Closure and Rehabilitation
Control contain the contamination in the
Closure, Rehabilitation and
Expansion of MSW Landfills
Prof. Manoj Datta
Old Waste
affected area; no further spreading
Remediation bring back site to original
condition
Closure control measures at a waste dump
including capping of waste
Rehabilitation control measures + some
remediation to reduce footprint of waste and
allow limited use of land.
Control is less costly than remediation
Old Waste
Old Waste Old Waste

Old Waste Old Waste

 Background
Each major city of India has at least one operational
dump
Immense public pressure to close/rehabilitate waste
dumps in engineered manner
Old Waste Emphasis on reducing the waste reaching landfills and
placing rejects/residue in well-designed landfills

Status: Selected Waste Dumps Status: Selected Waste Dumps

Baseline conditions of 30 operational MSW dumps from 20 cities Depth to Distance to surface water Distance to
(population > 1 million) were studied. groundwater (m) body (m) community (m)
Range % dumps Range % dumps Range % dumps
Base Area (ha) Waste height (m) Waste quantity (106 tons)
0-5 29# 0-500 39 0-500 62*
Range % dumps Range % dumps Range % dumps
5-25 46# 500-2000 23 500-2000 34
0-20 53 0-10 50 0-1 54 >25 25 >2000 38 >2000 4
20-40 23 10-20 19 1-3 13 #Amongst these, about 50% dumps are on alluvial deposits of sand and silt posing
significant threat to ground water resources.
40-60 7 20-30 12 3-5 21 *Poses significant air pollution and odour related problems.
>60 17 >30 19 >5 13
Deonar, Mumbai has largest base area of 120 ha.
Okhla in New Delhi has maximum waste height of 60m.
Thus, rehabilitation of these dumps is being accorded a high
priority in the immediate future.
 Objectives

Minimize the impact of existing waste dumps on the

environment.

Reduce incoming waste through processing and resource

recovery. Closure Alternatives

Minimize the base area of the existing dump and

accommodate reduced incoming waste in new well-
designed landfills.

Stabilize the old dumps and allow limited access,

wherever feasible.

Closure Alternatives

Waste Dump

Waste Dump
Alternative II - MSW cover

Closure Alternative I - Local soil cover Alternative III - HW Cover

 V V V V V VEG

TS
V V V V V VEG GTX
DR SA+GR
TS GTX
GTX GM
DR SA+GR CCL
GTX
GTX
CCL GC SA+GR
GTX
GC SA+GR WASTE

WASTE

Cover for HW
or
Cover for MSW Cover for MSW (with Gas Recovery (high efficiency))

Closure Alternatives Closure Alternatives

Alternative IV - HW Cover with gas recovery Alternative VI New landfill

Alternative V - HW Cover with gas recovery, cut-off wall Alternative VII - New landfill after mining and processing
and GW extraction (Rehabilitation)
 Impact of MSW on Environment and the Control
Measures
Closure Alternatives (I to VII)
High Environmental Impact Control Measures
Alternative # Remedial/ Closure Measures
(Short Name) Ground Water Contamination Highly impervious cover; vertical cut-offs,
I Re-grade top of dump, nominally re-grade side slopes and provide
(LS) local soil (LS) cover of 45 cm.
(shallow WT, pervious soil) pump-and-treat
II Re-grade top of dump, re-grade slopes, provide cover as per MSW Surface Water Contamination Highly impervious cover; interceptor drains for
(MSW) rules, compost window, passive gas vents, surface water drain and
leachate drain/pit
(near lake /water body, sloping leachate runoff on & below ground surface
III Same as II but with cover as per hazardous waste (HW) rules ( ground)
(HW) geomembrane as additional barrier)
IV Same as III + gas collection wells and flaring/ utilization/ treatment
Air Contamination (Bad Odor, Highly impervious cover; gas collection, flaring
(HW+ Gas) GHG Emissions, Fire, Smoke) / treatment, utilization, methane oxidation
V Same as IV + vertical cut off wall and ground water extraction wells
(HW+Gas+GW) with treatment
(within cities, near communities)
VI Excavate and place in new lined landfill (in same /adjacent/local Litter, Pests, Rodents, Birds Daily soil cover with final cover of local soil
(New MSW) area) as per MSW rules, provide compost window and passive gas
vents
(within cities, near communities)
VII Excavate and process the waste to recover resources and place as in Slope Instability Re-grading and flattening of waste slopes
(Mine+New MSW) G.
(steep slopes, dwellings at base)
Aesthetics (high & large dump) Vegetative cover

RELATIVE IMPACT OF THE WASTE DUMPS ON THE

NEIGHBOURING ENVIRONMENT RELATIVE RANKING: SURFACE WATER

RELATIVE RANKING: GROUND WATER

1000

SW Contamination Score
1000 900

900 800
GW Contamination Score

800 700
700 600
600 500
500 400
400 300
300 200
200 100
100
0
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L
A B C D E F G H I J K L
Waste Dumps

0 to 250 low relative hazard; 250 to 500 medium relative hazard; 0 to 250 low relative hazard; 250 to 500 medium relative hazard;
500 to 1000 high relative hazard 500 to 1000 high relative hazard
 REHABILITATION OPTIONS
RELATIVE RANKING: AIR
Alternative Remedial Measures
I Local soil cover Re-grade top of dump, nominally re-grade slopes and provide
1000
local soil cover of 45 cm with surface water drain and leachate
Air Contamination Score

900
drain/pit.
800
700 II MSW Cover Re-grade top of dump, re-grade slopes, provide cover as per
600 MSW rules, compost window (for methane oxidation), passive
500 gas vents, surface water drain and leachate drain/pit.
400 III HW Cover: Same as Option II, but with cover as per hazardous waste rules
300 by including geomembrane as additional barrier.
200
IV HW Cover with Same as Option III, with gas collection wells and
100
gas recovery treatment/flaring/ utilization of landfill gas.
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L V HW Cover with Same as Option IV, with vertical cut off walls and ground
gas recovery and water extraction wells for treatment and injection.
Waste Dump
GW Extraction
VI Excavating the whole waste and putting it into a new
engineered landfill
0 to 250 low relative hazard; 250 to 500 medium relative hazard; VII Mining and processing the whole waste and placing
500 to 1000 high relative hazard rejects/residue in a smaller new engineered landfill

Application of Rehabilitation Options

Dump A
Dump C
Option I: Local soil cover
Option II: MSW cover
Geomembrane
Treatment/
Flaring/ Heating/
Gas
Dump H WTE
Collection
Expansion Alternatives
Option III: HW Cover Dump I

Gas Recovery Pump & Treat Option IV: HW Cover with gas recovery
Treatment
Cover

Dump L Liner
Landfill
Cut-off walls MSW on fractured rock

Option V: HW Cover with gas recovery Option VI: New landfill with liner and
and GW Extraction cover
 ENHANCEMENT OF CAPACITY OF EXISTING WASTE DUMPS/LANDFILLS ENHANCEMENT OF CAPACITY OF EXISTING WASTE DUMPS/LANDFILLS

Maximum capacity

15
30 m
Old Waste
300 500 m Containment of Fresh waste in
existing waste new landfill
Existing dump and maximum capacity of site
after relocation

Alternative B: Containment of existing waste after relocation to reduce base area;

Fresh waste in fresh waste in larger new landfill
Containment of Existing Waste new landfill

Alternative A: Containment of existing waste; fresh waste in new landfill

ENHANCEMENT OF CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT OF CAPACITY

Piggybacking:
Very expensive, low reliability, not recommended

Leaning on side slope of closed

dump (settles with time) Rests on cover of closed dump (settles with time)

Containment of
existing waste
after relocation Fresh waste in new landfill Fresh waste
Containment of Existing Waste

Alternative D: Containment of existing waste after relocation; fresh waste in

Alternative C: Containment of existing waste after relocation; fresh waste in larger
larger new landfill resting on top of cover of closed dump
new landfill leaning on side-slope of old dump
ENHANCEMENT OF CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT OF CAPACITY

Energy
Compost
Building materials / others
Fresh waste in expanded new landfill
Existing waste Rejects of fresh waste in
in new landfill expanded new landfill
Rejects of existing
Mining of waste
waste in new landfill
Alternative E: Existing waste relocated to new landfill; fresh waste in expanded
new landfill
Alternative F: Resource recovery from existing waste by mining and processing;
rejects/residue of existing waste as well as of fresh waste in new landfill

Gorai Landfill
 The Problem

Closure of waste dump with gas recovery

Existing slope
Cover A Cover B

Waste

PROJECT : GORAI DUMPING GROUND AS ON AUG. 2009

Deonar Landfill
 N

Conceptual 3D model of Deonar site

 Slurry Disposal on Land
Thank You
Prof. Manoj Datta

Coal Ash Slurry

Mine Tailings Slurry

Others

Slurry Deposition Of Ash Through Pipelines

 Seggregation Of Ash Due To Hydraulic Deposition
Decanted Slurry Water On Downstream Side Of Embankment

Vertical Cut In Ash Pond Showing Layers Of Seggregated Ash Ash Pond Filled With Ash
Raising Dyke Height by Downstream Method Using Pond Ash Pond Ash Being Compacted Using Vibratory Roller
 Well Established Self-Generative Vegetative Growth on Tailings
A View Of Tailings Dam

Iron Ore Tailings (Slurry)

Ash Being Deposited Using Mobile Conveyor System
And Boom Spreader Rain Water Erosion Of Exposed Material
 Disposal of Slurry Waste
in Ponds & Impoundments
and
Dry Waste in Mounds

Prof. Manoj Datta

Surface Runoff During Rains

Slurry Wastes Ponds or Impoundments

Coal Ash, Mine Tailings, Marble Dust others Containment structures made by constructing
Particle size predominantly silt sized or fine sand embankments to prevent slurry from flowing
sized: silty sand or sandy silt away
Easy to pump in the form of slurry through Have a slurry inflow arrangement and a
pipelines when mixed with water decanting arrangement
Can be transported for several kilometers Large enough to allow adequate retention time
through pipelines and discharged in a pond
for deposition of solids
Solid particles settle in pond and the water is
decanted
Can also be transported in dry / moist form in
trucks or on conveyor belts.
 Objective

Maximize storage / disposal on a given area of

land with minimal impact on environment.

Disposal Options

(a) low-lying area

(b) flat ground
(c) sloping ground
(d) valley

Design Requirements Alternate Systems

Three phases:
- operational, closure, post closure - LCSD in ponds

Requirements:
- waste placement - MCSD in ponds
- physical stability
- environmental safety - HCSD in ponds / mounds
- surface water management
- water treatment and recirculation
- Dry disposal in mounds
- liner and / or base drainage
- environmental and geotechnical
monitoring
- closure and post closure plan
Lean and Medium Concentration
Slurry Disposal

(Solids Concentration: 10 to 50%)

High Concentration Slurry Disposal

(Solids concentration: 60% or above)

 Dry Disposal

(Dry or moist ash / tailings)


Table 1: Height of Ash Deposit
Ash Production
Land Area
Land area for Green Belt,
Infrastructure etc.
Land Area for Ash Deposition
Maximise Storage Capacity
- Increase in placement density
- Increase in height
- Increase in steepness of side slopes
= 5 ton per MW per day (approximate)
= 1.0 to 1.5 acres per MW
4.05 to 6.08 103 sq m per MW
= 15%
= 85%
 Geotechnical Properties of
Coal Ash & Mine Tailings
Thank You
Prof. Manoj Datta

Combustion of coal in the frame of

lithosphere, atmosphere and biosphere

Coal Ash
(Coal Combustion Residuals)
 Basic definitions
Bottom Ash: This refers to the ash collected
from the bottom of a furnace, after being ground
in a clinker grinder unit.
Flyash: This refers to the ash collected from
hoppers beneath ESPs; it usually refers to a
mixture of ash collected from ESP hoppers of all
fields.
Flyash from Field X: This refers to ash
collected from hopper beneath ESP of particular
field X from amongst a series of sequential
hoppers. ( X may vary from 1 to 6).
Basic definitions
Chimney Ash: This term is synonymous to
flyash.
Boiler Ash: This term is synonymous to
bottom ash.
Coal Ash: This term encompasses all terms
listed above.
Mound Ash: Flyash conveyed in dry form
and deposited dry in mounds.
Basic definitions
Pond Ash: This refers to the ash stored in ash
ponds by the hydraulic fill method. Usually it is a
mixture of bottom ash and flyash at most
thermal power plants in India.
Coarse Pond Ash or Pond Ash at Inflow
Point: This refers to the coarse fraction of pond
ash usually encountered at the inflow point in an
ash pond where the slurry from the pipeline is
received.
Fine Pond Ash or Pond Ash at Outflow Point:
This refers to the fine fraction of pond ash
usually encountered near the outflow point
(decant pond zone) in an ash pond where clear
water is decanted.
The ash as-produced by a thermal power
station at the end of the combustion process
exists as individual constituents, namely bottom
ash and flyash from different fields of ESPs.
However, the ash as stored by a thermal power
station after collection, handling, transportation
and disposal usually exists in a mixed form.
 As the system of ash disposal changes from the Distribution of Fly ash in Different Fields of
wet disposal system (at present) to the dry ESP
disposal system (in the future), there is greater
likelihood of as produced ash being stored Fields Percentage
without mixing of its individual constituents. Field 1 30
Field 2 25
In such an eventuality, as-stored ash will be Field 3 15
more akin to as-produced ash.
Field 4 15
Field 5 7.5
In some ash ponds, flyash and bottom ash are
Field 6 7.5
being stored in separate ponds.

Bottom Ash : Flyash = 20 : 80

Spatial Variation of Ash in Ash Ponds

Grain size sorting occurs laterally and grain size
layering occurs vertically during the deposition.
Near the inflow point, the pond ash is predominantly
coarse with a few lenses of fine material.
As one moves away, the layering becomes Shape of Particles
predominantly in the middle region.
When one approaches the decant pond zone, the
ash is primarily fine with a few lenses of coarse
material.
Pond ash, near the outflow point is more close to
flyash.
Very fine particles of flyash are usually carried away
by the decant water.
Bottom Ash Particles Pond Ash Particles

Fly Ash Particles Grain Size Distribution

Flyash is predominantly silt sized.

Bottom ash is predominantly sand sized.

 Average Grain Size Distribution Curves of
Grain Size Distribution Curves of Ashes
Different Ashes

POND ASH

FLY ASH
BOTTOM ASH

Grain Size Distributions of Ashes at Different Grain Size Distributions of Ashes at Different
Places Places
Location Ash Gravel Sand Silt Clay
Location Ash Gravel Sand Silt Clay
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Pond Pond
0 88 12 (Inflow Pt.)
(Inflow Pt.) 0 3.5 71.8 23.8 0.9
Indraprastha
Pond
0 25 75 0
(Outflow Pt.) Ramagundam Pond
(Outflow 0 22.6 75.4 2.0
Pond Pt.)
0 68 32 0
(Inflow Pt.) Bottom ash 0 81.8 18.2 0
Korba
Pond Fly ash
0 70 30 0 0 6.3 91.7 2.0
(Outflow Pt.)
 Grain Size Distributions of Ashes at Different
Specific Gravity
Places
Location Ash Gravel Sand Silt Clay
The specific gravity of most of the ashes are
(%) (%) (%) (%)
considerably less than that for soils (average
Fly Ash 2.65 for soils)
Vijaywada 0 4 89 7
Therefore ash fills tend to result in less dry
Pond densities than those constructed of natural soils.
0 10 90 This does not mean that they are loose or weak
Badarpur in strength.
Bottom ash 1 79 20
Flyash 6
0 94

Specific Gravity of Ashes at Different

Locations Plasticity
Specific Gravity
Pond Ash Pond Ash
Location Bottom Coal ash is non-plastic in nature.
Flyash (Inflow (Outflow
Ash
Point) Point)
Indraprastha - - 2.30-2.50 1.84-2.0
Korba 1.84 1.85 1.73 1.75
Ramagundam 2.28 1.85 2.22 2.13
Vijaywada - 2.03 - -
Badarpur 2.22 2.24 2.22
CESC 2.09 2.16 - -
 Geotechnical Properties of
Thank you Coal Ash & Mine Tailings

Prof. Manoj Datta

Combustion of coal in the frame of

lithosphere, atmosphere and biosphere

Coal Ash
(Coal Combustion Residuals)
 Average Grain Size Distribution Curves of Specific Gravity of Ashes at Different
Different Ashes Locations
Specific Gravity
Location Pond Ash Pond Ash
Bottom
POND ASH Flyash (Inflow (Outflow
Ash
Point) Point)
FLY ASH
BOTTOM ASH
Indraprastha - - 2.30-2.50 1.84-2.0
Korba 1.84 1.85 1.73 1.75
Ramagundam 2.28 1.85 2.22 2.13
Vijaywada - 2.03 - -
Badarpur 2.22 2.24 2.22
CESC 2.09 2.16 - -

Plasticity Chemical Constituents

Major Constituents of Fly Ash ( 95%)

Coal ash is non-plastic in nature. Oxides of Silicon Aluminum
Iron Calcium
Magnesium
Minor Constituents of Fly Ash
Oxides of Titanium Sodium
Potassium Sulphur
Phosphorus Manganese
Trace Elements (Toxic in Nature)
 Compaction Characteristics
Chemical Composition of Indian Fly Ash
The density of pond ash can be increased by the
SiO2 55.5 68.1% process of compaction
Al2O3 16.1 32.4% The density of flyash and pond ash shows
Fe2O3 2.2 10.2% dependence on water content in the Standard
CaO 0.1 3.1% Proctor Test.
MgO 0.3 1.2% Maximum Dry Densities in the range of 0.98 to
SO3 Traces 1.1% 1.35 g/cc and optimum moisture content in the
Alkalies Traces 2.6% range of 24 to 41 percent are observed.
% Loss on Ignition 0.5 -11.8% Bottom ash and pond ash (at inflow point) have
significant sand content and respond favorably
(Silica is amorphous; quartz less than 10%) to vibratory compaction.

1.7

1.6 Compaction Characteristics from Standard

Proctor Test
1.5 _______Maximum Density
Bottom Ash (Vibratory) Max. dry Optimum
------------Maximum Density
1.4
FLY ASH Pond Ash (Vibratory) Location Ash density moisture
Maximum Dry Density, g/cc

1.3
(g/cc) content (%)
Indraprastha Pond Ash
(Outflow Point) 1.15 32.4
1.2
Pond Ash
1.1 (Inflow point) 1.08 36.0
POND ASH Korba Pond Ash
1.0 (Outflow Point) 1.02 39.5
Pond Ash
0.9 BOTTOM ASH (Inflow point) 1.33 23.0
Ramagundam Pond Ash
0.8 (Outflow Point) 1.26 26.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Fly Ash 1.36 23.0
Moisture Content (%)
 Compaction Characteristics from Standard Relative Density Test
Proctor Test Minimum & Maximum Dry Densities, g/cc
Max. dry Optimum
Ash Indraprast Ramagun
Location Ash density moisture Rajghat Dadri
Type ha dam
(g/cc) content (%)
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Vijaywada Fly Ash 1.00 40.8
Pond Ash 1.10 31.5 Fly Ash 0.74 1.06 0.79 1.38 0.65 1.15 1.59
Badarpur Bottom Ash 1.11 28.0
Bottom
Fly Ash 1.09 27.5 1.12 1.50 0.73 1.22 0.77 1.01 0.99 1.19
ash
Bottom Ash 0.94 43
CESC Pond
Fly Ash 1.12 30 1.18 1.51 0.93 1.22
Ash

Permeability Coefficient of Permeability

The permeability of compacted coal ash lies in

Ash Type Permeability (cm/sec)
the range normally associated with fine sands
and silts.
Flyash 10-5 to 10-6

Bottom ash has higher permeability coefficient in Pond Ash (Inflow Point) 10-3 to10-4
comparison to flyash.
Pond Ash (Outflow point) 10-4 to10-5

Bottom Ash 10-2 to 10-4

 Compressibility Compressibility Parameters
Compacted ash exhibits low compressibility.

The compression index of ash is governed Compression

by its initial density or void ratio. Condition Void Ratio
Index, Cc
Medium dense to very
Bottom ash and pond ash (at Inflow point) 0.3 to 1.0 0.10 to 0.22
dense (compacted)
show much lower values in comparison to
flyash and pond ash (at outflow point).
Loose (hydraulic fill in
1.0 to 2.0 0.22 to 0.40
ponds)

Shear Strength Parameters Shear Stress vs Shear Displacement

Pond ash rarely exhibits significant self-hardening
properties; this is on account of removal of salts as well
as fine particles by the decant water. When fully
saturated, pond ash shows behavior akin to coarse
grained soils and it is mainly frictional in nature.

Pond ash may exhibit cohesion in its partially saturated

state due to surface tension of capillary water. This
cohesion is lost in the saturated state. For the purpose
of design, saturated values are usually used for long-
term conditions.

Flyash exhibits self hardening properties. The rate of

self hardening will depend on chemical and
mineralogical characteristics.

Coarse ash (dense)

 Shear Stress vs Shear Displacement
Volumetric Strain Vs Shear Displacement

n kg/cm2 n

Coarse ash (dense) Coarse ash (loose)

Volumetric Strain vs Shear Displacement Shear Stress vs Shear Displacement

n kg/cm2

Fine ash ( dense)

Coarse ash (loose)
Volumetric Strain vs Shear Displacement Shear Stress vs Shear Displacement

n
n

Fine ash (dense)

Volumetric Strain Vs Shear Displacement Shear Strength Parameters of Saturated Ash

Ash Type c (kg/cm2) (degrees)

Pond Ash (Outflow Point) 0 25 to 35

n
Pond Ash ( Inflow Point) 0 32 to 40

Bottom Ash 0 38 to 42

Fine Ash (Loose)

 Fly Ash Disposal Site

Field Studies

Location of Bore Holes

FLOW
OUT

INFLOW
Bore Log of Bore Holes No. 1 to 8 Depth wise Water Content Variation

Spatial Variation of Ash in Ash Pond Grain Size Distribution Curves

 Specific Gravity

Tailing Material Specific Gravity

Properties
Cu-ore 2.66
of
Zn-ore (Z) 2.79
Tailings Material
Zn-ore (R) 2.77
Al-ore 2.62
Fe-ore 4.34

Grain Size Distribution Minimum Density

Dry Dry density by underwater
Tailing Material % Sand % Silt % Clay density by sedimentation (g/cc)
Tailings
Size Size Size drying
material pouring S=9.4 S=17.5
Cu-ore 66.0 34.0 0 % %
S=31.5%
(g/cc)
Zn-ore (Z) 83.5 16.5 0 Cu-ore 1.63 1.43 1.43 1.43
Zn-ore (R) 82.5 17.5 0 Zn- ore (Z) 1.60 1.33 1.33 1.33

Al-ore 62.0 34.5 3.5 Zn-ore (R) 1.56 1.25 1.25 1.29
Al-ore 1.32 1.11 1.11 1.21
Fe-ore 82.0 18.0 0
Fe-ore 2.55 - 2.11 2.22
S= Solid Content (100x weight of solids/weight of slurry)
 Maximum Density
Permeability of Tailings
Standard Proctor Test Vibratory
Test Coefficient of
Relative Permeability
Tailing material Optimum Maximum Tailing material
Maximum moisture density
dry (cm/sec)
dry density content density
g/cc % g/cc
Cu-ore 80 4.1x10-4
Cu-ore 1.97 6.8 1.99 Zn-ore (Zawar) 80 1.8x10-4
Zn-ore (Zawar) 1.89 11.6 1.99
Zn-ore (Rajpura)
Zn ore (Rajpura) 80 1.9x10-4
1.83 10.1 1.88
Al-ore 80 1.8x10-6
Al-ore 1.92 11.2 1.91
Fe-ore 2.87 9.9 2.95 Fe-ore 80 2.2x10-5

Strength Parameters
Standard Proctor Test By dry pouring
c c
Tailing Material Initial
relative (kpa) Initial
relative (kpa)
Density (degree) density (degree)

Cu-ore 80 0 33.5 15 0 33.0 Thank you

Zn-ore (Zawar) 80 0 33.0 11 0 27.0
Znore (Rajpura) 85 0 32.0 18 0 26.0
Al-ore 85 0 30.5 16 0 25.0
Fe-ore89 80 0 38.5 25 0 32.0
 Slurry Ponds
(a) Water Retention Type Dams
(b) Incrementally Raised Embankments: Upstream Method,
Downstream Method, Centreline Method
Planning & Design of (c) Siting & Layout of Ponds
Slurry Ponds (d) Water Balance in Ponds & Location of Phreatic Line
(e) Stability Analysis
Prof. Manoj Datta (f) Sedimentation in a Pond
(g) Decanting of Ponded Water
Dry Mounds
(a) Design Aspects
(b) Ash Placement

Slurry Ponds Water Retention Type Embankments

Water-retention type dams for slurry disposal are constructed to their
Slurry ponds are surface impoundments formed
full height prior to the beginning of discharge into the impoundment.
by construction of embankments and related
structures. Typical internal zoning includes an impervious core, shell, drainage
zones, toe, appropriate filters and upstream rip rap.
Two types of embankments are used : Water-
retention type dams and raised embankments.
 Staged or Incrementally Raised Embankments
Staged embankments differ from conventional water-retention type
dams in that construction of the embankment is staged over the life of
the impoundment.
Staged embankments begin initially with a starter embankment (or
dyke), constructed usually of natural soil, and sized to impound the
initial two to three years slurry output.
Subsequent stages of the embankment are scheduled to keep pace
with the rising elevation of the ash / tailings.
Embankment stages may be constructed using soil or ash or tailings.
Three methods of raising are used: (a) Upstream method, (b)
Downstream method, (c) Centreline method. Upstream raising method

Downstream raising method Centreline raising method


Raising an embankment in stages four methods
Upstream versus Downstream Method
Downstream Method :
Large quantity of material
High cost
Slow construction
Stable against earthquakes
Better internal drainage
Space must be available on the downstream
side of the starter dyke
Less liner area
Upstream versus Downstream Method
Upstream Method :
Low quantity of material
Low cost
Simple
Rapid
Dry surface required for construction
Coarse fraction required for stability
Prone to instability under earthquake loading
due to liquefaction.
Layout
Depending upon the siting considerations, different types of
layouts are adopted:
(a) Ring impoundments
(b) Side-hill impoundments
(c) Cross-Valley impoundments
The impoundment can be segmented with each segment
constructed sequentially as the previous segment is filled with
ash.
Segment-type impoundments require greater embankment fill
volumes.
 Table 1 : Factors Influencing Impoundment Siting

Ash pond layout

Water Balance Water Balance

Excess of inflows over outflows causes accumulation of water in
The accumulation of water in an slurry pond is dependent on the
the impoundment.
balance between inflows and outflows.
Ring-dyke impoundments do not receive water from areas
The inflows consist of (a) slurry water; (b) direct precipitation on
outside the impoundment.
the impoundment area; (c) additional run on derived from
catchment areas external to the impoundment (if any). Side-hill and cross-valley impoundments both receive water from
catchment areas which may cause significant water
The outflows consist of (a) direct discharge; (b) recirculation
accumulation, unless diversion arrangements exist.
discharge; (c) evaporation; (d) seepage and (e) entrainment in
voids.
In a steady state situation inflows and outflows are equal.
 Phreatic Line

The location of the ponded water with respect to the embankment

crest is one of the most important factors influencing the location
of phreatic surface. For the low-pond condition, the phreatic
surface may not affect the embankment stability but at the high-
pond condition it may have a strong influence.
As the height of an slurry pond increases, the thickness of the
slurry deposit increases and this can cause the phreatic surface to
vary.
The permeability variation of the ash deposit within the pond also
influences the phreatic line.
Arrangement for handling flood flows

Influence of deposit height and ponded water level on

phreatic line
Location of phreatic line in embankments raised by the
upstream and the downstream methods
 Stability Analysis
The stability analyses correspond to various critical loading
conditions
(a) End of construction for each stage and final height
(b) Long-term steady seepage
(c) Rapid drawdown for each stage
For raised embankments, construction occurs over the entire
embankment life, seepage surfaces rise along with the level of
impounded ash, and when construction truly ends the embankment is
abandoned.
Prediction of the phreatic surface location is important; a high
phreatic surface reduces stability.
Long-term analysis with full impounded level using effective stress
strength parameters is usually critical. Critical Failure Surface for Different Methods of Construction

Typical cross-sections of embankments raised by the
upstream and the downstream methods using ash or tailings
Seismic Stability
Hydraulically deposited loose saturated material is prone to
liquefaction due to build up of pore water pressure under earthquake
loading. The stability of embankments constructed by the upstream
method has to be checked for seismic loading.
Pseudo-static methods have long been customary, and they remain
the workhorse for seismic stability analysis in cases where cyclic
liquefaction or major pore pressure buildup is not anticipated.
Simplified liquefaction analyses of the form proposed by Seed and
Idriss (1971) and Seed et al. (1983), have been applied to upstream
embankments.
Location of phreatic surface is critical for stability.
 Sedimentation in Slurry Ponds

The plan area of a slurry pond is governed by the fact that the
smallest particle should have adequate time to settle down in the
ponded area.
In an ideal rectangular sedimentation pond, the critical particle
diameter (dmin) for design will be one that enters at the top of the
setting zone, at point A, and settles with a velocity just sufficient to
reach the ash zone at the outlet end of the tank, at the point B.
The velocity components of such a particle are Vh in horizontal
direction and Vp, terminal settling velocity in the vertical direction.

Sedimentation in an idealised ash pond

Sedimentation
The time required for settling of the critical particle is :

But , therefore, or

Q/A is called the surface loading rate or the overflow rate. It is

the fundamental parameter governing the sedimentation pond
performance.
The design of the ash pond for a given flow rate, Q, involves the
selection of a critical particle diameter and the surface loading
rate, Q/A. Knowing the particle diameter, Vp can be calculated
and then using the above relations we can obtain Q/A and pond
surface area. The surface loading rate should be multiplied by a
suitable safety factor, typically 1.7 to 2.5. Components of a pond
 Multipoint Discharge
It has been experienced that more material gets deposited near the
discharge point only.
To overcome this problem multi-point discharge of slurry into the
pond is used by garlanding the lagoons with ash pipe lines and
providing discharge points at intervals all round the perimeter of the
dykes. A minimum distance between inflow point and outflow point
is maintained.
Incrementally Raised Embankments
Thank you
Decantation of Ponded Water
Pumps or siphons mounted on floating barges are often used for
decanting of ponded water.
Also used are decant (water escape) towers, vertical concrete
risers with intake ports that extend from the bottom of the
impoundment upward through the ash deposit.
Overflow weirs have been sometimes adopted in the past.
At NTPC ash-ponds, water is disposed out of the ash pond through
the water escape tower (decant towers). The top level of water
escape tower is kept atleast 1.5 metre below the dyke top in each
phase. The water is allowed to spill over the periphery of the water
escape tower and the spilling level is adjustable with precast slabs
inserted in grooves of the water escape tower.
Stability of
Prof. Manoj Datta, IIT Delhi
 Decantation of Ponded Water
Pumps or siphons mounted on floating barges are often used for
decanting of ponded water.
Also used are decant (water escape) towers, vertical concrete
risers with intake ports that extend from the bottom of the
impoundment upward through the ash deposit.
Overflow weirs have been sometimes adopted in the past.
At NTPC ash-ponds, water is disposed out of the ash pond
through the water escape tower (decant towers). The top level of
water escape tower is kept atleast 1.5 metre below the dyke top in
each phase. The water is allowed to spill over the periphery of the
water escape tower and the spilling level is adjustable with precast
slabs inserted in grooves of the water escape tower.
Removing water from pond by decant tower and by barge

Water Escape Structure-Cross Section

Two arrangements of inflow and outflow
Water escape structure used by NTPC
(Bopanna et al, 1996)
 Decant Tower versus Floating Barge

Decant towers :
Are fixed in position
Need regular adjustment of port openings
Require a conduit through the embankment
(can be problematic)
Decant barges :
Are flexible, can be moved
No conduit
Water Escape Structure - Plan
Require pumping, thus electric power
Overflow Weirs :
Usually not feasible with raised embankment
construction because incremental raising is
BACKGROUND

- Incremental raising of dykes is undertaken by three

Filter Embankment methods of construction, namely, upstream method,
Fine Coarse
(Conceptual) downstream method and the centreline method.
Sand Sand - Dykes constructed by the last two methods can be
Gravel
designed with stable slopes because the failure
Cobbles
surface passes through well-compacted strong
Ash Water
material.
- However, the upstream method usually requires
Protective porous layer
considerable caution during design and construction
since each incremental stage of a dyke is placed on
slurry-deposited loose material, which does not have
good strength characteristics and the critical failure
surface passes through this loose deposit.
 In India, the heights of most dykes are being
increased by the upstream method of
construction because land is usually not
available on the downstream side of the starter
dyke as required in both other methods. In
addition, the upstream method of construction is
more economical as compared with the other
methods.

Methods of Construction of Ash Dykes and

Failure Surfaces

The standard equation for infinite slope failure in

cohesionless soils:
tan '
F .O.S
tan
where = angle of internal friction, and
= slope angle measured from the
horizontal.

In case of flow parallel to slopes:

b tan '
Infinite Slope Finite Slope F .O.S
t tan
Stability Analyses
 Pond fills in 20 years 4
3
2
1
20th Year

Upstream Method of Construction

1st Year

4
4 3
3
2
1 2
1
Conventional staged construction Downstream Method of Construction

Phreatic line in upstream method with vertical drains Phreatic line in downstream method
 FOS1 FOS2

FOS1
Thank you
FOS3

tan ' b tan '

F .O.S1 F .O.S2
tan t tan
FOS1>FOS>FOS2

Pond fills in 20 years

Stability of

20th Year
Incrementally Raised Embankments
1st Year

4
Prof. Manoj Datta, IIT Delhi 3
2
1

Conventional staged construction

 Phreatic line in upstream method with vertical drains

Methods of Construction of Ash Dykes and

Failure Surfaces

The standard equation for infinite slope failure in

cohesionless soils:
tan '
F .O.S
tan
where = angle of internal friction, and
= slope angle measured from the
horizontal.

In case of flow parallel to slopes:

b tan '
F .O.S
Phreatic line in downstream method t tan
 FOS1
An Example
FOS2
A 20m high embankment constructed by the
upstream method using ash as construction
material and having a constant outer slope of 3
(horizontal) : 1 (vertical) was analysed for stability
of slope for the following conditions:
FOS1 Variable position of phreatic surface high,
FOS3 medium and low
Variable seismicity horizontal seismic
coefficient of 0, 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15.
tan ' b tan ' Variable compaction not compacted (loose),
F .O.S1 F .O.S2
tan t tan well compacted (dense).
Variable internal drainage no drainage,
FOS1>FOS>FOS2 chimney drain, deep horizontal drains.

The material properties of the ash used in the

analysis are listed in Table 1(Datta et. al. (1996),
Sridharan et. Al. (1996)).

Table 1: Ash Properties Used In Analysis

Typical Section of Slope Chosen for Analysis

 Variations in Phreatic Line and Seismicity

Table 2 shows how the factor of safety changes

as the location of the phreatic line changes from
low to highfor ash dyke made of loose ash and
Typical Results with no internal drains.

Table 3: Influence of Seismicity

Table 2: Influence of Location of Phreatic Line

For the case of low phreatic line the critical

factor of safety is observed to be 1.60 and the
When the phreatic line is at a medium level,
slope is stable. This drops to 0.71 for high
increase in causes the factor of safety to drop
phreatic line.
well below unity indicating unstable slope.
 Table 4: Influence of Compaction INFLUENCE OF INTERNAL DRAINS

Variations in Compaction and Internal Drains

Presence of Internal drains helps intercept seepage

water and lower the phreatic line. Table 5 presents the
results of the analysis for the cases when phreatic line is
high and = 0 as well as = 0.1. One notes from the
Table that there is substantial improvement in the factor
of safety when internal drains are provided.

Observations
Table 5: Influence of Internal Drains
The stability of dykes is affected significantly by the
location of the phreatic surface as well as by the
magnitude of the seismic coefficient.
The safety factor for slopes having gradients of 3
(hor) : 1 (ver) can fall below 1.0, under seismic
loading when the phreatic surface is high.
Provision of internal drains, which lower the phreatic
surface and prevent it from reaching the outer slope,
are found to be effective in keeping the slopes stable.
Provision of internal drains is observed to be
Proper compaction of dykes helps increases the
effective in lowering the phreatic surface and
safety factor, but internal drainage is observed to
raising the factor of safety.
more critical for slope stability than degree of
compaction.
 Location of Decantation Well

Typical cross-section of ash dykes

Partition Dyke
Slurry Pond

Peripheral Dykes (Embankments) in Plan Partitioned Slurry Pond

Decantation Wells near Peripheral Embankment Slurry Inflow

Coarse Ash / Tailings

Fine Ash / Tailings

Ponded water

Ponded Water near Decantation Wells Unequal Upstream Raising of Dykes

Unequal Upstream Raising of Dykes Peripheral Dykes (Embankments) in Plan
(re-location of decantation well)

Partitioned Slurry Pond Decantation Wells near Partition Dyke

 Coarse Ash / Tailings

Coarse Ash / Tailings

Uniform Slurry Inflow Ponded Water near centre of Slurry Pond

Symetrical Upstream Raising of Dykes

Symetrical Upstream Raising of Dykes
(dykes founded on coarse ash / tailings)
 Unlined Slurry Pond

Influence of Liner on Stability Peripheral Embankment

Slurry Pond

Raising by Upstream method

Drainage of Slurry Water
after Drying / Drainage of Pond

Through Dyke
Towards Well
Into the Sub- Soil
 Unlined Pond Liner on Base and U/S Slope

Liner Prevents / Delays Drainage of Water

Construction by Upstream Method is Complex
- leads to a Bath Tub effect

Towards Well
No Infiltration into Subsoil
and no seepage through Dyke
Soft, saturated foundation
 Seepage through Toe of First Raising Design for Rapid Drainage of Pond

Blanket Drain Mound Drain

desirable at base desirable through dyke

Design for Rapid Drainage of Pond Upstream Raising

Phreatic Line well away from D/S face

Blanket Drain Mound Drain

desirable at base desirable through dyke
Drain
and U/S slope instead of pipe Liner overlain by blanket drain

Coarse Gravel
Geotextile Ash Tailings Liner along Base of Pond and Base of Starter Dyke
Sand
Sand (30cm) Fine
(Geomembrane 1.5mm) Sand
 Concluding Remarks

Control of phreatic line continues to remain the

single most important aspect affecting stability of
slurry ponds
Thank you
Design and construction of filters, drains, rock
toe and berms should be done carefully at all
critical locations.

Remedial Measures

for Slope Failures in Causes of Slope Failures

Embankments / Dykes of Slurry Ponds - Absence of internal drain

- Clogging of internal drain

Prof. Manoj Datta

 Chimney drain
D/S portion is dry
Blanket Drain
Rock Toe

Phreatic Line

Internal Drainage System Interception of Phreatic Line By Internal Drainage System

(vertical chimney drain) (FOS same as dry case ~ 3.2)

Phreatic Line well away from D/S face

Peripheral Embankment
Slurry Pond

Upstream Raising Starter Dyke

 Location of Phreatic Line

Phreatic Line
High; sometimes
Ash + Water

Low; most often

Development of Phreatic Line

Stability of Starter Dyke

Stability of Starter Dyke (without seepage)
FOS = 3.27 (with seepage, low phreatic line)
FOS = 1.82
 Stability of Starter Dyke
(with seepage, high phreatic line)
FOS = 1.11

Low Stability of D/S Slope

FOS = 1.11

Stability of Starter Dyke after Strengthening

Strengthening / Remedial Measures (with seepage, high phreatic line)
FOS = 1.62

Berm

Internal Drainage System

 Details of strengthening measures Detail A: Rock Toe

ROAD
3M
VEGETATION RL 282

3.0m
COMPACTED RL 275 1
ASH
LOCAL SOIL 2.0
STARTER DYKE
2.0 SIDE DRAIN ON SLOPE
H

SIDE DRAIN 1 AT 100M SPACING 1

ROCK TOE 0.15 THK. GRAVEL
5M

AS PER DETAIL-'A' 2.5

0.15 THK. SAND
0.15 THK. SAND
0.75

RL 270.5
1
1
TOE DRAIN 2.0H 3M 2.5H
MASONRY LINED

'C'

Upstream Raising After Strengthening Measures

Details of rock toe of raised dyke

Details of toe drain and rock toe for starter dyke

 Stability of Raised Dyke
(with seepage, high phreatic line)
FOS = 1.55
Case A
Embankment breached
Slurry flows out
Pond cannot be closed for long period

Original Embankment Cross-Section Typical Profile of Slope After Failure

 Toe-Berm Loading for Stabilisation of slope Alternative Sections for Crest Location-Cases A, B and C

Final Embankment Section with Critical Slip Surface Elements of Final Embankment
 Case B
Embankment sloughed in small portions in
the past
Just stable
Seepage through wet toe

Unstable Slope and Proposed Components of Strengthening

Measures

Sand Drains (filter criteria to be checked) Rock Toe and Toe Drain
 Filter Criteria

d15 (coarse) / d15 (fine) > 5

d15 (coarse) / d85 (fine) < 5

Fig. 8: Cover over Compacted Tailings

Thank You Environmental Control

Measures at Slurry Ponds

Prof. Manoj Datta

 Environmental Concerns

Effect on local air quality

Effect on surface water quality
Effect on ground water level and quality
Effect on local soils and biotoxicity
Seepage and waterlogging
Effect on surface water drainage
Site wash out (stability during operation)
Long-term stability

Design Measures Design Measures

Air quality:
Air quality: Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate
To prevent fugitve dust emissions during dry soil covers
summer months
 Design Measures Design Measures
Air quality: Air quality:
Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate
soil covers soil covers
Surface water quality:
Surface water quality: Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs,
To prevent suspended solids in decanted water recirculation
reaching local water bodies

Design Measures
Air quality:
Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate
soil covers
Surface water quality:
Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs,
recirculation

Ground water quality:

To prevent rising of water table and
deterioration of water quality

Influence of seepage from pond on ground water table

 Design Measures
Air quality:
Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate
soil covers
Surface water quality:
Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs,
recirculation
Ground water quality:
Bottom drainage, liner

Control measures for seepage from pond

Design Measures Design Measures

Air quality: Air quality:
Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate
soil covers soil covers
Surface water quality: Surface water quality:
Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs,
recirculation Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs,
recirculation
Ground water quality:
Bottom drainage, liner Ground water quality:
Bottom drainage, liner
Waterlogging Waterlogging
To prevent seepage of water through Cut-off trench, vertical cut-offs, liners
embankments and its accumulation in areas
adjacent to the pond
 Design Measures Design Measures
Air quality: Air quality:
Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate
soil covers soil covers
Surface water quality: Surface water quality:
Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs,
recirculation Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs,
recirculation
Ground water quality:
Bottom drainage, liner Ground water quality:
Waterlogging Bottom drainage, liner
Vertical cut-offs, liners Waterlogging
Surface water drainage: Vertical cut-offs, liners
To prevent blockage of natural drainage Surface water drainage:
paths Diversion channels, storm water drains

Design Measures Design Measures

Air quality:
Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate soil Air quality:
covers Ponding, sprinkling, vegetation, intermediate soil covers
Surface water quality: Surface water quality:
Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs, recirculation Sedimentation chambers, filters, ETPs, recirculation
Ground water quality: Ground water quality:
Bottom drainage, liner Bottom drainage, liner
Waterlogging
Waterlogging
Vertical cut-offs, liners
Vertical cut-offs, liners
Surface water drainage:
Surface water drainage:
Diversion channels, storm water drains
Long-term stability: Diversion channels, storm water drains
Pond should be stable for at least 50 to 100 years after Long-term stability:
being abandoned Insitu densification, self generative vegetation, rockfill
 Cost of Environmental Protection

During operation

Post-Closure & Post-Abandonment stage

Typical Example of Costs

1000 m 1000 m 10 m Storage

All protective measures

Concluding Remarks
Maximise utilisation of ash / tailings / waste

Store Bottom Ash (coarse fraction) and Flyash (fine fraction)

separately.

Geotechnical use of pond ash / tailings in earthworks is most

economical (if they are non-hazardous) because of bulk use.

Use of flyash in cement and pond ash / tailings in building

materials / products is also an option.
(Relative costs for 2005)
Transportation from plants in remote areas is expensive.
 Control and Remedial Measures at
Thank you Contaminated Sites
Prof. Manoj Datta

Control vs Remediation Contaminated Sites

Not Contaminated
Control contain the contamination in the affected
area Probably Contaminated
Remediation bring back to original condition Contaminated
Control is less costly than remediation National standards for permissible limits on concentration of
contaminants (soil & GW)
Rehabilitation a bit of both
Background concentration, screening level (further investigation),
response level (action required)
 Planning and Implementation Strategies / Approaches

Remove source; treat / transform source, treal soil and ground

Data collection and site walkover
water
Preliminary site investigations
Remove the source, cut-off the pathway, protect the receptor
Detailed site investigations (short term) and allow for specific use only
Feasibility: Identifying technologies and comparing alternatives Cap the source (very large), cut-off the pathway, protect the
Remedial design receptor (short term) and allow for specific use only
Pilot studies for effectiveness Land use: for all purposes; use for limited purposes, can not be
Remedial action used
Monitoring

Typology: Solid Phase Contamination

Source
Contaminated material mixed with soil
Solid waste dumps
Embankment or pit of contaminated material
Waste buried in trenches or buried drums
Waste sludge spread or filled in low-lying areas
Liquid waste pond or reservoir Irregular storage of contaminant material
Effluent discharge on land
Buried drums of liquid waste or Buried tanks (petrol)
Leaking pipelines
Material added through agricultural activities
Injection wells
Accidental spills Atmospheric deposition of emissions
Agricultural applications
Deposition by flooding or washing
Typology: Solid Phase Contamination Typology: Liquid Phase Contamination
Underwater sediment containing
contaminants
Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid
Typology: Liquid Phase Contamination
Liquid contaminant from industrial process

Light Non Aqueous Phase Liquid

Storage of liquid at site

Liquid leakage through pipeline

Spills of liquids Contamination in Ground Water

Control / Containment
Covers / Capping
Vertical Barriers
Combination
Some
Base Sealing (?)
Cont.
Sites Pump and Treat
In
India
Remediation
Treat the source, soil, pore gas, pore fluid and ground water
ex-situ or in-situ
 Covers / Caps
Vertical Barriers
Local Soil
Compacted clay in trenches
MSW Cover
Cut-off Walls (Slurry walls): clay or soil-bentonite walls, cement-
HW Cover
bentonite walls, plastic concrete walls, composite walls
Paving over GM
Grouted barriers
Others
Mix-in-place barriers (deep mixed)
Others: sheet piles etc

Cut-off Walls (Slurry Walls)

Clay
Contaminated
Cut-Off Trench Soil + Bentonite
(compacted Soil + Bentonite + Cement
clay) Soil + Bentonite + GM
Low-Permeability Strata Special walls: sheet piles of special materials
Reactive Permeable Walls / Barriers

Sectional View
 Circumfrential
Cut-Off Wall

Cover

Contaminated Site

Cut-Off
Wall

Sectional View
Plan View

Cut-Off Wall Construction

Clay or Soil-Bentonite Wall
Excavate a trench 0.5 to 1.5m wide
Stabilise with bentonite slurry (~5% bent.)
Import clay or mix bentonite with excavated soil
Add enough water to prepare high slump mixture
Backfill clay (or soil-bentonite) into trench and replace the Backfill with
bentonite slurry. Excavate trench with high-slump
backhoe and stabilize clay or soil +
Keyed in wall reaches low permeability stratum with slurry bentonite and
Hanging wall (low permeability stratum is deep below) replace slurry
use in conjunction with pump and treat
Figure: Cross section of slurry trench showing excavation and backfilling Relationship between permeability and quantity of
operations. bentonite added to soil

Cut-Off Wall with Geomembrane

Overlapping Columns

GM

Deep soil mixed barrier

 Subsurface Drains

Perforated pipes buried in trenches backfilled with coarse material

Water flows by gravity flow to a collection sump
Pumped out

Use of subsurface drainage

Remediation

Treat :
Source,
Soil,
Pore gas, Thank you
Pore fluid and
Ground water

ex-situ or in-situ
 Control / Containment

Covers / Capping
Control and Remedial Measures at Vertical Barriers
Contaminated Sites Combination
Base Sealing (?)
Prof. Manoj Datta Pump and Treat

Remediation: Excavate & Treat

Remediation

Treat : Excavate source + affected soil and dispose in landfill

Source, Soil washing / heap leach
Soil, Physical separation
Pore gas,
Thermal treatment
Pore fluid and
Ground water Biological treatment / Biopile

ex-situ or in-situ
 Remediation: Extract & Treat Remediation: Transformation

Insitu chemical oxidation

Ground water pump and treat Insitu bioremediation
Soil gas extraction and treat Air sparging
Multiphase extraction Phytoremediation
Insitu soil heating
Insitu electro-kinetics
Permeable reactive barriers

Remediation: Immobilization

Insitu grouting / deep mixing

Insitu vitrification (transformation to glass matrix)
Pump and Treat

Temporary Safety Measures

Restrictions in land use

Re-location and safety measures
Drinking water treatment
 Plume
Source Source

Plan View
Plan View

Source Source

Plan View Plan View

 Source
Removed

Pump and Treat

Plan View

Soil Gas / Vapour Extraction and Air Sparging
Used to treat spills of volatile organic compounds in unsaturated soils
Installation of small diameter wells
Vacuum extraction system
Gas / vapour treatment unit
Air injection wells
Spacing of wells determined by radius of influence
Air sparging is injection of air under pressure into contaminated ground
water for insitu volatilization of petroleum hydrocarbons from mixed state
to vapour state
Soil Washing / Heap Leach
Soil washing can be done in a container or a heap.
Particle fractionation may be done before washing
Soil mixed with excess water to release contaminants; solution is
later decanted or filtered.
Soil arranged in a heap / pile on impervious base overlain by bottom
drain
Allow water to percolate through the heap (drip irrigation) and
release the contaminants
Use solvents to release contaminants, if feasible
Continue till leachate / soil meets required standards.
 Bioremediation
Use microorganisms to degrade and transform organic chemicals in
contaminated soil
Can be done ex-situ after excavation or in-situ
Solid phase processes for vadose zone and slurry phase processes for
saturated zone
Proper conditions required for success temperature, oxygen,
moisture, pH etc. for microorganisms to thrive and be effective
Useful for contamination by petroleum products and pesticides.
Vertical Barrier at Tailings Pond
Phytoremediation
Use plants for remediation (bio-accumulation)
Roots of specific plant species will uptake contaminants
Contaminants removed from soil and accumulate in the plant
Remove plants and incinerate or treat them or bio-mine them
Limited capacity
Limited depth
Heavy metals, pesticides, solvents have been mitigated
Fig. 1: Tailings pond details
Fig. 6.1: Cross-section of clay capping / liner system
Fig. 2: Alternatives considered for ground water protection
proposed
 Fig. 3.2: Soil and Rock Profile Fig. 3.1: Soil and Rock Profile

Table 1: Properties of Tailings, Soil and Rock

Fig. 3: Generalised soil and rock profile

Fig. 4: Simplified view of vertical cut-off barrier Fig. 5: Sectional view of vertical cut-off barrier

Table 3: Results of Laboratory Permeability Tests on

Table 2: Results of Laboratory Analysis Compacted Samples
 Table 6: Results of Slump Tests And Permeability Tests Table 7: Atterbergs Limits, Slump And Permeability of Soil + Bentonite Mixes

Table 8: Atterbergs Limits, Slump and Permeability of Soil + Bontonic + Cement

Table 9: Variation of Undrained Strength with Time
Mixes
 Comparison of Alternatives
Intermediate Liner / Cap :
Rs 53 X 107

Vertical Cut-Off :
Thank you
Rs 8 X 107

Final Recommendation:
Vertical cut-off + Final Cap

Hierarchy of Integrated Solid Waste Management

Geotechnical Reuse of
Waste Materials

Prof. Manoj Datta

 Broad Guidelines Geotechnical Reuse
- Reuse can be for building materials, road construction materials,
High Biodegradable Fraction Biological Treatment
soils etc.
High Combustible Fraction Thermal Treatment
High Inert Content Physical Treatment - Geotechnical reuse in earthworks to replace soil or as an add-on.

- Replace what? Gravel, sand, silt, clay, mixed soil, boulders?

Separately Stored Wastes can be used for Material/ Energy - Replace where? Embankments, filling low-lying areas, behind
Recovery retaining structures, drains, barriers, covers etc.

Mixed Wastes have no value - Large quantities, in lakhs or millions of tons

Waste Characteristics for Soil Replacement Developed Countries

should not be classified as a hazardous material Reclaimed paving materials
should not have significant biodegradable materials Coal fly ash
particles should remain physically and chemically stable in long Rubber tires
term Blast furnace slag
should not contain deleterious materials such as chlorides and Steel slag
sulphates Coal bottom ash
particle size range should be such that standard earth moving Mine tailings
equipment can be used
should not harm the ground water quality
fairly homogeneous and less variability
 India Embankment Constructed with Compacted Coal Ash with
Soil Layer on Top and Sides and Intermediate Soil Layers
Fly Ash
Mine Tailings
Construction and Demolition Debris (building materials)
Initial studies underway for Aged MSW and Incinerated MSW

earth dams, road and rail embankments, filling of low lying areas,
embankments of canals and lakes, backfill material behind
retaining structures Compacted ash should be covered with local soil cover on
the top and sides of the embankment or fill

Intermediate covers should be used

Small to Medium Height Tailing Dams Constructed with Carefully Low-lying area filled with coal ash
Designed Drains and Transition Filters
 Coal Ash Used to Fill Area Behind Retaining Wall Issues to be Considered for Waste Reuse
1. Sources and quantities generated
2. Problems of disposal
3. Potential reuses
4. Physical and chemical properties
5. Engineering properties
6. Environmental concerns
7. Economic considerations
(cost of transport: usually within 25 to 50 km radius only)
8. Typical field applications

Advantages and Drawbacks of Using Coal Ash

Advantages:
1. Relatively low unit weight and
2. High shear strength, which results in good bearing support with
minimal settlement. Properly designed transition filters should be provided
between coal ash and soil covers or sand drains as ash is
3. Bottom ash can be used to replace sand for drainage purposes.
highly erodible. Proper soil blankets should be placed around
elements such as pipes, sewage lines passing through the
Drawbacks: ash.
1. Proneness to erosion - require control measures
2. Possibility of sulfate attack it depends on the sulfate content of the
ash. When high, ash can attack adjacent concrete foundations and
walls. Protection measures (such as using waterproof membrane or
sulfate-resistant cement ) may be necessary.
 Possible Reuses of Scrap Tyres Landfill applications
Tyres are converted into shredded tyres or chips of size 10 to 25 a) Gas collection and venting layer in closure cap systems
mm and used as follows:
b) Drainage layer in covers this layer drains the surface
1. Partial replacement of coarse sand /gravel in internal drains of infiltration, thus preventing or minimizing the generation of
embankments and retaining walls leachate.
2. Frost penetration limitation tire chips have a low thermal
conductivity, making them ideal for this application ( 8 times
better than gravel for reducing frost penetration)
continued..

Potential Reuse of Blast Furnace Slag Chemical Composition

The chemical composition of slag is calculated from elemental
analysis determined by x-ray fluorescence.
1. Aggregate in base and surface course in asphalt

2. As an additive to portland cement in concrete and

3. In embankments
 Engineering Properties Field Applications

Advantages of using blast furnace slag in field include:

1. Good durability to be placed in almost any weather,

The engineering properties of 2. Extremely high stability,

slag are comparable to typical 3. Almost complete absence of settlement after compaction and
granular soils, making slag an 4. Its high insulating value can be used to minimize frost heaving in
excellent material for a wide granular bases.
variety of fill applications.

Drawbacks of Using Blast Furnace Slag Evaluation Process for Geotechnical Reuse
1. Identification of all relevant engineering, environmental, occupational
1. Volumetric instability limits its use as backfill behind structures
health and safety, recyclability, and economic issues associated with
2. The formation of tufalike precipitates (white powdery precipitates
the proposed waste material and application
formed by the chemical reaction of atmospheric carbon dioxide
2. Establishment of laboratory testing and assessment procedures and
and free lime in the steel slag) results in deposits that clog
criteria that the material should meet prior to acceptance
subdrains and drain outlets.
3. Testing and assessment of the results of the material and application
for approval or disapproval using the established procedures and
criteria
 Evaluation Process for Geotechnical Reuse (contd.)

4. Consideration of the possibility of modifying the material prior to

rejecting the material if the material does not meet the established
criteria

5. Identification of issues that could impose significant constraints on the Thank you
implementability of the proposed application

6. Determination of whether a field demonstration is necessary to

supplement evaluation and assessment tests and criteria and
implement the demonstration, if required

Geotechnical Reuse of
Geotechnical Re-use of
Waste Materials Aged Municipal Solid Waste from Landfills
and
Incinerated MSW Ash from WtE Plants
Prof. Manoj Datta
 Concerns
Aged MSW from Landfills
Does aged MSW have significant non-inert materials?

Is 10 to 20 years old waste from MSW dumps similar to soil? Is the organic content high?

Can it be used in earthworks for embankment and filling low- Does it have bad smell?
lying areas?
Does it leach out dark colored liquid?

Does it leach out heavy metals, total dissolved salts etc.?

Methodology Objective

Literature review on properties of aged MSW.

Assess the suitability of Aged Municipal Solid Waste for recycling in
bulk geotechnical applications such as in embankments and filling
Literature review on case studies of use of aged MSW. of low-lying areas.

Preliminary testing from 3 landfills of India.

 Comparison of properties of different aged MSW
Location Southern Seoul city, Korea Deonar landfill, Kodungaiyur Perungudi Schematic detail of excavating waste
California, USA India landfill, India landfill, India
References Oettle et al., 2010 Song et al., 2003 Anna University Kurian Joseph et al., 2003
Age of waste 60 years 25 years 4-12 year 15 years 15 years
Grain size Passing 75 sieve passing 8mm Passing 2mm- Passing 2mm -
Not reported
distribution (35.5-28.9) sieve- 63.5 56-68 33-41
Specific gravity Not reported 2.58-2.44 Not reported Not reported Not reported
Liquid limit 48-62 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Plastic limit 24-32 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
MDD (kN/m3) 16.5-15.2 15.5-6.77 9.41 8.8-11.77 9.4-9.7
OMC 10.9-18.8 7.4-13.9 14 30-40 23-30
Organic content 6.3-12.4 6.06-12.45 14.5 8.9-20.7 8.9-15.8
Other =12-35o
geotechnical Cc=0.04 c= 0.05-0.25 t/m2 Not reported Not reported Not reported
parameters Cc= 0.1-0.2
Remarks Waste can be If organic content Blended with Fine fraction can be applied as
blended with soil is more than 8, it dolomite, gypsum, compost to non-edible crops or as
and can be used cant be used as neem cake and cover material after determining the
in fill. sub-grade. sold
MDD- maximum dry density; OMC- optimum as fertilizer. geotechnical
moisture content suitability.

Location and depth of sample collected

S.No. Landfill site Age of waste Depth location

1. Delhi 20-22 years 5-6 m 28.51308o, 77.82248o, 251.90 m

10-12 years 3-4 m 28.51268o, 77.28258o, 271.70 m

Sampling, Trommeling, Screening and 3-4 years 4-5 m 28.51438o, 77.42418o, 240.90 m

Composition 2. Hyderabad 8-10 years 2-3 m 17o3129, 78o3530

3-4 years 4-5 m 17o314, 78o3531

3. Kadapa - - 14.48009o, 78.84491o

S

Compositional Analysis
Results of on-site grain size distribution for 4
Percentage
Components Hyderabad
months aerated waste from Kadapa landfill
Kadapa landfill Delhi landfill
landfill
Soil 75.21 64.95 68.21
Quantity of Material retained (%)
Inert (C & D waste) 15.09 7.56 24.12 Date of
S.No. material Rejected waste Inert
Plastic 6.71 11.6 2.5 excavation 30-8 mm 8-4 mm 4-0 mm Losses Total
(tonnes) (> 30 mm) (C&D)
Paper 0 0.65 0.50
Textiles 0.87 2.18 1.2 1 17-10-2016 455.3 26.7 33.1 12.7 22.2 1.8 3.3 100

Metal 0 1.48 0.2 2 11-11-2017 1078.84 30.3 15.6 13.9 26.5 1.8 11.6 100
Leather 0.73 1.41 0.60
3 16-11-2017 1168.51 32.0 22.1 13.1 16.6 2.1 13.7 100
Glass 1.01 1.65 1.25
Wood 0.16 3.34 1.2
Others 0.18 0.50 0.22
Total 100 100 100
 Results of on-site grain size distribution for air Organic content results
dried waste from Delhi landfill
Material retained (%)
Organic content
S.No. Age of waste Name of site
Age Time Total 0-4 mm 4-8 mm 4-16 mm 4-20 mm
Date of Above
of for material 200-80 80-35 35-16 16-4
excavation 200 4-0 mm Losses Total 1 20-22 years Delhi landfill (20 years old) 6.8-7.4 7.9-9.1
waste drying excavated mm mm mm mm
mm 2 10-12 years Delhi landfill (12 years old) 6.9-9.0
20-22 3 3-4 years Delhi landfill (3 years old) 6.5-7.0
14-01-2017 7 days 2050 kg 3 11 10 14 20.4 33.2 7.7 100
years
4 8-10 years Hyderabad landfill (12 years old) 11-12 19.2-19.8
10-12
21-01-2017 7 days 3000 kg 2.1 9.6 8.6 10.6 20.7 40.6 7.6 100 5 3-4 years Hyderabad landfill (3 years old) 15-16
years
2-3 15 6 - Kadapa landfill 6.5-6.7 5.7-6.9
28-01-2017 2460 kg - 7.6 6.6 10.3 18.1 40.4 16.7 100
years days 7 - Yamuna sand 0.6-0.65
8 - Delhi silt 1.1-1.2

Colour of water when distilled water is mixed with MSW

samples from different landfills
 Total Dissolved solids in water coming out from Odour coming from MSW samples
MSW samples

S.No. Landfill site Duration Level of odour

S.No. Location Total Dissolved Solids (ppm)

Immediate High odour

1. Delhi samples after 7 days aeration (1:3 dilution) 5100-5300
1. Delhi After 4 days aeration Nominal odour

2. Delhi sample without aeration but oven drying (1: 3 dilution) 4500-4800
After 1 month Nominal odour

3. Kadapa (1:4 dilution) 750-800 Immediate High odour

2. Hyderabad
After 1 month Medium odour
4. Hyderabad (1:4 dilution) 3500-3600

3. Kadapa At the time of collection Very less odour

5. Delhi silt (1:4 dilution) 150-200

Landfill mining project summary

Permissible limit of organic content in soils to be used in Name of Operation Area Reclaimed Sieve size Use of reclaimed
Lab test investigation
subgrade and backfill landfill site started mined soil (%) used (mm) soil
Daily, intermediate
S.No. Name of country Maximum limit for organic content (%) Regulatory organization Perdido landfill 2009 20 acre 60 75 Not reported
cover
Louisiana Department of
Louisiana 5 Daily cover, reuse is
Transportation Perdido landfill 2006 50 acre 70.4 25 , 75 Organic content= 5-15 %
also possible
Texas Department of
Texas 1 Heavy metals were found
1. USA transportation Naples landfill 1986 33 acre 40-60 75 Cover material
below the limits
If organic content is up to 1 then soil can Department of
100, 50 and Cover and off-site
California be used without any treatment. Transportation, California Edinburg landfill 1990 1 acre 75 Not reported
25 use
Maximum limit is 5 . (Jones et al., 2012)
Edinburg Not 100, 50 and
Department of Transport 1992 1.6 acre Construction fill Not reported
2. Australia 1 Landfill reported 25
and Main roads
Frey farm 3-4 lakh
Ministry of Road 1991 41 25 Cover material Not reported
landfill yd3
3. India 3 Transport and Highway
Maung Pathum 15000 Organic Content= 0.3-2.7
(MORTH)
Dumpsite, N.A. cubic 69-75 2-10 Not reported % TCLP indicated it was
UK Department of
4. UK 2 Thailand meter not hazardous
Transportation (UKDOT)
Burghof landfill, Not Fine material was
1993 70.5 N.A. Not reported
Germany reported reused at landfill site
 Findings
The use of Aged MSW has been reported as daily cover and
intermediate cover at landfill sites only in most of the case
studies of landfill mining. Preliminary Studies on
Use of Aged MSW as an earthfill has not been widely reported. Geotechnical Characteristics
The specified limit for organic content by various agencies for
earthwork in roads is 1-3 . However, if it is up to 5 then the soil of MSW Incinerated (MSWI)Ash from
can be used with some treatment. Waste to Energy (WtE) Plant (Mass Burn)
Present data shows the Aged MSW has 6.3 to 20.7 organic
content which is above the limit. Reaching Landfill in Delhi
Some studies indicate that the heavy metals are found to be
within the limits in Aged MSW.
More studies required on colour and total dissolved solids which
may leach out of Aged MSW.

Background
2200 WtE plants world wide incinerating 300
million tons of MSW per annum to produce 60 to
90 million tons of ash
In India, 5 plants are operational / just started
and 48 more are likely to come up in the future.
Volume reduction 90% and weight reduction 70
to 80%.
80 to 90% bottom ash and 10 to 20% flyash
Characteristics
Bottom ash is sand to gravel sized
Fly ash is sandy silt silty sand sized
Both are non-plastic with angle of shearing
resistance in the same range as soils
Flyash often has leachable heavy metals hence not
used in geotechnical applications
Bottom ash can be used but sometimes has
leachable salts thus requiring pre-treatment in such
cases
Ash quality depends upon type of waste, type of
incinerator, operating temperatures and types of
additives.
 4 - 16 mm
Less than 4 mm

Sieve Analysis Factors requiring further studies

Truck 1 Truck 2 Truck 3 Truck 4 All trucks

Weight % wt. Weight % wt. Weight % wt. Weight % wt. Weight % wt.
Efficiency of burning
retaine retaine retaine retaine retaine retaine retaine retaine retaine retaine
d (kg) d d (kg) d d (kg) d d (kg) d d (kg) d Mixing of ash
> 80 mm 47 9 36 7 44 8 144 14 270 10 % organic content
35-80
46 9 34 7 69 13 191 18 340 13
Compositional Analysis
mm
16-35 Investigation of geotechnical properties of soil-like material
77 15 73 15 96 18 219 21 464 18
mm (<16mm)
4-16 mm 140 27 137 28 140 26 241 23 659 25
Assessment of heavy metals and other possible leachable salts
< 4 mm 205 40 215 43 192 36 247 24 858 33

Total 514 494 541 1041 2591

Thank you