CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. LITERATURE SURVEY SO FAR 2.1 IMPACTS OF SOLID WASTE ON HEALTH 2.2 WASTE DISPOSAL IN LANDFILLS 2.

3 ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF LANDFILLS 2.4 PROBLEMS DUE TO LANDFILL SITING 2.5 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION 2.6 RELATIVE HAZARD ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS 2.7 GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY 2.8 ROLE OF GIS 2.9 INDIAN PERSPECTIVE 3. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM 4. AIM OF THE RESEARCH 5. METHODOLOGY 5.1 Why DRASTIC 5.2 STAGES OF WORK 6. SUMMARY 7. TIME SCHEDULE REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Fig 1.Development of suitability index 2. Fig 2.Compacted flow chart LIST OF TABLES 1. Table 1. Summary of various existing methods

1. INTRODUCTION Modernization and progress has had its share of disadvantages and one of the main aspects of concern is the pollution it is causing to the earth be it land, air, and water. With increase in the global population and the rising demand for food and other essentials, there has been a rise in the amount of waste being generated daily by each household. This waste is ultimately thrown into municipal waste collection centers from where it is collected by the area municipalities to be further thrown into the landfills and dumps. Landfill site selection is a complex process involving social, environmental and technical parameters. Since it involves debatable issues, the most suitable site that is available has to be chosen so that the evil effects to environment are minimal. Risk to human health is perhaps, the most important factor to be considered for landfill siting. The aim of this work is to develop a methodology that can be used to rank suitability of landfill sites based on human health risk. If existing landfill siting regulations in India are incorporated in this methodology, it can be applied to any of the sites in India. For processing large quantities of spatial data, Geographical information system (GIS) will be used. 2. LITERATURE SURVEY SO FAR 2.1 Impacts of solid waste on health Organic domestic waste which undergoes degradation creates a favourable condition for the growth of microbial population and becomes a serious threat to human health. Direct handling of solid waste also results in various types of infectious and chronic diseases in case of waste workers and rag pickers. The population which gets affected by the unscientific disposal of solid waste includes the population in areas where there is no proper waste disposal method, especially the pre-school children; waste workers; and workers in facilities producing toxic and infectious material, The risk will be very high in case of population living close to a waste dump and the population who is supplied with water supply which has contaminated either due to waste dumping or leakage from landfill sites. Solid waste, if uncollected and undisposed, also increases risk of injury and infection.

Exposure to hazardous waste, an even more problematic one, can affect human health. Children are more vulnerable to these types of health problems. In fact, direct exposure can lead to diseases through chemical exposure as the release of chemical waste into the environment may lead to chemical poisoning. Many studies have been carried out in different parts of the world to establish a connection between health and hazardous waste. Waste from agriculture and industries can also cause serious health risks. Other than this, if hazardous waste and radio-active wastes from industries arent handled in separate sections, the co-disposal of them with municipal waste can expose people to chemical and radioactive hazards. Uncollected solid waste can also pollute runoff water, resulting in the formation of stagnant water bodies that become the breeding ground of disease-causing mosquitoes and microbes. Waste dumping near a water source also causes contamination of the water body or the ground water source. The risk of such a hazard increases if more people are using such polluted water resources. Direct dumping of untreated waste in rivers, seas, and lakes results in accumulation of toxic substances in the food chain, through the plants and animals that feed on it. Disposal of hospital and other medical waste requires special attention since this can create major health hazards. This waste generated from the hospitals, health care centres, medical laboratories, and research centers such as discarded syringe needles, bandages, swabs, plasters, and other types of infectious waste are often disposed with the regular non-infectious waste. Waste treatment and disposal sites can also create health hazards for the neighborhood. Improperly operated incineration plants cause air pollution and improperly managed and designed landfills attract all types of insects and rodents that spread disease. Ideally these sites should be located at a safe distance from all human settlement. Landfill sites should be well lined and walled to ensure that there is no leakage into the nearby ground water sources. Recycling too carries health risks if proper precautions are not taken. Workers working with waste containing chemical and metals may experience toxic exposure. Disposal of healthcare wastes require special attention since it can create major health hazards, such as Hepatitis B and C, through wounds caused by discarded syringes. Rag pickers and others who are involved
4

in scavenging in the waste dumps for items that can be recycled, may sustain injuries and come into direct contact with these infectious items. Diseases Certain lethal chemicals if released untreated to the surroundings, e.g. cyanides, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls are highly toxic and exposure can lead to disease or death, deliberately or unnoticed it makes no difference. Some studies have detected cases of cancer in residents exposed to hazardous waste. Many studies have been carried out in various parts of the world to establish a connection between health and hazardous waste. So, proper methods of waste disposal have to be undertaken to ensure that it does not pose as a health hazard to the surrounding population and does not impose risk on them. At the household-level proper segregation of waste has to be done and it should be ensured that all organic matter is kept aside for composting, which is undoubtedly the best method for the correct disposal of this segment of the waste. In fact, the organic part of the waste that is generated decomposes more easily, attracts insects and causes disease. Organic waste can be composted and then used as a fertilizer and it is successfully practiced in different parts of the world. (The Energy and Resources Institute) 2.2 Waste disposal in Landfills The final functional element in the waste management system is waste disposal. Waste disposal is a final fate of all types of waste, either municipal solid waste, collected and transported directly to landfills, or industrial waste or other materials from waste treatment facilities which are of no use-value any longer (Ministry of Urban Development, India) Landfill forms the basis of every waste management plan, because there will always be waste to be disposed of. Of all available management options for solid waste management, landfill disposal is the most commonly employed waste management worldwide. Such landfill have served as ultimate waste receptors for municipal refuse, industrial or agricultural residues, wastewater sludge, incinerator ash, recycle discards, and/or treated hazardous wastes, and have thereby promoted greater interest in landfill system innovation and advancement. Landfill has been widely used for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal all over the world. Conventionally,
5

landfill is designed to contain or store the wastes so that the exposure to human and environment could be minimized (Nidhi, Misra and Shukla, 2011) Landfills minimize the harmful impact of solid waste on the environment by the following mechanisms (Fig. 17.3): (a) isolation of waste through containment; (b) elimination of polluting pathways; (c) controlled collection and treatment of products of physical, chemical and biological changes within a waste dump both liquids and gases; and (d) environmental monitoring till the waste becomes stable (Ministry of Urban Development, India) 2.3 Essential components of landfills The seven essential components of a MSW landfill are: (a) A liner system at the base and sides of the landfill which prevents migration of leachate or gas to the surrounding soil. b) A leachate collection and control facility which collects and extracts leachate from within

and from the base of the landfill and then treats the leachate. (c) A gas collection and control facility (optional for small landfills) which collects and extracts gas from within and from the top of the landfill and then treats it or uses it for energy recovery. (d) A final cover system at the top of the landfill which enhances surface drainage, prevents

infiltrating water and supports surface vegetation. (e) A surface water drainage system which collects and removes all surface runoff from the

landfill site. (f) An environmental monitoring system which periodically collects and analyses air, surface

water, soil-gas and ground water samples around the landfill site. (g) A closure and post-closure plan which lists the steps that must be taken to close and secure a landfill site once the filling operation has been completed and the activities for long-term monitoring, operation and maintenance of the completed landfill (Ministry of Urban Development, India) 2.4 Problems due to landfill siting
6

Generally in India, MSW is disposed of in low lying areas without taking any precautions or operational controls. Therefore, municipal solid waste is one of the major environmental problems of Indian megacities. It involves activities associated with generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of solid wastes. But, in most of the Indian cities, the MSW Management system comprises four activities only, i.e., waste generation, collection, transportation, and disposal (Ayub and Khan 2011). The management of MSW requires proper infrastructure, maintenance and upgrade for all activities. This becomes more expensive and complex because of the continuous and unplanned urban growth. The difficulties associated with providing facilities and services up to the expectations of urban centers are often imputed to the poor financial status of the managing municipal corporations. Most of the global MSW is dumped in non-regulated landfills and the generated methane is emitted to the atmosphere. Methane, when escapes to atmosphere, has a global warming potential that IPPC (U.S Energy Information Administration, 2003) estimates to be 23 times greater than that of the same volume of carbon dioxide. Nowadays, there are modern landfills which can capture and utilize landfill gas. The landfill gas is collected at source, cleaned up and processed so that it can be used for electricity generation. In India, most of the landfills are not designed to recover the gases for energy recovery but there are some ongoing project works on methane capture (Ayub and Khan 2011) Landfill Leachate can be toxic, acidic, and rich in organic acid groups. They can contain sulphate ions as well as high concentration of common metal ions. It contains mixtures of many chemicals having a potential risk to human health through penetrating into the ground water. Many researchers have undertaken the studies on ground and surface water contamination. Landfilling is environmentally acceptable if properly carried out. Unfortunately, if not carried out to sufficiently high standards, landfilling has the potential to have an adverse impact on the environment. This impact may be divided into short term impacts and long term impacts (Department of Water Affairs & Forestry-South Africa 1998) Short term impacts

Short term impacts include problems such as noise, flies, odor, air pollution, unsightliness and windblown litter. Such nuisances are generally associated with a waste disposal operation and should cease with the closure of the landfill. Long term impacts Long term impacts include problems such as pollution of the water regime and landfill gas generation. Such problems are generally associated with incorrect landfill site selection, design, preparation or operation and may persist long after the landfill site has been closed. Summarizing the impacts, such dumps cause the following problems: (a) Groundwater contamination through leachate (b) Surface water contamination through runoff (c) Air contamination due to gases, litter, dust, bad odor (d) Other problems due to rodents, pests, fire, bird menace, slope failure, erosion etc. The general objective of environmentally acceptable landfilling, therefore, is to avoid both short and long term impacts and any degradation of the environment in which the landfill is located (Ayub and Khan 2011). 2.5 Landfill Site selection The major goal of the landfill site selection process is to ensure that the disposal facility is located at the best location possible with little negative impact to the environment or to the population. For landfill siting, a substantial evaluation process is needed to identify the best available disposal location which meets the requirements of government regulations and best minimizes economic, environmental, health, and social costs. Evaluation processes or methodologies are structured to make the best use of available information and to ensure that the results obtained are reproducible so that outcomes can be verified and defended (Siddiqui, Everett and Vieux 1996) MSW management is nowadays a difficult and complicated issue, mainly for the following reasons:
8

 Collection and disposal is a major environmental problem related to human health, urban environment quality, greenhouse effect and natural and urban landscape aesthetics. Nuisance-the significance of which is often subjective-caused by the passage of MSW collection vehicles, the smells, the sight of landfill areas, the negative feelings from neighboring with an MSW collection facility, the worry for potential public health risks and the not-in-my backyard (NIMBY) syndrome understandably creates a negative social attitude towards MSW treatment and landfilling. (Hadjibiros, Dermatas and Laspidou 2011) A site may be technically and economically feasible yet may be opposed heavily by the public. The not in my back yard (NIMBY) sentiment is high initially. However, with proper discussion it can be overcome in some cases. Early assessment regarding how strong the NIMBY sentiment is can significantly reduce the time and money spent on planning for a landfill site which may not materialize. In many instances residents around a proposed site cooperate if the landfill site owners representative listens to concerns of the area residents and considers those concerns in designing and monitoring a site. Noise, dust, odor, increases in traffic volume, and reduction in property value concern the area residents more than the fear of groundwater contamination (Lee and Lee 2008). On the other hand, in most developing and in some developed countries, MSW management is nothing more than uncontrolled dumping. Discharge into a riverbed has been the traditional way of getting rid of refuse for thousands of years. Environmental impacts used to be tolerable when refuse mainly contained biodegradable organic matter, but are becoming increasingly important with increasing waste volume, toxicity and non-degradability (Hadjibiros, Dermatas and Laspidou,2011) Selection of a landfill site usually comprises of the following steps, when a large number (e.g. 4 to 8) landfill sites are available: (i) setting up of a location criteria; (ii) identification of search area; (iii) drawing up a list of potential sites; (iv) data collection; (v) selection of few bestranked sites; (vi) environmental impact assessment and (vii) final site selection and land acquisition. However, in municipalities where availability of land is limited, the selection process may be confined to only one or two sites and may involve the following steps: (i) Setting

up of locational criteria; (ii) Data collection; (iii) Environmental impact assessment and (vi) Final site selection (Lee and Lee,2008). An effective technique for landfill siting should have the following characteristics (Lane et al., 1983): 1. The technique should evaluate all land in a systematic and impartial way that can be reasonably considered available for landfill. 2. The technique should clearly establish the relative suitability of land for absolute suitability or minimum acceptable standards. These criteria or standards can vary from area to area depending on different constraints on available land or different public concerns. The technique should illustrate which lands are better or worse for sanitary landfills, rather than which lands are suitable or unsuitable. 3. The technique should be practical and be based on commonly available information. 4. The technique should be adaptable to computerized analysis. 5. The technique should be designed to explain clearly and directly the analysis and results in a format easily understandable by the officials and the general public. Landfill is considered as an active installation that can produce emissions (Zamoranoa et.al, 2008). Various landfill siting techniques have been developed for this purpose. For example, Lin and Kado (1998) developed a mixed-integer spatial optimization model based on vector-based data to help decision makers find a suitable site within a certain geographic area. Other researchers propose the use of multiple criteria analysis by itself or with GIS (Kontos,Komilis and Halvadakis 2005). The use of artificial intelligence technology, such as expert systems, can also be very helpful in solid waste planning and management. Fuzzy inference systems have also been proposed. A methodology called EVIAVE is developed by university of Granada and they used it for the evaluation of an existing landfill site in Spain .They used cartographic raster modeling in GIS for the work. EVIAVE is validated with landfills in Venezuela, Chile and Spain (Zamoranoa

10

et.al. 2008). Later, Abedinzadeh et.al (2013) applied this methodology for diagnosis of a landfill in Iran. Spatial models were generally constructed into a mixed-integer or non-linear programming models. These models involve analysis of suitability of land parcels within an area, specification of objective functions by the analyst, and determination of candidate locations which satisfy the constraints for continuity or compactness and other factors. Diamond and Wright (1989) defined compactness as the square of the longest distance between any two points within the selected zone divided by the area of the zone. Non-linear and integer multi objective programming models were then applied to solve a land use problem. The non-linear property of the model makes it difficult to solve by a computer. Wright et al. (1983) defined compactness as the length of the perimeter of the selected zone divided by the area. Benabdallahand and Wright (1992) used the same definition of compactness and a mixed-integer programming model to analyze a multiple sub-region allocation problem with raster-based data. However, the large number of variables and constraints used in their model make it difficult to solve. Although the model is changed into a non-linear model to reduce the number of variables and constrains, the solution obtained by the non-linear model may not be the global optimum. Minor and Jacobs (1994) proposed an improved mix-integer model to find the landfill site with best compactness and least cost from a set of irregularly shaped land parcels. Compared to these previous models for raster-based data, model developed by Kado and Lin (1998) used less variables and constraints. 2.6 Relative Hazard Assessment Systems A number of relative hazard assessment systems for waste disposal sites have been developed over the past three decades and reported in literature. Each one of these systems evaluates the relative degree of hazard posed by a site to environment and human health considering only the major parameters that describe the site quite substantially. Normally, waste sites are evaluated for one or more of the following three hazard modes: 1) migration of pollutants away from the site via groundwater, surface water, or air routes, or a combination thereof, 2) fire and explosion potential, and 3) direct contact with hazardous substances. In most of the systems, site ranking is based either on the combined score for various routes under
11

migration mode or the score for the dominant route i.e.the route returning highest score. For computing score for a hazard mode or a hazard migration route, the parameters describing such hazard mode or migration route are assigned numerical scores based on field data and qualitative judgment, and then the parameter scores are combined by an aggregative algorithm. Normally, three types of algorithm are used to aggregate system parameters: additive, additive-multiplicative, and multiplicative. In an additive algorithm, parameters are aggregated by addition or weighted sum of their numerical scores; while in a multiplicative algorithm, the parameter scores are multiplied. An additive-multiplicative algorithm aggregates system parameters by combination of simple or weighted sum and multiplication of the parameter scores. In an additive ranking system, the contribution of each parameter to site hazard is fixed in proportion to its relative importance; therefore, any change in one parameter can influence the final score only to that extent. As such, this type of system can return high ranks for a landfill even when some of its parameters do not contribute at all to the score, that is, parameters are at their best (lowest hazard) values. However, in a multiplicative system, which is highly sensitive to its parameters, a low contribution of any one parameter to site hazard can drastically lower the site rank, even if other parameters contribute significantly; for example, if contribution of one parameter is reduced to zero, the overall site hazard is reduced to zero. In an additivemultiplicative ranking system, the impact of a parameter on site hazard depends on the type of algorithm used to integrate the parameter with the aggregate score. Thus the site scores produced by the systems using multiplicative algorithms are much more sensitive to its parameters than the systems using additive algorithm, and the additive-multiplicative system scores fall in between the two. A brief summary of some important hazard rating systems, indicating various hazard modes/ migration routes, number of groundwater route parameters, and scoring algorithms considered in each system, is presented in Table 1. Each of the systems indicated in Table 1 evaluates waste sites for one or more hazard migration route(s), namely groundwater, surface water, air, or soil; some of these producing a separate score for each individual route, others producing only one composite score for all the routes. While LeGrands method and DRASTIC evaluate site hazard for groundwater route alone, the systems such as HRS-1982, HRS-1990, WARM, DPM, NCAPS, ISM, ERPHRS, RSS,
12

and RASCL evaluate 34 hazard migration routes, each one separately, and produce separate scores for all the routes. The other systems such as SRAP, NCS, HR-FCP, NPC system, and JENV system evaluate various routes concurrently and produce a composite score for all the routes. In such systems, which do not produce separate scores for different routes, the groundwater route score is calculated considering groundwater route parameters alone. This is however, possible only in case of those systems that employ an additive algorithm to aggregate their parameters. Such systems include NCS, NPC and JENV systems. In an additive algorithm, it is easier to segregate and use the desired parameters to calculate aggregated score without altering the scoring methodology structure. This is however, not possible in the case of the systems such as SRAP and HR-FCP that employ a complex algorithm to aggregate site parameters into the final site rank. A systems ability to accurately evaluate a site hazard largely depends on the amount of information taken into consideration for the hazard assessment. A system that considers more information about a site evaluates the site hazard more accurately. At the same time, a systems acceptability among its potential users is greatly reduced if its data requirements are significant and involve cost and time. Table 1 shows that the HRS-1990 and ERPHRS consider highest number of 18 parameters each, whereas the LeGrands method and DRASTIC consider only 5 and 8 parameters, respectively. As regards the ease of availability of data for different systems, the parameters which can be determined easily i.e.by site walkover, visual survey, local inhabitant survey, and regional maps of groundwater, soil type, geology etc., are considered simple parameters; whereas the parameters whose determination involves field drilling and sampling as well as laboratory testing and therefore, are much more difficult to obtain, are considered as complex parameters. It is seen from Table 1 that among all systems, the Soil Waste Interaction Matrix uses highest number of 9 complex parameters, whereas RASCL uses only 1 such parameter.

13

Table 1 : (Reproduced from Singh,Dutta and Nema 2009.) 2.7 Groundwater Vulnerability Groundwater plays a key role in day to day life of human beings. Contamination of groundwater is a serious threat to human kind. Water pollution is a serious problem in India as almost 70% of its surface water resources and a great number of its GW reserves are already contaminated by biological, organic, and inorganic pollutants (Rao and Mamatha 2004). The environmental concern related to the GW quality generally focuses on the impact of pollution
14

and quality degradation on human health. Nearly two third of all ailments in India, such as jaundice, cholera, diarrhea and dysentery, typhoid, etc. are caused by the consumption of polluted water and these water-borne diseases claim nearly 1.5 million lives annually in the country, which means three persons die every 10 minutes due to contaminated water (Ghazali 1992). Even today more than 90% of our rural population is primarily dependent on GW (Chandrashekhar, Adiga, Lakshminarayana, Jagdeesha, and Nataraju 1999). The quality of GW is as important as that of quantity because GW is the only source of drinking water in most of urban areas of India. The drinking water quality in Indian cities has been deteriorating in recent years mainly due to the high growth of population, unplanned growth of cities, mixed land use patterns, no proper sewage system, and poor disposal of the wastewater both from household as well as industrial activities. This has led to the pollution of shallow aquifers in and around Indian cities in general (Rahman 2003). GW pollution is nothing but artificially induced degradation of natural GW quality. In contrast with surface water pollution, sub-surface pollution is difficult to detect, is even more difficult to control, and may persist for years, decades, or even centuries (Todd, 1980). GW vulnerability is a function of the geologic setting of an area, as this largely controls the amount of time, i.e. the residence time of the GW that has passed since the water fell as rain, infiltrated through the soil, reached the water table, and began flowing to its present location ( Prior, Boekhoff, Howes, Libra, & VanDorpe 2003). In any given area, the GW within an aquifer, or the GW produced by a well, has some vulnerability to contamination from human activities. This concept exists since the 1960s, yet there is no standard definition of aquifer vulnerability. The most common definition comes from Vrba and Zaporotec (1994), who described aquifer vulnerability as a concept representing the intrinsic properties of aquifer systems as a function of their sensitivity to human and natural activities. Vulnerability mapping is defined as a technique for quantifying the sensitivity of the resource to its environment, and as a practical visualization tool for decision-making. GW vulnerability is also defined as the tendency and likelihood for general contaminants to reach the water table after introduction at the ground surface (SNIFFER 2004). In fact the term vulnerability of GW to contamination was first used by Margat (1968). GW vulnerability is used in the opposite sense to the term natural protection against contamination. GW
15

vulnerability to contamination was defined by the National Research Council (1993) as the tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specified position in the GW system after introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer. Vowinkel, Clawges, Buxton, Stedfast, and Louis (1996) defined vulnerability as sensitivity plus intensity, where intensity is a measure of the source of contamination. Clearly, GW vulnerability is a function not only of the properties of the GW flow system (intrinsic susceptibility) but also of the proximity of contaminant sources, characteristics of the contaminant, and other factors that could potentially increase loads of specified contaminants to the aquifer and (or) their eventual delivery to a GW resource (Michael, Thomas, Michael, & Dennis 2005). As per US General Accounting Office (GAO) (1991) hydro-geologic vulnerability is a function of geologic factors such as soil texture and depth to GW. Vulnerability is a function of these hydro-geologic factors, as well as the pesticide use factors that influence the sites susceptibility, whereas risk incorporates the size of the population at risk from potential pesticide contamination, i.e. the number of people who obtain their drinking water from GW in the area. Vulnerability is distinct from pollution risk; pollution risk depends not only on vulnerability but also on the existence of significant pollutant loading entering the sub-surface environment (Margane 2003). It is possible to have high aquifer vulnerability but no risk of pollution, if there is no significant pollutant loading; and to have high pollution risk in spite of low vulnerability, if the pollutant loading is exceptional. It is important to make clear the distinction between vulnerability and risk. Leaching potential refers to the risk that soluble pesticides will be transmitted through the soil to the GW reservoir (Huddleston 1996). Leaching potential depends on the soil permeability, water table conditions, and hydraulic loading. A vulnerability assessment defines the risk to an aquifer based on the physical characteristics of the vadose zone and aquifer and the presence of potential contaminant sources. According to Foster (1987), aquifer pollution vulnerability is the intrinsic characteristics which determine the sensitivity of various parts of an aquifer to being adversely affected by an imposed contaminant load. GW pollution risk is the interaction between the natural vulnerability of the aquifer and the pollution loading that is, or will be, applied on the sub-surface environment as a result of human activity. (Rahman 2008)

16

2.7.1 Groundwater vulnerability assessment There is no absolutely perfect methodology existing for ground water vulnerability assessment, but different methods are developed by various groups of experts all over the world considering various important factors affecting contaminant transport and groundwater contamination. Those methods can be grouped under three major categories i. ii. iii. Process based simulation model methods Empirical statistical methods Overlay and index methods

1. Process based simulation model methods Process based simulation model methods are scientific methods which reckons relevant processes regarding contaminant fate and transport. Using them, lethal threats for groundwater can be identified and zoning of groundwater protection zones can be done .Among these methods, Mathematical models are more accurate since they account for variation of concentration along both space and time. But these are not commonly used for regional groundwater flow modeling. MODFLOW is a common process based simulation modeling software. 2. Empirical statistical methods These methods use the probability theory by incorporating some uncertainty. Historically, these methods are the least preferred ones because when the candidate site is a large one, the complexity associated is also large. In these types of methods, vulnerability of an area is expressed in terms of probability of contamination. It uses the known contamination distribution of that geographic area. The disadvantages of these methods are, i. ii. Statistical methods are difficult to develop Once developed for a region, it can only be applied to regions with similar environmental conditions. 3. Overlay and index methods
17

This is a simple method for measuring groundwater vulnerability.

Combined maps of

parameters that are influential on contaminant transport are used. A numeric index is assigned to each parameter and all such ratings are finally combined to get a vulnerability index. When combining, the ratings are to be equal or will have weightages depending on the intensity of influence. This method of aquifer sensitivity mapping requires various properties and processes that influence the contaminant transport from ground surface to groundwater. Variables used in overlay and index based aquifer sensitivity mapping include depth to water table, groundwater recharge, and soil as well as aquifer properties. These models combine sensitivity variable ratings and contaminant properties, land use, management practices, etc. The algorithms

associated with these models are simple but large amount of spatial data can be processed using them. Some of the overlay and index methods are 1. DRASTIC 2. GOD 3. SINTACS 4. EPIK DRASTIC is an empirical method developed by EPA in 1980 to evaluate ground water pollution potential (Aller.et.al, 1987). DRASTIC is an acronym of seven parameters i.e. Depth to groundwater, Net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil Media, Topography, Impact of vadose zone and Hydraulic conductivity. The higher the DRASTIC index, higher is the pollution potential. Based on the value of index the sites can be rated as low, medium and high. GOD is a rating system that assesses vulnerability by means of three variablesgroundwater occurrence G, overall lithology of aquifer, O and depth to groundwater, D. Aquifer vulnerability system index (AVI) is an analogical relation or numerical method that uses two parameters: the thickness of each sedimentary layer above the uppermost saturated aquifer (d) and the estimated hydraulic conductivity (k) of each of these sedimentary layers. This
18

method does not consider ratings and/or weights. The index is determined from the relation between the two parameters d and k. EPIK is a parameter weighting and rating method especially developed for karst aquifers to protect water supply sources (springs and wells). This method does not consider parameters depending on time (I e rainfall, recharge,) but only the intrinsic parameters of the aquifer: presence of epikarst (E), the characteristics of the protective cover (P), the infiltration conditions (I) and the karst network development (K) (Ligi 2008) 2.8 Role of GIS The use of maps containing various landfill selection criteria is a simple and common method to determine landfill suitability. Generally, maps containing data such as geology, soils, water quality, and floodplains are superimposed on one another to determine a final map of landfill suitability. Low technology techniques consist of the use of manual overlays and hand drawn maps in order to determine landfill suitability. Simple overlays can be produced with tracing paper or acetate. However, low technology cartographic procedures are time consuming and the accuracy of the final products depends on the cartographer. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are ideal for preliminary site selection studies because it can manage large volumes of spatially distributed data from a variety of sources and efficiently store, retrieve, analyze and display information (Siddiqui, Everett and Vieux 1996). Using GIS for site selection not only increases the objectivity and flexibility but also ensures that a large amount of spatial data can be processed in a short time. Relatively easy presentations of GIS siting results are also one of the advantages (Lin and Kado 1998). GIS in groundwater vulnerability assessment With the growing recognition of the importance of underground water resources, efforts are increasing to prevent, reduce, and eliminate GW pollution. The DRASTIC model can be a valuable tool for identifying GW supplies that are vulnerable to contamination using basic hydro-geologic variables believed to influence contaminant transport from surface sources to GW (Kalinski, Kelly, Bogardi, Ehrman, & Yamamoto 1994). In India much work has been done to test underground water for various trace and major elements. So far very few integrated
19

approaches have been used to assess vulnerability of water using a Geographical Information System (GIS) approach and remotely sensed data. The first project involving the partial automation of DRASTIC using GIS concepts was done at University of Kansas where Merchant, Whittemore, Whistler, McElwee, and Wood (1987) and Merchant (1994) applied a commercially available Erdas software package to data compiled for Harvey Country, Kansas. Kaplan, Meinhold, Anidu, and Hauptmann (1986) developed a GIS aimed at GW management for Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, New York. Hendrix and Buckley (1986) used GIS technology for the study of water supply affected by naturally occurring radon contamination in dolomite aquifers with a high probability of pollution of GW by surface activity. DRASTIC consists of several components, the first of which is the designation of mappable hydro-geologic parameters ( Aller, Bennet, Lehr, and Petty 1987).

2.9 Indian Perspective In India, the waste produced from a city is managed by the corresponding corporations or municipalities. Most of the proposed landfill sites end up as mere dumpsites and turn out to be the darkest corner of the corporation. The emissions go unchecked. In Kerala, there are sites like Njeliyanparamba in Calicut Corporation where the surrounding population has been afflicted with the ill-effects of landfill for years. One of the studies (Joone 2009 ) has shown that disposal at the site has not been scientific in the past and has resulted in problems of groundwater contamination and odour nuisance. Usually, the odour problem becomes intolerable during the monsoon season. A plenty of social problems are faced by the surrounding people due to nearness of the landfill (Joone 2009). There is a strong public opinion against the landfill. However the process of landfilling is inevitable at present and the role of engineers is to optimize the performance. The risk to human health has to be minimal by the siting. An attempt to make a model based on human health risk is thus crucial for the current situation. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM Considering previous literature, in some of the works there is an overlap between ecological risk and human health risk. That increases the complexity of solution.

20

Most of the environmental hazards are hazardous to human beings too. They directly or indirectly affect human health. So the risk can be evaluated from the human health perspective. The anthropocentric nature of existing regulations makes the evaluation logical and simpler. 4. AIM OF THE RESEARCH Aim of this work is to develop a model which can rank available landfill sites based on suitability in terms of human health. Objectives 1. To carry out a detailed study on landfill siting. 2. Compare different existing methods for landfill siting. 3. Development of a methodology that can rank the available sites based on landfill suitability. 4. Development of a model for finding site suitability with software aid using the developed methodology. 5. Validation of the model.

5. METHODOLOGY Methodology is based on development of a landfill suitability index- a numerical index which can rank a site based on suitability for the installation of a landfill. Suitability means the quality of having the properties that are right for a specific purpose. Here it can be defined as the quality of having minimal human health risk by the installation of a municipal solid waste landfill. There are several environmental components that may get affected by the emissions from landfills and jeopardize human health and living. - Surface water, ground water, soil, air, etc. Obviously, the suitability of the landfill is related inversely to the risk caused to the human population by the contamination of each of the environmental components. Let Landfill Suitability index be a numerical index which indicates how less is the risk caused to the surrounding human population by the siting of the landfill. The contribution from each
21

environmental component depends upon exposure conditions. Then, to that numerical index, there will be contributions of different intensities from each of the environmental component. Some mathematical relations have to be developed between these and the existing legislations in India for landfill siting (fig 1). Geographical information systems software along with other software tools will be used to develop the model. Collected data regarding Hazard and Exposure conditions in a sample site can be used for application of the developed method. The first objective of this work is to assess GW vulnerability to pollution in a shallow aquifer using the DRASTIC GIS model in combination with hydro-geological data layers i.e. Depth of water, net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil media, Topography, Impact of vadose zone and hydraulic conductivity. 5.1 Why DRASTIC? Evaluating and comparing all the methods, 5 simple parameters and 3 complex parameters are used in DRASTIC method and it uses simple additive scoring algorithm. The data are easily available, so it proves to be suitable for Indian conditions. We have already seen in table 1 of section 2.6, that DRASTIC can be used as an ultimate method for landfill site selection. The disadvantage is it considers the groundwater component only. So, in this work, DRASTIC will be used for assessing groundwater vulnerability part only.

22

SUITABILITY OF LANDFILL BASED ON HUMAN HEALTH RISK

risk due to contaminated surface water risk due to contaminated ground water risk due to contaminated air risk due to contaminated soil
Fig 1.Development of suitability index

23

5.2 Stages of work 1) Literature review 2) Data collection 3) Definition of Variables 4) Familiarization with modeling tools. 5) Incorporation of hazard and exposure conditions of Groundwater Surface water Air Soil

6) Correlation of variables to suitability index 7) Development of model. 8) Application of model to a sample site. 9) Draft preparation and thesis submission

Data collection

Development of model for ranking landfill sites

Application of model
Fig 2.Compacted flow chart

24

6. SUMMARY The final functional element in the waste management system is waste disposal. Landfill has been widely used for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal all over the world. If not carried out to sufficiently high standards, landfilling has the potential to have an adverse impact on the environment. So the site selection for landfill is an important and complex process. The aim of this work is to develop a methodology that can be used to rank the suitability of landfill sites based on human health risk. Development of a model for landfill siting or evaluation will be done with the aid of GIS. The application of this methodology will result in a Landfill Suitability Index, which reflects the overall environmental impact of a landfill on its surroundings.

25

7. TIME SCHEDULE 2012 TASK J U AU G SEP T OC T NO V DE C 2013 JA N FE B MAR

Literature Review

Data collection

Definition of variables

Familiarization with modeling tools

Development of GIS model

Application to sample site

Draft Preparation and thesis submission

26

REFERENCES 1. Abedinzadeh,Niloofer, Farhmia Abedinzadeh, and Tooba Abedi.Environmental diagnosis by Eviave Methodology to Planning and Decision-Making for Municipal Waste Landfills in Iran.,World Applied Sciences Journal 21.11 (2013): 1640-1650. 2. Ahsan,A., and M. Alamgir. Solid Waste Management Plan for Indian Mega Cities. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 19, No. 2,(1999) pp. 90-95. 3. Al-Jarrah,O., and H. Abu-Qdais. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Siting Using Intelligent System. Waste Management Journal, 26 (3) (2006) 299306. 4. Ayub,Sohail, and Afzal Hussain Khan. Landfill Practice in India: A Review. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 3(4) (2011):270-279. 5. Benabdallah,Salah and J. Wright. Multiple Subregion Allocation Models. Urban Planning Dev., ASCE 118(1992),2440. 6. Charnpratheep,Krerkpong, Qiming Zhou, and Barry Garner. Preliminary Landfill Site Screening Using Fuzzy Geographical Information Systems. Waste Management and Research 15(2)(1997), 197215. 7. Bharti, Dattatraya, Isub Ali Sayyad, G. G. Gaikwad, D. R. Taikar and J. Dhore .
Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Bore Well Water Quality. J. Chem. Pharm. Res,

3(2)(2011),922-927. 8. Dave1, R. S., S. D. Vedia, D.G. Acharya, G.R. Jain and M.T. Machhar. Water Quality Assessment Studies with Reference to Nitrate Contamination of Modasa Taluka of Sabarkantha District (North Gujarat) . Chem. Pharm. Res, 3(1)(2011),238-241. 9. Department of Water Affairs & Forestry-South Africa. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. Second Edition. 10. Diamond, J. T., and J. R. Wright. Efficient land allocation. J. Urban Planning Dev. ASCE 115 (2)(1989),8196. 11. Energy Information Administration. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States Comparison of Global Warming Potentials. The IPCCs Second And Third Assessment Reports,2003.

27

12. George,Ligi, Evaluation of the Groundwater Vulnerability of Calicut Corporation using DRASTIC method,GIS and MODFLOW M Tech thesis, NIT Calicut,2008. 13. Hadjibiros,Kimon, D. Dermatas, C. S. Laspidou. Municipal Solid Waste Management And Landfill Site Selection In Greece: Irrationality Versus Efficiency. Global NEST Journal, Vol 13, No 2, (2011),pp 150-161. 14. Health impacts of solid waste, accessed in 20/9/2013, http://edugreen.teri.res.in. 15. Joy,Joone. Estimating the Overall Cost of a Landfill. Post graduate dissertation,NIT Calicut, Kerala, India,2009. 16. Kao,J. J.. Multifactor Spatial Analysis For Landfill Siting. Journal of Environmental Engineering 122 (10)(1996), 902908. 17. Kontos,T.D., D.P. Komilis, C. P. Halvadakis, Siting MSW Landfills with a Spatial Multiple Criteria Analysis Methodology. Waste Management , 25 (2005)818832. 18. Lane, N., M. William ASCE, and McDonald R Robert. Land Suitability Analysis: Landfill Siting. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 109, (1983),50. 19. Lee, Fred G., and Anne Jones Lee. Guidance on the Evaluation of the Potential Impacts of a Proposed Landfill accessed in 19/8/2013 http://www.usda.gov/rus/water. 20. Lin,H. Y. , and J. J. Kado. 1998. A Vector-Based Spatial Model for Landfill Siting Journal of Hazardous Materials 58(1998),314. 21. Ministry of the Environment and Forests, Government of India. Management of Municipal Solid Wastes accessed in 19/8/2013. http://envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/mswmhr.html. 22. Ministry of Urban Development,Government of India Principles of Municipal Solid Waste Management,chapter 2 and 17. accessed in 19/8/2013. http://www.moud.gov.in. 23. Minor,S.D., and T. L. Jacobs. Optimal Land Allocation For Solid- And HazardousWaste Landfill Siting. J. Environ. Eng., ASCE 1209(5 ) (1994) ,10951108. 24. Mor, S., K. Ravindra, A. D. Visscher, R. P. Dahiya, and A. Chandra. Municipal Solid Waste Characterization and its Assessment for Potential Methane Generation: A case study Journal of Science of the Total Environment 2006, 371 (1)(2006) , 110. 25. Nidhi, S., S. N. Misra, and R. N. Shukla.2011. Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological Analysis of Water Quality under Different Environmental Conditions. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., , 3(2)(2011):162-167.
28

26. Raje, D.V., P. D. Wakhare, A. W. Dishpande, and A. D. Bhide . An Approach to Access Level of Satisfaction of the Residents in Relation to SWM System. India.Journal of Waste Management and Research 19(2001),1219. 27. Siddiqui, M. Z., J. W. Everett, and B. E. Vieux. Landfill siting using Geographic Information Systmes: a Demonstration. J. Environ. Eng.,122 (6)(1996), 515-523. 28. Telkapalliwar,N. G., and B. Shende. Studies on Some Physico-Chemical Parameters of Bore Wells Water in Gondpipri Region Res.,3(1)(2011):176-179. 29. Turkar,S. S., D. Bharti, G. S. Gaikwad. Various Methods Involved in Waste Water Treatment to Control Water Pollution. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 3(2)(2011):58-65. 30. Vaillancourt, K., and J. P. Waaub. Environmental Site Evaluation of Waste Management Facilities Embedded into EUG_EENE Model: A Multi-Criteria Approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 139(2002) 436-448. 31. Wright, J., C. Revelle, J. Cohon, A Multi-Objective Integer Programming Model For the Land Acquisition Problem. Regional Sci. Urban Econ.,13 (1983) 3153. 32. Zamoranoa, M., E. Molero, A. Hurtado, A. Grindlay and A. Ramos. Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology. Journal of hazardous materials, 160 (2008) 473481. 33. Rao, S. M., & Mamatha, P. (2004). Water quality in sustainable water management.Current Science, 87(7), 942947. 34. (Maharashtra). J. Chem. Pharm.

29