Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Leachate direct-discharge limits and incentives related to landfill aftercare costs
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Geosciences and Environmental Engineering.
School of Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Lahti Center, School of Science and Technology, Aalto University.
Number of Authors: 22017 (English)In: Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, ISSN 1438-4957, E-ISSN 1611-8227, Vol. 19, no 1, p. 413-422Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Society needs sustainable methods for landfilling from an environmental perspective, but they have to be cost effective and affordable. Aftercare represents considerable costs within waste management system and costs can be expected to accrue over a long period of time showing the need to compare different management options. Direct-discharge limits for leachate COD and nitrogen are different in various (European) countries. When leachate COD or nitrogen has decreased at the latter part of the aftercare period, effluent limits 50 or 200 mg/l for COD and 10 or 70 mg/l for nitrogen have a considerable impact on period length. The objective of this paper is to discuss the effects of leachate discharge limits on landfill aftercare and leachate management costs in various conditions. Landfill simulator results and modelling are used to estimate leachate concentrations in three different scenarios. It is suggested that stricter discharge limits (shown before) impact on the costs of activated carbon filtration (1.4-fold) and biological treatment (1.1–1.24-fold). Stricter limits also extend the aftercare period length considerably, but with substantial water circulation the differences are clearly smaller. These results support the recent suggestion of aftercare incentives, and some details of applying these incentives in different conditions are discussed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 19, no 1, p. 413-422
National Category
Other Environmental Engineering
Research subject
Waste Science and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-35047DOI: 10.1007/s10163-015-0433-4ISI: 000392385300042Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84944563631Local ID: 96cc346d-88fe-4b5f-ae15-5d89c003965fOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-35047DiVA, id: diva2:1008299
Conference
International Conference on Waste Management and Technology : 29/10/2014 - 31/10/2014
Note

Konferensartikel i tidskrift

Available from: 2016-09-30 Created: 2016-09-30 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Pelkonen, Markku

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Pelkonen, Markku
By organisation
Geosciences and Environmental Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Other Environmental Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 239 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf