United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-F-97-001
July 1997
Landfill Reclamation
T
his fact sheet describes new and innovative technologies and products
that meet the performance standards of the Criteria for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258).
Landfill reclamation is a relatively new approach used to expand municipal
solid waste (MSW) landfill capacity and avoid the high cost of acquiring addi-
tional land. Reclamation costs are often offset by the sale or use of recovered
materials, such as recyclables, soil, and waste, which can be burned as fuel.
Other important benefits may include avoided liability through site remediation,
reductions in closure costs, and reclamation of land for other uses.
Despite its many benefits, some potential drawbacks exist to landfill reclama-
tion. This technology may release methane and other gases, for example, that
result from decomposing wastes. It may also unearth hazardous materials,
which can be costly to manage. In addition, the excavation work involved in
reclamation may cause adjacent landfill areas to sink or collapse. Finally, the
dense, abrasive nature of reclaimed waste may shorten the life of excavation
equipment. To identify potential problems, landfill operators considering recla-
mation activities should conduct a site characterization study.
Landfill reclamation projects have been successfully implemented at MSW
facilities across the country since the 1980s. This fact sheet provides information
on this technology and presents case studies of successful reclamation projects.
The Reclamation
Process
Landfill reclamation is conducted in a num-
ber of ways, with the specific approach based
on project goals and objectives and site-
specific characteristics. The equipment used
for reclamation projects is adapted primarily
from technologies already in use in the min-
ing industry, as well as in construction and
other solid waste management operations. In
general, landfill reclamation follows these
steps:
Excavation
An excavator removes the contents of the
landfill cell. A front-end loader then orga-
nizes the excavated materials into manage-
able stockpiles and separates out bulky
material, such as appliances and lengths of
steel cable.
> Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
Soil Separation (Screening)
A trommel (i.e., a revolving cylindrical sieve)
or vibrating screens separate soil (including
the cover material) from solid waste in the
excavated material. The size and type of screen
used depends on the end use of the recovered
material. For example, if the reclaimed soil
typically is used as landfill cover, a 2.5-inch
screen is used for separation. If, however, the
reclaimed soil is sold as construction fill, or
for another end use requiring fill material
with a high fraction of soil content, a smaller
mesh screen is used to remove small pieces of
metal, plastic, glass, and paper.
Trommel screens are more effective than
vibrating screens for basic landfill reclama-
tion. Vibrating screens, however, are smaller,
easier to set up, and more mobile.
-------
Processing for Reclamation of
Recyclable Material or Disposal
Depending on local conditions,
either the soil or the waste may be
reclaimed. The separated soil can be
used as fill material or as daily cover
in a sanitary landfill. The excavated
waste can be processed at a materials
recovery facility to remove valuable
components (e.g., steel and alu-
minum) or burned in a municipal
waste combustor (MWC) to produce
energy.
Steps in Project
Planning
Before initiating a landfill reclamation
project, facility operators should care-
fully assess all aspects of such an
effort.
The following is a recommended
approach:
Conduct a site characterization
study.
Assess potential economic
benefits.
Investigate regulatory
requirements.
Establish a preliminary worker
health and safety plan.
Assess project costs.
Benefits and Drawbacks
Facility operators considering the
establishment of a landfill reclamation
program must weigh several benefits
and drawbacks associated with this
waste management approach.
Potential Benefits
Extending landfill capacity at the
current site
Landfill reclamation extends the life
of the current facility by removing
recoverable materials and reducing
waste volume through combustion
and compaction.
Generating revenues from the sale
of recyclable materials
Recovered materials, such as ferrous
metals, aluminum, plastic, and glass,
can be sold if markets exist for these
materials.
Lowering operating costs or gen-
erating revenues from the sale of
reclaimed soil
Reclaimed soil can be used on site as
daily cover material on other landfill
cells, thus avoiding the cost of
importing cover soil. Also, a market
might exist for reclaimed soil used in
other applications, such as construc-
tion fill.
Producing energy at MWCs
Combustible reclaimed waste can be
mixed with fresh waste and burned to
produce energy at MWCs.
Reducing landfill closure costs
and reclaiming land for other uses
By reducing the size of the landfill
"footprint" through cell reclamation,
the facility operator may be able to
either lower the cost of closing the
landfill or make land available for
other uses.
Retrofitting liners and removing
hazardous materials
Liners and leachate collection systems
can be installed at older landfills. These
systems can be inspected and repaired
if they are already installed. Also, haz-
ardous waste can be removed and
managed in a more secure fashion.
Potential Drawbacks
Managing hazardous materials
Hazardous wastes that may be uncov-
ered during reclamation operations,
especially at older landfills, are subject
to special handling and disposal
requirements. Management costs for
hazardous waste can be relatively high,
but may reduce future liability.
Controlling releases of landfill
gases and odors
Cell excavation raises a number of
potential problems related to the
release of gases. Methane and other
gases, generated by decomposing
wastes, can cause explosions and fires.
Hydrogen sulfide gas, a highly flam-
mable and odorous gas, can be fatal
when inhaled at sufficient concentra-
tions.
Controlling subsidence or collapse
Excavation of one landfill area can
undermine the integrity of adjacent
cells, which can sink or collapse into
the excavated area.
Increasing wear on excavation and
MWC equipment
Reclamation activities shorten the use-
ful life of equipment, such as excava-
tors and loaders, because of the high
density of waste being handled. Also,
the high particulate content and abra-
sive nature of reclaimed waste can
increase wear on MWC equipment
(e.g., grates and air pollution control
systems).
-------
This planning sequence assumes
that project planners will make an
interim assessment of the project's fea-
sibility after each planning step. After
completion of all five steps, planners
should conclude the feasibility assess-
ment by weighing costs against bene-
fits. A thorough final assessment
should include a review of project goals
and objectives and consideration of
alternative approaches for achieving
those ends.
Conduct a Site
Characterization Study
The first step in a landfill reclamation
project calls for a thorough site assess-
ment to establish the portion of the
landfill that will undergo reclamation
and estimate a material processing rate.
The site characterization should
assess facility aspects, such as geological
features, stability of the surrounding
area, and proximity of ground water,
and should determine the fractions of
usable soil, recyclable material, com-
bustible waste, and hazardous waste at
the site.
Assess Potential
Economic Benefits
Information collected in the site char-
acterization provides project planners
with a basis for assessing the potential
economic benefits of a reclamation
project. If the planners identify likely
financial benefits for the undertaking,
then the assessment will provide sup-
port for further investing in project
planning. Although economics are like-
ly to serve as the principal incentive for
a reclamation project, other considera-
tions may also come into play, such as
a communitywide commitment to
recycling and environmental manage-
ment.
Most potential economic benefits
associated with landfill reclamation are
indirect; however, a project can gener-
ate revenues if markets exist for recov-
ered materials. Although the economic
benefits from reclamation projects are
facility-specific, they may include any
or all of the following!
• Increased disposal capacity.
• Avoided or reduced costs of:
— Landfill closure.
— Postclosure care and monitoring.
— Purchase of additional capacity or
sophisticated systems.
— Liability for remediation of sur-
rounding areas.
• Revenues from:
— Recyclable and reusable materials
(e.g., ferrous metals, aluminum,
plastic, and glass).
— Combustible waste sold as fuel.
— Reclaimed soil used as cover
material, sold as construction fill,
or sold for other uses.
• Land value of sites reclaimed for
other uses.
Thus, this step in project planning
calls for investigating the following
areas:
• Current landfill capacity and project-
ed demand.
• Projected costs for landfill closure or
expansion of the site.
• Current and projected costs of future
liabilities.
Projected markets for recycled and
recovered materials.
• Projected value of land reclaimed for
other uses.
Investigate Regulatory
Requirements
Landfill reclamation operations are not
restricted under current federal regula-
tions. Before undertaking a reclama-
tion project, however, state and local
authorities should be consulted regard-
ing any special requirements. Although
some states have enacted general provi-
sions concerning the beneficial use of
recovered materials, as of 1996, only
New York State had established specific
landfill reclamation rules. In most
states, officials offer assistance in pro-
ject development, and they review
work plans on a case-by-case basis. A
few states, such as New York and New
Jersey, encourage landfill reclamation
by making grant money available.
Establish a Preliminary
Worker Health and
Safety Plan
After project planners establish a gener-
al framework for the landfill reclama-
tion effort, they must account for the
health and safety risks the project will
pose for facility workers. Once poten-
tial risks are identified from the site
characterization study and historical
information about facility operations,
methods to mitigate or eliminate them
should be developed. This information
then becomes part of a comprehensive
health and safety program. Before the
reclamation operation begins, all work-
ers who will be involved in the project
need to be well versed in the safety
plan and receive training in emergency
response procedures.
-------
Drawing up a safety and health plan
can be particularly challenging given
the difficulty of accurately characteriz-
ing the nature of material buried in a
landfill. Project workers are likely to
encounter some hazardous materials;
therefore, the health and safety pro-
gram should account for a variety of
materials handling and response sce-
narios.
Although the health and safety pro-
gram should be based on site-specific
conditions and waste types, as well as
project goals and objectives, a typical
health and safety program might call
for the following:
• Hazard communication (i.e., a
"Right to Know" component) to
inform personnel of potential risks.
• Respiratory protection measures,
including hazardous material identi-
fication and assessment; engineering
controls; written standard operating
procedures; training in equipment
use, respirator selection, and fit test-
ing; proper storage of materials; and
periodic reevaluation of safeguards.
Confined workspace safety proce-
dures, including air quality testing
for explosive concentrations, oxygen
deficiency, and hydrogen sulfide lev-
els, before any worker enters a con-
fined space (e.g., an excavation vault
or a ditch deeper than 3 feet).
• Dust and noise control.
• Medical surveillance stipulations that
are mandatory in certain circum-
stances and optional in others.
• Safety training that includes accident
prevention and response procedures
regarding hazardous materials.
Recordkeeping.
The program should also cover the
protective equipment workers will be
required to wear, especially if hazardous
wastes may be unearthed. The three cat-
egories of safety equipment used in land-
fill reclamation projects are:
Standard safety equipment (e.g.,
hard hats, steel-toed shoes, safety
glasses and/or face shields, protective
gloves, and hearing protection).
• Specialized safety equipment (e.g.,
chemically protective overalls, respira-
tory protection, and self-contained
breathing apparatus).
• Monitoring equipment (e.g., a com-
bustible gas meter, a hydrogen sul-
fide chemical reagent diffusion tube
indicator, and an oxygen analyzer).
Assess Project Costs
Planners can use information collected
from the preceding steps to analyze the
estimated capital and operational costs
of a landfill reclamation operation.
Along with the expenses incurred in
project planning, project costs may also
include the following:
• Capital costs:
— Site preparation.
— Rental or purchase of reclamation
equipment.
— Rental or purchase of personnel
safety equipment.
— Construction or expansion of
materials handling facilities.
— Rental or purchase of hauling
equipment.
• Operational costs:
— Labor (e.g., equipment operation
and materials handling).
— Equipment fuel and maintenance.
— Landfilling nonreclaimed waste
or noncombustible fly and bot-
tom ash if waste material is sent
off site for final disposal.
— Administrative and regulatory
compliance expenses (e.g.,
recordkeeping).
— Worker training in safety proce-
dures.
— Hauling costs.
Part of the cost analysis involves
determining whether the various
aspects of the reclamation effort will
result in reasonable costs relative to the
anticipated economic benefits. If the
combustible portion of the reclaimed
waste will be sent to an offsite MWC,
for example, planners should assess
whether transportation costs will be
offset by the energy recovery benefits.
Planners also need to consider whether
capital costs can be minimized by rent-
ing or borrowing heavy equipment,
such as excavating and trommel
machinery, from other departments of
municipal or county governments.
Long-term reclamation projects may
benefit from equipment purchases.
-------
Case Studies
Table 1. Landfill Reclamation Project Summaries
Project
Naples Landfill
(Collier County,
Florida)
Edinburg Landfill
(Edinburg,
New York)
Frey Farm Landfill
(Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania)
Operation Start
April 1986
(ongoing).
Dec. 1990 and June
1991 (both completed).
Aug. - Sept. 1992
(completed).
Jan. 1991 -July 1996
(completed) .
Mined Area
10 acres
1 acre
1.6 acre
300,000 to
400,000
cubic yards
Use of
Recovered Material
Cover material.
Construction fill.
Waste-to-energy fuel.
Cover material.
Main Objectives
Decrease liability.
Recover soil.
Alternative to
landfill closure.
Reduce landfill
footprint.
Recover fuel.
Reuse of landfill
capacity.
Naples Landfill
Collier County, Florida
In 1986, the Collier County Solid
Waste Management Department
at the Naples Landfill conducted
one of the earliest landfill recla-
mation projects in the country. At
that time, the Naples facility, a
33-acre unlined landfill, con-
tained MSW buried for up to 15
years.
In an evaluation performed by
the University of Florida on 38
of the state's unlined landfills,
investigators discovered that the
Naples Landfill (along with 27
others) posed a threat to ground
water. Moreover, the high cost of
complying with the state's cap-
ping regulations for unlined
landfills concerned many county
officials. Florida's capping regula-
tions required the installation of
a relatively impermeable cover or
cap and postclosure monitoring.
Naples officials developed a recla-
mation plan with the following
objectives: decreasing site closure
costs, reducing the risk of ground-
water contamination, recovering and
burning combustible waste in a pro-
posed waste-to-energy facility, recov-
ering soil for use as landfill cover
material, and recovering recyclable
materials. Collier County never
built the waste-to-energy plant. The
project did prove successful, howev-
er, in recovering landfill cover mater-
ial. The project proved less successful
at recycling recovered materials (e.g.,
ferrous metals, plastics, and alu-
minum) . These materials required
substantial processing to upgrade
their quality for sale, something the
county chose not to pursue.
In 1991, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency selected the
Naples Landfill reclamation project
as a demonstration project for the
Municipal Solid Waste Innovative
Technology Evaluation (MITE) pro-
gram. The MITE program assessed
the excavation and mechanical pro-
cessing techniques used in the pro-
Source Based on: Dickinson, 1995.
ject for reclaiming cover material to
be used in ongoing landfill opera-
tions. It also assessed the capacity
and performance of equipment, the
environmental aspects of the project,
the characteristics of recovered mate-
rials, the market acceptability of
recovered materials, and the proba-
ble costs and economics of the over-
all project. The MITE assessment
found the processing techniques
used in the Naples project effective
and efficient for recovering soil but
not for recovering recyclables of
marketable quality.
During the MITE demonstra-
tion project, Collier County effec-
tively and efficiently recovered a
soil fraction deemed environmen-
tally safe under Florida's MSW
compost regulations. The 50,000
tons of reclaimed soil were suitable
for use as a landfill cover material
and as a soil medium for support-
ing plant growth.
mention o
not constitute or imply endorsement or
approval for use by the U.S.
-------
Air quality monitoring indicated
that landfill gas was not an issue at the
reclamation site, apparently due to the
high degree of waste decomposition
that had already occurred. As a result
of this finding, typical personnel pro-
tective gear worn during the project
consisted of standard construction
apparel.
Ongoing reclamation activities at
the Naples facility focus exclusively
on recovering soil for use as landfill
cover material. All excavated materials
other than the reclaimed soil and
small amounts of recyclables are
redisposed of in lined landfill cells.
Reclamation activities are only per-
formed on an as-needed basis. A 3-
inch trommel screen is used to
reclaim the soil cover material. The
weight ratio of reclaimed soil to overs
(i.e., materials caught by the screen),
after white goods and tires are sepa-
rated, is 60 to 40. This indicates that
the Collier County landfill reclama-
tion project is efficient given that 60
percent of the reclaimed material is
reused as landfill cover material.
Based on 1995 prices, landfill cover
material costs Collier County $3.25
per ton. According to Collier County's
director of solid waste, the reclamation
of cover material on an as-needed basis
costs the county $2.25 per ton, a sav-
ings of $ 1 per ton.
According to county officials, the
reclamation project yielded the fol-
lowing benefits: lower operating costs
through reuse of cover materials,
extended landfill life, reduced poten-
tial for ground-water contamination
from unlined cells, and possible
avoidance of future remediation
costs.
Edinburg Landfill
Edinburg, New York
The New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) and the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation sponsored projects to
assess the feasibility and cost-effective-
ness of undertaking landfill reclamation
efforts to avoid closures and reduce the
footprint of state landfills. NYSERDA
established these projects in anticipa-
tion of the closure of numerous land-
fills in New York State, and based, in
part, on the success of the Naples
Landfill reclamation project.
NYSERDA's first demonstration
project was conducted at a 5-acre
MSW landfill in Edinburg, New York,
which received waste from 1969 to
1991. NYSERDA chose the Edinburg
Landfill because of its small size and
lack of buried industrial waste. After
NYSERDA chose to sponsor the recla-
mation of 1 acre of the 5-acre landfill,
Edinburg town officials expanded the
project to reclaim 1.6 additional acres.
NYSERDA divided the Edinburg
demonstration project into three phases.
The first phase, started in December
1990, included the excavation of 5,000
cubic yards of waste from a 12-year-old
section of the landfill at an average depth
of 20 feet. The second phase, initiated in
June 1991, included the excavation of
10,000 cubic yards of waste from a 20-
year-old section of the landfill at an aver-
age depth of 8 feet. The first two phases
of the demonstration project cost an
estimated $5 per cubic yard for excava-
tion and processing. This cost included
the inspection and supervision of a fully
contracted operation and was based on
an average excavation rate of 1,000 to
1,200 cubic yards per day.
The third phase of the Edinburg
project occurred from August to
September 1992. NYSERDA provided
the majority of the project funding,
with the remaining funding (primarily
for phase three) provided by the town
of Edinburg. This third and final
phase reclaimed an additional 1.6 acres
(31,000 cubic yards) in 28 days.
Because the town supplied required
equipment and labor, the contracted
cost for this phase decreased from $5
per cubic yard excavated to $3 per
cubic yard. Subsequently, the town
looked into reclaiming the remaining
2.4 acres of the landfill and completely
eliminating the footprint. The pro-
posed fourth stage proved unviable, so
the remaining portion of the landfill
will be capped.
The Edinburg Landfill is located in
a soil-rich area that provides ample
amounts of landfill cover material. For
this reason, officials tested and
approved the reclaimed soil (75 per-
cent of the reclaimed material) for off-
site use as construction fill in
nonsurface applications. A test burn
performed on the reclaimed waste
found the British thermal unit (Btu)
value to be lower than desired because
of the high degree of waste decompo-
sition and stones remaining in the
screened material.
The recovered nonsoil materials,
representing 25 percent of the
reclaimed waste, were hand-sorted
for potential recyclables. Although
50 percent of the nonsoil material
was considered recyclable, cleaning
the materials to market standards was
not feasible. Some tires, white goods,
and ferrous metals, however, were
separated and recycled. The remain-
ing materials were sent to a nearby
landfill.
-------
NYSERDA officials developed a
worker health and safety plan for the
Edinburg project that established work
zones, personnel protection require-
ments, and other operating procedures.
The inspectors, as well as all personnel
working at the site, were required to
wear respirators, goggles, helmets, and
protective suits. Excavation equipment
was used to separate suspicious drums
and other potentially hazardous material
for evaluation by the safety inspector
using appropriate monitoring equip-
ment. In the event that hazardous mate-
rials were encountered, the health and
safety plan provided for a project con-
tingency plan, a segregated disposal area,
and special waste handling procedures.
No significant quantities of hazardous
materials, however, were unearthed.
The Edinburg Landfill Reclamation
Project was successful both in securing
offsite uses for the reclaimed soil and
in reducing the landfill footprint to
decrease closure costs. The economic
benefits would be enhanced further if
the avoided costs for postclosure main-
tenance and monitoring, as well as
potential remediation and the value of
recovered landfill space, are also
considered.
Frey Farm Landfill
Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania
In 1990, the Lancaster County Solid
Waste Management Authority con-
structed an MWC to use in reducing
the volume of waste deposited in the
Frey Farm Landfill, a lined site (double
layers of 60-mil high density polyethyl-
ene sheeting on a 6-inch clay sub-base)
containing MSW deposited for up to 5
years. After building the MWC, the
quantity of waste received at the facility
declined, leaving a significant portion
of the MWC capacity unused. In an
effort to increase the energy production
and efficiency of the MWC, officials
initiated a landfill reclamation project
to augment the facility's supply of fresh
waste with reclaimed waste.
The reclaimed waste had a high Btu
value (about 3,080 Btu per pound). To
achieve a more efficient, higher heat-
ing value of 5,060 Btu per pound of
waste, four parts of fresh waste, which
included tires and woodchips, were
mixed with one part reclaimed waste.
Between 1991 and 1993, approxi-
mately 287,000 cubic yards of MSW
were excavated from the landfill. These
reclamation activities processed 2,645
tons of screened refuse per week for
the MWC. As a result, Lancaster
County converted 56 percent of the
reclaimed waste into fuel. The county
also recovered 41 percent of the
reclaimed material as soil during trom-
meling operations. The remaining 3
percent proved noncombustible and
was reburied in the landfill. By the
end of the project in 1996, landfill
operators had reclaimed 300,000 to
400,000 cubic yards of material.
Before the reclamation work began,
officials prepared a safety plan for
work at the site and assigned a full-
time compliance officer to oversee the
operations. During reclamation, work-
ers took precautions to avoid damag-
ing the site's synthetic liner, since it
would be reused following the recla-
mation operations. An initial layer of
protective material surrounded the
synthetic liner system, aiding worker
precautions by acting as a buffer
between the liner and the excavation
tools. Continuous air monitoring for
methane, both in the cabs of vehicles
and in the reclamation area, enhanced
the operation's safety operations.
Benefits of the project at Frey Farm
Landfill include! reclaimed landfill
space, supplemented energy produc-
tion, and recovered soil and ferrous
metals. Drawbacks include: increased
generation of ash caused by the high
soil content found in reclaimed waste,
increased odor and air emissions,
increased traffic on roads between the
MWC and the landfill, and increased
wear on both the landfill operation
and MWC equipment (i.e., due to the
abrasive properties of the reclaimed
waste).
Costs for the resource recovery por-
tion of the project were relatively low
for the following reasons:
• The distance for transporting both
the reclaimed waste and the ash was
only 18 miles each way.
• The management authority avoided
commercial hauling prices by using
its own trucks and employees to
transport the reclaimed waste and
the ash.
• The landfill and MWC were operat-
ed by the same management authori-
ty, thus no tipping fees were required.
(Generally, a higher tipping fee can
be charged at an MWC for reclaimed
waste because of its abrasiveness and
higher density, which increases the
wear and tear on equipment.)
By 1996, MWC facility operators
no longer needed supplemental feed
materials from Frey Farm Landfill to
run at full capacity. Thus, landfill offi-
cials concluded the reclamation project
in July of that year.
-------
References
Dickinson, W. 1995. Landfill mining comes of age. Solid Waste Technologies,
March/April:46.
Forster, G. 1994. Assessment of Landfill Mining and the Effects of Age on
Combustion of Recovered Municipal Solid Waste. Landfill Reclamation
Conference, Lancaster, PA.
Morelli, J. 1992. Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Demonstration Project.
Doc. 92-4. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany,
NY.
Morelli, J. 1993. Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Demonstration Project:
Report Supplement. Doc. 93-7. New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, Albany, NY.
Russel, D. 1995. Director of the Solid Waste Department at Collier County, EL,
Landfill. Personal communication by telephone on January 7.
Salerni, E. 1995. SSB Environmental, Primary Contractor for Edinburg Landfill.
Personal communication by telephone on December 8.
Visalli, J., and J. Reis. 1993. Town of Edinburg Reclamation Demonstration
Project: Report Supplement. New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, New York, NY. May. p. 5-11.
Sources of Additional
Information
Aquino, J.T 1994. Landfill reclamation attracts attention and questions. Waste Age,
December:63-65 & 68.
Bader, C.D. 1994. Beauty in landfill mining: More than skin deep. MSW
Management, March/April:54-63.
Childe, D.E. 1994. Landfill Reclamation Health and Safety Issues. Landfill
Reclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA.
Donegan, T.A. 1992. Landfill mining: An award-winning solution to an environ-
mental problem. The Westchester Engineer, April:56(8).
Forster, G. 1995. Assessment of Landfill Reclamation and the Effects of Age on
Combustion of Recovered Municipal Solid Waste. Golden, CO, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. January.
Gagliardo, P.p., and T.L. Steele. 1991. Taking steps to extend the life of San Diego's
landfill. Solid Waste and Power, June:34-40.
Guerriero, J.R. 1994. Landfill Reclamation and Its Applicability to Solid Waste
Management. Landfill Reclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA.
Guerriero, J.R., and D.E. Vollero. 1992. Landfill Mining Feasibility Study.
Presented at the Second U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management.
June.
Kelly, W.R. 1990. Buried treasure. Civil Engineering, April:52-54.
LCSWMA. 1992. Landfill Reclamation. Lancaster County Solid Waste
Management Authority, Lancaster, PA. April.
Lueck, G.W. 1990. Landfill mining yields buried treasure. Waste Age, March:
118-120.
Magnuson, A. 1990. Cap repair leads to landfill reclamation. Waste Age,
September: 121-124.
Magnuson, A. 1991. Landfill reclamation at Edinburg. Waste Age, November:
75-78.
Michaels, A. 1993. Solid waste forum: Landfill recycling. Public Works, May:66-68.
Morelli, J. 1990. Landfill reuse strategies. BioCycle, March:40-43.
Morelli, J. 1990. Landfill reuse strategies. BioCycle, April:60-61.
Morelli, J. 1991. Landfill reclamation: An alternative to closure and siting. MSW
Management, September/October: 33-37.
Morelli, J. No date. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Optimization, Integration and
Reclamation. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, New
York, NY.
Nutting, L.M. 1994. The Financial Aspects of Landfill Reclamation. Landfill
Reclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA.
NYSERDA. 1990. Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Fact Sheet. New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority, New York, NY. December.
Rettenberger, G., S. Urban-Kiss, R. Schneider, and R. Goschl. 1995. German pro-
ject reconverts a sanitary landfill. BioCycle, June:44-47.
RRR. 1992. NY landfill mining successful. Resource Recovery Report, September:3.
RRR. 1993. Three mining projects begun. Resource Recovery Report, December:6.
Spencer, R. 1990. Landfill space reuse. BioCycle, February:30-32.
Spencer, R. 1991. Mining landfills for recyclables. BioCycle, February:34.
SWR. 1992. New York to research landfill reclamation. Solid Waste Report,
September 10, p. 321.
SWR. 1995. Excavating waste saves landfills, yet strains infrastructure: Study. Solid
Waste Report, August 3, p. 248.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Evaluation of Collier County, Florida, Landfill Mining
Demonstration. EPA600-R-93-163. Prepared by von Stein, E.L., and G.M. Savage
for EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September, pp. 3
and 38.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Report of 1995 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners. EPA600-
R-96-149. Washington, DC. June.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5306W)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |