15 years as the recommended method for the dispose of solid wastes in Jordan. Previously, open dumping and burning was practiced. Many of the final disposal sites (FDS) still practice improper methods for the disposal of solid wastes and lack engineering input in design and operation. These practices vary from site to site in their sophistication and environmental soundness. Currently, there are twenty-four authorized FDS distributed throughout the northern, middle, and southern regions of Jordan. These receive an estimated total amount of 3700 tonnes of solid waste per day with 680 tonnes per day generated in the northern sector, 2620 tonnes per day in the middle, and 400 tonnes per day in the southern sectors. The largest landfill in Jordan, located in the middle sector of Jordan (Russeifeh), receives more than half of the waste generated in Jordan, 2200 tonnes/day. The second largest landfill, Al-Akaider located in the northern part of the country, receives about 350 tonnes per day of municipal solid waste per day. In this chapter, the management practices and environmental conditions of the FDS in Jordan will be briefly presented. The two largest landfills will be emphasized.
3.1 Location and Site Selection The authorized final disposal sites in Jordan are spread all over the country close to the heavily populated areas as shown in Table 3-1 which indicates that the Russeifeh landfill receives more than half of the solid waste generated in Jordan. The second largest is AlAkaider located in the northern parts of the country. Several FDS receive other types of wastes such as liquid, septage (see Figure 3-1), and medical wastes. The physical characteristics of each of these FDS are summarized n Table 3-2.
Figure 3-1a. Septage Storage at Russeifeh Landfill
12
Figure 3-1b. Septage Storage at Russeifeh Landfill Site selection for these FDS has not been based on feasibility studies that take environmental issues in consideration. The site of Russeifeh landfill, for example, was chosen over an abandoned phosphate mine even though it overlays an important groundwater aquifer. Al-Akaider, the second largest was located at the Jordan/Syria border near a valley that meanders from Jordan to Syria. This location led to political tensions and almost to a crisis when a large amount of stored septage waste flooded its embankment and flowed towards Syria, wiping out several farms and endangering the water quality of the Yarmouk River. The case of Kufrinja, demonstrates the randomness of the site selection process since it was placed on an extremely rocky and sloping ground that is hard to excavate. Because no soils for the daily covers were available at the site operators were forced to abandon this important step. Other sites were chosen based on economics and site availability.
3.2 Landfilling Practices The methods of landfilling currently practiced in Jordan do not rise to the engineering definition of landfilling as followed in the US (see Table 3-3). In well-managed sites, the major landfill activities include waste placement, spreading, covering with daily cover of indigenous soils, and then compacting the different lifts to an approximate height of 9.5 meters. The disposal method practiced in some of these landfills is somewhere between the area and trench methods practiced in the US, and is commonly known as the “sandwich” method in Jordan. Gas collection systems are not used in any of the FDS in Jordan except for Russeifeh where a pilot gas recovery and conversion project was recently built on the landfill site. This site is to be closed this year (2001) and all solid waste is to be transported to a new and better-managed landfill called Ghabawi. Feasibility studies have been conducted to investigate the potential for methane generation at the Al-Akaider landfill. Because of the extremely low precipitation rates (< 200 mm/yr), leachate collection systems are not used in Jordan. All landfill liners compacted soils; high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or other geo-synthetic fibers are not used in MSW liners.
13
Observations at Jordanian FDS raise the following concerns: ! Most Jordanian FDS receive untreated industrial and medical wastes. Since these wastes are potentially hazardous, this practice may have adverse impact on health and the environment. The fact that no gas collection, leachate collection, or liner systems exist exacerbates the danger of this practice. ! During site visits to some of these FDS, open burning of waste was observed (see Figure 3-2) which may pose serious threat to the neighboring communities due to air emissions.
14
Table 3-1. Location and capacity of Final Disposal Sites in Jordan. Region
FDS
Location
Area (Donum)
North
1- Akaider
Ramtha
806
Quantity (t/day) 350
North
2- Mafraq
Mafraq
180
100
MSW, and industrial
North
3- Kufrinja
Ajloon
71
90
MSW
North
4- North Shuneh
North Shuneh
78
100
MSW, and medical
North
5- Taybeh
Irbid
60
30
MSW
North
6- Saro
Bani Kinana
55
80
MSW
North
7- Um Qutain
Mafraq
400
30
MSW
Middle
1- Russeifa
Russeifa
1200
2200
MSW, industrial, and medical
Middle
2- Madaba
Madaba
80
150
Middle
3- Humra
Sult
275
140
MSW, medical, industrial, and Queen Alia Airport Wastes. MSW, and Medical
Middle
Dhuleil
70
70
MSW
Middle
4- Dhuleil 5- Thiban
Madaba
30
20
MSW
Middle
6- Dier Allah
Middle Ghor
200
30
MSW
Middle
7- Azraq
Azraq
48
10
MSW
South
1- Aqaba
Aqaba
60
80
MSW, medical, and industrial
South
2- Ma’an
Ma’an
502
50
Septage, spent oils
South
3- Karak
Karak (Lajoun)
600
85
MSW, septage
South
4- Tafila
Tafila
450
50
Medical, and septage
South
5- Shobak
Shobak
26
20
MSW
South
6- Eil
Ma’an
280
20
MSW
South
7- Quaireh
Aqaba
270
20
MSW
South
8- Huseinyeh
Huseinyeh
100
15
MSW
South
9- South Shuneh
South Shuneh
10
40
MSW
South
10- Ghor Safi
South Ghor
153
20
MSW
15
Wastes received MSW, septage industrial and medical
Table 3-2. Physical Conditions for the Final Disposal Sites in Jordan FDS 1- Akaider
Topography Hilly or flat with a valley.
Soil quality Silty clay and sand
2- Mafraq 3- Kufrinja 4- North Shuneh 5- Taybeh 6- Saro 7- Um Qutain 1- Russeifa
Flat desert, no houses nor public facilities nearby Flat land surrounded by mountains but the previous site was mountainous. Hilly land slopping towards the south west. Slopping terrain Hilly Volcanic hole Flat with faults used to be a phosphate mine
2- Madaba 3- Humra
Flat land with adjacent houses Mountainous,
sandy soils and basalt Calcareous clayey soil/marl Sandy soil Clayey soils Cohesionless soils Rocks Above a major aquifer and wells Sandy soil Clayey sandstone and rocks
4- Dhuleil 5- Thiban 6- Dier Allah 7- Azraq
Slopping with weathered rocks Slopping Set of hills close to river Jordan Flat
Weathered rocks Loose soils Loose soils Cohesionless with basalt
1- Aqaba
Mild hilly terrain with many valleys and difficult surface Flat land, no houses Flat land in a hilly terrain, no house
Sandy soil with a rock bed
2- Ma’an 3- Karak 4- Tafila 5- Shobak 6- Eil 7- Quaireh 8- Huseinyeh 9- South Shuneh 10- Ghor Safi na = not available
Hilly, no houses or public facilities Flat Hilly Flat Flat Hilly Set of hills
16
Sandy soil with debris Sandy soil containing debris Sandy stone and limestone Sandy soils Clay Sand Sand cohessionless Sand
Groundwater Impermeable layer down to 300m 300-400m deep 200-300m Approx. 680m na na 300 m 200-300m 200-300m down from the surface. na na na Close to surface Sandy soils 300m 250- 300m 150 – 200m na na na na na na
Precipitation (mm/yr)
200 180 520 275 475 400 200 220 375
400 200 375 275 50 50 75 350 250 250 50 100 100 100
Figure 3-2. Open Burning at a Jordanian FDS ! Open dumping is still practiced at many FDS, which is unacceptable and poses an environmental hazard (see Figures 3-3 and 3-4). Open dumping attracts rodents and flies forcing the local municipalities to spray pesticides in alarming quantities to control these vectors. Unfortunately, new strains of insects that are immune to pesticides have resulted which pose a serious challenge to the Ministry of Health. ! The availability of adequate staff and equipment is essential to the proper operation of a landfill. Unfortunately, some FDS do not have sufficient staff or equipment as seen in Table 3-4. Taking all the above factors into consideration, and based on an assessment conducted by the General Corporation for Environmental Protection, Table 3-5 summarizes the environmental conditions at these FDS and provides suggestions for short-term, rapid responses that could ease some of the adverse effects.
17
Figure 3-3. Landfill Practices at Jordan FDS
Figure 3-4. Landfill Practices at Jordan FDS
18
Table 3-3. Landfilling Practice and Conditions at Jordan FDS FDS
Landfilling Method
1- Akaider 2- Mafraq 3- Kufrinja 4- North Shuneh 5- Taybeh 6- Saro 7- Um Qutain 1- Russeifa
Sandwich method Area method Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Area method
2- Madaba 3- Humra 4- Dhuleil 5- Thiban 6- Dier Allah 7- Azraq 1- Aqaba 2- Ma’an 3- Karak 4- Tafila 5- Shobak 6- Eil 7- Quaireh 8- Huseinyeh 9- South Shuneh 10- Ghor Safi
Sandwich method Open dumping Sandwich method Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Sandwich method Sandwich method Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping
Landfilling Sequence Plan Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
19
Leveling surface and compacting method Tamping roller Bulldozer None None None None None Rollers and Bulldozers Bulldozer Wheel Loader None None None None None Bulldozer Bulldozer None None None None None None None
Covers As planned occasional No soil cover occasional occasional occasional occasional As planned Occasional Intermittent Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional As planned Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional
Table 3-4. Staff and Equipment at the Final Disposal Sites in Jordan FDS Staff Bulldozers Backhoes Loaders Water Other 1- Akaider 2- Mafraq 3- Kufrinja 4- North Shuneh 5- Taybeh 6- Saro 7- Um Qutain 1- Russeifa 2- Madaba 3- Humra 4- Dhuleil 5- Thiban 6- Dier Allah 7- Azraq 1- Aqaba 2- Ma’an 3- Karak 4- Tafila 5- Shobak 6- Eil 7- Quaireh 8- Huseinyeh 9South Shuneh 10- Ghor Safi
18 13 8 3
1 1 1
1 1
1
4 17
1 1
12 8 4 4
1
Trucks
Trucks
1 1 1
2 1
5 2 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20
1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pickups 0 1
1 1
Table 3-5. Environmental Conditions for the Final Disposal Sites in Jordan as evaluated by the General Corporation for Environmental Protection (GCEP) FDS 1- Akaider 2- Mafraq 3- Kufrinja
4- North Shuneh 5- Taybeh 6- Saro 7- Um Qutain 1- Russeifa
2- Madaba 3- Humra 4- Dhuleil 5- Thiban 6- Dier Allah 7- Azraq 1- Aqaba 2- Ma’an
3- Karak
4- Tafila 5- Shobak 6- Eil 7- Quaireh 8- Huseinyeh
9- South Shuneh 10- Ghor Safi
Negative aspects
Suggested solution(s)
Potential surface and groundwater contamination Potential groundwater contamination Hard to excavate Potential surface water pollution Site accessible is a problem. None small area no facilities Slope stability is questioned Groundwater contamination Above a major aquifer Bad odors Densely populated areas Above an aquifer and may result in groundwater contamination Potential surface water contamination Located above an aquifer Small area May pollute river Jordan Above a shallow aquifer Flies and bad odors Rough terrain Hard to access and transport waste Spent oil hinders wastewater treatment; potential groundwater pollution; bad odors Potential groundwater pollution Bad odors; spread of flies and rodents Spread of flies and insects Flying papers and plastics Open dumping No equipment led to open dumping and associated problems Spread of insects and odors No equipment, no personnel and no facilities. Spread of flies, vectors, and bad odors Open dumping Open dumping; bad odors; no control
21
Build a wastewater treatment facility Construct liners and look for other location Find a new site
General condition Acceptable Good Acceptable
Increase green areas surrounding this site Increase area and build facilities
Good
Build a retaining structure Find a new site Close the site and move to the new site at Ghabawi
Good Bad Unacceptable
A liner in needed
Good
A leachate collection system is needed Provide a liner Increase area or find new site Provide liner, equipment, and facilities Move to a new site
Acceptable
Need an access road; locate a new site for future Prevent spent oil waste Liner is needed
Good
Separate liquid from solid waste and build a treatment facility
Bad
Apply daily cover
Bad
Apply sanitary landfilling Provide equipment for sanitary landfilling Need a new site Provide equipment and labor
Bad Bad
Apply sanitary landfilling Apply sanitary landfilling and provide equipment
Good
Unknown Good Bad Bad
God
Bad Bad
Bad Bad
Chapter 4 - Emissions Analysis Emissions form landfills have received great attention in Jordan due to the mounting awareness of the potential adverse impact these emissions may have on public health and the environment. However, very few studies have been published on the estimation of these emissions and no actual measurements have been reported. The estimation techniques used in this research are based on protocol described in the literature. Many of these approaches require input data not readily available for Jordan. Therefore input parameters were based on values from areas with some similarity to conditions in Jordan. In this chapter, both liquid and methane emissions from FDS in Jordan are estimated based on several modeling techniques. Pertinent data needed for these estimates are summarized in Table 4-1. These models include: the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model to predict the quantity of liquid leachate (Schroeder et al, 1994), Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) to predict the total methane and gaseous emissions (Ecobalance, 1999), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to quantify the total anticipated methane emissions (US EPA, 2001), and a first-order decay model to predict the anticipated methane emissions (Vesilind et al, 2001). These calculations were also reproduced for different scenarios of recycling and composting to evaluate the potential impact of integrated waste management on landfill emissions.
4.1 HELP Model The HELP model is a quasi-two-dimensional model of water movement across, into, and out of landfills. It conducts a water balance analysis of solid waste disposal and containment facilities. HELP generates estimations of runoff amounts, evapotranspiration, drainage, leachate production, and leakage from liners. The model inputs are weather, soil, and design data (Schroeder et al, 1994). The model is utilized in this study to assess the volume of leachate expected at landfills in Jordan. However, one might predict even before carrying out the simulation that the very dry weather and high evaporation rates of Jordan would lead to very little leachate arriving at the barrier soil layer. The HELP model was run for a typical Jordan FDS, the Al-Akaider landfill, located in the northern part of Jordan about 1 km south of the Syrian border and 27 km east of the city of Irbid. The average annual precipitation at Al-Akaider is less than 200 mm/yr. Cold winters and dry hot summers characterize the area. In the winter, the average maximum temperature is 13 oC while the average minimum temperature is 3.6 oC. The average maximum summer temperature is 35 oC, and the average minimum summer temperature is 20 oC. The mean annual Class A pan evaporation for the Al-Akaider landfill is about 3000 mm [GCEP, 1999; Salameh, 1996].
22
HELP was run using default 5-year daily climate records for Las Vegas, Nevada. The landfill was modeled using three layers, the barrier soil layer, the compacted solid waste layer, and the soil cover. The daily climate inputs are precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation. Evapotranspiration analysis requires evaporative depth zone, maximum leaf area index, the dates for the start and the end of the growing season, normal average annual wind speed, and normal average quarterly relative humidity. Soil and design data required include landfill area, percentage of landfill area where runoff is possible, layer type and thickness, soil texture, hydraulic conductivity, porosity, field capacity, and wilting point, drain length and slope, geomembrane quality, and the runoff curve number. Results of the simulation indicated that the leachate volume generated at the barrier soil layer was extremely small, as expected, for the prevailing climatic conditions (low precipitation and high evaporation). The outcome of the simulations supports the assumption that the contamination risk to groundwater is not significant, especially considering that the groundwater is found at depths greater than 350 m below the ground surface. Thus, the practice of using only in place soils as landfill barriers represents little or no risk to the environment. Model results also support the notion that the need for leachate management in Jordan is not urgent. On the other hand one important aspect for the application of liners is the fact that they can limit the migration of landfill gas from the site.
23
Table 4-1. Model Input Data for Jordan FDS [Ministry, 2000; UNDP, 1997] FDS Akaider Mafraq Kufrinja N. Shuneh Taybeh Saro Um Qutain Russeifa Madaba Humra Dhuleil Thiban Deir Allah Azraq Aqaba Ma'an Karak Tafila Shobak Eil Quaireh Huseniyat S. Shuneh Ghor Safi
Q (t/d) 350 100 90 100 30 80 30 2200 150 140 70 20 30 10 80 50 85 50 20 20 20 15 40 20
Area (Donum) 806 180 71 78 60 55 400 1200 80 275 70 30 200 48 60 502 600 450 26 280 270 100 10 153
Food %w/w 63 62 63 63 63 63 63 53 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62
Plastic %w/w 11 16 11 11 11 11 11 12 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Paper %w/w 17 11 17 17 17 17 17 17 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Fiber %w/w 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 24
Glass %w/w 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Metal %w/w 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Others %w/w 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Lo (m3/kg) 0.11492 0.11631 0.11492 0.11492 0.11492 0.11492 0.11492 0.10302 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631 0.11631
Density (kg/m3) 0.229 0.222 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.218 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222
MSWi (Gg/yr) 127.75 36.5 32.85 36.5 10.95 29.2 10.95 803 54.75 51.1 25.55 7.3 10.95 3.65 29.2 18.25 31.025 18.25 7.3 7.3 7.3 5.475 14.6 7.3
4.2 Life Cycle Inventory The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) is a tool that would allow the assessment of the overall environmental performance of industrial systems by providing quantitative and scientific analysis of the entire system rather than of isolated processes. The LCI of a Modern Solid Waste Landfill allows a multimedia evaluation of a landfill (gaseous emissions, water effluents, waste), and includes all relevant landfill operating phases including construction, operation, closure, and post-closure, in addition to management options for landfill gases and leachate (Ecobalance Inc, 1999). This model can be used to predict the LCI of existing landfill sites and to model new ones, or to use it to evaluate different scenarios for different designs and operation options. The input data required for running the LCI model include waste composition, type, liner area or other materials used in the construction of the landfill, total amount of fuel used in the construction phase by all equipment used in this stage (including the portion used while transporting these material into the site), total amount of fuel used during the operation and closure phases by all equipment participating in these stages, first order decay and rise constants used for the calculation of landfill gas yield, management method of landfill gas, leachate quantity and quality, leachate management methods, and post-closure options. Output of the LCI model includes net energy used for the transport of different materials in each stage of the landfill management processes, inorganic and hydrocarbon air emissions and parameters, and leachate quality. The LCI model was used to predict emissions from Jordanian FDS. Two landfills were selected for this purpose, Ruseifeh in the middle region, and Al-Akaider in the northern region. The two together handle more than 70% of the total generated waste in Jordan. Input variables and results of application the LCI for the two landfills are shown in Appendix 1. Model results for these two landfills were compared with results obtained by adopting default input parameters for the USA and France, included in the model. The default values for the USA were obtained from landfills in both the northeastern and the western part of The USA and results were combined. These two regions have distinct differences in climatic conditions. Therefore, it is important to be cautious when carrying out a comparison between landfills in the USA and ones in other regions in the world. Results of the LCI model revealed that for 1000 kg of municipal solid waste for 100 years, total methane emissions were 8.68 x 10-6 Gg, and 6.67 x 10-6 Gg for Al-Akaider and Ruseifeh, respectively, compared with US emissions of 8.14 x10-6 Gg and France emissions of 7.15 x 10-6 Gg (Ecobalance, 1999). These results suggest that long-term emissions of methane are similar for landfills evaluated.
24
4.3 International Panel on Climate Control Emission Analysis This method has been used herein to estimate emission rates of methane from Jordanian FDS. This methodology bases these calculations on the amount of waste deposited in the different categories of FDS, the fraction of degradable organic carbon and the amount that actually degrades, and the fraction of methane in landfill gas (IPCC, 1996). The equation used is: Methane emissions (Gg/yr) = (MSWT x MSWF x MCF x DOC x DOCF x F x 16/12 - R) x (1 – OX)
Where: MSWT = total MSW generated (g/yr), MSWF = fraction of MSW disposed to solid waste disposal sites, MCF = methane correction factor (fraction), DOC = degradable organic carbon (fraction), DOCF = fraction DOC simulated, F = fraction of methane in landfill gas (default is 0.5), R = recovered methane (Gg/yr), and OX = oxidation factor (default is 0). The first two terms when lumped together represent the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills. The methane correction value is based on deciding whether environmental management is practiced at the disposal site or not. A managed solid waste disposal site must have controlled placement of waste (i.e., waste directed to specific deposition areas and some control of scavenging and fires) and will include at least one of the following: cover material, mechanical compacting, or waste grading. Solid waste disposal sites that do not fall into this category are defined as unmanaged sites. In order to estimate the methane correction value, the total proportion of waste (by weight) in each type of site is estimated and a weighted average MCF for each type of solid waste disposal site is calculated. Default value of MCF for managed sites is 1.0, for deep unmanaged sites (greater than or equal to 5 m waste) is 0.8, and for shallow unmanaged (less than 5 m waste) is 0.4. For some countries, the IPCC provides country specific values that must be used instead of these default values. The Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) fraction of MSW can be estimated based on the following equation: Percent DOC (by weight) = 0.4(A) + 0.17 (B) + 0.15(C) + 0.30(D) Where: A B C D
= percent MSW that is paper and textiles. = percent MSW that is garden waste, park waste or other non-food organic putrescibles, = percent MSW that is food waste, and = percent MSW that is wood or straw.
25
DOCF represents the fraction of the total DOC that actually degrades in a waste disposal site. The decomposition of DOC does not occur completely and some of the potentially degradable material always remains even over a very long period of time. A default value of 0.77 should be used unless other information is available. The fraction of methane in landfill gas (F) typically ranges from 45 to 55 %. A default value of 0.5 is recommended unless otherwise stated. The methane recovery per year, R (in Gg/yr) occurs either through gas flaring or through energy recovery schemes. The methane oxidation correction factor is given as 0. This value may be changed in the future to as the effects of methane oxidation in waste disposal sites is better understood. A summary of the calculations of methane emissions for Jordanian FDS based on the IPCC methodology is given in Table 4-2.
4.4 First–Order Decay Analysis At some point, the refuse placed in a landfill will degrade, producing methane. With the use of mathematical modeling techniques, predictions concerning the rate and quantity of methane production over the life of the landfill can be made. The yield theory model accounts for the total production of methane from the solid waste. Many mathematical models exist for predicting the degradation rate of waste. Each model is typically a variation on one of three differential equations, zero, first, or second order. The order here does not refer to the highest derivative rather it refers to the highest exponent of the refuse mass term, m. The first order degradation equation is given by: dm/dt = -km Where: dm/dt m t k
= rate of change of degradable waste mass with respect to time, = mass of degradable refuse, = time elapsed, and = rate constant
There are other factors that control the degradation rate related to account for biological conditions. A lack of moisture in the landfill is known to slow the digestion process. In this case, the moisture content may be the controlling factor. Alternatively, there are optimal temperature ranges that support the methanogenic bacteria. A heavy insulated landfill may tend to trap heat generated within the landfill and overheat. (High interior temperatures are also the result of very rapid decomposition). Conversely, cold climates and limited cover may tend to lower landfill temperature thereby lowering generation rates.
26
Table 4-2. IPCC Methane Emissions Estimation for Jordanian FDS. FDS
Akaider Mafraq Kufrinja North Shuneh Taybeh Saro Um Qutain Russeifa Madaba Humra Dhuleil Thiban Deir Allah Azraq Aqaba Ma'an Karak Tafila Shobak Eil Quaireh Huseniyat South Shuneh Ghor Safi
DOC
DOCF
F
R
OX
MSWT (Gg/yr)
MCF
127.75 36.5 32.85
1 1 1
0.1625 0.153 0.1625
0.77 0.77 0.77
0.55 0.55 0.55
0 0 0
0 0 0
11.71 3.15 3.01
36.5 10.95 29.2 10.95 803 54.75 51.1 25.55 7.3 10.95 3.65 29.2 18.25 31.025 18.25 7.3 7.3 7.3 5.475
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.1625 0.1625 0.1625 0.1625 0.1475 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153
0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.35 1.00 2.68 1.00 66.81 4.73 4.41 2.21 0.63 0.95 0.32 2.52 1.58 2.68 1.58 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.47
14.6 7.3
1 1
0.153 0.153
0.77 0.77
0.55 0.55
0 0
0 0
1.26 0.63
CH4 Emissions (Gg/yr)
Refuse types are metabolized at different rates. If each type of waste is assumed to degrade linearly, the sum of the remaining refuse does not decrease linearly. In fact, the net available mass tends more as an exponential function than a linear function. An exponential function takes on the general form: m(t) = moe-kt where: k
= exponential decay rate constant
In addition, there is a direct relationship between the degradation of refuse and the production of methane. For a given mass of refuse digested, there is a corresponding volume of methane produced. This relationship is expressed as follows:
27
QCH4 (t) = mo Lo (1-e-kt) Where: QCH4 (t) Lo k t mo
= total methane generated from beginning of life to time, t, = methane generation potential, = decay constant, = time, and = Mass of waste
The rate of methane production per year is obtained by deriving the above equation to obtain qCH4 (t) = mo Lo k e-kt where: qCH4 (t)
= methane production rate, year t
In order to use the above two equations, one needs to determine values for k, mo and Lo. For this study, the above equation was used to calculate the rates and total amounts of methane emissions for the FDS in Jordan for different time periods. The decay constant, k, is a critical parameter that determines the decomposition time. For example, a k 0f 0.2 yr-1 yields a 98% decomposition time of 23 years, where as the USEPA default value of 0.0307 yr-1 produces a time of 150 years. The “correct” k is unique to the landfill conditions. A wet, active landfill might have a relatively high k while a dry landfill might have a value close to the USEPA default value. For the purposes of this investigation, the USEPA default value was used. The calculations were carried out using an interactive spreadsheets developed for each FDS. Table 4-3 presents a summary of average methane generation rates for all Jordanian FDS. These calculations assume waste placement at the rate provided in Table 4-1 over a 16-yr period and averages the generation rates for this time period. This model should be refined to reflect the actual opening and closing dates of each FDS. Emission rates from Jordanian FDS total 33,000 m3/yr or 2.71 Gg/yr using the first order yield model. This total compares with 119 Gg/yr calculated using the IPCC method. The IPCC method is a conservative estimate that assumes all methane is generated the year following waste placement. Either value represents a small fraction (0.03 and 1.1 % respectively of the 1999 methane generation rate from the US (USEPA, 2001)
28
Table 4-3. Summary of Methane Emission Rates from Jordanian FDS FDS
Q (t/d)
Akaider Mafraq Kufrinja North Shuneh Taybeh Saro Um Qutain Russeifa Madaba Humra Dhuleil Thiban Deir Allah Azraq Aqaba Ma'an Karak Tafila Shobak Eil Quaireh Huseniyat South Shuneh Ghor Safi
350 100 90 100 30 80 30 2200 150 140 70 20 30 10 80 50 85 50 20 20 20 15 40 20
Average Emission Rates, 1000 m3/yr 3200 928 825 917 278 1850 1278 14900 1400 1300 650 190 278 93 1850 464 790 464 190 190 190 140 371 190
29
Average Emission Rates, Gg/yr 2.10 0.61 0.54 0.60 0.18 1.21 0.18 9.72 0.91 0.85 0.42 0.12 0.18 0.06 1.21 0.30 0.52 0.30 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.24 0.12
4.5 Impact of Improved Recycling on the Emissions Recycling has been commonly practiced as a resource recovery and waste minimization technique. In addition, it has been noted that recycling certain types of wastes such as paper and cardboard cartons may result in reducing methane emissions. This reduction occurs because the methane generation potentials for these types of wastes are relatively high. The effects of different recycling scenarios have been explored by altering the composition of solid waste to represent a given reduction of paper percentage via recycling. Table 4-4 shows that reducing the paper percentage in the waste streams at Akaider and Russeifa results in correspondingly greater percentage decrease in the values of potential methane generation. The effect was different food waste is reduced (presumably via composting) as seen in Table 4-5, because the Lo value for food is lower than for paper and cardboard waste. Other recycled materials like metal cans and plastics are not expected to affect the emissions value. Table 4- 4. Effect of Paper Recycling on Waste Methane Potential at Russeifa and AlAkaider Paper Recycle (% w/w) % Reduction in Lo, Al% Reduction in Lo, Akaider Russeifa 0 0.0 0.0 1 1.1 1.3 2 2.1 2.6 5 5.5 6.7 10 11.6 14.2 17 21.4 26.2
Table 4- 5. Effect of composting food waste on Lo at Russeifa and Akaider Compost: food reduction (% w/w) 0 1 2 5 10 17
% Reduction in Lo, AlAkaider 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7
% Reduction in Lo, Russeifa 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.7 3.2
Table 4-4 suggests that a 20% reduction in paper could effectively reduce total methane emission by more than 25%. In addition, recycling of certain types of waste, if done properly, can be economically self-sustaining in that revenue and avoided disposal costs cover all the anticipated processing costs with a margin of profit. Recycling may also create jobs and thus be a source of income to many workers in recycling facilities. Clearly recycled material separation in a well-managed facility has distinct advantages over the current practice of material separation at the landfill face.
30
4.6 Impact of Wetting on Emissions Many Jordanian receive both solid and liquid waste (septage waste). Septage waste poses a challenge to the environment because it is a very strong wastewater that is hard to treat. The Al-Akaider site receives over 5000 m3/day of septage. The climate at that site, as well as almost every other disposal site in Jordan, is arid to semi arid. Thus, a lack of moisture may hinder the waste degradation process. The potential use of septage to wet the dry solid waste on emissions was explored. Wetting the waste will increase the rate of gas production and make gas capture and beneficial use justifiable. The calculations were based on adding an amount of septage that may not cause leachate to form, that is, the augmentation of moisture content from existing conditions to field capacity. Results for Al-Akaider indicated that only 10% of the total septage can be used for wetting the dry solid waste, consequently not a promising idea under current conditions. However, as the sanitation conditions improve in Jordan and more communities are connected to the sewerage network, the amount of daily septage disposed at al-Akaider will be reduced, and the potential for the wetting process may become important. Constructing a wastewater treatment facility at the site, an alternative currently under consideration by the Jordanian government, for treating the septage waste will not solve the problem completely because of the significant amount of sludge that is expected to result from treatment. This sludge may be used to wet the dry solid waste in the future, effectively improving the degradation process.
31
Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions Specific findings of the research include the following: ! General observations relative to landfill operations include: o Landfills are constructed without leachate collection systems or gas collection. o Odors are common, as are rodents, flies and other vectors. o Scavenging is practiced unsafely with entire families participating, including children. The families often live on the landfill site. o Recycling is haphazard and dangerous. o Previous gas emission studies use zero-order approaches rather than the more theoretically-based exponential approach. o Co-disposal of municipal solid waste and hazardous/medical waste is practiced. o Landfill cover is not always used. o Slope stability problems are common. o Open burning at landfills still occurs/ ! The HELP model confirmed minimal leachate production due to low precipitation and high evaporative rates. ! Methane emissions for Jordan landfills determined using the IPCC method are estimated at 118.54 Gg/Yr and using the yield theory model are 2.71 Gg/yr. This is compared with US emissions of 10,221 Gg/yr in 1999. ! The LCI predicts weighted average emissions from Jordan landfills at 7.0 x 106 Gg/tonne compared with US emissions or 8.14 x 10-6 Gg /tonne and France emissions of 7.15 x 10-6 Gg/tonne. ! Recycling of certain types of waste, if done properly, may be economically selfsustaining and may create jobs and serve as a source of income to many workers. Removal of 1 to 17 % of paper in Jordan will lead to a decrease in methane emissions of 1 to 26 %, while diversion of up to 17% of the food waste will only reduce methane emissions by 3 %. ! Methane emissions can be enhanced and controlled through strategic wetting of solid waste using septage currently disposed at several Jordan facilities. However, at current septage disposal rates, only 10 % of the septage can be diverted to landfills without generating leachate. Ultimately, it is expected that septage will be treated producing biosolids. These biosolids will provide an
32
important source of moisture and nutrients that will optimize landfill conditions for waste stabilization.
5.2 Recommendations Funding from other potential sources such as USAID, World Bank, NATO, USIS, the MERC program and the Government of Jordan should be pursued to accomplish the following: ! Conduct waste composition studies that account for regional, economic, and demographic differences across Jordan. ! Provide training to inform solid waste managers about sanitary landfilling practices. ! Conduct a detailed evaluation of the potential for wetting waste and capturing gas for beneficial use. ! Initiate recycling processes that remove the potential adverse health impacts on recycling workers. ! Separate hazardous industrial wastes that are incompatible with municipal solid waste disposal.
33
Chapter 6 - References Ecobalance Inc., “Life Cycle Inventory of a Modern Municipal Solid Waste Landfill”, 1999. General Corporation for Environmental Protection (GCEP), “Northern region solid waste management study”, Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program, METAP, Final Report, Vol. I and II, 1999. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” Workbook, 1996. Ministry of Water & Irrigation, Ministry of Municipalities, Rural Affairs, and the Environment, Municipality of Greater Amman, and GCEP, “ A report on Liquid, Solid, and Hazardous Landfills”, [Special Report, submitted to the prime Minister of Jordan, unpublished], 2000. Schroeder, P. T.Dozeir, P. Zappi, B. McEnroe, J. Sjostrom, and R. Peyton, “The Hydrological Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model; User Guide for Version 3” USEPA, 1994. Salameh. E., “Water quality Degradation in Jordan, (impacts on environment, economy, and future generations resources base)” Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 1996. UNDP “Agenda 21-Status of Municipal Solid waste Management in Jordan,” 1997. USEPA, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission and Sinks: 1990 – 1999”, Office of Atmosphere Program, 2001.
34
