Response of groundwater contamination hazard rating systems to variations in subsoil conditions beneath municipal solid waste (MSW) dumps in developing countries
- 36 Downloads
Groundwater hazard rating systems are generally based on source-pathway-receptor approach. This study determines the response of rating system to the variations in subsurface conditions (generally designated as pathway component). Besides, the study also investigates the ability of the rating systems to respond to the changes in other components too (i.e., source and receptor components). For the purpose, three groups of sites with various combinations of site conditions, that may be encountered in the field, are employed, e.g., a smaller site located in sandy soil with receptors all around it using groundwater or a larger site having a thick clay layer underneath it and the receptors in vicinity using groundwater for drinking. For the analysis, four sets of corresponding rating scores are determined in this study from the selected eleven rating systems (ten earlier rating systems and mGW-HARS, a recently developed system). The investigation shows that mGW-HARAS performs the best for the three sets; for the remaining one set, the performance of mGW-HARAS is marginally lower than its predecessor, GW-HARAS. The sensitivity analysis of the selected rating systems with respect to four critical pathway parameters depicts that mGW-HARAS is sensitive to all the four parameters and has the highest sensitivity to soil permeability, i.e., 83% amongst all the selected rating systems. When these rating systems are applied to ten waste dumps from Indian cities, only one system, i.e., mGW-HARAS, is able to categorize these waste dumps in four hazard categories and responds suitably to the subsurface conditions encountered at these waste dumps.
KeywordsRating systems Waste dumps Municipal waste Groundwater contamination Subsurface conditions
This study was financially supported by the Science and Engineering Research Board (no. PDF/2016/000716).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr J H, Petty RJ (1985) DRASTIC-a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. EPA/600/2-85/018Google Scholar
- CCME (2008) CCME national classification system for contaminated sites. Winnipeg, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Christensen TH, Manfredi S, Kjeldsen P (2011) Landfilling: environmental issues. In: Christensen TH (ed) Solid waste technology & management. WileyGoogle Scholar
- CPCB (2006) Assessment of status of municipal solid waste management in metro cities and state capitals. Series: WPS/65/2006–07Google Scholar
- Datta M, Kumar A (2016) Waste dumps and contaminated sites in India—status and framework for remediation and control. In: Geo-Chicago 2016. ASCE, Chicago, USA, pp 664–673Google Scholar
- Department of Natural Resources (2001) Wisconsin administrative code, chapter NR 710, site discovery, screening and ranking, register September 2007 no. 621Google Scholar
- Joseph K, Esakku S, Nagendran R, Visvanathan C (2005) A decision making tool for dumpsite rehabilitation in developing countries. In: Proceedings of tenth international waste management and landfill symposium Sardinia. Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Kumar S, Bhattacharyya JK, Vaidya AN, Chakrabarti T, Devotta S, Akolkar AB (2009) Assessment of the status of municipal solid waste management in metro cities, state capitals, class I cities, and class II towns in India: an insight. Waste Manag 29(2):883–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ministry for the Environment (NZ) (2002) Risk assessment for small closed landfill. Prepared for Ministry of the Environment (New Zealand). Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/small-landfill-closure-dec02.html. Accessed 09 Dec 2018
- National Productivity Council (2003) Hazard potential rating of existing municipal solid waste dump sites. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
- Science Applications International Corporation (1990) Washington ranking method scoring manual. Olympia, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Sharma HD, Lewis SP (1994) Waste containment systems, waste stabilization, and landfill design and evaluation. John Wiley & Sons, IncGoogle Scholar
- Sharma HD, Reddy KR (2004) Geoenvironmental engineering: site remediation, waste containment, and emerging waste management technologies. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- Singh RK, Datta M, Nema AK, Pérez IV (2013) Evaluating groundwater contamination hazard rating of municipal solid waste landfills in India and Europe using a new system. J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste 17(1):62–73. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tanse B, Reinhart D, Sizirici B, Rayapharapu VK (2007) Performance measures for comparison of determining post closure care (PCC) period in landfills. In: World environmental and water resources congress 2007. https://doi.org/10.1061/40927(243)322
- USEPA (1990) Hazard ranking system, final rule December 14, 1990. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#HRS Rule. Accessed 15 Jan 2013