Extended Abstract Why don’t we mine the ? - The race between different metal stocks

Nils Johansson Department of Management and Engineering, Environmental Technology and Management, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

1. Introduction

Landfills are commonly defined as a site for the disposal of . Such a treatment method assumes that the waste simply has no value, i.e., it is useless and therefore buried and shielded from the economy. Accumulated waste is however not only worthless; it can even have a negative value and pose a serious threat to humans and the environment, including the leakage of hazardous substances (Baun and Christensen, 2004) and methane emissions (Bogner et al., 1995). Hence, the orphaned, abandoned and neglected waste “bites back” (Tenner, 1997) on the society that created it. Meanwhile, for some, especially birds and birdwatchers, landfills may be considered an important ecological oasis in the urban environment, sometimes more popular than city parks.

Increasingly, waste is defined as surplus material (Gourlay, 1992); a byproduct; material we have failed to use. From such a perspective, disposal is commonly regarded as a lost opportunity and a waste of resources. What is often forgotten in this context, however, is that the isolated events of deposition combined make a new potential resource base, which to some extent can be compared to traditional mines in terms of quality and quantity (Kapur and Graedel, 2006; Johansson et al., 2012). Research in industrial metabolism (e.g. Graedel et al., 2004) has shown how resources and metals in particular are extracted from the lithosphere, turned into products, consumed and then usually end up in landfills. In countries like Sweden, where has largely replaced landfills, significant amounts of metals end up in ash, which is commonly landfilled (Kuo et al., 2007). However, landfills contain not only metals like conventional mines but are also filled with plastic, wood, paper and other valuable resources.

The potential extraction of secondary minerals1 has been conceptualized through various - concepts such as (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004), technoshperic mining (Johansson et al., 2012), waste mining (Ayres, 1999) and mining (Krook et al., 2012). Most of these concepts embrace minerals recovery throughout the technosphere, while landfill mining focus on landfills in isolation by excavating and recovering deposited waste. Hence, it revives what is buried by digging up a landfill and gives the waste a new chance. However, mining the technosphere and in particular landfills are not common practice in developed countries (Johansson et al., 2012). Hence, a critical question becomes: why? By interweaving the articles published under Linköping University’s project Landfill mining for integrated remediation and , we address the question why landfills are not mined. An indirect purpose is to draw a general conclusion from the first 3 years of the project. After analyzing the obstacles to Landfill mining, the article concludes with a discussion on the realization of landfill mining and way forward.

2. Method and material

1 Minerals once already extracted, and therefore found not in the lithosphere but in the technosphere. The literature review is based only on articles from the project Landfill mining for integrated remediation and resource recovery: economic and environmental potentials in Sweden. According the above purpose, only articles is included which discuss the opportunities and obstacles of landfill mining. Articles for example describing tools for calculating the environmental performance or metal amounts have been excluded. The articles that forms the basis of this literature review is Landfill mining: A critical review of two decades of research (Krook et al., 2012), An Integrated Review of Concepts for Mining the Technosphere: Towards a New Taxonomy (Johansson et al., 2012) and Transforming Dumps into Gold Mines. Experiences from Swedish Case Studies (Johansson et al., submitted).

3. Landfills compared to other technospheric stocks

A sufficient starting point to assess why landfills are not extracted is to compare the size, concentration and dispersion of metal stocks in the technosphere as well as traditional virgin mines. The largest stock in the technosphere is according Johansson et al. (2012) the current in-use stock, estimated to comprise at least 50% of the total amount of iron and copper in the technosphere. From a resource perspective, the size of the in-use metal stock is often significant. At present, for instance, the global in-use stock of copper corresponds to 50% of the virgin reserves remaining in known ores (Gerst and Graedel, 2008; USGS, 2010). Landfills and tailing ponds may hold approximately 10-20% of the technospheric metal resources.

The large amount of metals in-use may explain why recovering in-use metals as they successively turn into waste is common practice. Another contributing factor may be the high metal concentrations of refined products. Mobile phones, for instance, can have a copper content of 5-15% by weight (Huisman, 2004; Boliden, 2008) and power cables may have concentrations reaching above 30% of weight of copper (SwedEnergy, 2009). Several studies support that the typical concentration of metals in goods tends to be higher than in geological stocks in ores currently mined (Allen and Behmanesh, 1994; Johnson et al., 2007). In Sweden, copper is currently mined at a profit from ore with a concentration of 0.37 % copper by weight per ton (Boliden, 2008). According to Gordon (2002), the average copper content of , for example, fell from about 0.75% to 0.14% during the 20th century. The concentration of metals in landfills is uncertain and varies according to time and space, where landfills located near communities with high consumption of metals lacking sophisticated systems tend to have higher contents. Ongoing research on landfill mining in Sweden estimates that a typical municipal landfill contains about 3.6% iron and 0.3% copper (Frändegård et al., 2012).

A disadvantage of the metals in use is nevertheless that they are very dispersed over the society, which puts high demand on the organization needed to collect these metals. In landfills and tailings, on the other hand, the amount of metals clustered in one place puts lower demands on the organization according to the principles that make virgin mining profitable, i.e., economy of scale. However tailings are unlike landfills, actually extracted on a regular basis. For example, in 1994, 250 Gg. copper, corresponding to 2% of the global production of copper, was derived from reworked tailings (Graedel et al., 2004).

The reasons why tailings but not landfills are mined despite resemble metal concentration and supply is many. For example, the metals in tailings are in general homogenous including iterative residues from one actor, while metals in landfills are disorganized and placed together with other types of waste. Furtermore, tailings have many similarities to virgin ores including characterization, methods for extraction, ownership and actors involved, which probably explains why tailing mining commonly occurs. Landfills are generally under the ownership of actors without any knowledge to operate such a project.

4. Uncertainties in Landfill mining

In addition to the obstacles identified on a macro level by comparing the landfills with other metal stocks, many barriers on the micro level may also be identified by reviewing previously cases studies as done by Krook et al. (2012). These authors suggest that uncertainty is an overall factor prohibiting implementation since it complicates for companies to foresee the outcome of mining operations. These uncertainties can be further subcategorized.

One of these uncertainties is that the prediction of the content and thus determination of valuable resources in the landfill is difficult. Research focusing on waste composition of landfills has shown, even within specific sites, as hinted above, large variations in physical and chemical characteristics as well as material composition (Cossu et al., 1996; Reith and Salerni, 1997). Such a figuratively uncertain black box makes prospecting a key challenge. Previously reported case studies (e.g. Dickinson, 1995; Reeves and Murray, 1997; Zhao et al., 2007) have shown difficulties in sorting out the deposited waste into desired pure fractions. Few recycling agents are interested in accepting unsorted masses. The availability and performance of technology thus becomes another critical question. Further recurring conclusion from the reported cases is that the obtained quality of exhumed materials, soil excluded, is often not good enough to compete with virgin as well as secondary resources from traditional waste flows. The market for excavated deposited waste is thus uncertain, i.e., is there any demand for products from a landfill? What safety, administrative and regulatory requirements landfill mining will involve, and how such demands will influence its viability, is also largely unclear, although authorities will most likely require an approved safety and health plan (Cossu et al., 1996; US EPA, 1997). For example, should re-deposited waste, once excavated, be interpreted as “new waste” and thus subject to waste tax and waste bans? Is permission required at all, and if so, which regulations are applicable?

Although the previous cases had low impact on environment and health, it remains unclear how the excavation is perceived by local residents. Overall, actors involved in the cases are also hidden. So, which actors need to be involved/committed to the process and in what way? Some reported cases were considered cost-effective (e.g. van Passel et al., 2012) while others were not (e.g. Dickinson, 1995). These evaluations have however been site-specific, performed in different regions and under varying conditions and objectives. Hence, conclusive information on the economic conditions of landfill mining operations is still lacking, i.e., is landfill mining profitable business? In the end, to facilitate utilization of deposited resources on commercial grounds “economic benefits must simply outweigh the costs” (Krook et al., 2012).

5. The landfill is stuck in a dump

Johansson et al. (submitted) have demonstrated that the many uncertainties presented above are the result of a “lock-in”. This conclusion derives from the discovery that remediation of landfills and final capping in Sweden often succeeds while resource extraction tended to fail and never scale up beyond pilot scale. By analysing case studies, remediation as well as the final capping proved to be in line with the socio-technical system surrounding landfills in terms of technology, laws, culture, policies, markets and science. Resource recovery, on the other hand, was a mismatch (Freeman and Perez, 1988), thus an unconventional method, challenging the current socio-technical system surrounding the landfill.

What resource recovery is challenging more precisely is a socio-technical system based on landfills as a garbage dump. After all, the regulation body surrounding landfills is explicitly adapted to landfills as a dump, a linear end station for material, including rules (e.g. European Council, 1999) based on the classification of landfills by their hazardousness, leaching control, closure and after-care. Furthermore, landfill researchers has long underpinned the economic (e.g. Nelson et al., 1992) as well as environmental (e.g. Bogner et al., 1995) and health risks (e.g. Elliott et al., 2001) associated with landfills. Landfill technology and sampling equipment are also primarily designed to handle a garbage dump and for example deposit waste and control pollution levels. Simultaneously, it is easier to determine a market for the excavated waste if the masses are interpreted as a pollution problem, with for example the Swedish EPA (2009) guidelines for contaminated soil. Finally, economic evaluations are typically based on certain standardization which fosters a particular trajectory (Unruh, 2002). For remediation projects, grants as well as deductions are available. Such projects are also evaluated from a wider perspective, including societal benefits, which changes the margins for expenses and revenues. In sum, the current socio-technical system surrounding landfills facilitates remediation or capping of landfills, since such operations accept the definition of landfills as a worthless dump, aiming solely to clean and move the dump to a more appropriate location or cover it, respectively.

From such a perspective, the landfill and its content is thus entrapped in a “dump regime”, where technology, markets, terminology, culture, laws, science and policies surrounding landfills have co- evolved and been enlisted into a dominant regime based on the perception of landfills as a garbage dump. Hence, a simple redefinition of the landfill and its materiality means that the entire socio- technical system established around the “dump regime” including for example its actors, relations, investments and knowledge, in short, its existence, is challenged.

6. Concluding discussion

Virgin mines, tailings and annual waste flow from in-use seem, by the market, to be the preferable metal stocks. However, as metal prices and consumption increases, while the virgin stocks depletes, new metal stocks needs to become accessible. But is landfills our next metal reservoir? There are some trends demonstrating that the materiality of landfills is transforming. Methane collection from landfills, which Bill Clinton refers to as “gold mines” (Ragir and Oliveira, 2011) is one example. Another example is the deposited waste that is exhumed to fulfill construction purposes at landfills (Krook et al., 2012). This strategy can lead to repayment of taxes, if landfill taxes once have been paid for the deposited masses. Hence, landfills are no longer just a problem.

However, there are probably other overlooked stocks of metals more accessible than landfills. For example, all the e-waste stored without any expectation to be reused (Saphores et al., 2009), i.e. in hibernation (Johansson et al., 2012). This type of waste have, similar to tailings, already an infrastructure and system ready for recovery, in this case the recycling industry. On the other hand, metals in landfills are probably more accessible than in abandoned infrasystems underground and metals dissipated into the environment. Such metals have an unknown location, ownership and are highly dispersed. At the same time, the heterogeneity of landfills is not necessarily something negative. For example, the large amounts of deposited combustible waste may prove to be an important resource for the growing needs for fuel (Profu, 2010).

There is a race between the different technospheric stocks; when the current metal stocks will become insufficient, which will be next in line? From a community perspective, metals in landfills are competing with metals in other stocks. It is a process similar to the competition between different renewable energy sources, which like technospheric mining, are vying to replace the original non- renewable source. However, the metal stocks, as well as the energy stocks, are in need of advocacy or someone representing them, i.e. a spokesmen (Callon, 1986), to be notified and presented as a suitable alternative. For example, Jacobsson and Bergek (2004) suggested that Germany's lead in wind power is mainly due to horizontal networks between different actors. These networks have challenged the carbon lock-in (Unruh, 2000) by creating legitimacy, align institutions and push for economic incentives.

Likewise, it's clear that tailings in a similar way are represented by its owner; the mining companies, who are used to extract metals. A giant industry has also risen around the annual waste flows, who take every chance to urge the recovery of waste flows. The same recycling industry is probably also interested in the hibernating e-waste, and thus a potential spokesperson, while landfills lacks such a representation. As the landfill owners, normally municipalities, have other core activities and responsibilities under law, it may seem unfair to expect a sudden change of focus, efforts to mobilize actors and representation of the transformation at the macro level. To drive such a process, specializerad mining actor are probably required, who has the time and resources to invest in the endeavor of becoming the spokesmen.

Many would argue that it is not one renewable energy stock that will replace oil, but rather the combination of several sources incl. biomass, solar, and wind. The same can be argued for metal stocks in the technosphere. Naturally, it is only the combination of all metal stocks above ground that can replace the demand for metals below ground. However, if a spokesperson and advocacy coalitions (Sabatiers, 1988), i.e. networks with actors from different sectors, are missing, the landfills will be locked in the dump regime and remain a problem. Hence, for landfill mining to become common practice, cross sector networks including actors from different vertical levels, e.g. researcher, politicians and businessmen, have to engage in politics, create opinions and demonstrate that landfills in form of mines can solve wider policy concerns. For example, landfill mining can create jobs (Jones et al., 2012), reduce carbon emissions (Frändegård et al., 2012), postpone metal scarcity, prevent future leakage, and by relying on anthropogenic stocks of metals increase the automousness of governments (Johansson et al., submitted).

However, to escape the lock-in, networks, lobbing and changes at the macro level will not be enough. Pressure from bellow in the form of additional pilot studies will be crucial. This becomes especially important since such small-scale studies opens up for testing key hypotheses and learning of the outcome, thus reducing uncertainties. At same time, no two landfills are alike, concerning for example content, location, geological conditions and legal status2. Experiments should furthermore include for example potential methods to map the landfills, which may be brought in from other disciplines such as archaeology or geology (eg. Grellier et al., 2005) and more sophisticated separation techniques commonly used in recycling facilities (e.g. US EPA, 1997).

References: Allen, D.T. and N. Behmanesh (1994) as Raw Materials. In D.T. Allenby and D. J. Richards (eds.), The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems, pp. 69-89. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ayres, R. (1999) The second law, the fourth law, recycling, and limits to growth. Ecological Economics 29: 473-484. Baun, D.L. and T.H. Christensen (2004) Speciation of heavy metals in landfill : a review. and Research 22: 3–23. Bogner J., K. Spokas, E. Burton, R. Sweeney and V. Corona (1995) Landfills as atmospheric methane sources and sinks. Chemosphere 31 (9): 4119-4130. Boliden (2008) Sustainability Report 2007. Boliden AB, Sweden.

2 The landfill may for example be in different phases; operational/after-care/derelict or hazardous/non- hazardous/inert. Brunner, P.H. and H. Rechberger (2004) Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. Callon, M. (1986) Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196-233. Cossu, R., W. Hogland and E. Salerni (1996) Landfill mining in Europe and the USA. ISWA Tear Book: 107–114. Dickinson, W. (1995) Landfill mining comes of age. Solid Waste Technologies 9: 42–47. Elliott, P., D. Briggs, S. Morris, C. de Hoogh, C. Hurt, T.K. Jensen, I., Maitland, S. Richardson, J. Wakefield and L. Jarup (2001) Risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill sites. British Medical J. 323: 363–368. European Council (1999) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Freeman, C. and C. Perez (1988) Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In: G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter, p. 38-66. Frändegård, P., J. Krook, N. Svensson and M. Eklund (2012) A novel approach for environmental evaluation of landfill mining. J. of , doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.045. Gerst, M.D., and T.E. Graedel (2008) In-use stocks of metals: status and implications. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 7038-7045. Gordon, R.B. (2002) Production Residues in Copper Technological Cycles. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 36: 87–106. Gourlay, K. (1992) World of Waste: Dilemmas of Industrial Development. London: Zed Books. Graedel, T.E., D. van Beers, M. Bertram, K. Fuse, R.B. Gordon, A. Gritsinin, A. Kapur, R. Klee, R. Lifset, L. Memon, H. Rechberger, S. Spatari and D. Vexler (2004) The multilevel cycle of anthropogenic copper. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 1253-1261. Grellier, S., J.M. Bouye, R. Guerin, S. Moreau, H. Robain, N. Skhiri (2005) Influence of temperature and moisture on electrical resistivity of leachate and waste samples. Proceedings Sardinia, Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Huisman, J. (2004) QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on cellular phone treatment in Sweden – The eco-efficiency of the direct smelter route versus mandatory disassembly of Printed Circuit Boards. Stockholm: El-Kretsen. Kapur, A. and T.E. Graedel (2006) Copper mines above and below the ground. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 3135-3141. Krook, J., N. Svensson and M. Eklund (2012) Landfill mining: A critical review of two decades of research. Waste Management 32(3): 513-520. Jacobsson, S. and A. Bergek (2004) Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and Corporate Change 13 (5): 815–849. Johansson, N., J. Krook, M. Eklund and B. Berglund (2012) An Integrated Review of Concepts for Mining the Technosphere: Towards a New Taxonomy. J. of Cleaner Production, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.007. Johansson, N., J. Krook, M. Eklund (submitted) Transforming Dumps into Gold mines. Environmental innovation and social transitions. Johnson, J., E. Harper, R. Lifset and T.E. Graedel (2007): Dining at the Periodic Table: Metals Concenrations as They Relate to Recycling. Environmental Science and Technology 41 (5): 1759- 1765. Nelson, A., J. Genereux and M. Genereux (1992) Price Effects of Landfills on House Values. Land Economics 68 (4): 359–365. Profu (2010) Tillgång och efterfrågan på avfallsbehandling 2008–2015. Internal report for the Swedish Waste Association, Gothenburg, Sweden Ragir, A. and J. Oliveira (2010) Clinton Sees ‘Goldmine’ in Capturing Methane to Fix Climate. Bloomberg 2011-06-01 [online] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-01/clinton-sees- goldmine-in-capturing-methane-to-fix-climate.html [access: 2012-09-17]. Reeves, T.S. and G.C. Murray (1997) Landfill mining – a tool for rural landfill management and closure. Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management. Association’s 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition. Toronto, Canada Reith, C.C. and E. Salerni (1997) Landfill mining for resource recovery. Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association’s 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition. Toronto, Canada. Saphores., J.M, H. Nixon, O.A. Ogunseitan and A.A. Shapiro (2009) How much e-waste is there in US basements and attics? Results from a national survey. J. of Environmental Management 90 (11): 3322–3331. SEPA (2009) Riktvärden för förorenad mark [Guidelines for contaminated land]. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Rapport 5976. SwedEnergy (2009) Hantering av uttjänt kabel/Management of worn-out cables. HMS 04:09. Tenner, E. (1997) Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. New York: Vintage Books. Unruh, G. (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30 (4): 317-325. Unruh, G. (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28 (12): 817-830. US EPA (1997) Landfill reclamation. EPA 530-F-97-001, United States Environmental Protection Agency. USGS (2010) Mineral commodity summaries 2010. U.S. Geological Survey. van Passel, S., M. Dubois, J. Eyckmans, S. de Gheldere, F. Ang., P.T. Jones and K. van Acker (2012) The economics of enhanced landfill mining: private and societal performance drivers. J. of Cleaner Production, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.024. Zhao, Y., L. Song, R. Huang, L. Song and X. Li (2007) Recycling of aged refuse from a closed landfill. Waste Management Research 25: 130–138.