This document discusses how landfill mining and reclamation (LFMR) can be a cost-effective alternative to developing a greenfield landfill site. It presents two case studies from Florida where LFMR allowed existing landfills to be expanded horizontally, providing significant additional capacity at a lower cost than developing a separate new landfill area. By recovering resources like soil and airspace through LFMR, the reclaimed land can be used to contiguously expand the existing landfill footprint, outweighing the higher development costs compared to a greenfield site.

1. Cost-Effective Landfill Mining
Hal Boudreau III1
and Joel Woolsey2
Abstract
For decades, engineers have envisioned using Land-
fill Mining and Reclamation (LFMR) as a way to re-
cover valuable recyclables, but the option has not
proven to be economically viable. However, if the
concept is extended to recover resources such as
soil and landfill airspace, the economics can work.
This poster discusses two landfills in Florida where
LFMR has proven to be cost-comparable to a
greenfield site.
The Concept
Much like in real estate, the value is in location. In the case studies to be dis-
cussed, the value lies in expanding an existing landfill and allowing lateral expan-
sion of the new waste over the old instead of developing a greenfield site.
Option 1: Shows an existing landfill on the left with a new non-contiguous land-
fill on the right separated by a constraint, such as electrical transmission lines,
shown in blue.
Option 2: Shows how a landfill could be horizontally expanded contiguously with
an existing landfill (shown in green) that is not separated by a constraint,
resulting in additional lateral expansion landfill capacity as illustrated in yellow.
This additional lateral expansion capacity can be substantial and at a relatively
low cost because it requires a negligible amount of additional bottom liner area, overcoming the additional cost of landfill mining.
Conclusion
While LFMR has historically been a method for reducing liability, these case studies show
how LFMR can actually be a lower-cost development option, especially at sites where an ex-
isting landfill area can be reclaimed to provide a contiguous landfill expansion instead of a
new non-contiguous landfill. Although the cost of LFMR is more than the development
costs of a separate greenfield area, the adjoining land of the old landfill allows for the hori-
zontal expansion over the existing active landfill. This horizontal expansion results in such a
significant increase in capacity over the greenfield expansion that the cost to develop the
landfill mining option is actually less on a cost-per-volume-of-airspace basis. LFMR is one of
the few development options that can both protect the environment and save money.
Option 1: Greenfield Site Option 2: LFMR
Contact Information
1
Hal Boudreau III, PE
Project Engineer
Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc.
730 NE Waldo Road
Gainesville, FL 32641
Work: 352.377.5821 ext. 1347
Fax: 352.377.3166
Cell: 352.213.9948
E-mail: hsboudreau@jonesedmunds.com
2
Joel Woolsey
Project Manager
Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc.
730 NE Waldo Road
Gainesville, FL 32641
Work: 352.377.5821 ext. 1358
Fax: 352.377.3166
Cell: 352.871.7066
E-mail: jwoolsey@jonesedmunds.com
Existing Landfill and Constraints
Recommendations
 Design—Reduce Uncertainty
 Maximum Historical Records: Site
map/tonnage records
 Waste Investigation
 Permitting—Minimize Costs
 Minimize Dewatering and Leachate Man-
agement
 Cost-Effective Data Collection
 Construction—Incorporate Flexibility
 Contract Flexibility
 Coordination between Stakeholders
Potential Challenges
 Uncertainty
 More Complex to Permit
 More Complex to Construct
 Additional Development Time
 May Need to Relocate Existing Utilities
Potential Benefits
 Recyclable Material Revenues
 Reclaimed Soil
 Waste-to-Energy Fuel Source
 Reducing Closure Costs
 Reclaiming Land for Other Uses
 Retrofitting Liners
 Removing Hazardous Materials
 Recovering Landfill Capacity
Case Study: New River Regional Landfill
New River Regional Landfill in Raiford, Florida has already exca-
vated some of its Class III (construction and demolition debris)
waste and soon will have removed all waste from its Class III
landfill to make room for the expansion of their Class I
(municipal solid waste) landfill.
NRRL Mining Summary
Year Started 2013
Main Objectives
•Recover Airspace
•Recover Soil
•Decrease Liability
Estimated Total Cost $300,000
Mining Area 13 Acres
Estimated Mined Volume 300,000 CY
Self-performed? Yes
Waste Processing Visual Delineation
Use of Recovered Soil Cover Soil
Estimated Soil Fraction 25%
Recovered
Commodities?
No
Case Study: Putnam County Central Landfill
Putnam County Central Landfill outside Palatka, Florida
needs to expand its landfill. Because the current Class I
landfill footprint is constrained by property lines, power-
line easements, and a closed, unlined landfill, LFMR was
considered.
PCCL Mining Summary
Year Started 2014
Main Objectives
•Recover Airspace
•Recover Soil
•Decrease Liability
Estimated Total Cost $22 million
Mining Area 90 Acres
Estimated Mined Volume 2,420,000 CY
Self-performed? No – Contracted
Waste Processing 3-in Shaker Screen
Use of Recovered Soil Cover Soil
Estimated Soil Fraction 70%
Recovered
Commodities?
No
Site Constraint (e.g., Powerlines)
Existing Landfill
New Greenfield Landfill
Existing Landfill
Existing LandfillMined Landfill
Additional Capacity