Landfill Mining and Materials Processing for Beneficial Use: A Case Study Billy Newcomb, Draper Aden Associates -and- Michael T. Dorsey, Fauquier County

Virginia Location Facility Fauquier County

Facilities Landfill #575 Landfill #149 C&D Recycling Facility Recycling Center

1.3 Million CY Unused Landfill Capacity Sanitary Landfill # Liability or Asset? Closure Post-Closure Liability Asset VA HB1205 Vertical Expansion Accept Regional C&D

#149 Landfill Reaching Capacity Decision Point Revenue Loss Permit #575 Landfill Capacity Loss Extreme Recycling Terminate Regional C&D Waste Accept Regional C&D Waste Subtitle D Landfill Continue Regional C&D Waste Disposal at #149

Closure vs. Extreme Recycling (Landfill Mining + Recycling + Piggyback)

Landfill Mining and Beneficial Uses

Landfill Expansion Area Landfill Mining/Piggyback Mining Cross Section Line

Final MSW Piggyback Elevation 2006 Top C&D Fill Mining Project Piggyback Base Grade MSW Mining/Piggyback Schematic Cross Section

Mining and Processing Operations

Excavation Operators Pre-Screen Material Metal Inert

PowerScreen™ Separating Mined Materials

Large Materials are Further Sorted for Recycling

Intermediates (2 to 5-inch) – Still Wrestling with Processing this Material

Fines – Alternate Daily and Intermediate Cover

Beneficial Use of Fines (Limitations)

Chemical Characterization of Fines Historically Detected Analytes Total Result (mg/kg) Leaching Result (mg/L) Arsenic9.55Non-detect Barium85Non-detect Beryllium1.2Non-detect Cadmium0.43Non-detect Chromium41Non-detect Cobalt17Non-detect Copper73Non-detect Lead33Non-detect Nickel24Non-detect Thallium0.2Non-detect Vanadium50Non-detect Zinc230Non-detect Acetone0.09Non-detect Acenaphthene0.09Non-detect Acenaphthylene0.29Non-detect Sum of PAHs3.94Non-detect Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate0.73Non-detect Butyl Benzyl phthalate0.1Non-detect Ethyl 4,4'-Dichlorobenzilate0.4Non-detect Di-n-octyl phthalate0.3Non-detect Sulfide33Non-detect Sulfate17,5001,300 Asbestos / Organic Contentnd / 4%n/a

Passive Attenuation of TPH in Fines

Physical Characteristics of Fines for Alternate Cover No Odor Complaints (Initially Concerned about Putrescible Content and Hydrogen Sulfide) No Observed Employee Respiratory or Other Health Symptoms Less Erosion Compared to Soils Equipment Traction was Excellent No Blowing Litter or Scavenging and Disease Vectors Dust Suppression was Required Vegetative Ability was Lacking; Relatively High pH (7 to 8 range)

Fines Applied for Intermediate Cover

Fines Resist Erosion in Rain Processed Fines Cover Soil Cover

Fines Intermediate Cover – Vegetation

Landfill Mining Pilot Operating Efficiency Mining PeriodJune 6 – Sept 2July 12 – Aug 24 Sept 3 – Oct 29 Weeks1368 Volume Mined (Cubic Yards) Not surveyed6,02710,790 Mining Expense ($)163,45093,881110,003 Mining Expense ($/Cubic Yard)

Conclusion – Questions? Thank you! for more information, please contact: Billy Newcomb, P.G. Draper Aden Associates

Regulatory Path for Mining and Fines Evaluation 2005 Master Plan 2006 C&D Recycling Facility Operational Landfill Mining Proof of Concept VDEQ Concerned with Disposition of Fines, Testing Frequency and Acceptable Quality VDEQ approved Mining Permit Amendment with Beneficial Use Demonstration (BUD) Evaluate Mining Operations Efficiency, Chemical Characteristics of Fines, Physical Characteristics of Fines