Economic benefits of landfill mining and reclamation processes

ECONOMIC BENEFITS of LANDFILL MINING & RECLAMATION

Recycling has become a big industry, employing many individuals across many various sectors of materials of recyclables and across a range of various recycling or reclamation efforts. One of these sectors in recyclable or reclamation is the landfill reclamation sector, which recycles various materials including metals, gases, detergents, as well as others. Each of the sub-areas of landfill reclamation is combined with a process referred to as 'soil amendment recovery', that is a process of sifting ferrous and other materials from the soil. Mining is known to be a "very toxic business" however, recycling which is called an "old solution to a new problem" has recycling businesses flourishing and specifically noted in the work of Schmidt (2001) is that the metal scrap industry is very productive. Many minerals are available for reclamation and as stated in Schmidt: "Only 30% of the world's zinc supply is composed of recycled zinc. The USGS estimates that around 500,000 tons of zinc is landfilled every year; at the same time only 368,000 tons of zinc is recycled." (2001) Schmidt notes the work of Plachy (2000) in the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries who relates the importance of recycling to the U.S. economy stating that in 1996, "...the remanufacturing industry in the United States employed 10 times as many workers as metals mining did. At the same time, it earned $53 billion more than the entire consumer durables industry combined." (Schmidt, 2001)

BACKGROUND

Landfill mining was first spoken of in a 1953 article on the processes that had been used at a landfill operated in Tel Aviv, Israel. The objective of landfill reclamation in Tel Aviv was excavation of the waste "for the recovery of soil amendment." (Strange, nd) the process involved excavation of the material and transportation to a conveyor belt. The material was then transferred by the conveyor belt and "material that passed through the screen opening was used as soil amendment, and material that was retained in the screen was taken by conveyor belt to a resource recovery area where manual separation was used to recover ferrous metals and other recyclable materials." (Strange, nd) Between 1950 and 1980 two developments in the United States affected landfill mining and the first being "the emergency of a modular processing system designed to process mixed waste as it arrive at landfills or at transfer stations, primarily for the purpose of recovering steel containers." (Strange, nd)

The second development was one that "dealt with an assessment of the technical feasibility of composting landfilled municipal solid waste in situ...[and]...involved the construction of especially designed cells in a landfill..." during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Due to shortcomings in the project's technical feasibility, it was not implemented fully. Other problems involved fires due to spontaneous combustion in some of the cells. This study contributed to the knowledge of the importance of modular cell structure in landfills. Landfill mining and reclamation feasibility is determined by site-specific conditions of a prospective location and include the following 'key' conditions:

1) Composition of the waste initially put in the landfill;

2) Historic operating procedures;

3) Extent of the degradation of the waste; and 4) Types of markets and uses for the recovered materials. (Strange, nd)

The benefits of landfill are both economical and environmental and include the following benefits:

1) Use of recovered soil fraction as landfill cover material;

2) Recovery of secondary materials;

3) Reduction of landfill footprint, and therefore, reduction in costs of closure and post-closure; and 4) Reclamation of landfill volume for reuse. (Strange, nd)

Worker training in safety procedures; and Hauling costs. (U.S. EPA, 1997)

The work entitled: "Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006" states that in 2006 alone "Americans generated about 251 million tons of trash and recycled 82 million tons of materials, which is 32.5%." (EPA,

The following chart depicts the municipal solid waste generation rates beginning in 1960 and ending in 2006.

MSW Generation Rates 1960-2006

Source: EPA (1997)

The following chart depicts the municipal solid waste recycling rate during the same period-of-time.

MSW Recycling Rates 1960-2006

Source: EPA (1997)

Trash in the United States is "made up of things we commonly use and then throw away. These materials range from packaging, food scraps, and grass clippings to old sofas, computers, tires and refrigerators. It does not include industrial, hazardous, or construction waste." (EPA,

The following chart depicts the percentages of recycling rates of selected material in 2006.

Recycling Rates of Selected Materials (2006)

Source: EPA (1997)

Management of municipal solid waste in the United States in 2006 is stated by the Environmental Protection Agency report to be the following categories and percentages for each category: (1) Discarded - 55.0%; (2) Recovery - 32.5%; and (3) Combustion with Energy Recovery - 12.5%. (EPA, 1997) Municipal waste material composition generation by material for 2006 is stated to be those materials and percentages as follows:

Paper - 33.9%

Yard Trimmings - 12.9%

Food scraps - 12.4%;

Plastics - 11.7%;

Rubber, leather and textiles - 7.3%

Metals - 7.6%

Wood - 5.5%

Glass - 5.3%

The following figure shows the number of landfills in the United States between 1998 and 2006

Number of Landfills in the United States 1998-2006

Source: EPA (1997)

The work of van der Zee and de Visser entitled: "Assessing the Opportunities of Landfill Mining" states: "Long-term estimates make clear that the amount of solid waste to be processed at landfills in the Netherlands will sharply decline in coming years. Major reasons can be found in the availability of improved technologies for waste recycling and government regulations aiming at waste reduction." (nd)

The work of Sperling and Hansen entitled: "Land Reclamation at Municipal Landfill Sites" states that municipal landfill closure presents a great challenge in terms of reclamation which involves multiple objectives including: (1) isolation of refuse; (2) minimization of leachate production; (3) prevention of erosion; (4) collection and disposal of landfill leachate and landfill gas; (5) return of the land to its' original state; (6) issues related to the application of biosolids as a topsoil amendment; and (7) closure and post closure environmental monitoring to continually ensure that the landfill impact on its surrounding are kept at acceptable levels until stabilization which is about 25 years post closure. (Sperling and Hansen, nd)

New York State's Environmental Facilities Corporation assist municipalities, businesses and state agencies for environmental projects and states that eligible components of a landfill construction or closure project include the following:

Double-composite landfill liner system;

Passive and active gas collection and control systems prior to the treatment or storage of the gas as a fuel or conversion to energy;

Leachate management, collection or removal systems including use of innovative gas control technologies;

Connection to municipal sewer system;

Stormwater runoff control and management facilities;

Landfill closure or capping system;

Landfill reclamation and/or reduction in place of landfill capping;

Side slope seepage prevention and control system;

Environmental monitoring wells and equipment;

Security fencing for the purpose of protecting water quality protection features;

Barge shelters, containment booms, litter fences and other means to prevent municipal solid waste from blowing off the landfill site and polluting surface waters; and Intermediate cover prior to final closure. (Environmental Facilities Corporation, 2006)

The work of Gary a. Forster entitled: "Assessment of Landfill Reclamation and the Effects of Age on the Combustion of Recovered MSW" states that one of the most significant resources in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is farmland. Therefore, one of the primary goals of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA) is to "protect land by minimizing the space needed for landfilling. To achieve this goal the authority began the construction of a resource recovery facility (RRF) in 1989 to significantly reduce the volume of waste entering its Frey Farm Landfill. It also helped to establish recycling and waste reduction programs in the county. As a result of resource recovery and recycling, less than 12% of the volume of municipal waste generated in Lancaster County ends up at the Frey Farm Landfill for disposal." (Forster, 2001) Additionally related by Forster (2001) is: "The RRF began, in February 1991 other steps for preservation of the landfill space through excavation and incineration of waste that was buried in the landfill's first cell which was filled to a capacity. Excavation techniques are stated to range from "the bulk excavation phase to a 'strip-mining' technique" stated to be an approach, which involved "cutting a 50-ft.-wide x 150-ft.-long swath to a specific depth. Once this waste was trammeled, operations moved laterally to the next section, where the process was repeated. Excavation was done in this manner so that operations could be kept downgradient of the existing cut to aid in stormwater control Temporary berms were also placed around the upper edge of the stripped areas to enhance runoff. The strip-mining method also prevented the accumulation of methane in an excavated pit." (Forster, 2001) Forster (2001) states that economic benefits realized from landfill reclamation include those listed as follows:

LCSWMA Reclamation Weekly Cost/Revenue Summary

ITEM DESCRIPTION

TOTALS (AVERAGES)

Project weeks

REVENUES

Total volume excavated (yd.3)

Ferrous sales

Average excavated weekly (yd.3/wk.)

Electricity sales

Total tons excavated per week

TOTAL REVENUES

Total tons reclaimed ton reclaimed

Average tons reclaimed weekly

NET REVENUES

Tons of cover soil recovered per week ton reclaimed

Tons of noncombustibles landfilled per week

ASSET ADDITIONS

Net volume recovered (yd.3/wk.)

Reclaimed soil (1,076 tons @ $2/ton)

COSTS: LANDFILL OPERATIONS

Reclaimed landfill volume (yd.3)

Excavation/sorting

Current value @ $11/yd.3)

Trommeling

TOTAL ASSET ADDITIONS

Fuel

PROJECT PROFIT

Refuse transport to RRF

4,943 ($3.35/ton)

Asset additions + net revenues ($/wk)

COSTS: REFUSE PROCESSING at RRF

MISCELLANEOUS DATA

Lime

0.66/ton)

Average LF HHV (Btu/lb)

OMSL fee ($/ton waste processed)

4,471 ($3.03/ton)

Ash tons per week

586 (352 yd.3)

Host fee ($/ton processed + ash tons landfilled)

2,441 ($1.65/ton)

Ferrous tons per week

Ash transport to landfill ($/ton)

1,846 ($3.15/ton)

Electricity (kWh, 2-year average)

Administration/compliance

Reclaimed material

3568 kWh/ton

TOTAL COSTS

21,862 ($14,81/ton)

Source: Forster (2001)

III. ECONOMIC BENEFITS of LANDFILL MINING

The work of van der Zee, Achterkamp, and de Visser entitled: "Assessing the Opportunities of Landfill Mining" lists the benefits and costs of the reclamation of a landfill. Stated as benefits is an increase in disposal capacity, which is needed greatly throughout the world. Further stated as benefits is avoidance or reduction of the costs of:

1) Landfill closure;

2) Post-closure of additional capacity or sophisticated systems;

3) Liability for remediation of surrounding areas. (van der Zee, Achterkamp, and de Visser, 2003)

Benefits also include the revenues from:

1) Recyclable and reusable materials;

2) Combustible waste sold as fuel; and 3) Reclaimed soil used as cover materials, sold as construction fill or sold for other uses; and 4) the last stated benefit is the benefit of land value of sites that have been reclaimed for other uses. (van der Zee, Achterkamp, and de Visser, 2003)

The costs of landfill reclamation is stated to include expenses incurred in project planning. Capita costs are stated to include: (1) site preparation; (2) rental or purchase of reclamation equipment; (3) rental or purchase of personnel safety equipment; (4) construction or expansion of materials handling facilities; (5) rental or purchase of hauling equipment.

Operational costs include: (1) labor; (2) equipment fuel and maintenance; (3) land filling non-reclaimed waste or noncombustible fly and bottom ash if waste material is sent off site for final disposal; and (4) Administrative and regulatory compliance expenses; (5) worker training in safety procedures; and (6) hauling costs. (van der Zee, Achterkamp, and de Visser, 2003)

The work entitled: "Costs and Benefits of Recycling for North Carolina" states "Most people choose to recycle for its environmental benefits. However, environmental benefits are not the only criteria society uses to select policies and actions. When decisions are made, economic impacts frequently take precedence over environmental benefits; or they receive equal weight, at least. The private sector especially must justify most decisions according to their effects on the bottom line."(Costs and Benefits of Recycling in North Carolina, nd) One of the economic benefits associated with landfill mining is the creation of jobs. The report stats that more than 8.700 people in North Carolina are employed in the recycling industry. Whereas the collection and disposal of 30,000 tons of solid waste along with the resource extraction create only 14 jobs, the recycling of the same quantity of material creates 100 jobs in North Carolina. In other words, recycling creates jobs at seven time the rate of resource extraction plus disposal." (Costs and Benefits of Recycling in North Carolina, nd) Further stated is that recycling companies in North Carolina have "added new jobs at six times the rate of all private industry in the last four years." (Costs and Benefits of Recycling in North Carolina, nd) the following chart illustrates job creation from recycling vs. disposal and virgin extraction.

Job Creation From Recycling vs. Disposal and Virgin Extraction

Source: (Costs and Benefits of Recycling in North Carolina, nd)

Cost savings are realized when private sector companies recycle to save waste management and disposal costs.

IV. ECONOMIC BENEFITS in WEST VIRGINIA LANDFILL MINING

The work entitled: "Economic Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management in West Virginia" states that individuals who are not "directly associated with the implementation and maintenance of environmentally sound integrated solid waste management systems often are skeptical about the economic soundness of landfill reclamation programs and recycling benefits. Findings stated in the report are that the following economic benefits are realized in the state of West Virginia concerning solid waste management:

Solid waste collectors, transfer stations, composting facilities, recycling centers and landfills in West Virginia paid an estimated $60 million dollars in wages and salaries in 2005;

These businesses maintained an estimated 2,079 jobs with a relatively high average weekly salaries ranging from $496 to $610; compared to an average weekly salary in the retail trades of $381;

Various WV governmental entities, including both municipal and county, employ at least 939 workers in their waste management activities (waste hauling, recycling, landfilling, composting) with an annual payroll of $19,932,912;

In 2006, the states public and private waste management infrastructure consisted of 18 landfills, 2 tire monofills, 18 transfer stations and 25 composting facilities all of which are fully operational and approved through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. In addition, the state has at least 77 recycling centers, many of which have one or more remote collection sites;

The states 50 local solid waste authorities own, operate or sponsor recycling programs in 35 counties, recycling 30,366.61 tons of material, bringing in $1,534,477 in recycling revenue and save the state an additional $1,237,915 in landfill tipping fees. (Economic Impact of Municipal Solid Waste in Virginia, nd)

Economic benefits are also realized in terms of agricultural production due to renewal of soils. The report of the National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation states that the approach of landfill reclamation is one that should consistently apply "sound scientific knowledge, quality assurance, management and evaluation processes, risk management and compliance processes, risk management and compliance processes and penalties. Further, the methods must be of a nature that ensures the environmental economic benefits are maximized and does not harm the environment, human health or agriculture." (Environment Protection and Heritage Council, nd)

V. ECONOMICS of LANDFILL MINING (FINDLAY, 1995)

The work of Findlay (1995) entitled: "Exploring the Economics of Mining Landfills" relates the fact that the costs of operating a landfill are "in the soil since landfills are mostly soil...mining economics are dominated by the costs of soil excavation, screening, testing and deposition, which can account for 80% of the project's cost. Any cost that relates to soil can rapidly escalate the cost of the project." (Findlay, 1995) the example provided is: "...a 30 acre by 30-foot deep site contains about 1 million cubic yards of soil. For every dollar added to the cost of soil processing, approximately 12% is added to the cost of the project. Overlooking an issue related to soil can mean the difference between profit or loss on a project. For example, if soil will be used as daily cover at another site, state regulatory authorities might require a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for every 1,000 cubic yards shipped. A TCLP can cost $1,500 per analysis or $1.50 per cubic yard shipped." (Findlay, 1995) Requirements may vary from state to state with one state having a more lenient requirement and it is noted by Findlay: "...in this case, there is a trade-off between shipping costs, testing requirements and the market for the soil." (1995)

Findlay further notes contingencies in weather conditions, clogging screens and other factors. Findlay notes that economic justification of landfill mining "goes beyond a simple comparison of landfill mining verses conventional closure. Landfill mining alternatives should be evaluated in the context of the overall management of solid waste. Re-siting replaces wastes with space. Excavation and screening can recover about 25% of the space by removing the oversize, as long as it can be sold or disposed off-site at little or no cost. Soil is still 75% of the volume of the material excavated. The markets for this type of soil varies between regions. Some use it for constructing levees or in flood control. Soil can be sold as landfill cover or stockpiled for daily cover for the new landfill." (Findlay, 1995)

Other potential tangible benefits of landfill mining includes: "As sites are enlarged, more money can be borrowed through bonds based on firm waste contracts. Equipment can be more fully utilized and back-up equipment can be brought to the site. It is easier to justify investing in equipment that will recover and upgrade steel, aluminum and other commodities. Market specialists can be hired to negotiate the sale of commodities and soil and more money can be spent on equipment to shred and grind residual wastes. Large landfills are a storehouse of valuable steel and aluminum scrap. For example, a 50-acre site might contain as much as 240,000 tons of steel and 20,000 tons of aluminum depending on the site's depth. These amounts of scrap represent mill quantities of material. Steel scrap recovered from landfills is finding its way through scrap dealers into the steel industry. There are estimates of more than 400 million tons of steel in these closed (or soon to be closed) sites. Considering that the U.S. steel industry consumes about 100 million tons of scrap every year, the scrap recovered from landfills represents a significant supply source." (Findlay, 1995)

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

Landfill mining represents a growing industry in today's world and one that has not realized its full potential in terms of cost-savings and efficiency because the reclamation process is new enough that innovation has not fully developed in this area of recycling. Economic benefits that will potentially result from landfill mining are many and various in nature as noted in this study. It is believed that with a little time that these landfill-mining operations will develop new and more efficient and productive methods of landfill reclamation processes. This is not merely a novel idea that is also environmentally friendly but instead is a very scientific process of soil reclamation and recycling of materials found in the soil.

This study has found that economic benefits realized from landfill mining include the use of recovered soil fraction as landfill cover material as well as recovery of secondary material and reduction lf landfill footprint, which results in cost reduction relating to closure and postclosure of landfills. Finally, reclamation of landfill volume for reuse is another benefit realized by landfill reclamation. (Strange, nd) Other benefits include increased disposal capacity and avoidance or reduction is costs related to purchasing additional capacity and sophisticated systems as well as the liability for remediation of the surrounding areas of the landfill. (EPA, 1997) Revenues may be realized from)

Recyclable and reusable material such as ferrous metals, aluminum, plastic and glass, combustible waste sold as fuel; and reclaimed soil used as cover material, sold as construction fill, or sold for other uses. (U.S. EPA, 1997) the state of Virginia has been examined in this study in terms of solid waste collectors, transfer stations, composting facilities, recycling centers and landfills in the state, which "paid an estimated $60 million dollars in wages and salaries in 2005." (Economic Impact of Solid Waste in Virginia, nd)