See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/12045403

Environmental Management of Quarries as Waste Disposal Facilities

Article  in  Environmental Management · May 2001

DOI: 10.1007/s002670010167 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

7 1,757

3 authors:

Mutasem El-Fadel Salah Sadek

American University of Beirut American University of Beirut
459 PUBLICATIONS   4,514 CITATIONS    87 PUBLICATIONS   470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Walid Chahine
Lebanese University
5 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Climate Change and Saltwater intrusion along the Eastern Mediterranean: socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptation View project

Water and wastewater treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mutasem El-Fadel on 28 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Environmental Management of Quarries as Waste
Disposal Facilities
MUTASEM EL-FADEL*
SALAH SADEK
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
American University of Beirut
Beirut, Lebanon
WALID CHAHINE
Faculty of Engineering
Lebanese University
Roumieh, Lebanon
ABSTRACT / Problems associated with the disposal of munic-
ipal solid waste have become a source of public concern
worldwide as awareness of potential adverse environmental
impacts and health threats from solid waste has increased.
Communities are concerned about the generation and man-
agement of solid waste to the extent of refusing to allow new
Municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal has been a
chronic problem for a long time, particularly in areas
with high population density, high production of
refuse, and low availability of land adequate for land-
fills. In Lebanon, uncontrolled dumping on hillsides
and on sea shores has been the common method prac-
ticed for solid waste disposal, resulting in serious land,
sea, and air pollution problems (ERM 1995, Nuwayhid
and others 1996, El-Fadel and Chahine 1999). Sea pol-
lution along the coast of major cities is extensive and
the focus of regular complaints by local fishermen and
the general public. As a result, concern about MSW
disposal has peaked in recent years and public as well as
international pressures have mounted and pushed pol-
icy makers towards finding a solution for proper MSW
management.
Concurrently, unregulated quarrying activities re-
sulted in similar concerns to the MSW management
problem. Rapid economic growth and an ambitious
construction program, with a large number of projects
requiring significant amounts of construction materi-
KEY WORDS: Solid waste; Quarry; Landfill; Impacts; Mitigation; Moni-
toring
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed at American
University of Beirut, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, 850
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, USA. E-mail: mfadel@aub.edu.lb
Environmental Management Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 515–531
DOI: 10.1007/s002670010167
disposal facilities near their homes, often after witnessing the
legacy of existing facilities. Under these conditions, the devel-
opment of national policies for the management of solid waste
becomes highly political, all while requiring appropriate techni-
cal solutions that ensure environmental protection and proper
management plans that support an acceptable solution for the
disposal of municipal solid waste. In some locations, the con-
version of old quarries into well-engineered and controlled
landfills appears as a promising solution to a continuously in-
creasing problem, at least for many decades to come. This
paper describes the environmental impacts associated with
solid waste disposal in a converted quarry site and the mitiga-
tion measures that can be adopted to alleviate potential ad-
verse impacts. Environmental management and monitoring
plans are also discussed in the context of ensuring adequate
environmental protection during and after the conversion pro-
cess.
als, created considerable short- and medium-term de-
mand for quarried rock, sand, and their associated
products. Changing needs and rapid population
growth led to an increase in the number and capacity of
operating quarries to satisfy the growing demands of
the construction industry. The confused conditions
and overproduction resulted in a chaotic proliferation
of quarries throughout the country. Many quarries cut
through the landscape in extensive and elevated work-
ing faces, which formed scars clearly visible over wide
areas, and their methods of operation resulted in sig-
nificant and serious consequences to the environment
(Dar Al-Handasah 1996).
The problems associated with uncontrolled MSW
disposal and unregulated quarrying, coupled with the
scarcity and high value of available land in urban areas,
pushed policy makers to consider an approach that
could potentially solve or minimize the scale of both
problems. The policy consists of two components: (1)
limiting quarrying activities to a minimal number of
quarry sites, all while increasing the allowable produc-
tion at these sites; and (2) restoring closed quarries as
potential controlled MSW landfills.
The decision to restore old quarry sites by convert-
ing them into controlled landfills may appear appeal-
ing at first glance, but it is certainly not without con-
straints. Besides the political difficulties surrounding
the selection and approval of a site as a controlled
© 2001 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
516 M. El-Fadel and others
landfill, the hydrogeologic nature of a quarry does not
necessarily lend itself into creating the most suitable
site for landfilling. This is primarily due to the fractured
nature of the subsurface, which is a common occur-
rence at quarry sites. This paper provides a brief back-
ground of the quarrying activities in Lebanon and em-
phasizes the potential adverse environmental impacts
associated with the conversion of a quarry site into a
MSW landfill. Corresponding environmental manage-
ment plans are also addressed.
Description of Existing Quarries
Country-wide surveys indicate the presence of about
710 privately operated quarries (including operational
and abandoned sites) geographically spread in an area
less than 10,500 km2, which constitute a relatively high
density (Figure 1). In general, they produce rock (464
sites) and sand (246 sites) aggregates. Some are essen-
tial to well-established industries that supply the needs
for manufacturing cement and decorative building
stones.
A field survey conducted on a representative sample
of 280 sites revealed that while some are scattered,
others are clustered around geologically exploitable
rock formations near urban developments and poten-
tial markets (as clearly revealed in the concentration of
about 52% of the quarries in Mount Lebanon, which is
the largest supplier for Beirut consumers). As is clear in
Figure 2, the majority of the representative quarry sites
covered by the survey lie within a relatively close dis-
tance (1–15 km) to cities and major urban centers.
Demand and accessibility to market, geology, and cli-
mate have, in essence, governed and determined the
exact location of each quarry. As such, the majority of
the sites are located along the western mountains at
altitudes less than 1650 m above mean sea level and
often near valuable water resources or within drainage
watersheds, which render many of them not very suit-
able for landfilling. The quarries vary widely in size and
extent. Their exploited areas range from the relatively
small (less than 5000 m2) to the very large (greater than
1 million m2). Figure 3 is a representation of the num-
ber of quarries, by type (rock or sand), within a range
of size categories. In Figure 4, the cumulative quarried
area, of each type (rock or sand), is presented for each
quarry size category. From Figures 3 and 4, it is evident
that the majority of the quarries are rock or aggregate
quarries, both in number and cumulative area. Further,
the majority of the quarries surveyed are in the size
range of 10,000 –500,000 m2.
A summary of other significant observations made
during this survey include the following:
● The slope geometry of most quarries includes steep
faces exceeding 45 degrees; many are nearly verti-
cal. Except to provide for a temporary working
space, no quarry provides berms or benches for
stability purposes. Face heights range from about
20 m to 100 m or more (Figure 5).
● Many quarry sites revealed areas of instability mainly
in the form of overhangs, loose rock blocks, and
loose debris on slopes. Fortunately, in most in-
stances, the overall geologic stability is considered
adequate due to the nature of the rock and favor-
able geological conditions.
● Many of the quarries are extracting rock near exist-
ing private and public property, such as residential
areas and existing roads, thus effecting their stabil-
ity and creating a potential hazard for those using
them (Figure 6).
● Over 2500 heavy goods vehicles are involved in
transporting quarry materials.
● Rare attempts have been made to rehabilitate and
restore the worked out quarries by either earth
modeling or tree planting (less than 2% of all quar-
ries).
Due to the lack of policy guidelines, implementation
of regulations and standards, monitoring and enforce-
ment, and unclear licensing procedures, the survey
revealed that the quarrying operations are totally un-
controlled with unsafe and inefficient operating meth-
ods resulting in adverse environmental impacts includ-
ing problems related to dust emissions (air pollution,
reduced visibility, coating and soiling of surfaces). This
leads to annoyance, loss of amenity, physical and/or
chemical contamination, and corrosion such as lime-
stone-coating of vegetation and contamination of soils.
This in turn leads to reduced photosynthesis and
changes in growth rates of vegetation, destruction of
leaf tissues and possibly reduced value of agricultural
products. There are also health effects due to inhala-
tion. Problems related to rock blasting include poten-
tial hazard to people and property including settlement
and foundation deterioration in nearby structures.
Traffic-related problems include damage to roads due
to heavy loads, noise, vibration, emissions of exhaust
and dust from roads, and spillage of material. Problems
related to water resources include changes in surface
water courses, contamination by dust particulate, re-
routing and blockage of streams, and changes in hydro-
logical characteristics. Noise nuisance from various
quarry activities includes blasting, crushing plants, doz-
ing, hammering, loading aggregates, trucks, bulldozers,
trucks, drills, earth moving, the stocking of overburden
mounds, and various quarrying operations. There is

Figure 1. Quarries in Lebanon: distribution and type.
also damage to the landscape and topography, natural
habitat, and archaeological sites.
Quarries to Landfills: Challenges
The desire and need to rehabilitate old quarry sites as
part of a solution to the MSW management problems and
future needs, face a number of constraints. Whereas the
Quarries for Waste Disposal 517
conversion of quarry sites into engineered landfills is a
major undertaking, under the best of conditions the cha-
otic nature of the quarrying activities, the absence of
proper quarrying operations related to stability and envi-
ronmental impact, and the proximity of the majority of
quarries to densely populated areas present unique and,
in some instances, daunting challenges.
518 M. El-Fadel and others
Figure 2. Quarry distance to nearest city.
Figure 3. Number of quarries of each type in various size
categories.
The majority of medium to large-size quarries, suit-
able for rehabilitation are rock quarries (see Figures 3
and 4). The nature of the rock, predominantly lime-
stone, which is a relatively soft, erodible, and highly
fractured rock, presents a real concern from landfill
siting and engineering perspectives. The hydrogeologic
setting where the rock quarry sites are located is rela-
tively fragile and vulnerable. The major aquifers are in
the thick fractured limestone strata, and as such there is
very little natural soil protection that could attenuate or
retard contamination if and when landfill liners are
breached. The quasi-free fracture flow regime will pre-
dominate in the contaminant and gas transport mech-
anisms.
Geotechnical concerns related to the stability of the
quarry sites, and the resulting increased risks if the sites
are converted to engineered landfills are real and in
some cases insurmountable. Clearly, the engineered
landfill will require a minimum of stability in as far as
the foundation materials are concerned, and equally
important, stability of the “valley walls.” The steepness
of the existing quarry walls (greater than 45° in most
cases) leads to increased risks of sliding, differential
settlement that may compromise the integrity of any
bottom or side-wall lining provisions. The heavy unreg-
ulated and even haphazard use of explosives in the
quarrying operations resulted in weakening of the
rocks and joints. The substantial loads that will be
placed in the old quarry pits may lead to sliding along
weakened joints and planes in the rock, given that the
quarry sites themselves are in the flank of already quite
steep mountains. Finally, Lebanon lies in a seismically
active region, and as such, the stability of the proposed
landfills during earthquakes should be part of the de-
sign considerations.
Clearly existing quarry sites do not represent ideal or
natural candidates for MSW disposal facilities; however,
the challenge can be met if the potential sites are
carefully screened and adequately studied for their new
intended use. If the process of transformation of quar-
ries to landfills is adopted successfully, the country’s
solid waste disposal needs can be met well into this
century. As a preliminary exercise, if only 20% of the
already existing surveyed quarry sites are rehabilitated,
and if it is assumed that: (1) the average waste place-
ment density is 0.5 T/m3, (2) waste filling heights
ranges from 20 to 50 m, and (3) the waste-generation
rate increases by 2% percent per year, then Figure 7
indicates that a maximum of 80% of quarry capacity will
be used to satisfy the capacity needed for MSW disposal
up to the year 2040.
Selection Criteria
Selection criteria for converting a quarry into a waste
disposal facility are to a great extent similar to regular
landfill site selection criteria, including: (1) haul dis-
tance (while long-distance hauling is becoming routine
in solid waste management, it should be minimized as it
constitutes a significant increase in cost); (2) location
restrictions (airports, flood plains, wetlands, fault areas
or seismic impact zone, unstable areas); (3) available
land area (sufficient area with buffer zone with at least
five years of operation); (4) site access; (5) soil condi-
tions and topography; (6) climatologic conditions; (7)

Figure 4. Distribution of quarries in various size categories based on quarry type.
surface water hydrology; (8) geologic and hydro geo-
logic conditions; (9) geotechnical and stability condi-
tions; and (10) ultimate use of converted quarry (Tcho-
banoglous and others 1993).
Greater emphasis is placed on the suitability of a
quarry from geotechnical (stability) and hydrogeo-
logic perspectives, their location in a relatively unde-
veloped areas, the relative proximity to major metro-
politan areas, and certainly other socioeconomic
factors. The previous use of a particular site as a
quarry can be positive, particularly with respect to
social perception. In general, a waste disposal facility
is negatively perceived. Indeed, the NIMBY (not in
my backyard) syndrome is quite universal. Under
normal conditions, it would not be surprising if the
general public in any area opposes the construction
of such a facility where the plan is to dispose of waste
from another community. In the case of a quarry site,
the public opposition does not appear to be as sig-
nificant because typically a quarry is located in a
relatively undeveloped area and, more importantly, it
was previously exploited as a quarry. In fact, the
public is often ready to be supportive if the developer
maintains appropriate public communications and
Quarries for Waste Disposal 519
provides economic incentives to the local community
all while insuring environmental protection and min-
imal disturbance to residents.
Potential Environmental Impacts
While quarries offer various subsurface character-
istics, potentially significant environmental impacts
associated with MSW disposal in a quarry have great
similarities with waste disposal at a regular landfill
and can be classified under two major categories
depending on project activity as described in Table 1
below.
The magnitude of these impacts is dependent on
waste composition, climatic conditions, landfill– quarry
design, and site management among other factors. For
instance, gas generation can be exploited as an energy
resource and land value may increase depending on
site development plans after closure. Waste composi-
tion varies substantially with socioeconomic conditions,
location, season, waste collection and disposal meth-
ods, sampling procedures, as well as other factors
(Tchobanoglous and others 1993).
520 M. El-Fadel and others
Figure 5. Typical steep quarry face.
Gas and Leachate
Gas and leachate formation are inevitable conse-
quences of the practice of solid waste disposal in land-
fills– quarries. The mechanisms of gas and leachate for-
mation as well as their corresponding quality are briefly
addressed in Table 2.
Migration characteristics of gas and leachate at
quarry sites can be substantially different than those
encountered at regular landfill sites. Rock quarries in
particular often have a significant amount of fractures,
which typically result in channeling and fast gas and
leachate flow, thus increasing the potential for environ-
mental contamination. The migration of gas and
leachate away from the landfill– quarry boundaries and
their release into the surrounding environment present
environmental concerns at both existing and new facil-
ities. Besides potential health hazards, these concerns
include, and are not limited to, fire and explosion
hazards, vegetation damage, unpleasant odors, settle-
ment, ground and surface water pollution, and air pol-
lution and contribution to global warming potential
(El-Fadel and others 1997).
Environmental control measures are provided for
through a variety of pollution prevention systems that
involve the strict application of operational and monitor-
ing plans during the entire life span of the landfill– quarry
including after closure. These measures include: (1) a
liner system, (2) a leachate collection and management
system, (3) a gas collection and management system, (4)
a final cover system, (5) a surface water drainage system,
(6) odor control, and (7) closure plans.
Liner system. Liners are used to minimize the move-
ment of leachate and gas from the site. The use of clay
as a liner material has historically been the favored
method controlling leachate percolation because of its
ability to adsorb and retain leachate chemical constitu-
ents as well as its resistance to the flow of leachate. The
use of geomembranes in combination with clay liners
offers additional resistance to the movement of gas and
leachate. Liner designs can be developed using a selec-
tion of layers of clay, geomembrane, geotextile, sand,
geosynthetic clay, or bentonite enhanced soil interbed-
ded with a leachate drainage layer. Figure 9 depicts
minimum requirements for a liner.

Figure 6. Stability of residential buildings near a steep quarry face.
Leachate collection and management. Leachate control
measures include volume and composition control,
treatment, and disposal. Hydraulic barriers (e.g., ex-
traction and relief wells, gradient control wells, and
trenches) and collection systems are commonly used to
control leachate problems. Typically, landfill– quarry
boundaries (bottom and sides) are covered by a liner
system as described above. The cover is designed with a
sloping surface to enhance surface runoff, which is
collected via drainage channels constructed at the sur-
rounding edge of the site. Water from precipitation or
irrigation that may infiltrate past the cover can be
collected via a leachate collection and removal system
located under the cover and/or above the bottom liner.
In cases where fast stabilization by moisture addition
and leachate recirculation is practiced, a collection
system under the cover is not desired. At the bottom of
the landfill– quarry, the system prevents the buildup of
hydrostatic pressure, which could lead to extensive
breaching of the bottom liner, resulting in leachate
migration and pollution of underlying aquifers. The
collected leachate is generally treated on-site or recir-
Quarries for Waste Disposal 521
culated. Table 3 provides a summary of the key com-
ponents of a comprehensive leachate management sys-
tem.
Gas collection and management. Gas control measures
are essential at a landfill– quarry facility because of the
potential impacts associated with unmanaged gas. The
purposes of controlling the movement of gas are to
reduce atmospheric emissions, control the release of
odorous emissions, control subsurface gas migration
and potential fire and explosion hazards, minimize
potential vegetation damage, and allow for the recovery
of energy from methane.
Control systems can be classified under two catego-
ries—passive or active. In passive control systems, the
pressure of the gas generated within the fill serves as
the driving force for the movement of the gas. In active
gas control systems, an induced vacuum is used to
control the flow of gas. Several types of passive and
active control systems exist. The use of a particular type
is dependent on the amount of gas produced and the
ultimate management option desired. Table 4 provides
a summary of current gas control systems as well as
522 M. El-Fadel and others
corresponding management options. Figure 10 depicts
a generic decomposition gas and leachate collection
system.
Final cover system. The objectives of the final cover
layer at a landfill– quarry site are to minimize the infil-
Figure 7. Projected usage of quarry ca-
pacity as a function of fill height.
Figure 8. Gas and leachate com-
position (Farquhar and Rovers
1973, Parker 1983, Pohland
1987).
tration of rainfall after the site has been completed,
limit the uncontrolled release of decomposition gas,
suppress the proliferation of vectors, limit the potential
for fires, provide a suitable surface for surface revegeta-
tion, and serve as the central element in the site recla-

Table 1. Classification of environmental impacts at a
MSW landfill
Typical duration
Impact category Project activity (yr)
Short term Construction 0–5
Long term Operation/Post-closure 5–30/10–30
mation. In order to accomplish these objectives, the
final cover is constructed of a series of layers, each with
a special function. Table 5 describes these layers, their
respective typical material and function. Figure 11 de-
picts minimum requirements for a cover.
Surface water drainage. Surface water is the major
contributor to leachate formation. Elimination or re-
duction of the amount of surface water that enters the
landfill– quarry can be accomplished by installing
proper drainage facilities. A drainage plan should show
the location of storm drains, culverts, ditches, and sub-
surface drains, and if necessary a storm water retention
basin.
Odor control. Good housekeeping together with the
provision of odor control measures and adherence to
sound working practices are the most effective means of
reducing odors at the source. Odor is considered a
nuisance to on-site workers as well as local communi-
ties. The placement of a daily soil cover will help reduce
the extent of gaseous emissions and odors. Wrapping
the bales with plastic sheets will also decrease the odors.
Closure requirements. The most important element in
the long-term maintenance of a completed landfill–
quarry is the availability of a closure plan in which the
requirements are clearly delineated. A closure plan for
a landfill– quarry should include provisions for a cover
and landscape design, control of decomposition gases,
collection and treatment of leachate, environmental
monitoring systems, routine inspections, infrastructure
maintenance, and an emergency response plan.
Site Stability
The stability of any proposed waste fill, within the
context of the existing quarry, is critical. Any failure, in
the fill itself or as a result of movements associated with
the quarry base and/or walls, will at best compromise
the integrity of the liner systems and at worst lead to the
loss of the facility in the case of a global failure and
displacement of large quantities of waste material, caus-
ing both surface and subsurface contamination.
Geologic and geotechnical concerns related to the
stability of a landfill– quarry are accentuated by the fact
that the structural geology of the many quarries, which
lie within existing valleys or along valley walls, reveals
Quarries for Waste Disposal 523
the presence of flexure and faulting. These represent
planes or zones of potential weakness and movement
that could lead to loss of stability of the waste fill, in
whole or in part. In addition, at many locations it is
planned that the waste fill may reach heights of up to
100 m above the bottom of the quarry floor. These
heights represent significant loading on the rock mass
and may cause differential foundation movements,
which may compromise the liner systems. The signifi-
cant fill heights may lead to downstream movements as
the stability of the filled material itself may be compro-
mised. Other less significant hazards include erosion
potential after closure and settlement due to consoli-
dation and biodegradation of organic material. Both
erosion and settlement hazards can be mitigated with
appropriate site management. Site stability after the
construction phase is assured by adherence to the de-
sign measures for rock slope stabilization and after the
final waste volumes are deposited by ensuring that no
waste slope exceeds 1 in 4 at final rest. It is recom-
mended that 1 in 6 slopes be adopted. In some in-
stances, and in order to increase the factor of safety
with respect to sliding (both under static and seismic
loading), well-anchored stabilizing berms can be con-
sidered. Note that stability concerns may eliminate
some sites from consideration as potential waste fill
repositories and may cause significant increases in costs
of construction and operation as mitigation and stabi-
lizing measures are adopted.
Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic impacts are typically expected at a
waste disposal facility because of the nature of the
general area, particularly in a rural and relatively un-
developed area. The types of these impacts, however,
can be beneficial as well as adverse. Table 6 presents
examples of potential social and economic impacts
from a landfill– quarry site.
The safe deposition of waste to the best engineering
standards is to the benefit of the community and the
environment at large, and the control measures at all
levels of the operation combine to reduce to an accept-
able level the risk, disturbance, and annoyance of all
sectors of the community. However, this cannot be
taken for granted, and appropriate public relations
exercises and regular liaison meetings with local com-
munities and formalized groups representing commu-
nity interests are part of the practice of good site man-
agement. Provision of information packages to
residents that may move into the area would assist them
to integrate better into the local community. An open
door policy through which anyone can visit the site
unannounced at any time, and the instigation of a
524 M. El-Fadel and others
Table 2. Landfill gas and leachate formation, quality, and influencing factors
Landfill gas formation
While the composition of MSW varies substantially, total
organic content constitutes its highest percentage. Most
organic materials are biodegradable and can be broken
down into simpler compounds by aerobic and anaerobic
microorganisms leading to the formation of landfill gas.
Landfill gas quality
Landfill gas quality depends on the decomposition stage in
a landfill as depicted in Figure 5. Under stabilized
methanogenic conditions, methane and carbon dioxide
are the two principal components of landfill gas and form
more than 90% of the total gas generated. Nitrogen and
oxygen are normally present in small quantities as a result
of air entrapment during waste deposition, atmospheric air
diffusion through the landfill cover especially in the near
surface layers, or air intrusion from negative landfill
pressure when landfill gas is extracted. Other gases include
hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide and trace compounds.
Gas and leachate formation influencing factors
Physical/Chemical
● Waste composition, density, particle size
● Temperature
● pH
● Nutrients and microbes
● Moisture content
● Inhibitors (oxygen, hydrogen, sulfates, metals)
Figure 9. Minimum liner requirements.
formal complaints system that responds in a timely
fashion to complaints about nuisances such as odor or
noise are important means of building confidence in
Leachate formation
Leachate formation results from the removal of
soluble compounds by the percolation of water
through the refuse mass. Soluble compounds
are encountered in the refuse at emplacement
or are formed in chemical and biological
processes.
Leachate quality
The quality of landfill leachate depends upon
the stage of fermentation in the landfill as
depicted in Figure 5, waste composition,
operational procedures, and codisposal of
industrial wastes. Many chemicals (e.g., metals,
aliphatics, acyclics, terpenes, and aromatics)
have been detected in landfill leachate. Similar
to gas quality, leachate quality vary with the
stage of decomposition. It is difficult to
generalize as to the particular chemical
concentration that a leachate will contain
however, in most cases, concentrations
continually decrease with time.
Operational
● Pretreatment, compaction
● Ambient weather, moisture, air intrusion
● Buffering
● Seeding
● Rainfall, irrigation, ground water intrusion,
leachate recirculation, landfill cover
● Ambient weather, gas recovery, industrial
waste co-disposal, air intrusion
the operations and management. Publication of data
and reports on environmental performance of the fa-
cility can also be important in terms of providing direct
 Quarries for Waste Disposal 525

Table 3. Key components of a leachate management system

Component
Minimization of leachate generation
Containment of leachate within the landfill
Control of leachate quality
Collection and disposal of leachate
Monitoring
Contingency plans
Function
Control of surface and groundwater inputs.
Minimization of amount of precipitation coming into contact with the waste.
Phased disposal and progressive restoration.
Use of a low permeability cap.
Shaping of landform to encourage surface water runoff away from active
phases.
Control of liquid waste inputs.
Use of a double or composite liner system.
Construction of liner above water table.
Retention of sufficient unsaturated zone to provide for leachate attenuation.
Perimeter and cell bunding with low permeability bund walls.
Quality control of liner installation.
Leaching tests on incoming waste.
Ban on specific wastes.
Recirculation.
Piping system.
Collection sumps.
Removal pumps (resistant to leachate attack).
Treatment prior to discharge.
Measure head within landfill.
Interspace drain monitoring.
Groundwater monitoring wells.
Groundwater contamination detected.

Table 4. Key components of a gas management system

Passive gas control system
Pressure relief vents
Perimeter interceptor trenches
Perimeter barrier trench or slurry wall
Impermeable barriers within landfills
Active gas control system Management option
Perimeter gas extraction and odor control wells Atmospheric release
Perimeter gas extraction trench Flaring
Perimeter air injection wells Landfill gas energy recovery
Vertical gas extraction wells Landfill gas purification
Horizontal gas extraction wells and recovery

evidence of commitment to effective management. Last
but not least, economic incentives should be provided
by the operator to the local communities by adopting
policies to recruit locally and to hire local contractors
when possible. An on-the-job training program should
be implemented for those that do not have adequate
skills to be recruited.
Traffic
Construction and operation activities are the major
sources of traffic impacts resulting from the develop-
ment of a site. During the construction phase, traffic
generation in terms of number and size is typically
irregular and temporary. The operational phase includ-
ing the transport of the waste from an urban area to the
site, will contribute most to traffic impacts as long as the
landfill– quarry is open. Both construction and opera-
tion impacts relate primarily to volume increases on
existing networks and resulting effects such as noise
level, nuisance, and stress to local residents, potential
accidents, and air pollution and adverse visibility due to
vehicle fuel and dust emissions. Previous studies indi-
cate that in highly congested metropolitan areas the
addition of a waste transport fleet to the existing sys-
tem, which results in a traffic increase of less than 10%,
will typically create no discernible environmental im-
pacts (IEA 1993).
Potential impacts associated with waste transport
should be controlled by good vehicle maintenance
and housekeeping, adherence to permitted routes,
observation of highway restrictions, and maintaining
responsible driving practice. Traffic control mea-
sures will be applied to site operations from the point
of collection of the waste to the point of return of any
vehicle having deposited the waste. The recognition
of highway speed restrictions and agreed/approved
routing will be incumbent on all drivers irrespective
of local practice. Waste vehicles will be carrying a
526 M. El-Fadel and others
Figure 10. Landfill gas and leachate collection system.
Table 5. Typical components that constitute a landfill final cover
Layer Typical material
Surface Cover soil, available locally or imported
Protective Cover soil, available locally or imported
Drainage Sand, gravel, or geonet and geotextile separator
Barrier Geomembrane
Subbase Compacted and graded native soil
hazardous load and procedures of normal and emer-
gency action will be implemented to ensure that any
foreseen incidents can be dealt with in a competent
and speedy manner. In addition, the recognition of
on-site traffic procedures will be incumbent on all
drivers and operators.
Traffic mitigation measures fall into two catego-
ries—those designed to control traffic entering and
leaving the site and those designed to mitigate impacts
around the site area. Typical examples of each category
are presented in Table 7. The operator shall develop
site-specific waste transport plans to ensure safe trans-
portation of solid waste to the site.
Health
Potential risks that may induce health effects can be
classified under two categories— on-site and off-site ex-
posure. The risk of exposure on-site is primarily to
waste handlers and operators. The types of exposure
Function
Contour landfill surface; support plants
Protect drainage and barrier layers
Transport rainwater that percolates through the cover
material away from the barrier layer; reduce water
pressure on the barrier layer
Restrict movement of liquids into the landfill and release
of landfill gas through the cover
Contour surface of landfill; serve as subbase for barrier
layer
include primarily direct contact with the waste or
leachate and gaseous emissions from the landfill–
quarry. Off-site exposure is expected to be minimal and
may occur as a result of on-road accidents during which
both handlers and the general public may be exposed
to the waste. Indirect exposure may also occur if con-
trol measures are not appropriately implemented. Pol-
lution of air and water resources by gaseous emissions
and leachate and the subsequent exposure of individ-
uals to polluted air or water are the best examples in
this regard.
The operator should provide employees with pro-
cedures on waste handling and occupational health
and safety. These procedures should clearly define
occupational hazards, which will be considered ac-
cepted by individuals who elect to work at the site.
Employees should be medically monitored from the
beginning of their on-site work and periodically
thereafter.

Figure 11. Typical components that consti-
tute a landfill liner cover.
Table 6. Potential Socio-Economic Impacts at a Landfill
Impact Beneficial
Economic Employment generation
Expenditure of wages in local area
House purchase and rental
Equipment and services procurement
Local authority business tax/rates revenue
Reduction in waste transport costs to local communities
Social Indirect beneficial community impacts from
employment and provision of skilled workforce
Noise
Noise impacts are the result of construction and
operational activities, as well as increased traffic move-
ments. They depend on many factors such as the size
and type of equipment used, intermittent versus con-
tinuous sources, amount of waste and hence the num-
ber of trucks used, hours and duration of operations,
height of operations above ground level, transport dis-
tance, proximity of the site to local communities, exist-
ing noise level, and local meteorological conditions,
particularly wind direction. These factors vary during
the life span of the landfill– quarry, and hence the
operator should periodically check the noise levels,
particularly along waste transport routes and on site to
ensure public protection and minimize occupational
hazards.
Noise control can generally be accomplished by
three different approaches—source control, interrup-
Quarries for Waste Disposal 527
Adverse
Loss of agricultural income
Decrease in property value
Perception of pollution-sensitive individuals
leading to out-migration
Deterrent to inward investment
Impact upon tourist or recreational income
Decreased level of resident satisfaction with
character and amenity of area
Perception of risk leading stress
Out-migration leading to reduced social cohesion
in small communities
In-migration of temporary construction workforce
tion of sound transmission path, and insulation of the
receptor. Typically it is neither desirable nor feasible to
insulate noise receptors at a landfill– quarry site. Meth-
ods of noise control that fall under the other two
approaches include, among others, the proper use of
equipment maintenance, the use of an enclosure fence
or a tree shelter belt, and limiting working hours at the
site. The operator should monitor the noise level, par-
ticularly on site, to minimize potential occupational
hazards for workers. Noise control from waste transport
is addressed under traffic impact control measures.
Landscape
At a quarry site, the landscape has been visibly al-
tered due to quarrying activities. Therefore, the effects
on the landscape from converting additional land to a
waste disposal facility are expected to be minimal. Vi-
sually, in most cases, this will not be apparent to local
528 M. El-Fadel and others

Table 7. Traffic control measures

Control measure Typical examples
On-site Independent access road to the landfill
Installation of a wheel-wash on site
Entrances and exits located so as to provide maximum turning space and sight lines
Vehicle movement in the direction of predominant traffic flow
Adequate off-loading and loading space to ensure vehicles can wait on-site
Adequate off-street parking for employees
One-way traffic within the site to prevent obstruction to vehicles entering and leaving
Speed restrictions on vehicles entering and leaving the site
Off-site Routing of traffic to avoid residential areas
Scheduling of deliveries/departures to avoid night time movements/over-night parking
Sheeting of vehicles delivering wastes and removing residues
Paving or use of suppressants to mitigate dust emissions
Ensuring that vehicles and containers are appropriate to the waste transported and
that they are adequately maintained
Use of locally designated traffic routes

Table 8. Landscape control measures

Phase Control measure
Operational Phasing of preparatory work to minimize the extent of temporary visual intrusion
Direction of working away from the source of view
Litter control and cleaning of litter fencing
Implementation of regular maintenance programs for landscape features
Progressive restoration to minimize areas, which are not green at any one time
Postclosure Laying of top soil with minimum compaction to provide a satisfactory growing medium
Usage of appropriate gradients to ensure soil stability and prevent soil erosion
Ensuring compatibility of final landform with surrounding ground levels and topography
Species to be planted should be compatible with the soil cover and surrounding plants

communities because of the presence of natural view
obstructions (mountains and tress) between the site
and the nearest inhabitable area. Future visual impacts
will typically depend on how the general area develops.
After proper closure, the effects on the landscape are
generally minimal, particularly if the site is converted to
a park. Control of effects on landscape should be im-
plemented during the operation phase and, more im-
portantly, after closure (Table 8).
Note that several landscape control measures may
assist in reducing other impacts; for instance, trees and
vegetation can act as a barrier against odor and noise
emissions, filter out dust, and replace trees removed
during construction.
and direct emissions to air, soil, and water resources.
These are sources that relate to the construction, oper-
ation, restoration, and completion phases. The con-
struction phase has the greatest potential for physical
loss and disturbance. The operational and restoration
phases have the greatest potential for exposing plants
and animals to contaminants.
The objective of biological control measures is pri-
marily the conservation of major ecological features of
interest, which is typically accomplished through ap-
propriate management of landfill– quarry development
and rehabilitation. The latter falls into three categories,
which are summarized in Table 9 with examples of each
category.

Biological Environment
The primary potential sources that may have effects
on the biological environment as a result of waste dis-
posal activities include taking of land, excavation, re-
moval of trees, construction activity disturbance and
damage, site engineering, maintenance and restora-
tion, noise, dust, litter, accidental spillage and leakage,
Environmental Management and Training
Appropriate environmental management and train-
ing procedures dictate that the operator ensures that
landfill– quarry operations are in accordance to the
current state of the art and knowledge. This can be
accomplished by instituting operational site-specific
 Quarries for Waste Disposal 529

Table 9. Biological control measures

Category Typical examples
Construction Scheduling of construction work to avoid breeding/nesting periods
Secure fencing of areas not required for land-take prior to work initiation
Routing of temporary site drainage away from water courses, ponds, etc.
Operation Maintain buffer zones around the site to minimize disturbance to animals
Minimization of litter blow by good cover, fencing, and hand-picking
Use bird scarers
Environmental monitoring plan for early detection of gas/leachate migration
Restoration Phased restoration plan
Planting of new hedgerows over the reclaimed areas
Replanting of woodlands and trees around site boundaries
Implementation of postclosure monitoring plan

plans that are adequate for protecting the general pub- significant environmental impacts associated with the
lic and the environment as well as contributing to the conversion process was presented and corresponding
mitigation of potential environmental impacts at the mitigation measures that should be implemented have
site. These plans should include a site-specific manage- been discussed and are summarized below:
ment plan, including security and safety procedures; a
waste transportation plan addressing vehicle contain- Potential impacts
ment elements, requirements for driving, routing, and
waste tracking; a waste placement operations plan; a ● Fire and explosion hazards
health and safety plan, including emergency and con- ● Vegetation damage
tingency procedures, facility requirements for employ- ● Unpleasant odors
ees and personnel protection; personnel qualification ● Settlement
and training plans, and monitoring requirements, ● Ground and surface water pollution
which are further addressed below. ● Air pollution
● Climate change
● Site stability impacts
Monitoring Plan
● Socioeconomic impacts
Waste decomposition processes are dynamic in na- ● Traffic impacts
ture, and hence there is a need to continuously moni- ● Health effects
tor the behavior of a landfill– quarry to assess its impact ● Noise impacts
on the environment and ensure its progress towards ● Effects on landscape
stabilization. The components to be monitored include ● Effects on biological environment
waste deposited, leachate, decomposition gases, surface
water, groundwater, and stability characteristics. The Mitigation measures
operator should develop and implement a site-monitor-
ing plan that will ensure environmental protection dur- ● Site characterization
ing all phases of operations and for at least 10 years ● Waste characterization
after site closure and rehabilitation. A typical monitor- ● Gas collection and management system
ing program is shown in Table 10. ● Leachate collection and management system
● Liner system
● Surface drainage system
Conclusion
● Cover system
The conversion of quarry sites into MSW disposal ● Monitoring program
facilities was described. The case of Lebanon was dis- ● Site closure and rehabilitation program
cussed, and the present situation in reference to waste ● Public relations program
disposal and quarrying practices and capacities was pre- ● Community awareness program
sented. The paper addressed the many concerns re- ● Site-specific management plan
lated to using abandoned quarries as landfill sites, par- ● Waste transport and traffic control plan
ticularly those related to settlement, stability, and ● Waste placement operations plan
hydrogeological setting. Identification of potentially ● Health and safety plan
530 M. El-Fadel and others

Table 10. Typical monitoring program at a landfill site

Element Monitoring frequency Type of analysis
Waste constituents Monthly Paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, rubber,
leather, wood, food wastes, glass, metals, etc.
Waste chemical analysis Quarterly (leaching test) pH, As, Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Hg, Zn, Phen, Cn,
Mn, Fe, Mg, Ca, K, Na, TOC, and Cl
Surface water Monthly (depending on water body pH, Temp, EC, DO, NH4-N, Cl, COD
downstream and flow rate)
Groundwater upstream Monthly Water level, pH, temp, EC, DO, NH4-N, Cl
and downstream
Quarterly (may be reduced to 6- As monthly plus: SO4, Alk, TON, TOC, Na, K,
monthly if there is evidence of Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cd, Cr, Cl, Ni, Pb, Zn
stable conditions).
Leachate at collection Weekly discharge volume pH, temp, EC
system discharge
points
Monthly (reduce to quarterly or As weekly plus: NH4-N, Cl, BOD, COD
annually if stable conditions
prevail)
Quarterly As monthly plus: DO, Alk, TON, TOC, NA, K,
Ca, Mg
Six-monthly (may be reduced to As quarterly plus: Fe, Mn, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb,
annually if there is evidence of Zn.
stable conditions)
Leachate at monitoring Monthly leachate level pH, temp, EC
points within landfill
Quarterly (may be reduced to As monthly plus: Cl, NH4-N, SO4, Alk, COD,
annually if there is evidence of BOD, TON, TOC, Na, K, Ca, Mg
stable conditions).
Annually As quarterly plus: Fe, Mn, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb,
Zn.
Landfill gas Generally weekly to 6-monthly CH4, CO2, O2, AP, OMD, temp, VOCs
depending on site specific factors
Other parameters Annually Void utilization, settlement

● Emergency and contingency procedures
● Personnel qualification and training plan
Mitigation measures can provide adequate public
and environmental protection if appropriately de-
signed, constructed, and maintained during the en-
tire life span of the proposed landfill– quarry includ-
ing after site closure. Note that under normal
conditions, development of the mitigation pro-
grams/plans listed above should be completed prior
to initiation of construction and operation activities
at a site and periodically updated after full operating
capacity is reached.
Literature Cited
Dar, Al-Handasah. 1996. A nation-wide study of quarries.
Technical report prepared for the Ministry of Public Works,
Beirut, Lebanon.
El-Fadel, M., and W. Chahine. 1999. An integrated solid waste
management system for the Beirut area. Pages 526 –534 in
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Solid
Waste, Rome, Italy, 7–9 April.
El-Fadel, M., A. Findikakis, and J. Leckie. 1997. Environmental
impacts of solid waste landfilling, Journal of Environmental
Management 50(1):1–25.
ERM (Environmental Resources Management). Assessment of
the state of the environment and identification of policy
options. Technical report prepared for the Council of De-
velopment and Reconstruction, Beirut, Lebanon, 1995.
Farquhar, G. J., and F. A. Rovers. 1973. Gas production during
refuse decomposition. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 2:4, 483–
495.
IEA (Institute of Environmental Assessment). 1993. Guide-
lines for the environmental assessment of road traffic. East
Kirkby, Lincs., UK.
Nuwayhid, R. Y., G. M. Ayoub, E. F. Saba, and S. Abi-Said. The
solid waste management scene in greater Beirut. Waste Man-
agement and Research, 14:171–187.
Parker, A. 1983. Behaviour of wastes in landfill–leachate/
methane generation. Chaps. 7 and 8 in J. R. Holmes (ed.),
 Quarries for Waste Disposal 531

Practical waste management. John Wiley & Sons, Chiches- EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
ter, UK. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Pohland, F. G. 1987. Critical review and summary of leachate Tchobanoglous G., H. Theisen, and S. Vigil. 1993. Integrated
and gas production from landfills. EPA/600/S2-86/073. US solid waste management. McGraw-Hill, New York.

View publication stats