Feasibility of Material Recovery from Landfills

(MFL) in the European Union

Amy Ratcliffe, Sheffield Hallam University
Okke Jaap Prent, AVANS University of Applied Sciences
Willem van Vossen, Royal Haskoning

CONTACT

W.J. van Vossen MSc

Royal Haskoning
P.O. Box 525,
5201 AM ‘s-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands
[email protected]
T +31 73 687 41 77
M +31 6 514 00 181

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ultimate ambition is a world without waste, which is the ideal situation according to the principle
of Cradle to Cradle®. From that perspective and also taking into account the scarcity of raw materials
and (rare) metals, it can be justified to examine the added value of recycling our ‘historical’ waste,
which has been landfilled all over Europe in the last 50 years. Europe counts over a 150,000 landfills,
which represents an estimated total volume of 30 to 50 billion m3 of waste. This huge quantity of waste
also represents a huge potential of materials to be recovered and recycled. Therefore this present study
focuses on the examination of the technical and financial feasibility of landfill mining by the recovery
of materials. The results show that separation techniques are available and are proved in practice. These
techniques are able to separate the excavated waste into different waste streams, which can be
recovered and re-used. Therefore it can be stated that landfill mining is technically feasible. The
reduction of costs due to the benefits of only metal recovery can be considered as significant.
Compared to the small amount of metals to be recovered (2.5% of the total landfill content), the cost
reduction is 8.2% in case of complete separation and 18% in case of partial separation. Nevertheless a
huge deficit remains to be covered by additional benefits to make a landfill mining project a profitable
one. Benefits such as re-using the freed landfill capacity as new landfill, re-using the landfill area for
urban development and last but not least selling of the other recovered material streams can make
landfill mining more profitable. Acquiring these additional benefits strongly depends upon specific
local circumstances and conditions. The final statement is that for the time being scarcity and rising
prices of raw materials does not yet lead to a profitable landfill mining project. Re-use of freed landfill
capacity or land re-use is still needed to compensate the deficit and to establish a profitable business-
case.

INTRODUCTION

The ultimate ambition is the ideal world without waste (IWWW), which is the ideal situation according
to the principle of Cradle to Cradle®. Within the material life cycle chain C2C® might have the power
to close the loop as visualized in figure 1. However it will take some time before this will become
reality. In the meantime a transition-process is currently taking place from traditional waste
management (recycling, incineration, landfilling) to sustainable material management. Or in other
words: a shift in awareness from reducing the negative impact of waste management to the added value
of the positive impact of resource recovery and chain management. During this transitional process, and
taking into account the approaching scarcity of raw materials and precious metals, we should try to
manage our waste as sustainable as possible.

From this perspective it also can be justified to examine the added value of recycling our ‘historical’
waste, which has been landfilled all over Europe in the last 50 years. In the 27 EU-member states
almost 40% of all MSW is still landfilled. In the CEE-countries even more than 75% of waste is
landfilled (up to 100% in Bulgaria). Europe counts over 150,000 landfills, which represents an
estimated total volume of 30 to 50 billion m3 of waste. This huge quantity of waste also represents a
huge potential of materials to be recovered and recycled (MFL = Materials From Landfills), and/or of
energy from additional biogas (methane and carbon dioxide) to be recovered using the concept of
sustainable landfill management (SLM). The position of MFL in the material life cycle chain is
visualized figure 2.

SLM is based upon our SANA-model, which stands for Sustainable Aftercare based on Natural
Attenuation (NA). NA stands for Natural Attenuation and represents all natural processes, which are
able to neutralize concentrations of contaminants to admissible emission levels. The three dominating
processes are microbial decay, chemical precipitation and sorption to organic matter and silt particles.

IWWW
Materials
®
Ideal
C2C
World Urban Waste
Without
Waste
Landfill

Mining

Figure 1 Ideal World Without Waste (IWWW) Figure 2 Position of landfill mining in the material life cycle chain

Of course a profitable exploitation of resource recovery and/or energy recovery from landfills depends
on a lot of factors, such as the spatial distribution of the landfills, the specific local circumstances such
as tax regime, supply and demand of raw materials, and the market prices of raw materials and precious
metals. This varies per EU-country. Nevertheless, in times of climate change and an approaching
shortage of raw materials and precious metals, it is an opportunity to deal with our existing landfills in
an environment-friendly way, fitting in the framework of resource recovery and chain management.
OBJECTIVES

The final objective is to examine the technical and financial feasibility and viability of material
recovery from European landfills. This is to be based upon an extensive inventory of the number of
landfills, volumes and composition of landfilled waste, recyclable waste streams, presence of precious
metals, costs and benefits, and so on.

BACKGROUNDS, VISION AND STRATEGY

Landfill Categories
1. Old landfills, exploited before 1980 and installed without any measures to protect the environment.
All kinds of waste have been disposed (no separation of waste in that period).
2. Present landfills, exploited in the last 30 years. These landfills meet the requirements of the EU-
directive (1999) on the landfilling of waste (i.e. bottom- and top liners to avoid inadmissible
emissions to groundwater and atmosphere.
3. New sustainable depots to store not yet recyclable products.

The past The present The future

Old landfills Present landfills (temporary) Depots
NA free play Sustainable Aftercare Sustainable Storage

Figure 3 Landfills categories

Landfill Hierarchy
In order to apply the modern waste hierarchy in the landfill management work-field, the landfill
hierarchy flowchart as shown in figure 4 was composed. The flowchart clearly shows the most
sustainable ways to manage future and current landfills. The landfill hierarchy corresponds with the
modern waste hierarchy as composed by the EU. In the landfill hierarchy clear pathways can be seen.
The most preferred option is on the top left while the less preferred options are below. Although all
three options end at the ROLS-concept, the MFL-concept is obviously the best with respect to the most
sustainable solution.

Figure 4 Landfill hierarchy

The Sustainable Process
Figure 5 shows an overview of the various possibilities for sustainable solutions for material recovery,
from historical waste and waste not yet recyclable. It is a flowchart, by which the best sustainable
option(s) can be selected, given the local circumstances. These local circumstances are related to the
landfill category, the spatial position of the landfill and the types and volumes of waste streams.
Another factor to consider is the local market with respect to demand and supply of energy and
recyclables in relation to the availability and costs of primary raw materials.

SUSTAINABLE MATERIAL RECOVERY FROM LANDFILLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Existing landfills (temporary) Depots to be constructed

Old landfills Present landfills

Sustainable Energy recovery by

aftercare by biogas
SANA-model
(infiltration of
leachate and Emission reduction to Storage of Storage of waste not
aeration) groundwater and air inert products yet recyclable
compartment (Waste pyramids)

Admissible emissions &

minimization of aftercare
or even discharge from
aftercare

Resource recovery

Energy Recycled Waste not Not recyclable & Development

source raw yet incombustible new recycling
materials recyclable waste techniques

Energy
recovery by
incineration

Figure 5 Flowchart sustainable process of material recovery from landfills

The Sustainable Products

Applying the steps in the flowchart of figure 3 will result in the following sustainable products:
• recycled raw materials and precious metals from ‘historical waste’;
• recycled raw materials and precious metals in the long term from stored waste not yet recyclable;
• a reduction of methane emissions at present landfills by means of sustainable aftercare;
• energy recovery from additional biogas due to sustainable aftercare at present landfills;
• energy recovery by incineration of energy sources, mined from old landfills;
• a clean-up of old landfills (no environmental hazards, no costs of aftercare anymore);
• re-use and redevelopment of former landfill sites into residential and industrial areas;
• no burden to next generations due to the unsolved environmental problem of old landfills.

RESULTS

Landfill Mining Projects

The total number of landfill mining projects found in literature is 60. The first landfill mining operation
dates back to 1953 at the Hirya landfill site in Israel. From this literature research it became clear that
recycling and recovering materials are not the most common goals of the landfill mining projects.
Mostly landfill mining projects are focused on increasing the landfill capacity or clearing the area for
urban development. The reason for that is the financial benefit.

This study focuses on the technical and economic feasibility of landfill mining with the goal of
recycling the contents of landfills. The main reason for this approach is the rising material scarcity. In
order to counter the metal scarcity metal extraction from landfills has been researched as an option. The
basic goal of a landfill mining project is reclamation of raw materials. The freed area or the freed
landfill capacity can be sold in order to compensate the possible deficit between the cost of the project
and the benefit of selling the contents of the landfill.

Waste Composition
From the 60 landfill mining projects found in relevant literature, the average waste composition was
calculated. The result is presented in figure 6 and shows the various waste streams in percentages,
including the soil fraction. The “soil” fraction is clearly the largest.

Figure 6 Average waste composition of the standard landfill

The possibility of applying the soil fraction in the close proximity of the landfill mining project will
have a big influence on the overall viability of the MFL concept. The reason why the soil fraction is
54.8% is because the soil fraction includes all the waste with a diameter of less than 24mm. It includes
ashes, soil and pieces of the top layer of the landfill.

Table 1 shows the composition of the pure waste with and without the soil fraction, which represents
the waste composition of ‘the standard landfill’ (volume of 500,000 ton and surface of 5 ha). The
standard landfill composition (Soil/Waste ratio 54.8%/45.2%) is highlighted in green. Furthermore the
standard deviation, range and normal distribution are shown. The amount in tons, given in the last line,
is based on the standard landfill volume of about 500,000 ton. The standard landfill composition was
used to map the viability of the MFL concept. The composition scheme will not be accurate in all
situations, but no data could be found to make a more accurate composition scheme.
Table 1 Average waste composition of the standard landfill of about 500,000 ton

Waste Separation
In order to be able to separate the waste as completely as possible, the following sequential separation
steps are considered. Handpicking, shredder, drum sieve, magnet, drum separator, eddy current and air
knife. The waste remaining after complete separation is re-landfilled and/or incinerated. Table 2 shows
the various separation steps, the resulting waste stream per separation step and the costs (Dutch market
2011) of each separation step.
Table 2 Separated waste streams per separation step and costs per separation step (price level 2011)

Separation Separated waste streams Costs per Cumulative

step step costs
(€/ton) (€/ton)
Handpicking Non-processables 1 1
Shredder 10 11
Drum sieve Soil 3 14
Magnet Ferrous metals 3 17
Drum separator Paper, plastic , light fraction
C&D, stones, glass, heavy fraction 7 24
Wood, organic, textile, medium fraction
Eddy current Non-ferrous metals 6 30
Air knife Plastics , wood 15 45

After the separating processes the waste is split in multiple waste streams. The application of waste
differs per waste stream. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals can be sold to metal recyclers and scrap yards.
The non-processable waste will have to be re-landfilled. The inert, C&D (construction & demolition
waste), glass, soil and stones can be applied as construction materials. Organic materials can be used in
an incinerator or a fermentation installation in order to generate thermal energy or biogas. Plastic might
be applied in the recycling plants depending upon the quality of the plastic.

Financial Analysis (Costs and Benefits)

For the sake of the cost-benefit analysis two scenarios have been distinguished with respect to taking
into account the degree of material recovery. Table 3 shows the characteristics and starting points of
these 2 scenarios.
Table 3 Landfill mining scenarios A and B
Scenario A Scenario B
Re-landfilling of soil fraction No re-landfilling of soil fraction. But transported of site
en re-use for free.
Transport of all recovered materials off site Transport of all recovered materials off site
Benefits from metals only Benefits of metals, plastics, stones and C&D
Other recovered materials re-used for free Other recovered materials re-used for free
(no costs, no benefits) (no costs, no benefits)

Before the waste can be separated, standard costs have to be made. These standard costs are presented
in table 4 and have to be made in order to make any landfill mining project possible.

Table 4 Standard costs (Dutch situation)

Action
Costs Unit
Preparation work € 200.00 In total
Construction and Environmental permit € 80.00 In total
Unforeseen costs € 1.000.000 In total
Excavation €5 Per ton
Transport on-site € 2.50 Per ton
Transport off-site € 70 Per truck (21m3)

Based upon the above mentioned specifications of the standard costs, cost-benefits calculations have
been executed for both scenarios for the standard landfill of 500,000 ton. The results are shown in table
5 (scenario A) and 6 (scenario B).

Table 5 Cost-benefits analysis scenario A (in € x 106)

Separation Excavation Separation Transport Re- Total Benefits Reduction Costs
up to & off site landfilling costs from on costs minus
transport metals benefits
on site
Ferro -1.88 -7.66 -0.02 -0.74 -10.29 2.13 20.7% -8.16
metals
P&C -1.88 -9.17 -0.18 -0.61 -11.81 2.13 18.0% -9.68
C&D
Stones
Non- -1.88 -9.96 -0.18 -0.61 -12.63 2.63 20.8% -10.0
ferrous
metals
Plastic -1.88 -11.25 -0.30 -0.52 -13.95 2.63 18.9% -11.32
Wood
Table 6 Cost-benefits analysis scenario B (in € x 106)
Separation Excavation Separation Transport Re- Total Benefits Reduction Costs
up to & off site landfilling costs from on costs minus
transport metals benefits
on site
Ferro -1.88 -7.66 -0.45 -0,33 -10.32 2.13 20.6% -8.19
metals
P&C -1.88 -9.17 -0.70 -0.20 -11.95 2.55 21.3% -9.40
C&D
Stones
Non- -1.88 -9.96 -0.70 -0.20 -12.74 3.05 23.9% -9.69
ferrous
metals
Plastic -1.88 -11.25 -0.82 -0.10 -14.05 3.07 21.8% -10.98
Wood

Table 5 and 6 clearly show that the costs outweigh the benefits in both scenarios. The recovered metals
are responsible for the 85% of the total benefits of the recovered materials and generate a cost
reduction of 21-24%. Compared to the small amount of metals to be recovered (only 2% of the landfill
content) the cost reduction due to the benefits of only metals can be considered as significant.
Nevertheless a huge deficit remains to be covered by additional financial benefits to make a landfill
project a profitable one. The additional benefits might come from income generated by re-using the
freed landfill capacity for landfilling again or from re-using the landfill area for urban development.

Table 7 Additional benefits (in € x 106) from re-using freed landfill capacity or land r-use
Scenario A A&B Scenario B
Separation Costs Benefits by freed Benefits by Separation Costs Benefits by freed
up to minus landfill capacity land re-use up to minus landfill capacity
benefits ton € 50/ton € 250/m2 benefits ton € 50/ton
Ferro -8.16 8,500 0.43 Ferro -8.19 292,500 14.64
metals metals
P&C -9.68 92,505 4.63 P&C -9.40 336,505 16.82
C&D C&D
Stones 12.50 Stones
Non- -10.00 93,505 4.68 Non- -9.69 337,505 16.88
ferrous ferrous
metals metals
Plastic -11.32 156,145 7.81 Plastic -10.98 430,105 21.51
Wood Wood

Table 7 shows that the benefits from land re-use are amply sufficient to cover the deficits in both
scenarios. Benefits from re-using the freed landfill capacity only covers the deficits in scenario B
because of the fact that the huge soil fraction is not re-landfilled and as a result of this the freed landfill
capacity is much higher than in scenario A.

Composition and Quality of Soil Fraction

Recovery of materials from the huge soil fraction has not taken into account in the cost benefit analysis
as shown in the previous chapters. The reason for that is that this fine fraction (< 20 - 24 mm) needs
other separation techniques than dry separation techniques as indicated in table 2. Nevertheless this soil
fraction contains 2 to 4% of metals, which might significantly increase the benefits from recovered
metals. So there is a big challenge to develop profitable separation techniques in order to recover
metals from the soil fraction.

The chemical quality of the soil fraction with respect to heavy metals has been gathered and analysed
from 18 executed landfill mining projects over the world. The found concentrations of heavy metals
have been compared to the Dutch limit values for re-use of soil in case of residential areas and
industrial areas (figure 7). It became apparent that, regarding the heavy metals, the soil is mostly clean
and suitable for re-use industrial areas

Figure 7 Heavy metal concentration (ex. Zn) of reclaimed soil fraction from 18 landfill mining projects

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Separation techniques which are able to separate the excavated waste into all kinds of waste streams to
be recovered and re-used are available and proved in practice. Therefore it can be stated that landfill
mining is technically feasible.

The cost reduction compared to the small amount of metal to be recovered (2% of the total waste
volume) can be considered as significant. There is a cost reduction of 21-24%, mainly attributed to the
metal recovery. Future rise of prices of materials (metals) might increase this percentage of cost
reduction up to 40 to 50%.

Nevertheless a huge deficit remains to be covered by additional benefits to make a landfill mining
project a profitable one. Benefits such as the re-using the freed landfill capacity for landfilling again
and re-using the landfill area for urban development at least, will amply compensate the deficits of
landfill mining and make the landfill mining project profitable ones. Of course the extent of return on
investments strongly depends on specific local circumstances and conditions.
The recovery of metals from the huge soil fraction (> 54% of the waste volume) was not taken into
account in cost benefit analysis. It might be worthwhile to develop a profitable separation technique in
order to recover these metals (2% of the soil fraction).

The final statement is that for the time being scarcity and rising prices of raw materials does not yet
lead to profitable landfill mining projects. Re-use of freed landfill capacity or land-re-use is still needed
to compensate the deficit and to establish a profitable businesscase.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Sortiva, Afvalzorg, Rova, Omrin and the Province of Noord-Brabant for
their time, knowledge and experience put into the project. Their valuable advices and critical remarks
should be considered an added value to this present paper.

REFERENCES

1. Ratcliffe, A, (2012): Feasibility Study Material Recovery from Landfills in the Netherlands,
Bachelor thesis Sheffield Hallam University (UK), Royal Haskoning report 3 February 2012.
2. Tandirau, E.D. (2011): Assessing the economic benefit and business opportunity of material
recovery from landfills in the Netherlands, bachelor thesis AVANS University of Applied Sciences
(NL), Royal Haskoning report 18 June 2011.
3. Prent, O.J., (2011): Materials from landfills, viability study, Final Report, Bachelor thesis AVANS
University of Applied Sciences (NL), Royal Haskoning report 11 May 2011.