The impact of landfill management approaches on methane emissions.

This article reports on how management approaches influence methane emissions from landfills. The project team created various landfill operational scenarios for different regions of the planet with respect to waste composition, organic waste reduction and landfill gas recovery timing. These scenarios were modelled by applying a basic gas generation model according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations. In general, the IPCC's recommended modelling parameters and default values were used. Based on the modelling undertaken, two options stand out as being the most effective methane mitigation measures in a wide range of conditions throughout the world: (a) early gas recovery and (b) reduction of the amount of biodegradable organic waste accepted in a landfill. It is noted that reduction of organic input to any given landfill can take many years to realize. Moreover, suitable alternative processing or disposal options for the organic waste can be unaffordable for a significant percentage of the planet's population. Although effective, organic waste reduction cannot therefore be the only landfill methane mitigation measure. Early landfill gas recovery can be very effective by applying basic technologies that can be deployed relatively quickly, and at modest cost. Policymakers and regulators from around the globe can significantly reduce adverse environmental impacts from landfill gas emissions by stimulating both the early capture and flaring and/or energy recovery of landfill gas and programmes to reduce the inflow of organic waste into landfills.

Optimizing landfill aeration strategy with a 3-D multiphase model.

In order to reduce the environmental and financial burden for future generations, approaches are needed to shorten aftercare of landfills. Aeration of the waste-body is a promising approach, however, the poor understanding of transport of gas and water through a waste-body makes it difficult to design an effective aeration strategy. The aim of this study is to develop a tool to determine the optimal aeration strategy for landfills. This study presents a comparison of aeration strategies based on the air distribution they generate with a 3-D multiphase model. The implemented theory is based on parameter values obtained from (laboratory) experiments performed under conditions which are similar to those in a full scale landfill. Calibration with field scale gas extraction data from the Dutch pilot site Wieringermeer shows that the model gives a good description of the average gas flow under extraction. Scenario analyses for the case study landfill indicate that injection strategies reach a larger volume fraction of waste with a higher air flow compared with extraction strategies, especially at the bottom of the landfill. Extraction, however, supplies oxygen more homogeneously through-out the waste. An import design criterion is also the distance between the wells. Too large distances lead to ineffective treatment because too large volumes of waste/leachate remain untreated. In addition to the comparison of aeration strategies, an optimal aeration strategy for the pilot site is presented. A combination of (alternating) injection and extraction wells which are maximum 20m apart seems to be the optimal strategy.

Validation of a simple model to predict the performance of methane oxidation systems, using field data from a large scale biocover test field.

On a large scale test field (1060m(2)) methane emissions were monitored over a period of 30months. During this period, the test field was loaded at rates between 14 and 46gCH4m(-2)d(-1). The total area was subdivided into 60 monitoring grid fields at 17.7m(2) each, which were individually surveyed for methane emissions and methane oxidation efficiency. The latter was calculated both from the direct methane mass balance and from the shift of the carbon dioxide - methane ratio between the base of the methane oxidation layer and the emitted gas. The base flux to each grid field was back-calculated from the data on methane oxidation efficiency and emission. Resolution to grid field scale allowed the analysis of the spatial heterogeneity of all considered fluxes. Higher emissions were measured in the upslope area of the test field. This was attributed to the capillary barrier integrated into the test field resulting in a higher diffusivity and gas permeability in the upslope area. Predictions of the methane oxidation potential were estimated with the simple model Methane Oxidation Tool (MOT) using soil temperature, air filled porosity and water tension as input parameters. It was found that the test field could oxidize 84% of the injected methane. The MOT predictions seemed to be realistic albeit the higher range of the predicted oxidations potentials could not be challenged because the load to the field was too low. Spatial and temporal emission patterns were found indicating heterogeneity of fluxes and efficiencies in the test field. No constant share of direct emissions was found as proposed by the MOT albeit the mean share of emissions throughout the monitoring period was in the range of the expected emissions.

Landfill reduction experience in The Netherlands.

Modern waste legislation aims at resource efficiency and landfill reduction. This paper analyses more than 20 years of landfill reduction in the Netherlands. The combination of landfill regulations, landfill tax and landfill bans resulted in the desired landfill reduction, but also had negative effects. A fierce competition developed over the remaining waste to be landfilled. In 2013 the Dutch landfill industry generated €40 million of annual revenue, had €58 million annual costs and therefore incurred an annual loss of €18 million. It is not an attractive option to prematurely end business. There is a risk that Dutch landfill operators will not be able to fulfil the financial obligations for closure and aftercare. Contrary to the polluter pays principle the burden may end up with society. EU regulations prohibiting export of waste for disposal are in place. Strong differentials in landfill tax rate between nations have nevertheless resulted in transboundary shipment of waste and in non-compliance with the self-sufficiency and proximity principles. During the transformation from a disposal society to a recycling society, it is important to carefully plan required capacity and to guide the reorganisation of the landfill sector. At some point, it is no longer profitable to provide landfill services. It may be necessary for public organisations or the state to take responsibility for the continued operation of a 'safety net' in waste management. Regulations have created a financial incentive to pass on the burden of monitoring and controlling the impact of waste to future generations. To prevent this, it is necessary to revise regulations on aftercare and create incentives to actively stabilise landfills.

Landfills as sinks for (hazardous) substances.

The primary goal of waste regulations is to protect human health and the environment. This requires the removal from the material cycle of those materials that cannot be processed without harm. Policies to promote recycling hold a risk that pollutants are dispersed. Materials have an environmental impact during their entire life cycle from extraction through production, consumption and recycling to disposal. Essentially there are only two routes for pollutants that cannot be rendered harmless: storage in sinks or dispersion into the environment. Many sinks do not contain substances absolutely, but result in slow dispersion. Dispersion leads to exposure and impact to human health and the environment. It is therefore important to assess the impact of the release to the environment. Based on various sources this paper discusses important material flows and their potential impact. This is compared with the intentions and achievements of European environmental and resource policy. The polluter pays principle is being implemented in Europe, but lags behind implementation of waste management regulations. As long as producers are allowed to add hazardous substances to their products and don't take their products back, it is in society's best interest to carefully consider whether recycling or storage in a sink is the better solution. This requires further development of life-cycle assessment tools and harmonization of regulations. In many cases the sink is unavoidable. Landfills as sinks will be needed in the future. Fail-safe design and construction as well as sustainable management of landfills must be further developed.

A review of approaches for the long-term management of municipal solid waste landfills.

After closure, municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills must be managed and controlled to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment (HHE). Aftercare (or post-closure care) can be brought to an end when the authorities consider the landfill to no longer pose a threat to HHE. Different approaches have been suggested for long-term landfill management and evaluation of aftercare completion. In this paper, research on aftercare and its completion is analyzed and regulatory approaches for the completion of landfill aftercare are reviewed. Approaches to aftercare could be categorized as (i) target values, (ii) impact/risk assessment, and (iii) performance based. Comparison of these approaches illustrates that each has limitations and strengths. While target values are typically used as screening indicators to be complemented with site-specific assessments, impact/risk assessment approaches address the core issue about aftercare completion, but face large uncertainties and require a high level of expertise. A performance-based approach allows for the combination of target values and impact/risk assessments in a consistent evaluation framework with the aim of sequentially reducing aftercare intensity and, ultimately, leading to the completion of aftercare. At a regulatory level, simple qualitative criteria are typically used as the primary basis for defining completion of aftercare, most likely due to the complexity of developing rigorous evaluation methodologies. This paper argues that development of transparent and consistent regulatory procedures represents the basis for defining the desired state of a landfill at the end of aftercare and for reducing uncertainty about the intensity and duration of aftercare. In this context, recently presented technical guidelines and the ongoing debate with respect to their regulatory acceptance are a valuable step towards developing strategies for the cost-effective protection of HHE at closed MSW landfills. To assess the practicality of evaluation methodologies for aftercare, well-documented case studies including regulatory review and acceptance are needed.

Landfill sustainability and aftercare completion criteria.

Although many countries are increasing their efforts to recycle and to re-use waste materials, landfilling will still be needed in order to dispose of wastes which cannot be recycled or treated in other ways. Since landfills will most probably be present for a long time, measures will have to be taken to reduce their (long-term) emissions. The European Commission has delegated the competent authorities to decide to end aftercare and several member states have provided regulations for this purpose. However, there is currently no guidance for long-term risk assessment to support an aftercare completion procedure for landfills. The aim of this study is to provide examples of current regulations and to demonstrate an alternative approach for a quantitative risk assessment of landfill leachate. The presented modelling approach clearly demonstrates the added value of site specific risk assessments of the long-term emissions from landfills and might provide a basis for application when the acceptance criteria for landfill will be revisited in the future. In addition, the modelling approach can be used as one of the toolboxes to perform assessments of the long-term emissions from landfill leachates and might help the competent authorities to decide whether the remaining emission potential is acceptable or not. Moreover, the results imply that local environmental conditions contribute to the acceptability of landfill emissions and are important factors in choosing a landfill location.

Can soil gas profiles be used to assess microbial CH4 oxidation in landfill covers?

A method is proposed to estimate CH(4) oxidation efficiency in landfill covers, biowindows or biofilters from soil gas profile data. The approach assumes that the shift in the ratio of CO(2) to CH(4) in the gas profile, compared to the ratio in the raw landfill gas, is a result of the oxidation process and thus allows the calculation of the cumulative share of CH(4) oxidized up to a particular depth. The approach was validated using mass balance data from two independent laboratory column experiments. Values corresponded well over a wide range of oxidation efficiencies from less than 10% to nearly total oxidation. An incubation experiment on 40 samples from the cover soil of an old landfill showed that the share of CO(2) from respiration falls below 10% of the total CO(2) production when the methane oxidation capacity is 3.8 µg CH(4)g(dw)(-1)h(-1) or higher, a rate that is often exceeded in landfill covers and biofilters. The method is mainly suitable in settings where the CO(2) concentrations are not significantly influenced by processes such as respiration or where CH(4) loadings and oxidation rates are high enough so that CO(2) generated from CH(4) oxidation outweighs other sources of CO(2). The latter can be expected for most biofilters, biowindows and biocovers on landfills. This simple method constitutes an inexpensive complementary tool for studies that require an estimation of the CH(4) oxidation efficiency values in methane oxidation systems, such as landfill biocovers and biowindows.

Environmental assessment of low-organic waste landfill scenarios by means of life-cycle assessment modelling (EASEWASTE).

The environmental performance of two low-organic waste landfill scenarios ('low-organic-energy' and 'low-organic-flare') was developed and compared with two household waste landfill scenarios ('household-energy' and 'household-flare') by means of LCA-modelling. The LCA-modelling was made for 1 tonne of wet waste landfilled and the environmental aspects were evaluated for a 100-year period after disposal. The data utilized in the LCA-calculations to model the first 10-20 years of landfilling of the two low-organic waste scenarios make extensive use of site-specific data from the Nauerna Landfill (The Netherlands), but average data from other comparable, existing landfills were used too. As data from full-scale landfills do not cover more than 30-40 years of landfilling, data from laboratory simulations and accelerated tests of limited scale were also utilized. The life-cycle impact assessments show that the low-organic waste scenarios achieved better environmental performance than the household waste scenarios with regard to both ordinary and toxicity-related environmental impact categories. This indicates that the reduction of organic matter accepted at landfills (as prescribed by the European Union Landfill Directive: Council Directive 1999/31/EC, EU, Brussels, 1999) can be a successful approach to decrease the environmental loads in several impact categories in comparison with landfilling of waste with significant organic content. However, when utilization of landfill gas is accounted for in the life-cycle impact assessment calculation, the small gas generation in low-organic waste landfills reduced the actual potential for energy generation and therefore the environmental savings obtained were reduced proportionally. Groundwater pollution from input of leachate was also evaluated and the WHO (Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality; WHO, Geneva, 2006) guideline for drinking water quality was assumed as reference. The results show that low-organic waste landfills pose a smaller risk of groundwater contamination, but the impact potentials estimated still remain a lot higher than estimated in other categories.

Landfilling of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions.

Accounting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from waste landfilling is summarized with the focus on processes and technical data for a number of different landfilling technologies: open dump (which was included as the worst-case-scenario), conventional landfills with flares and with energy recovery, and landfills receiving low-organic-carbon waste. The results showed that direct emissions of GHG from the landfill systems (primarily dispersive release of methane) are the major contributions to the GHG accounting, up to about 1000 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1) for the open dump, 300 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1) for conventional landfilling of mixed waste and 70 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne(-1) for low-organic-carbon waste landfills. The load caused by indirect, upstream emissions from provision of energy and materials to the landfill was low, here estimated to be up to 16 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne(-1). On the other hand, utilization of landfill gas for electricity generation contributed to major savings, in most cases, corresponding to about half of the load caused by direct GHG emission from the landfill. However, this saving can vary significantly depending on what the generated electricity substitutes for. Significant amounts of biogenic carbon may still be stored within the landfill body after 100 years, which here is counted as a saved GHG emission. With respect to landfilling of mixed waste with energy recovery, the net, average GHG accounting ranged from about -70 to 30 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne(- 1), obtained by summing the direct and indirect (upstream and downstream) emissions and accounting for stored biogenic carbon as a saving. However, if binding of biogenic carbon was not accounted for, the overall GHG load would be in the range of 60 to 300 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1). This paper clearly shows that electricity generation as well as accounting of stored biogenic carbon are crucial to the accounting of GHG of waste landfilling.

Applying guidance for methane emission estimation for landfills.

Quantification of methane emission from landfills is important to evaluate measures for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Both the United Nations and the European Union have adopted protocols to ensure quantification of methane emission from individual landfills. The purpose of these protocols is to disclose emission data to regulators and the general public. Criteria such as timeliness, completeness, certainty, comparability, consistency and transparency are set for inclusion of emission data in a publicly accessible database. All methods given as guidance to landfill operators to estimate landfill methane emissions are based on models. In this paper the consequences of applying six different models for estimates of three landfills are explored. It is not the intention of this paper to criticise or validate models. The modelling results are compared with whole site methane emission measurements. A huge difference in results is observed. This raises doubts about the accuracy of the models. It also indicates that at least some of the criteria previously mentioned are not met for the tools currently available to estimate methane emissions from individual landfills. This will inevitably lead to compiling and comparing data with an incomparable origin. Harmonization of models is recommended. This may not necessarily reduce uncertainty, but it will at least result in comparable, consistent and transparent data.