FROM DUMP TO SANITARY LANDFILL

AND WHAT NEXT – A CASE STUDY

FROM THE LEBANESE CAPITAL BEIRUT

D. R. GREEDY

M J Carter Associates, The Old Colliery Offices, Main Road, Baxterley,

Atherstone, Warwickshire, CV9 2LE.

SUMMARY: In the early 90’s the Lebanese Government sought World Bank funding to
improve waste management arrangements in Lebanon. As a result it has adopted a truly
integrated approach to the management of the waste for Greater Beirut from collection through
to disposal. Although the funding was for the Lebanon as a whole the Government took a
strategic view that rather than carrying out piecemeal improvements throughout the country that
it could use the money more effectively to address waste management in Greater Beirut. As
Greater Beirut is home to some 40% of the country’s population it is understood how this was
considered to be the better investment of the funding. The strategy to be adopted was based on
landfill. Proposals were sought and the contract awarded to Sukkar Engineering in 1997
(Baldwin, Cui and Dussek 1999). The contract included waste collection, street cleaning, the
closure and restoration of the Bourg Hammoud waste dump, the provision of a materials
recovery facility, the provision of a composting facility and the construction of two landfills.
Although Greater Beirut is presently adequately served for the collection and disposal of waste
other major cities are not as fortunate. Tripoli to the north and Sidon to the south still dispose of
their wastes to open dumps albeit alternatives are under investigation. Only recently Sidon was
considering anaerobic digestion as a possible solution. Unfortunately, some five years from the
commencement of the waste management programme for Greater Beirut, crisis looms. The
landfill that was expected to last for at least ten years is all but full with no follow on site yet
secured. Recycling levels are much lower than predicted and the markets expected for recyclates
have not materialised. Furthermore a greater quantity of waste is collected and disposed of than
ever was envisaged as the widespread dumping and burning that was prevalent has been
eradicated. What does the future hold?

1. INTRODUCTION

The Lebanon, perhaps more so than many other economically developing countries, had sought
and continues to seek external funding in its quest to raise waste management standards. A
country that, until 1990, was ravaged by civil war which in itself had created its own
considerable problems. An infrastructure that was all but destroyed is now being rapidly
replaced which in itself creates its own waste management issues. Even now they are under
constant threat from the Arab/Israeli conflict that just rolls on and on and more recently the Iraqi

Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 6 - 10 October 2003
 2003 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
war. Somehow you can understand why waste management has taken second place. However
the Lebanese seem to let nothing stand in their way and great progress has been made in the
management of their waste.
This paper will look at how the city of Greater Beirut has managed to progress from the open
dump to sanitary landfill in something less than ten years. It has developed a whole strategy
which accords quite closely with the now widely accepted waste hierarchy. It can be truly said
that the city has adopted a holistic approach to the management of its waste.
Unfortunately the open dumps do exist elsewhere in the country. The city of Sidon to the
south of Beirut has a landfill that is atypical of an open dump in a developing country. However
it, like Beirut, is looking to raise standards but as yet has not found the solution to its own
situation. Tripoli, in the north of the country, finds itself in a similar position. Funding remains
the key as there is, without doubt, the willingness and the energy to raise standards.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Beirut, like many cities in the economically developing world, historically had taken little
interest in the management of its waste. Much of it was simply left in the streets for the non-
regulated informal sector to plunder and for animals to feed upon. In the more affluent areas the
waste would have been collected and taken to a convenient piece of land and dumped where the
informal sector would have scavenged for their living. The open dump was born.

Figure 1. Bourj Hammoud burning dump. Photo: Courtesy of Sukkar Engineering

In Beirut’s case this piece of land was adjacent to the sea and the Bourj Hammoud mountain
grew out of the sea as if it were an erupting volcano (Figure 1 and 2). It, too, burned casting
clouds of putrid smoke over the city. Although the fires have been extinguished and the site has
been covered by a reddish soil and awaits restoration leachate remains clearly visible in the sea
surrounding the site.
Figure 2. Bourg Hammoud dump awaiting restoration.

However all of this was to change and in 1996 the World Bank agreed a US $55 million loan to
establish a comprehensive waste management plan for the country as a whole. Unfortunately for
the wider Lebanese population none of this money was to be spent beyond the boundary of
Greater Beirut. The loan was expected to fund composting facilities, recycling plants and
several landfills throughout the country (Figure 3). Looking at it rationally, as the Lebanese
government would have done, it could be considered that the money has been better spent within
the boundary of Greater Beirut as Greater Beirut was in greatest need and well over 40% of the
country’s population resides in or near to Beirut itself.
The funding was to provide for a comprehensive street cleaning programme, waste collection
arrangements, the provision of a composting facility and a materials recovery facility. It would
also provide for the development of landfills to receive any residues from the waste treatment
processes.

3. CURRENT POSITION

Greater Beirut generates up to 2000 tonnes of household type waste per day of which nearly 60%
is readily biodegradable. A further 20% is accounted for as paper and cardboard and up to 10%
as plastics. The low incidence of plastics is probably accounted for by reuse and the activities of
the informal sector who scavenge from the collection bins before the waste is removed for
disposal.
The high level of organic matter did lead to unforeseen problems at the Karantina materials
recovery facility (Figure 4). The bales were weak and oozed liquor as they were transferred to
the Naameh landfill site. This resulted in the baled waste having to be wrapped in plastic before
it could be transported to the landfill.
Currently around 150 tonnes per day of the organic waste is separated from the waste stream
and processed. This yields around 20 tonnes of useable compost per day and 30 tonnes of
rejects. Local markets for the compost have been found but like the United Kingdom it is only
taken when there is no charge made for it. It was anticipated that farmers would want it because
of the poor nature of farmland near to Beirut but they were found to be reluctant to use it as it
had previously been fellow mans waste.

Figure 3. Greater Beirut composting plant.

The recycling and recovery of materials was expected to be much higher when the strategy
evolved but like elsewhere markets are difficult to find and where they are demand is
unpredictable. To compound this scavenging by the informal sector prior to waste collection
removed much of the prime material that the markets demand. Routinely stockpiles of plastic
bottles can be seen alongside or near to the waste collection points.

Figure 4. Karantina materials recovery facility Photo: Couresty of Sukkar Engineering

4. LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT

The waste strategy for the Lebanon resulted in the development of two landfills for Great Beirut.
One of these was engineered to appropriate standards for municipal type wastes (Naameh
Landfill, Figure 5) and the other (Salim Landfill) was engineered to take the more bulky and
inert wastes which would not pass through the processing plant at Karantina. Unlike the
Naameh landfill the Salim landfill was not engineered with a composite liner but had a single
natural mineral liner which achieved a permeability of 1x10-9m/sec.
Contrary to what would be expected for a landfill in industrialised nations a location was
established without any form of hydrogeological site investigation being undertaken. In this case
the site identified was a limestone valley some 15 kilometres to the south of the city. This is the
type of geology that would rarely be considered suitable for a landfill as it is often contains an
aquifer which can be a valuable water resource. A site investigation was undertaken but it was
focussed on establishing the suitability of the geology for the engineering of the access road and
certain structures rather than as an assessment of the impact the operation may have on the
environment. That being said the site investigation boreholes were put to good use as they
provided a rudimentary monitoring scheme around the perimeter of the site.
Although the valley floor remains dry for much of the year it was recognised that there would
be a requirement to allow water to bypass the landfill during the wet season. As a result the first
stage of the development was to construct a culvert along the valley floor to ensure that surface
water was diverted away from the waste. The design, in addition to the strength and volume
requirements included the need for a man to be able to walk through the culvert without bending
for inspection purposes. This would enable the operator to regularly inspect the culvert to
identify possible failures and to carry out remediation works as necessary. In addition the
culvert had to be formed as two separate channels as it was thought that if one collapsed or failed
due to a blockage that there would still be a route for the water to follow. The justification for
this was that the area is subject to possible, although rare, seismic disturbance.
The valley slopes were then graded and shaped using heavy plant to provide a surface that
could be readily engineered. Terraces were cut into the valley slopes and with a series of cut and
fill operations slopes of 1:3 were established.
A composite liner was then formed on the base of the site using low permeability mineral and
a high density polyethylene membrane (HDPE). A composite liner was established on the
sidewalls using a geosynthetic clay liner and HDPE. The HDPE liner was protected using a
heavy duty geofabric. A leachate collection drainage system was established on the base of the
site and was connected to concrete leachate abstraction wells. The leachate collection system
was then covered with a gravel drainage layer.
Figure 5. Naameh Landfill Site.

5. DISPOSAL OPERATIONS

Having been mechanically sorted and hand picked the waste is formed into bales weighing up to
1.8 tonnes each using a Lindemann packer and are then wrapped in plastic for aesthetic purposes.
This is now a contract requirement as it was recognised that transportation to the landfill using
open trucks was problematic. Wrapping would contain odours, prevent windblown material and
contain leachate. Unfortunately the latter was not readily achieved as there are always liquors
running from the back of the haulage trucks. Each truck transports eight bales or so giving a
payload of around 14 tonnes.
The baled waste is then off loaded at the disposal site using all terrain fork lift trucks and
placed three high in a stepped profile. The bales are then covered with a layer of soil and
limestone aggregate to reduce the possible impact of odours and provide an additional conduit
for leachate. Particular care is taken not to damage the plastic wrap. The operation assumes that
the 0.8 tonnes/m3 achieved at the baling plant is sufficient and that no compaction equipment
needs to be used on site. Furthermore a condition of the permit does not allow the use of
compaction plant on site for fear of damaging the plastic wrap with aesthetic reasons being cited
as the justification.
Collected leachate is diverted to a leachate treatment plant where it is treated chemically and
aerobically. Some 300 tonnes of leachate are generated on a daily basis and when treated is
discharged to the public sewer.
Gas collection is very rudimentary with a very basic system connected to a gas flare.
Although there are many complaints of gas odours from local residents there is little evidence of
gas on site. It may well be that because of the relatively high temperature and the high moisture
content that much of the degradation takes place rapidly in the aerobic phases. However
consideration is now being given to the installation of a power generation scheme in the longer-
term.
The landfill will be capped using very low density polyethylene sheets welded together to
form a low permeability barrier to prevent surface water ingress and the surface migration of
landfill gas. On completion the landfill will cover some 27 hectares with a depth in excess of
100 metres at its deepest point.

6. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD

Waste disposal at the Naameh Landfill site commenced in 1997 and now, less than five years
into its expected ten year life, the site is almost full. No alternative has been identified other than
the suggestion that a re-contouring exercise may well be the answer. This is meeting with
considerable opposition as the local residents become better informed and are now saying that
enough is enough. Just like any other country in the world issues such as flies, litter and more
especially odours are now at the very top of everyone’s agenda.
There is now a very strong feeling locally that all of the good practice established over the
past five years or so may have been in vain. Without a landfill or markets for the recyclates from
the treatment plants there may be no future. Will there be a return to the burning open dumps
that are still evident in Sidon and Tripoli? Has the investment been too rapid without planning
for the longer term? This is a situation often encountered in developing countries where
technical solutions are found to work but only in the short term.
Could the future for Greater Beirut be the mining of former landfills. Already where valuable
real estate can be established landfill mining is well underway so why not in other areas where
there are old landfills and land values are not as high. The landfilled waste can be processed
with the processed materials being used or recycled off site thus releasing new void for further
landfilling. The former Normandie landfill has been extensively worked to release valuable
building land adjacent to the sea so the technology, led by an American consortium, is already
recognised as appropriate technology for the Lebanon albeit for very different reasons.
Could the future be anaerobic digestion as has been suggested as a solution for Sidon?
Although this is a proposal that has been under consideration since the beginning of 1999 it is
still no further forward. In fact it is likely never to materialise as the collection infrastructure
proposed and the level of public participation required if such a scheme is to have any hope of
success seems to be well beyond the means of the municipality. This would not be the case for
Greater Beirut as much of the investment in infrastructure is already in place.
More recently a trade mission to the Lebanon was arranged to demonstrate alternative
treatment options such as gasification, pyrolysis and mass burn incineration. An added benefit
from all of these alternatives is the potential to generate energy. However doubts must exist
about introducing sophisticated technological solutions to a country where the financial
resources to maintain them is limited.

7. CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been considerable progress in Greater Beirut over the recent years there is
still much to do in Lebanon as a whole. As has been demonstrated in this paper even
Greater Beirut may not yet be out of the woods as the long-term availability of landfill space puts
the future of its waste management programme in jeopardy. The US $55 million loan form the
World Bank may not have been the solution to the waste management problem that the Lebanon
was seeking. Continued investment is now required if the process that has been started in
Greater Beirut isn’t to flounder. Otherwise Greater Beirut may well find itself once again with
waste in the streets and open dumps. The willingness and enthusiasm is clearly there but the
financial resources remain limited.
This should not and must not be allowed to happen but how can it be stopped?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank colleagues at M J Carter Associates for peer reviewing the paper
and Sukkar Engineering for providing some of the photographic material.

REFERENCES

D. Baldwin, S. Cui and C. Dussek (1999). Technical Aspects of the Disposal of Plastic Wrapped
Baled Wastes at Naameh Landfill, Beirut, Lebanon. Proceedings Sardinia 1999, Seventh
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium Vol I279-286.