The GRRWA implemented a waste grinding program to increase the lifespan of its landfill. After a 9-month review process, they purchased a grinder, which initially processed 58% of waste and increased density by 18%. This recovered 70 additional tons of metal. However, some waste streams like metal and turbine blades caused maintenance issues. The GRRWA plans to bypass problem waste, recover more materials, modify operations, and convert the grinder to electric power to further optimize the program.

1. Waste Grinding
Real World Results, Successes and
Challenges

2. Summary Information
GRRWA:
 Provides waste management services for a population of 50,000.
 Landfills an average of 65,000 tons per year.
 Services an area consisting of all of Lee County, Van Buren County,
unincorporated Henry County, and City of Hillsboro.
 Became an EMS facility in 2014.
Facilities include:
 An MSW landfill in Ft. Madison.
 A recycling center (including shingles recycling) in Ft. Madison.
 An RCC in Ft. Madison.
 A transfer station in Keokuk.

3. Why Grinding?
 Facility is foot-print constrained. The only way
to increase site life is to increase in-place
waste density or reduce waste tonnage
disposed. Grinding provides opportunities to
due both.
 Bottom Line: Maximize use of airspace.

4. Aerial Map

5. Decision Process
 Initial interest began with Boone County presentation
at the Fall 2013 ISOSWO conference.
 Prepared financial analyses of costs and benefits of
grinding waste.
 Visited and interviewed entities currently using the
type of grinder being considered.
 Vendor delivered grinder to our site as a
demonstration.
 Commission approval.
 Purchased grinder.
 Timeframe from idea to implementation: 9 months.

6. Expectations
 Increase site life by 6 years or more.
 Increase life of compactor and earth moving
equipment.
 Fuel use reduction for compactor and cover
placement off-set by fuel increase for grinder.
 Increase in rate of waste stabilization through
more thorough “unpackaging” of the waste.

7. Process
 Add video here

8. Initial Results
 First 6 months – 58% of waste received was
processed through grinder.
 Increased Density – Overall density increased
approximately 18% over previous evaluation.
Estimated approximately 35% increase for ground
portion.
 Recycled approximately 70 additional tons of
metal from 58% of waste stream in 6 months.
 Estimates from other users indicate that up to 4% of
the waste stream may be recoverable metal.

9. Challenges
 Specific waste streams caused maintenance
issues that resulted in significant downtime.
 Metal
 Turbine Blades
 Hoses
 Staff acceptance and buy-in to new process.
 Learning and becoming efficient with new
operational procedures.

10. Lessons Learned
 Significant portions of your waste stream may
need to bypass the grinder.
 Approximately 42% of the waste was diverted
passed the grinder during the first 6 months.
 It may be necessary to change logistics of certain
wastes to allow segregation.

11. Lessons Learned (cont.)
 Additional revenue potential exists by
recovering more material from the waste
stream.
 Recoverable metal may be up to 4% waste
representing up to $150,000 per year
 Other recyclables able to be separated more
easily.

12. Lessons Learned (Cont.)
 Operational issues must be considered in
placement of ground materials
 Site processes need to modified to maximize
compaction
 Staff Buy-in
 Key to insure staff feels comfortable with new
process and the advantages of the system

13. Future Improvements
 Grind in Building
 Will allow better access for users.
 Will allow additional opportunities for recovery of
recyclable materials.
 The building could be converted to transfer station at
the end of on-site disposal.
 Covert System from Diesel to Electric
 Using LFG for to generate electricity to power the
system has the potential reduce diesel usage by over
$90,000 per year and significantly reduce the carbon
foot print for the process.

14. Future Improvements (cont.)
 Use leachate to increase moisture content of
ground waste prior to compaction
 Has the potential to provide increased in place
density
 Increase waste stabilization rate.

15. Questions

16. Contact
Wade Hamm, General Manager
(319) 372-6140
whamm@grrwa.com