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

2. Virginia Location Facility Fauquier County

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

4. 1.3 Million CY Unused Landfill Capacity Sanitary Landfill #149 1993 - Liability or Asset? Closure Post-Closure Liability Asset VA HB1205 Vertical Expansion Accept Regional C&D

5. 2005 - #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

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

7. Landfill Mining and Beneficial Uses

8. Landfill Expansion Area Landfill Mining/Piggyback Mining Cross Section Line

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

10. Mining and Processing Operations

11. Excavation Operators Pre-Screen Material Metal Inert

12. PowerScreen™ Separating Mined Materials

13. Large Materials are Further Sorted for Recycling

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

15. Fines – Alternate Daily and Intermediate Cover

16. Beneficial Use of Fines (Limitations)

17. 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

18. Passive Attenuation of TPH in Fines

19. 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)

20. Fines Applied for Intermediate Cover

21. Fines Resist Erosion in Rain Processed Fines Cover Soil Cover

22. Fines Intermediate Cover – Vegetation

23. Landfill Mining Pilot Operating Efficiency 201120122013 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) ---15.5810.19

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

25. Regulatory Path for Mining and Fines Evaluation 2005 Master Plan 2006 C&D Recycling Facility Operational 2007 - Landfill Mining Proof of Concept VDEQ Concerned with Disposition of Fines, Testing Frequency and Acceptable Quality 2010 - VDEQ approved Mining Permit Amendment with Beneficial Use Demonstration (BUD) 2011-2013 - Evaluate Mining Operations Efficiency, Chemical Characteristics of Fines, Physical Characteristics of Fines