EPA/600/R-14/349 | November 2014 | www.epa.gov/ond
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Closed Waste Sites as Community
Assets: A Guide for Municipalities,
Landfill Owners, and Regulators
Environmental
Heath/Safety
Office of Research and Development
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets: A
Guide for Municipalities, Landfill
Owners, and Regulators
Waste Management Branch
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
Foreword
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading
to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, US EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and
building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources
wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's
center for investigation of technological and management approaches for
preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and
their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water,
and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and
control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates
with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research
provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting
technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community
levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by US EPA's Office of Research
and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their
clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
Executive Summary
Though closed landfill sites are often considered a liability to local governments,
many communities have explored innovative practices to repurpose these
facilities as community assets. Examples include open-space recreational uses
such as parks, wildlife areas, and golf courses, as well as more construction-
intensive applications such as parking lots and government or commercial
buildings. In addition, more landfills are being developed as hubs for energy and
materials recovery. Landfill gas is commonly captured for energy at landfills,
and there is a growing interest is solar and wind power application at landfill
sites. Some communities cluster recycling and materials recovery operations at
their landfill sites, while others go so far as to reclaim closed landfill areas to
recover buried assets and achieve more efficient site utilization. Since landfills
remain a key component of integrated municipal waste management systems for
the foreseeable future, communities should begin to consider landfill sites as
potential community assets and plan for future community uses as part of facility
conception and development.
This document provides an overview of the common approaches to utilize closed
landfills as community assets, as well as the environmental and regulatory
challenges faced when implementing these projects. All uses for closed landfills
must ensure that the integrity of the final cover system is maintained to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. Common challenges to the use
of closed landfill sites include landfill gas and waste settlement. Landfill gas,
which can be both explosive and toxic at elevated levels, must be controlled in a
fashion to minimize buildup in enclosed spaces; site uses must not interfere with
existing gas collection operation. As waste decomposes, the landfill settles, and
this necessitates routine maintenance of any features placed on the landfill
surface; building construction must be undertaken with care and consideration of
the long-term topographic changes. A series of case studies document the typical
challenges and opportunities encountered by communities attempted to utilize
closed landfills as a resource.
Many opportunities exist to better utilize closed landfill sites as community
resources, especially when they are discussed early in the design and planning
stage of the facility. Several options/factors should be considered to enhance use
of a landfill site after closure. When selecting a facility location, the proximity to
potential facility users, other industries, and utilities should be considered. The
IV
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
community should be involved in the decision-making process from the
beginning. Site infrastructure should be planned from the beginning to
accommodate future site uses. Landfill disposal cells and their associated
infrastructure should be configured and located to best conform to future uses and
to minimize construction requirements in later years. Technical innovations that
result in the most efficient utilization of the facility as an asset should be
implemented where possible. Operating the landfill as a bioreactor promotes
waste stabilization and reduces long-term issues with landfill gas and settlement.
Opportunities to maximize future materials recovery should be considered early,
even when the material value does not currently merit recovery.
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
Notice
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) through the Office of
Research and Development funded and managed the research described here under
contract order number: EP-C-10-060 to Computer Science Corporation, VA. It has
been subject to the Agency's review and has been approved for publication as a US
EPA document. Use of the methods or data presented in this manual does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation.
VI
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
Contents
Contents vii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures viii
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialism ix
1 Introduction 1-1
2 Regulatory and Environmental Considerations 2-
2.1 Overview 2-
2.2 Regulations 2-
2.3 Environmental Drivers 2-L-
3 Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills 3-
3.1 Overview 3-
3.2 Recreational Use 3-3
3.3 Agricultural Use 3-6
3.4 Construction and Structural Improvements 3-7
3,5 Energy and Resource Recovery Oriented Use 3-10
4 Examples of Successful Asset Utilization 4-1
4.1 Cesar Chavez Park 4-1
4.2 Cross State Site 4-2
4.3 Millennium Park 4-3
4.4 Colma Landfill 4-4
4.5 Los Alamos County Landfill 4-5
5 Pre-Planning Waste Sites as Community Assets 5-1
5.1 Location 5-1
5.2 Site Layout 5-1
5.3 Community Involvement 5-2
5.4 Technical Design 5-2
5.5 Planning for Future Recovery 5-3
6 References 6-1
7 Appendix A 7-1
7.1 Resources for Further Reading 7-1
vn
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
List of Tables
Figure 1-1. Presentation of Major Categorical Considerations Related to the Use of Closed Landfills... 1-2
Table 2-1. PCC Requirements for MSW Landfills under RCRA Subtitle D 2-2
Table 2-2. Chemical Constituents of Concern in MSW Landfill Leachate, in Order of Most to Least
Predominant (adapted from Kjeldsen et al., 2002) 2-5
Table 2-3. Selected LFG Components of Concern Related to Human Health and Site Safety 2-6
Table 3-1. Opportunities of Post-Closure Landfill Usage 3-1
Table 3-2. Listing of Key Challenges of Post-Closure Use of Landfills 3-1
Table 3-3. Factors to be Considered when Assessing Potential Agricultural Uses of Closed Landfill Sites
in Indiana 3-7
Table 3-4. Indiana Department of Environmental Management Building/Structure Construction Project
Proposal Requirements (IDEM 1998) 3-8
Table 3-5. Summary of LFG Beneficial Use Technologies 3-11
Table 3-6. Summary of Factors Influential to Solar Project Development at Closed Landfills 3-14
Figure 3-7. Turkey Point Wind Project at LCSWMA's Frey Farm Landfill in Conestoga, PA (Photo
Courtesyofwww.lcswma.org) 3-16
Figure 3-8. View of Screening Waste Materials at a Landfill Reclamation Project in Florida (Photo
Courtesy of Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC) 3-17
Table 4-1. Aspects of the Los Alamos Landfill Site and Associated Environmental Controls 4-6
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Typical Cross Section of a Landfill Cover System Including Major Components 2-2
Figure 3-1. Aerial View of Golf Course Constructed on a Closed Landfill (Photo Courtesy of COM Smith,
Inc.) 3-5
Figure 3-2. Golf Course Constructed on an Old Closed Landfill (Photo Courtesy of Innovative Waste
Consulting Services, LLC) 3-6
Figure 3-3. Parking Lot Constructed on a Closed Landfill (Photo Courtesy of Innovative Waste Consulting
Services, LLC) 3-10
Figure 3-4. Flexible Panel Solar System Installed on an MSW Landfill (Photo Courtesy of Carlisle Energy
Services Inc, http://bit.ly/XCI6q2) 3-13
Figure 3-5. PV Solar Resource Map - Annual Average Based on Data from 1998 to 2009 [Photo Courtesy
ofNREL(2012)] 3-13
Figure 3-6. Wind Power Resource Map in the US [Photo Courtesy of NREL (2009)] 3-15
Figure 3-7. Turkey Point Wind Project at LCSWMA's Frey Farm Landfill in Conestoga, PA
Figure 3-8. View of Screening Waste Materials at a Landfill Reclamation Project in Florida
Figure 4-1. Overlooking a scenic view to the north of Cesar Chavez Park (Photo Courtesy of Daniel
Ramirez, Flickr, http://bit.ly/lmGwTQi) 4-2
Figure 4-2. View of the trails at Cesar Chavez Park (Photo Courtesy of Daniel Ramirez, Flickr,
http://bit.ly/lkSSQVq) 4-2
Figure 4-3. Millennium Park Paved Trails and Picnic Tables (Photo Courtesy of Dan Brody,
www.newtonconservators.org) 4-4
Figure 4-4. Millennium Park Kite Festival and Canoe Launch (Photo Courtesy of Dan Brody,
www.newtonconservators.org) 4-4
Figure 4-5. View of a Big-Box Store Built on the Colma Landfill (Photo Courtesy of CalRecycle,
http://bit.ly/lyheajY) 4-5
Figure 4-6. Los Alamos Landfill Site (Photo Courtesy of Los Alamos Department of Public Utilities... 4-6
Vlll
-------
EPA/600/R-14/349
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialism
CHP
CSP
GCCS
LCRS
LFG
LMOP
MSW
MW
NMOC
NREL
NSPS
PCC
PV
RCRA
US
US EPA
Combined Heat and Power
Concentrated Solar Power
Gas Collection and Control System
Leachate Collection and Removal System
Landfill Gas
Landfill Methane Outreach Program
Municipal Solid Waste
Megawatt
Non-Methane Organic Compound
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
New Source Performance Standards
Post-Closure Care
Photovoltaic
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
United States
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 1 - Introduction
1 Introduction
For several decades, sanitary landfills have provided for the bulk of municipal solid waste (MSW)
management capacity in the US. Despite a growing migration toward recycling and energy recovery,
landfills will remain an integral part of the nation's solid waste infrastructure for the foreseeable future.
Landfill owners and operators are required by federal rules to follow location, design, and operational
requirements developed to protect human health and the environment. A key component of these
regulations includes requirements for properly closing the landfill after waste acceptance ceases, followed
by maintaining and monitoring the site for 30 years of post-closure care (PCC).
Landfill owners and surrounding communities often view closed landfills as both an environmental and
economic liability, largely due to the required long-term maintenance and monitoring. However, a variety
of opportunities exist to utilize closed landfills for productive purposes so the space can be transformed into
an asset for the surrounding community. Throughout the US, communities have converted closed landfills
into recreational areas, natural habitats, energy recovery parks, and hubs for sustainable materials
management operations. The combined experiences of these efforts provide a strong knowledge base for
communities to utilize when planning for future productive utilization of their own operating or recently
closed landfills.
The likely long-term role of landfills for MSW management, the lessons learned from repurposing closed
disposal facilities as community resources, and the desire to manage our nation's waste in a more
sustainable fashion all present communities with a new opportunity: planning future waste disposal
facilities from the beginning for use as a community asset. To date, decisions regarding closed landfill
utilization have occurred toward the end of the facility's operating life or after closure. By this time,
multiple opportunities for beneficial utilization of facility component materials or energy have been lost, or
at the least, have become more challenging and expensive to capture. Community leaders, planners,
engineers, and operators should consider from project conception the opportunities to leverage existing
facility requirements to maximize future asset potential.
A major challenge with utilizing waste disposal sites as community assets is balancing the desire to utilize
space and materials for productive use with the need to meet the primary requirement of the facility -
protection of human health and the environment. The utilization of an MSW landfill after closure can be a
complex undertaking; environmental, health and safety, geotechnical, energy and reclamation issues must
be considered when evaluating reuse options for a closed landfill site (summarized in Figure 1-1). The
earlier that the desired site uses are identified, the more opportunities will be available to strike the necessary
balance between site utilization and meeting protective requirements.
The objective of this report is to provide MSW landfill owners, municipal officials, engineers and local
residents with an introduction to the considerations associated with using closed MSW landfill sites as
community assets, and planning for future asset utilization at new sites. The focus of this report is on MSW
landfills only and does not consider other types of property (e.g., brownfields) that may have some similar
technical challenges or potential reuse opportunities. Through the presentation of background information,
various resource recovery options, and selected case studies, this report can also serve as a first step for
communities in the planning process to help leverage spaces and resources at existing and future landfills
as assets.
This report discusses guidance and regulations that have been developed throughout the US related to the
use of closed landfill sites. The report additionally discusses planning and conceptualizing landfills as
community assets from the outset, and includes a description of innovative approaches for more sustainable
landfill management such as bioreactor landfills and landfill reclamation. The report identifies the
advantages of involving the community at the earliest stages of development and for designing the landfill
M
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 1 - Introduction
to be compatible with end uses appropriate for a site's location, layout, environmental controls, structural
requirements, and potential for future recovery of disposed waste.
Environmental
Heath/Safety
Liquids
Management
Gas
Management
Surface
Water
Nuisance
Conditions
Explosive
Conditions
Potential
Receptors
Reclamation
Slope Stability
Waste Mass
Stability
Foundation
Stability
Energy
Waste Removal
Waste Relocation
Materials Recovery
Available Technology
Adaptability for New Tech
Buyer Availability
Figure 1-1. Presentation of Major Categorical Considerations Related to the Use of Closed
Landfills
The report is organized into six chapters. Chapter 2 provides specific details on the common environmental
considerations for project developers, including a specific focus on the regulatory constraints that must be
addressed. Chapter 3 focus on highlighting opportunities for successful utilization of closed landfills as
assets, both for community uses and for energy and materials recovery as well as the challenges that should
be expected with such activities. Chapter 4 presents a series of examples of several projects where closed
landfills successfully serve as community assets. Finally, in Chapter 5, the opportunities for maximizing
site utilization for community benefit from the early planning and design stages of a project are summarized.
References are provided in Chapter 6. Included in Appendix A of this report is a detailed listing of identified
resources that planners, developers, engineers and regulators can consult to find additional information
related to beneficial utilization of waste disposal sites as community resource.
1-2
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 2 - Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
2 Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
2, f Overview
MSW Landfills in the US are regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) through the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), specifically Subtitle D of RCRA, which was developed
to provide provisions for landfills to be operated, monitored, and closed to mitigate human health and
environmental impacts. Subtitle D rules dictate that facilities must complete a PCC plan that details how
the owner or operator will continue to care for the property after the site closes until the post-closure period
ends. PCC must be conducted for a minimum of 30 years, but may be decreased or increased (by the state
or jurisdiction with regulatory authority over the site) based on the conditions at the site. At a minimum,
the typical MSW landfill PCC plan consists of maintenance and monitoring activities that will be performed
at the facility, contact information for the responsible entity during the PCC period, the frequencies that
maintenance activities will occur, and the planned uses of the property during the post-closure period.
Since the PCC period of a landfill may go on for many years, it is important when evaluating the future use
of a closed landfill, or when planning for the new facilities to accommodate later beneficial uses, that the
use does not interfere with the required day-to-day care activities of the landfill or create unsafe conditions.
Depending on specific site characteristics, a closed MSW landfill is likely to have the following ongoing
activities to control or prevent hazards:
Maintenance of the integrity and effectiveness of the landfill's final cover
Maintenance and operation of the leachate collection system
Maintenance and operation of groundwater monitoring system and
Maintenance and operation of the gas monitoring system.
Even after the PCC period of a landfill ends, there may still be a need to continue maintenance or care based
on potential exposure pathways and risks (this is sometimes referred to as custodial care). Ideally, an MSW
landfill would be designed with an intended final use planned, so as the appropriate preparation and
development of the site accommodates for potential stressors or failures that may occur based on the
intended end use (ITRC 2006). If the originally intended end use of a facility is altered, the newly-proposed
end use must be evaluated based on any new potential risks or exposures that may result from the use
change.
In this chapter, the regulatory and environmental considerations are discussed in greater detail. First,
detailed regulatory requirements related to landfill closure and site reuse are described, both in terms of US
federal requirements and selected state requirements. Then, environmental considerations that represent the
greatest source of concern with respect to landfill sites (leachate, landfill gas, direct exposure) are discussed.
2.2 Regulations
The key landfill-related regulations for closed MSW landfills in the US, found in RCRA Subtitle D, lay out
minimum specifications that must be implemented upon closure and the subsequent PCC period. State
governments have either directly adopted the Federal Subtitle D rules, or they have developed more
rigorous requirements that provide additional protection beyond Subtitle D. While the Subtitle D rules not
specific about PCC uses, some states do provide outline detailed requirements or guidance for the use of
closed landfills. In the rest of this chapter, the US federal rules for closure and LFG are briefly summarized,
followed by a description of some of the state-specific landfill regulations that address the use of landfills
following closure.
2-1
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 2 - Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
US Federal Regulations
Subtitle D requires MSW Landfills to install a final cover system equal to that of the bottom liner system
or, if no liner system is present, with a permeability of less than IxlO"5 cm/sec. The cover system must
contain an infiltration and an erosion layer. Figure 2-1 provides a generalized cross section of atypical final
landfill cover system. The ultimate goals of the closure criteria are to minimize infiltration and erosion,
which will consequently aid in minimizing future environmental impacts (as described later in this chapter).
Infiltration layer
(0.6m typical)
Drainage layer /Geomembnmc
»
Compacted low
permeability soil
(0.3-0.6 m typical)
Gas venting layer
Cover soil
Waste
Figure 2-1. Typical Cross Section of a Landfill Cover System Including Major Components
During the PCC period, the Subtitle D regulations dictate that the landfill owner complies with several
specific requirements. These requirements are outlined in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. PCC Requirements for MSW Landfills under RCRA Subtitle D
PCC Requirement
Maintain the integrity and effectiveness of any final
correct the effects of settlement, subsidence, erosion,
or otherwise damaging the final cover
cover, including making repairs to the cover as necessary to
or other events, and prevent run-on and runoff from eroding
Maintain and operate the leachate collection system.
Monitor the ground water
Maintain and operate the gas monitoring system
Although design requirements for closure and maintenance requirements for closed landfills are specified
in Subtitle D, there are no federal standards for specific use of closed landfills. The generalized language
in Subtitle D references requirements that must be met for any post-closure "disturbance" to the landfill
site:
§258.61(c)(3) " ...Post-closure use of the property shall not disturb the integrity of the final cover,
liner(s), or any other components of the containment system, or the function of the monitoring
systems unless necessary to comply with the requirements in this part 258. The Director of an
2-2
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 2 - Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
approved State may approve any other disturbance if the owner or operator demonstrates that
disturbance of the final cover, liner or other component of the containment system, including any
removal of waste, will not increase the potential threat to human health or the environment. "
The Subtitle D regulations require that MSW landfills monitor for off-site migration of landfill gas and they
do require that off-site odor must be controlled; while these regulations do not specifically require the
installation and operation of a GCCS, several US rules under the authority of the Clean Air Act require that
landfills of a given size and with a given non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate must
collect and control LFG. These regulations include the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
MSW landfills, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Emission Guidelines
for MSW landfills. Under these rules, landfills that exceed the designated thresholds must construct and
operate a GCCS; the GCCS and landfill surface monitoring described in the previous subchapter are
required under the authority of these regulations. Operation of the GCCS must continue until the landfill
is closed and a closure report submitted, the GCCS was in operation for a minimum of 15 years, and the
calculated emissions of NMOCs are less than targeted thresholds.
State-Specific Conditions for Use of Closed Landfills
Since state environmental regulatory agencies have the option of developing and adopting rules at least as
protective as the federal regulations, several state agencies have taken the opportunity to customize and
expand regulations for closed landfill use to fit the unique interests and perspectives of their state. For most
state departments of environmental protection (at least 75%), however, a nearly identical recitation of the
federal regulations are stipulated. Example of state-specific closed landfill use regulations are presented
below. The examples highlighted are not intended to be inclusive of all state-specific regulatory
requirements, but rather to provide the reader with a distribution of examples from several states in different
areas of the country. Developers and landfill owners should always consult the appropriate regulatory
agency with jurisdiction over their site to understand all current applicable regulations for their site.
References for the regulations below are provided in Chapter 6 as well as in Appendix A of this report.
The few states that provide additional regulatory instruction incorporate language prohibiting specific types
of end uses; describe the application and permit requirements for specific end uses; or provide additional
conditions that must be met depending on if construction will occur on or near the waste extents of the
landfill. For example, Maine, North Dakota and Wisconsin rules provide a list of prohibited activities for
closed landfills (MDEP 2013, NDAC 2009, WAC 2013). The types of activities that are restricted include:
construction of buildings on top of or within a specific distance of the waste boundary; use for agricultural
purposes (haying may be allowed on a site-specific basis in Maine); grazing; or excavation of the final
cover or any waste material.
Texas has a thorough subchapter outlining the use of land over closed MSW landfills. Within the
subchapter, the process for obtaining clearance for development of an enclosed structure over a closed
MSW landfill unit or a closed MSW landfill in post-closure care is provided. A permit modification or
amendment application must be submitted and approved by the regulatory agency. Specific operational
requirements outlined in the rule must be followed for construction of a structure. Examples of some of
the operational requirements include LFG control (LFG monitoring and monthly reporting of methane
sampling), meeting air pollution criteria, and providing proper ventilation. Construction of an enclosed
area to be occupied by people under the natural grade of the land or under grade of the final cover is
prohibited (TAG 2014).
In Pennsylvania, as part of the initial permitting of an MSW landfill, a two-part application process must
be fulfilled and approved. Within the second part of the application, a post-closure land use plan is required
describing the proposed use of the facility after closure. The application should include "a discussion of
2-3
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 2 - Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
the utility and capacity of the re-vegetated land to support a variety of alternative uses, and the relationship
of the use to existing land use policies and plans." The application must explain how the proposed use of
the landfill will be achieved and what necessary support activities are needed to fulfill the proposed land
use. The application should also identify the considerations that have been assessed to ensure that the post-
closure land use is consistent with landowner plans and the applicable State and local land use plans and
programs (PaCode 1988).
California requires all non-irrigated land uses of sites implementing closure or closed sites to submit
proposed uses to multiple government agencies. One agency specifically reviews and approves projects
that involve structures near or on top of the waste. The regulations require that construction of structural
improvements on top of landfilled areas during post-closure period must meet several conditions including
having automatic methane gas sensors, prohibiting enclosed basement construction, mitigation of the effect
of gas accumulation and differential settlement, placement of utilities above the low permeability layer of
final cover, acceptable piling installation and periodic monitoring of methane gas inside all building and
underground utilities. Additional specific design provisions are listed for any construction that occurs
within 1,000 feet of the waste disposal area; these conditions are meant to prevent gas migration into
building structures (CIWMB 2014).
Massachusetts regulations require the post-closure use of landfills be reviewed and approved by their state
regulatory agency. The usage unless otherwise determined by the agency must not alter the final contours
of the landfill, disturb the integrity of the final cover, and all erosion and sedimentation control must be
maintained. Additionally, if construction occurs during the post-closure care period of the landfill,
buildings must be placed above-grade (basements that penetrate the low permeability of the final cover are
prohibited), constructed to prevent gas accumulation within the structure (gas monitoring and warning
systems are required; an active gas venting system may be needed), and utility connections should be
designed with flexible connections (CMR 2014).
Some states have created guidance documents for owners and operators of landfills to assist in landfill use
decision-making. Guidance documents typically provide added insight to the environmental considerations
of choosing an appropriate use for an old landfill. In Appendix A, references to guidance documents for
the following states have been included: Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Massachusetts.
2,3 Environmental Drivers
Landfills have the potential to negatively impact water (surface and groundwater) and air resources, thus
landfills are required by federal regulations (RCRA) and state regulations to be designed and operated to
mitigate these potential negative impacts. During the operational years and throughout the post-closure
years of a landfill facility, sites generally have well-established standards to follow to prevent pollution and
to control the materials and people that are entering and leaving the facility. When a closed landfill is
utilized for another purpose in addition to waste management, the activities at the facility may change, but
the ongoing environmental responsibilities of the owner and operator remain. In consideration of these
environmental responsibilities, it is important to have a good understanding of the major pathways of
environmental risk that must be considered when integrating new activities with a landfill site.
Leach ate
Leachate forms as a result of the contact of waste with water. When waste is first disposed of in a landfill,
some moisture exists within the waste, but most leachate results when rainwater infiltrates into the landfill.
At older landfills with no protective liner systems, leachate migrates from the bottom of the landfill into the
groundwater; the Federal Subtitle D landfill regulations outlining design (including liner design), operation,
monitoring, and financial assurance requirements for MSW landfills were promulgated in 1991. At sites
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 2 - Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
with engineered liners, the leachate is removed via the leachate collection and recovery system (LCRS) and
then properly treated. At some sites, leachate "outbreaks" or "seeps" on the side slopes of the landfill occur
and must be appropriately addressed to avoid any environmental contamination or human contact.
Leachate can contain a variety of chemicals as highlighted in Table 2-2. Some of these chemicals occur as
a result of the waste decomposition reactions in the landfill, while others originate from products or
chemicals disposed of in the landfill. When discharged to surface water, leachate poses an ecological risk.
When mixed with a drinking water source (such as an aquifer), the water may become contaminated to
levels that are no longer safe to drink.
Table 2-2. Chemical Constituents of Concern in MSW Landfill Leachate, in Order of Most to
Least Predominant (adapted from Kjeldsen et al., 2002)
Chemical Constituent Category
Dissolved organic matter
Inorganic
major constituents
Trace metals
Trace xenobiotic organic compounds
Specific Chemicals
Quantified as biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen
demand, total organic carbon, or volatile fatty acids
Total dissolved solids, calcium, magnesium, potassium, manganese,
ammonium, iron, chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc
Hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, pharmaceutical compounds
Landfill operators use several techniques and operational practices to mitigate the possible environmental
and human health effects of leachate; many of these are required by regulation. During operation, leachate
production is minimized through a process referred to as run-on control and runoff control. By minimizing
the amount of water that infiltrates into the landfill, the amount of leachate ultimately generated is reduced.
At a closed landfill site, infiltrating moisture is controlled through the placement of an engineered cap
designed to shed stormwater off the landfill. Thus it is very important that regardless of the final use of the
landfill site, the integrity of the cap is maintained and that the stormwater management system continues to
function as designed.
At lined facilities where leachate is captured by the leachate collection and removal system (LCRS), the
operator minimizes potential impact on the environment by removing the leachate in a timely fashion so
that the head on the liner is minimized. This requires that pumps be operated and maintained, and the LCRS
pipes be routinely inspected and if necessary cleaned. An important component to any leachate operation
plan is routine monitoring of leachate volumes (and possible depths). For closed landfills, even though the
amount of leachate should be reduced because of the presence of the final cover system, the LCRS and its
associated infrastructure must continue to be operated and maintained. Sites in PCC uses must
accommodate this infrastructure, keep unauthorized personnel or visitors away from sensitive areas, and
provide necessary access for authorized personnel to service and monitor the LCRS as needed.
An additional element for related to leachate issues, at both lined and unlined landfills sites, is a
groundwater monitoring system. Groundwater monitoring wells are place at the perimeter of the landfill
units, both up-gradient of the landfill (to assess the water before it passes under the landfill) and down-
gradient (to assess the water after it passes under the landfill). By measuring the concentration of chemicals
in the groundwater on a periodic basis (usually twice per year), the operator can evaluate how well the
landfill is performing with respect to leachate minimization and containment, and take actions if needed.
Groundwater monitoring will continue at closed sites repurposed for other community uses. Similar to the
2-5
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 2 - Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
LCRS infrastructure, the monitoring wells must be protected and the site must be configured and maintained
in a manner to allow access. Also very important is providing careful thought to the location of other
infrastructure or activities near monitoring wells that might result in future contamination; some activities
at a closed landfill site might by necessity require the use of chemical products, that if spilled, could result
in groundwater contamination and diminish the efficacy of the monitoring well network.
LFG
LFG is generated from the decomposition of organic materials in the waste stream (e.g., food, yard waste,
paper products) and is predominantly comprised of an approximate 50/50 mix by volume of methane and
carbon dioxide (though trace amounts of other gases will also be present). As LFG is generated within the
landfill, pressures develop and cause the gas to migrate from the landfill to the lower pressure atmosphere;
gas migrates to the top of the landfill, but may also migrate to the side or bottom of the landfill as well.
LFG can prove problematic for landfill sites for several reasons. First, the methane can be explosive when
mixed with oxygen in the right proportion; this is a major concern for buildings (or any structure with an
enclosed space) that is constructed on or adjacent to a landfill. Second, the trace components (e.g., hydrogen
sulfide) contained with LFG are a source of odors and can also be toxic at elevated concentrations. Table
2-3 summarizes issues with methane and one of the more highly cited problem trace gases, hydrogen
sulfide. Finally, landfill gas includes different chemicals that are potent greenhouse gases, most notably
methane.
Table 2-3. Selected LFG Components of Concern Related to Human Health and Site Safety
LFG Component
Hydrogen Sulfide
Methane
NMOC
Potential Effect
Has a very low odor threshold and nuisance odor (rotten egg); Can cause
irritation to the respiratory system, eyes, or skin; Specific gravity greater
than air, so gas tends to accumulate in low lying areas or buildings with
poor ventilation; At higher concentrations, it can be fatal.
Accumulated concentrations in the presence of oxygen can create
explosive conditions; Increases the risk of injury and damage due to
explosion and fire.
Contains compounds that can be toxic or otherwise hazardous to humans,
may contain odorous compounds
In a similar fashion as described for leachate, operators use a variety of techniques and operational practices
to minimize potential issues with LFG. Maintaining proper cover soil placement, along with good run-on
and runoff practices, can lessen LFG issues, as soil cover can help attenuate gas migration and additional
moisture promotes gas production. Upon closure, the final cover system performs these roles, and thus the
importance of maintaining the cover and stormwater controls systems as described for leachate control are
equally true for LFG control.
Depending on either regulatory requirements or site-specific objectives, the operator may install a gas
collection and control system (GCCS). This will normally consist of vertical and/or horizontal wells placed
within the waste that are connected to a piping network. The piping is in turn attached to a mechanized
extraction system that applies a vacuum to extract the gas to a flare station or some type of energy recovery
system (for older sites, gas wells may be vented to the atmosphere). Integrating the GCCS with other site
uses can prove a challenge, as the gas collection infrastructure will be dispersed all over the surface of the
landfill, including both extraction points (well heads) and buried collection pipes. Operation of the GCCS
will continue for many years after closure, and post-closure sites uses must accommodate the GCCS
infrastructure. Unauthorized personnel or visitors must be kept away from sensitive areas, while authorized
personnel must be provided sufficient access to service and monitor the GCCS as needed. Any new
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 2 - Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
infrastructure constructed on or near the landfill must factor in the location of the GCCS wells and pipes to
avoid damage and potential environmental release.
Finally, regulatory requirements normally necessitate that potential LFG migration outside of the landfill
be monitored, both at the surface of the landfill and the perimeter. Surface monitoring involves measuring
concentrations at the surface of the landfill using a portable meter by walking the landfill in transects.
Perimeter monitoring will be conducted akin to groundwater well monitoring, but the gas monitoring probes
will be installed in the unsaturated zone above the groundwater table. Monitoring may also be required in
the enclosed spaces of any structures on or adjacent to the landfill. Future site uses must accommodate
these monitoring requirements.
Direct Human Exposure
An additional category of possible exposure, one that would less frequently be encountered at closed MSW
landfill sites, is direct exposure to wastes (or soils contaminated as a result of waste, leachate or LFG).
When a landfill is closed, in addition to the final soil cover layer, the engineered cap will be constructed on
top, and thus wastes should remain buried unless later disturbed. Direct exposure is a more common issue
at closed hazardous waste sites or brownfield sites, where chemicals may be spilled or purposefully added
to the land over time.
Developers and owners of closed MSW landfill sites should still be cognizant of potential direct exposure
pathways as a result of waste disturbance. During site maintenance of infrastructure or construction
activities, waste materials may be exhumed or exposed, requiring immediate cover and proper disposal if
removed from the site. In addition, routine landfill inspection should consider possible waste exposure as
a result of severe waste settlement, burrowing animals, or erosion.
2-7
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
3 Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
3.1 Overview
When considering potential end uses of a closed MSW disposal facility, landfill owners, along with
municipal government officials and community planners, have a variety of options that can be explored.
Table 3-1 presents an overview of the more common beneficial uses of closed landfill sites. These uses
range from those with heavy community interaction (such as a park), to those where the community is
benefited through the creation of new energy (placement of solar panels on top of closed landfills). Landfills
can serve as an asset to their surrounding community through many avenues. In areas where undeveloped
land may be difficult to find, or come at a premium (e.g., densely populated areas with limited green space),
the utilization of the open space provides a very tangible benefit to local residents.
Table 3-1. Opportunities of Post-Closure Landfill Usage
Opportunity
Recreation
Agriculture
Structural
features and
buildings
Energy
generation
Landfill
reclamation
Description
Recreational opportunities range from less intensive and publicly restricted uses, such as a
habitat preserve, to more intensive activities such as a sports complex (e.g., ball field, golf
course). Recreational uses may be comprised of primarily open space or they may include
amenities such as restrooms, concessions stands or other structures and features.
Agricultural uses (e.g., crops, haying,) can include planting shallow root crops, which may
also substitute for the vegetative layer of the closed landfill.
Parking lots, maintenance buildings, retail stores, and other structures have been constructed
on old landfills. Most structures built on former waste disposal sites are relatively light in
nature, although some projects have involved heavier infrastructure. A landfill site can also
serve as a hub for other sustainability -oriented purposes, including environmental educational
centers for the community, a location for dropping off recyclables, a center for donating and
claiming used or unwanted items, and a drop-off center for household hazardous wastes.
Landfill gas (LFG), a product of waste decomposition, can be collected and utilized as an
energy source; this is a relatively common practice at larger landfills. Placement of solar
panels and wind turbines has also been recognized as a potential good use for landfill sites
depending on the geographic location of the landfill and other factors. Landfills that utilize
technologies to create energy can generate revenue and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
offsetting fossil fuel use.
Reclaiming (or mining) a closed landfill provides an opportunity to remove waste from
problematic locations, which may otherwise lead to potential risk to human health and the
surrounding environment, so that land use can be maximized and may also result in the
recovery of potentially valuable materials (e.g., metals, combustibles, soil).
When assessing the utilization of a landfill site as a community resource, either an existing facility or one
under planning, some problematic issues will pose a challenge to implementing the desired outcomes and
necessitate the implementation of remedial or precautionary measures. Table 3-2 presents a summary of
the types of challenges typically encountered. It is important to remember landfills are permitted facilities
and any changes to the site will require compliance with permit conditions or a modification of the permit;
in cases where a change to the permit is needed, the appropriate regulatory permitting authority must be
contacted. Regulatory issues are described in greater detail in the previous chapter. The benefits and
challenges of utilizing landfill sites as community assets are discussed throughout the report.
Table 3-2. Listing of Key Challenges of Post-Closure Use of Landfills
Challenge
Maintaining cover
system integrity
Description
Closed landfills are required to have an engineered cover system. Regular maintenance
activities are required to monitor the condition of the cover system and repair detected
3-1
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Challenge
Description
problems. Some beneficial uses might result in cover system damage; inspection and
maintenance is required to avoid excess leachate generation, LFG migration, and exposure
to waste materials.
Leachate
management
Leachate is the liquid that results when water contacts waste. Many landfills will have an
operational component for leachate management, such as collection and removal from the
landfill and subsequent treatment that must continue after the site has been closed regardless
of final use. As leachate represents a potential human health risk when exposure occurs, the
leachate system needs to be inspected and maintained to avoid any releases.
LFG management
A gas collection and control system (or a passive LFG venting system) must be operated,
maintained, and monitored to minimize migration to LFG and prevent explosive conditions
that can arise when LFG accumulates within buildings or confined spaces; this would be a
particular concern for any structure built on top of an area of former waste disposal. LFG
use in energy recovery applications (particularly those involving direct use) may necessitate
treatment of the gas to remove undesirable constituents. The LFG collection, treatment and
utilization system must continue to operate until LFG amounts are sufficiently low,
regardless of final use.
Groundwater
monitoring
Landfills must monitor groundwater until the site's regulatory permit allows this activity to
cease. New site uses must still accommodate the presence and access to the groundwater
monitoring wells for periodic sampling. Accidental release of chemicals to the ground from
other site activities must be prevented.
Stormwater
management and
erosion control
Appropriate stormwater management and erosion control plans must be followed to prevent
damage and wear to the cover system and appropriately convey stormwater to the surface
water management system. These activities must continue regardless of final site use and
must be integrated into any planned site reconfiguration.
Similarly to groundwater contamination, surface water quality can be affected by leachate
seeps or from inadequate stormwater and erosion controls. Proper monitoring and
maintenance of leachate, stormwater conveyance and the cover system are needed to reduce
these impacts.
Surface water
protection
Settlement
Landfill settlement results from waste consolidation and decomposing in the landfill.
Settlement can impact the foundation of buildings or other structures, as well as utility
connections or other site features, and can damage the cover system and create unsafe
conditions at the surface of the landfill. Structures must be designed to accommodate
settlement and monitored for the detrimental impacts of settlement (e.g., cracking,
depressions).
Landfill
infrastructure
Managing some of the previously-detailed issues requires the effective performance of
landfill containment and control infrastructure. Landfills have a mix of infrastructure built
before (if bottom liner system was included), during, and after waste was placed. Any new
activities on the site must not negatively impact these vital components for landfill
performance.
Building/structure
stability
Building/construction projects on top of the landfill can be a challenge because the structure
must be designed to withstand potential settling issues, address potential LFG migration,
and address other factors to ensure proper functioning of the closure system (e.g., avoid
interference with the cap system).
The development of landfill sites into an area that serves as a community asset can take several forms.
Some assets serve as direct benefits to the community, such as making available new land area for
community activities, wildlife habitat, commercial ventures, or less direct uses such as energy and materials
recovery. This chapter focuses on these uses, providing additional details and considerations regarding
typical practices, technical considerations, and unique challenges.
3-2
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
3.2 Recreational Use
The use of old landfills for community recreational purposes provides an opportunity to enhance leisure
amenities for the public and potentially improve property values in the surrounding area. These applications
are among the most common beneficial uses of closed landfill sites. Benefits with respect to creation of
community recreational space include providing desirable green space to heavily urbanized areas,
expanding the availability of nature trails and sports activities to promote community health and wellness,
and restoring natural habitats and providing an area to host local wildlife educational programs.
Recreational activities range in complexity from serving as primarily open space with no structural
amenities to highly-developed sports complexes with numerous structures. Depending on the
characteristics of the landfill, and the attributes desired by the community, a repurposed landfill may
incorporate one or many different recreational functions at a site. When determining an appropriate
recreational use for an old landfill, in addition to addressing the needs of the community, there are many
considerations that should be accounted for. The advantages of and concerns with the major types of
recreational use projects are elaborated upon below.
Nature Sanctuary/Habitat Creation
The establishment of wildlife habitat areas provides several benefits when compared to the standard closure
practice of planting a monoculture of grass on top of the landfill. This practice entails using a variety of
vegetation and landscaping features that meet the objectives of the final cover system (minimize infiltration
of liquids into the waste and properly controlling storm water), and in addition provide a more natural setting
for wildlife and recreational enjoyment. With the selection of vegetation appropriate to the local climate,
including native and/or drought-resistant species, this approach offers potential operational cost savings
related to vegetation maintenance. Wildlife habitats created to have a natural appearance should have
limited mowing needs in comparison to the grass mowing required with closed landfills only covered in
grass. The reduced fertilizer needs of wildlife areas additionally may also result in cost savings (Simmons
1999). Some maintenance controls such as weeding, and inspection and removal of invasive plant species
may be necessary to maintain natural habitats.
To successfully launch habitat creation, a pre-development survey should be conducted. These surveys are
intended to identify existing species in the area and to characterize the natural prevailing conditions
necessary for the habitat. Once the survey has been performed, restoration of the landfill site will normally
follow one of three paths (Simmons 1999). In some cases, the natural regeneration of the habitat takes
place with little to no human interference. Alternatively, the basic habitat requirements can be first created,
including the establishment of vegetation and related landscape features, and then minimal interference
takes place during natural development. Lastly, the habitat features can be established and maintained over
time to meet desired outcomes.
As with all post-closure landfill uses, care must be taken to maintain the integrity of the cover system
functions and to protect both the landfill infrastructure and potential users of the area. Efficiencies and
potential cost savings can be realized if closure system components (e.g., GCCS, stormwater drainage
structures) are designed in conjunction with the wildlife habitat. If the pre-development survey indicates
that wildlife species that inhabit the area might pose a damage risk to the cover system and infrastructure
(e.g., burrowing animals damaging geomembrane caps), then provisions such as placement of a
stone/cobble above geomembrane should be incorporated into the cover system design to prevent damage
to the geomembrane. Similarly, damage to the cap with root penetration should be considered when
selection vegetation for closure cap and development of vegetation maintenance plan.
3-3
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Parks and Sports Complexes
Parks or sports fields that consist of primarily open spaces carry some advantages over more complicated
recreational approaches because concerns with accumulation of gases within buildings are eliminated.
From a surface water management perspective, the needs of open recreational areas are generally not in
conflict with closure standards for landfills; rainfall runoff will need to be drained off regardless and
conditions of ponded water should be avoided. Open recreational sites may have picnicking sites, benches
and trails, but there are typically no structural buildings. Similar to those concerns identified when
constructing open spaces for wildlife habitat, care must be taken in more heavily trafficked recreational
areas to protect the cover system and the related infrastructure. More maintenance will certainly be required
for these types of activities. The installation of signs or similar features to identify areas that should be off-
limit or treated with caution may be warranted.
With more user-intensive recreational development projects, a larger number of occupants and activities
may be expected, in addition to the presence of one or more structures. Buildings associated with
recreational parks may include administration buildings, storage areas, and restrooms. Lighting systems
may be required. Whenever possible, such facilities should be located outside the boundaries of disposed
waste, but given the potentially large area of many landfill sites, effective recreational use may require
some construction above the waste itself. Foundation requirements for these types of buildings, as well as
ancillary components such as playgrounds, pavilions, bleachers and concession stands, may require
additional soil be placed as a foundation material or that the existing foundation be stabilized. Issues with
constructing buildings on top of waste disposal areas are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.4. The
control of LFG and the need to avoid explosive conditions will be a major concern discussed.
Golf Courses
Golf courses are one of the more popular end-uses for closed landfills, but a relatively large land area is
typically required to develop a full 18-hole golf course. Hurdzan Golf (2013) suggested that at least 175
acres are needed to develop a complete golf course. Figure 3-1 provides an aerial view of a golf course
constructed on a closed landfill. Golf courses situated in areas of high demand have been suggested as
potential net revenue generators (Gross 1994 and Wallace 2000). One of the most significant costs of
building a golf course on a closed landfill is the large amount of soil required to provide the grades that are
ideal for golfing, where soil material thicknesses may be 30 ft or more. Developers and landfill owners
with a goal of utilizing landfill sites as a golf course should consider integrating these future goals into the
waste placement plan for the site; if implemented correctly, this practice could significantly reduce the costs
associated with additional soil and minimize disturbance of necessary site infrastructure.
3-4
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Figure 3-1. Aerial View of Golf Course Constructed on a Closed Landfill (Photo Courtesy of COM
Smith, Inc.)
As discussed earlier, LFG collection is required for a period of time following closure, so the design and
operation of any active LFG collection system must be accounted for in the golf course's design. Since the
NSPS rules require operational steps such as monitoring of each gas collection well, access to well
components must be provided but balanced with the aesthetic needs of the golf course. In addition to the
regulatory need to effectively collect LFG, additional issues can arise if LFG is not properly controlled such
as impacts to vegetation.
The anticipated settlement of the landfill following golf course construction must be evaluated as well,
since differential settlement can cause ponding or surface grades that could negatively impact the golf
playing surface (Figure 3-2 provides a close-up view of a green constructed on a golf course in Florida;
maintaining appropriate slopes of the playing surface is important). Unlike some recreational uses,
irrigation may be very important for golf courses. Considering the goal of the landfill cover system to
minimize water infiltration into the landfill, irrigation systems must be planned, designed and operated to
work in concert with the overall objectives of the site. Differential settlement can impact the stability of
irrigation lines, and this should be accounted for in design. A large, consistent supply of water must be
available at the site, which could be a challenge in some locales; opportunities may exist to use treated
water from the landfill for irrigation purposes.
3-5
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Figure 3-2. Golf Course Constructed on an Old Closed Landfill (Photo Courtesy of Innovative
Waste Consulting Services, LLC)
Other Recreational Uses
Other types of recreational uses have been reported for closed landfills, including ski and sledding slopes,
ice skating rinks, and archery ranges, though these types of uses are less common when compared with the
more traditional types of recreational projects (i.e., parks and sports fields). In some cases, these reuse
options may be limited as a result of regulator or developer concerns with risks from a less commonly
practiced reuse project. However, if the project is compatible with community needs and meets regulatory
requirements, it is likely that creative recreational solutions to landfill reuse will be considered by regulators
and community leaders.
3.3 Agricultural Use
Agricultural uses for closed landfill sites have been proposed, including growing hay, grazing animals,
growing crops, and silviculture. The two major concerns with agricultural use are avoidance of any
contamination of future food sources from landfill emissions and protecting the integrity of the cap from
damage as a result of agriculture activities. Most agricultural uses tend to focus on older landfill sites that
do not have intensive infrastructure that would interfere with proposed planting, harvesting or grazing
requirements.
Properly closed and maintained landfills should not result in transfer of pollutants from within the landfill
to plants or animals on the surface; GCCS maintenance and run-on and runoff control would be key.
Avoiding damage or interference with the cover system and related landfill infrastructure would largely
depend on the depth of the soil cover and whether it is sufficient to keep plants roots, agricultural machinery,
or animals away from critical components of the cap (as well as the waste). Infrastructure should be buried
3-6
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
to every extent possible, and where a device is located above ground, it must be appropriate flagged and
protected.
The US federal regulations do not specifically address the use of closed landfill sites for agriculture, though
the closure uses must be consistent with the necessary function of all closed landfills sites (e.g., cover
system maintenance, stormwater control). Several state regulatory agencies do address agricultural uses at
closed landfills. Several states outright prohibit agricultural use. Other states may approve the activity
based on the proposed use and associated design and facility characteristics (e.g., Indiana and
Massachusetts). In the case of Indiana, for example, grazing/pasturing, crop production and silviculture are
evaluated based on an extensive list of considerations. These considerations a provided in Table 3-3; those
considering agricultural use on landfill sites in other locations would most likely need to provide similar
information.
Table 3-3. Factors to be Considered when Assessing Potential Agricultural Uses of Closed Landfill
Sites in Indiana
Agricultural Use Consideration
Types of crops or cover to be planted
Thickness of additional soils required, including information supporting the
adequacy of the depth of soil to support the root zone requirements
Required plowing depths
Planting application rates
Fertilization rates
Time required to establish crop production
Erosion control measures
Equipment required
Storage facilities required and location if on site
Source and amount of irrigation water (if applicable)
Livestock grazing schedules
Soil management plan/crop rotation schedule
Description of the intended land use changes from its current condition
3.4 Construction and Structural Improvements
The construction of buildings and other structures on the top of closed landfills was discussed as part of the
recreational use development. The types of buildings associated with these uses are often light-duty and
often modular or portable. A location for the construction of large, permanent structures is another possible
use for closed landfills. Landfills, however, are far from ideal locations for buildings. The two biggest
areas of concern relate to the strength of the foundation that building rests upon and the concerns related to
LFG migration. This section summarizes issues related to these types of construction projects.
The types of structures constructed on closed landfills have included buildings (including commercial
facilities), parking lots, communication towers, and wind turbines (see Chapter 5). The use of landfill sites
for the construction of buildings and similar structures is less common than recreational uses because of the
greater hurdles (e.g., regulatory, design, economic, long-term safety) that must be overcome to ensure
environmental protection and adequate performance of the structures. The US federal regulations do not
specifically address building on closed landfills, but several states do. Texas, California, and
Massachusetts, for example, have developed regulations which outline requirements specific to the
construction of buildings and structures on closed landfills. Additionally, Indiana and Ohio have prepared
guidance documents for construction over landfill project submittal requirements (see Appendix A). For
example, Table 3-4 provides the considerations that are evaluated in Indiana when considering building
construction on closed landfills.
3-7
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Table 3-4. Indiana Department of Environmental Management Building/Structure Construction
Project Proposal Requirements (IDEM 1998)
Component
Description of Proposed Use
Demonstration of Maintaining
Cover and Liner Integrity
Geotechnical and Structural
Engineering Analysis
Construction Requirements for
Mitigating Effects of LFG
Settlement Considerations
Details Included
Design plans
Design calculations
Revisions to existing post-closure plans
Need to demonstrate that there will be no increased potential
threat to human health and the environment
Structural fill requirements for foundation
Requirements for in-place waste densification
Additional soil requirements for installation zones of
underground utilities
Demonstration that pilings and foundations will not introduce
conduits for contamination to enter the natural substrates
Vent system or active GCCS
Automatic methane sensors with audible alarm when
concentrations detected
Utility connections with flexible connections and utility
collars
The remainder of this section will focus on three primary issues with building on closed landfills:
maintaining the integrity of the cover system, protections from LFG, and building foundation issues,
including long-term settlement.
Maintaining Cover System Integrity
All proposed uses of closed landfill sites must be compatible with the final cover system and not impede
necessary functions such as limiting moisture infiltration, controlling gas, and providing appropriate
stormwater drainage. When buildings or similar structures are constructed, the foundation of the building
will be placed directly on the landfill surface, thus any potential impact on the cover system components
must be considered. Construction permits granted by the regulatory authority will prohibit the penetration
or deterioration of underlying barrier layers in the cover system (e.g., geomembranes) and stipulate that
added stress to the cover system and drainage layer components be minimized. An additional soil layer or
building pad will commonly be required to be placed on top of the final landfill cover; this should be
constructed to avoid interference with the site's stormwater drainage system. If future building construction
is planned during active landfill operation (waste disposal), the design of the final waste placement
topography and the cover system configuration can incorporate features to minimize future construction
disturbance associated with building construction.
Controlling LFG
As described in Chapter 3, LFG is problematic because it is both explosive and potentially harmful because
of the chemicals it contains. Buildings must not only be constructed to avoid interference with the facility's
GCCS, but their design and maintenance must include extra precautions to ensure that explosive or toxic
conditions do not develop within the enclosed spaces of buildings. A common practice is to require the
installation of a geomembrane between the slab of the building and the subgrade. A permeable layer (e.g.,
12 inches of clean aggregate) is then placed between the geomembrane and the subgrade to serve as a
venting layer. The venting layers will typically contain perforated pipes that vent to a location outside the
building, and may be connected to an induced draft exhaust system. Any penetrations through the
foundation (e.g., utilities) will require some form of seal be placed to prevent gas intrusion.
3-8
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Another common requirement for buildings constructed on landfills is some form of continuous or periodic
gas monitoring. Methane gas sensors, for example, can be placed within the building or integrated into the
foundation venting system under the building and set to provide an alarm when a specific threshold (e.g.,
25% of lower explosive limit) is reached. Similar devices could be installed for other problematic gases
(e.g., hydrogen sulfide) if these were viewed as a potential concern at the site. Accompanying a continuous
gas sensor and alarm should be a safety and evacuation plan for the building. Additional gas monitoring
may include collection of periodic samples for later analysis in the laboratory; this monitoring step would
allow for a much wider array of chemical constituents to be evaluated.
Building Foundation and Settlement
Landfills are not ideal surfaces for building construction; compacted wastes do not have the same strength
as provided by soil. Engineering and construction techniques are available, however, that allow buildings
to be constructed on lower quality foundation materials. When designing a building foundation for landfill
surface, two issues that must be considered are the bearing capacity of the landfill surface and the potential
for long term settlement. The bearing capacity describes a foundation's ability to support the loads applied
to the ground surface by the placement of a structure. When designing a building foundation, a geotechnical
engineer will estimate the foundation's bearing capacity based on the properties of the underlying soil and
design a suitable foundation. For construction projects on the top of closed landfills, depending on the
thickness of type of soil overlying the waste, additional soil fill may be required.
While bearing capacity addresses a near-term evaluation of whether the soil (landfill) surface can support
the weight of a building, a longer-term and more problematic issue relates to landfill settlement. The surface
of a landfill settles as a result of changes within the waste overtime that produce a decrease in waste volume
(and waste height). Settlement in an MSW landfill can be attributed to several processes: physical and
mechanical (e.g., reorientation of particles, movement of fine materials into larger voids, and collapse of
void space); chemical processes (e.g., oxidation); dissolution processes (dissolving soluble substances by
percolating liquids and subsequent formation of leachate); and biological decomposition (organics in the
waste degrade over time controlled by temperature, humidity, and percentage of organics and nutrients in
the waste) (Sharma and Anirban 2007). Settlement typically occurs within two phases; the primary phase
occurs as the initial settlement of the landfill due to physical and mechanical processes and typically occurs
within the first few months after the waste is placed. Secondary settlement occurs over a much longer
period of the time and results from physicochemical and biochemical decay and occurs under constant load
after the completion of primary settlement.
Different methods have been developed to predict MSW landfill settlement overtime, which is an important
consideration when determining the end use of the landfill property. Typically, an older landfill will have
fewer issues with settlement than a newer landfill that may still be undergoing self-weight settlement. When
developing over a landfill, predicted settlement maps and a monitoring plan should be prepared to facilitate
the design and create an effective operation and maintenance plan. Long-term settlement from self-weight
and external loads can result in differential settlement that can result in tilting of building support system,
ponding of water in parking lots, cracking of slabs supported on the ground, breakage in utility lines and
down-drag forces on piles that support heavy building loads. Figure 3-3 shows a parking lot constructed on
a closed landfill and the resulting settlement that has caused water ponding.
3-9
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Figure 3-3. Parking Lot Constructed on a Closed Landfill (Photo Courtesy of Innovative Waste
Consulting Services, LLC)
For constructed surfaces such as parking lots, settlement can be accommodated by including larger slopes.
For structures, building foundations should be designed to accommodate settlement. This can be
accomplished with the use of mat foundations (which better distribute the load), flexible connections and
utility collars. Soil strengthening or soil stabilization is often used to prepare soft soils for building
construction, but this may be limited for landfills because of the need to maintain integrity of the cap. One
step that the operator can undertake during operation of the landfill is the purposeful enhancement of waste
stabilization and landfill settlement through operation of the landfill as a bioreactor; this technique is
described in greater detail in Chapter 5.
3.5 Energy and Resource Recovery Oriented Use
Another use of a closed landfill site as a community asset takes the form of using the site as an energy
generation project. Energy projects at landfills could possibly be coupled with other uses such as recreation
(appropriate restrictions and safety precautions would be needed), but in cases where the landfill is only
utilized as an energy project, the risk to potential receptors is typically less since the people accessing the
site are approved personnel.
Many landfills around the US now utilize LFG as an energy source; the same methane that represents an
explosive gas risk when captured can be converted to electricity (or used in other fashions). In addition to
LFG use, the deployment of solar panels or wind turbines at landfills represents another potential renewable
energy opportunity. The production of energy at a landfill could provide a series of benefits to the site and
the community, including offset of all or part of the electricity needs for the site, offsetting of non-renewable
energy resources, and providing further incentive for increased LFG collection, which can have ancillary
environmental benefits such as greenhouse gas emission reductions and reduction of potential nuisance
emissions.
This section details information regarding the three aforementioned renewable energy project types (LFG
to energy, solar, and wind) and key considerations related to implementing one or more of these
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
technologies at a closed landfill. It also includes a discussion of possible resource recovery from
reclamation (mining) of the landfilled waste. Reclamation has the potential to enhance a landfill's value as
a community asset through the more efficient use of site space, the recovery of resources, and possibly the
recovery of a fuel for energy production.
LFG Recovery
As described earlier, the primary components of LFG are methane and carbon dioxide. When LFG is
extracted through a facility's GCCS, the gas is ultimately either burned in a flare or utilized as an energy
source. In its raw form, LFG can be used as a fuel to produce electricity with minimal processing
requirements. It can also be cleaned up to increase the energy content for other applications. A summary
of the major LFG energy conversion technologies is provided in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5. Summary of LFG Beneficial Use Technologies
Technology
Cogeneration
(Combined heat and
power, CHP)
Combined Cycle
Engine
Gas Turbine
Internal Combustion
Engine
Microturbine
Boiler/Steam Turbine
Stirling Engine
Fuel Cell Technology
Description
Generate thermal energy and electricity from steam or heated water. Can be installed to
recapture heat losses from turbines and engines thus increasing the processes overall
efficiency to up to 80% (US EPA 2008).
This system utilizes both gas and steam turbines. The gas turbine provides the heat
needed to generate steam that is then fed to the steam turbine. Combined cycles are
utilized for scales larger than most internal combustion projects.
Can operate at lower gas concentrations; gas turbines typically require larger amounts
of gas for economic feasibility. More resistant to damage than other systems. Electrical
efficiencies range from 40% to 80% (Dudek et al. 2010).
A common type of electricity generation technology, efficiencies typically range from
25 to 35%.
Smaller scale combustion turbines. These turbines are employed in areas with smaller
gas flow rates. Pretreatment of LFG to remove moisture is necessary in addition to the
usage of activated carbon to remove as much impurities as possible due to damage these
impurities cause to the combustion chamber. Microturbines can operate at low gas
concentrations. Efficiency for this system ranges from 20% to 30% (Dudek et al. 2010).
LFG is directly used by combusting it to a large boiler to generate steam that is to be
fed to a steam turbine. This system is not commonly used for LFG electricity
applications (Dudek et al. 2010).
An external combustion engine which mixes air and fuel within the cylinder of the unit
to facilitate combustion. Pretreatment of LFG is not needed because of the engine's
high tolerance for siloxanes and other such impurities. An average electrical efficiency
obtained is 30% (Dudek et al. 2010).
Fuel cell technology for LFG involves the fuel (i.e., LFG) entering into a compartment
where it reacts to produce electrons, air enters another compartment where it reacts to
consume atmospheric oxygen and the electrons produced by the fuel (Messenger 2013).
The technology's potential for LFG to energy projects is contingent on gas quality, high
levels of methane and low concentrations of diluents or trace contaminants are
considered ideal for fuel cell conversion (Spiegel and Preston 2003; Messenger 2013).
The amount of energy that can be harvested from LFG depends on numerous site factors including landfill
size, waste age, GCCS coverage and efficiency, and the type of technology used to convert the collected
LFG to energy. The US EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) estimates that over 600
operational LFG to energy projects are currently active in the US producing a total of approximately 2,000
MW of power. LMOP also estimates another 450 candidate landfills in the US with potential for
implementation of a LFG to energy infrastructure. The economic viability of a LFG-to-energy project most
often depends on the amount of LFG produced, local availability of direct use applications, the price at
3-11
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
which electricity will be purchased for, and the availability of other incentives such as tax benefits or
renewable energy credits.
LFG capture for energy is well developed in the US and a common stage in the operating life of large
landfill facilities; it may start during the operational years of the landfill and will continue long after the
landfill is closed. Landfill owners and operators can take several steps to enhance the asset value of a LFG-
to-energy system through early planning. As will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5, gas can be
captured early in a landfill's operating if the proper steps are implemented, and technologies such as
bioreactor landfill operation can enhance the rate at which gas is collected during the peak operational years
of the facility (and leave less gas as an issue to deal with after closure). Early planning of the GCCS with
respect to other future site beneficial uses (e.g., planning for other power generation, integrated GCCS
infrastructure with other site uses) would allow for greater overall site utilization as a community asset.
Solar
The potential for landfills as a host for solar energy projects has gained interest in recent years as the cost
of solar systems has decreased. Landfills inherently have large open spaces that may not have other uses
(often referred to as marginal lands), and they often are equipped with electricity distribution infrastructure
as a result of LFG projects (Millbrandt et al. 2013). Solar energy panels utilize radiant heat and light from
the sun and convert the energy into usable electricity. The two maj or types of solar power technologies are
photovoltaics (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP). PV uses semiconductors to create an electrical
charge through the PV effect while CSP uses lenses and mirrors to focus and concentrate sunlight. PV
systems are the most commonly utilized solar technology (US EPA 2012). The placement of solar panels
can be accomplished through fixed systems (e.g., mounted in a fixed configuration) or the panels can be
applied to the surface of a landfill such as on geomembrane panels. Figure 3-4 shows a solar energy system
at a facility in the Southeast US consisting of flexible panels mounted on the landfill side slope. Messics
(2009a) suggested that placement of solar panels on flat areas or south-facing direction was desirable.
Tansel et al. (2013) reported that construction difficulties and potentially increased costs are associated with
constructing solar panels on side slopes and can create complexities with stormwater management systems.
Several factors must be considered when evaluating a landfill site as a candidate for solar energy production.
First and foremost is the amount of available solar energy available in the region of interest. The National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed Solar Radiation Resource Maps which display the
average annual solar radiation on a daily basis across the US. Figure 3-5 presents the NREL solar radiation
map corresponding to data from 1998 through 2009. Additional factors include the policy and economic
incentives, relationship with the local electrical utility, site logistics for power transmission, and site
security. Table 3-6 summarizes many of the considerations that go into determining the feasibility of a
solar project at a landfill site (as described by Messics (2009)).
3-12
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
«
«» m**
t
Figure 3-4. Flexible Panel Solar System Installed on an MSW Landfill (Photo Courtesy of Carlisle
Energy Services Inc, http://bit.ly/XCI6q2)
-125 -120 -115
-105 -100 -95 -90 -85
-75 -70 -65
kWh/m2/Day
>6.5
6.0 to 6.5
5.5 to 6.0
5.0 to 5.5
4.5 to 5.0
4.0 to 4.5
3.5 to 4.0
3.0 to 3.5
<3.0
115 110
Figure 3-5. PV Solar Resource Map - Annual Average Based on Data from 1998 to 2009 [Photo
Courtesy of NREL (2012)]
3-13
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
The construction of a solar system on top of a closed landfill would need to be constructed in a manner that
did not interfere with the final cover system and other closure components. For ground mounted solar
panels, the excavation into the cover system and placement of structural supports would need to avoid any
damage to the cap and thus may require a different design than used for typical soils. The placement of the
panels would need to avoid interference with the GCCS or the stormwater management system, and allow
landfill personnel sufficient access for monitoring and maintenance.
Table 3-6. Summary of Factors Influential to Solar Project Development at Closed Landfills
Influencing
Factor
Energy Policy
Financial
incentives
Landfill Location
Site Security
Project
economics
Power logistics
Topography
Desirable Features
Locations that provide energy policy incentives for solar power. Examples include standard
requiring 2% or higher of region's electricity mix to be from solar; multiplier credits for
solar energy.
Grants, tax credits or incentives, customers willing to pay more for solar power (e.g.,
colleges, corporations, government)
Location in an areas with a high solar potential (from solar resource maps) and unobstructed
sunlight
Completely fenced; panels out of danger zone (e.g., out of rock-throwing reach)
Credit-worthy counterparties; labor cost control flexibility; high visibility (for marketing
purposes)
An existing connection to the power grid through an existing LFG to energy system, as well
as an access road and a landfill cap of at least 2 ft thick (for trenching of electric lines); a
cooperative electric company to help facilitate reasonable costs and schedules.
Flat topography is generally preferred for mounting. South facing slopes can be used if
necessary; however mounting is more difficult, and requires increased stormwater and
erosion control efforts.
Wind
Similar to solar energy projects, wind power projects have garnered growing interest in recent years as a
potential option for closed landfill sites (wind power projects also need large areas of land). Wind turbines
convert wind energy into a usable form and can either be grouped together in a wind farm or used
individually. The presence of sufficient wind resources is a prerequisite for a feasible project. NREL has
developed wind resource maps that can be used as a preliminary guide to determine whether a landfill
location should be preliminarily considered for a wind-power project (Figure 3-6). Site specific studies can
also be conducted at the proposed location to provide a greater degree of certainty with respect to design
decisions and financial feasibility. As an example, a 12-month wind assessment study was conducted as
part of evaluating the feasibility of wind turbines at the Frey Farm Landfill, Pennsylvania, which allowed
for the acquisition of actual wind speed data and other performance metrics (Figure 3-7 presents an image
of the two wind turbines at this site).
3-14
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
United States - Wind Resource Map
This map shows the
annual average wind
power estimates at a
height of 50 meters.
It is a combination of
high resolution and
low resolution
datasets produced
by NREL and other
organizations. The
data was screened
to eliminate areas
unlikely1 to be
developed onshore
due to land use or
environmental issues.
I n many states, the wind
resource on this map is
visually enhanced to
better show the distribution
on ridge crests and other
features.
Wind Power Classification
WM Resource Wind Power Wind Speed" Wind Speed"
Power Potential Density at 54) m at 50 m at 50 m
Class W/m2 m/s mpli
3 fa- 300-400 6.4-7.0 14.3-15.7
4 Good 400-500 7.0-7.5 15.7-16.8
5 Excellent 500-600 7.5-8.0 16.8-17.3
6 Outstanding 600 - 830 8.0-8.8 17.9-19.7
7 Superb 800-1603 8.8-11.1 19.7-24.8
Wind speeds arc based on a Weibull k value of 2.Q
U.S. Department of Energy
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Figure 3-6. Wind Power Resource Map in the US [Photo Courtesy of NREL (2009)
3-15
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
Figure 3-7. Turkey Point Wind Project at LCSWMA's Frey Farm Landfill in Conestoga, PA
(Photo Courtesy ofwww.lcswma.org)
The siting of wind turbines at landfills is less well-documented than solar project siting. The US EPA
(2014) reported 336.0 MW of installed power capacity for wind projects on marginal lands (more than
double the solar capacity), but most of the installed capacity was on brownfields or similar contaminated
sites (not municipal landfills). A few wind turbines have, however, been located on closed landfills,
including in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
One geotechnical consideration when constructing wind turbines on closed landfills is the foundational
stability of the turbine base and the rotational motion associated with the turbine blade. Geotechnical
properties of interest include soil bearing capacity, electrical resistivity of the soil, subgrade characteristics
(Yun et al. 2011, Miceli 2012). Installation of the necessary foundation for a wind turbine would require
site specific borings and sample collection, and a detailed geotechnical engineering design. The foundation
may require some placement with in the landfilled waste, and thus the cover system and geomembrane cap
(if present) would need to be modified to make sure that cover system integrity was maintained. Grounding
of wind systems and generators is also very important; 35 annual turbine related fires were reported for
California alone, attributable to short circuiting and lightning. Safety features, such as mitigation relays,
can be installed which allow the immediate shut off of turbines and reduce the chance of system damage
and risk to personnel and environment (Panetta, 2010).
Landfill Reclamation
Landfill reclamation is a term used to describe the excavation and removal of waste from a landfill; it is
also commonly referred to as landfill mining. In many cases, the waste is processed via screening and
ferrous metals are often removed using magnets. Landfill reclaiming is included as another option for
utilizing closed landfill sites as community assets because of the opportunity it provides to remove waste
from problematic locations (so that desired land use can be maximized) and to recover potentially valuable
materials (e.g., metals, combustibles, soil). Figure 3-8 shows a landfill reclamation project at a municipal
landfill in Florida. More details on landfill mining activities at this site can be found elsewhere (Jain et al.
2013).
3-16
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 3 - Opportunities for Community Use of Landfills
At closed landfill sites where waste has been disposed of over large areas often at relatively shallow depths,
landfill reclamation provides an opportunity to recover useful land for other applications and to avoid the
problems associated with construction on top of waste as described before. In this process, some of the
mined materials can be recycled (primarily ferrous metals) and the screened soil can be used to replace
virgin soil in other landfill operations or potentially elsewhere as part of final site construction (e.g., grading
for golf courses). Once the soil (which includes biodegraded organic matter) is screened out, much of the
remaining material consists of combustible material (e.g., wood, plastic), and there is growing interest in
using this material as engineered fuel in industrial units such as cement kilns. Finally, when employing
technologies to operate the waste as a bioreactor, landfill reclamation offers an opportunity to recover
treated waste. The potential concerns with landfill reclamation project include odor, dust, and litter control,
unearthing of hazardous waste and other waste materials that are not permitted (by the prevailing
regulations) for disposal in landfills, and leachate and stormwater run-off control.
Figure 3-8. View of Screening Waste Materials at a Landfill Reclamation Project in Florida (Photo
Courtesy of Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC)
3-17
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 4 - Examples of Successful Asset Utilization
4 Examples of Successful Asset Utilization
Building upon the information presented in the previous chapter, this section provides five case studies of
closed landfills that have been converted to a community asset. Case study sites were selected based on a
review of available information, literature, and further data regarding site details, landfill reuse system
design, and information on accomplishments and challenges associated with the site development and
subsequent use. These case studies highlight many of the challenges and opportunities that have been
discussed this far, and are intended to provide the reader with a good sense of the steps that different entities
have undertaken to transform a closed MSW landfill into a community resource. For the most part,
planning for final use of these sites did not occur until after the landfills were either closed or near closure.
In the following chapter, considerations for planning final site use from the very beginning of site
conception are discussed.
4,1 Cesar Chavez Park
In 1991 the Cesar Chavez Park (formerly North Waterfront Park) in Berkeley, California was established
on top of the city's former landfill. The facility is located on a peninsular tract of land that extends north
along the coastline between the San Francisco Bay and the North Basin. The landfill was originally formed
by filling in and diking a portion of the Bay with rip rap, clay and mud to form the landfill. The landfill
accepted approximately 1.75 million tons of mostly household waste up until the early 1980s. The landfill
was closed in phases between 1981 and 1990 and was capped according to California regulations at the
time. Since the closure of the landfill in 1991, the park has been open for public use. The total footprint of
the park is 90 acres which includes picnicking areas, hiking trails, shoreline and wetland areas, a seventeen
acre off-leash dog area, and wildlife sanctuary. The park hosts various events throughout the year including
an annual kite festival. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show views from Cesar Chavez Park.
When the landfill was closed, it was capped with one foot of clay and a minimum of four feet of topsoil.
To construct the park, approximately 500,000 tons of topsoil were brought to the site to create a series of
hills and a surface water management system. The landfill also includes an active LFG collection system
including approximately 65 individual collection wells that route gas to a continuously-operated flare
station. The quantity of LFG collected decreased over time necessitating routine adjustments to the
operational conditions of the flare station.
Although no structural facilities were constructed on the landfill itself, the potential for LFG to migrate
through the soil into the foundation of a nearby hotel located 300 feet south of the site was a concern. To
evaluate LFG concentrations (particularly methane), a series of approximately 10 probes were installed
around the hotel perimeter to continuously monitor methane levels. The site's operational procedures also
include routine monitoring of leachate seepage on the landfill surface and surrounding areas.
The location of the site on the San Francisco Bay additionally subjects the landfill to natural wear due to
tidal action. This scenario, coupled with waste settling, has overtime eroded and sloughed off some of the
originally-placed armor rock therefore necessitating maintenance. Another maintenance issue has been
burrowing wildlife such as ground squirrels and pocket gophers that cause damage to the cover system and
stormwater drainage structures. Public feeding of the rodents has increased their population and in turn
increased damage due to their burrowing. There has been great public opposition to the proposed removal
and trapping of the animals and for the effect it may have on Western Burrowing Owls (a species of concern
within the state of California) which utilize ground squirrels as source of food and for their abandoned
burrows. Options are currently being explored to address the challenges of balancing the site's unique
ecosystem with the environmental protection responsibilities of the landfill.
4-1
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 4 - Examples of Successful Asset Utilization
Figure 4-1. Overlooking a scenic view to the north of Cesar Chavez Park (Photo Courtesy of Daniel
Ramirez, Flickr, http://bit.ly/lmGwTQi)
Figure 4-2. View of the trails at Cesar Chavez Park (Photo Courtesy of Daniel Ramirez, Flickr,
http://bit.ly/lkSSQVq)
4.2 Cross State Site
The Cross State Site is a 74-acre former landfill site located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Solid waste
was disposed of at the landfill from 1938 until 1976. During this time, 2.5 million cubic yards of garbage,
including household waste, wood and construction and demolition debris, was accepted at the facility. The
site also housed an adjacent ten-acre junk yard and twelve-acre asphalt batching operation. The total waste
footprint of the site is 54 acres. Based on its centralized location in the county, the potential land purchase
savings, and benefits to the surrounding community, the two owners of the properties, the Solid Waste
Authority of Palm Beach County and Palm Beach County, redeveloped the site into four parcels: a concrete
and asphalt recycling facility, a vegetative waste recycling facility, a fire rescue training and administration
complex, and a Sheriffs driver training pad.
The Sheriffs driver training pad areas and the eastern portion of the fire rescue training facilities, including
a four story burn building, a vehicle extraction area, various other light structures, roads and pavements,
are located within the footprint of the landfill. During construction, efforts were made to avoid disturbing
the cover of the landfill and to supplement as needed with fill to provide an effective sub-base for the roads
4-2
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 4 - Examples of Successful Asset Utilization
and driving courses. For minor structures, mat foundations were installed to provide a system where the
mat could move with the consolidation of the landfill and also provide a surface to distribute the loads over
a larger area while creating an impervious surface for the collection of fire water to avoid point infiltration
issues.
To avoid settlement issues with the fire rescue training building (a more substantial structure), waste
material was excavated and then backfilled with acceptable material to provide a more stable base for the
structure. Flexible paving systems were an important consideration for the driving pad areas that would
likely be affected by settlement over time. The site used a minimum of twelve inches of recycled asphalt
material available from the adjacent recycling operations with a stabilized sub-base fill as an inexpensive
and easy method of maintaining the driving courses. Repairs are made by filling depressions with recycled
asphalt material.
The site was sufficiently old at the time of the redevelopment project and therefore significant LFG
generation was not expected. A methane gas screening survey was conducted to detect combustible gas
just below the surface of the landfill in areas with proposed structures. There were detectable levels of
methane, however for open air training purposes, it was determined that the low levels of methane would
not interfere with use of the site. Appropriate methane exclusion methods such as under-drain piping in
gravel beds to intercept and release gas and sealing off conduits as utilities enter buildings or exterior
transformers and panels were still necessary precautions (and retrofits) for buried utilities and enclosed
structures.
Additional design aspects of the project that have contributed to the success of the site include an integrated
stormwater management design that improved flooding protection; an open stormwater conveyance system
that avoided using buried pipes that could be damage due to settling; and using high density polyethylene
sanitary force mains servicing the landfill structures to provide maximum piping flexibility.
Since the Cross State Landfill ceased operations prior to landfill design requirements and was not required
to undergo closure permitting, the project was given more regulatory flexibility than would be expected
with current design regulations; however the project still necessitated the cooperation from multiple
agencies and stakeholders to successfully complete the project.
4.3 Millennium Park
The Gardner Street Landfill served as an MSW disposal facility in West Roxbury, a neighborhood of
Boston, Massachusetts. The 85-acre landfill is located on a 98-acre parcel of land. In 1997, a post-closure
plan was developed by citizen's advisory committee working with the public works department; the goal
was to develop a plan for revitalizing the landfill to provide public access. In order to properly close the
landfill for the proposed post-closure use, the landfill needed to be re-graded, shaped, and capped.
Construction soils largely consisted of soils excavated from a major construction project nearby. An active
gas collection system, as well as a clay cutoff trench, was also installed, and the adjacent brook was
remediated. Site investigations including waste delineation, electromagnetic terrain conductivity survey,
and site sampling; these were necessary in order to address potential risks in order to ensure public health
and safety through the use of the landfill as a park for the city of Boston.
A traditional closure cap as described by Massachusetts regulations was deemed acceptable for closure,
along with the construction of an active gas collection system for long-term closure. The landfill cap
consisted of (in order of bottom to top) a gas venting layer, a low permeability barrier layer, a drainage
layer, and a vegetative support and protection layer. The active GCCS for the landfill was constructed of
58 extraction wells and included more than 8 km of header and lateral piping. Gas was routed to an enclosed
4-3
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 4 - Examples of Successful Asset Utilization
flare. The state approved the installation of seven groundwater monitoring wells and required semi-annual
monitoring for a period of 30 years post-closure.
Following the landfill closure, the facility reopened as Millennium Park in 2000. Millennium Park consists
of approximately 100 acres of trails, fields, and nature areas. It also includes six miles of walking paths that
circle the former landfill, three paved walking loops, and in between the walking paths, 26 acres of playing
fields and a playground. Figure 4-3 show the walking trails and picnicking areas at Millennium Park. A
small amphitheater was also constructed. One of the highlights of the park is a canoe launch on the Charles
River that provides accessible to the public to enter the river in their canoes and kayaks (shown in Figure
4-4).
Figure 4-3. Millennium Park Paved Trails and Picnic Tables (Photo Courtesy of Dan Brody,
www.newtonconservators.org)
Jfl
!
Figure 4-4. Millennium Park Kite Festival and Canoe Launch (Photo Courtesy of Dan Brody,
www.newtonconservators.org)
4.4 Colma Landfill
The Junipero Serra (Colma) Landfill is a solid waste landfill located in San Mateo County, California. In
1983, the landfill was closed after reaching waste depths of 130 feet in some areas (E2 2007). Ten years
following the closing of the Colma Landfill, the site was slated to be developed as a Home Depot (Figure
4-5 shows a view of the big-box store that was built on the landfill). Due to its proximity to San Francisco,
the landfill property was an excellent location for commercial business. In the Bay Area of California, deep
foundations are necessary due to the soft Bay mud. A total of 710 steel H piles were driven into the landfill,
4-4
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 4 - Examples of Successful Asset Utilization
spanning up to 181 feet in length traversing the depth of the landfill (Fittinghoff 2014). The piles were
designed to transfer the structural loads to the bearing soils located below the landfill. The Colma Landfill
was able to utilize pilings to stabilize and support the structure because it was an older, unlined landfill, and
thus there was no liner to damage. The pilings were driven into the bedrock underneath the landfill.
Estimates of expected settlement were conducted based on empirical observations and numerical models.
To accommodate for settling, gas wells and collection lines were constructed with flexible piping. A total
of nine extraction wells, eight extraction trenches, and 1,850 ft of gas collection header piping were placed
below the foundation of the building (McLaughlin and Miller). A geomembrane was placed beneath the
building, as was a gas venting system to prevent LFG migration into the structure. When the barrier layer
was interrupted for utilities to enter the building, the penetrations were sealed using butyl tape, polyurethane
sealant, or special boots (E2 2007). As an added measure, methane monitors were placed within the building
and programmed to set off an alarm when methane concentrations reach 1 %. Ramps on the parking structure
and connecting features were constructed with hinges, designed to handle some settlement before repairs
are necessary. Overtime, facility components have required maintenance, including bringing more soil into
the site to fill in low areas, repairing the ramps, and keeping the gas system working.
Figure 4-5. View of a Big-Box Store Built on the Colma Landfill (Photo Courtesy of CalRecycle,
http://bit.ly/lyheajY)
4.5 Los Alamos County Landfill
The Los Alamos County Landfill began accepting waste in 1974; it accepted local MSW and waste from
the Los Alamos National Laboratory until 2008 (Wheeler 2007). Closure was initiated in 2008, although
minimal waste filling occurred from 2008 to 2012 (to bring the site to final closure elevation) (Nagawiecki
et al., 2013). The site is unlined, outfitted with substantial final cover material. Upon closure, the County
placed solar panels on the landfill and transfer station for waste and recyclables was constructed adjacent
to the closed landfill (Nagawiecki et al., 2013).
4-5
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 4 - Examples of Successful Asset Utilization
Los Alamos County Landfill is located in an area with high energy generation potential according to US
NREL (2012) solar resource maps. Final cover was installed incorporating consideration of the PV system
(Shaw 2011). Panels were mounted on a unique modular tray system and electrical wiring connecting to
each panel was connected above the landfill surface, making it possible to complete the project on the newly
closed landfill, conforming to contours on the site surface and allowing for disconnection and landfill
maintenance (Rafael De LaTorre, personal communication, 2014; see Figure 4-6). Table 4-1 provides an
overview of how many of the challenges to site permitting, construction and operation were addressed.
Figure 4-6. Los Alamos Landfill Site (Photo Courtesy of Los Alamos Department of Public Utilities
Table 4-1. Aspects of the Los Alamos Landfill Site and Associated Environmental Controls
Project Aspect
Solar panel system
(14.7 acres)
Recycling park
(8.5 acres)
Transfer station (TS)
Side slopes
(12.0 acres)
Stormwater and
erosion
Gas collection
Groundwater
monitoring
Leachate detection
Geo technical
considerations
Description of Closure Plans and Environmental Controls
The PV system plateau was installed with a unique racking system to avoid puncturing
the landfill cap. The following layers provided protection when mounting the panels:
12-inch intermediate soil cover, geosynthetic clay liner, 18-inch protective soil layer and
6-inch gravel.
The facility processes concrete, tires, metal, manure, and compost; a protective cover
system (similar to what was installed for the solar panel system) including asphalt
millings was installed to prevent puncturing the landfill cap.
The TS building was green building certified and an active GCCS was installed below
the TS to intercept migrated LFG.
Side slopes were formed at 4: 1 to 3 : 1 ratios with an evapotranspiration cover system to
decrease rain infiltration.
Terraced berms, riprap down chutes, and sloping the landfill plateau by approximately
4% were methods used to accommodate drainage and prevent erosion.
Gas is passively vented since the total waste mass landfilled is below NSPS LFG
requirements and dry climatic conditions are not likely to produce excessive LFG.
Unnecessary because distance to the water table is 1,200 ft below the land surface
Because the landfill is unlined, precautionary detection piezometers were installed.
Battery storage for the PV system were located on virgin land to minimize variables
related to lead acid and sodium sulfur batteries.
4-6
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 5 - Pre-Planning Waste Sites as Community Assets
5 Pre-Planning Waste Sites as Community Assets
As discussed in the introduction to this report, most planning for the beneficial utilization of closed landfill
sites occurs after the landfill has been closed, or during the period just prior to closure. Many of the issues
that must be addressed when assessing reuse options for a closed waste site would be easier to manage if
thought was given to them during the earlier planning, design and operational stages of facility life. A
waste site developed alongside an intended end use should allow a more efficient use of resources to
transition the facility to a community asset. Such upfront planning would also likely provide opportunities
that would otherwise not exist for achieving additional site benefits. With the likely long-term role of
landfills for MSW management and the lessons learned from repurposing closed disposal facilities as
community resources, landfill owners and their associated communities have the opportunity to plan future
waste disposal facilities from the beginning for use as a community asset.
Building upon the information already presented, this final chapter of the report explores aspects of the
waste site design with respect to how pre-planning a waste site with an intended reuse can benefit the
community and provide effective waste management: site location, site layout, community involvement,
technical design and future reuse. Not all of the approaches are currently practiced or permitted, but they
are presented to challenge developers, planners, landfill owners, design engineers, regulators, and
community leaders to potentially expand and explore additional future uses or approaches for managing
closed or closing waste sites.
5.1 Location
Most landfills are located far from population centers because of concerns regarding odor, traffic, noise and
environmental contamination. While siting waste management facilities in such locations may be the
politically palatable course of action, other factors merit consideration when developing plans for a future
community asset. The future use of some recreational activities might be enhanced if the facility were sited
in a more convenient location for community use. Environmental concerns are largely addressed by
following current regulatory requirements for landfills, and issues such as odor, traffic and noise can be
minimized with proper planning, design and operational controls. The expenditure of some additional
resources up front to make a facility more compatible with local residents and businesses could pay off later
years in the creation of a facility that provides more benefit to the entire community.
Location is also important in consideration of energy and resource recovery. The feasibility or profitability
of a LFG-to-energy system might be much more enhanced if the landfill were located adjacent to a specific
industry or an industrial park where direct use of LFG could occur, or if a natural gas transmission line
were located nearby. LFG-to-energy, solar power, and wind power would all benefit from proximity to
electrical transmission infrastructure. Locating a landfill next to other industries or utilities that could
benefit from co-location would increase overall asset utilization. For example, if a landfill were located
near a wastewater treatment facility, the landfill's leachate could be more effectively managed and the
treatment plant's biosolids could be placed in the landfill and later captured as methane and converted to
energy. Manufacturing facilities that rely on recycled materials as feedstock would benefit from close
proximity to the landfill, and the community would benefit from a greater diversion of materials from
disposal.
5.2 Site Layout
A number of benefits should be achievable by planning the layout of a landfill facility with future use
options in mind. Site roadways and access points should factor in desired uses, as should the location of
the landfill units and their associated support infrastructure. Community use for some areas of the site
might be possible much earlier if the site is configured appropriately. For example, if a portion of the site
closes first and is ready be developed into a community asset (e.g., a recreational area), the site layout
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 5 - Pre-Planning Waste Sites as Community Assets
should allow public access to this area of the site while still providing appropriate control and limits from
restricted areas of the operational part of the facility.
Planning for the location of utilities and roads that will be needed in the future should prevent costly retrofits
or re-designs in later years. The landfill cells should be designed with desired final use in mind. For
example, if a golf course is planned, the waste filling sequence and cell locations (and associated grades
and elevations) can be constructed in a manner to minimize the volume of soils and additional materials
that will be required, and lessen the degree of infrastructure modification needed (e.g., relocated gas and
leachate lines). If solar or wind power is desired, waste cells should be placed in an optimum configuration
to capture these resources. If buildings are to be constructed, specific areas may require more soil fill, or
wastes less likely to settle (e.g., brick, rubble, ash) could be disposed of in that location.
The location of leachate and gas infrastructure should be located with final site configuration in mind. At
some landfill locations, desired site uses have been limited because expensive reconfiguration and
movement of leachate and gas infrastructure have been required.
5.3 Community Involvement
Allowing the input on potential utilization options, particularly at the planning phase, is another way to
expand the potential scope of possibilities, and potentially source innovative ideas (similar to the idea of
crowd-funding). This concept was illustrated several of the case studies reviewed in this report, where
municipalities involved residents in evaluating use options after the landfill closed. Extending this to the
entire life of a waste management facility, the community should be integrated into the decision-making
process with regard to use of the site after closure. The community needs to be involved early in the
decision process and kept informed through the operation of facility, especially as important milestones are
reached. Key players and partners should be identified. Such outreach could result in finding partners that
would actively participate in a true integrated materials management hub (e.g., industry, manufacturers,
recyclers, end users). Advice from the regulatory agency community should be sought early and often to
avoid future conflicts or unforeseen limitations.
5.4 Technical Design
Retrofitting closed landfills to accommodate desired end uses involves addressing complicated issues of
settlement, LFG migration and leachate generation. A site that is able to control these aspects at an earlier
time in the life of the site instead of waiting until the landfill has been built out, is more likely to avoid
costly long-term maintenance repairs and monitoring costs. For instance, a building on top of a landfill
with stabilized waste is less prone to suffer from settlement issues and structural damage. The facility will
have to deal with less concern with regard to LFG migration into enclosed spaces over the life of the
building.
A bioreactor landfill is an MSW landfill that is designed and operated in a manner to promote the
stabilization of the waste. Components such as food waste, yard trash, and paper biodegrade in a landfill
(which produces LFG and causes settlement). This process can occur slowly over many decades and thus
presents operational problems many years after closure. Experience has shown, however, that if the landfill
is operated under certain conditions, the rate of waste stabilization can be greatly enhanced. The most
common approach used at bioreactor landfills is to add liquids to the waste, either leachate collected from
the LCRS, or some other source of moisture. Some facilities also practice the addition of air in the same
fashion as is done with a compost pile. While the implementation of bioreactor technology requires careful
planning and implementation to make sure that it is performed in a manner that meets all of environmental
protection objectives of the landfill, it can provide for landfills with much fewer problems with LFG and
waste settlement in the years after closure when the landfill will be most used as a community asset.
5-2
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 5 - Pre-Planning Waste Sites as Community Assets
The site developer has many options to better integrate LFG management into waste asset planning. Many
landfill designers make the mistake of not considering future LFG collection as part of the original design
and construction of the landfill liner system. By implementing aggressive practices for collecting LFG,
more gas can be collected earlier in the life of the site, thus making gas recovery economics more feasible
and reducing sources of odor and related emissions. For example, the GCCS can be integrated into the
LCRS (which is often a significant source of LFG) early on in the construction of a landfill. Innovative
practices such as exposure geomembrane caps can allow greater gas collection efficiency earlier in the life
of the landfill. The GCCS can be readily designed to accommodate a variety of future landfill
configurations and uses, and thus potential impacts on GCCS infrastructure (a common issue observed in
the case studies) can be minimized. The GCCS can be designed to avoid interference with the aesthetics
of the site or get in the way of the end use (e.g., gas wells sticking out of a landfill golf course).
5.5 Planning lor Future Recovery
Depending on a variety of factors (e.g., poor market, prohibitive distance to recycler), there may instances
when a landfill facility does not have the means to recycle or use a waste product, but has the foresight to
plan for the future recovery of the material at time when it is more economically viable. Materials that are
accepted in bulk and arrive at a disposal facility separate of other waste materials (e.g., water treatment
sludge, concrete) are candidate materials for future recycling or beneficial use applications because of their
large quantity which can make their recovery more economical and because the waste does not have to be
sorted which avoids the additional expense of processing.
Facilities that identify a material as a potential future commodity and prepare and design their landfill filling
around recovering these materials at a later day in the future, position themselves to take advantage of
situations that may improve recycling circumstances. Ideally, the facility employing such a strategy would
set aside a portion of the landfill and dedicate it solely to this particular material so as not to blend it with
other contaminants that would depreciate its value. The location of the material must be accurately
documented to avoid disturbing areas unnecessarily and tracking the quantity of material is essential in
determining the right time at which there is sufficient material that has accumulated and the economics of
excavating and recovering the material is justified. This type of approach is already common at landfills
that accept special wastes such as asbestos, so basic principles and practices for dedicated disposal areas of
likely (or potentially) higher-value materials would not be an unknown to many site owners and operators.
Reclaiming waste materials increases available landfill air space, it can be an additional source of revenue
for the facility and the environmental advantages of recycling/reusing waste materials are all potential
benefits of planning the future recovery of waste materials.
5-3
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 6 - References
6 References
CIWMB (2014). California Integrated Waste Management Board Title 27 Division 2 Chapter 3
Subchapter 5 Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance, Section 21190.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.gov/laws/Regulations/Title27/ch3sb5.htmtfArticle2 Accessed 17
September 2014.
CMR (2014). Code of Massachusetts Regulations 310 CMR 19.143: Post-closure Use of Landfills.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/service/regulations/310cmrl9.pdfAccessed 17 September
2014.
De La Torre, R. (2014). Personal Communication.
Dudek, J., Klimek, P.M., Kolodziejak, G.M., Niemczewska, J., Zaleska-Bartosz, J. (2010). Landfill Gas
Energy Tecnologies. Accessed April 4, 2014, from:
https: //www. globalmethane.org/data/1022_lfg-handbook .pdf
E2 Inc. A Reuse Planning Report: Kent Highlands and Midway Landfills. February 2007.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle/pdf/seattle-landfills-reuseplanning.pdf
Fittinghoff, E. Deep Foundations: A Geotechnical Overview.
http://www.lowney.com/clientZone/articles/views/vol6il-deepfoundation.shtml
Gross, P.J. (1994). What Can You Do If Your Golf Course Has Gas. USGA Green Section Record.
July/August 1994, 1-4.
Hurdzan Golf (2013). Developing Golf Courses on Sanitary Landfills.
http://hurdzangolf.com/developing-golf-courses-on-sanitary-landfills/ Accessed 4 April 2014.
IDEM (1998). Post-Closure Uses of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Indiana Department of
Environmental Management Office of Land Quality, Indianapolis, Indiana.
ITRC (2006). Evaluating, Optimizing, or Ending Post-Closure Care at MSW Landfills Based on Site-
Specific Data Evaluations. ALT-4. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory
Council, Alternative Landfill Technologies Team, www.itrcweb.org.
Jain, P., Townsend, T.G., Johnson, P.T. (2013). Case study of landfill reclamation at a Florida landfill
site. Waste Management 33:109-116.
Kjeldsen, P. Barlaz, M.A., Rooker, A.P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., Christensen, T.H. (2002). Present and
Long-Term Composition of MSW Landfill Leachate: A Review, Critical Reviews in
Environmental Science and Technology, 32:4, 297-336, DOI: 10.1080/10643380290813462
McLaughlin, M., and Miller, J. (2004). Sturdy Foundations. Waste 360. SCS Engineers, September 1,
2004. http://waste360.com/print/mag/waste sturdy foundations
MDEP (2013). Maine Solid Waste Management Rules: Chapter 104 Landfill Siting, Design and
Operation Section 5.B.(5) Proposed Final Use.
http://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/landfillclosure/tfru Accessed 17 September 2014.
Messenger, B. (2013). Trigeneration Project Using Landfill as Powered Fuel Cells. Waste Management
World, http://bit.lv/ln8WgEz. accessed 30 May 2014.
Messics, M.C. (2009). Site Considerations- What makes a site desirable for a solar project? Renewable
Energy at Closed Landfills Workshop, Mansfield/Foxboro Holiday Inn, MA, June 17, 2009.
Miceli, F. (2012). Geotechnical survey for a wind farm: standard field and laboratory tests.
Millbrandt, A.R, Heimiller, D.M., Perry, A.D., Field, C.B. (2013). Renewable energy potential on
marginal lands in the United States. Renew Sustain Energ Review 29:473-481.
Nagawiecki, T., Kowalshi, P., Babic, N., Yevoli, W. (2013). Los Alamos County- Transforming a closed
landfill into a sustainability asset. Landfill Re-use Excellence Award SWANA 2013. Accessed
April 18, 2014, from: http://swana.Org/Portals/0/Awards/2013/Landfill ReUse Silver.pdf
NDAC (2009). North Dakota Administrative Code 33-20-04.1-09 General disposal standards.
http://www.legis.nd.gOv/information/acdata/pdf/33-20-04.l.pdf720140917095047Accessed 17
September 2014.
NREL (2009). United States - Wind Resources Map. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/pdfs/windsmodel4publ-l-9base200904enh.pdfAccessed 4 April 2014.
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets Section 6 - References
NREL (2012). Photovoltaic Solar Resources of the United States. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/gis/data_solar.html
PaCode (1988). Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Chapter §273.191.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter273/chap273toc.htmltf273.191. Accessed 17
September 2014.
Panetta, S. (2010). Grounding of wind power systems and wind power generators. International
Association of Electrical Inspectors (IAEI). IAEI News May-June 2010.
Sharma, H. D., and Anirban, D. (2007). Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Settlement: Postclosure
Perspectives. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133:619-629.
Shaw Environment and Infrastructure (2011). Los Alamos Landfill Closure Plan Amendment- Post-
Closure Care and Monitoring Plan. April 2011.
Simmons, E. (1999). Restoration of Landfill Sites for Ecological Diversity. Waste Management and
Research. 17:511-519.
Spiegel, R. J., and Preston, J. L. (2003). Technical Assessment of Fuel Cell Operation on Landfill Gas at
the Groton, CT, Landfill. Energy, 28:397-409.
TAG (2014). Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Part 1 Chapter 330, Subchapter T: Use of Land Over
Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
http ://info .sos .state .tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext. ViewTAC?tac_view=5 &ti=3 0&pt= 1 &ch=3 3 O&sch
=T&rl=Y Accessed 17 September 2014.
Tansel, B., Varala, P.K., Londono, V. (2013). Solar energy harvesting at closed landfills: Energy yield
and wind loads on solar panels on top and side slopes. Sustain Cities Society 8:42-47.
US EPA (2012). Wind Decision Tree. OSWER, OCPA, RE-Powering America's Land Initiative.
US EPA (2005) Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions From Closed Or Abandoned Facilities.
EPA-600/R-05/123a September 2005.
US EPA (2008). Catalog of CHP Technologies. Combined Heat and Power Partnership
http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog chptech full.pdf Accessed 4 April 2014.
US EPA (2014). RE-Powering America's Land, Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated
Lands, Landfills, and Mine Sites, http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/. Accessed 30 May 2014.
WAC (2013). Wisconsin Administrative Code: Chapter NR 506.085 Landfill Operational Criteria: Final
use. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin code/nr/500/506/085 Accessed 17 September
2014.
Wallace, R. B. (2000). Landfill redevelopment: Beneficial use and aftercare. URS Corporation, Seattle,
Washington.
Wheeler, R. (2007). Los Alamos County Landfill Closure Project Update. Regina Wheeler, Solid Waste
Division Manager.
Yun, T.S., Lee, J.S., Lee, S.C., Kim, Y.J., Yoon, H.K. (2011). Geotechnical issues related to renewable
energy. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 15 (4): 63 5-642.
6-2
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 7-AppendixA
7 Appendix A
7. 1 Resources for Further Reading
Resource
FDEP (2011). Guidance for Disturbance and Use of Old Closed
Landfills or Waste Disposal Areas in Florida. Department of
Environmental Protection Solid Waste Section, Tallahassee, FL
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/publications/shw/solid
waste/Dump-Guidance-03Feb 1 1 .pdf
Martin, W. L., and Tedder, R. B. (2002). Use of Old Landfills in
Florida. Proceedings of the 16th GRI Conference, Geosynthetic Institute
Philadelphia, PA, USA, December 16-17, 2002.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/publications/shw/solid
waste/USEOFOLDLFsINFL-totalPaper.pdf
IDEM (1999). Post-Closure Uses of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Land
Quality, Indianapolis, IN, WASTE-0026-NPD.
http://www.in.gov/idem/files/nrpd waste-0026.pdf
MassDEP (2009) Landfill Post-Closure Use Permitting Guidelines June
2009. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/recvcle/approvals/landfill
-post-closure-use-permitting-guidelines.html (website)
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/recvcle/laws/lfpcguid.pdf
(document)
NJDEP (2014) Guidance Documents, http://www.nj.gov/dep/sage/so-
Description
Describes the expectations of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection when an old site is disturbed or used including when
construction is to occur near or over waste-filled areas. Provides
Department contact information; summary of landfill permit, closure
and long-term care requirements;
Four case studies of landfill use in Florida (all projects included
construction over or near the landfill) and the lessons learned from their
experiences.
Guidance document developed by Indiana Department of
Environmental Management for the beneficial post-closure use of
landfill including agricultural, recreational and industrial activities.
The Massachusetts permitting process and requirements (for facilities
that have not obtained previous permits or permissions for the end use)
for major and minor post-closure uses.
New Jersey guidance documents that discuss determining sites best
7-1
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 7-AppendixA
Resource
guidancedocs .html Accessed 16 April 2014.
NJDEP (2012) Solar Siting Analysis. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Sustainability and Green Energy, October
2012.
NJDEP (2013) Guidance for Installation of Solar Renewable Energy
Systems on Landfills in New Jersey (Updated January 8, 2013). New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Ohio EPA (2010). Considerations for Development On or Adjacent to
a Closed Solid Waste Landfill. Ohio EPA, Division of Solid and
Infectious Waste Management, Columbus, Ohio, Guidance Document
1003, March 20 10.
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/gd 1003.pdf
TCEQ (2014) Use of Land Over Closed Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
https : //www .tceq .texas . gov/permitting/waste_permits/msw_permits/m
sw closeduse.html Accessed 16 April 2014.
US EPA (2005) Guidance for evaluating landfill gas emissions from
closed or abandoned facilities. EPA -600/R-05/123a, September 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r05 123 .html
US EPA and NREL (2013) Best Practices for Siting Solar Photovoltaics
on Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. NREL/TP-7A30-52615, February
2013.
http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/best_practices siting solar_photo
voltaic_final.pdf
US EPA (2014) Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy Projects While
Description
suited for developing solar energy projects and how to apply for
permits, permissions and the issues with installing a solar renewable
energy system on a landfill.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency discusses environmental
considerations when developing on or adjacent to a closed solid waste
landfill.
The state of Texas' applicable regulations; application procedures for
permitting or registration for development of land over a closed MSW
landfill (2005); questions and answers for developing on land over an
MSW landfill (20 10).
A guidance document for superfund remedial project managers that
provides background information relevant to closed MSW landfills
including: LFG basics, exposure risks and problems and LFG collection
and control systems.
A technical guidance document addressing challenges of siting
photovoltaics (PV) on MSW landfills. Discusses the types of PV
technology and considerations related to feasibility, design,
construction, and operation and maintenance of PV. Includes a
summary of best practices for siting PV.
Discusses reusing contaminated sites for renewable energy projects and
7-2
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 7-AppendixA
Resource
Description
includes evaluating the renewable energy potential of a site and
integrating renewable energy development into cleanup processes.
Addressing Environmental Issues. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's Center for
Program Analysis,
http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/handbook_siting_repowering_proj
ects.pdf Accessed 16 April 2014.
US EPA and NREL (2014) Screening Sites for Solar PV Potential.
http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/solar decision tree.pdf Accessed
16 April 2014.
This document is a decision tree to assist state and local governments
and stakeholders screen sites (including landfills) for redevelopment
with solar PV energy. The document describes the processes of pre-
screening, site screening and financial screening.
US EPA and NREL (2014) Screening Sites for Wind Energy Potential.
http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/wind decision tree .pdf Accessed
16 April 2014.
This document is a decision tree to assist state and local governments
and stakeholders screen sites (including landfills) for redevelopment
with wind energy. The document describes the processes of pre-
screening, site screening and financial screening.
US EPA (1997) Landfill Reclamation. Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, EPA530-F-97-001, July 1997.
http: //www .epa. gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/land-rcl .pdf
This document describes the basics of the reclamation process and
project planning and also touches on its benefits and drawbacks and
provides case studies of successful projects.
US EPA (2001) Reusing Superfund Sites: Recreational Use of Land
Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle/pdf/recreuse.pdf
This document describes the technical considerations of designing
recreational facilities as superfund cleanups where some of the
hazardous waste is retained on site; case studies of successful projects
are included.
US EPA (2003) Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities
Where Waste is Left on Site
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle/pdf/golf.pdf
This document describes the elements of planning, designing,
operations and maintenance related to developing a golf course facility
on a superfund site; case studies of successful projects are included.
US EPA (2002) Reusing Superfund Sites: Commercial Use Where
Waste is Left on Site
This document describes site configurations, remediation approaches,
and design considerations when planning to reuse a superfund site for
commercial purposes; case studies of successful projects are included.
7-3
-------
Closed Waste Sites as Community Assets
Section 7-AppendixA
Resource
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/proarams/recvcle/pdf/c reuse.pdf
Description
7-4
------- |