sign in sign up
<<
Home , Landfill, Landfill mining, Land reclamation, Municipal solid waste

Solid EPA530-F-97-001 Environmental Protection and Emergency Response July 1997 Agency (5306W) 1EPA Reclamation

his fact sheet describes new and innovative technologies and products that meet the performance standards of the Criteria for Municipal Solid T Waste (40 CFR Part 258). Landfill reclamation is a relatively new approach used to expand (MSW) landfill capacity and avoid the high cost of acquiring addi- tional . Reclamation costs are often offset by the sale or use of recovered materials, such as recyclables, , and waste, which can be burned as fuel. Other important benefits may include avoided liability through site remediation, reductions in closure costs, and reclamation of land for other uses. Despite its many benefits, some potential drawbacks exist to landfill reclama- tion. This technology may release and other gases, for example, that result from decomposing . It may also unearth hazardous materials, which can be costly to manage. In addition, the excavation work involved in reclamation may cause adjacent landfill areas to sink or collapse. Finally, the dense, abrasive nature of reclaimed waste may shorten the life of excavation equipment. To identify potential problems, landfill operators considering recla- mation activities should conduct a site characterization study. Landfill reclamation projects have been successfully implemented at MSW facilities across the country since the 1980s. This fact sheet provides information on this technology and presents case studies of successful reclamation projects.

The Reclamation Soil Separation (Screening) A trommel (i.e., a revolving cylindrical sieve) Process or vibrating screens separate soil (including Landfill reclamation is conducted in a num- the cover material) from solid waste in the ber of ways, with the specific approach based excavated material. The size and type of screen on project goals and objectives and site- used depends on the end use of the recovered specific characteristics. The equipment used material. For example, if the reclaimed soil for reclamation projects is adapted primarily typically is used as landfill cover, a 2.5-inch from technologies already in use in the min- screen is used for separation. If, however, the ing , as as in construction and reclaimed soil is sold as construction fill, or other solid operations. In for another end use requiring fill material general, landfill reclamation follows these with a high fraction of soil content, a smaller steps: mesh screen is used to remove small pieces of , , , and . Excavation Trommel screens are more effective than An excavator removes the contents of the vibrating screens for basic landfill reclama- landfill cell. A front-end loader then orga- tion. Vibrating screens, however, are smaller, nizes the excavated materials into manage- easier to set up, and more mobile. able stockpiles and separates out bulky material, such as appliances and lengths of steel cable.

2 Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber. Processing for Reclamation of Recyclable Material or Disposal Benefits and Drawbacks Depending on local conditions, either the soil or the waste may be Facility operators considering the Retrofitting liners and removing reclaimed. The separated soil can be establishment of a landfill reclamation hazardous materials used as fill material or as program must weigh several benefits Liners and collection systems in a sanitary landfill. The excavated and drawbacks associated with this can be installed at older landfills. These waste can be processed at a materials waste management approach. systems can be inspected and repaired recovery facility to remove valuable if they are already installed. Also, haz- components (e.g., steel and alu- Potential Benefits ardous waste can be removed and minum) or burned in a municipal Extending landfill capacity at the managed in a more secure . waste combustor (MWC) to produce current site energy. Landfill reclamation extends the life Potential Drawbacks of the current facility by removing Managing hazardous materials recoverable materials and reducing Steps in Project Hazardous wastes that may be uncov- waste volume through combustion ered during reclamation operations, Planning and compaction. especially at older landfills, are subject Generating revenues from the sale to special handling and disposal Before initiating a landfill reclamation requirements. Management costs for project, facility operators should care- of recyclable materials can be relatively high, fully assess all aspects of such an Recovered materials, such as ferrous but may reduce future liability. effort. , aluminum, plastic, and glass, can be sold if markets exist for these Controlling releases of landfill The following is a recommended materials. gases and odors approach: Lowering operating costs or gen- Cell excavation raises a number of erating revenues from the sale of potential problems related to the reclaimed soil release of gases. Methane and other Conduct a site characterization ➀ gases, generated by decomposing study. Reclaimed soil can be used on site as daily cover material on other landfill wastes, can cause explosions and fires. cells, thus avoiding the cost of gas, a highly flam- mable and odorous gas, can be fatal Assess potential economic importing cover soil. Also, a market ➁ when inhaled at sufficient concentra- benefits. might exist for reclaimed soil used in other applications, such as construc- tions. tion fill. Controlling or collapse ➂ Investigate regulatory Producing energy at MWCs Excavation of one landfill area can requirements. Combustible reclaimed waste can be undermine the integrity of adjacent mixed with fresh waste and burned to cells, which can sink or collapse into produce energy at MWCs. the excavated area. ➃ Establish a preliminary worker health and safety plan. Reducing landfill closure costs Increasing wear on excavation and and reclaiming land for other uses MWC equipment By reducing the size of the landfill Reclamation activities shorten the use- Assess project costs. "footprint" through cell reclamation, ful life of equipment, such as excava- ➄ the facility operator may be able to tors and loaders, because of the high either lower the cost of closing the density of waste being handled. Also, landfill or make land available for the high particulate content and abra- other uses. sive nature of reclaimed waste can increase wear on MWC equipment (e.g., grates and air control systems).

2 This planning sequence assumes Most potential economic benefits Investigate Regulatory that project planners will make an associated with landfill reclamation are interim assessment of the project's fea- indirect; however, a project can gener- Requirements sibility after each planning step. After ate revenues if markets exist for recov- Landfill reclamation operations are not completion of all five steps, planners ered materials. Although the economic restricted under current federal regula- should conclude the feasibility assess- benefits from reclamation projects are tions. Before undertaking a reclama- ment by weighing costs against bene- facility-specific, they may include any tion project, however, state and local fits. A thorough final assessment or all of the following: authorities should be consulted regard- should include a review of project goals ing any special requirements. Although and objectives and consideration of some states have enacted general provi- alternative approaches for achieving Ⅲ Increased disposal capacity. sions concerning the beneficial use of those ends. Ⅲ Avoided or reduced costs of: recovered materials, as of 1996, only State had established specific —Landfill closure. landfill reclamation rules. In most Conduct a Site —Postclosure care and monitoring. states, officials offer assistance in pro- Characterization Study ject development, and they review —Purchase of additional capacity or The first step in a landfill reclamation work plans on a case-by-case basis. A sophisticated systems. project calls for a thorough site assess- few states, such as New York and New ment to establish the portion of the —Liability for remediation of sur- , encourage landfill reclamation landfill that will undergo reclamation rounding areas. by making grant money available. and estimate a material processing rate. Ⅲ Revenues from: The site characterization should assess facility aspects, such as geological — Recyclable and reusable materials Establish a Preliminary features, stability of the surrounding (e.g., ferrous metals, aluminum, Worker Health and area, and proximity of ground water, plastic, and glass). Safety Plan and should determine the fractions of — Combustible waste sold as fuel. usable soil, recyclable material, com- After project planners establish a gener- bustible waste, and hazardous waste at — Reclaimed soil used as cover al framework for the landfill reclama- the site. material, sold as construction fill, tion effort, they must account for the or sold for other uses. health and safety risks the project will pose for facility workers. Once poten- Assess Potential Ⅲ Land value of sites reclaimed for tial risks are identified from the site Economic Benefits other uses. characterization study and historical information about facility operations, Information collected in the site char- Thus, this step in project planning methods to mitigate or eliminate them acterization provides project planners calls for investigating the following should be developed. This information with a basis for assessing the potential areas: economic benefits of a reclamation then becomes part of a comprehensive project. If the planners identify likely Ⅲ Current landfill capacity and project- health and safety program. Before the financial benefits for the undertaking, ed demand. reclamation operation begins, all work- then the assessment will provide sup- ers who will be involved in the project Ⅲ Projected costs for landfill closure or for further investing in project need to be well versed in the safety expansion of the site. planning. Although economics are like- plan and receive in emergency ly to serve as the principal incentive for Ⅲ Current and projected costs of future response procedures. a reclamation project, other considera- liabilities. tions may also come into play, such as a communitywide commitment to Ⅲ Projected markets for recycled and and environmental manage- recovered materials. ment. Ⅲ Projected value of land reclaimed for other uses.

3 Drawing up a safety and health plan The program should also cover the — Equipment fuel and maintenance. can be particularly challenging given protective equipment workers will be — Landfilling nonreclaimed waste the difficulty of accurately characteriz- required to wear, especially if hazardous or noncombustible fly and bot- ing the nature of material buried in a wastes may be unearthed. The three cat- tom ash if waste material is sent landfill. Project workers are likely to egories of safety equipment used in land- off site for final disposal. encounter some hazardous materials; fill reclamation projects are: therefore, the health and safety pro- — Administrative and regulatory Ⅲ Standard safety equipment (e.g., gram should account for a variety of compliance expenses (e.g., hard hats, steel-toed shoes, safety materials handling and response sce- recordkeeping). narios. and/or face shields, protective gloves, and hearing protection). — Worker training in safety proce- Although the health and safety pro- dures. gram should be based on site-specific Ⅲ Specialized safety equipment (e.g., conditions and waste types, as well as chemically protective overalls, respira- — Hauling costs. project goals and objectives, a typical tory protection, and self-contained Part of the cost analysis involves health and safety program might call breathing apparatus). determining whether the various for the following: Ⅲ Monitoring equipment (e.g., a com- aspects of the reclamation effort will result in reasonable costs relative to the Ⅲ Hazard communication (i.e., a bustible gas meter, a hydrogen sul- anticipated economic benefits. If the "Right to Know" component) to fide chemical reagent diffusion tube combustible portion of the reclaimed inform personnel of potential risks. indicator, and an oxygen analyzer). waste will be sent to an offsite MWC, Ⅲ Respiratory protection measures, Assess Project Costs for example, planners should assess including hazardous material identi- whether transportation costs will be Planners can use information collected fication and assessment; offset by the benefits. from the preceding steps to analyze the controls; written standard operating Planners also need to consider whether estimated capital and operational costs procedures; training in equipment capital costs can be minimized by rent- of a landfill reclamation operation. use, respirator selection, and fit test- ing or borrowing , Along with the expenses incurred in ing; proper storage of materials; and such as excavating and trommel project planning, project costs may also periodic reevaluation of safeguards. machinery, from other departments of include the following: municipal or county governments. Ⅲ Confined workspace safety proce- Ⅲ Capital costs: Long-term reclamation projects may dures, including air quality testing benefit from equipment purchases. for explosive concentrations, oxygen — Site preparation. deficiency, and hydrogen sulfide lev- els, before any worker enters a con- — Rental or purchase of reclamation fined space (e.g., an excavation vault equipment. or a ditch deeper than 3 feet). — Rental or purchase of personnel Ⅲ and . safety equipment.

Ⅲ Medical surveillance stipulations that — Construction or expansion of are mandatory in certain circum- materials handling facilities. stances and optional in others. — Rental or purchase of hauling Ⅲ Safety training that includes accident equipment. prevention and response procedures Ⅲ Operational costs: regarding hazardous materials. — Labor (e.g., equipment operation Ⅲ Recordkeeping. and materials handling).

4 Case Studies

Table 1. Landfill Reclamation Project Summaries

Use of Project Operation Start Mined Area Recovered Material Main Objectives

Naples Landfill April 1986 10 acres Cover material. Decrease liability. (Collier County, (ongoing). Recover soil. )

Edinburg Landfill Dec. 1990 and June 1 acre Alternative to (Edinburg, 1991 (both completed). landfill closure. New York) Aug. - Sept. 1992 1.6 acre Construction fill. Reduce landfill (completed). footprint.

Frey Farm Landfill Jan. 1991 - July 1996 300,000 to Waste-to-energy fuel. Recover fuel. (Lancaster County, (completed). 400,000 Cover material. of landfill Pennsylvania) cubic yards capacity.

Source Based on: Dickinson, 1995. Landfill Naples officials developed a recla- ject for reclaiming cover material to mation plan with the following be used in ongoing landfill opera- Collier County, Florida objectives: decreasing site closure tions. It also assessed the capacity In 1986, the Collier County Solid costs, reducing the risk of ground- and performance of equipment, the Waste Management Department water contamination, recovering and environmental aspects of the project, at the Naples Landfill conducted burning combustible waste in a pro- the characteristics of recovered mate- one of the earliest landfill recla- posed waste-to-energy facility, recov- rials, the market acceptability of mation projects in the country. At ering soil for use as landfill cover recovered materials, and the proba- that time, the Naples facility, a material, and recovering recyclable ble costs and economics of the over- 33-acre unlined landfill, con- materials. Collier County never all project. The MITE assessment tained MSW buried for up to 15 built the waste-to-energy plant. The found the processing techniques years. project did prove successful, howev- used in the Naples project effective er, in recovering landfill cover mater- and efficient for recovering soil but In an evaluation performed by ial. The project proved less successful not for recovering recyclables of the University of Florida on 38 at recycling recovered materials (e.g., marketable quality. of the state's unlined landfills, ferrous metals, , and alu- investigators discovered that the During the MITE demonstra- minum). These materials required Naples Landfill (along with 27 tion project, Collier County effec- substantial processing to upgrade others) posed a threat to ground tively and efficiently recovered a their quality for sale, something the water. Moreover, the high cost of soil fraction deemed environmen- county chose not to pursue. complying with the state's cap- tally safe under Florida’s MSW ping regulations for unlined In 1991, the U.S. Environmental regulations. The 50,000 landfills concerned many county Protection Agency selected the tons of reclaimed soil were suitable officials. Florida’s capping regula- Naples Landfill reclamation project for use as a landfill cover material tions required the installation of as a demonstration project for the and as a soil medium for support- a relatively impermeable cover or Municipal Solid Waste Innovative ing plant growth. cap and postclosure monitoring. Technology Evaluation (MITE) pro- gram. The MITE program assessed The mention of publications, products, the excavation and mechanical pro- or organizations in this fact sheet does cessing techniques used in the pro- not constitute or imply endorsement or approval for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

5 Air quality monitoring indicated Edinburg Landfill The third phase of the Edinburg that was not an issue at the project occurred from August to reclamation site, apparently due to the Edinburg, New York September 1992. NYSERDA provided high degree of waste decomposition The New York State Energy Research the majority of the project funding, that had already occurred. As a result and Development Authority with the remaining funding (primarily of this finding, typical personnel pro- (NYSERDA) and the New York State for phase three) provided by the town tective gear worn during the project Department of Environmental of Edinburg. This third and final consisted of standard construction Conservation sponsored projects to phase reclaimed an additional 1.6 acres apparel. assess the feasibility and cost-effective- (31,000 cubic yards) in 28 days. ness of undertaking landfill reclamation Because the town supplied required Ongoing reclamation activities at efforts to avoid closures and reduce the equipment and labor, the contracted the Naples facility focus exclusively footprint of state landfills. NYSERDA cost for this phase decreased from $5 on recovering soil for use as landfill established these projects in anticipa- per cubic yard excavated to $3 per cover material. All excavated materials tion of the closure of numerous land- cubic yard. Subsequently, the town other than the reclaimed soil and fills in New York State, and based, in looked into reclaiming the remaining small amounts of recyclables are part, on the success of the Naples 2.4 acres of the landfill and completely redisposed of in lined landfill cells. Landfill reclamation project. eliminating the footprint. The pro- Reclamation activities are only per- posed fourth stage proved unviable, so formed on an as-needed basis. A 3- NYSERDA's first demonstration the remaining portion of the landfill inch trommel screen is used to project was conducted at a 5-acre will be capped. reclaim the soil cover material. The MSW landfill in Edinburg, New York, weight ratio of reclaimed soil to overs which received waste from 1969 to The Edinburg Landfill is located in (i.e., materials caught by the screen), 1991. NYSERDA chose the Edinburg a soil-rich area that provides ample after white goods and are sepa- Landfill because of its small size and amounts of landfill cover material. For rated, is 60 to 40. This indicates that lack of buried . After this reason, officials tested and the Collier County landfill reclama- NYSERDA chose to sponsor the recla- approved the reclaimed soil (75 per- tion project is efficient given that 60 mation of 1 acre of the 5-acre landfill, cent of the reclaimed material) for off- percent of the reclaimed material is Edinburg town officials expanded the site use as construction fill in reused as landfill cover material. project to reclaim 1.6 additional acres. nonsurface applications. A test burn performed on the reclaimed waste Based on 1995 prices, landfill cover NYSERDA divided the Edinburg found the British thermal unit (Btu) material costs Collier County $3.25 demonstration project into three phases. value to be lower than desired because per ton. According to Collier County's The first phase, started in December of the high degree of waste decompo- director of solid waste, the reclamation 1990, included the excavation of 5,000 sition and stones remaining in the of cover material on an as-needed basis cubic yards of waste from a 12-year-old screened material. costs the county $2.25 per ton, a sav- section of the landfill at an average depth ings of $1 per ton. of 20 feet. The second phase, initiated in The recovered nonsoil materials, June 1991, included the excavation of representing 25 percent of the According to county officials, the 10,000 cubic yards of waste from a 20- reclaimed waste, were hand-sorted reclamation project yielded the fol- year-old section of the landfill at an aver- for potential recyclables. Although lowing benefits: lower operating costs age depth of 8 feet. The first two phases 50 percent of the nonsoil material through reuse of cover materials, of the demonstration project cost an was considered recyclable, cleaning extended landfill life, reduced poten- estimated $5 per cubic yard for excava- the materials to market standards was tial for ground-water contamination tion and processing. This cost included not feasible. Some tires, white goods, from unlined cells, and possible the inspection and supervision of a fully and ferrous metals, however, were avoidance of future remediation contracted operation and was based on separated and recycled. The remain- costs. an average excavation rate of 1,000 to ing materials were sent to a nearby 1,200 cubic yards per day. landfill.

6 NYSERDA officials developed a declined, leaving a significant portion and in the reclamation area, enhanced worker health and safety plan for the of the MWC capacity unused. In an the operation’s safety operations. Edinburg project that established work effort to increase the energy production Benefits of the project at Frey Farm zones, personnel protection require- and efficiency of the MWC, officials Landfill include: reclaimed landfill ments, and other operating procedures. initiated a landfill reclamation project space, supplemented energy produc- The inspectors, as well as all personnel to augment the facility’s supply of fresh tion, and recovered soil and ferrous working at the site, were required to waste with reclaimed waste. metals. Drawbacks include: increased wear respirators, goggles, helmets, and generation of ash caused by the high protective suits. Excavation equipment The reclaimed waste had a high Btu soil content found in reclaimed waste, was used to separate suspicious drums value (about 3,080 Btu per pound). To increased odor and air emissions, and other potentially hazardous material achieve a more efficient, higher heat- increased traffic on between the for evaluation by the safety inspector ing value of 5,060 Btu per pound of MWC and the landfill, and increased using appropriate monitoring equip- waste, four parts of fresh waste, which wear on both the landfill operation ment. In the event that hazardous mate- included tires and woodchips, were and MWC equipment (i.e., due to the rials were encountered, the health and mixed with one part reclaimed waste. abrasive of the reclaimed safety plan provided for a project con- Between 1991 and 1993, approxi- waste). tingency plan, a segregated disposal area, mately 287,000 cubic yards of MSW and special waste handling procedures. were excavated from the landfill. These Costs for the por- No significant quantities of hazardous tion of the project were relatively low reclamation activities processed 2,645 materials, however, were unearthed. for the following reasons: tons of screened refuse per week for The Edinburg Landfill Reclamation the MWC. As a result, Lancaster Ⅲ The distance for transporting both Project was successful both in securing County converted 56 percent of the the reclaimed waste and the ash was offsite uses for the reclaimed soil and reclaimed waste into fuel. The county only 18 miles each way. in reducing the landfill footprint to also recovered 41 percent of the Ⅲ The management authority avoided decrease closure costs. The economic reclaimed material as soil during trom- commercial hauling prices by using benefits would be enhanced further if meling operations. The remaining 3 its own trucks and employees to the avoided costs for postclosure main- percent proved noncombustible and the reclaimed waste and tenance and monitoring, as well as was reburied in the landfill. By the the ash. potential remediation and the value of end of the project in 1996, landfill recovered landfill space, are also operators had reclaimed 300,000 to Ⅲ The landfill and MWC were operat- considered. 400,000 cubic yards of material. ed by the same management authori- ty, thus no tipping fees were required. Before the reclamation work began, (Generally, a higher tipping fee can Frey Farm Landfill officials prepared a safety plan for be charged at an MWC for reclaimed Lancaster County, work at the site and assigned a full- waste because of its abrasiveness and time compliance officer to oversee the Pennsylvania higher density, which increases the operations. During reclamation, work- wear and tear on equipment.) In 1990, the Lancaster County Solid ers took precautions to avoid damag- Waste Management Authority con- ing the site's synthetic liner, since it By 1996, MWC facility operators structed an MWC to use in reducing would be reused following the recla- no longer needed supplemental feed the volume of waste deposited in the mation operations. An initial layer of materials from Frey Farm Landfill to Frey Farm Landfill, a lined site (double protective material surrounded the run at full capacity. Thus, landfill offi- layers of 60-mil high density polyethyl- synthetic liner system, aiding worker cials concluded the reclamation project ene sheeting on a 6-inch sub-base) precautions by acting as a buffer in July of that year. containing MSW deposited for up to 5 between the liner and the excavation years. After building the MWC, the tools. Continuous air monitoring for quantity of waste received at the facility methane, both in the cabs of vehicles

7 Guerriero, J.R., and D.E. Vollero. 1992. Landfill Feasibility Study. References Presented at the Second U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management. June. Dickinson, W. 1995. comes of age. Solid Waste Technologies, Kelly, W.R. 1990. Buried treasure. , April:52-54. March/April:46. LCSWMA. 1992. Landfill Reclamation. Lancaster County Solid Waste Forster, G. 1994. Assessment of Landfill Mining and the Effects of Age on Management Authority, Lancaster, PA. April. Combustion of Recovered Municipal Solid Waste. Landfill Reclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA. Lueck, G.W. 1990. Landfill mining yields buried treasure. Waste Age, March: 118-120. Morelli, J. 1992. Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Demonstration Project. Doc. 92-4. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, Magnuson, A. 1990. Cap repair leads to landfill reclamation. Waste Age, NY. September:121-124. Morelli, J. 1993. Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Demonstration Project: Magnuson, A. 1991. Landfill reclamation at Edinburg. Waste Age, November: Report Supplement. Doc. 93-7. New York State Energy Research and Development 75-78. Authority, Albany, NY. Michaels, A. 1993. Solid waste forum: Landfill recycling. Public Works, May:66-68. Russel, D. 1995. Director of the Solid Waste Department at Collier County, FL, Morelli, J. 1990. Landfill reuse strategies. BioCycle, March:40-43. Landfill. Personal communication by telephone on January 7. Morelli, J. 1990. Landfill reuse strategies. BioCycle, April:60-61. Salerni, E. 1995. SSB Environmental, Primary Contractor for Edinburg Landfill. Personal communication by telephone on December 8. Morelli, J. 1991. Landfill reclamation: An alternative to closure and siting. MSW Management, September/October:33-37. Visalli, J., and J. Reis. 1993. Town of Edinburg Reclamation Demonstration Project: Report Supplement. New York State Energy Research and Development Morelli, J. No date. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Optimization, Integration and Authority, New York, NY. May. p. 5-11. Reclamation. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, New York, NY. Nutting, L.M. 1994. The Financial Aspects of Landfill Reclamation. Landfill Sources of Additional Reclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA. NYSERDA. 1990. Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Fact Sheet. New York Information State Energy Research and Development Authority, New York, NY. December. Rettenberger, G., S. Urban-Kiss, R. Schneider, and R. Goschl. 1995. German pro- Aquino, J.T. 1994. Landfill reclamation attracts attention and questions. Waste Age, ject reconverts a sanitary landfill. BioCycle, June:44-47. December:63-65 & 68. RRR. 1992. NY landfill mining successful. Resource Recovery Report, September:3. Bader, C.D. 1994. Beauty in landfill mining: More than skin deep. MSW RRR. 1993. Three mining projects begun. Resource Recovery Report, December:6. Management, March/April:54-63. Spencer, R. 1990. Landfill space reuse. BioCycle, February:30-32. Childe, D.E. 1994. Landfill Reclamation Health and Safety Issues. Landfill Reclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA. Spencer, R. 1991. Mining landfills for recyclables. BioCycle, February:34. SWR. 1992. New York to research landfill reclamation. Solid Waste Report, Donegan, T.A. 1992. Landfill mining: An award-winning solution to an environ- September 10, p. 321. mental problem. The Westchester Engineer, April:56(8). SWR. 1995. Excavating waste saves landfills, yet strains : Study. Solid Forster, G. 1995. Assessment of Landfill Reclamation and the Effects of Age on Waste Report, August 3, p. 248. Combustion of Recovered Municipal Solid Waste. Golden, CO, National Laboratory. January. U.S. EPA. 1993. Evaluation of Collier County, Florida, Landfill Mining Demonstration. EPA600-R-93-163. Prepared by von Stein, E.L., and G.M. Savage Gagliardo, P.F., and T.L. Steele. 1991. Taking steps to extend the life of San Diego's for EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September. pp. 3 landfill. Solid Waste and Power, June:34-40. and 38. Guerriero, J.R. 1994. Landfill Reclamation and Its Applicability to Solid Waste U.S. EPA. 1996. Report of 1995 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners. EPA600- Management. Landfill Reclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA. R-96-149. Washington, DC. June.

1EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (5306W) Washington, DC 20460

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300