1

Operations and Maintenance Guidelines for Coal Ash Landfills

Coal Ash Landfills are NOT the Same as

Subtitle D Solid Waste Landfills Christopher D. Hardin, PE and Nick L. Perrotta, PE

– Haley and Aldrich, Inc. 1. INTRODUCTION: The number of coal ash landfills that have been constructed in the past five years has increased substantially since the promulgation of new State regulations for the handling and long-term storage of coal combustion residuals (CCRs). Many of these recently constructed coal ash landfills were designed using me thod s and materials that are common for Subtitle D, lined, municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Review of several landfill designs indicate that many CCR landfills have geotextile filter layers, leachate collection pipes, liner systems, stormwater management features and operation al plans that are often just “reformatted” of a MSW landfill design. Owners and operators of coal ash landfills have experienced problems with the design and operation al plans for their landfills that are attributable to a minor, but important differences between MSW, Subtitle D lined landfills and CCR landfills. This paper will discuss and evaluate these differences and provide practical solutions for providing a better design and operational control for coal ash landfills. The overall purpose of this paper is to initiate discussion and technical interaction on what constitutes an effective CCR landfill design. It is recognized that CCR landfill design is a new a nd developing sub-field in the area of landfill design that merits additional discussion to develop best practices and design methods. 2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOLID WASTE AND COAL ASH LANDFILLS To understand coal ash landfills that have experienced design and operation al problems, it is helpful to consider the primary differences between the waste materials at MSW landfills and those at coal ash or CCR landfills. A few of the key differences are: Difference No.1 -- Particle Size:  Coal ash is a homogeneous, mostly fine particle material that requires special sizing of the geotextile or aggregate drainage/filter layer to prevent clogging.  MSW is a heterogeneous, large dimension, inconsistent size particles. Difference No. 2 – Odors and Vector Control:  Coal ash has very little organic fraction and therefore has almost no noticeable odor and off gases and minimal/no settlement issues.  Coal ash typically does not need daily cover to prevent disease and rodent issues.  MSW tends to have significant odor and vector issues if not placed, compacted and covered with daily cover soils or fabrics.  After placement, the organic material in MSW will continue to degrade producing methane and odors that must be managed and settlement issues . Difference No. 3 – Erodability and Moisture Sensitivity  As a predominately silt-sized particle, coal ash is susceptible to erosion.  Coal ash can lose strength quickly when in the presence of water if it is not compacted at or near the optimum moisture content.  Most MSW comes to the landfill several percentage points below its saturation moisture content, and can absorb large amounts of moisture without an immediate loss in shear strength.  MSW is not susceptible to erosion but is susceptible to blowing. Difference No. 4 – Dust Control  Coal ash can have significant issues with rapid surface drying, creation of dust and blowing of dust to off-site locations. These conditions can be difficult to control.  At time s, MSW is also difficult to contain with fences required to catch blowing trash.  Most mixed MSW does not dry out as quickly as coal ash.2

3. COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS This section will highlight a few of the common problems that have been encountered by operators of coal ash landfills. Problem No. 1: Ponded Surface Water above Leachate Collection Layers I t is common after the initial layers of ash have been placed for the surface water and runoff to build up in the landfill. This greatly reduces the collection system efficiency and the available storage volume in the landfill. It is often assumed that t his is caused by plugged geocomposite and geonets . Recent testing indicates that the geocomposites and geonets still maintain a higher permeability than lose or compacted coal ash. This suggests that the problem is not with the geotextile or leachate c o llection layer, but the reduced infiltration rate of leachate through the compacted layers of coal ash. To allow drainage of run

- off from the surface of the coal ash to reach the .leachate collection layer , some type of v ertical /horizontal connection to the leachate collection system using a “chimney drain” or a “drainage layer” is often required. C himney drains are typically constructed in sections as the CCR is placed, and connected directly to the horizontal leachate collect system. See Figure 1. A few important co nsideration s for the design and installation of chimney drains:  Locate the drains at a frequent enough spacing to handle runoff from lar ge interior drainage area s that could occur during a wide variety of interim fill conditions.  Size the chimney drain pipe and inlet for Peak Flow with a percentage of the surface water diverted to chimney drains and leachate collection system, based on a 10

- year to 25

- year storm.  D ivert most of the surface water away from the chimney drains a nd to sur face water collectors without contacting the CCR material. This may require the installation of soil berms to control runoff / run - on , and rain covers to prevent infiltration of surface water.  Provide adequate surface water diversion to direct large storm e vents to stormwater management ponds instead of overtopping the CCR landfill embankments. This may require redundant stormwater channels and/or interim soil diversion berms as part of the CCR land fill plans.  Include daily inspection, cleanout and mainten ance of ch imney drain inlets in the operation and maintenance plan for the CCR landfill. Drainage layer s are ty

pically constructed as the CCR is placed, and conn ected directly to the leachate collect sys tem. See Figure 2 . A few important considerations f or the design a nd installation of drainage layer s:  Generally, CCR is placed in 15

- 30 foot

– thick lifts sandwiched between 1

- 2 foot

– thick drainage layers of granular drainage material. The drainage layer is placed at a minimum 5

- percent slope, toward ext erior and interior berms, to promote drainage and dewatering of the CCR layers.  The CCR is placed and compacted in a controlled manner such that stormwater sheets off toward the leachate collection system.  The granular drainage material may be segregated bottom ash or other waste byproduct that exhibits a homogeneous particle size suitable.  Perform annual NDG testing to document CCR is placed and compacted in accordance with the approved design.  Perform as

- built surveys to document each drainage layer has been constructed in accordance with the approved design.3

Problem No. 2: Undersized Stormwater Management and Sediment Control Structures As mentioned in the previous section, coal ash is a silt

- sized particle that is highly susceptible to erosion and changes in moisture content. This material characteristic frequently results in stormwater management ponds (SWMP) and erosion control (E&S) devices that are filled with coal ash to capacity at more frequent intervals. These tendencies must be account ed for in the design by providing additional storage capacity and/or more frequent pond cleanouts and maintenance. A few important items to consider in the design of SWM ponds and E&S devices on CCR landfills include:  More frequent rock check dams in th e surface water channels draining to the SWM ponds. Require more maintenance and cleanout of devices to account for silt

- sized, more erodible coal ash.  Consider the design of a two

- stage SWM pond with smaller fore

- bay structure that can be cleaned a t mor e frequent intervals.  Consider the use of turbidity curtains and other methods to promote settling and removal of silt

sized particles  Oversize SWM ponds and E&S devices to account for the increased volume of silt

- sized coal ash particles.  Monitor the levels in ponds to verify when it is time to clean. Problem No. 3: Dust Control and Blowing Ash As a silt

- sized material , coal ash is “notorious” for rapid surface drying that produces dust within a few hours after the initial placement and compaction. Common solutions include continuous spraying with water and covering with cover soils. Other solutions include:  Minimizing the size of the “working face” or CCR placement area so that wetter, partially saturated ash is placed over drying layers.  Place ment of surface encapsulation product like Posi

- shell and Gorilla Snot at the end daily operations.  Covering with temporary geotextile or raincovers that can be reused and moved to new placement areas as the fill placement progresses. 4. DESIGN SOLUTIONS FO R COAL ASH LANDFILL S This section provides a summary of a few design methods that have been used on coal ash landfills to increase the efficiency of CCR placement and compaction. By providing this summary the authors of the paper also recognize that the re are many new and innovative ideas that are currently be ing used on other sites that are not mentioned. 4.1 Leachate Collection and Geotextile Design To avoid the potential of a clogged and/or blocked leachate collection system during a major storm event, t he component s of the leachate collection system must be designed to handle silt

- sized particles. The design may include a combination of redundant measures like over

- sized silt traps and/or more frequent maintenance of the inlet structures and geotextile surface. A few important items to consider for the design of the leachate collection system on CCR Landfills:  Use laboratory clog tests to determine the geotextile and CCR clogging potential (ASTM D5101) and use the reduced drainage value for selection of the geotextile/geonet drainage materials.4

 Design inlets to the leachate collection system and chimney drains with sufficient freeboard to allow settling and minimize material transport into horizontal drain pipes.  Include frequent inspections of the geotextile surface of the leachate collection and/or chimney drain in the landfill operation and maintenance plan to prevent clogging of the leachate collection system 4.2 Leachate Collection and Aggregate Filter Design Also used to avoid the potential o f a clogged and/or blocked leachate collection system during a major storm event, t he inclusion of an aggregate filter in combination with the leachate collection system. A few imp ortant items to consider for this design of the leachate collection syst em on CCR Landfills:  Proper selection of stone/gravel/sand to place directly over and around leachate collection piping to meet the required piping and hydraulic conductivity ratios which will help maintain long

- term transmission of the leachate as well as not clogging and pipe protection.  A 1

- foot

– thick granular drainage material is placed above the liner to act as a conduit for leachate, to provide efficient collection, and to protect the liner from operational loads and climatic effects  Use heavy wall pe rforated and non

- perforated piping with cleanouts that can be jetted annually to ensure pipe hydraulic capacity. 4.3 Interim Fill and Stormwater Management Plans The placement and compaction of CCR materials can vary from site to site depending on the moistur e content of the coal ash, the distance from the point of generation, and the need to provide dewatering or drying prior to placement. One of the best ways to avoid the common problems listed in the previous section is to develop carefully thought out f ill plans that show the contractor where to install haul roads, place and compaction of CCR materials, and how to route stormwater from the working face. A few important items to remember for the develop ment of CCR fill plans are:  Design the haul roads and stormwater management channels so that surface water is directed away from the working face and to sediment traps , chimney drain inlets and/or drainage layers .  Attempt to work the placement and compaction of CCR materials as compacted embankment inste ad of an “end dumped” waste material.  Specify a maximum lift thickness and range of acceptable moisture contents for CCR materials prior to compaction.  Provide locations for moving stockpiles of interim cover materials and/or staging areas for dust cont rol methods and materials.  DO NOT submit the interim fill plans as a n item for regulatory approval. Fill plans are an operations activity that requires flexibility for the Contractor to account for changing weather and site conditions.  Include probab le location for interim stormwater management and E&S control measures, but allow Contractor flexibility to account for changing conditions.  Design drainage channel slope s that reduce erosion and haul road grad es that can be safely handled by standard con struction equipment. Hint: Gradual drainage and haul road s flatter than 10 percent work best.5

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper and presentation was developed to provide a few ideas of what the authors have used effectively on CCR land fills and other industrial waste landfill designs. The information presented is by no means meant to provide the “final word” and/or a “ checklist ” for CCR landfill design. The main purpose of this paper is to encourage fellow landfill design engineers and CCR landfill owners and operators to STOP and THINK about the current methods used for CCR landfills. It is the author’s opinion that s imply using “reformatted” MSW landfill designs will not work for the design , construction , operation and closure of CCR lan dfills. A secondary purp ose of this paper is to initiate discussion and technical interaction on what has worked effectively for CCR landfill design and construction. It is our hope that this discussion and technical interaction will result in even better CCR landfill design s, and continued protection of the environment.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

1 

# Operations and Maintenance Guidelines for Coal Ash Landfills Christopher D. Hardin, PE Nick L. Perrotta, PE

Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

7926 Jones Branch Drive

McLean, Virginia 22102-3363 Reference:http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/ap/coal%20ash%20disposal--1658380019Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 

# INTRODUCTION Coal Ash Landfills are NOT the Same as 

## Subtitle D Solid Waste Landfills
•

The number of CCR landfills has increased substantially

with recent State and Federal regulations. •

Many recently constructed CCR landfills were designed

using methods and materials from Subtitle D lined,

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. •

Review of multiple designs indicate that many design features in CCR landfills are often just “reformatted” from a

MSW landfill design. •

CCR owners and operators have experienced problems that

are attributable to the minor, but important differences

between CCR and MSW Subtitle D lined landfills.Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 

## •

Intent and purpose of this presentation •

Discuss and evaluate the differences between coal ash and

MSW as a waste material •

Identify common problems and recommended solutions •

Drill down on three important design solutions •

Few hints and recommendations for CCR landfill O&M Plans •

Summary and Discussion: Ideas and questions from theattendees 

# AGENDAHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 

# INTENT AND PURPOSE

•

Initiate discussion and technical interaction on what



## constitutes an effective CCR landfill design. •

Recognize that CCR landfill design is a new and developingsub field in the area of landfill design, that merits additional



## discussion to develop best practices and design methods. •

Encourage participation in the ACAA technical committee

and possible subcommittee for CCR landfills •

Encourage additional research on issues unique to CCRlandfillsHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 

# DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOLID WASTE AND COAL ASH LANDFILLS

•

To understand why coal ash landfills that have experienced

design and operational problems, it is helpful to consider the



## primary differences. • Difference No.1 -- Particle Size:

•

Coal ash is a homogeneous, mostly fine particle material that requires



### special sizing of thegeotextile or aggregate drainage/filter layer to

prevent clogging. •

MSW is a heterogeneous, large dimension, inconsistent particle sizematerial.Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 

# DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOLID WASTE AND COAL ASH LANDFILLS

• Difference No. 2 – Odors and Vector Control:

•

Coal ash has very little organic fraction and therefore has almost no



### noticeable odor and off gases and minimal/no settlement issues. •

Coal ash typically does not need daily cover to prevent disease and

rodent issues. 

### •

MSW tends to have significant odor and vector issues if not placed,

compacted and covered with daily cover soils orgeotextiles •

After placement, the organic material in MSW will continue to degrade

producing methane, odors and settlement issues that must bemanaged.Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 

# DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOLID WASTE AND COAL ASH LANDFILLS

• Difference No. 3 – Erodability and Moisture Sensitivity

•

As a predominately silt sized particle, coal ash is susceptible to

### erosion. •

Coal ash can lose strength quickly when in the presence of water, if it

is not compacted at or near the optimum moisture content. 

### •

Most MSW comes to the landfill several percentage points below its

saturation moisture content, and can absorb large amounts of

moisture without an immediate loss in shear strength.Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 

# DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOLID WASTE AND COAL ASH LANDFILLS

• Difference No. 4 – Dust Control

•

Coal ash can have significant issues with rapid surface drying,



### creation of dust and blowing of dust to off site locations. These

conditions can be difficult to control. •

At times, MSW is also difficult to contain with fences required to catch

blowing trash. •

Most mixed MSW does not dry out as quickly as coal ash.Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

•

Problem No. 1:Ponded Surface Water aboveLeachate

Collection Layers •

It is common after the initial layers of ash have been placed for the

surface water andstormwater runoff to build up in the landfill. •

This greatly reduces the collection system efficiency and the available

storage volume in the landfill. •

It is often assumed that this is caused by pluggedgeocomposite andgeonets . •

Recent testing indicates thatgeocompositegeonets still maintain a



### higher permeability than lose or compacted coal ash.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.10 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

•

Problem No. 1:Ponded Surface Water aboveLeachate

Collection Layers •

This suggests that the problem is not with thegeotextile orleachate

collection layer, but attributable to the reduced infiltration rate ofleachate through the compacted layers of coal ash. •

To allow drainage of run off from the surface of the coal ash to reach



### theleachate collection layer, some type of vertical/horizontal

connection to theleachate collection system using a “chimney drain” or a “drainage layer” is often required.
•

Chimney drains and drainage layers are typically constructed in

sections as the CCR is placed, and connected directly to the

horizontalleachate collect system. •

See Solutions A, B, and C. Figures 1 and 2.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.11 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

•

Problem No. 1: Solution A-- Chimney Drains •

A few important considerations for the design and installation of

chimney drains: 

Locate the drains at a frequent enough spacing to handle runoff from

large interior drainage areas that could occur during a wide variety of

interim fill conditions. 

### 

Size the chimney drain pipe and inlet for Peak Flow with a smaller

percentage of the surface water diverted to chimney drains andleachate collection system, based on a 10 year to 25 year storm. 

Divert most of the surface water away from the chimney drains and

to surface water collectors without contacting the CCR material.

This may require the installation of soilberms to control runoff/run

on, and rain covers to prevent infiltration of surface water.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.12 

# FIGURE 1 – Typical Chimney DrainHaley & Aldrich, Inc.13 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

Problem No. 1: Solution B –

DivertStormwater & Maintenance

A few important design and operation considerations for SWM devices

at CCR landfills include: 

Provide adequate surface water diversion to direct large storm

events tostormwater management ponds instead of overtopping the

CCR landfill embankments. 

### 

Do not exclusively rely on pumping or siphons to controlpondedstormwater water overleachate lines. Pumps can fail, siphons plug. 

Require redundantstormwater channels and/or interim soil diversionberms as part of the CCR landfill plans. 

Include daily inspection, cleanout and maintenance of chimney drain

inlets in the O&M plan for the CCR landfill.

Hint: When considering the cost of additionalleachate control

measure, remember to look at the life cycle cost of an NOV.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.14 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

•

Problem No. 1: Solution C –

Drainage Layers •

A few important considerations for the design and installation of drainage

layers: 

Generally, CCR is placed in 15 to 20 foot –

thick layers (1 to 2 foot lifts)

sandwiched between 1 2 foot –

thick drainage layers of granular drainage

material. The drainage layer is placed at a minimum 5 percent slope,

toward exterior and interiorberms , to promote drainage and dewatering of

the CCR layers. 

The CCR is placed and compacted in a controlled manner such thatstormwater sheets off toward theleachate collection system. 

The granular drainage material may be segregated bottom ash or other

waste byproducts that have a consistent particle size. 

Perform regular moisture density/compaction testing to document how the

CCR is placed and compacted in accordance with the approved design. 

Perform as built surveys to document that the drainage layers have been

constructed in accordance with the approved design and at the

recommended locations.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.15 

# Quality Control Testing for CCR Placement

•

For slope stability, decreased

permeability and reducederodability specify the percent

compaction and moisture



## content. •

Typical values for CCR are 90

to 95 percent of the Standard



## Proctor at +/ 5 percent of theOMC. •

Verify placement and



## compaction by a system of

regular observation and testing. Reference: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.leomo.info/leomobg2010

Reference: http://www.ifandp.com/article/001894.htmlHaley & Aldrich, Inc.16 

# FIGURE 2 – Typical Interim Drainage LayersHaley & Aldrich, Inc.17 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

•

Problem No. 2: UndersizedStormwater Management and

Sediment Control Structures •

Coal ash is a silt sized particle that is highly susceptible to erosion and

changes in moisture content. •

This material characteristic frequently results instormwater

management ponds (SWMP) and erosion control (E&S) devices that



### are filled with coal ash to capacity at more frequent intervals. •

These tendencies must be accounted for in the design by providing

additional storage capacity and/or more frequent pond cleanouts and

maintenance.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.18 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

•

Problem No. 2: Solutions •

A few important items to consider in the design of SWM ponds and



### E&S devices on CCR landfills include: 

More frequent rock check dams in the surface water channels

draining to the SWM ponds. Require more maintenance and

cleanout of devices to account for silt sized, more erodible coal ash. 

Consider the design of a two stage SWM pond with smaller fore bay

structure that can be cleaned at more frequent intervals. 

Consider the use of turbidity curtains and other methods to promote

settling and removal of silt sized particles before the outlet structure. 

Oversize SWM ponds and E&S devices to account for the increased

volume of silt sized coal ash particles. 

### 

Monitor the levels in ponds at more frequent intervals to verify when

it is time to clean. SWM ponds at CCR landfills can fill up FAST

with sediment!



## •Haley & Aldrich, Inc.19 

# COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
•

Problem No. 3: Dust Control and Blowing Ash •

As a silt sized material, coal ash is “notorious” for rapid surface drying



### that produces dust within a few hours after the initial placement and

compaction. •

Problem No. 3: Solutions 

### •

A few important considerations for dust control and blowing ash: 

Common solutions include continuous spraying with water and

covering with cover soils. Maybe a full time sprinkling system. 

###  Minimizing the size of the “working face” or CCR placement area so

that wetter, partially saturated ash is placed over drying layers. 

Placement of surface encapsulation product likePosi shell and

Gorilla Snot at the end daily operations. 

Covering with temporarygeotextile orraincovers that can be reused

and moved to new placement areas as the fill placement

progresses.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.20 

# DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COAL ASH LANDFILLS

•Leachate Collection: Inlet Design andGeotextiles •Leachate Collection: Aggregate Filter Design •

Interim Fill andStormwater Management PlansHaley & Aldrich, Inc.21 

# CCR Leachate Collection System

•

To avoid the potential of a clogged and/or blockedleachate collection

system during a major storm event, the components of theleachate

collection system must be designed to handle silt sized particles. 

### •

Two design considerations are discussed: •

Inlet structures andgeotextilesurface. •

Aggregate filter.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.22 

# Leachate Collection: Inlet Design and Geotextiles

•

A few important items to consider for the design of the

inlets,geotextile selection and maintenance. 

Design inlets to theleachate collection system and chimney drains with

sufficient freeboard to allow settling and minimize material transport into

horizontal drain pipes. 

Apparent Opening Size (AOS) relative to the particle size of the coal ash

becomes an important design parameter. 

Use laboratory clog tests to determine thegeotextile and CCR clogging

potential (ASTM D5101) and use the reduced drainage value for

selection of thegeotextilegeonet drainage materials. 

Include more frequent inspections of thegeotextile surface of theleachate collection and/or chimney drain in the landfill O&M plan to

prevent clogging of theleachate collection system.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.23 

# Leachate Collection: Aggregate Filter Design

•

A few important items to consider for the design of

aggregate filters: 

Proper selection of stone/gravel/sand that is placed directly over and

aroundleachate collection piping to meet the required piping and

hydraulic conductivity ratios. This will help maintain long term

transmission of theleachate , minimize clogging and provide pipe

protection. 

A 1foot –

thick granular drainage material is placed above the liner to

act as a conduit forleachate , to provide efficient collection, and to



### protect the liner from operational loads and climatic effects 

Use heavy wall perforated and non perforatedleachate pipe with

cleanouts that can be jetted annually to maintain pipe hydraulic

capacity.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.24 

### •

One of the best ways to avoid common problems is to develop

carefully thought out fill plans that show the contractor where to install

haul roads, place and compaction of CCR materials, and how to routestormwater from the working face. •

A few important items to remember for the development of CCR fill



### plans are: 

Design the haul roads andstormwater management channels so

that surface water is directed away from the working face and to

sediment traps, chimney drain inlets and/or drainage layers. 

Attempt to work the placement and compaction of CCR materials as a compacted embankment instead of an “end dumped” waste

material. 

### 

Show the location and sizing of largerstormwater management

channels along haul roads to avoid overtopping and erosive

velocities. 

# Interim Fill and Stormwater Management 

# PlansHaley & Aldrich, Inc.25 

# DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COAL ASH LANDFILLS – Other Items 

Specify a maximum lift thickness and range of acceptable moisture

content for CCR materials prior to compaction. 

### 

Provide locations for stockpiles of interim cover materials and/or staging

areas for dust control methods and materials. 

DO NOT submit the interim fill plans as an item for regulatory approval.

Fill plans are an operations activity

that requires flexibility for the

Contractor to account for changing weather and site conditions. 

Include probable location for interimstormwater management and E&S

control measures, but allow Contractor flexibility to account for changing



### conditions. 

Design drainage channel slopes that reduce erosion and haul road

grades that can be safely handled by standard construction equipment.

Hint: Gradual drainage channels and haul roads flatter than 10 percent



### work best.Haley & Aldrich, Inc.26 

# SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION:

•

This paper and presentation provides a summary of methods that have been

used successfully on CCR Landfills primarily in the Southeastern US. By no

means the final word! •

Primary purpose of this paper and presentation: •

To encourage fellow landfill design engineers and CCR landfill owners and

operators to STOP and THINK about the current methods used for CCR

landfills. • Our opinion is that simply using “reformatted” MSW landfill designs will not

work for the design, construction, operation and closure of CCR landfills. •

A secondary purpose: •

Initiate discussion and technical interaction on what has worked effectively for

CCR landfill design and construction. •

Our hope that this discussion and technical interaction will result in even

better CCR landfill designs, and continued protection of the environment.