Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environmental Pollution
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol

Review

Establishing indices for groundwater contamination risk assessment in the

vicinity of hazardous waste landfills in China
Ying Li a, *, Jinhui Li a, *, Shusheng Chen b, Weihua Diao b
a
School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Dongjiang Environmental Company Limited, Shenzhen 518057, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Groundwater contamination by leachate is the most damaging environmental impact over the entire life
Received 23 September 2011 of a hazardous waste landfill (HWL). With the number of HWL facilities in China rapidly increasing, and
Received in revised form considering the poor status of environmental risk management, it is imperative that effective environ-
26 December 2011
mental risk management methods be implemented. A risk assessment indices system for HWL
Accepted 28 December 2011
groundwater contamination is here proposed, which can simplify the risk assessment procedure and
make it more user-friendly. The assessment framework and indices were drawn from five aspects: source
Keywords:
term, underground media, leachate properties, risk receptors and landfill management quality, and a risk
Environmental risk assessment (ERA)
Indices system
assessment indices system consisting of 38 cardinal indicators was established. Comparison with
Hazardous waste multimedia models revealed that the proposed indices system was integrated and quantitative, that
Landfill input data for it could be easily collected, and that it could be widely used for environmental risk
Groundwater contamination assessment (ERA) in China.
Crown Copyright Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction hazardous waste disposal installations had been completed, and 4

Official data (MEP, 2011) indicated that hazardous waste output
in China reached 15.87 million tons in 2010, representing an
approximate 66.7% increase since 2001. However, according to the
communiqué on the nationwide pollution source census, issued
jointly by three Chinese government departments (MEP et al.,
2010), the actual investigation data revealed the true volume to
be as much as 45.73 million tons in 2007dapproximately 3 times
the volume quoted in the official data. Such a large quantity of
hazardous waste calls for abundant landfill disposal facilities, even
though there were only 9 HWLs in the entire nation in 2005 (DPF,
2006). With the proliferation of industrial plants as well as aban-
doned hazardous chemical substances, hazardous waste generation
continues to increase. To meet this rising demand, many HWLs are
being planned in China. Since the Chinese hazardous waste and
medical refuse disposal facilities construction plan was adopted in
2004, 31 comprehensive disposal centers have been brought into
the national hazardous waste management program, and their
design, construction and operation all comply with relevant stan-
dards and regulations. By the end of 2008, the construction of 18
* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: ying-li09@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (Y. Li), jinhui@tsinghua.edu.cn
(J. Li).
of them had begun trial operation and were in the commissioning
stage (CAEP, 2009). By 2010, 237 hazardous wastes and medical
wastes centralized disposal facilities had completed the construc-
tion tasks and been put into operation, and the resulting national
hazardous waste settlement capacity of approximately 96.41
104
tons per year is 3.2 times more than that in 2003, before the
planning was implemented.
To some extent, the implementation of planning project can
relieve domestic crisis of environmental pollution control on
hazardous waste, however, in the circumstances of primary stage
on which the hazardous waste management in China is, and
shortage of correlative supervision experiences, the Great Leap
Forward-style expansion of HWLs within a short time is bound to
bring about environmental risks.
In China, environmental risk management is a weak link in the
whole environmental protection system. Frequent occurrence of
emergent environmental pollution incidents in recent years soun-
ded the alarm for us to promote and strengthen it. In terms of ERA
on hazardous waste disposal and treatment facilities, there are only
four related regulations or guidelines have been issued or to be
promulgated. One of them is formulated from the perspective of
environmental impact assessment; one is mainly focus on the
potential environmental damage caused by production behaviors
in industrial enterprises; one is a handbook about the complication
of emergency response plan applied for the business activities

0269-7491/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.12.042
78 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
involving hazardous waste; the last one is the twelfth five-year plan
(2011-2015) to be enacted for the standardized management,
superintendence and examination of national hazardous waste.
Just a few contents are briefly mentioned in the provisions and no
comprehensive quantitative assessment procedure is set up,
especially for groundwater pollution. In actual application process,
the defective risk assessment system and deficient textual
instruction always create a qualitative ERA result without any
specialized standard. In consequence of that, the casual counter-
measures and simple emergency response plan is conducted,
which would make the landfill still in danger, even undergone the
ERA.
Therefore, the new centralized hazardous waste disposal facili-
ties that have come online rapidly in the last 8 years were all
constructed in the absence of experience, with deficient standards
and inadequate specifications. There is an urgent need for envi-
ronmental risk management of HWL.
Many research studies have shown that the most serious envi-
ronmental impact of a waste disposal landfill is the contamination
of local groundwater by the generated leachate (ElFadel et al., 1997;
Scott et al., 2005), even well designed and constructed (Edil, 2003;
Karnchanawong et al., 1993; Mor et al., 2006). Considering the
severe adverse effects of leachate on groundwater, many investi-
gations have been conducted to assess the environmental impact.
These can be summarized into four categories in terms of their
methodologies:
(1) simulation and prediction using mathematical models
(Depountis et al., 2009; Kjeldsen and Christensen, 2001; Slack
et al., 2007).
(2) field observation of leachate plumes underground near landfill
facilities, through in situ contaminants sampling (Buselli and
Lu, 2001; Depountis et al., 2005; Ettler et al., 2008; Singh
et al., 2008; Zume et al., 2006) or noninvasive geophysical
techniques, such as electrical resistivity tomography (ERT),
electrical conductivity (EC) logging, very low frequency-
electromagnetic (VLF-EM) surveys, and other multichannel
electrical and electromagnetic methods.
(3) leachate degradation and transport characterization by means
of isotopic tracing (Hogan and Blum, 2003; Hube et al., 2011;
Vilomet et al., 2003) and analysis.
(4) laboratory experiment testing (Oman and Rosqvist, 1999;
Weber et al., 2002).
These four approaches are not usually applied in isolation, but
are combined in every assessment. Of all the evaluation methods,
only Method 1 can give a synthetic assessment result considering
holistic impact factors, and it requires many parameters and large
amounts of data for its models. Different models are developed
from different conceptual assumptions based on realistic situa-
tions; more sophisticated and complicated simulation models
always mean elaborate database or parameter demands. However,
data availability and accuracy, application scope, and assumptions
abstracted from realistic situations always result in uncertainty.
Consequently, the results obtained from different models often
present great discrepancies, at about 1e2 orders of magnitude (Fan
et al., 2010), and more of the uncertainty results from model choice
than from inaccurate parameter values (Chen and Ma, 2006).
The other three methods also have their limitations. Although
Method 2 can determine the actual contamination situation of
groundwater or map the movement and distribution of leachate, it
is difficult to use this approach to predict long-term pollution
scenarios over several decades. Method 3 is always used to inves-
tigate the processes of waste decomposition and chemical degra-
dation without considering other risk influences outside the HWL.
And Method 4, while it is a valid simulation method, includes many
assumptions and simplifications, and generally results in conclu-
sions that are always distorted and limited to a laboratory scope;
a convincing result is usually attained only at the expense of
repeated experiments and extended scrutiny.
In the face of such confusion, this study attempts to develop an
assessment approach that can simplify the whole risk assessment
procedure and make it more user-friendly, so that it could be more
widely used. On the other hand, the actual conditions in
Chinadinsufficient financial and human resource investments into
hazardous waste managementdmake it difficult to devote
adequate time and energy to ERA. Hence it is critical to develop, as
soon as possible, a risk assessment system that is simple, conve-
nient, and easy to operate, and whose results can be applied at the
macro level. According to that, this research selects the risk
assessment index method as the key ERA approach to be developed
and investigated. Once the indices are established, appropriate
scoring algorithm and aggregation method could be adopted to
obtain an integral evaluation result presented in form of index
function. The expected assessment indices system is specially
constructed for groundwater contamination, and the evaluation
results based on profound analysis and synthetic consideration of
all potential elements could offer corresponding protective
measures and scientific management guidance.
Indices system applied for ERA of waste disposal sites is always
investigated from three aspects: site selection and decision-making
(Rapti-Caputo et al., 2006; Paolini et al., 2008), leachate pollution
evaluation (Praharaj et al., 2002; Kumar and Alappat, 2005), and
environmental vulnerability assessment of groundwater (see
section 4.2). Also, a great diversity of evaluation methods assisting
in the establishment and screening of indices systems are devel-
oped, including Delphi technique (Kumar and Alappat, 2005), GIS
model (Zamorano et al., 2008), fuzzy logic (Chen and Kao, 2002; Al-
Jarrah and Abu-Qdais, 2006), etc.
Landfill site selection is a complicated problem involving
numerous elements, including environmental pollution, social
effects and economic expenditure. However, too much concerns of
impact factors is bound to reduce the attention on groundwater
contamination and neglect the accuracy and deeply analysis of
adverse impact on environment. For leachate pollution evaluation,
the assessment indices are designated by the typical pollutants in
leachate and contaminated groundwater, which can be screened
through field sampling or questionnaire. However, just taking
pollutants as ERA indices to delineate the detrimental influence on
groundwater is so unilateral that it is more available for environ-
mental monitoring and status survey of groundwater contamina-
tion. Groundwater vulnerability is investigated from the
perspective of hydrogeology and focuses more on the characteris-
tics of underground environment, while less involvement of
ground activities.
In addition to that, some assessment scoring systems at the
regional or national-level have also been developed. Hazard
ranking system (HRS) is the scoring system used by the EPA’s
Superfund program to assess the relative threat associated with
actual or potential releases of hazardous substances (EPA, 1992).
Similar to the HRS, the National Corrective Action Prioritization
System (NCAPS) established a ranking system for facilities subject
to Corrective Action by dividing the hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities into high, medium, and low priority
categories (EPA, 2011c). After that, two environmental indicators
(EI)-human exposure EI and Groundwater EI-were developed to
indicate the quality of the environment in relation to current
human exposures to contamination and the migration of contam-
inated groundwater. However, neither the simplified factors for
groundwater pathway identified in HRS and NCAPS, nor the
 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
qualitative assessment by filling out EI forms, could describe the
HWLs groundwater contamination synthetically and specifically.
As a result of that, a synthetic assessment indices system is
imperatively needed, to incorporate other relevant information
concerning natural geological and hydrological situations,
contaminants properties, landfill construction and operation
methods, etc., and transform them into quantitative parameters,
which could be used for risk aversion, site selection, prediction and
assessment of groundwater pollution, and guidelines for landfill
design, construction, operation and management.
2. Indices screening procedure and principles
In an attempt to simplify the selection process, this paper is
aimed at establishing an integrated assessment indices system
which can be used to delineate the major properties of HWL. The
risk assessment indices screening flow is presented in Fig. 1.
Even though various fields that synthetic assessment indices
system is established for, several principles for indicators selec-
tion should be complied with (Guan et al., 2011): scientific,
typical, universal, quantitative, interdependent (Chen et al., 2009),
systematic and operational (Fang et al., 2009), meaning that the
evaluation indices should objectively and comprehensively
describe substantial properties of HWL facilities; their corre-
sponding data should be measured quantitatively and be easy to
collect; indicators must be not only selected for scientific signif-
icance, normal acceptance and easy operation, but also screened
as representatively and independently as possible without
duplication or overlap; in addition, there should be an extensive
consideration of the appraisal target, evaluation requirements,
and natural conditions and human activities in the surrounding
area.
3. General analysis of impact factors
An HWL site is an integrative handling facility consisting of
waste transport, storage, physicochemical pretreatment, incinera-
tion, solidification, final disposal and other treatment units. In
theory, environmental risk may occur in any processing step and
cause environmental deterioration to some extent. However,
Fig. 1. The flow chart for the establishment of a risk assessment indices system.
79
considering the high probability of occurrence and serious
contamination that would be difficult to control or remediate, the
waste container is selected as the major evaluation target. There-
fore, the spatial scope of risk assessment is defined here as the
waste dumping site, including all of its components and attach-
ments: the deposit area, the collection and drainage facilities for
the leachate, the surface runoff outflow guidance installation,
seepage prevention barriers, and final coverage layers. On the other
hand, groundwater pollution accidents can occur during the landfill
site planning construction period, operating period, or closure
phase, and consequently, the time scope of risk assessment
includes all three stages, demonstrating the need for total life-cycle
management. In addition, taking human health and environmental
quality as the goal, the migration and transformation of pollutants
in soil and underground water are the processes that need to be
evaluated for ERA.
Groundwater pollution accidents in HWLs can result from
various risk factors triggered by numerous circumstances. Even
though different kinds of landfills are located in different sorts of
districts, disposing of different types of hazardous wastes, they all
have common structures and coherent sectors. From the investi-
gation of a number of HWLs in China, including their procedures,
components, construction and actual operation approaches, two
categories were designateddon-site factors and off-site
factorsdand an underground water pollution risk assessment
system was built, as shown in Fig. 2.
On-site factors include the differences in landfill design and
construction among diverse facilities, such as the seepage preven-
tion system, the types and quantity of toxic substances in the
hazardous waste, the dumping mode, landfill service time, and so
on. In addition, the quality of routine maintenance and daily
operation also impact the causal factors and can affect environ-
mental risk. Off-site factors include primarily the climate, hydro-
geology, the likelihood of natural disasters and the environmental
sensitivity of the vicinity surrounding the site.
Because the risk assessment framework is both too simple and
too abstract to estimate the risk value in practical application, the
next step is to select critical influence parameters from among
these impact factors and quantify them as indices according to the
principles of index selection.
80 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
Fig. 2. Impact factors for the risk assessment of groundwater contamination caused by hazardous waste disposal facilities.
4. Index identification and screening
4.1. Risk source term
Source term analysis is an essential step of determining subtle
contributors to contaminants emanation. Only if source term and
pollution intensity can be adequately determined will the extent of
final damage be accurately predicted. Source term can be investi-
gated from two approaches: risk inducements and quantitative
analysis of pollution intensity.
4.1.1. Contributors to groundwater pollution risk
A considerable number of hidden factors and potential incen-
tives could cause leachate seepage into groundwaterdfor example,
sudden natural catastrophes, inconsistent operating procedures,
chronic detrimental interactions between leachate and leakage
prevention barriers, and so on. Historical groundwater contami-
nation incidents can be divided into two scenarios. One is the long-
term permeation of pollutants through even a well-built barrier
system; the other is the emergent environmental pollution risk
triggered by sudden calamities or contaminants infiltration due to
the destruction of liners. In spite of the detrimental impacts caused
by the first scenario, the risky conditions are both inevitable and
often too subtle to detect, and, moreover, a number of long-term
groundwater pollution prediction models have already been
developed in this field. We therefore decided to take the second
scenariodthe emergent situationsdas primary research
objectives.
(1) Natural calamities
Extreme disasters, such as prolonged heavy rain, earthquakes
and other geological catastrophes, would undoubtedly lead to
extensive destruction of waste containers, artificial impermeable
liner system, and even the aquifuge layer above the aquifer,
resulting in almost all leachate migrating into the groundwater.
Many research studies on emergent accidents in landfills caused by
floods and earthquakes (Anderson, 1995; Matasovic et al., 1998)
have explained the damage imposed on the environment as a result
of mechanical instability and the decomposition of landfill bodies,
as well as the substantial mobilization and transportation of
pollutants following seismic behavior (Krinitzsky et al., 1997;
Thusyanthan et al., 2004) and water saturation (Laner et al.,
2009). Surprisingly, even though the volume of leachate contami-
nants released from landfills because of flooding is usually esti-
mated by assuming the worst case of complete landfill leaching and
erosion, the results indicate that flooded landfills represent in
general small environmental risks during the actual period of
flooding (Laner et al., 2009). This result can be attributed to the
dilution effect of flooding and its higher impact on surface water
 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
with only slight influence on groundwater. Therefore, compared
with flooding, geological catastrophes, especially earthquakes are
the most significant natural disasters and should therefore be
considered first. Frequency and level of damage are proposed here
as the two indicators that most directly reflect the adverse influ-
ences of such calamities upon groundwater. The occurrence
frequencies of calamities can be obtained from regional historical
records, with higher values increasing the likelihood of leachate
discharge into underground media. In actuality, it is difficult to
quantify the relationship between the level of disaster and pollu-
tion intensity. Hence it is safer to assume that any such catastrophe
will result in the emanation of all leachate from the landfill site.
(2) Liner defects
Because of its complete impermeability, anti-oxidation qualities
and relatively high resistance to aggressive leachate components
(Muller and Jakob, 2003; Rowe et al., 2009), high-density poly-
ethylene geomembrane (HDPE GM) is normally employed in the
barrier system for almost all HWLs in China. Consequently, the
indices describing the physicochemical characteristics of liner
materials can be eliminated. Although GM is placed at the bottom
of the waste container because of its excellent impermeability
against fluid, some defects are inevitably introduced into HDPE
during its installation and construction procedures. And, since it
has been shown that HDPE is more impermeable for inorganic
pollutants than for organic substances (Kalbe et al., 2002; Sangam
and Rowe, 2001, 2005), keeping the HDPE liner free from defects is
critical to preventing the discharge of leachate dominated by the
heavy metals generated from HWL (see Section 6).
GM defects can be created by improper seaming, aging, inter-
actions with leachate, ultraviolet light, puncture by mechanical
equipment or by sharp or rough objects in the supporting soil, etc.
Since it is obvious that the number and size of the defects directly
influence the leakage rate, the generation rate and sizes of defects
in liners (Barroso et al., 2006; Needham et al., 2006) were used as
evaluation indices for HDPE GM service behavior. As for the defect
configuration and the distance between adjacent defects, numer-
ical studies have determined that the shape (Saidi et al., 2006) and
interaction between two defects do not result in any significant
variation in the flow rate.
A number of flaw detection methods have been used, in various
landfills, to determine the mean defect density (Laine et al., 1988;
Needham et al., 2004; Nosko and Touze-Foltz, 2000; Rollin et al.,
2002), and this value usually ranges from 12.9 holes/ha to 34.4
holes/ha. In order to establish a connection between actual condi-
tions and index values, 10 holes/ha, 20 holes/ha and 30 holes/ha
were used as the three demarcation points for construction quality,
representing excellent, medium and poor quality, respectively.
As for the sizes of holes, several research studies (Cartauda et al.,
2005; Giroud and Bonaparte, 1989; Koerner and Koerner, 2002;
Saidi et al., 2008; Touze-Foltz et al., 2006) using laboratory simu-
lations of the leakage rate of leachate through flawed barriers have
found a range of hole diameters of 0.1 mm to 18 cm. This parameter
could be verified by in situ detection conducted for quality assur-
ance after construction in actual landfill sites.
4.1.2. Pollution source intensity
(1) Leachate generation
There have been many research studies (Fellner and Brunner,
2010; Lu and Bai, 1991) on landfill leachate, most of them focusing
on its behavior and distribution properties, with complex analyses
of the flow in both unsaturated and variably saturated porous media,
81
including preferential pathways (Uguccioni and Zeiss, 1997) and
a wide distribution range of moisture content (Blight et al., 1992).
Although the variability and complexity of these analyses have
resulted in many methods for studying leachate leakage behavior, all
methodologies are actually based on water magnitude equilibrium,
with commonly used simulation models, such as HELP and HILL
(Khanbilvardi et al., 1995; Schroeder et al., 1994; Yalcin and Demirer,
2002). Therefore, in the interest of focusing on the vital indices
concerning leachate generation, eliminating the more trivial
considerations, the water balance method has been adopted here.
Using the water balance method, though, involves choosing
among a number of disparate factors on which water input and
output volumes may depend, such as groundwater intrusion, water
added during filling and waste condensation (Huber et al., 2004),
and leachate pumped out from sumps and injected through the
recirculation system (Yuen et al., 2001). Even though numerous
factors are considered, four requisite parameters exist in almost
every formula: precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, and
changes in storage media.
In China, an empirical formula based on the theoretical foun-
dation of water balance method is always recommended to calcu-
late leachate quantity for landfill design and construction (Nie,
2000):
Q ¼ CIA=365
103
Where Idannual average precipitation, mm
Adattachment area of the landfill cell, m2
Cdinfiltration coefficient of precipitation in the landfill area,
always in the range of 0.2e0.8
Qdleachate quantity from the landfill, m3/d
In contrast to municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous wastes are
rigorously pretreated and solidified before dumping into the landfill
container, so that their moisture and organic content are lower.
Consequently, the leachate volume produced by gravity extrusion
and biodegradation may change, although within a small quantita-
tive range, and rainfall constitutes the major portion of total leachate
generation. Therefore, the two natural environmental factors for risk
assessment indices are the size of the landfill attachment area and
precipitation. After careful investigation of the differences between
the water balance method and the empirical method in China,
a comprehensive concept-infiltration coefficient has been devel-
oped, to combine the remaining factors influencing leachate
generationdi.e., evapotranspiration, runoff, and water retention in
the waste storage area, which is correlated with coverage conditions.
Hence, in the interest of simplifying the application of risk assess-
ment indices to real-life situations, the conceptualized coefficient
was chosen as a risk assessment index for these factors.
(2) Leachate leakage due to liner defects
Almost all centralized hazardous waste disposal facilities in
China have chosen the flexible double-liner structure for their
leakage prevention system, not only because of its relatively low
cost, but also for its excellent ductility and ability to withstand the
stresses of geological calamity or waste settlement. As regulated in
‘standards for pollution control for HWL sites’, double-liner
configuration in China is constituted as follow:
 Primary leachate drainage layer (permeability not less than
0.1 cm/s)
 Upper artificial synthetic liner (always HDPE, at least 2 mm
thickness)
82 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90

Table 1
Summary of equations related to leakage through composite liners with defective geomembranes.

Application situation Equations Parameters and units Reference

Circular defects
 0:95  Qdleakage rate, m3/s Giroud (1997)
hw
Q ¼ bc 1 þ 0:1 a0:1 h0:9
w ks
0:74
Ksdhydraulic conductivity of low-
Ls
Long defects
 0:95  permeability soil underlying the
hw
Q ¼ bl 1 þ 0:2 w0:1 hw
0:45 k0:87
s geomembrane, m/s
Ls
adarea of hole in the geomembrane, m2
hwdliquid depth on the geomembrane, m
Lsdthickness of soil layer, m
wdwidth of defect, m
bc, bldcoefficients, 0.21and 0.52, respectively,
for good contact; 1.15 and 1.22, respectively,
for poor contact
Circular defects and Qc ¼ FcKshtr Qcdleakage through circular defect in Foose et al.
r
perfect contact between Fc ¼ 4 þ 3:35 composite liner, m3/s (2001b)
Ls
GM and CCL Fcdnondimensional flow factor for circular defects
Long defects and perfect Ql ¼ FlKsht Ksdsaturated hydraulic conductivity of soil liner, m/s
1
contact between Fl ¼   htdtotal head drop across composite liner, m
w
GM and CCL 0:52  0:76log rdradius of defect, m
Ls
Long defects and imperfect Ql ¼ FlKsht Qldleakage rate per unit length of long defect, m3/s
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
contact between 2 w Ls T Fldnondimensional flow factor for long defects
GM and CCL Fl ¼ þ wdwidth of defect, m
Ls 2 Ks
Lsdthickness of soil liner, m
Tdtransmissivity of the interface, m2/s
Single circular hole 2hw HLdthickness of the liner, m Rowe and
Q ¼ pks ½r02 is þ 2is D1 þ 2is D2  D 
HL þ Hf 2 Abdelatty
(2007)
½rw l1 ðr0 ; rw ÞK1 ðarw Þ þ rw l2 ðr0 ; rw ÞI1 ðarw Þ Hf e thickness of the foundation layer above
D1 ¼ 
a the underlying aquifer, m
rw l1 ðr0 ; rw ÞK1 ðarw Þ r0 l2 ðr0 ; rw ÞI1 ðar0 Þ
þ þ
a a
rw l1 ðrw ; r0 ÞK1 ðarw Þ  rw l2 ðrw ; r0 ÞI1 ðarw Þ
D2 ¼
a
r0 l1 ðrw ; r0 ÞK1 ðar0 Þ r0 l2 ðrw ; r0 ÞI1 ðar0 Þ
þ þ
a a
I0 ðaYÞ hadhydraulic head in the aquifer, m
l1 ðX; YÞ ¼
K0 ðaXÞI0 ðaYÞ  K0 ðaYÞI0 ðaXÞ
K0 ðaYÞ hwdhydraulic head on top of the geomembrane, m
l2 ðX; YÞ ¼
K0 ðaXÞI0 ðaYÞ  K0 ðaYÞI0 ðaXÞ isd1þ(hweha)/(HfþHL), mean gradient through the
clay liner and underlying foundation layer if there
were no geomembrane
ksdharmonic mean hydraulic conductivity of the
liner and foundation layer, m/s
Qdflow through defect in the geomembrane for
each hole, m3/s
r0dradius of the hole in the geomembrane, m
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rwdwetted radius around the hole, m
ks
a ¼ qkdtransmissivity of the interface between the
ðHL þ Hf Þqk
geomembrane and the clay liner, m2/s
K0, I0, K1 and I1dBessel functions

 Secondary leachate drainage layer (permeability not less than
0.1 cm/s)
 Lower artificial synthetic liner (always HDPE, at least 1 mm
thickness)
 Compacted natural materials (always compacted clay liner, at
least 0.5 m thickness) whose permeability coefficient is no
more than 1.0
107 cm/s
It can be seen that the essential components of double-liner
barriers is in fact a composite layerdi.e. HDPE þ compacted clay
liner (CCL). Therefore, leakage through composite liners due to
defects in the GM was chosen for our research objective, and
correlative investigations were subsequently implemented.
Compared to the diffusive transport mechanism in intact liner
systems (Foose et al., 2002; Kalbe et al., 2002), leakage is the
dominant mode for contaminants to migrate through flawed GMs.
The pollutants transportation course in composite liners consists of
two steps: first, flow through existing defects in the HDPE, and,
second, convection and diffusion movement within the compact
clay layer (Edil, 2003). Various researchers have also investigated
the migration mechanism by means of laboratory experiments
(Chai and Miura, 2003; Koerner and Koerner, 2002; McWatters and
Rowe, 2009), empirical equations (Giroud and Touze-Foltz, 2005;
Touze-Foltz and Giroud, 2003; Walton et al., 1997), and mathe-
matical simulation models with analytical or numerical solutions
(Cartaud et al., 2005b; Touze-Foltz et al., 2001; Xie et al., 2010). The
most widely used of these empirical and numerical equations and
their application are elaborated as follow (Table 1).
The parameters embodied in the three equations listed in the
table have exhibited an unprecedented coherence with each
other, and the highlights in the formulas can be summarized as
liner thickness, pressure, hydraulic head, transmissivity of the
interface between GM and CCL, and hydraulic conductivity of the
CCL.
The critical influence of interface transmissivity between GM
and CCL on the leakage rate has been emphasized by several
researchers (Chai and Miura, 2003; Cartaud et al., 2005a; Chai et al.,
2008; Giroud et al., 1992). However, gaps between the two layers
are difficult to measure, and the connection can only be appraised
as “connecting well” or “connecting poorly” in real-life operation. If
 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90 83

the clay is compacted smoothly, as required by construction regu- Table 2

lations, there will be a good connection with GM. To some extent, Index evaluation models applied to groundwater vulnerability assessment.
then, the quality of the landfill site construction and barrier system Assessment model Indices Reference
installation will determine the interface transmissivity, and SINTACS (acronym for Depth to water table Al-Amoush
consequently the leakage rate of leachate through the liners Italian names of the Effective infiltration et al. (2010)
(Section 4.5). Of course, other tow critical elements are the size and parameters taken into Non-saturated zone
number of defects in GM, as discussed above (Section 4.1). consideration) Soil texture
Aquifer media
Hydraulic conductivity
4.2. Underground media Topographic slope
LI (leaching index) Annual precipitation National Soils
Considering their direct relationship to groundwater pollution, Hydrologic soil group Handbook (1993)
geohydrology features and leachate properties are the two most Rainfall distribution
RF (retardation factor) Chemical-specific organic- Rao et al. (1985)
essential elements to introduce into the indices system. However, carbon partition coefficient
expert knowledge of hydrologic geology is beyond the sophistica- Fraction of organic carbon
tion level of environmental science, much less for risk assessment. content in soil
Hence it is critical to design impact factors involved in this aspect Soil bulk density
Soil volumetric water
which will be concise and accessible for environmentalists in actual
content
risk management of HWL. This goal can be achieved by investi- AF (attenuation factor) Mass of chemicals applied Murray and
gating a related conceptiondgroundwater vulnerability. at source McCray (2005)
Vulnerability is commonly defined as the relative ease with Mass of chemicals in the soil
which a contaminant can migrate to the aquifer of interest under profile at certain depth
LPI (leaching potential Average pore water velocity Meeks and
a given set of agronomic management practices and aquifer
index) in vadose zone Dean (1990)
sensitivity conditions (EPA, 1993). In order to improve groundwater Retardation factor
management and soil exploitation, the concept of groundwater First order degradation rate
vulnerability has been established, to identify the areas where the Depth to water table
DRASRIC (acronym for the Depth to water table Aller et al. (1987)
groundwater location is much more susceptible to pollution and
parameters taken into (Net) recharge rate
requires more supervision and control. As a result, aquifer vulner- consideration) Aquifer media
ability is always used to determine the potential groundwater Soil media
contamination zone and landfill site selection (Ibe et al., 2001; Topography (slope)
Simsek et al., 2008). Of all the popular approaches developed for Impact of vadose zone
(Hydraulic) conductivity
assessing aquifer sensitivity, the index evaluation method is
of aquifer
utilized most frequently. Its fundamental principle is based on GOD (acronym for the Mode of groundwater Foster (1987)
a synthetic estimation process performed by certain arithmetical parameters taken into occurrence
calculations of established parameters or factors, which correlate consideration) Overlying lithology
Depth to water table
directly with our investigation goals. Table 2 describes several
SIGA (acronym for the Soil media Vrba (1991)
popular index evaluation models and their parameters. parameters taken into Intermediate zone material
As Table 2 shows, there are many overlapping and even identical consideration) Ground surface slope
variables among the models listed above, which can be attributed Aquifer material
to their similar theoretical foundations (Lin et al., 1999) and Legrand Depth to water table LeGrand (1964)
Sorption above the water
numerous versions which have evolved from the same origin
table
(Antonakos and Lambrakis, 2007; Panagopoulos et al., 2006). Hence Hydraulic conductivity
it is reasonable to take the common parameters as indispensable Water table gradient
factors influencing aquifer vulnerability. Horizontal distance to a
pollution target
On the other hand, numerous model-sensitivity researches have
RI (risk assessment Depth to water table Nobre et al. (2007)
revealed the most sensitive parameters that can be unequivocally index) Recharge rate
taken into account. Schlosser and McCray (2002) have found that Aquifer media
aquifer vulnerability to pesticides, as assessed by the LPI and AF Soil/land use and land cover
models, was very sensitive to soil-water velocity, depth to (LULC) combination map
Topography and hydraulic
groundwater table, decay constant, fraction of soil-organic matter,
conductivity
and the organic-carbon partitioning coefficient. Ibe et al. (2001) Contaminant degradation
used four popular models to evaluate aquifer pollution vulnera- rates
bility of the Owerri region and identified the most important Mobility
parameters in the study area to be the depth to the water table and Toxicity
Well capture zone
the integrity of the confining layer. Almasri (2008) analyzed the properties
variation of vulnerability by removing only one parameter at a time, VI (vulnerability index) Depth to water table Hanna (1995)
and found that the vulnerability index seems to be most sensitive to Percent organic matter
groundwater recharge and vadose zone media. Depth to water present in soil
Leachability ratio
table seems to exert a greater influence on the vulnerability index
Hydraulic conductivity
than do aquifer media and hydraulic conductivity. To determine Soil bulk density
which hydrologic factors were most important for the assessment Water content at field
of aquifer vulnerability to pesticides, Schlosser et al. (2002) capacity
examined several cases and found the dominant factor to be DIVERSITY (acronym for Groundwater recharge Ray and
DIspersion/VElocity- Flow velocity Odell (1993)
hydraulic conductivity and organic matter fraction. To assess the Rated SensitivITY) Dispersion pattern
influence of single parameter values on the obtained SINTACS expressed as relative area
vulnerability values, a sensitivity analysis was performed by Al-
84 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
Amoush et al. (2010), who found the soil overburden attenuation
capacity and the depth to the water table to be the most sensitive
parameters.
An integrative survey of common parameters and sensitivity
analysis of various index models applied to groundwater vulnera-
bility assessment was carried out, and the following indicators were
selected for inclusion in the risk assessment indices system: depth
to groundwater table, groundwater recharge volume, hydraulic
conductivity, and slope or gradient of the vadose zone and aquifer
layer. Not included, however, were the parameters concerned with
contaminant properties, such as contaminant degradation rates,
percent organic matter present in the soil, retardation factor, frac-
tion of organic carbon content in soil, soil volumetric water content,
and so on, which would be discussed in section 4.3.
4.3. Leachate properties
Leachate is a combination of wastes and other substances in the
external environment, whose composition is determined by
multiple factors. The most important of these is the type of waste,
which determines the chemical components of the leachate, as well
as the various transportation features in the composite liners,
unsaturated zones and aquifer layers. A review of the varieties of
hazardous wastes dumped in HWLs in China revealed that the most
wastes are residue sediments containing heavy metals, abandoned
industrial materials, fly ash from MSW incinerators, and sludge
generated from waste water treatment facilities. Compared with
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWL), the wastes received in
HWLs contain more hazardous substances, and their solidification
products have a lower content of organic matter and a larger
number of heavy metals in the resulting leachate (Bonaparte et al.,
2002; Oman and Junestedt, 2008; Yamamoto et al., 2001).
Table 3 shows the major contaminative constituents of leachate
and the daily environmental monitoring terms in the groundwater
from three HWLs located in western and southwestern China.
These data were collected from the environmental impact assess-
ment reports for the facilities.
The data listed in Table 3 show that the most frequently detected
contaminants in leachate are COD, NH3eN, CN, Pb, Cr, Cd, As, Ni, Hg,
etc., while pH, Pb, Cd, Hg, COD, As, Ni and Cl are the elements
monitored in groundwater, because there is a high possibility of their
migrating from the leachate into underground aquifers beneath the
HWLs. Synthesizing the two results above, the 10 important pollut-
ants attracting the most attention from Chinese environmentalists
were determined to be: COD, Pb, Cr, Cd, As, Ni, Hg, NH3eN, CN, and
Cl, a result consistent with other researches (Gade, 1993; Pavelka
et al., 1993). Thus a general survey of HWL leachate components
shows that heavy metal pollutants are the ones to focus on.
Mechanical filtration, advection dispersion and molecular diffu-
sion are common transport patterns for contaminants migration in
underground environmental media. As the basic migration mode,
diffusion coefficient (Celik et al., 2009; Hong et al., 2009; Willingham
et al., 2004) of contaminants in connection with porous media should
Table 3
Leachate components and environmental monitoring terms in China.
City Leachate components Environmental monitoring terms
Guizhou pH, COD, BOD5, SS, As, Cu, pH, permanganate index, NH3eN,
Ni, Total Cr, Zn, Pb, Cd, Hg, Pb, Cd, As, CN, Fe, Mn, Cu, Ni,
Petroleum Total bacterial count
Chongqing COD, SS, Cr6þ, Total Cr, Turbidity, pH, Cl, NO3 , Pd Hg Cd,
Total Hg, Total Pb, Zn, Cr6þ, Total Pb, Ni
Total Cd, F
Qinghai COD, BOD5, SS, NH3eN, pH, CODcr, BOD5, NH3eN, Pb, Zn,
Pb, As, Hg, Cd, Cr6þ As, Cr, Cd, Cu, Hg, F
be the first parameter taken into the indices system. Second is the
solubility of contaminants in leachate which determines the trans-
port distances via the landfill leachate into underground media. In
addition of that, abundant indigenous microorganisms in vadose
zone and aquifer can participate in the chemical conversion process
of pollutants, and biodegradation is an effective way to reduce the
level of pollutants penetrating through the natural underground
environment, especially for organic chemicals. So, the solubility and
biodegradation of pollutants should therefore be included in. Third,
the unique physicochemical attributes of chemicals enable them to
exert a complex interaction with soil particles through various
processes such as adsorption, desorption, dissolved precipitation and
redox. Many researchers have studied the migration patterns of
heavy metal in soils, and the accelerated or inhibited effects per-
formed by other chemicals. For example, simple organic acids can
affect heavy metal desorption, solubility, and mobility in soil profiles
(Khodadoust et al., 2005; Renella et al., 2004; Schwab et al., 2005,
2008), by reducing soil pH values and forming complexes or
chelate compounds with heavy metals (Schwab et al., 2005; Sedlak
et al., 1997). Calace et al. (2001) suggested that Cd concentrations
would increase in soil in the presence of high molecular weight
fractions and a higher pH value, while Cu may increase in soil char-
acterized by low molecular weight fractions. Clearly, many factors
influence the retardation function that soil can exert on pollutants.
However, these influences are only partial adjustments to the sorp-
tion process. Therefore, as a widely used quantitative indicator for
delineating the sorption process, the water-soil distribution coeffi-
cient of the chemical was added as a parameter to the indices system.
Fourth, based on the criteria and principles of water priority pollut-
ants screening, chemical assessment and management (EPA, 2011a,
b), and hazardous waste classification administration proposed by
the EPA (2007), toxicity and quantities in ambient carriers are
important properties to be take into consideration. Fifth, most
pollutants in leachate are poisonous and environmentally harmful
substances, and some, like POPs (Weber et al., 2011), can even cause
severe damage. It is therefore necessary to take environmental
persistence and bioaccumulation into consideration, in order to
delineate environmental damage more comprehensively and real-
istically. Schlosser et al. (2002) suggested that the leaching potential
for pesticides is based solely on their transport characteristicsdi.e.,
biochemical degradation and sorption, represented by the biodeg-
radation half-life and the organic carbon partition coefficient,
respectively. Sixth and finally, several research studies have revealed
the unique transportation characteristics of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in liners and soils (Foose et al., 2001a; Foose,
1997; Mueller et al., 1998; Rowe, 1998), and their more critical
migration actions compared to inorganic compounds. The volatility
of contaminants is therefore another important indicator that needs
to be taken into account.
Reviewing the many research studies focusing on pollutant
behavior in various media, many influence factors have been found
which, working together synergistically, affect the final penetration
results. So, in addition to the basic transport processes of convection,
mechanism dispersion and diffusion, the indices involving chemical
properties are: toxicity, biodegradation half-life, pollutants concen-
tration in leachate, solubility, volatility, the diffusion coefficients, the
organic carbon partition coefficient, and the water-soil distribution
coefficient. All of these impact the contaminants’ final penetration
patterns and transformation pathways in environmental media.
4.4. Risk receptors
4.4.1. Environmental protection targets around the landfill site
Environmental pollution damages include natural resources
destruction, detriments to human health, financial loss, negative
 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
influence upon the social stability, etc. Hence the extents of the
adverse effects on sensitive areas by various impacts were taken to
be the objects of the risk assessment. Considering the various
protection goals, five typical and susceptible vicinities were
selected as vital protection targets, namely: Ⅰ: vicinities with prin-
cipal functions of habitation, medical health, culture and education,
scientific research, and administration; II: natural preservation
vicinities, including important everglades, natural forests, and
crude concentrated distribution areas of rare and endangered
species of wild animals and plants; III: zones with landscape beauty
and famous scenery; IV: underground drinking water sources; V:
districts dominated by cultivated lands and farmlands. The quan-
titative indices of the protection targets are summarized in Table 4.
Even though there are diverse objects are defined as deserving
protection, the distance between them is a critical element. There-
fore, in our research, the distance of the nearest protection object
from the landfill site was defined as another risk assessment index.
4.4.2. Exposure assessment for human health
The routes of potential exposure to contaminants can be
designated as three major pathwaysdinhalation, ingestion and
dermal (Fan et al., 2009; Kavcar et al., 2009; Moschandreas and
Karuchit, 2002). In this research, human health risks attributed to
exposure to hazardous stressors from contaminated groundwater
near landfill sites, involve the intake of drinking water and locally
produced food, direct osculation due to ambulatory intrusion into
polluted fields, and dermal contact through bathwater.
In this subsection, there are five critical parameters are identi-
fied: receptor features, exposure duration, exposure frequency,
average time and contact rate (Baciocchi et al., 2010; Elliott and
Oestenstad, 2007; Marquart et al., 2008). Among them, the latter
four factors always vary with the receptor features, such as age,
occupation, body weight, and gender (Bennett et al., 1999; Van
Oostdam et al., 2005; Wang and Grimm, 2010). Since accurate data
on these characteristics are difficult to obtain, the properties of the
majority of the population are defined as receptor features. Once the
receptor features were identified, the other four relevant indicators
could be determined without reference to individual incidents.
4.5. Landfill management
A series of standards and guidelines have designated specific
criteria for landfill site selection, design, construction and operation,
aimed at regulating the management of HWLs and decreasing the
probability and severity of environmental pollution and ecological
damage. However, in the actual operation of landfills, there are often
Table 4
Environmental protection targets around the landfill site and their values
designation.
Protection Evaluation objects Quantitative indices
targets
I Human health Exposed population
II Ecological integrity Species and quantities of plants
and benefits and animals
Areas of protection
Conservation grade of rare species
III Intactness of historical Protection grade of cultural relics
sites and other cultural Sheltered areas
heritage objects
IV Utilization efficiency Supply radius of water sources
and safety of water
resources
V Crop security Areas of cultivated lands and farmlands
Economic benefits available from
cultivation under unpolluted
circumstances
85
irregularities and unsafe practices (Moo-Young et al., 2004), as
a result of both human limitations and natural conditions. Such
occurrences can present hidden environmental perils. Therefore the
quality of daily HWL operations is another vital factor impacting
groundwater in the vicinity of landfill sites. However, the quality of
daily operations is an abstract concept, too vague to be identified
accurately and scientifically. In order to make it concrete and easily
appraised, this quality is considered from six aspects.
(1) Staff competence. Since specialized knowledge, management
ability and practical experience are difficult to quantify, the
percentage of professionals in the staff is used to measure the
human impact in daily landfill operations. It is assumed that
a higher percentage implies a greater likelihood that the
disposal facilities would be competently managed, a lower
possibility of environmental damage, and superior risk control
and interception when environmental contamination acci-
dents do occur.
(2) Site selection. The ratio between criteria actually considered in
site selection and relevant requirements in current regulations
is used as the indicator in this subsection.
(3) Qualified percentage of landfill construction. Conformance rate
is adopted to represent the qualified rate after configuration,
which could be measured by comparing the actual construc-
tion qualities to the criteria in force at the time.
(4) On-site equipment maintenance. Two indices were defined
here:
(a) Daily maintenance frequency: the number of times equip-
ment was quality tested and operating apparatus was
checked, per year, for the entire landfill site
(b) Timeliness rate of device repair and replacement: the
interval between instrument failure and successful repair
and return to operation
(5) Routine management. Based on relevant pollution control
standards and technology requirements in China, as well as the
key items on which environmental administration agencies
focus, eight management criteria were chosen, as follow:
 Laboratory construction
 Database establishment
 Layered and partition piling methods
 Landfill closure and coverage
 Seepage prevention system management
 Landfill disposal logs
 Readiness of backup equipment
 Daily environmental inspections
(6) Quality of the emergency response plans. The regulations and
technological guidance established for emergency response
procedures can be described as follow:
 Environmental contamination risk source term supervision
 Early warning system for accidents
 Hierarchy of emergency responses
 Incident aid and accident control
 Exigent environmental monitoring plans
 Emergency response termination and subsequent
rehabilitation
Once the synthetic risk assessment was completed, the indices
of (5) and (6) scores could be measured by consulting empirical
landfill administrators or environmentalists. The more items
completed, the higher the scores would be.
5. Indices system improvement
The cardinal indices to apply to groundwater pollution risk
assessment in the vicinity of HWLs have now been identified. To
86 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90

Fig. 3. Qualitative risk assessment indices of groundwater contamination risk assessment because of hazardous waste disposal facility.
 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
determine whether the indices are reasonable, comprehensive and
applicable, they are analyzed using multimedia models developed
for ERA.
From the time when ERA was first proposed, evaluation meth-
odology has developed from traditional generic, single-medium,
and deterministic to multimedia, realistic, detailed, and sophisti-
cated. A series of multimedia models have been utilized to estimate
exposure and risk from contaminants, from source to receptor,
through multiple pathways (Moskowitz et al., 1996). Among them,
MMSOILS, RESRAD, MEPAS, 3MRA and MULTMED are the five most
commonly used assessment tools for risk evaluation of polluted
sites and radiological contaminants (Babendreiera and Castletonb,
2005; Regens et al., 2000). Using a risk assessment multimedia
model is the most comprehensive method, integrating contami-
nant release, inter-media transportation, and subsequent exposure
(Laniak et al., 1997; Liu et al., 2007; Weber et al., 2011), and can
ensure universal consideration of risk impact factors. Even though
the various models have different emphases and highlights, all of
them describe the significant factors and information, and the
parameters embodied in the simulation functions are similar and
consistent with each other. The parameters, of course, are indis-
pensable, key to the integrity of the model. Therefore a comparison
analysis of our selected indices, with their input parameters, was
performed, to ensure that they are accurate and comprehensive.
3MRA (Multimedia, Multi-pathway, Multi-receptor Exposure
and Risk Assessment), for example, is a modeling system developed
by the EPA to conduct screening-level risk-based assessments of
potential human and ecological health risks resulting from long-
term (chronic) exposure to HWIR (Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule) chemicals released from land-based waste management units
(WMUs). It can simulate the behavior of a contaminant released
from a waste management units (WMUs) into the various media
(air, water, soil) based on the physicalechemical properties of its
constituents, the characteristics of the modeled WMUs, and the
environmental setting in which the facility is located (Furtaw, 2001;
Weinberg et al., 2003). According to the documentation provided
with the 3MRA software, the model consists of 13 modules and
many input parameters. Among them, approximately 9 modules
and 117 input parameters are closely related to waste landfill
disposal units, including the direct transport of toxicants and
hazardous chemicals into drinking water, and relevant contami-
nant transport pathways leading to groundwater pollution.
Even though the risk assessment indices identified previously
are simpler than the input parameters for 3MRA, all the major
indicators are embodied in the indices system, and there are many
commonalities among them. Because the inclusion of such
numerous parameters makes it difficult to collect original data and
implement actual risk assessment, a more concise indices system
consisting of principal factors and the most vital aspects of the
assessment object can make the risk assessment process both more
valid and more feasible. In addition, in order to revise the consid-
ering blank of seepage prevention liners in 3MRA, the leakage
scenario due to defects in GM was investigatedda scenario
consistent with the actual landfill operation status in China.
The only major omission from this research, that 3MRA provides
the capability for, is basic information about the landfill site, such as
civil structure, dumping and compacting patterns, disposal capacity,
wastes species and amounts received in the landfill, operation
period, renovation and extension of the landfill site, etc. There are
two reasons for this omission: the complexity of the site, with the
consequent indirect influence on groundwater pollution which
makes their relationship too difficult to measure; the overlaps of
parameters between 3MRA and the established indices system, such
as leachate properties and wastes species, leachate generation and
coverage traits, field area and attachment area of landfill in leachate
87
generation section, and so on. In order to avoid similar overlaps and
to comply with index selection principles, the impact indicators
concerning site information are not screened as the others are, but
are instead added as a supplement to the indices system by
comparing them with those defined in 3MRA. Looking at the “WMUs
Input Data” of 3MRA, the “area of source, waste loading rate, depth of
WMU, operating life, and number of waste layers in a cell” are five
independent indicators belonging to the landfill itself, unaffected by
external elements. Among these indicators, the “area of source” is
the same as the “attachment area of the landfill,” while all of the
others have a close connection with the waste “pressure” exerted on
liners, which is necessary for the leakage rate calculation in section
4.2. Also, the operation period of the landfill facility should also be
taken into consideration, not only because HDPE deteriorates over
time, but also because of the many differences in landfill manage-
ment and operation before and after closure. So, the only one index-
“operation period”-describing inherent site properties is identified.
38 indices are screened and established for the ERA on
groundwater pollution in the vicinity of an HWL, and all of them
can be quantified or delineated with definite values. Fig. 3 repre-
sents the risk assessment indices system, using framework analysis.
Concerning the risk receptors surrounding landfill sites, since
a large number of protection objects were included, a general
definitiond“values of different protected targets in environmen-
tally susceptible locations” was used. The detailed information is
given in Table 4.
The indices screening process in this paper provides a method-
ology to establish a risk assessment indices system. Considering
substantial HWLs at home and abroad are similar in design,
structure, construction, and pollution control measures, the ERA
indices systems are consistent in principle for different land
disposal units and diverse HWLs types in other countries, but could
be expressed with some replacement, addition or delete of indi-
vidual index according to this established one. On the other hand,
comprehensive considerations and reference of various ERA
models make the indices system universal applicability, which is
similar with the availability of simulation models.
6. Conclusion
Responding to the urgent need for hazardous waste pollution
control, many centralized disposal facilities are being brought into
the national hazardous waste management program, and a steady
stream of HWLs are coming into operation. The most damaging
environmental accident that could occur in the vicinity of an HWL
would be groundwater contamination. Avoiding such an accident is
imperative, and developing a risk assessment method that could be
easily operated and widely implemented in China would be of great
benefit.
Various risk assessment methods that have been applied to
groundwater contamination, though, have proven to be complex,
costly, and time-consuming, and it has been difficult to collect the
necessary data for their implementation. This study has developed
an assessment indices system to overcome these difficulties and
ensure a user-friendly and adaptable assessment method. Through
index identification and screening, a synthetic system with 38
indicators was established. All the indices delineate the risk of
groundwater pollution in an HWL site from five important aspects:
basic information about the landfill site, leachate properties,
landfill management, and natural conditions and human activities
in the surrounding area.
To simulate actual HWL operations in China, the most frequently
used method of leakage prevention liners was analyzed, and the
indices with significant impacts on the leakage rate through
composite liners with defects in GM were included in the system.
88 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
Using the empirical equation for leachate generation forecasting
widely used in China, indices concerning pollution source intensity
were selected. For leachate properties, an analysis of leachate
components produced in the HWLs in China was performed, and
indices for contaminant properties were selected, focusing on
heavy metals and their physicochemical characteristics that impact
the retardation effect of soil. The introduction of these indices that
are distinctly applicable to China improves the relevance of the
assessment indices system for HWL risk management here, and the
final results will be more reliable.
Compared with multimedia models expressly developed for
hazardous waste ERA, all the chosen indicators are quantitative,
available and easy to collect. The additions of landfill management
evaluation and leakage through defect liners compensate the
consideration lack in 3MRA, and make the indices system more
realistically applicable in China.
Acknowledgment
This work was financially supported by the National Public
Benefit (Environment) Research Foundation of China (No.
200909079).
References
Al-Amoush, H., Hammouri, N.A., Zunic, F., Salameh, E., 2010. Intrinsic vulnerability
assessment for the alluvial aquifer in the northern part of Jordan Valley. Water
Resources Management 24 (13), 3461e3485.
Al-Jarrah, O., Abu-Qdais, H., 2006. Municipal solid waste landfill siting using
intelligent system. Waste Management 26 (3), 299e306.
Aller, L., Bennett, T., Lehr, J.H., Petty, R.J., Hackett, G., 1987. Drastic: A Standardised
System for Evaluating Groundwater Pollution Potential Using Hydrographic
Settings. EPA/600/2-87-035. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Almasri, M.N., 2008. Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Gaza
coastal aquifer, Palestine. Journal of Environmental Management 88 (4),
577e593.
Anderson, R.L., 1995. Earthquake related damage and landfill performance. In:
Yegian, M.K., Finn, W.D.L. (Eds.), Earthquake Design and Performance of Solid
Waste Landfills. ASCE, New York, USA, pp. 1e16.
Antonakos, A.K., Lambrakis, N.J., 2007. Development and testing of three hybrid
methods for the assessment of aquifer vulnerability to nitrates, based on the
drastic model, an example from NE Korinthia, Greece. Journal of Hydrology 333
(2e4), 288e304.
Babendreiera, J.E., Castletonb, K.J., 2005. Investigating uncertainty and sensitivity in
integrated, multimedia environmental models: tools for FRAMES-3MRA. Envi-
ronmental Modelling & Software 20 (8), 1043e1055.
Baciocchi, R., Berardi, S., Verginelli, I., 2010. Human health risk assessment: models
for predicting the effective exposure duration of on-site receptors exposed to
contaminated groundwater. Journal of Hazardous Materials 181 (1e3),
226e233.
Barroso, M., Touze-Foltz, N., von Maubeuge, K., Pierson, P., 2006. Laboratory
investigation of flow rate through composite liners consisting of a geo-
membrane, a GCL and a soil liner. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (3),
139e155.
Bennett, D.H., Kastenberg, W.E., McKone, T.E., 1999. A multimedia, multiple
pathway risk assessment of atrazine: the impact of age differentiated exposure
including joint uncertainty and variability. Reliability Engineering & System
Safety 63 (2), 185e198.
Blight, G.E., Ball, J.M., Blight, J.J., 1992. Moisture and suction in sanitary landfills in
semiarid areas. Journal of Environmental Engineering 118 (6), 865e877.
Bonaparte, R., Daniel, D.E., Koerner, R.M., 2002. Assessment and Recommendations
for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems. EPA Coopera-
tive Agreement Number CR-821448-01-0. Office of Research and Development,
U.S. EPA/National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Washington, DC/
Cincinnati, OH.
Buselli, G., Lu, K.L., 2001. Groundwater contamination monitoring with multi-
channel electrical and electromagnetic methods. Journal of Applied Geophysics
48 (1), 11e23.
Calace, N., Liberatori, A., Petronio, B.M., Pietroletti, M., 2001. Characteristics of
different molecular weight fractions of organic matter in landfill leachate and
their role in soil sorption of heavy metals. Environmental Pollution 113 (3),
331e339.
Cartaud, F., Goblet, P., Touze-Foltz, N., 2005a. Numerical study of advective flow
through composite liners. Geosynthetics International 12 (6), 299e309.
Cartaud, F., Goblet, P., Touze-Foltz, N., 2005b. Numerical simulation of the flow in
the interface of a composite bottom liner. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23
(6), 513e533.
Cartauda, F., Touze-Foltza, N., Duval, Y., 2005. Experimental investigation of the
influence of a geotextile beneath the geomembrane in a composite liner on the
leakage through a hole in the geomembrane. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
23 (2), 117e143.
Celik, B., Rowe, R.K., Unlu, K., 2009. Effect of vadose zone on the steady-state
leakage rates from landfill barrier systems. Waste Management 29 (1), 103e109.
Chai, J.C., Miura, N., 2003. Large-scale tests of leachate through defects in geo-
membrane underlain a soil layer. In: 12th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Singapore, pp. 1e2, 361e364.
Chai, J.C., Hayashi, S., Khalili, N., 2008. Effect of effective overburden pressure on
geomembrane/soil interface transmissivity. Geosynthetics International 15 (1),
31e42.
Chen, W.Y., Kao, J.J., 2002. A Fuzzy Markov approach for assessing groundwater
pollution potential for landfill siting. Waste Management & Research 20 (2),
187e197.
Chen, Y.C., Ma, H.W., 2006. Model comparison for risk assessment: a case study of
contaminated groundwater. Chemosphere 63 (5), 751e761.
Chen, G.H., Liang, T., Zhang, H.W., 2009. Study on the methodology for evaluating
urban and regional disaster carrying capacity and its application. Safety Science
47 (1), 50e58.
Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning (CAEP), 2009. The Seminar on
Hazardous Wastes Disposal Facilities Construction Projects Held in Hangzhou
City (in Chinese). http://www.caep.org.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID¼2060.
Depountis, N., Harris, C., Davies, M.C.R., Koukis, G., Sabatakakis, N., 2005. Applica-
tion of electrical imaging to leachate plume evolution studies under in-situ and
model conditions. Environmental Geology 47 (7), 907e914.
Depountis, N., Koukis, G., Sabatakakis, N., 2009. Environmental problems associated
with the development and operation of a lined and unlined landfill site: a case
study demonstrating two landfill sites in Patra, Greece. Environmental Geology
56 (7), 1251e1258.
Department of Planning and Finance (DPF), Ministry of Environmental Protection of
the People’s Republic of China, 2006. Brief Report on the Construction Planning
Implementation Status of Hazardous Wastes and Medical Wastes Disposal
Facilities in China (18) (in Chinese). http://gcs.mep.gov.cn/wxfw/gzjb/200612/
t20061221_97594.htm.
Edil, T.B., 2003. A review of aqueous-phase VOC transport in modern landfill liners.
Waste Management 23 (7), 561e571.
ElFadel, M., Findikakis, A.N., Leckie, J.O., 1997. Modeling leachate generation and
transport in solid waste landfills. Environmental Technology 18 (7), 669e686.
Elliott, L.J., Oestenstad, R.K., 2007. Evaluation of the predictive abilities of a quali-
tative exposure assessment model. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene 4 (6), 440e447.
Ettler, V., Mihaljevic, M., Matura, M., Skalova, M., Sebek, O., Bezdicka, P., 2008.
Temporal variation of trace elements in waters polluted by municipal solid
waste landfill leachate. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicity
80 (3), 274e279.
Fan, C., Wang, G.S., Chen, Y.C., Ko, C.H., 2009. Risk assessment of exposure to volatile
organic compounds in groundwater in Taiwan. Science of the Total Environ-
ment 407 (7), 2165e2174.
Fan, C.H., Chen, Y.C., Ma, H.W., Wang, G.S., 2010. Comparative study of multimedia
models applied to the risk assessment of soil and groundwater contamination
sites in Taiwan. Journal of Hazardous Materials 182 (1e3), 778e786.
Fang, M., Liu, Y., Jin, C.P., Ping, Z., 2009. Study on the index system of large-scale
non-grid-connected wind power suitable industry. In: 2009 World Non-Grid-
Connected Wind Power and Energy Conference, Nanjing, China, pp. 5.
Fellner, J., Brunner, P.H., 2010. Modeling of leachate generation from MSW landfills
by a 2-dimensional 2-domain approach. Waste Management 30 (11),
2084e2095.
Foose, G.J., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., 2001a. Analytical methods for predicting
concentration and mass flux from composite landfill liners. Geosynthetics
International 8 (6), 551e575.
Foose, G.J., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., 2001b. Predicting leakage through composite
landfill liners. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127
(6), 510e520.
Foose, G.J., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., 2002. Comparison of solute transport in three
composite liners. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
128 (5), 391e403.
Foose, G.J., 1997. Leakage rates and chemical transport through composite liners.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.
Foster, S.S.D., 1987. Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk
and protection strategy. In: van Duijvenbooden, W., van Waegeningh, H.G.
(Eds.), Vulnerability of Soils and Groundwater to Pollution. Proceedings and
Information, TNO Committee on Hydrogeological Research. Hague,
Netherlands, pp. 38, 36e86.
Furtaw, E.J., 2001. An overview of human exposure modeling activities at the
USEPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory. Toxicology and Industrial
Health 17 (5e10), 302e314.
Gade, B., 1993. Ion-Chromatographic investigations of leachates from a hazardous-
waste landfill. Journal of Chromatography 640 (1e2), 227e230.
Giroud, J.P., Bonaparte, R., 1989. Leakage through liners constructed with geo-
membranes, Part I: geomembrane liners. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 8 (1),
27e67.
Giroud, J.P., Touze-Foltz, N., 2005. Equations for calculating the rate of liquid flow
through geomembrane defects of uniform width and finite or infinite length.
Geosynthetics International 12 (4), 186e199.
 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
Giroud, J.P., Badutweneboah, K., Bonaparte, R., 1992. Rate of leakage through
a composite liner due to geomembrane defects. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
11 (1), 1e28.
Giroud, J.P., 1997. Equations for calculating the rate of liquid migration through
composite liners due to geomembrane defects. Geosynthetics International 4
(3e4), 335e348.
Guan, H.Y., Yang, F.Y., Wang, Q.L., 2011. Study on evaluation index system of rubber
materials for sealing. Materials and Design 32 (4), 2404e2412.
Hanna, R.G.M., 1995. An approach to evaluate the application of the vulnerability
index for oil spills in tropical Red Sea environments. Spill Science & Technology
Bulletin 2 (2e3), 171e186.
Hogan, J.F., Blum, J.D., 2003. Boron and lithium isotopes as groundwater tracers:
a study at the Fresh Kills landfill, Staten Island, New York, USA. Applied
Geochemistry 18 (4), 615e627.
Hong, C.S., Davis, M.M., Shackelford, C.D., 2009. Non-reactive solute diffusion in
unconfined and confined specimens of a compacted soil. Waste Management
29 (1), 404e417.
Hube, D., Gourcy, L., Gourry, J.C., Guyonnet, D., 2011. Investigations of natural
attenuation in groundwater near a landfill and implications for landfill post-
closure. Waste Management & Research 29 (1), 77e88.
Huber, R., Fellner, J., Doeberl, G., Brunner, P.H., 2004. Water flows of MSW landfills
and implications for long-term emissions. Journal of Environmental Science and
Health Part A-Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering 39 (4),
885e900.
Ibe, K.M., Nwankwor, G.I., Onyekuru, S.O., 2001. Assessment of ground water
vulnerability and its application to the development of protection strategy for
the water supply aquifer in Owerri, Southeastern Nigeria. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 67 (3), 323e360.
Kalbe, U., Muller, W.W., Berger, W., Eckardt, J., 2002. Transport of organic contam-
inants within composite liner systems. Applied Clay Science 21 (1), 67e76.
Karnchanawong, S., Koottatep, S., Ikeguchi, T., 1993. Monitoring and evaluation of
shallow well water-quality near a waste-disposal site. Environment Interna-
tional 19 (6), 579e587.
Kavcar, P., Sofuoglu, A., Sofuoglu, S.C., 2009. A health risk assessment for exposure
to trace metals via drinking water ingestion pathway. International Journal of
Hygiene and Environmental Health 212 (2), 216e227.
Khanbilvardi, R.M., Ahmed, S., Leason, P.J., 1995. Flow investigation for landfill
leachate (FILL). Journal of Environmental Engineering 121 (1), 45e57.
Khodadoust, A.P., Reddy, K.R., Maturi, K., 2005. Effect of different extraction agents
on metal and organic contaminant removal from a field soil. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 117 (1), 15e24.
Kjeldsen, P., Christensen, T.H., 2001. A simple model for the distribution and fate of
organic chemicals in a landfill: MOCLA. Waste Management and Research 19
(3), 201e216.
Koerner, G.R., Koerner, R.M., 2002. Geomembrane leakage arising form broken
needles with GCLs. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geo-
synthetic Clay Barriers, Nuremberg, Germany, pp. 209e217.
Krinitzsky, E.L., Hynes, M.E., Franklin, A.G., 1997. Earthquake safety evaluation of
sanitary landfills. Engineering Geology 46 (2), 143e156.
Kumar, D., Alappat, B.J., 2005. Evaluating leachate contamination potential of
landfill sites using leachate pollution index. Clean Technologies and Environ-
mental Policy 7 (3), 190e197.
Laine, D.L., Miklas, M.P., Parr, C.H., 1988. Loading Point Puncturability Analysis of
Geosynthetic Liner Materials. EPA/600/S2e88/040. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Laner, D., Fellner, J., Brunner, P.H., 2009. Flooding of municipal solid waste landfills-
an environmental hazard? Science of the Total Environment 407 (12),
3674e3680.
Laniak, G.F., Droppo, J.G., Faillace, E.R., Gnanapragasam, E.K., Mills, W.B.,
Strenge, D.L., Whelan, G., Yu, C., 1997. An overview of a multimedia bench-
marking analysis for three risk assessment models: RESRAD, MMSOILS, and
MEPAS. Risk Analysis 17 (2), 203e214.
LeGrand, H.E., 1964. A Standard System for Evaluating Waste Disposal Sites.
National Water Well Association, Dublin.
Lin, H.S., Scott, H.D., Steele, K.F., Inyang, H.I., 1999. Agricultural chemicals in the
alluvial aquifer of a typical county of the Arkansas Delta. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 58 (2), 151e172.
Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., Li, G., Zhang, X., 2007. Sensitivity of key factors and uncertainties in
health risk assessment of benzene pollutant. Journal of Environmental Science
19 (10), 1272e1280.
Lu, C.Y., Bai, H.L., 1991. Leaching from solid waste landfills part I: modeling. Envi-
ronmental Technology 12 (7), 545e558.
Marquart, H., Heussen, H., Feber, L.M., Noy, D., Tielemans, E., Schinkel, J., West, J., Van
der Schaaf, D., 2008. ‘Stoffenmanager’, a web-based control banding tool using an
exposure process model. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 52 (6), 429e441.
Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E.J., Anderson, R.L., 1998. Performance of solid waste
landfills in earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 14, 319e334.
McWatters, R.S., Rowe, R.K., 2009. Transport of volatile organic compounds through
PVC and LLDPE geomembranes from both aqueous and vapour phases. Geo-
synthetics International 16 (6), 468e481.
Meeks, Y.J., Dean, J.D., 1990. Evaluating groundwater vulnerability to pesticides.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 116 (5), 693e707.
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP),
National Bureau of Statistics of China, Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s
Republic of China, 2010. Communiqué on the First National Pollution Source
Census (in Chinese). http://www.caep.org.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID¼2429.
89
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP), 2011.
Report on the State of the Environment in China 2010 (in Chinese). http://www.
mep.gov.cn/gzfw/xzzx/wdxz/201106/P020110603390794821945.pdf.
Moo-Young, H., Johnson, B., Johnson, A., Carson, D., Lew, C., Liu, S., Hancock, K.,
2004. Characterization of infiltration rates from landfills supporting ground-
water modeling efforts. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 96 (1e3),
283e311.
Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Dahiya, R.P., Chandra, A., 2006. Leachate characterization and
assessment of groundwater pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 118 (1e3), 435e456.
Moschandreas, D.J., Karuchit, S., 2002. Scenario-model-parameter: a new method of
cumulative risk uncertainty analysis. Environment International 28 (4),
247e261.
Moskowitz, P.D., Pardi, R., Fthenakis, V.M., Holtzman, S., Sun, L.C., Irla, B., 1996. An
evaluation of three representative multimedia models used to support cleanup
decision-making at hazardous, mixed, and radioactive waste sites. Risk Analysis
16 (2), 279e287.
Mueller, W., Jakob, R., Tatzky-Gerth, R., August, H., 1998. Solubilities, diffusion and
partition coefficients of organic pollutants in HDPE geomembranes: experi-
mental results and calculations. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, USA, pp. 239e248.
Muller, W., Jakob, I., 2003. Oxidative resistance of high-density polyethylene geo-
membranes. Polymer Degradation and Stability 79 (1), 161e172.
Murray, K.E., McCray, J.E., 2005. Development and application of a regional-scale
pesticide transport and groundwater vulnerability model. Environmental &
Engineering Geoscience 11 (3), 271e284.
Needham, A.D., Gallagher, E.M.G., Smith, J.W.N., 2004. Prediction of the long term
generation of defects in HDPE liners. In: Proceedings of the Third European
Conference on Geosynthetics, Munich, Germany, pp. 2, 507e514.
Needham, A.D., Smith, J.W.N., Gallagher, E.M.G., 2006. The service life of poly-
ethylene geomembrane barriers. Engineering Geology 85 (1e2), 82e90.
Nie, Y.F., 2000. Waste Gas, Waste Water and Solid Waste (The "Three Wastes")
Disposal Engineering and Technical Manual (vol. Solid Waste). Chemical
Industry Press, Beijing, China, pp. 643. (in Chinese).
Nobre, R.C.M., Rotunno, O.C., Mansur, W.J., Nobre, M.M.M., Cosenza, C.A.N., 2007.
Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS, modeling and a fuzzy
logic tool. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 94 (3e4), 277e292.
Nosko, V., Touze-Foltz, N., 2000. Geomembrane liner failure: modeling of its
influence on contaminant transfer. In: Proceedings of the Second European
Conference on Geosynthetics, Bologna, Italy, pp. 2, 557e560.
Oman, C.B., Junestedt, C., 2008. Chemical characterization of landfill leachates-400
parameters and compounds. Waste Management 28 (10), 1876e1891.
Oman, C., Rosqvist, H., 1999. Transport fate of organic compounds with water
through landfills. Water Research 33 (10), 2247e2254.
Panagopoulos, G.P., Antonakos, A.K., Lambrakis, N.J., 2006. Optimization of DRASTIC
model for groundwater vulnerability assessment, by the use of simple statistical
methods and GIS. Hydrogeology Journal 14 (6), 894e911.
Paolini, M.A., Ramos, R.A., Zamorano, T.M., 2008. Environmental diagnosis and
planning actions for municipal waste landfills in Estado Lara (Venezuela).
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Review 12 (3), 752e771.
Pavelka, C., Loehr, R.C., Haikola, B., 1993. Hazardous waste landfill leachate char-
acteristics. Waste Management 13 (8), 573e580.
Praharaj, T., Swain, S.P., Powell, M.A., Hart, B.R., Tripathy, S., 2002. Delineation of
groundwater contamination around an ash pond: Geochemical and GIS
approach. Environment International 27 (8), 631e638.
Rao, P.S.C., Hornsby, A.G., Jessup, R.E., 1985. Indices for ranking the potential for
pesticide contamination of groundwater. Soil and Crop Science Society of
Florida Proceedings 44, 1e8.
Rapti-Caputo, D., Sdao, F., Masi, S., 2006. Pollution risk assessment based on
hydrogeological data and management of solid waste landfills. Engineering
Geology 85 (1e2), 122e131.
Ray, J.A., Odell, P.W., 1993. DIVERSITY: a new method for evaluating sensitivity of
Groundwater to contamination. Environmental Geology 22 (4), 345e352.
Regens, J.L., Obenshain, K.R., Gunter, J.T., Miller, V., 2000. Modeling radiological risks
to human health from contaminated soils: comparing MEPAS, MMSOILS, and
RESRAD. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6 (5), 777e788.
Renella, G., Landi, L., Nannipieni, P., 2004. Degradation of low molecular weight
organic acids complexed with heavy metals in soil. Geoderma 122 (2e4),
311e315.
Rollin, A.L., Marcotte, M., Chaput, L., 2002. Lessons learned from geoelectrical leaks
surveys. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Geo-
synthetics, Nice, France, pp. 2, 527e530.
Rowe, R.K., Abdelatty, K., 2007. Evaluation of two analytical equations for leakage
through holes in composite liners. In: 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conference &
8th Joint CGS/IAH-CNC Groundwater Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp.
1297e1302.
Rowe, R.K., Rimal, S., Sangam, H., 2009. Ageing of HDPE geomembrane exposed to
air, water and leachate at different temperatures. Geotextiles and Geomebranes
27 (2), 137e151.
Rowe, R.K., 1998. Geosynthetics and the minimization of contaminant migration
through barrier systems beneath solid waste. In: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, USA, pp. 27e102.
Saidi, F., Touze-Foltza, N., Goblet, P., 2006. 2D and 3D Numerical modelling of flow
through composite liners involving partially saturated GCLs. Geosynthetics
International 13 (6), 265e276.
90 Y. Li et al. / Environmental Pollution 165 (2012) 77e90
Saidi, F., Touze-Foltza, N., Goblet, P., 2008. Numerical modelling of advective flow
through composite liners in case of two interacting adjacent square defects in
the geomembrane. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2), 196e204.
Sangam, H.P., Rowe, R.K., 2001. Migration of dilute aqueous organic pollutants
through HDPE geomembrane. Geotextile and Geomembranes 19 (6),
329e357.
Sangam, H.P., Rowe, R.K., 2005. Effect of surface fluorination on diffusion through
a high density polyethylene geomembrane. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering 131 (6), 694e704.
Schlosser, S.A., McCray, J.E., 2002. Sensitivity of a pesticide leaching-potential index
model to variations in hydrologic and pesticide-transport properties. Environ-
mental Geosciences 9 (2), 66e73.
Schlosser, S.A., McCray, J.E., Murray, K.E., Austin, B., 2002. A subregional-scale
method to assess aquifer vulnerability to pesticides. Ground Water 40 (4),
361e367.
Schroeder, P.R., Dozier, T.S., Zappi, P.A., McEnroe, B.M., Sjostrom, J.W., Peyton, R.L.,
1994. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance(HELP) Model. EPA/
600/r-94/168b. Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Schwab, A.P., He, Y.H., Banks, M.K., 2005. The influence of organic ligands on the
retention of lead in soil. Chemosphere 61 (6), 856e866.
Schwab, A.P., Zhu, D.S., Banks, M.K., 2008. Influence of organic acids on the trans-
port of heavy metals in soil. Chemosphere 72 (6), 986e994.
Scott, J., Beydoun, D., Amal, R., Low, G., Cattle, J., 2005. Landfill management,
leachate generation, and leach testing of solid wastes in Australia and
overseas. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 35 (3),
239e332.
Sedlak, D.L., Phinney, J.T., Bedsworth, W.W., 1997. Strongly complexed Cu and Ni in
wastewater effluents and surface runoff. Environmental Science & Technology
31 (10), 3010e3016.
Simsek, C., Gemici, U., Filiz, S., 2008. An assessment of surficial aquifer vulnerability
and groundwater pollution from a hazardous landfill site, Torbali/Turkey.
Geosciences Journal 12 (1), 69e82.
Singh, U.K., Kumar, M., Chauhan, R., Jha, P.K., Ramanathan, A.L., Subramanian, V.,
2008. Assessment of the impact of landfill on groundwater quality: a case study
of the Pirana site in western India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
141 (1e3), 309e321.
Slack, R.J., Gronow, J.R., Hall, D.H., Voulvoulis, N., 2007. Household hazardous waste
disposal to landfill: using LandSim to model leachate migration. Environmental
Pollution 146 (2), 501e509.
Thusyanthan, N.I., Madabhushi, S.P.G., Singh, S., Haigh, S., Brennan, A., 2004. Seismic
behaviour of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. In: 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver. B.C, Canada, pp. 2702.
Touze-Foltz, N., Giroud, J.P., 2003. Empirical equations for calculating the rate of
liquid flow through composite liners due to geomembrane defects. Geo-
synthetics International 10 (6), 215e233.
Touze-Foltz, N., Rowe, R.K., Navarro, N., 2001. Liquid flow through composite liners
due to geomembrane defects: nonuniform hydraulic transmissivity at the liner
interface. Geosynthetics International 8 (1), 1e26.
Touze-Foltz, N., Duquennoi, C., Gaget, E., 2006. Hydraulic and mechanical behavior
of GCLs in contact with leachate as part of a composite liner. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 24 (3), 188e197.
U.S. DA, 1993. National Soils Handbook. National Resources Conservation Service,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1992. Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual. EPA 540-R-92e026. Office
of Solid Waste and Energy Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1993. A Review of Methods for Assessing Aquifer Sensitivity and Ground
Water Vulnerability to Pesticide Contamination. EPA 813-R-93e002. Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2007. Hazardous Waste Generator Regulations: A User-Friendly Reference
Document. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2011a. Chemical Assessment and Management Program(ChAMP), about
Chemical Prioritizations. http://www.epa.gov/champ/pubs/hpv/abouthpv.html.
U.S. EPA, 2011b. Water: CWA Method. Toxic and Priority Pollutants. http://water.
epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/pollutants-background.cfm#tp.
U.S. EPA, 2011c. Corrective Action History. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pgm_
aboutca.htm.
Uguccioni, M., Zeiss, C., 1997. Comparison of two approaches to modelling moisture
movement through municipal solid waste. Journal Environmental Systems 25
(1), 41e63.
Van Oostdam, J., Donaldson, S.G., Feeley, M., Arnold, D., Ayotte, P., Bondy, G.,
Chan, L., Dewaily, E., Furgal, C.M., Kuhnlein, H., Loring, E., Muckle, G., Myles, E.,
Receveur, O., Tracy, B., Gill, U., Kalhok, S., 2005. Human health implications of
environmental contaminants in Arctic Canada: a review. Science of the Total
Environment 351 (SI), 165e246.
Vilomet, J.D., Veron, A., Ambrosi, J.P., Moustier, S., Bottero, J.Y., Chatelet-Snidaro, L.,
2003. Isotopic tracing of landfill leachates and pollutant lead mobility in soil
and groundwater. Environmental Science & Technology 37 (20), 4586e4591.
Vrba, J., 1991. Mapping of groundwater vulnerability. Int. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists,
Ground Water Protection Commission, unpublished working paper for meeting
in Tampa, Florida, U.S.
Walton, J., Rahman, M., Casey, D., Picornell, M., Johnson, F., 1997. Leakage through
flaws in geomembrane liners. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Gngineering 123 (6), 534e539.
Wang, M., Grimm, V., 2010. Population models in pesticide risk assessment: lessons
for assessing population-level effects, recovery, and alternative exposure
scenarios from modeling a small mammal. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 29 (6), 1292e1300.
Weber, W.J., Jang, Y.C., Townsend, T.G., Laux, S., 2002. Leachate from land disposed resi-
dential construction waste. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128 (3), 237e245.
Weber, R., Watson, A., Forter, M., Oliaei, F., 2011. Persistent organic pollutants and
landfillsea review of past experiences and future challenges. Waste Manage-
ment & Research 29 (1), 107e121.
Weinberg, N., Henning, M., Kladias, M., Killingstad, M., 2003. Technical critique of
the multimedia, multipathway, multireceptor risk assessment model. Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment 9, 1679e1700.
Willingham, T.W., Werth, C.J., Valocchi, A.J., Krapac, I.G., Toupiol, C., Stark, T.D.,
Daniel, D.E., 2004. Evaluation of multidimensional transport through a field-
scale compacted soil liner. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 130 (9), 887e895.
Xie, H.J., Chen, Y.M., Lou, Z.H., 2010. An analytical solution to contaminant transport
through composite liners with geomembrane defects. Science China-
Technological Sciences 53 (5), 1424e1433.
Yalcin, F., Demirer, G.N., 2002. Performance evaluation of landfills with the HELP
(hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance) model: Izmit case study. Envi-
ronmental Technology 42 (7), 793e799.
Yamamoto, T., Yasuhara, A., Shiraishi, H., Nakasugi, O., 2001. Bisphenol A in
hazardous waste landfill leachates. Chemosphere 42 (4), 415e418.
Yuen, S.T.S., Wang, Q.J., Styles, J.R., McMahon, T.A., 2001. Water balance comparison
between a dry and a wet landfill-a full-scale experiment. Journal of Hydrology
251 (1e2), 29e48.
Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Hurtado, A., Grindlay, A., Ramos, A., 2008. Evaluation of
a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology. Journal
of Hazardous Material 160 (2e3), 473e481.
Zume, J.T., Tarhule, A., Christenson, S., 2006. Subsurface imaging of an abandoned
solid waste landfill site in Norman, Oklahoma. Ground Water Monitoring and
Remediation 26 (2), 62e69.