https://www.americancityandcounty.com/wp-content/themes/acc_child/assets/images/logo/footer-logo.png
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcast
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources & Events
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • Municipal Cost Index – Archive
    • Equipment Watch Page
    • American City & County Awards
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Service
American City and County
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcasts
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources/Events
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers/eBooks
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • American City & County Awards
    • Municipal Cost Index
    • Equipment Watch Page
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Stament
    • Terms of Service
  • newsletter
  • Administration
  • Economy & Finance
  • Procurement
  • Public Safety
  • Public Works & Utilities
  • Smart Cities & Technology
  • Magazine
acc.com


Landfill innovations – down-in-the-dumps solutions

Landfill innovations – down-in-the-dumps solutions

Looking for innovations on the current landfill scene is a bit like chasing the facts in a scandal: the key is to follow the money. Where the costs are
  • Written by Shapard, Rob
  • 1st September 1996

Looking for innovations on the current landfill scene is a bit like chasing the facts in a scandal: the key is to follow the money. Where the costs are greatest, that is where the push to improve efficiency in all stages of the landfill lifecycle can be found.

In both the public and private sector, landfill operators are seeking better ways to monitor their sites, deal with leachate and, perhaps most importantly, maximize their use of space.

This landfill space isno longer taken for granted in today’s environment of complex regulations and intense economic pressure.

“Landfills are under an incredible amount of pressure to be fiscally responsible, either to make a profit or bring in enough revenue to cover costs. It,s harder and harder to do that because it’s such a competitive environment,” says consulting engineer Neal Bolton, owner of Blue Ridge Solid Waste Consultants, Bozeman, Mont., and author of “The Handbook of Landfill Operations.”

“In the past, it never would have paid to haul garbage 1,000 miles because you could basically dig a hole and put garbage wherever you wanted to,” Bolton says.

But building a new facility is no bargain in the current environment, and sending waste out of town is often the cheapest, least painful option.

“Siting [a landfill] is a multi-year, multi-million dollar effort, and it’s a gamble at that,” Bolton says.

Bristol, Va., for example, spent the past eight years seeking a permit to build a regional landfill in an abandoned quarry. The site was unusual and the process involved a great amount of study, phone calls and trips to the state capital in Richmond. “I have lived, eaten, slept and breathed this project,” says Bill Dennison, the city’s assistant manager and lead staffer on the project.

The good news is that Bristol finally received its permit earlier this year and plans to begin accepting waste at the site from several counties in the area by late 1997.

Although in Bolton’s experience, most existing landfills continue to waste a lot of their precious air space, there is also a tremendous amount of work being done at landfills to make them more efficient and competitive.

“[Landfill operators] are trying to find ways to keep the revenues up, costs down and to use their air space as efficiently as possible,” he says.

Some of the space-saving innovations Bolton has seen at work in recent years include:

* alternative daily covers;

* improved initial compaction as well as recompaction;

* lowering of base grades when groundwater conditions allow; and

* proper and consistent management of garbage cells.

Bolton also mentions the possibility of negotiating with utility companies to re-route any utility rights-of-way that take up landfill space.

Mack Belue, head of the Dalton/Whitfield Solid Waste Management Authority in north Georgia, has seen the push to save landfill space in his community and else, where. In his service area, for example, refuse from the carpet industry makes up almost 50 percent of the waste stream, and in past years, 40 percent of this waste was sent to be landfilled loose rather than in bales.

However, Belue and the authority have slowly whittled away at this percentage by encouraging carpet manufacturers to bale wastes on-site, thereby increasing the density of garbage sent to the landfill. Meeting with industries and offering fee discounts for baled wastes have helped lower the amount of loose waste to 30 percent.

Kurt Thaus, Director of Environmental Central Services for WMX, Oak Brook, Ill., says more efficient use of space is also a key issue at his company’s facilities. The company is involved with 100 or so landfills in the United States and plays a variety of roles, from building and operating its own sites to managing facilities on contract with municipalities or other private waste companies.

“We’re seeing landfills become more [like] processing facilities,” Thaus says. “They,re no longer a place to just put trash.”

Within their boundaries, sites may have the capability for functions like the recovery of recyclables, incineration, composting and/or solidification of liquid wastes. Sites can thus accept a diverse waste stream and maximize revenues without using valuable landfill space for the entire tonnage.

UNIQUE SITE PROVIDES LONG-TERM

WASTE SOLUTION

The landfill story in Bristol includes many of the issues and solutions described by Thaus and others. The story is one of both using existing space more efficiently and finding a new site altogether.

The city pursued the abandoned quarry as a landfill site with two main goals: it wanted a long-term destination for its solid waste, and, if possible, it wanted the facility to be locally controlled. The only other real option was to transfer waste to an outside site, a step the city hoped to avoid.

With this goal of “controlling its own destiny,” Bristol knew any new facility would have to accept waste from several area counties, since fees from the 70 tons per day generated by Bristol alone would not be enough to make the landfill financially viable, according to Dennison “It was either regionalize or transfer,” he says.

Bristol took the first step in this arduous process in 1988, when the city began discussions with the private company that had excavated the nearly 400-foot-deep quarry. By that time, the city had stretched the space in its existing Subtitle D landfill almost to the limit.

A large, national waste company had previously contracted with the quarry owner to explore the prospects for siting a landfill there, but backed off after its initial attempts at obtaining permits failed.

Thus, succeeding with the project would clearly be difficult, but the city was not as free as the waste company to dismiss the site so quickly. At the very least, officials figured that the quarry warranted a most in-depth look.

So, in 1989, Bristol hired Deerfield, Ill.-based STS Consultants to help make such a determination of feasibility, provide a cost analysis and later to obtain permits and create a design for a landfill at the quarry.

“We knew it would be a challenging project, and we didn’t tell [the city] anything less than that,” says Doug Hermann, the consulting firm’s project principal.

At that time, the city believed it was only about a year away from running out of space at its existing landfill, located adjacent to the quarry. Waste was being deposited at the site in a seven-acre working face, within an active cell of about 17 acres, according to Dennison. However, the city was able to buy itself a few years of space and time at the site through several measures, such as:

* upgrading to heavier waste compaction equipment;

* switching from soil cover to a synthetic daily cover that is removed each morning from the working face. Sheets of this cover have lasted up to eight months, Dennison says;

* transporting tree trimmings and brush to a wastewater treatment plant, where the materials are chipped, milled and mixed with sludge to create a dry compost;

* obtaining vertical expansion permits from the state in 1991 and 1993;

* beginning “landfill mining” at the site in 1994; and

* operating an incinerator as well as a tire chipper at the site. The city intends to use the chipped material as a daily cover additive and a medium for landfill gas (LFG) and leachate collection, although these uses have not yet been approved.

Since the quarry site, expected to open in late 1997, will take only baled waste, the city will continue to operate the old landfill for waste that is not easily baled and as “insurance space” in case baling equipment breaks down temporarily.

The state’s willingness to consider Bristol’s unusual and potentially problematic site was crucial from the beginning. “Ten years ago, I don’t think we would have gotten through the front door with this application,” Dennison says. “We got a fair hearing from the [state] agency, and without that we would have been dead in the water, no matter how much money and experience we had in hand.”

The city’s application made it through Part A of the process – a determination of the site’s feasibility – due largely to extensive study of conditions in the quarry. For example, the consulting firm used piezometers to look at groundwater flow at multiple levels in the quarry.

“One of the beauties of this site is that it’s nearly 200 feet below the groundwater table,” Hermann say. Thus, since groundwater flows into the site but not out, any potential polutants should remain on site where they can be monitored and collected.

Based on this data, the firm created a design that calls for a gradient control zone at the base, from which groundwater will be pumped to ensure its inward flow. Automated pumps will carry this groundwater to the area’s stormwater system.

Above this zone is a secondary clay liner – beyond what is required by Subtitle D – then a permeable “witness” or monitoring zone, the primary clay liner and then a synthetic liner. A leachate collection system installed above this synthetic barrier will channel leachate, via gravity, to a shaft, from which it will be pumped to the surface and transported to a waste-water treatment plant.

The firm designed an alternate liner for the quarry’s steep sides, including wire mesh on the rock face to minimize falling rock, then a permeable geotextile, an impermeable geomembrane, a layer for leachate drainage and a buffer zone of “select waste” that will prevent larger pieces of baled waste from damaging the geomembrane layer. The firm used computer modeling to demonstrate that this alternate liner would provide the same performance as the type of liner normally required by regulations.

Finally, the design includes a gas extraction system that will be active during the landfill’s operation. A blower will pull LFG through horizontal piping and vent the gas away from the working area.

CREATIVE CLOSURE

As with siting and operation, closure is also a time in the lifecycle of landfills when innovation is key. In late 1992, deciding the fate of its Flanders Road landfill, 46-acre Subtitle D site, was the initial challenge for Groton, Conn. The landfill could have remained open under federal rules, but the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was pushing for closure, according to Dan Duffy, project manager for Camp Dresser & McKee, Cambridge, Mass., engineering consultants for the city.

“It was sort of a mutual understanding that the state wanted it closed,” Duffy says.

The Flanders Road site was an unlined landfill for which the city had never gotten a state leachate discharge permit, according to Duffy. Although the site had been permitted before this discharge requirement was enacted, the state saw potential problems and readied a consent order that would have required the closure even if Subtitle D did not.

In April 1993, at the advice of its consultant, Groton decided to close the landfill rather than force the state’s hand. Timing then became everything, and the crucial date was Oct. 9, 1994. If the site’s cap was in place by this deadline, the city could avoid Subtitle D requirements for financial assurances and post-closure monitoring. After this date, the state’s order would have taken effect.

Finding money for the closure was the biggest obstacle to meeting the deadline, and the fact that Groton had planned to operate the facility into the next century meant two things: the city had not set aside a lot of funds for such a closure, and the flat site had not yet been built up to the necessary closure grades.

Past methods of operation at the landfill also made closure difficult. “To put it bluntly, we messed up all 46 acres at once [during operation], rather than closing down one cell at a time,” says Public Works Director Gary Schneider. “It kind of looked like a moonscape out there.”

The city and its consultant found a single solution to these issues by deciding to accept out-of-town waste at the landfill. Between May 1993 and September 1994, the city took in 1,000 tons to 1,500 tons per day, raising the level of the site and generating around $6.5 million in tipping fees, enough to fund the entire closure.

Thus, Groton avoided the trials of a bond issue to raise funds, as well as the cost of bringing in large amounts of clean fill material to grade the site. Also, differential settling and maintenance problems would have been likely with the use of this material, which tends to be much more dense than waste, according to Duffy.

In accordance with Subtitle D rules, Groton accepted municipal solid waste, largely from New York City, at the site until October 1993. The city then began taking only shredded bulky waste – which is not regulated by Subtitle D – until September 1994. Closure work began in July 1994, as waste was still coming into the site, and the contractor had the barrier layer in place just in time to meet the October deadline.

Finding enough waste to meet closure needs at the Flanders Road site was not a problem throughout the process. When the landfill opened each morning at six o’clock, a long line of trucks waited at the gate to pay the $20 to $25 fee.

“Up here in New England, if you have a site that is available, you can get stuff coming out of your ears,” Schneider says.

However, as Duffy acknowledges, “It is never a popular decision to start bringing in 18-wheelers full of New York and New Jersey waste.”

There was concern that materials such as medical wastes, tires and batteries might slip into the landfill, but assurances from the public works department that loads of waste would be monitored closely helped win vital support from the city council. Groton ended up with a surprisingly clean stream of waste flowing into the site, according to Schneider.

“I think the important thing was having a good plan up front, with all the issues identified and answers for these issues,” Schneider says.

The department used a broker to find haulers and required them to pay in advance by certified check. Staff did frequent spot inspections of loads and kept detailed logs.

“We weren’t a Superfund site, but if we became one we wanted to have a good, detailed list of who brought what in and the tonnage,” Schneider says. “We had a good accounting of the [incoming] waste.

“We were watching, and we could cut off the flow of waste at any time,” he says. “[And], when you demand the money up front, you’re usually getting people with a good cash flow.”

Along with the public work department’s vigilance, the environmentally concerned bent of the city council was key to the project’s success, according to Schneider.

“Our council has always been on the pro-environmental side, the green side,” he says. “It is very concerned about meeting permit requirements because it expects [local] industries and other towns around Groton to meet these requirements.”

Finally, in spite of its threat of a consent order, the state DEP was responsive, open-minded and supportive of the closure project, according to Duffy. “It was one of those few projects where everybody gets together and cooperates to get the job done,” he says.

Other noteworthy elements of the Flanders Road closure project include:

* the use of a geomembrane layer rather than a clay cap. The city went beyond closure requirements in installing this layer in order to minimize the chance of future problems;

* the use of a blend of sand and composted sewage sludge as the top soil layer. The contractor had difficulty finding enough clean soil to create a six-inch cover over the 46-acre site, and thus proposed this blend as a solution when a large volume of composted sludge was found to be available at a Massachusetts facility. “It has worked out tremendously,” Duffy says. “The blend has grown the best grass I’ve ever seen in any closure;”

* the installation of a landfill gas extraction system, including 30 wells buried from 30 feet to 80 feet into the waste, two miles of header pipe, a condensate tank, blower *and temporary candlestick flare; and

* the connection of an experimental fuel cell to this gas extraction system. The phosphoric acid cell functions much like a battery, using methane to produce both electricity and heat, and is part of an EPA demonstration project. Groton signed a MOU this summer with investor-owned Northeast Utilities, Berlin, Conn., to host the fuel cell project for at least 18 months.

“We’re in the process of looking right now at what is out there beyond those 18 months,” Schneider says. “Groton would definitely like to keep the cell here. Maybe there is something we can do with the research to help promote the use of landfill gas.”

The cell uses about 80 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of LFG, while the remainder of the 400 cfm to 700 cfm that the Flanders Road site produces is flared off. The cell generates around 140 kilowatts to 160 kilowatts of power that goes into the utility’s grid. For its part, the utility paid for $300,000 worth of improvements to the site’s LFG system – fencing, outbuildings, a flare pad – that will remain in place even if the cell is removed.

In the competitive, uncertain landfill business of today, efficiency is more important than ever. Measures like those implemented in Groton and Bristol will help local governments meet this challenge into the next century.

Tags:

Most Recent


  • New York City, New York
    Report: While remote work is causing offices to empty out, walkable cities are still in high demand
    Given the reliance on vehicular transportation in the United States, some American cities historically haven’t prioritized being walkable in past planning and or design. But amid an unprecedented shift in the economy toward remote work, those that have are increasingly desirable for prospective residents. A new report from Smart Growth American and Places Platform, “Foot Traffic […]
  • landslides
    Managing landslides along road corridors using remote sensing
    Maintaining roads is an optimization problem. Local officials must balance limited and sometimes shrinking budgets with the needs of their communities to have safe and reliable transportation systems. Unfortunately, the importance of a particular maintenance issue is often judged based on anecdotal information and complaints from the public rather than hard data. This approach is […]
  • resilience
    Report: Prioritizing neighborhood infill, expanding transit options increases neighborhood resilience
    With the threat of climate change looming, cities that prioritize neighborhood resilience and equity will be best equipped to withstand future challenges. Last week, the United States Conference of Mayors and the Wells Fargo Institute for Sustainable Finance released a report highlighting strategies for communities looking to address the impact of the climate crisis. “Mayors […]
  • great downtown
    10 American cities with a great downtown
    From small New England town commons to bustling Southern centers and Western squares, downtowns serve as a city’s backbone. Beyond office space, they’re hubs for social activities, fine dining and cultural experiences. But not every downtown is equal. With a focus on renters and options apartment amenities, a new ranking from StorageCafe ranks America’s best […]

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your American City and County account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • NLC releases State of Cities 2021 report
  • How governments can keep employees safe as they return to work
  • Lessons from your friendly neighborhood public service employees
  • North Texas alliance partners with Marketplace.city on smart government solutions

White papers


Modernizing government services for today’s resident expectations

24th January 2023

Preparing Your Community Now for the Next Generation of Older Adults

18th October 2022

Helping Government Fleets Achieve Their Goals

30th September 2022
view all

Webinars


How To: Evaluate Digital Government Service Delivery Technologies

23rd January 2023

Using Technology to Enhance Communications

29th November 2022

Learn the benefits of transforming and automating your Contract Management process

4th November 2022
view all

PODCAST


Young Leaders Episode 4 – Cyril Jefferson – City Councilman, High Point, North Carolina

13th October 2020

Young Leaders Episode 3 – Shannon Hardin – City Council President, Columbus, Ohio

27th July 2020

Young Leaders Episode 2 – Christian Williams – Development Services Planner, Goodyear, Ariz.

1st July 2020
view all

GALLERIES


Report: While remote work is causing offices to empty out, walkable cities are still in high demand

26th January 2023

10 American cities with a great downtown

24th January 2023

Miami leads the way in FT-Nikkei ranking of best U.S. cities for foreign companies

20th January 2023
view all

Twitter


AmerCityCounty

Report: While remote work is causing offices to empty out, walkable cities are still in high demand dlvr.it/ShVhBW

26th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Managing landslides along road corridors using remote sensing dlvr.it/ShTpL6

26th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Report: Prioritizing neighborhood infill, expanding transit options increases neighborhood resilience dlvr.it/ShRrFM

25th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

10 American cities with a great downtown dlvr.it/ShNxXH

24th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

With a few strategies and tools, public procurement directors can recruit new, diverse staffers dlvr.it/ShNnj4

24th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Oakland launches smart loading zone program for commercial unloading at the curbside dlvr.it/ShNkMg

24th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Modernizing government services for today’s resident expectations dlvr.it/ShNGq0

24th January 2023
AmerCityCounty

Report: Technology is evolving quickly, and the water and sewer sector needs to adapt dlvr.it/ShL0B5

23rd January 2023

Newsletters

Sign up for American City & County’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about local governments.

Resale Insights Dashboard

The Resale Insights Dashboard provides model-level data for the entire used equipment market to help you save time and money.

Municipal Cost Index

Updated monthly since 1978, our exclusive Municipal Cost Index shows the effects of inflation on the cost of providing municipal services

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital audience? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • IWCE’s Urgent Communications
  • IWCE Expo

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us

FOLLOW American City and County ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2023 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.