A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A Comparison of Landfill Closure Systems
Each year thousands of acres of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are capped with a traditional USEPA Subtitle D landfill prescribed cover system comprised of a geomembrane liner, drainage layer and a protective and ballasting soil cover layer overlain with grass. However, alternatives to the traditional soil/geomembrane final cover are currently being designed, permitted and installed around the United States due to superior environmental performance, increased stability, secondary use applications and decreased cost. These innovative alternative cover systems also can offer lower construction cost, lower post-closure maintenance, ease of inspection, verification of performance, and low erosion. These aspects are compared and contrasted for three alternative MSW landfill cover systems: evapotranspiration (ET) covers, synthetic turf geomembrane covers and exposed geomembrane covers (EGCs). These cover systems are evaluated on the criteria of ease of permitting, infiltration rate, longevity, aesthetics, environmental impacts, regional suitability, construction and post-closure care costs, compatibility with on-site systems, and proposed end uses. HDR Engineering has utilized a performance-based approach to landfill cover system design and continues to successfully implement it for differing state regulatory frameworks in lieu of the Subtitle D-prescribed system. Using this approach to the USEPA's thirty-year post closure care period enables the regulatory community to rely less on prescriptive closures with a diminishing post-closure care fund over time to that of a performance based cap with sufficient funds available for repairs and even replacement based either on savings and/or secondary use revenue generation.
A Comparison of Landfill Closure Systems
Each year thousands of acres of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are capped with a traditional USEPA Subtitle D landfill prescribed cover system comprised of a geomembrane liner, drainage layer and a protective and ballasting soil cover layer overlain with grass. However, alternatives to the traditional soil/geomembrane final cover are currently being designed, permitted and installed around the United States due to superior environmental performance, increased stability, secondary use applications and decreased cost. These innovative alternative cover systems also can offer lower construction cost, lower post-closure maintenance, ease of inspection, verification of performance, and low erosion. These aspects are compared and contrasted for three alternative MSW landfill cover systems: evapotranspiration (ET) covers, synthetic turf geomembrane covers and exposed geomembrane covers (EGCs). These cover systems are evaluated on the criteria of ease of permitting, infiltration rate, longevity, aesthetics, environmental impacts, regional suitability, construction and post-closure care costs, compatibility with on-site systems, and proposed end uses. HDR Engineering has utilized a performance-based approach to landfill cover system design and continues to successfully implement it for differing state regulatory frameworks in lieu of the Subtitle D-prescribed system. Using this approach to the USEPA's thirty-year post closure care period enables the regulatory community to rely less on prescriptive closures with a diminishing post-closure care fund over time to that of a performance based cap with sufficient funds available for repairs and even replacement based either on savings and/or secondary use revenue generation.
A Comparison of Landfill Closure Systems
Beben, David (author) / Perera, Kanishka (author) / Roberts, Mark (author)
2013
7 Seiten, Bilder, Tabellen, Quellen
Conference paper
Storage medium
English
| Online Contents | 1996
New Method for Landfill Closure
| Online Contents | 1995
Landfill Closure using Reinforced Soil Slopes
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1998