2nd report 1st copy

8/13/2019 2nd Report 1st Copy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2nd-report-1st-copy 1/29

1

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE SURVEY SO FAR

2.1 IMPACTS OF SOLID WASTE ON HEALTH

2.2 WASTE DISPOSAL IN LANDFILLS

2.3 ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF LANDFILLS

2.4 PROBLEMS DUE TO LANDFILL SITING

2.5 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION

2.6 RELATIVE HAZARD ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

2.7 GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY

2.8 ROLE OF GIS

2.9 INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

3. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM

4. AIM OF THE RESEARCH

5. METHODOLOGY

5.1 Why DRASTIC

5.2 STAGES OF WORK

6. SUMMARY

7. TIME SCHEDULE

REFERENCES



2

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Fig 1.Development of suitability index

2. Fig 2.Compacted flow chart

LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 1. Summary of various existing methods



3

1. INTRODUCTION

Modernization and progress has had its share of disadvantages and one of the main aspects of

concern is the pollution it is causing to the earth – be it land, air, and water. With increase in the

global population and the rising demand for food and other essentials, there has been a rise in the

amount of waste being generated daily by each household. This waste is ultimately thrown into

municipal waste collection centers from where it is collected by the area municipalities to be

further thrown into the landfills and dumps.

Landfill site selection is a complex process involving social, environmental and technical

parameters. Since it involves debatable issues, the most suitable site that is available has to be

chosen so that the evil effects to environment are minimal. Risk to human health is perhaps, the

most important factor to be considered for landfill siting. The aim of this work is to develop amethodology that can be used to rank suitability of landfill sites based on human health risk. If

existing landfill siting regulations in India are incorporated in this methodology, it can be applied

to any of the sites in India. For processing large quantities of spatial data, Geographical

information system (GIS) will be used.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY SO FAR

2.1 Impacts of solid waste on health

Organic domestic waste which undergoes degradation creates a favourable condition for the

growth of microbial population and becomes a serious threat to human health. Direct handling of

solid waste also results in various types of infectious and chronic diseases in case of waste

workers and rag pickers.

The population which gets affected by the unscientific disposal of solid waste includes – the

population in areas where there is no proper waste disposal method, especially the pre-school

children; waste workers; and workers in facilities producing toxic and infectious material, Therisk will be very high in case of population living close to a waste dump and the population who

is supplied with water supply which has contaminated either due to waste dumping or leakage

from landfill sites. Solid waste, if uncollected and undisposed, also increases risk of injury and

infection.



4

Exposure to hazardous waste, an even more problematic one, can affect human health. Children

are more vulnerable to these types of health problems. In fact, direct exposure can lead to

diseases through chemical exposure as the release of chemical waste into the environment maylead to chemical poisoning. Many studies have been carried out in different parts of the world to

establish a connection between health and hazardous waste.

Waste from agriculture and industries can also cause serious health risks. Other than this, if

hazardous waste and radioactive wastes from industries aren‟t ha ndled in separate sections, the

co-disposal of them with municipal waste can expose people to chemical and radioactive

hazards. Uncollected solid waste can also pollute runoff water, resulting in the formation of

stagnant water bodies that become the breeding ground of disease-causing mosquitoes andmicrobes. Waste dumping near a water source also causes contamination of the water body or the

ground water source. The risk of such a hazard increases if more people are using such polluted

water resources. Direct dumping of untreated waste in rivers, seas, and lakes results in

accumulation of toxic substances in the food chain, through the plants and animals that feed on

it.

Disposal of hospital and other medical waste requires special attention since this can

create major health hazards. This waste generated from the hospitals, health care centres, medical

laboratories, and research centers such as discarded syringe needles, bandages, swabs, plasters,

and other types of infectious waste are often disposed with the regular non-infectious waste.

Waste treatment and disposal sites can also create health hazards for the neighborhood.

Improperly operated incineration plants cause air pollution and improperly managed and

designed landfills attract all types of insects and rodents that spread disease. Ideally these sites

should be located at a safe distance from all human settlement. Landfill sites should be well lined

and walled to ensure that there is no leakage into the nearby ground water sources.

Recycling too carries health risks if proper precautions are not taken. Workers working

with waste containing chemical and metals may experience toxic exposure. Disposal of health-

care wastes require special attention since it can create major health hazards, such as Hepatitis B

and C, through wounds caused by discarded syringes. Rag pickers and others who are involved



6

landfill is designed to contain or store the wastes so that the exposure to human and environment

could be minimized (Nidhi, Misra and Shukla, 2011)

Landfills minimize the harmful impact of solid waste on the environment by the following

mechanisms (Fig. 17.3): (a) isolation of waste through containment; (b) elimination of polluting pathways; (c) controlled collection and treatment of products of physical, chemical and

biological changes within a waste dump – both liquids and gases; and (d) environmental

monitoring till the waste becomes stable (Ministry of Urban Development, India)

2.3 Essential components of landfills

The seven essential components of a MSW landfill are:

(a) A liner system at the base and sides of the landfill which prevents migration of leachate orgas to the surrounding soil.

b) A leachate collection and control facility which collects and extracts leachate from within

and from the base of the landfill and then treats the leachate.

(c) A gas collection and control facility (optional for small landfills) which collects and extracts

gas from within and from the top of the landfill and then treats it or uses it for energy recovery.

(d) A final cover system at the top of the landfill which enhances surface drainage, preventsinfiltrating water and supports surface vegetation.

(e) A surface water drainage system which collects and removes all surface runoff from the

landfill site.

(f) An environmental monitoring system which periodically collects and analyses air, surface

water, soil-gas and ground water samples around the landfill site.

(g) A closure and post-closure plan which lists the steps that must be taken to close and secure a

landfill site once the filling operation has been completed and the activities for long-term

monitoring, operation and maintenance of the completed landfill (Ministry of Urban

Development, India)

2.4 Problems due to landfill siting



7

Generally in India, MSW is disposed of in low lying areas without taking any precautions or

operational controls. Therefore, municipal solid waste is one of the major environmental

problems of Indian megacities. It involves activities associated with generation, storage,

collection, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of solid wastes. But, in most of the

Indian cities, the MSW Management system comprises four activities only, i.e., waste

generation, collection, transportation, and disposal (Ayub and Khan 2011). The management of

MSW requires proper infrastructure, maintenance and upgrade for all activities.

This becomes more expensive and complex because of the continuous and unplanned urban

growth. The difficulties associated with providing facilities and services up to the expectations of

urban centers are often imputed to the poor financial status of the managing municipal

corporations.

Most of the global MSW is dumped in non-regulated landfills and the generated methane is

emitted to the atmosphere. Methane, when escapes to atmosphere, has a global warming

potential that IPPC (U.S Energy Information Administration, 2003) estimates to be 23 times

greater than that of the same volume of carbon dioxide. Nowadays, there are modern landfills

which can capture and utilize landfill gas. The landfill gas is collected at source, cleaned up and

processed so that it can be used for electricity generation. In India, most of the landfills are not

designed to recover the gases for energy recovery but there are some ongoing project works on

methane capture (Ayub and Khan 2011)

Landfill Leachate can be toxic, acidic, and rich in organic acid groups. They can contain sulphate

ions as well as high concentration of common metal ions. It contains mixtures of many chemicals

having a potential risk to human health through penetrating into the ground water. Many

researchers have undertaken the studies on ground and surface water contamination.

Landfilling is environmentally acceptable if properly carried out. Unfortunately, if not carried

out to sufficiently high standards, landfilling has the potential to have an adverse impact on the

environment. This impact may be divided into short term impacts and long term impacts

(Department of Water Affairs & Forestry-South Africa 1998)

Short term impacts



8

Short term impacts include problems such as noise, flies, odor, air pollution, unsightliness and

windblown litter. Such nuisances are generally associated with a waste disposal operation and

should cease with the closure of the landfill.

Long term impacts

Long term impacts include problems such as pollution of the water regime and landfill gas

generation. Such problems are generally associated with incorrect landfill site selection, design,

preparation or operation and may persist long after the landfill site has been closed.

Summarizing the impacts, such dumps cause the following problems:

(a) Groundwater contamination through leachate

(b) Surface water contamination through runoff

(c) Air contamination due to gases, litter, dust, bad odor

(d) Other problems due to rodents, pests, fire, bird menace, slope failure, erosion etc.

The general objective of environmentally acceptable landfilling, therefore, is to avoid both short

and long term impacts and any degradation of the environment in which the landfill is located

(Ayub and Khan 2011).

2.5 Landfill Site selection

The major goal of the landfill site selection process is to ensure that the disposal facility is

located at the best location possible with little negative impact to the environment or to the

population. For landfill siting, a substantial evaluation process is needed to identify the best

available disposal location which meets the requirements of government regulations and best

minimizes economic, environmental, health, and social costs. Evaluation processes or

methodologies are structured to make the best use of available information and to ensure that the

results obtained are reproducible so that outcomes can be verified and defended (Siddiqui,

Everett and Vieux 1996)

MSW management is nowadays a difficult and complicated issue, mainly for the following

reasons:



9

• Collection and disposal is a major environmental problem related to human health, urban

environment quality, greenhouse effect and natural and urban landscape aesthetics.

• Nuisance -the significance of which is often subjective-caused by the passage of MSW

collection vehicles, the smells, the sight of landfill areas, the negative feelings from neighboringwith an MSW collection facility, the worry for potential public health risks and the not-in-my

backyard (NIMBY) syndrome understandably creates a negative social attitude towards MSW

treatment and landfilling. (Hadjibiros, Dermatas and Laspidou 2011)

A site may be technically and economically feasible yet may be opposed heavily by the

public. The “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) sentiment is high initially. However, with proper

discussion it can be overcome in some cases. Early assessment regarding how strong the NIMBY

sentiment is can significantly reduce the time and money spent on planning for a landfill sitewhich may not materialize. In many instances residents around a proposed site cooperate if the

landfill site owner‟s representative listens t o concerns of the area residents and considers those

concerns in designing and monitoring a site. Noise, dust, odor, increases in traffic volume, and

reduction in property value concern the area residents more than the fear of groundwater

contamination (Lee and Lee 2008).

On the other hand, in most developing and in some developed countries, MSW

management is nothing more than uncontrolled dumping. Discharge into a riverbed has been the

traditional way of getting rid of refuse for thousands of years. Environmental impacts used to be

tolerable when refuse mainly contained biodegradable organic matter, but are becoming

increasingly important with increasing waste volume, toxicity and non-degradability

(Hadjibiros, Dermatas and Laspidou,2011)

Selection of a landfill site usually comprises of the following steps, when a large number

(e.g. 4 to 8) landfill sites are available: (i) setting up of a location criteria; (ii) identification of

search area; (iii) drawing up a list of potential sites; (iv) data collection; (v) selection of few best-

ranked sites; (vi) environmental impact assessment and (vii) final site selection and land

acquisition. However, in municipalities where availability of land is limited, the selection

process may be confined to only one or two sites and may involve the following steps: (i) Setting



10

up of locational criteria; (ii) Data collection; (iii) Environmental impact assessment and (vi)

Final site selection (Lee and Lee,2008).

An effective technique for landfill siting should have the following characteristics (Lane et al.,

1983):

1. The technique should evaluate all land in a systematic and impartial way that can be

reasonably considered available for landfill.

2. The technique should clearly establish the relative suitability of land for absolute suitability or

minimum acceptable standards. These criteria or standards can vary from area to area depending

on different constraints on available land or different public concerns. The technique should

illustrate which lands are better or worse for sanitary landfills, rather than which lands are

suitable or unsuitable.

3. The technique should be practical and be based on commonly available information.

4. The technique should be adaptable to computerized analysis.

5. The technique should be designed to explain clearly and directly the analysis and results in a

format easily understandable by the officials and the general public.

Landfill is considered as an active installation that can produce emissions (Zamoranoaet.al, 2008). Various landfill siting techniques have been developed for this purpose. For

example, Lin and Kado (1998) developed a mixed-integer spatial optimization model based on

vector-based data to help decision makers find a suitable site within a certain geographic area.

Other researchers propose the use of multiple criteria analysis by itself or with GIS

(Kontos,Komilis and Halvadakis 2005 ). The use of artificial intelligence technology, such as

expert systems, can also be very helpful in solid waste planning and management. Fuzzy

inference systems have also been proposed.

A methodology called EVIAVE is developed by university of Granada and they used it

for the evaluation of an existing landfill site in Spain .They used cartographic raster modeling in

GIS for the work. EVIAVE is validated with landfills in Venezuela, Chile and Spain (Zamoranoa



11

et.al. 2008). Later, Abedinzadeh et.al (2013) applied this methodology for diagnosis of a landfill

in Iran.

Spatial models were generally constructed into a mixed-integer or non-linear

programming models. These models involve analysis of suitability of land parcels within an area,specification of objective functions by the analyst, and determination of candidate locations

which satisfy the constraints for continuity or compactness and other factors. Diamond and

Wright (1989) defined compactness as the square of the longest distance between any two points

within the selected zone divided by the area of the zone. Non-linear and integer multi objective

programming models were then applied to solve a land use problem. The non-linear property of

the model makes it difficult to solve by a computer. Wright et al. (1983) defined compactness as

the length of the perimeter of the selected zone divided by the area. Benabdallahand and Wright

(1992) used the same definition of compactness and a mixed-integer programming model to

analyze a multiple sub-region allocation problem with raster-based data. However, the large

number of variables and constraints used in their model make it difficult to solve. Although the

model is changed into a non-linear model to reduce the number of variables and constrains, the

solution obtained by the non-linear model may not be the global optimum.

Minor and Jacobs (1994) proposed an improved mix-integer model to find the landfill

site with best compactness and least cost from a set of irregularly shaped land parcels. Compared

to these previous models for raster-based data, model developed by Kado and Lin (1998) used

less variables and constraints.

2.6 Relative Hazard Assessment Systems

A number of relative hazard assessment systems for waste disposal sites have been

developed over the past three decades and reported in literature. Each one of these systems

evaluates the relative degree of hazard posed by a site to environment and human health

considering only the major parameters that describe the site quite substantially. Normally, waste

sites are evaluated for one or more of the following three hazard modes: 1) migration of

pollutants away from the site via groundwater, surface water, or air routes, or a combination

thereof, 2) fire and explosion potential, and 3) direct contact with hazardous substances. In most

of the systems, site ranking is based either on the combined score for various routes under



13

and RASCL evaluate 3 – 4 hazard migration routes, each one separately, and produce separate

scores for all the routes. The other systems such as SRAP, NCS, HR-FCP, NPC system, and

JENV system evaluate various routes concurrently and produce a composite score for all the

routes. In such systems, which do not produce separate scores for different routes, the

groundwater route score is calculated considering groundwater route parameters alone. This is

however, possible only in case of those systems that employ an additive algorithm to aggregate

their parameters. Such systems include NCS, NPC and JENV systems. In an additive algorithm,

it is easier to segregate and use the desired parameters to calculate aggregated score without

altering the scoring methodology structure. This is however, not possible in the case of the

systems such as SRAP and HR-FCP that employ a complex algorithm to aggregate site

parameters into the final site rank.

A system‟s ability to accurately evaluate a site hazard largely depends on the amount of

information taken into consideration for the hazard assessment. A system that considers more

info rmation about a site evaluates the site hazard more accurately. At the same time, a system‟s

acceptability among its potential users is greatly reduced if its data requirements are significant

and involve cost and time. Table 1 shows that the HRS-1990 and ERPHRS consider highest

number of 18 parameters each, whereas the LeGrand‟s method and DRASTIC consider only 5

and 8 parameters, respectively. As regards the ease of availability of data for different systems,

the parameters which can be determined easily i.e.by site walkover, visual survey, local

inhabitant survey, and regional maps of groundwater, soil type, geology etc., are considered

simple parameters; whereas the parameters whose determination involves field drilling and

sampling as well as laboratory testing and therefore, are much more difficult to obtain, are

considered as complex parameters. It is seen from Table 1 that among all systems, the Soil –

Waste Interaction Matrix uses highest number of 9 complex parameters, whereas RASCL uses

only 1 such parameter.



14

Table 1 : (Reproduced from Singh,Dutta and Nema 2009.)

2.7 Groundwater Vulnerability

Groundwater plays a key role in day to day life of human beings. Contamination of

groundwater is a serious threat to human kind. Water pollution is a serious problem in India as

almost 70% of its surface water resources and a great number of its GW reserves are already

contaminated by biological, organic, and inorganic pollutants (Rao and Mamatha 2004). The

environmental concern related to the GW quality generally focuses on the impact of pollution



15

and quality degradation on human health. Nearly two third of all ailments in India, such as

jaundice, cholera, diarrhea and dysentery, typhoid, etc. are caused by the consumption of

polluted water and these water-borne diseases claim nearly 1.5 million lives annually in the

country, which means three persons die every 10 minutes due to contaminated water (Ghazali

1992). Even today more than 90% of our rural population is primarily dependent on GW

(Chandrashekhar, Adiga, Lakshminarayana, Jagdeesha, and Nataraju 1999 ). The quality of

GW is as important as that of quantity because GW is the only source of drinking water in most

of urban areas of India. The drinking water quality in Indian cities has been deteriorating in

recent years mainly due to the high growth of population, unplanned growth of cities, mixed land

use patterns, no proper sewage system, and poor disposal of the wastewater both from household

as well as industrial activities. This has led to the pollution of shallow aquifers in and around

Indian cities in general (Rahman 2003).

GW pollution is nothing but artificially induced degradation of natural GW quality. In

contrast with surface water pollution, sub-surface pollution is difficult to detect, is even more

difficult to control, and may persist for years, decades, or even centuries (Todd, 1980). GW

vulnerability is a function of the geologic setting of an area, as this largely controls the amount of

time, i.e. the residence time of the GW that has passed since the water fell as rain, infiltrated

through the soil, reached the water table, and began flowing to its present location ( Prior,

Boekhoff, Howes, Libra, & VanDorpe 2003 ). In any given area, the GW within an aquifer, or

the GW produced by a well, has some vulnerability to contamination from human activities. This

concept exists since the 1960s, yet there is no standard definition of aquifer vulnerability. The

most common definition comes from Vrba and Zaporotec (1994 ), who described aquifer

vulnerability as a concept representing the intrinsic properties of aquifer systems as a function of

their sensitivity to human and natural activities.

Vulnerability mapping is defined as a technique for quantifying the sensitivity of the

resource to its environment, and as a practical visualization tool for decision-making. GW

vulnerability is also defined as the tendency and likelihood for general contaminants to reach the

water table after introduction at the ground surface (SNIFFER 2004). In fact the term

„„vulnerability of GW to contamination‟‟ was first used by Margat (1968). „„GW vulnerability‟‟

is used in the opposite sense to the term natural protection against contamination. GW



16

vulnerability to contamination was defined by the National Research Council (1993) as „„the

tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specified position in the GW system after

introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer.‟‟ Vowinkel, Clawges, Buxton,

Stedfast, and Louis (1996) defined vulnerability as sensitivity plus intensity, where „„intensity‟‟

is a measure of the source of contamination. Clearly, GW vulnerability is a function not only of

the properties of the GW flow system (intrinsic susceptibility) but also of the proximity of

contaminant sources, characteristics of the contaminant, and other factors that could potentially

increase loads of specified contaminants to the aquifer and (or) their eventual delivery to a GW

resource (Michael, Thomas, Michael, & Dennis 2005). As per US General Accounting Office

(GAO) (1991) hydro- geologic vulnerability is „„a function of geologic factors such as soil

texture and depth to GW.‟‟ Vulnerability is „„a function of these hydro -geologic factors, as well

as the pesticid e use factors that influence the site‟s susceptibility,‟‟ whereas risk „„incorporatesthe size of the population at risk from potential pesticide contamination, i.e. the number of

people who obtain their drinking water from GW in the area.‟‟ Vulnerability is distinct from

pollution risk; pollution risk depends not only on vulnerability but also on the existence of

significant pollutant loading entering the sub-surface environment (Margane 2003). It is

possible to have high aquifer vulnerability but no risk of pollution, if there is no significant

pollutant loading; and to have high pollution risk in spite of low vulnerability, if the pollutant

loading is exceptional. It is important to make clear the distinction between vulnerability and

risk. Leaching potential refers to the risk that soluble pesticides will be transmitted through the

soil to the GW reservoir (Huddleston 1996). Leaching potential depends on the soil

permeability, water table conditions, and hydraulic loading. A vulnerability assessment defines

the risk to an aquifer based on the physical characteristics of the vadose zone and aquifer and the

presence of potential contaminant sources. According to Foster (1987) , aquifer pollution

vulnerability is „„the intrinsic characteristics which dete rmine the sensitivity of various parts of

an aquifer to being adversely affected by an imposed contaminant load.‟‟ GW pollution risk is

„„the interaction between the natural vulnerability of the aquifer and the pollution loading that is,

or will be, applied on the sub- surface environment as a result of human activity.‟‟ (Rahman

2008)



17

2.7.1 Groundwater vulnerability assessment

There is no absolutely perfect methodology existing for ground water vulnerability

assessment, but different methods are developed by various groups of experts all over the world

considering various important factors affecting contaminant transport and groundwatercontamination. Those methods can be grouped under three major categories

i. Process based simulation model methods

ii. Empirical statistical methods

iii. Overlay and index methods

1. Process based simulation model methods

Process based simulation model methods are scientific methods which reckons relevant

processes regarding contaminant fate and transport. Using them, lethal threats for groundwater

can be identified and zoning of groundwater protection zones can be done .Among these

methods, Mathematical models are more accurate since they account for variation of

concentration along both space and time. But these are not commonly used for regional

groundwater flow modeling. MODFLOW is a common process based simulation modeling

software.

2. Empirical statistical methods

These methods use the probability theory by incorporating some uncertainty. Historically,

these methods are the least preferred ones because when the candidate site is a large one, the

complexity associated is also large. In these types of methods, vulnerability of an area is

expressed in terms of probability of contamination. It uses the known contamination distribution

of that geographic area. The disadvantages of these methods are,

i. Statistical methods are difficult to develop

ii. Once developed for a region, it can only be applied to regions with similar

environmental conditions.

3. Overlay and index methods



18

This is a simple method for measuring groundwater vulnerability. Combined maps of

parameters that are influential on contaminant transport are used. A numeric index is assigned to

each parameter and all such ratings are finally combined to get a vulnerability index. When

combining, the ratings are to be equal or will have weightages depending on the intensity of

influence.

This method of aquifer sensitivity mapping requires various properties and processes that

influence the contaminant transport from ground surface to groundwater. Variables used in

overlay and index based aquifer sensitivity mapping include depth to water table, groundwater

recharge, and soil as well as aquifer properties. These models combine sensitivity variable

ratings and contaminant properties, land use, management practices, etc. The algorithms

associated with these models are simple but large amount of spatial data can be processed using

them.

Some of the overlay and index methods are

1. DRASTIC

2. GOD

3. SINTACS

4. EPIK

DRASTIC is an empirical method developed by EPA in 1980 to evaluate ground water

pollution potential (Aller.et.al, 1987). DRASTIC is an acronym of seven parameters i.e. Depth

to groundwater, Net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil Media, Topography, Impact of vadose zone

and Hydraulic conductivity. The higher the DRASTIC index, higher is the pollution potential.

Based on the value of index the sites can be rated as low, medium and high.

GOD is a rating system that assesses vulnerability by means of three variables-

groundwater occurrence G, overall lithology of aquifer, O and depth to groundwater, D.

Aquifer vulnerability system index (AVI) is an analogical relation or numerical method

that uses two parameters: the thickness of each sedimentary layer above the uppermost saturated

aquifer (d) and the estimated hydraulic conductivity (k) of each of these sedimentary layers. This



19

method does not consider ratings and/or weights. The index is determined from the relation

between the two parameters d and k.

EPIK is a parameter weighting and rating method especially developed for karst aquifers

to protect water supply sources (springs and wells). This method does not consider parametersdepending on time (I e rainfall, recharge,) but only the intrinsic parameters of the aquifer:

presence of epikarst (E), the characteristics of the protective cover (P), the infiltration conditions

(I) and the karst network development (K) (Ligi 2008)

2.8 Role of GIS

The use of maps containing various landfill selection criteria is a simple and common

method to determine landfill suitability. Generally, maps containing data such as geology, soils,

water quality, and floodplains are superimposed on one another to determine a final map of

landfill suitability. Low technology techniques consist of the use of manual overlays and hand

drawn maps in order to determine landfill suitability. Simple overlays can be produced with

tracing paper or acetate. However, low technology cartographic procedures are time consuming

and the accuracy of the final products depends on the cartographer.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are ideal for preliminary site selection studies

because it can manage large volumes of spatially distributed data from a variety of sources and

efficiently store, retrieve, analyze and display information (Siddiqui, Everett and Vieux 1996).

Using GIS for site selection not only increases the objectivity and flexibility but also ensures that

a large amount of spatial data can be processed in a short time. Relatively easy presentations of

GIS siting results are also one of the advantages (Lin and Kado 1998).

GIS in groundwater vulnerability assessment

With the growing recognition of the importance of underground water resources, efforts

are increasing to prevent, reduce, and eliminate GW pollution. The DRASTIC model can be a

valuable tool for identifying GW supplies that are vulnerable to contamination using basic

hydro-geologic variables believed to influence contaminant transport from surface sources to

GW (Kalinski, Kelly, Bogardi, Ehrman, & Yamamoto 1994). In India much work has been

done to test underground water for various trace and major elements. So far very few integrated



20

approaches have been used to assess vulnerability of water using a Geographical Information

System (GIS) approach and remotely sensed data. The first project involving the partial

automation of DRASTIC using GIS concepts was done at University of Kansas where Merchant,

Whittemore, Whistler, McElwee, and Wood (1987) and Merchant (1994) applied a

commercially available „„Erdas‟‟ software package to data compiled for Harvey Country,

Kansas. Kaplan, Meinhold, Anidu, and Hauptmann (1986) developed a GIS aimed at GW

management for Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, New York. Hendrix and Buckley

(1986) used GIS technology for the study of water supply affected by naturally occurring radon

contamination in dolomite aquifers with a high probability of pollution of GW by surface

activity. DRASTIC consists of several components, the first of which is the designation of

mappable hydro-geologic parameters ( Aller, Bennet, Lehr, and Petty 1987).

2.9 Indian Perspective

In India, the waste produced from a city is managed by the corresponding corporations or

municipalities. Most of the proposed landfill sites end up as mere dumpsites and turn out to be

the darkest corner of the corporation. The emissions go unchecked . In Kerala , t here are sites like

Njeliyanparamba in Calicut Corporation where the surrounding population has been afflicted

with the ill-effects of landfill for years. One of the studies (Joone 2009 ) has shown that disposal

at the site has not been scientific in the past and has resulted in problems of groundwater

contamination and odour nuisance. Usually, the odour problem becomes intolerable during the

monsoon season. A plenty of social problems are faced by the surrounding people due to

nearness of the landfill (Joone 2009). There is a strong public opinion against the landfill.

However the process of landfilling is inevitable at present and the role of engineers is to optimize

the performance. The risk to human health has to be minimal by the siting. An attempt to make a

model based on human health risk is thus crucial for the current situation.

3. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM

Considering previous literature, in some of the works there is an overlap between

ecological risk and human health risk. That increases the complexity of solution.



21

Most of the environmental hazards are hazardous to human beings too. They directly or

indirectly affect human health. So the risk can be evaluated from the human health perspective.

The anthropocentric nature of existing regulations makes the evaluation logical and simpler.

4. AIM OF THE RESEARCH

Aim of this work is to develop a model which can rank available landfill sites based on

suitability in terms of human health.

Objectives

1. To carry out a detailed study on landfill siting.

2. Compare different existing methods for landfill siting.

3. Development of a methodology that can rank the available sites based on landfillsuitability.

4. Development of a model for finding site suitability with software aid using the

developed methodology.

5. Validation of the model.

5. METHODOLOGY

Methodology is based on development of a landfill suitability index- a numerical index

which can rank a site based on suitability for the installation of a landfill. „Suitability‟ means t he

quality of having the properties that are right for a specific purpose. Here it can be defined as the

quality of having minimal human health risk by the installation of a municipal solid waste

landfill.

There are several environmental components that may get affected by the emissions from

landfills and jeopardize human health and living. - Surface water, ground water, soil, air, etc.

Obviously, the suitability of the landfill is related inversely to the risk caused to the human

population by the contamination of each of the environmental components. Let Landfill

Suitability index be a numerical index which indicates how less is the risk caused to the

surrounding human population by the siting of the landfill. The contribution from each



22

environmental component depends upon exposure conditions. Then, to that numerical index,

there will be contributions of different intensities from each of the environmental component.

Some mathematical relations have to be developed between these and the existing legislations in

India for landfill siting (fig 1).

Geographical information systems software along with other software tools will be used

to develop the model. Collected data regarding Hazard and Exposure conditions in a sample site

can be used for application of the developed method.

The first objective of this work is to assess GW vulnerability to pollution in a shallow

aquifer using the DRASTIC GIS model in combination with hydro-geological data layers i.e.

Depth of water, net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil media, Topography, Impact of vadose zone

and hydraulic conductivity.

5.1 Why DRASTIC?

Evaluating and comparing all the methods, 5 simple parameters and 3 complex

parameters are used in DRASTIC method and it uses simple additive scoring algorithm. The data

are easily available, so it proves to be suitable for Indian conditions. We have already seen in

table 1 of section 2.6, that DRASTIC can be used as an ultimate method for landfill site

selection. The disadvantage is it considers the groundwater component only. So, in this work,

DRASTIC will be used for assessing groundwater vulnerability part only.



23

Fig 1.Development of suitability index

S U I T A B I L I T Y O F L A N D F I L L B A S E D O N

H U

M A N H E A L T H R I S K

risk due to contaminatedsurface water

risk due to contaminatedground water

risk due to contaminatedair

risk due to contaminatedsoil



24

5.2 Stages of work

1) Literature review

2) Data collection

3) Definition of Variables4) Familiarization with modeling tools.

5) Incorporation of hazard and exposure conditions of

- Groundwater

- Surface water

- Air

- Soil

6) Correlation of variables to suitability index

7) Development of model.

8) Application of model to a sample site.

9) Draft preparation and thesis submission

Fig 2.Compacted flow chart

Data collection

Development of model

for ranking landfill sites

pplication of model



25

6. SUMMARY

The final functional element in the waste management system is waste disposal. Landfill has

been widely used for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal all over the world. If not carried out

to sufficiently high standards, landfilling has the potential to have an adverse impact on the

environment. So the site selection for landfill is an important and complex process. The aim of

this work is to develop a methodology that can be used to rank the suitability of landfill sites

based on human health risk. Development of a model for landfill siting or evaluation will be

done with the aid of GIS. The application of this methodology will result in a Landfill Suitability

Index, which reflects the overall environmental impact of a landfill on its surroundings.



26

7. TIME SCHEDULE

TASK

2012 2013

J

U

AU

G

SEP

T

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

JA

N

FE

B

MAR

Literature Review

Data collection

Definition of variables

Familiarization with modeling tools

Development of GIS model

Application to sample site

Draft Preparation and thesis submission



27

REFERENCES

1. Abedinzadeh,Niloofer, Farhmia Abedinzadeh, and Tooba Abedi. “Environmental

diagnosis by Eviave Methodology to Planning and Decision-Making for Municipal Waste

Landfills in Iran. ”,World Applied Sciences Journal 21.11 (2013): 1640-1650.

2. Ahsan,A., and M. Alamgir. “ Solid Waste Management Plan for Indian Mega Cities .”

Indian Journal of Environmental Protection , Vol. 19, No. 2,(1999) pp. 90-95.

3. Al-Jarrah,O., and H. Abu- Qdais. “ Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Siting Using

Intelligent System .” Waste Management Journal, 26 (3) (2006) 299 – 306.

4. Ayub,Sohail, and Afzal Hussain Khan. “ Landfill Practice in India: A Review. ” Journal of

Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research , 3(4) (2011):270-279.5. Benabdallah,Salah and J. Wright. “Multiple Subregion Allocation Models .” Urban

Planning Dev., ASCE 118(1992),24 – 40.

6. Charnpratheep,Krerkpong, Qiming Zhou, and Barry Garner. “Preliminary Landfill Site

Screening Using Fuzzy Geographical Information Systems. ” Waste Management and

Research 15(2)(1997), 197 – 215.

7. Bharti, Dattatraya, Isub Ali Sayyad, G. G. Gaikwad, D. R. Taikar and J. Dhore . “ Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Bore Well Water Quality. ” J. Chem. Pharm. Res,

3(2)(2011),922-927.

8. Dave1, R. S., S. D. Vedia, D.G. Acha rya, G.R. Jain and M.T. Machhar. “ Water Quality

Assessment Studies with Reference to Nitrate Contamination of Modasa Taluka of

Sabarkantha District (North Gujarat) . ” Chem. Pharm. Res, 3(1)(2011),238-241.

9. Department of Water Affairs & Forestry- South Africa. “Minimum R equirements for

Waste Disposal by Landfill. ” Second Edition.

10. Diamond, J. T., and J. R. Wright. “Efficient land allocation.” J. Urban Planning Dev.

ASCE 115 (2)(1989),81 – 96.

11. Energy Information Administration. “ Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United

States Comparison of Global Warming Potentials .” The IPCC‟s Second And Third

Assessment Reports,2003.



28

12. George,Ligi, “Evaluation of the Groundwater Vulnerability of Calicut Corporation using

DRASTIC method,GIS and MODFLOW” M Tech thesis, NIT Calicut,2008 .

13. Hadjibiros,Kimon, D. Dermatas, C. S. Laspidou. “ Municipal Solid Waste Management

And Landfill Site Selection In Greece: Irrationality Versus Efficiency. ” Global NEST

Journal, Vol 13, No 2, (2011),pp 150-161.

14. “Health impacts of solid waste”, accessed in 20/9/2013, http://edugreen.teri.res.in.

15. Joy,Joone. “Estimating the Overall Cost of a Landfill .” Post graduate dissertation,NIT

Calicut, Kerala, India,2009.

16. Kao,J. J.. “ Multifactor Spati al Analysis For Landfill Siting.” Journal of Environmental

Engineering 122 (10)(1996), 902 – 908.

17. Kontos,T.D., D.P. Komilis, C. P. Halvadakis, “Siting MSW Landfills with a Spatial

Multiple Criteria Analysis Methodology. ” Waste Management , 25 (2005)818 – 832.18. Lane, N., M. William ASCE, and McDonald R Robert. “ Land Suitability Analysis:

Landfill Siting. ” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 109, (1983),50.

19. Lee, Fred G., and Anne Jones Lee. “Guidance on the Evaluation of the Potential Impacts

of a Proposed Landfill” accessed in 19/8/2013 http://www.usda.gov/rus/water .

20. Lin,H. Y. , and J. J. Kado. 1998. “A Vector-Based Spatial Model for Landfill Siting ”

Journal of Hazardous Materials 58(1998),3 – 14.

21. Ministry of the Environment and Forests, Government of India. “Management of

Municipal Solid Wastes” accessed in 19/8/2013.

http://envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/mswmhr.html.

22. Ministry of Urban Development,Government of India “Principles of Municipal Solid

Waste Management,chapter 2 and 17.” accessed in 19/8/2013. http://www.moud.gov.in.

23. Minor,S.D., and T. L. Jacobs. “ Optimal Land Allocation For Solid- And Hazardous-

Waste Landfill Siting. ” J. Environ. Eng., ASCE 1209(5 ) (1994) ,1095 – 1108.

24. Mor, S., K. Ravindra, A. D. Visscher, R. P. Dahiya, and A. Chandra. “Municipal Solid

Waste Characterization and its Assessment for Potential Methane Generation: A case

study ” Journal of Science of the Total Environment 2006, 371 (1)(2006) , 1 – 10.

25. Nidhi, S., S. N. Misra, and R. N. Shukla.2011. “Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological

Analysis of Water Quality under Different Environmental Conditions. ” J. Chem. Pharm.

Res. , , 3(2)(2011):162-167.

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water






26. Raje, D.V., P. D. Wakhare, A. W. Dishpande, and A. D. Bhide . “ An Approach to

Access Level of Satisfaction of the Residents in Relation to SWM System .” India. Journal

of Waste Management and Research 19(2001),12 – 19.

27. Siddiqui, M. Z., J. W. Everett, and B. E. Vieux. “Landfill siting using Geographic

Information Systmes: a Demonstration. ” J. Environ. Eng .,122 (6)(1996), 515-523.

28. Telkapalliwar,N. G., and B. S hende. “ Studies on Some Physico-Chemical Parameters of

Bore Wells Water in Gondpipri Region (Maharashtra). ” J. Chem. Pharm.

Res., 3(1)(2011):176-179.

29. Turkar,S. S., D. Bharti, G. S. Gaikwad. “ Various Methods Involved in Waste Water

Treatment to Control Water Pollution. ” J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 3(2)(2011):58-65.

30. Vaillancourt, K., and J. P. Waaub. “Environmental Site Evaluation of Waste

Management Facilities Embedded into EUG_EENE Model: A Multi-Criteria Approach. ” European Journal of Operational Research, 139(2002) 436-448.

31. Wright, J., C. Revelle, J. Cohon , “A Multi-Objective Integer Programming Model For the

Land Acquisition Problem. ” Regional Sci. Urban Econ .,13 (1983) 31 – 53.

32. Zamoranoa, M., E. Molero, A. Hurtado, A. Grindlay and A. Ramos. “ Evaluation of a

municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology .” Journal of

hazardous materials , 160 (2008) 473 – 481.

33. Rao, S. M., & Mamatha, P. (2004). Water quality in sustainable water

management.Current Science, 87(7), 942 – 947.

34.

2nd report 1st copy

Documents