landfill mining poster presentation

1
Cost-Effective Landfill Mining Hal Boudreau III 1 and Joel Woolsey 2 Abstract For decades, engineers have envisioned using Land- fill Mining and Reclamation (LFMR) as a way to re- cover valuable recyclables, but the option has not proven to be economically viable. However, if the concept is extended to recover resources such as soil and landfill airspace, the economics can work. This poster discusses two landfills in Florida where LFMR has proven to be cost-comparable to a greenfield site. The Concept Much like in real estate, the value is in location. In the case studies to be dis- cussed, the value lies in expanding an existing landfill and allowing lateral expan- sion of the new waste over the old instead of developing a greenfield site. Option 1: Shows an existing landfill on the left with a new non-contiguous land- fill on the right separated by a constraint, such as electrical transmission lines, shown in blue. Option 2: Shows how a landfill could be horizontally expanded contiguously with an existing landfill (shown in green) that is not separated by a constraint, resulting in additional lateral expansion landfill capacity as illustrated in yellow. This additional lateral expansion capacity can be substantial and at a relatively low cost because it requires a negligible amount of additional bottom liner area, overcoming the additional cost of landfill mining. Conclusion While LFMR has historically been a method for reducing liability, these case studies show how LFMR can actually be a lower-cost development option, especially at sites where an ex- isting landfill area can be reclaimed to provide a contiguous landfill expansion instead of a new non-contiguous landfill. Although the cost of LFMR is more than the development costs of a separate greenfield area, the adjoining land of the old landfill allows for the hori- zontal expansion over the existing active landfill. This horizontal expansion results in such a significant increase in capacity over the greenfield expansion that the cost to develop the landfill mining option is actually less on a cost-per-volume-of-airspace basis. LFMR is one of the few development options that can both protect the environment and save money. Option 1: Greenfield Site Option 2: LFMR Contact Information 1 Hal Boudreau III, PE Project Engineer Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc. 730 NE Waldo Road Gainesville, FL 32641 Work: 352.377.5821 ext. 1347 Fax: 352.377.3166 Cell: 352.213.9948 E-mail: [email protected] 2 Joel Woolsey Project Manager Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc. 730 NE Waldo Road Gainesville, FL 32641 Work: 352.377.5821 ext. 1358 Fax: 352.377.3166 Cell: 352.871.7066 E-mail: [email protected] Existing Landfill and Constraints Recommendations DesignReduce Uncertainty Maximum Historical Records: Site map/tonnage records Waste Investigation PermittingMinimize Costs Minimize Dewatering and Leachate Man- agement Cost-Effective Data Collection ConstructionIncorporate Flexibility Contract Flexibility Coordination between Stakeholders Potential Challenges Uncertainty More Complex to Permit More Complex to Construct Additional Development Time May Need to Relocate Existing Utilities Potential Benefits Recyclable Material Revenues Reclaimed Soil Waste-to-Energy Fuel Source Reducing Closure Costs Reclaiming Land for Other Uses Retrofitting Liners Removing Hazardous Materials Recovering Landfill Capacity Case Study: New River Regional Landfill New River Regional Landfill in Raiford, Florida has already exca- vated some of its Class III (construction and demolition debris) waste and soon will have removed all waste from its Class III landfill to make room for the expansion of their Class I (municipal solid waste) landfill. NRRL Mining Summary Year Started 2013 Main Objectives •Recover Airspace Recover Soil Decrease Liability Estimated Total Cost $300,000 Mining Area 13 Acres Estimated Mined Volume 300,000 CY Self-performed? Yes Waste Processing Visual Delineation Use of Recovered Soil Cover Soil Estimated Soil Fraction 25% Recovered Commodities? No Case Study: Putnam County Central Landfill Putnam County Central Landfill outside Palatka, Florida needs to expand its landfill. Because the current Class I landfill footprint is constrained by property lines, power- line easements, and a closed, unlined landfill, LFMR was considered. PCCL Mining Summary Year Started 2014 Main Objectives •Recover Airspace Recover Soil Decrease Liability Estimated Total Cost $22 million Mining Area 90 Acres Estimated Mined Volume 2,420,000 CY Self-performed? No Contracted Waste Processing 3-in Shaker Screen Use of Recovered Soil Cover Soil Estimated Soil Fraction 70% Recovered Commodities? No Site Constraint (e.g., Powerlines) Existing Landfill New Greenfield Landfill Existing Landfill Existing Landfill Mined Landfill Additional Capacity

Upload: jones-edmunds

Post on 16-Jul-2015

117 views

Category:

Engineering


7 download

TRANSCRIPT

Cost-Effective Landfill Mining Hal Boudreau III1 and Joel Woolsey2

Abstract For decades, engineers have envisioned using Land-

fill Mining and Reclamation (LFMR) as a way to re-

cover valuable recyclables, but the option has not

proven to be economically viable. However, if the

concept is extended to recover resources such as

soil and landfill airspace, the economics can work.

This poster discusses two landfills in Florida where

LFMR has proven to be cost-comparable to a

greenfield site.

The Concept Much like in real estate, the value is in location. In the case studies to be dis-

cussed, the value lies in expanding an existing landfill and allowing lateral expan-

sion of the new waste over the old instead of developing a greenfield site.

Option 1: Shows an existing landfill on the left with a new non-contiguous land-

fill on the right separated by a constraint, such as electrical transmission lines,

shown in blue.

Option 2: Shows how a landfill could be horizontally expanded contiguously with

an existing landfill (shown in green) that is not separated by a constraint,

resulting in additional lateral expansion landfill capacity as illustrated in yellow.

This additional lateral expansion capacity can be substantial and at a relatively

low cost because it requires a negligible amount of additional bottom liner area, overcoming the additional cost of landfill mining.

Conclusion While LFMR has historically been a method for reducing liability, these case studies show

how LFMR can actually be a lower-cost development option, especially at sites where an ex-

isting landfill area can be reclaimed to provide a contiguous landfill expansion instead of a

new non-contiguous landfill. Although the cost of LFMR is more than the development

costs of a separate greenfield area, the adjoining land of the old landfill allows for the hori-

zontal expansion over the existing active landfill. This horizontal expansion results in such a

significant increase in capacity over the greenfield expansion that the cost to develop the

landfill mining option is actually less on a cost-per-volume-of-airspace basis. LFMR is one of

the few development options that can both protect the environment and save money.

Option 1: Greenfield Site

Option 2: LFMR

Contact Information

1 Hal Boudreau III, PE Project Engineer Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc. 730 NE Waldo Road Gainesville, FL 32641 Work: 352.377.5821 ext. 1347 Fax: 352.377.3166 Cell: 352.213.9948 E-mail: [email protected]

2 Joel Woolsey Project Manager Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc. 730 NE Waldo Road Gainesville, FL 32641 Work: 352.377.5821 ext. 1358 Fax: 352.377.3166 Cell: 352.871.7066 E-mail: [email protected]

Existing Landfill and Constraints

Recommendations Design—Reduce Uncertainty

Maximum Historical Records: Site map/tonnage records

Waste Investigation Permitting—Minimize Costs

Minimize Dewatering and Leachate Man-agement

Cost-Effective Data Collection Construction—Incorporate Flexibility

Contract Flexibility Coordination between Stakeholders

Potential Challenges Uncertainty More Complex to Permit More Complex to Construct Additional Development Time May Need to Relocate Existing Utilities

Potential Benefits Recyclable Material Revenues Reclaimed Soil Waste-to-Energy Fuel Source Reducing Closure Costs Reclaiming Land for Other Uses Retrofitting Liners Removing Hazardous Materials Recovering Landfill Capacity

Case Study: New River Regional Landfill New River Regional Landfill in Raiford, Florida has already exca-

vated some of its Class III (construction and demolition debris)

waste and soon will have removed all waste from its Class III

landfill to make room for the expansion of their Class I

(municipal solid waste) landfill.

NRRL Mining Summary

Year Started 2013

Main Objectives •Recover Airspace

•Recover Soil •Decrease Liability

Estimated Total Cost $300,000

Mining Area 13 Acres

Estimated Mined Volume 300,000 CY

Self-performed? Yes

Waste Processing Visual Delineation

Use of Recovered Soil Cover Soil

Estimated Soil Fraction 25%

Recovered Commodities?

No

Case Study: Putnam County Central Landfill Putnam County Central Landfill outside Palatka, Florida

needs to expand its landfill. Because the current Class I

landfill footprint is constrained by property lines, power-

line easements, and a closed, unlined landfill, LFMR was

considered.

PCCL Mining Summary

Year Started 2014

Main Objectives •Recover Airspace

•Recover Soil •Decrease Liability

Estimated Total Cost $22 million

Mining Area 90 Acres

Estimated Mined Volume 2,420,000 CY

Self-performed? No – Contracted

Waste Processing 3-in Shaker Screen

Use of Recovered Soil Cover Soil

Estimated Soil Fraction 70%

Recovered Commodities?

No

Site Constraint (e.g., Powerlines)

Existing Landfill

New Greenfield Landfill

Existing Landfill Existing Landfill Mined Landfill

Additional Capacity