kip to content
Your online site for school work help and homework help. Science, English, History, Civics, Art, Business, Law, Geography, all free!
Sociology & Philosophy
Law & Politics
Business & Economics
Media & Art
Online Essay Writing Services
Landfill Sites: Selection, Types, Techniques
You are here:
HomeScienceLandfill Sites: Selection, Types, Techniques
There is currently much debate on the desirability of landfilling particular wastes, the practicability of alternatives such as waste minimisation or pre-treatment, the extent of waste pre-treatment required, and of the most appropriate landfilling strategies for the final residues. This debate is likely to stimulate significant developments in landfilling methods during the next decade. Current and proposed landfill techniques are described in this information sheet.
Types of landfill
Landfill techniques are dependent upon both the type of waste and the landfill management strategy. A commonly used classification of landfills, according to waste type only, is described below, together with a classification according to landfill strategy.
The Landfill Directive recognises three main types of landfill:
Hazardous waste landfill
Municipal waste landfill
Inert waste landfill
Similar categories are used in many other parts of the world. In practice, these categories are not clear-cut. The Draft Directive
recognises variants, such as mono-disposal – where only a single waste type (which may or may not be hazardous) is deposited – and joint-disposal – where municipal and hazardous wastes may be co-deposited in order to gain benefit from municipal waste decomposition processes. The landfilling of hazardous wastes is a contentious issue and one on which there is not international consensus.
Further complications arise from the difficulty of classifying wastes accurately, particularly the distinction between ‘hazardous’/’non-hazardous’ and of ensuring that ‘inert’ wastes are genuinely inert. In practice, many wastes described as ‘inert’ undergo degradation reactions similar to those of municipal solid waste (MSW), albeit at lower rates, with consequent environmental risks from gas and leachate.
Alternatively, landfills can be categorised according to their management strategy. Four distinct strategies have evolved for the management of landfills (Hjelmar et al, 1995), their selection being dependent upon attitudes, economic factors, and geographical location, as well as the nature of the wastes. They are Total containment; Containment and collection of leachate; Controlled contaminant release and Unrestricted contaminant release.
A) Total containment
All movement of water into or out of the landfill is prevented. The wastes and hence their pollution potential will remain largely unchanged for a very long period. Total containment implies acceptance of an indefinite responsibility for the pollution risk, on behalf of future generations. This strategy is the most commonly used for nuclear wastes and hazardous wastes. It is also used in some countries for MSW and other non-hazardous but polluting wastes.
B) Containment and collection of leachate
Inflow of water is controlled but not prevented entirely, and leakage is minimised or prevented, by a low permeability basal liner and by removal of leachate. This is the most common strategy currently for MSW landfills in developed countries. The duration of a pollution risk is dependent on the rate of water flow through the wastes. Because it requires active leachate management there is currently much interest in accelerated leaching to shorten this timescale from what could be centuries to just a few decades.
C) Controlled contaminant release
The top cover and basal liner are designed and constructed to allow generation and leakage of leachate at a calculated, controlled rate. An environmental assessment is always necessary to that the impact of the emitted leachate is acceptable. No active leachate control measures are used. Such sites are only suitable in certain locations and for certain wastes. A typical example would be a landfill in a coastal location, receiving an inorganic waste such as bottom ash from MSW incineration.
D) Unrestricted contaminant release
No control is exerted over either the inflow or the outflow of water. This strategy occurs by default for MSW, in the form of dumps, in many rural locations, particularly in less developed countries. It is also in common use for inert wastes in developed countries.
Options C and D might be considered unacceptable in some European countries.
Landfill techniques may be considered under seven headings:
location and engineering
phasing and cellular infilling
waste emplacement methods
1) Location and engineering
Site specific factors determine the acceptability of a particular landfill strategy for particular wastes in any given location. In theory an engineered total containment landfill could be located anywhere for any wastes, given a high enough standard of engineering. In practice, the perceived risk of containment failure is such that many countries restrict landfills for hazardous wastes, and perhaps for MSW, to less sensitive locations such as non-aquifers and may also stipulate a minimum unsaturated depth beneath the landfill. In other cases, acceptability is dependent on the results of a risk assessment that examines the impact on groundwater quality of possible worst-case rates of leakage.
For the controlled contaminant release strategy, the characteristics of the external
What Board Game Causes the Deepest Rifts?
We all know Hasbro and those evil Parker Brothers were sadists determined to tear families apart
By The Ringer Staff Feb 23, 2018, 5:40am EST
Share this story
Share this on Facebook
Share this on Twitter
All sharing options
Getty Images/Ringer illustration
The movie Game Night tells the tale of a group of friends whose weekly game night (isn’t it nice when the title of a movie is also the entire plot of the movie?) goes off the rails when their murder-mystery game intersects with an actual murder. Sounds intense, but let’s be honest: It takes far less than an actual death for a family game night to descend into chaos. Certain board games seem designed to sow conflict, to turn brothers against brothers, mothers against daughters. To celebrate the release of Game Night, the Ringer staff submitted their picks for the board games with the most power to cause years-long strife among family members.
Claire McNear: Ostensibly, the primary goal of Parcheesi, the American twist on the Indian game Pachisi, is to get each of your four pawns all the way around the board before the other players manage to do the same with theirs.
This is incorrect. The primary goal of Parcheesi is to exploit a rule that allows a single player to force every other player to a standstill that ends only when the first player so chooses. The secondary goal is to use this to inflict as much lasting bitterness and vindictiveness on fellow players as possible. Tertiary goal: Ruin every relationship in your family.
Parcheesi was big in my home growing up. The aforementioned rule stipulates that a player who lands two pawns on the same spot on the board creates what’s called a blockade, so that no other pawn — yours or anyone else’s — can pass the blockade until that player decides to break it up. Practically, at least for us firstborns enraged that younger siblings were receiving strategic board-game assistance from parents, this meant you could get half your pawns home and then spend the rest of your time screwing over other people as your blockade forced them to forfeit turn after turn. Is it cruel? Yes. Is it delightful? Yes. Would my relationship with my little brother be at least two degrees warmer had Parcheesi not set up blockading stalemates? I leave that for you to decide.
Danny Heifetz: Monopoly is about capitalism, and capitalism is about cheating. The reason nobody ever finishes a game of Monopoly is because the only logical outcome is class warfare. In the beginning of each game, the opportunity for prosperity is intoxicating. But initial gains, largely determined by randomness, snowball into entrenched wealth disparity that spawns all-consuming, borderline-omniscient robber barons who slowly sap your desire to continue. Parents who’ve spent years sacrificing real money for their children take the time to relish in this fantasy: taking the money they spent on their kids and investing it in real estate.
Paranoia reigns. You find yourself accusing your brother of stealing $12 from the time you made change 45 minutes ago. The rule book is dissected like a Supreme Court verdict to determine how much money is rewarded for landing on Park Place. The money may be fake, but the lingering sense of distrust that lasts hours after the game ends (read: after someone flips the board in a heated rage) is very real. Most board games are about competitiveness; Monopoly is about arguing with your family about money until you give up.
The Game of Life
Andrew Gruttadaro: The Game of Life is a great game — you go around a Candy Land–like board full of real-life hallmarks, picking up marital partners and kids and money along the way. Amazing stuff happens: You get these little tiles and all of the sudden you’ve opened a successful restaurant or climbed Mount Everest. And it’s impossible to end the game with no money due to devastating student loan debt, so that’s a bonus. But the problem with The Game of Life is its basic premise: it’s the game of life, and it’s extremely easy to place outsized importance on what happens and how you do in it, as if The Game of Life is more of a predictor than a board game based on the whims of a spinner that comes detached WAY TOO OFTEN.
The game, by design, begets conflict and intrafamilial judgments. Anytime my sister would win the Nobel Peace Prize or something, the rest of us would be like, “BAHA YEAH RIGHT YOU CAN’T EVEN SPELL,” mercilessly destroying the dreams of a 12-year-old. One time, when I got married in the Game of Life, I announced to the room that my bride would be named Jill (I think I was watching a lot of Home Improvement at the time?). I got dragged for weeks. “Jill sounds like a boring, stupid wife”; “Hey, how’s your dumb ugly wife Jill?” I was 10 years old! Siblings (and honestly adult relatives) can be vicious to each other; they usually don’t need a board game to do so. The Game of Life is a can of gasoline being poured over years of resentment, deep-seated grudges, and repressed emotions.
Jordan Coley: In Uno, feelings get hurt, especially when you’re playing with your family. During the summer days of my youth, my cousins and I would often seek refuge from the muggy Connecticut heat in the basement of my aunt’s house. When the Jerry Springer reruns got old and the Xbox controller with the broken joystick became too painful to use, we turned to Uno.
During our games, no feelings were spared. No punches were pulled. We molded Uno’