MSW‐Ash Field Study: Achieving Optimal Disposal Characteristics
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 116, Issue 5
Abstract
The principles of proper site management, including adding the optimum water of solubilization and attaining optimal compaction, are applied to test patches subject to portland cement and quicklime (CaO) in‐situ additive treatment. Processed and compacted municipal‐solid‐waste (MSW) ash achieved in‐place compacted dry density of 113.31 lb/cu ft and compacted wet density of 134.82 lb/cu ft Field testing yielded permeabilities between and after 14–28 days curing, determined by laboratory (room temperature and humidity) and field (New England‐winter temperatures) measurements. The results of prior laboratory investigations confirmed portland cement and CaO treatment of MSW ash. Adding CaO achieved an order of magnitude reduction in permeability, suggesting a concrete‐like behavior of MSW ashes. Assuming a worst‐case 10% portland cement addition for in‐situ additive treatment, applied by an outside specialty contractor, savings of $200,000–$450,000 per acre ($494,000–$1,110,000 per hectare) could be realized compared to the single, double, synthetic, and clay liners currently under review for MSW‐ash monofill implementation. Pending legislation fails to consider such properties and concrete‐like behavior and fails to recognize the application of engineering management principles.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Cedergren, H. R. (1977). Seepage, drainage, and flow nets, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
2.
Engineer manual—laboratory soil testing. (1970). EM‐1110‐2‐1906, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
3.
Forrester, K. E. (1988). “Comparison of MSW to MSW ash leachates using a risk algorithm.” NSWMA Conf. Proc., Waste Tech '88, Boston, Mass.
4.
Forrester, K. E. (1989). “State‐of‐the‐art in thermal recycling facility ash residue handling, reuse, landfill design and management.” Proc., Municipal Solid Waste Tech. Conf., San Diego, Calif.
5.
Goodwin, R. W. (1986). “Engineering and design aspects: Disposal and by‐product utilization of FGD residues.” Proc., 10th EPA/EPRI Symp. on Flue Gas Desulfurization, Atlanta, Ga., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
6.
Goodwin, R. W. (1988). “MSW ash: Liability or asset.” presented at the McGraw Hill's Waste‐to‐Energy '88: The Integrated Market Conference; (Oct. 3–4, 1988; L'enfant Plaza Hotel; Washington, D.C.).
7.
Goodwin, R. W., and Schuetzenduebel, W. G. (1987). “Residues from mass burn systems: Testing, disposal and utilization issues.” Proc., New York State Legislative Commission's Solid Waste Mgmt. and Materials Policy Conf., New York, N.Y.
8.
Jumikis, A. R. (1984). Soil mechanics; Robert R. Krieger Publishing Co.; Malabar, Fla.
9.
Kocheisen, C. (1988). “Comparison of legislation on municipal waste incineration.” Resour. Recovery; 2(3), 24–29.
10.
“MSW incinerator ash: Conference meeting highlights.” (1988). CORRE Newsletter, 2(12), 7.
11.
“Permeability and groundwater transport.” (1982). ASTM Publication No. 746, T. F. Zimmie and C. O. Riggs, eds., 56–58.
12.
“Standard test method for infiltration rate of soils in field using double‐ring infiltrometers.” ASTM 3385, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa.
13.
“Standard test method for moisture density of soils.” D‐1557, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa.
14.
Tay, J.‐H. (1988). “Energy generation and resource recovery from refuse incineration.” J. Energy Engrg., 114(3), 107–117.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 ASCE.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1990
Published in print: Sep 1990
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.