United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA530-F-97-001July 1997

Solid Wasteand Emergency Response(5306W)

T his fact sheet describes new and innovative technologies and productsthat meet the performance standards of the Criteria for Municipal SolidWaste 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 recoveredmaterials, 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, thatresult from decomposing wastes. It may also unearth hazardous materials,which can be costly to manage. In addition, the excavation work involved inreclamation may cause adjacent landfill areas to sink or collapse. Finally, thedense, abrasive nature of reclaimed waste may shorten the life of excavationequipment. To identify potential problems, landfill operators considering recla-mation activities should conduct a site characterization study.

Landfill reclamation projects have been successfully implemented at MSWfacilities across the country since the 1980s. This fact sheet provides informationon this technology and presents case studies of successful reclamation projects.

Landfill Reclamation

The ReclamationProcessLandfill reclamation is conducted in a num-ber of ways, with the specific approach basedon project goals and objectives and site-specific characteristics. The equipment usedfor reclamation projects is adapted primarilyfrom technologies already in use in the min-ing industry, as well as in construction andother solid waste management operations. Ingeneral, landfill reclamation follows thesesteps:

Excavation

An excavator removes the contents of thelandfill cell. A front-end loader then orga-nizes the excavated materials into manage-able stockpiles and separates out bulkymaterial, such as appliances and lengths ofsteel cable.

Soil Separation (Screening)

A trommel (i.e., a revolving cylindrical sieve)or vibrating screens separate soil (includingthe cover material) from solid waste in theexcavated material. The size and type of screenused depends on the end use of the recoveredmaterial. For example, if the reclaimed soiltypically is used as landfill cover, a 2.5-inchscreen is used for separation. If, however, thereclaimed soil is sold as construction fill, orfor another end use requiring fill materialwith a high fraction of soil content, a smallermesh screen is used to remove small pieces ofmetal, plastic, glass, and paper.

Trommel screens are more effective thanvibrating screens for basic landfill reclama-tion. Vibrating screens, however, are smaller,easier to set up, and more mobile.

2Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.

1EPA

Processing for Reclamation ofRecyclable Material or Disposal

Depending on local conditions,either the soil or the waste may bereclaimed. The separated soil can beused as fill material or as daily coverin a sanitary landfill. The excavatedwaste can be processed at a materialsrecovery facility to remove valuablecomponents (e.g., steel and alu-minum) or burned in a municipalwaste combustor (MWC) to produceenergy.

Steps in ProjectPlanningBefore initiating a landfill reclamationproject, facility operators should care-fully assess all aspects of such aneffort.

The following is a recommendedapproach:

Conduct a site characterizationstudy. Assess potential economic benefits. Investigate regulatory requirements. Establish a preliminary workerhealth and safety plan. Assess project costs.

Facility operators considering theestablishment of a landfill reclamationprogram must weigh several benefitsand drawbacks associated with thiswaste management approach.

Potential Benefits

Extending landfill capacity at thecurrent site Landfill reclamation extends the lifeof the current facility by removingrecoverable materials and reducingwaste volume through combustionand compaction.

Generating revenues from the saleof recyclable materials Recovered materials, such as ferrousmetals, aluminum, plastic, and glass,can be sold if markets exist for thesematerials.

Lowering operating costs or gen-erating revenues from the sale ofreclaimed soil Reclaimed soil can be used on site asdaily cover material on other landfillcells, thus avoiding the cost ofimporting cover soil. Also, a marketmight exist for reclaimed soil used inother applications, such as construc-tion fill.

Producing energy at MWCs Combustible reclaimed waste can bemixed with fresh waste and burned toproduce energy at MWCs.

Reducing landfill closure costsand reclaiming land for other uses By reducing the size of the landfill"footprint" through cell reclamation,the facility operator may be able toeither lower the cost of closing thelandfill or make land available forother uses.

Retrofitting liners and removinghazardous materials Liners and leachate collection systemscan be installed at older landfills. Thesesystems can be inspected and repairedif they are already installed. Also, haz-ardous waste can be removed andmanaged in a more secure fashion.

Potential Drawbacks

Managing hazardous materialsHazardous wastes that may be uncov-ered during reclamation operations,especially at older landfills, are subjectto special handling and disposalrequirements. Management costs forhazardous waste can be relatively high,but may reduce future liability.

Controlling releases of landfillgases and odors Cell excavation raises a number ofpotential problems related to therelease of gases. Methane and othergases, generated by decomposingwastes, can cause explosions and fires.Hydrogen sulfide gas, a highly flam-mable and odorous gas, can be fatalwhen inhaled at sufficient concentra-tions.

Controlling subsidence or collapseExcavation of one landfill area canundermine the integrity of adjacentcells, which can sink or collapse intothe excavated area.

Increasing wear on excavation andMWC equipment Reclamation activities shorten the use-ful life of equipment, such as excava-tors and loaders, because of the highdensity of waste being handled. Also,the high particulate content and abra-sive nature of reclaimed waste canincrease wear on MWC equipment(e.g., grates and air pollution controlsystems).

Benefits and Drawbacks

2

3This planning sequence assumesthat project planners will make aninterim assessment of the project's fea-sibility after each planning step. Aftercompletion of all five steps, plannersshould conclude the feasibility assess-ment by weighing costs against bene-fits. A thorough final assessmentshould include a review of project goalsand objectives and consideration ofalternative approaches for achievingthose ends.

Conduct a SiteCharacterization StudyThe first step in a landfill reclamationproject calls for a thorough site assess-ment to establish the portion of thelandfill that will undergo reclamationand estimate a material processing rate.

The site characterization shouldassess facility aspects, such as geologicalfeatures, stability of the surroundingarea, and proximity of ground water,and should determine the fractions ofusable soil, recyclable material, com-bustible waste, and hazardous waste atthe site.

Assess Potential Economic BenefitsInformation collected in the site char-acterization provides project plannerswith a basis for assessing the potentialeconomic benefits of a reclamationproject. If the planners identify likelyfinancial benefits for the undertaking,then the assessment will provide sup-port for further investing in projectplanning. Although economics are like-ly to serve as the principal incentive fora reclamation project, other considera-tions may also come into play, such asa communitywide commitment torecycling and environmental manage-ment.

Most potential economic benefitsassociated with landfill reclamation areindirect; however, a project can gener-ate revenues if markets exist for recov-ered materials. Although the economicbenefits from reclamation projects arefacility-specific, they may include anyor all of the following:

n Increased disposal capacity.

n Avoided or reduced costs of:

Landfill closure.

Postclosure care and monitoring.

Purchase of additional capacity orsophisticated systems.

Liability for remediation of sur-rounding areas.

n Revenues from:

Recyclable and reusable materials(e.g., ferrous metals, aluminum,plastic, and glass).

Combustible waste sold as fuel.

Reclaimed soil used as covermaterial, sold as construction fill,or sold for other uses.

n Land value of sites reclaimed forother uses.

Thus, this step in project planningcalls for investigating the followingareas:

n Current landfill capacity and project-ed demand.

n Projected costs for landfill closure orexpansion of the site.

n Current and projected costs of futureliabilities.

n Projected markets for recycled andrecovered materials.

n Projected value of land reclaimed forother uses.

Investigate RegulatoryRequirementsLandfill reclamation operations are notrestricted under current federal regula-tions. Before undertaking a reclama-tion project, however, state and localauthorities should be consulted regard-ing any special requirements. Althoughsome states have enacted general provi-sions concerning the beneficial use ofrecovered materials, as of 1996, onlyNew York State had established specificlandfill reclamation rules. In moststates, officials offer assistance in pro-ject development, and they reviewwork plans on a case-by-case basis. Afew states, such as New York and NewJersey, encourage landfill reclamationby making grant money available.

Establish a PreliminaryWorker Health and Safety PlanAfter project planners establish a gener-al framework for the landfill reclama-tion effort, they must account for thehealth and safety risks the project willpose for facility workers. Once poten-tial risks are identified from the sitecharacterization study and historicalinformation about facility operations,methods to mitigate or eliminate themshould be developed. This informationthen becomes part of a comprehensivehealth and safety program. Before thereclamation operation begins, all work-ers who will be involved in the projectneed to be well versed in the safetyplan and receive training in emergencyresponse procedures.

Drawing up a safety and health plancan be particularly challenging giventhe difficulty of accurately characteriz-ing the nature of material buried in alandfill. Project workers are likely toencounter some hazardous materials;therefore, the health and safety pro-gram should account for a variety ofmaterials handling and response sce-narios.

Although the health and safety pro-gram should be based on site-specificconditions and waste types, as well asproject goals and objectives, a typicalhealth and safety program might callfor the following:

n Hazard communication (i.e., a"Right to Know" component) toinform personnel of potential risks.

n Respiratory protection measures,including hazardous material identi-fication and assessment; engineeringcontrols; written standard operatingprocedures; training in equipmentuse, respirator selection, and fit test-ing; proper storage of materials; andperiodic reevaluation of safeguards.

n Confined workspace safety proce-dures, including air quality testingfor explosive concentrations, oxygendeficiency, and hydrogen sulfide lev-els, before any worker enters a con-fined space (e.g., an excavation vaultor a ditch deeper than 3 feet).

n Dust and noise control.

n Medical surveillance stipulations thatare mandatory in certain circum-stances and optional in others.

n Safety training that includes accidentprevention and response proceduresregarding hazardous materials.

n Recordkeeping.

The program should also cover theprotective equipment workers will berequired to wear, especially if hazardouswastes may be unearthed. The three cat-egories of safety equipment used in land-fill reclamation projects are:

n Standard safety equipment (e.g.,hard hats, steel-toed shoes, safetyglasses and/or face shields, protectivegloves, and hearing protection).

n Specialized safety equipment (e.g.,chemically protective overalls, respira-tory protection, and self-containedbreathing apparatus).

n Monitoring equipment (e.g., a com-bustible gas meter, a hydrogen sul-fide chemical reagent diffusion tubeindicator, and an oxygen analyzer).

Assess Project CostsPlanners can use information collectedfrom the preceding steps to analyze theestimated capital and operational costsof a landfill reclamation operation.Along with the expenses incurred inproject planning, project costs may alsoinclude the following:

n Capital costs:

Site preparation.

Rental or purchase of reclamationequipment.

Rental or purchase of personnelsafety equipment.

Construction or expansion ofmaterials handling facilities.

Rental or purchase of haulingequipment.

n Operational costs:

Labor (e.g., equipment operationand materials handling).

Equipment fuel and maintenance.

Landfilling nonreclaimed wasteor noncombustible fly and bot-tom ash if waste material is sentoff site for final disposal.

Administrative and regulatorycompliance expenses (e.g.,recordkeeping).

Worker training in safety proce-dures.

Hauling costs.

Part of the cost analysis involvesdetermining whether the variousaspects of the reclamation effort willresult in reasonable costs relative to theanticipated economic benefits. If thecombustible portion of the reclaimedwaste will be sent to an offsite MWC,for example, planners should assesswhether transportation costs will beoffset by the energy recovery benefits.Planners also need to consider whethercapital costs can be minimized by rent-ing or borrowing heavy equipment,such as excavating and trommelmachinery, from other departments ofmunicipal or county governments.Long-term reclamation projects maybenefit from equipment purchases.

4

Table 1. Landfill Reclamation Project Summaries

Case Studies

Naples Landfill Collier County, Florida

In 1986, the Collier County SolidWaste Management Departmentat the Naples Landfill conductedone of the earliest landfill recla-mation projects in the country. Atthat time, the Naples facility, a33-acre unlined landfill, con-tained MSW buried for up to 15years.

In an evaluation performed bythe University of Florida on 38of the state's unlined landfills,investigators discovered that theNaples Landfill (along with 27others) posed a threat to groundwater. Moreover, the high cost ofcomplying with the state's cap-ping regulations for unlinedlandfills concerned many countyofficials. Floridas capping regula-tions required the installation ofa relatively impermeable cover orcap and postclosure monitoring.

Naples officials developed a recla-mation plan with the followingobjectives: decreasing site closurecosts, reducing the risk of ground-water contamination, recovering andburning combustible waste in a pro-posed waste-to-energy facility, recov-ering soil for use as landfill covermaterial, and recovering recyclablematerials. Collier County neverbuilt the waste-to-energy plant. Theproject did prove successful, howev-er, in recovering landfill cover mater-ial. The project proved less successfulat recycling recovered materials (e.g.,ferrous metals, plastics, and alu-minum). These materials requiredsubstantial processing to upgradetheir quality for sale, something thecounty chose not to pursue.

In 1991, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency selected theNaples Landfill reclamation projectas a demonstration project for theMunicipal Solid Waste InnovativeTechnology Evaluation (MITE) pro-gram. The MITE program assessedthe excavation and mechanical pro-cessing techniques used in the pro-

ject for reclaiming cover material tobe used in ongoing landfill opera-tions. It also assessed the capacityand performance of equipment, theenvironmental aspects of the project,the characteristics of recovered mate-rials, the market acceptability ofrecovered materials, and the proba-ble costs and economics of the over-all project. The MITE assessmentfound the processing techniquesused in the Naples project effectiveand efficient for recovering soil butnot for recovering recyclables ofmarketable quality.

During the MITE demonstra-tion project, Collier County effec-tively and efficiently recovered asoil fraction deemed environmen-tally safe under Floridas MSWcompost regulations. The 50,000tons of reclaimed soil were suitablefor use as a landfill cover materialand as a soil medium for support-ing plant growth.

Source Based on: Dickinson, 1995.

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

Edinburg Landfill Dec. 1990 and June 1 acre Alternative to(Edinburg, 1991 (both completed). landfill closure.New York)

Aug. - Sept. 1992 1.6 acre Construction fill. Reduce landfill (completed). footprint.

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

Use ofProject Operation Start Mined Area Recovered Material Main Objectives

The mention of publications, products,or organizations in this fact sheet doesnot constitute or imply endorsement orapproval for use by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.

5

Air quality monitoring indicatedthat landfill gas was not an issue at thereclamation site, apparently due to thehigh degree of waste decompositionthat had already occurred. As a resultof this finding, typical personnel pro-tective gear worn during the projectconsisted of standard constructionapparel.

Ongoing reclamation activities atthe Naples facility focus exclusivelyon recovering soil for use as landfillcover material. All excavated materialsother than the reclaimed soil andsmall amounts of recyclables areredisposed of in lined landfill cells.Reclamation activities are only per-formed on an as-needed basis. A 3-inch trommel screen is used toreclaim the soil cover material. Theweight 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 thatthe Collier County landfill reclama-tion project is efficient given that 60percent of the reclaimed material isreused as landfill cover material.

Based on 1995 prices, landfill covermaterial costs Collier County $3.25per ton. According to Collier County'sdirector of solid waste, the reclamationof cover material on an as-needed basiscosts the county $2.25 per ton, a sav-ings of $1 per ton.

According to county officials, thereclamation project yielded the fol-lowing benefits: lower operating coststhrough reuse of cover materials,extended landfill life, reduced poten-tial for ground-water contaminationfrom unlined cells, and possibleavoidance of future remediationcosts.

Edinburg LandfillEdinburg, New YorkThe New York State Energy Researchand Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the New York StateDepartment of EnvironmentalConservation sponsored projects toassess the feasibility and cost-effective-ness of undertaking landfill reclamationefforts to avoid closures and reduce thefootprint of state landfills. NYSERDAestablished these projects in anticipa-tion of the closure of numerous land-fills in New York State, and based, inpart, on the success of the NaplesLandfill reclamation project.

NYSERDA's first demonstrationproject was conducted at a 5-acreMSW landfill in Edinburg, New York,which received waste from 1969 to1991. NYSERDA chose the EdinburgLandfill because of its small size andlack of buried industrial waste. AfterNYSERDA chose to sponsor the recla-mation of 1 acre of the 5-acre landfill,Edinburg town officials expanded theproject to reclaim 1.6 additional acres.

NYSERDA divided the Edinburgdemonstration project into three phases.The first phase, started in December1990, included the excavation of 5,000cubic yards of waste from a 12-year-oldsection of the landfill at an average depthof 20 feet. The second phase, initiated inJune 1991, included the excavation of10,000 cubic yards of waste from a 20-year-old section of the landfill at an aver-age depth of 8 feet. The first two phasesof the demonstration project cost anestimated $5 per cubic yard for excava-tion and processing. This cost includedthe inspection and supervision of a fullycontracted operation and was based onan average excavation rate of 1,000 to1,200 cubic yards per day.

The third phase of the Edinburgproject occurred from August toSeptember 1992. NYSERDA providedthe majority of the project funding,with the remaining funding (primarilyfor phase three) provided by the townof Edinburg. This third and finalphase reclaimed an additional 1.6 acres(31,000 cubic yards) in 28 days.Because the town supplied requiredequipment and labor, the contractedcost for this phase decreased from $5per cubic yard excavated to $3 percubic yard. Subsequently, the townlooked into reclaiming the remaining2.4 acres of the landfill and completelyeliminating the footprint. The pro-posed fourth stage proved unviable, sothe remaining portion of the landfillwill be capped.

The Edinburg Landfill is located ina soil-rich area that provides ampleamounts of landfill cover material. Forthis reason, officials tested andapproved the reclaimed soil (75 per-cent of the reclaimed material) for off-site use as construction fill innonsurface applications. A test burnperformed on the reclaimed wastefound the British thermal unit (Btu)value to be lower than desired becauseof the high degree of waste decompo-sition and stones remaining in thescreened material.

The recovered nonsoil materials,representing 25 percent of thereclaimed waste, were hand-sortedfor potential recyclables. Although 50 percent of the nonsoil materialwas considered recyclable, cleaningthe materials to market standards wasnot feasible. Some tires, white goods,and ferrous metals, however, wereseparated and recycled. The remain-ing materials were sent to a nearbylandfill.

6

NYSERDA officials developed aworker health and safety plan for theEdinburg project that established workzones, personnel protection require-ments, and other operating procedures.The inspectors, as well as all personnelworking at the site, were required towear respirators, goggles, helmets, andprotective suits. Excavation equipmentwas used to separate suspicious drumsand other potentially hazardous materialfor evaluation by the safety inspectorusing appropriate monitoring equip-ment. In the event that hazardous mate-rials were encountered, the health andsafety plan provided for a project con-tingency plan, a segregated disposal area,and special waste handling procedures.No significant quantities of hazardousmaterials, however, were unearthed.

The Edinburg Landfill ReclamationProject was successful both in securingoffsite uses for the reclaimed soil andin reducing the landfill footprint todecrease closure costs. The economicbenefits would be enhanced further ifthe avoided costs for postclosure main-tenance and monitoring, as well aspotential remediation and the value ofrecovered landfill space, are also considered.

Frey Farm LandfillLancaster County,Pennsylvania In 1990, the Lancaster County SolidWaste Management Authority con-structed an MWC to use in reducingthe volume of waste deposited in theFrey Farm Landfill, a lined site (doublelayers of 60-mil high density polyethyl-ene sheeting on a 6-inch clay sub-base)containing MSW deposited for up to 5years. After building the MWC, thequantity of waste received at the facility

declined, leaving a significant portionof the MWC capacity unused. In aneffort to increase the energy productionand efficiency of the MWC, officialsinitiated a landfill reclamation projectto augment the facilitys supply of freshwaste with reclaimed waste.

The reclaimed waste had a high Btuvalue (about 3,080 Btu per pound). Toachieve a more efficient, higher heat-ing value of 5,060 Btu per pound ofwaste, four parts of fresh waste, whichincluded tires and woodchips, weremixed with one part reclaimed waste.

Between 1991 and 1993, approxi-mately 287,000 cubic yards of MSWwere excavated from the landfill. Thesereclamation activities processed 2,645tons of screened refuse per week forthe MWC. As a result, LancasterCounty converted 56 percent of thereclaimed waste into fuel. The countyalso recovered 41 percent of thereclaimed material as soil during trom-meling operations. The remaining 3percent proved noncombustible andwas reburied in the landfill. By theend of the project in 1996, landfilloperators had reclaimed 300,000 to400,000 cubic yards of material.

Before the reclamation work began,officials prepared a safety plan forwork at the site and assigned a full-time compliance officer to oversee theoperations. During reclamation, work-ers took precautions to avoid damag-ing the site's synthetic liner, since itwould be reused following the recla-mation operations. An initial layer ofprotective material surrounded thesynthetic liner system, aiding workerprecautions by acting as a bufferbetween the liner and the excavationtools. Continuous air monitoring formethane, both in the cabs of vehicles

and in the reclamation area, enhancedthe operations safety operations.

Benefits of the project at Frey FarmLandfill include: reclaimed landfillspace, supplemented energy produc-tion, and recovered soil and ferrousmetals. Drawbacks include: increasedgeneration of ash caused by the highsoil content found in reclaimed waste,increased odor and air emissions,increased traffic on roads between theMWC and the landfill, and increasedwear on both the landfill operationand MWC equipment (i.e., due to theabrasive properties of the reclaimedwaste).

Costs for the resource recovery por-tion of the project were relatively lowfor the following reasons:

n The distance for transporting boththe reclaimed waste and the ash wasonly 18 miles each way.

n The management authority avoidedcommercial hauling prices by usingits own trucks and employees totransport the reclaimed waste andthe ash.

n The landfill and MWC were operat-ed by the same management authori-ty, thus no tipping fees were required.(Generally, a higher tipping fee canbe charged at an MWC for reclaimedwaste because of its abrasiveness andhigher density, which increases thewear and tear on equipment.)

By 1996, MWC facility operatorsno longer needed supplemental feedmaterials from Frey Farm Landfill torun at full capacity. Thus, landfill offi-cials concluded the reclamation projectin July of that year.

7

ReferencesDickinson, 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 onCombustion of Recovered Municipal Solid Waste. Landfill ReclamationConference, 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 DevelopmentAuthority, Albany, NY.

Russel, D. 1995. Director of the Solid Waste Department at Collier County, FL,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 DemonstrationProject: Report Supplement. New York State Energy Research and DevelopmentAuthority, New York, NY. May. p. 5-11.

Sources of AdditionalInformationAquino, 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. MSWManagement, March/April:54-63.

Childe, D.E. 1994. Landfill Reclamation Health and Safety Issues. LandfillReclamation 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 onCombustion of Recovered Municipal Solid Waste. Golden, CO, NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory. January.

Gagliardo, P.F., and T.L. Steele. 1991. Taking steps to extend the life of San Diego'slandfill. Solid Waste and Power, June:34-40.

Guerriero, J.R. 1994. Landfill Reclamation and Its Applicability to Solid WasteManagement. 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 WasteManagement 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. MSWManagement, September/October:33-37.

Morelli, J. No date. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Optimization, Integration andReclamation. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, NewYork, NY.

Nutting, L.M. 1994. The Financial Aspects of Landfill Reclamation. LandfillReclamation Conference, Lancaster, PA.

NYSERDA. 1990. Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Fact Sheet. New YorkState 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. SolidWaste Report, August 3, p. 248.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Evaluation of Collier County, Florida, Landfill MiningDemonstration. EPA600-R-93-163. Prepared by von Stein, E.L., and G.M. Savagefor EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September. pp. 3and 38.

U.S. EPA. 1996. Report of 1995 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners. EPA600-R-96-149. Washington, DC. June.

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

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use$300