Feasibility of Landfill Mining and Reclamation in Scotland

Feasibility and Viability of Landfill Mining
and Reclamation in Scotland
Scoping Study
Final Report April 2013

Zero Waste Scotland works with
businesses, individuals, communities
and local authorities to help them
reduce waste, recycle more and use
resources sustainably.
Find out more at

www.zerowastescotland.org.uk
Written by: Simon Ford, Kathryn Warren, Carrie Lorton, Richard

Smithers, Adam Read and Mark Hudgins.
Feasibility and Viability of Landfill Mining and Reclamation in Scotland
Executive Summary
Introduction
This scoping study was undertaken by Ricardo-AEA on behalf of Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS) in the
period August 2012 to April 2013. The study was commissioned to assist ZWS and the Scottish
Government in the feasibility assessment of the potential for the mining and reclamation of materials
from landfill sites in Scotland. The study considers the potential to mine and reclaim materials from
Scottish landfills in general, but also gives particular consideration to the potential to reclaim materials
from the oil-shale spoil heaps (bings) in West Lothian. No documented landfill mining has taken place
in Scotland to date, although some reclamation of material from its bings has been undertaken,
including within West Lothian.
The study comprised three main elements:
1 A full review of the history of Landfill Mining and Reclamation (LFMR) and documented
examples of practice both in the UK and worldwide.
2 A full review and evaluation of all economic, technical, environmental, regulatory and
sociological issues associated with the feasibility and viability of LFMR in Scotland and
including the ecological factors specifically related to the oil-shale bings located in West Lothian.
3 Conclusions and recommendations regarding the feasibility and viability for LFMR activities in
Scotland, including the oil-shale bings in West Lothian.
Background
The first LFMR project took place in Israel in 1953. Since then, in excess of 60 worldwide projects are
reported in literature. This is a small number given the amount of landfills in existence around the
world. Most of these projects have been undertaken for drivers other than resource and energy
recovery, including moving waste to make way for development, voidspace recovery, pollution
mitigation and bringing the landfill lining up to required standards.
One LFMR project that is of particular interest is the Advanced Plasma Power (APP)/Group Machiels
project at the Remo landfill in Belgium. This project is yet to commence, but will be the first full-scale
project of its kind and it is being undertaken primarily for resource/energy recovery purposes. This is
a modern-day project, with resource and energy recovery, that is likely to inform future LFMR
projects.
General Findings
Overall, the findings of this study indicate that LFMR operations could potentially be feasible in
Scotland but viability is likely to be limited to very specific circumstances. The planning and
undertaking of a LFMR project in Scotland, undertaken with resource recovery in mind, will be a
complex operation. The authors consider that it is unlikely to become a widespread occurrence in the
near future, principally due to economic viability but also as a result of the technical challenges
associated with this type of operation. A discusson of the key factors associated with project feasibility
is provided below.
Technical
Economic
Regulatory,
environmental
and social
Feasibility
Technical
LFMR operations have been undertaken in various parts of the world, including in the UK. Provided
that adequate controls are in place, including proper assessment of gas risk issues, landfill materials
can be excavated using conventional excavators and associated plant. Materials recovery operations
associated with LFMR activities undertaken to-date have primarily comprised soil and metals removal,
and, on occasion, the preparation of a refused derived fuel and the replacement and compaction of
residual materials back in the landfill.
It is expected that applying advanced waste separation technologies to landfilled waste will give rise
to previously unseen challenges associated with separation efficiency, breakdown, blockage and high
maintenance costs. Furthermore, the use of conventional waste separation techologies to extract
certain materials (e.g. plastics) or provide greater levels of refinement is likely to be very difficult due
to the differences between regular municipal solid waste streams and the nature of excavated
landfilled materials (e.g. greater levels of compaction and intermingling).
The soil and rubble/hardcore materials recovered is likely to be limited to use onsite, as end of waste
criteria and the quality of these materials are likely to prevent them being used away from the site
where they were extracted.
Economic
Economic viability for any specific LFMR project will be subject to a wide range of variables, the key
ones being capital and operational costs, the value of materials extracted from the waste (e.g. metals
and refuse derived fuel), and cost and/or availability of a suitable outlet for recovered soils and
refused derived fuel (if appropriate). Waste quantity and composition are critical as these will
determine the economy of scale and potential revenues associated with the operation. In terms of
composition, waste from the mid 1960’s to the mid 1990’s is likely to yield the most valuable materials
as this corresponds to a period of increased disposal of potential valuable materials and predates
widespread recycling activities in the UK.
As part of the study, Ricardo-AEA developed a simple economic model to allow the comparative
assessment of several different types of LFMR project. The outputs of the modelling indicated that
LFMR is unlikely, in most situations, to be economically self-sufficient. However there are, potentially,
some situations where LFMR operations could be economically viable. These are:
1 LFMR involving onsite energy recovery at non-hazardous landfills where the waste being mined
has stabilised (e.g. generating reduced quantities of gas and lower strength leachate). Where
landfilling has taken place in unconnected engineered cells, it is possible that LFMR could be
undertaken at discreet cells on active landfills that have been in operation for a long time. Due to
the capital costs associated with construction of small-scale thermal treatment plants, the
economic viability of this type of LFMR is likely to be better at Scotland’s larger landfills.
2 Excavation, shredding, screening and removal of ferrous metal, with sale of metal, recovery of soil
for use as daily cover and replacement and compaction of waste may be economically viable
based on the voidspace recovered. As the processing equipment used for such an operation is
typically mobile and can be leased, this could potentially be carried out on any size of landfill. This
scenario has not been assessed in this study, which has focused on maximum utilisation of
recoverable material. However, this has been undertaken at landfills in the USA with some
reported success.
3 LFMR with resource and off-site energy recovery might be feasible where wastes are to be
excavated anyway, assuming that the alternative is to pay for landfill elsewhere. This is not likely
to be commonplace and restricted to situations where waste is being excavated in order to
relocate it. Even though the LFMR operation may not be economically viable in its own right, the
recovery of soil for use as daily cover, the recovery of metals, and possibly lower gate fees for
thermal treatment of RDF as opposed to landfill, may help to offset some costs associated with
the relocation exercise.
Local environmental and sociological factors

In terms of environmental and sociological factors, LFMR has the potential to create significant local
environmental impact, health and safety risk and nuisance risk. While mitigation measures can be put
in place, the cost of doing so could be prohibitive for some potential projects. These issues will need
to be considered on a project-by-project basis.
Positive benefits may also result, in particular resulting from removal of a potential source of pollution,
with benefit to the local environment and potential positive opinion from local stakeholders.
Furthermore, a LFMR project will create green jobs.
Regulatory issues
In terms of regulatory requirements, a LFMR will require appropriate authorisation which is likely to
include the need for planning approvals and environmental permits. Clearly, these issues can ony be
considered on a project-by-project basis but, overall, there are no generic regulatory barriers to LFMR.
Assessment of the Potential to Mine and Reclaim Materials from Bings

In relation to the feasibility and viability of extraction and recovery of materials from the bings of West
Lothian, the main conclusions of this study are listed below.
 Recent extraction of material from oil-shale bings demonstrates that the recovery of material for
use in construction applications is both technically and economically feasible. The economic
feasibility depends on distance between the bing and point of use, and it is unlikely that the bing
material would be used other than in areas in proximity to West Lothian.
 Whilst the aggregate material does have some advantages in particular applications, it is generally
used as low grade fill material, of which there are numerous other sources, both virgin and
secondary, in the wider area and the rest of Scotland.
 A review of the ecological issues associated with the bings has demonstrated the ecological
importance of the bings, due to the unique and diverse habitats that they provide. There are
undisputable ecological benefits as a result of leaving specific bings untouched.
 The environmental impacts of extracting bing material will be localised, but could be significant for
local communities. Similarly, the sociological impacts of working or removing the bings will also
impact locally, on communities who have come to accept the bings as a permanent and important
feature of their local landscape.
 West Lothian Council has categorised the bings to determine which bings have the most potential
for extraction of materials. Out of the 19 remaining bings in West Lothian, only four have existing
planning permission with extraction being encouraged. There are a further three at which
extraction may be encouraged, but which do not currently have planning permission. The
remaining bings are either restored, protected or have already been exhausted of materials.
Therefore the actual potential for extracting materials from the bings may be smaller than initially
expected. The fact that the council have stated that they will resist extraction proposals for bings
which remain fully intact suggest that the ecological and social importance of these sites has been
recognised.
In conclusion, whilst there are some useful materials which could readily and economically be
extracted from the bings, the ecological, environmental and sociological impacts on local communities
will be significant, and will need to be considered on a case by case basis.
Recommendations
As a next step, it is recommended that this study is shared with interested parties. As well as
regulators and policy makers, this should include landfill operators and companies that may be
interested in being involved in a LFMR project in Scotland. If ZWS and the SG wish to further
investigate the undertaking of LFMR in Scotland, the insight and opinions of such stakeholders will
undoubtedly add to the understanding of the feasibility and viability of LFMR in Scotland.
If ZWS, the SG, or any other stakeholder is interested in pursuing the possibility of LFMR in Scotland,
it will be necessary to undertake a screening exercise to identify suitable landfills, and then to
undertake a detailed feasibility and viability study for a specific landfill. The screening exercise would
require access to a greater level of data than reviewed for this scoping study. Following the screening
exercise, it would of course be necessary to first establish operator interest. A screening exercise may
not be necessary if a landfill operator comes forward with a suitable landfill and a keen desire to
establish feasibility and viability of LFMR for that specific site.
In removing organic wastes from the landfill in a LFMR project, the absence of gas generation and
fugitive emission will benefit the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol and
potentially any credits gained for the avoidance of fugitive emissions could positively impact upon
LFMR project economics. The economic assessment presented in this study has not considered
incentives/credits for avoidance of fugitive emissions of landfill gas. It is, however, recommended that
consideration is given to this matter, in particular in relation to any possible future detailed site
specific feasibility assessment, as well as at a national policy level. In particular, consideration should
be given to whether a LFMR project in Scotland could qualify for Emission Reduction Units (ERUs)
under the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism.
Whilst detailed composition analysis would be required in the development of a specific LFMR project
on a specific landfill, there would be merit in better understanding the waste in Scotlands landfills at a
higher level. This would require trial pitting and sorting and analysis on landfilled waste of known age
and waste type at a number of landfills. This will further inform assessment of feasibility of LFMR in
Scotland. In undertaking the composition exercise, it would be useful to undertake detailed analysis of
specific wastes, e.g. in addition to having a category for small WEEE, that small WEEE could be
further broken down into type and material content. In-turn, this could inform a study into the
feasibility of the recovery of certain high value metals which, if not feasible now, might be feasible in
a future of increased resource scarcity.
On-site energy recovery is a strong factor influencing financial viability of LFMR. Whilst financial
viability is currently borderline at best, it would be useful to undertake an assessment of energy
market trend to ascertain whether at some point in the future it is likely that energy from landfilled
waste (EfLFW) will be viable in its own right.
Finally, this study has highlighted the importance of understanding the waste present in a landfill to
LFMR and how this understanding is generally poor for historically landfilled waste. It is recommended
that consideration is given to methods of improving this situation going forward, e.g. what measures
can be taken to ensure operators record which wastes are placed where in a landfill and when.
Further to informing future potential LFMR, this will also assist those undertaking detailed modelling of
landfill gas and leachate and the undertaking of environmental risk assessments.
Contents
1 Background 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Scotland’s Landfills 2
1.2.1 Numbers and types of landfills 2
1.2.2 Waste composition 3
1.3 Oil Shale Bings of West Lothian 7
2 Landfill Mining and Reclamation Feasibility and Evaluation 8

2.1 Historic and current LFMR projects worldwide 8
2.1.1 History of LFMR 8
2.1.2 Case studies 9
2.1.3 Feasibility studies undertaken elsewhere 12
2.2 Implications of worldwide experience to landfill mining in Scotland 13
2.3 Evaluation of issues (Scotland) 15
2.3.1 A ‘typical’ Scottish landfill 15
2.3.2 Overview of economic issues 19
2.3.3 Economic issues specific to Scotland 21
2.3.4 Economic analysis of a hypothetical Scottish LFMR project 28
2.3.5 Summary of economic implications of landfill mining in Scotland 32
2.3.6 Technical issues 33
2.3.7 Environmental issues 39
2.3.8 Regulatory issues 43
2.3.9 Sociological issues 46
2.4 Conclusions 48
2.5 Recommendations 50
3 Feasibility and Evaluation of Oil Shale Bing Resource Reclamation 52

3.1 Overview 52
3.2 Evaluation of issues 52
3.2.1 Technical issues 52
3.2.2 Economic issues 53
3.2.3 Environmental issues 54
3.2.4 Regulatory issues 55
3.2.5 Sociological issues 56
3.2.6 Ecological value 56
3.3 Conclusions 63
References
Appendices
Appendix 1: Scotland’s licensed/permitted landfills (in use- 2010)
Appendix 2: Scotland’s licensed/permitted landfills (closed- 2010)
Appendix 3: Summary of selected SEPA data on Scotland’s landfills
Appendix 4: Worldwide historic and current LFMR projects and drivers
Appendix 5: Economic model
Feasibility and Viability of Landfill Mining and Reclamation in Scotland 1
1 Background
1.1 Objectives
The Scottish Government (SG) and Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS) are keen to investigate the feasibility
and viability of mining and reclamation of materials from landfill sites throughout Scotland, including
the oil-shale heaps (bings) in West Lothian. The bings comprise wastes from the historic processing,
to produce oil, of Scotland’s oil shale deposits. No documented landfill mining has taken place in
Scotland to date, although some reclamation of material from its bings has taken place, including
those within West Lothian.
The SG and ZWS are particularly interested in assessing the potential for extraction of materials from
landfills for resource reuse, recycling and energy recovery. Materials could typically include, metals,
plastics, organics, aggregates and soils. This is against a backdrop of increasing material and fuel
resource scarcity and a drive towards increased sustainability. Use of local and dormant resources
could contribute to the reduction of virgin raw material consumption in Scotland.
Both the SG and ZWS recognise that Landfill Mining and Reclamation (LFMR) could bring additional
benefits such as landfill voidspace recovery, freeing-up land for redevelopment, and reduction or
elimination of costs associated with landfill aftercare and environmental remediation. Landfill mining
could increase the land value and allow future use of closed landfill sites for the development of
housing, recreational or industrial use. Whilst development on old gassing landfills has taken place in
the past, including housing development, it has brought with it certain problems and risks.
Development on, or near, landfill is now highly regulated and development on landfill largely consists
of development of other waste treatment facilities. The application of LFMR could both avoid long-
term costs and bring forward the point at which a site could be used for new development.
For decades, landfilling of waste was the principle means of waste disposal both in Scotland and the
rest of the UK. In more recent times, environmental, economic and regulatory drivers have led to the
introduction of alternatives to landfill and Scotland is a pioneer in driving waste up the waste
hierarchy and introducing new legislation to further divert recyclable materials away from its landfills
and from incineration. Despite continuing increases in recycling and landfill diversion, landfill still
remains part of the waste solution in Scotland. At some point in the future, available existing landfill
voidspace will run out, giving rise to a need to develop new landfills or to recover voidspace at
existing sites.
Faced with these issues, LFMR may seem at face value a viable option to undertake in Scotland,
however the implications surrounding this activity are not fully understood. Issues including technical,
economic, environmental, regulatory and sociological impacts will need to be assessed.
This high level scoping study was commissioned by ZWS to focus on three specific areas:
1 A full review of the history of LFMR and documented examples of practice both in the UK and
worldwide;
2 A full review and evaluation of all economic, technical, regulatory and sociological issues
associated with the feasibility and viability of LFMR in Scotland and including the ecological factors
specifically related to the oil-shale bings located in West Lothian; and
3 Conclusions and possible recommendations regarding the feasibility and viability for LFMR
activities in Scotland including the oil-shale bings in West Lothian.
2 Feasibility and Viability of Landfill Mining and Reclamation in Scotland
1.2 Scotland’s Landfills

1.2.1 Numbers and types of landfills
Scotland’s landfills are best described by reference to sites with licences or permits, which are
regulated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). This captures the bulk of landfills
likely to be of interest to this study. Landfills that are not currently licenced or permitted will include:
 Illegal landfills.
 Very old landfills that pre-date modern waste licensing and permitting regimes.
 Very small inert landfills.
 Sites which previously held a licence or permit, which has now been surrendered as the landfill was
proven to no longer pose a risk to the environment.
Very old landfills may be subject to regulation under the contaminated land regime, although such
sites are not included in the discussion here.
Landfills that have surrendered their permit are not likely to be non-hazardous landfills as most non-
hazardous landfills in Scotland contain biodegradable waste and, upon closing, are likely to take many
decades to stabilise to the extent that permit surrender is acceptable to the regulator, SEPA.
Surrender criteria is likely to be easier to achieve at inert landfills, and so the probablity is that a
landfill that has surrendered its permit will be an inert landfill.
Records of Scotland’s landfills that are regulated through licences or permits are available on SEPA’s
website. The most recent data available refers to the year 2010. There are two key data sets with
corresponding reports.
 Landfill sites and capacity report for Scotland 2010.

 Waste sites and capacity report for Scotland 2010.
The latter report and corresponding data set includes landfills as well as other facilities.
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 contain SEPA maps showing the location of operational and closed landfills
in Scotland in 2010. Pertinent information from the SEPA 2010 data describing the numbers and types
of landfills has been summarised in a table in Appendix 3.
To be an operational landfill in the present day means that the landfill has submitted a PPC Permit
application, the landfill was deemed to meet the criteria required by the Landfill Directive, and SEPA
issued a PPC Permit.
Non-operational landfills are more likely to be considered for landfill mining owing to their age and,
therefore, reduced methane production. However, operational landfills with distinct engineered
separate cells may contain cells that are of sufficient age to make them potential candidates for LFMR.
These would tend to be larger landfills that have been operational for many years. Not all landfill
operations are undertaken with distinct multiple cells.
Non-operational landfills are more likely to be variable in containment quality and provision of gas and
leachate control and are more likely to contain unknown waste types and volumes. This is because
the regulation of older landfills was less onerous than in the current day and record keeping was
generally poor prior to the requirement to submit waste return data to the regulator.
Considering landfills by status, classification and waste type, landfills not considered likely contenders
for LFMR projects are discussed below.
 It is possible that some of the inert waste only sites could contain materials worthy of recovery.
However, if this is the case it would apply to a very limited amount of landfills. Most inert landfills
primarily receive soils and rubble from numerous sources. Reuse of this material for engineering
purposes would be limited by variable quality and end of waste criteria. Much of the inert waste
landfilled in inert waste only landfills would have been landfilled prior to current day stringent
waste acceptance criteria. Inert landfills are not considered worthy candidates for further
consideration in this high level nationwide study owing to the inability to adequately assess waste
type and the low level, if any, potential for beneficial reuse or recovery.
 Hazardous waste only sites are not worthy of consideration due to their limited number and nature
of the waste landfilled. There is one operational hazardous waste landfill and one closed special
waste (now known as hazardous waste) landfill in Scotland.
 Many closed landfills no longer subject to regulation by licence or permit are expected to be inert
sites, given the operators associated with them and the fact that the permit has been surrendered.
This will not exclusively be the case and some of these landfills will be potential candidates.
However, the readily available data on these sites is very limited.
With the above considerations, it is considered that non-hazardous landfills are likely to be the best
candidates for landfill mining and these are the landfills considered in this study. From review of the
2010 SEPA data, this comprises:
 48 operational landfills
 2 landfills that were being restored in 2010
 168 closed landfills still subject to regulation
 An unknown number of closed landfills that have surrendered their licences. However, these are
not considered in this study owing to a lack of readily available data. These are not expected to be
many in number as it is suspected that many of the 100 landfills in this category are inert landfills.
1.2.2 Waste composition

At a high level, e.g. inert/non-hazardous/hazardous or household, commercial, industrial etcetera,
information on waste landfilled in Scotland is detailed in the table in Appendix 3. However, in order to
assess the viability of LFMR in Scotland it is necessary to further characterise the waste present in
Scotland’s landfills. There are many difficulties associated with doing this, in particular because there
have been no known studies where landfilled waste in Scotland has been excavated for composition
analysis. In addition, prior to the requirement to submit waste returns to the regulator, there was no
requirement to maintain detailed records of wastes accepted at landfills. Even where records are kept,
these refer to waste source and type and not detailed constituent composition.
Characterising the waste in Scottish landfills could be undertaken by looking at the composition of
waste at the point the material became a waste, e.g. reviewing studies of waste composition analysis
at the point of generation. This approach, whilst specific to Scotland or the UK, also has limitations.
Such studies are limited and have only been undertaken in recent times as segregated waste
collections have been introduced and alternative waste management facilities have been developed.
These studies represent notably different waste streams to those traditionally landfilled in previous
decades. Most pertinent of all is the fact that waste composition in a landfill will change over time as
waste degrades. It is necessary to establish likely composition in the present day rather than at the
point in time the waste was deposited in the landfill.
Given the absence of data on waste composition in Scottish landfills and the issues associated with
looking at waste composition at the point of generation, the most reliable way of establishing likely
landfill composition is to review findings of studies undertaken elsewhere. Whilst this is appropriate for
this high level national study, detailed desk study and intrusive investigation and analysis would be
required prior to undertaking a LFMR project at a specific individual landfill.
From a review of literature, the most relevant information on composition of landfilled wastes is
presented in a paper titled ‘Feasibility study sustainable material and energy recovery from landfills in
Europe’ (W.J. Van Vossen and O.J. Prent, 2011). The authors reviewed 60 landfill mining projects and,
where composition information was available, determined average waste composition to be as
detailed in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1 Typical composition of excavated waste (W.J. Van Vossen and O.J. Prent, 2011)
Average waste
Average waste composition
Waste composition (excl. soil)
(incl. soil) (%)
(%)
Plastic 4.6 10.3
Paper and cardboard (P&C) 5.3 11.8
Glass 1.1 2.5
Total metals (T-metals) 2.0 (1.7% ferrous, 0.1% 4.1 (3.7% ferrous, 0.3%
aluminium, 0.1% non-ferrous) aluminium, 0.2% non-
ferrous)
Organic 5.3 11.6
Wood 3.6 8.0
Leather 1.6 3.5
Textile 1.6 3.6
Construction and demolition waste 9.0 19.9

(CDW)
Stones 2.5 5.5
Other 5.8 12.8
Non-MSW 0.3 0.8
Soil (diameter less than 24mm) 54.8 0.0
Inert 2.6 5.8

The authors of the paper describe a ‘standard landfill’ as having the composition in the table above, a
capacity of 500,000 tonnes and surface area of 5 ha. The authors note the composition will not be
accurate in all cases.
In a presentation by Joakim Krook of Linkoping University (Sweden), composition of landfilled waste

from two Swedish landfills, seven USA landfills, one Korean landfill, one Italian landfill and one
German landfill is presented. Typical composition presented is detailed in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Typical composition of excavated waste (from a presentation by Joakim Krook of Linkoping
University)
Waste type % by weight
Fine fraction 50 – 60
Combustibles 20 – 30
Inorganics ~ 10
Metals <5
A detailed study of waste composition at the Remo landfill in Belgium is provided in a presentation
titled ‘valorisation of materials within enhanced landfill mining: what is feasible ?’. This presentation
describes waste composition of various known ages and from varying depths in the landfill. The
overall composition described is reproduced in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3 Typical composition of waste excavated from the Remo landfill in Belgium (from a
presentation titled ‘valorisation of materials within enhanced landfill mining: what is feasible?’)
Waste type (Municipal Solid Waste- mostly

% by weight
commercial and industrial MSW)
Stone 10
Wood 7
Metal 3
Plastic 17
Textile 7
Paper/ cardboard 8
< 10mm 44
Waste type (Industrial Waste) % by weight
Stone 10
Wood 7
Metal 3
Plastic 5
Textile 2
Paper/ cardboard 2
< 10mm 64
The data in Tables 1.2 and 1.3 broadly aligns with that in Table 1.1, as does data in further papers
reviewed on the composition of excavated landfilled wastes. Whilst the composition at the Remo
landfill in Belgium (Table 1.3) suggests waste richer in materials for recycling or energy recovery than
in Table 1.1, it should be noted that the Remo landfill in Belgium is anticipated to shortly commence a
LFMR operation undertaken primarily for material and energy recovery. The data in Table 1.3,
therefore, represents waste quality from a landfill specifically identified as appropriate for LFMR. It is
concluded that the waste in Table 1.1 represents ‘typical’ excavated waste quality, and that the
composition in Table 1.3 represents a particularly good quality for recovery of recyclable materials and
energy recovery.
1.3 Oil Shale Bings of West Lothian

Oil shale bings are heaps of waste comprising shale residues from historic extraction of oil from oil
shale deposits. Bings can be found across Scotland, although this study is limited to West Lothian’s
remaining 19 bings, which collectively occupy an area of 330 hectares.
The 19 remaining bings in West Lothian all closed for receipt of oil shale deposits between the 1920’s
and 1960’s. Since then, some have been restored, involving re-profiling, placement of soils and
planting, some have been left alone and some have been worked to remove material for use in
construction.
It is possible that the material in the bings is still of economic benefit. It is also a fact that bings are of
amenity value to local communities and visitors and some of them are of particular ecological value,
as is well documented in academic and planning authority literature. Section 3 of this study is
concerned with discussing these issues.
2 Landfill Mining and Reclamation Feasibility and Evaluation
2.1 Historic and current LFMR projects worldwide

2.1.1 History of LFMR
The first LFMR project took place in Israel in 1953. Since then, in excess of 60 projects are reported in
the literature. Sites and project drivers identified in the authors literature review are provided in
Appendix 4.
Whilst there is frequently more than one driver at any one site, a summary of the principal drivers are
detailed in Table 2.1 below. All projects are identified in the table, including where the project was to
investigate suitability for energy recovery where energy recovery did not occur, where a project was
undertaken as a pilot study or research project and where a project was considered but not
undertaken. Whilst other authors frequently note there have been in excess of 60 LFMR projects, the
authors of this report have only considered projects that have come to their attention, which are 57 in
number.
Table 2.1 Principal drivers for historic and current LFMR projects worldwide
Europe (excl. North

Principal project UK (no. Asia (no. Total
UK) (no. America (no.
driver projects) projects) projects
projects) projects)
Not specified 12 4 2 18
Voidspace recovery 3 4 7
To allow site
3 2 1 6
redevelopment
To mitigate pollution 2 5 1 8
To improve landfill
engineering (e.g. meet
3 1 2 1 7
regulatory
requirements)
Material reclamation
for recycling or energy 3 2 6 11
production
Total projects 17 projects of

23 projects 11 projects
which 1 in
6 across 8 across 7 57
Canada and 16
countries countries
in the USA
Given the amount of landfills in existence around the world, very few landfill mining projects have
taken place since the first recorded project in 1953. The documented projects undertaken are spread
around the world in North America, Europe and Asia. The USA is the individual country which has
undertaken the most LFMR projects.
It is evident that whilst material sorting and recovery, in particular soil, often features in a LFMR
project, it is seldom the main project driver. Where it has been the main driver, six of the projects
have been in Asia where two of the projects were solely undertaken to utilise soil as compost (one
was a pilot project), three were solely for energy recovery (two were research projects) and one was
for use of soil as fertiliser and for energy production. Of the two such projects in the USA, one was
undertaken to investigate material recovery and markets (Perdido Landfill in Florida) and the other
was to feed a nearby mass-burn plant for a defined period of time to meet capacity requirements. Of
the three such projects in Europe, two were for energy recovery and material recycling (but these
were just research projects) and the other is the Remo landfill project in Belgium which is yet to
commence but will be undertaken for the recovery of materials for both recycling and energy
recovery.
Many of the projects reviewed involved only basic separation of wastes, principally separation of the
soil fraction by screening.
2.1.2 Case studies

Four projects have been selected to provide insight into the different types of historic or on-going
LFMR projects.
Case Study 1- Packington Landfill, Birmingham, UK (Stuart Hayward-Higham, 2008)
Packington Landfill was the first of three significant landfill mining projects undertaken by Sita in the
UK, which when combined involved the movement of almost 1 million cubic metres of waste. These
projects were undertaken for the purpose of improvement of cell engineering, and therefore resource
recovery or reclamation of land were not the driving factors.
Packington landfill is located on the eastern edge of Birmingham, and is one of the largest land raise
landfills in the UK. When mined, the landfill was over 50 years old, and had been filled with waste of
varying form, composition and different filling geometries. The motivating factor behind the project
was the need to make repairs to the basal seal of one particular cell. This necessitated the movement
of 650,000m3 of waste, estimated to have been landfilled in the 1970’s.
Almost six months was spent on the investigation of filling history and to determine the boundaries of
adjacent cells. In order to do this, many sources of information were reviewed, including old
photographs, interviews with long serving staff, historic filling records and borehole data. This
investigative process revealed that a large amount of demolition waste, including concrete, would be
present in this cell. The method of excavation was then designed with this in mind. Sita identified that
bagged and loose asbestos was likely to be present. Special measures were used each time asbestos
was identified, which included dousing the material with water until it was collected and buried at an
active tipping face.
The design process specified that all excavation works would be undertaken in a continuous water
mist, to minimise the risk of dry materials becoming airborne. Close communication with site
neighbours and regulatory authorities was maintained prior to and during the project. The nearest
properties were less than 150m away and some properties were always within 400m of the mining
operation throughout its entire duration.
During the works, gas extraction was maintained wherever possible and the nature of the cell meant
that only minor works were required to control leachate.
The operations at the Packington landfill and the two other landfills, were not undertaken to recover
material or energy. However, Sita concluded that identifying the material present, and therefore its
value, would need to be far more involved for recovery operations compared to straight excavate and
relocate operations. It was noted that this would not be easy. Sita also noted that effective separation
of excavated wastes would be harder than many people realise, stating it is ‘the greatest challenge
yet to be solved’, and noted that they have considerable experience of operating separation facilities.
In summary, Sita commented ‘landfill mining, practical yes, technically possible, potentially
commercially viable, but far more complex than you may initially think’.
Case Study 2- Masalycke Landfill, Sweden (Reno Sam, 2009)
The Masalcyke landfill in Sweden was included as part of a landfill mining research project to
understand the stage of degradation of landfilled wastes with a view to considering their potential for
recycling and energy recovery. The municipal landfill, dating from the 1970’s, is also being considered
for expansion due to the need for more capacity in the locality.
The excavation was minimal in comparison to the size of the wider landfill. Three sizes of screen were
used (<18mm, 18-50mm and >50mm) separating out the different fractions of waste. Composition
was found to comprise around 29% paper, 19% wood and 17% miscellaneous (mainly comprising
organic and inorganic soils or unidentified items), others include stones, hazardous waste and other
recyclates.
Outputs of the landfill mining process included a soil fraction for soil improvement, a moistened
organic fraction that was placed back in the landfill for gas recovery, plastics were separated for
shredding and reprocessing into ‘Polyplanks’ (a mixture of plastic and wood) for construction purposes
and the remainder was placed back in the landfill. The degradation of materials in the central layers of
the waste appears to have been less than at the base and at the top and this was considered to be
related to moisture content.
Case Study 3- Halifax Landfill, Vermont, USA (Reno Sam, 2009)
The Halifax landfill in Vermont, USA, is a small rural landfill of less than 1 acre. The landfill needed to
be re-profiled due to steep slopes arising from tipping from above creating 1:1, poorly compacted,
waste slopes which prevented effective closure. Therefore, removing (mining) the waste was
considered necessary, in order to replace the waste at gradients of 1:3. During mining, 95,800 cubic
yards of materials were passed through a trommel screen and waste materials were placed back into
the landfill and compacted. The soils, separated by the trommel, were stockpiled and used in the
town as road base and fill, they were also mixed (1:3) with local biosolids to form ‘topsoil’ on
completion of capping at the site. It was later found during post-closure monitoring that tomato,
pepper and melon seeds had sprouted.
The Halifax landfill received wastes from the 1970’s to its closure in 1992 and, following mining, it was
capped in 1995. Wastes landfilled comprised municipal household waste. The nature of the landfill
filling process meant that considerable quantities of soil as daily cover were laid (in some cases 3-4ft
deep), in order to reduce the risk of punctures to vehicles placing wastes. Following excavation, the
soil:waste ratio, was found to be around 1:1. Grant funds were provided by Vermont State to fund
the work.
Case Study 4- Remo Landfill, Houthalen-Hechteren, Belgium (Steven Van Passel et al,
2010) (Waste Management World, 2011)
Advanced Plasma Power (APP) is in collaboration with a number of academic partners (KULeuven,
VITO and UHasselt) and with Group Machiels. This collaboration brings together Group Machiels’
concept of ‘enhanced landfill mining’ with APP’s Gasplasma technology under their ‘Closing-the-Circle’
project banner.
The project will mine a Belgian municipal (MSW) and industrial (IW) solid waste landfill, the Remo
Milieubeheer NV landfill, which received 16Mt of waste from the 1970’s onwards, roughly half of which
is household waste. The remainder of the waste is industrial waste such as shredded material from
the automotive industry, metallurgical slags, pyrite containing slags, dried sludge, etcetera. The area
of non-hazardous fill to be included in the project is circa 129 hectares. The landfill is engineered such
that it is compliant with Flemish legislation and the EU Landfill Directive and has leachate collection
and treatment and methane recovery.
The project is looking to capture and generate between 75MW to 100MW of electricity, enough to
power 100,000 homes, to supply the national electricity grid. The remaining product will be APP’s
trademark Plasmarok which is a vitrified mass of material.
The landfill is located in Flanders, a densely populated area. This site was chosen partly due to its
age as it is widely agreed that the nature of an increasingly ‘consumer’ society between 1950’s and
1980’s will yield the highest, and more economically viable, recyclate levels. It is anticipated that the
waste is comprised of around 45% recyclates. During on-site investigations into waste composition in
2009 specific areas of MSW and IW filling were investigated, the breakdown of materials was as
follows: stone (10%), wood (7%), metal (3%), plastic (17% MSW and 5% IW), textiles (7% MSW
and 2% IW), paper/cardboard (8% MSW and 2% IW), <10mm (44% MSW and 64% IW).
With consideration of socio-economic matters, the impact of the value of reclaimed land, greenhouse
gas savings and contribution to EU renewable energy objectives, the parties involved in this project
deemed it a viable project.
The LFMR operation has yet to begin. Public inquiries have taken place in 2012 and, through
discussion between Ricardo-AEA and APP, it is understood that regulatory considerations are currently
the main consideration delaying commencement of the project. Ricardo-AEA were informed that in
Belgium planning and permitting applications are not normally drafted in parallel as is common in the
UK.
In addition to stressing the importance of regulatory issues to a LFMR project, Ricardo-AEA were
informed by APP that the issues listed below are also highly pertinent to feasibility.
 Understanding waste composition is crucial. Where this is not well understood, the project may be
too risky and costs cannot be scoped appropriately.
 Presence of hazardous wastes can significantly complicate matters, increase costs and affect
viability.
 Viability is subject to some form of government financial support, in particular for energy
production or credits for carbon emission avoidance, e.g. avoidance of fugitive emissions of landfill
gas to atmosphere.
 Considerations such as real estate value and voidspace recovery can play a significant part in
economic viability.
2.1.3 Feasibility studies undertaken elsewhere

A number of authors of papers reviewed for this study have undertaken LFMR feasibility assessments.
Selected information from three of these papers are discussed below. Many of these findings are
commonly cited and discussed in LFMR literature.
A paper presented at the Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium in
Sardinia in 2011 considers the feasibility of sustainable material and energy recovery from landfills in
Europe (W.J. Van Vossen and O.J. Prent, 2011). Costs discussed in the paper refer to the Dutch
situation and the authors determined composition based on review of available data from 60 LFMR
projects (as discussed in Section 1.2.2) and considered a ‘standard landfill’ to be 500,000 tonnes and
5 hectares in area. The paper primarily focused on metal recovery. Some of conclusions of the authors
are listed below.
 Separation techniques are available and proven and, therefore, landfill mining is technically
feasible.
 Of the 60 LFM projects reviewed in literature, the authors note that recycling and recovery of
materials are not the most common goals of LFM projects. The most common drivers were noted
to be increasing landfill capacity and clearing the area for urban development for financial benefit.
 The assessment considers processing which utilises handpicking (incompatibles), shredder, drum
sieve (soil), magnet (ferrous metals), drum separator (paper and plastic as the light fraction, C&D
waste, stones and glass as the heavy fraction and wood, organics and textiles as the medium
fraction), eddy current separator (non-ferrous metals) and air knife (plastics and wood)
applications.
 The revenue from extracted metal is sufficient to offset mining costs by 8.2% where full separation
of the waste occurs and by 18% where only ferrous metal is separated from the waste excavated.
These percentage cost reductions are significant when it is considered that the assessment
considers only 2% metal content in the landfill.
 After the revenue from metal recovery is considered, there remains a large deficit to be addressed
in order to make LFM profitable.
 Re-using the freed landfill capacity as new landfill (e.g. voidspace recovery), reusing the landfill
area for urban development and selling the other recovered material streams are cited as ways of
making landfill mining more profitable. The authors note ‘acquiring these additional benefits
strongly depends upon specific local circumstances and conditions. In the optimal case, these
additional benefits might compensate the total costs and might generate a return on investment of
10 to 20%. From this point it cannot be excluded that a landfill mining project might become
financially profitable’.
 The application of the soil fraction in close proximity to the mining project is cited as having a big
influence on the overall viability of a ‘material from landfill’ project.
Whilst separation techniques are available and proven for certain waste streams, as stated by the
authors of the Dutch study, Ricardo-AEA consider that they are not well proven in the field of LFMR.
Ricardo-AEA do however, agree that LFMR is technically feasible.
In 2009, Reno Sam published a report titled Landfill Mining – Process, Feasibility, Economy, Benefits
and Limitations. Reno Sam is a Danish association of municipal waste management companies. The
report compiles experiences from a range of landfill mining projects throughout the world, and uses
them to examine issues relating to the overall feasibility of landfill mining in Denmark. A summary of
the key observations of this study are:
 Factors impacting on the economic feasibility of reclamation differ for each site, and the reason for
which each is mined.
 In some specific circumstances, the recovery of ferrous metals, aluminium, plastic and glass and
fines can make a project economically viable, if these materials are present in significant quantities
for recovery.
 In some locations, the lack of waste-to-energy facilities limits the market for combustible materials,
and therefore impacts on the potential value of materials recovered.
 Site specific conditions which will help decide whether landfill mining is feasible at a specific site
include:
 Waste composition.
 Historic operating conditions.
 Extent of waste degradation.
 Markets and prices for recovered materials.
 The report suggests that a landfill should be at least 15 years old before a successful landfill
mining project can be undertaken.
 In one project, costs for recovery were low as the distances involved in transporting reclaimed
waste and ash were low, and the management authority used their own vehicles.
 The costs of material recovery can be offset by reductions in closure costs and the reclamation of
land for other uses, and so facility operators need to take this into account when determining
feasibility.
 The economic feasibility of landfill mining can depend on depth of waste and the soil to waste
ratio, i.e. the deeper the waste is buried, the more expensive it is to mine.
 The report concluded that undertaking landfill mining for purely economic reasons is not viable.
A paper titled ‘Enhanced Landfill Mining: Material recovery, energy utilisation and economics in the EU
(Directive) perspective, (Hogland, Hogland and Marques, 2011) also examined the issues of technical,
environmental and economic feasibility and concluded that:
 From a material recovery point of view, landfill mining of MSW landfills should focus on landfills
which were established between 1960 and 1995, as after this date most EU countries had
introduced recycling programs.
 Landfills which accepted industrial wastes may contain more valuable material, i.e. car
fragmentation material and electronic wastes.
 As some incinerators in Europe are now suffering from overcapacity, they are a more likely output
for waste recovered from landfill mining.
 Economic feasibility should include the reduction or elimination of capping, long-term monitoring
and aftercare, maintenance and potential remediation costs, as well as the future value of
reclaimed land.
 Economic feasibility is directly related to capital costs (site preparation, purchase or rental of
equipment) and operational costs (labour, material handling, regulatory compliance).
 The EU Waste Directive will continue to drive waste minimisation, pre-treatment and recycling, and
therefore will make newer and future landfills less feasible for mining.
 Local conditions are fundamental when assessing economic feasibility.
2.2 Implications of worldwide experience to landfill mining in Scotland

The findings and observations reported in the literature for historic and current LFMR around the
world are very pertinent to assessing the feasibility and viability of LFMR in Scotland. Many of the
findings will apply in Scotland, although consideration needs to be given to the specific issues that
apply in Scotland and this is done in Section 2.3.
A key LFMR project that is of particular interest is the APP/Machiels project at the Remo landfill in
Belgium. Although this project is yet to commence, it is the first full-scale project of its kind and it is
being undertaken primarily for resource/energy recovery purposes. Other historic and on-going
projects are either limited to pilot or research projects or have been undertaken primarily as a result
of other drivers. This is a modern-day project that is likely to inform future LFMR projects worldwide.
As historic projects undertaken around the world have generally not focused on resource recovery as
the main driver, the types of separation technologies that are likely to be considered are little proven
for separating excavated landfilled waste. Excavation, shredding and screening has been undertaken
extensively, but further separation technologies have not been widely utilised.
The authors experience of separation technologies treating fresh municipal solid waste (MSW) is such
that it is considered unlikley that sending excavated landfilled waste, or fractions of waste, to an
existing materials recovery facility (MRF) is likely to be feasible. Modern facilities such as MRFs and
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities are designed to treat a certain waste stream(s) and
waste stream composition ‘envelope’. Variations in waste quality can give rise to processing problems
such as blockages, high rate of equipment wear or damage and inneficient separation. Changes in
waste quality can result in the need to amend the manner of operation and to make adjustments to
equipment.
The condition of the waste on arrival, as well as the composition, can influence separation efficiency.
For example, loose co-mingled dry recyclables cannot be separated so well if they have been placed in
a vehicle that compacts waste as opposed to one that does not. The degree of compaction, moisture
content and intertwining of wastes all effect separation efficiency. Landfilled wastes in particular are
likely to be mixed, intertwined and compacted in a manner that will not lend itself to ease of
separation in an existing facility. Landfilled waste is likely to be highly variable in quality and nature at
any one given landfill. Variation is likely to exist as a function of where different waste streams were
deposited, variation subject to age of waste, depth of waste, whether or not the waste is saturated,
moist or dry and the degree of degradation that has taken place. No two landfills will be the same and
sorting, shredding and separation technologies will most likely have to be designed and specified for
the particular landfill concerned and the degree of anticipated variation in quality and nature of the
waste. Where separation of waste into a high number of products is required, it should be noted that
separation efficiency and product quality are unlikley to be high in comparison to treatment processes
for non-landfilled wastes.
The general view obtained from the literature review is that, unless other drivers are also considered,
LFMR for the purpose of resource recovery is not currently economically viable. Certainly, the
impression is that making such a project economically viable would be a challenge requiring an
optimum set of physical, political and economic conditions, careful detailed desk study research and
careful consideration of a complex mix of issues. However, not many of the projects to date have set-
out to maximise resource recovery to the full extent and the technologies applied to date have, in the
main, been limited. The Remo landfill project is evidence that it may, or may soon, be possible to
undertake an economically viable LFMR project.
It is important to note that many of the projects undertaken around the world to date have occurred
in diverse locations and over a period of 60 years. The feasibility of a LFMR project in Scotland should
be viewed in the current climate of regulation and environmental drivers such as reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions and increasing resource scarcity.
A number of the projects historically undertaken around the world have utilised soil from LFMR as a
fertiliser or growing medium. In addition, it has commonly been used as landfill daily cover. Use as
daily cover is likely to be acceptable in Scotland, although determination of this would depend on
discussion with SEPA on an individual site basis.
Due to quality considerations, use of soil for a fertiliser or growing medium may not be acceptable to
regulators. Given that soil can typically constitute around 50% of waste excavated from a typical
landfill, soil end use is likely to be very pertinent to the viability of a LFMR scheme in Scotland.
From Ricardo-AEA’s review of LFMR literature, listed below are commonly cited issues, associated with
feasibility, which should be borne in mind when considering feasibility and viability of a LFMR project
in Scotland.
 It is first necessary to fully understand the nature of the waste present in order to establish the
business case for LFMR and to inform the design of the LFMR plant and equipment.
 The degree of soil present within the landfill and what can be done with the soil following
separation is a key consideration.
 Economic considerations, and technical issues, are influenced by the area of the landfill, depth of
the landfill and height of leachate or groundwater within the waste mass.
 The presence of hazardous wastes can notably influence the operational procedures and add
additional costs to a project. In all cases, it is necessary to ensure measures are in place to
identify, remove and appropriately manage inappropriate or hazardous waste.
 Extending the life of a landfill by recovery of voidspace, or by placement of an engineered liner,
increasing the real estate value of the land or the remediation or prevention of contamination are
all factors that have driven historic and current projects. Such factors, coupled with resource and
energy recovery, will increase the viability of the LFMR project in Scotland.
 Local markets and treatment facilities or energy recovery facilities for recovered materials will
influence the viability of a LFMR project in Scotland.
2.3 Evaluation of issues (Scotland)

2.3.1 A ‘typical’ Scottish landfill
In scoping the feasibility and viability of LFMR specific to Scotland, it is necessary to first establish a
set of assumptions on which the assessment is to be based. These assumptions have been drawn
from the discussion of Scotland’s landfills and excavated waste composition in Section 1.2.
Scotland’s landfills vary considerably in age, size, depth and waste composition. However, the authors,
with consideration to available data, consider that the information provided in Table 2.2 below
provides the best description of what could be considered a ‘typical’ licenced/permitted non-hazardous
landfill in Scotland. It should be noted that only 48 of the 218 licenced/permitted non-hazardous
landfills are operational.
Table 2.2 Attributes of a ‘typical’ non-hazardous Scottish landfill
Attribute (single ‘typical’

Value Comment
landfill)
Overall mass of waste 1.3 million tonnes Ignoring Scotland’s 2 largest

non-hazardous landfills, the
median total capacity of
operational non-hazardous sites
is 1.3 million tonnes.
The total capacity of closed but

still licenced sites is not readily
available.
Depth of waste 15m This is an arbitrary depth.
Depth will vary greatly between

landfills, and in many cases
across a single landfill.
Landfill area 10 hectares This is derived from the total

assumed tonnage, the assumed
depth and the assumption that
the waste density is 0.9 t/m3.
Waste composition Non-hazardous and a mix of Based on literature review, as

household, commercial and discussed in Section 1.2.2.
industrial waste.
No Scotland specific data exists
‘Typical composition’ as for excavated waste quality.
presented in Table 1.1.
The majority of landfills
‘Good composition’ as presented (operational or closed) receive/
in Table 1.3. received household, commercial
and industrial waste.
Presence of other waste Assume none More than half (59%) of

management facilities at the operational non-hazardous
landfill landfills are landfill only sites
The majority (91%) of closed

non-hazardous landfills that are
still licenced are landfill only
sites.
Whilst the ‘typical’ licenced/permitted non-hazardous landfill has been established, as described in
Table 2.2, it is necessary to consider other variables such as those listed in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3 Further variables for a ‘typical’ non-hazardous Scottish landfill
Landfill type Considerations
Non-hazardous Operational With and without other waste facilities at the same
landfill location
With and without an asbestos cell/s
With and without cells of low landfill gas production.
With ‘typical’ capacity and with range of capacities.
Closed With and without other waste facilities at the same

location
With and without an asbestos cell/s
With and without cells of low landfill gas production.
With ‘typical’ capacity and with range of capacities.
With and without known presence of hazardous waste.
With and without Landfill Directive compliant base and

sides.
To inform the discussion of issues, in particular technical, economic and environmental issues, it is
necessary to consider how non-hazardous landfills containing biodegradable waste behave over time.
When deposited in a landfill, waste exists in an aerobic state for a brief period of time, typically days
or weeks, before anaerobic processes take hold. During this brief period, aerobic degredation primarily
gives rise to carbon dioxide gas. With time, the oxygen present within the waste is consumed and
new oxygen is prevented from entering by subsequent waste and daily cover placement. Under these
anaerobic conditions, microbial breakdown of the waste primarily generates methane, typically around
60% volume/volume (v/v). As the waste landfilled increases in quantity and age, the predominant gas
produced is methane.
When the landfill is full, it is normally capped and restoration soils are typically placed on top of the
capping material. The capping serves numerous purposes including minimisation of leachate
generation, minimisation of air entry and maximisation of gas collection efficiency. Utilisation of
discreet landfill cells allows can allow easier progressive capping and restoration and can assist in
controlling leachate levels within the waste, as well as allowing progressive gas collection and ease of
controlling gas collection. It is preferable to maintain leachate levels around 1m height and a high
level can slow down the degredation of waste within the leachate. As waste filling progresses, bulk
gas generation normally increases fast, typically reaching a peak around, or shortly after, the end of
the filling operation. The bulk gas generation then tails-off exponentially. Where gas is utilised in an
engine or turbine to generate electricity, the time will come when there is insufficient gas for this. At
this point, gas generated is typically collected and flared.
The time will then come when there is insufficient gas to collect and flare. At this point in time, it is
inevitable that gas will be lost to the environment. Pertinently to environmental considerations, this
low level generation of gas can occur over a very long period of time, owing to the exponential nature
of the fall in generation levels. Eventually, when it is proven that the waste has fully stabilised and the
regulator is satisfied that the landfill no longer poses a risk, the operator will seek to surrender the
permit for the site. This is pertinent to the economic discussion as this will be long after the end of
income from landfilling and electricity generation, after which time the operator will still be paying to
maintain and monitor the site, as well as costs involved in reporting to the regulator and maintaining
the site’s permit.
It is important to note that many closed landfills will not meet modern landfill engineering
requirements which afford a high degree of containment, control and minimisation of leachate
generation. In addition, not all landfills contain discreet engineered cells and this applies to landfills of
all sizes. It is also important to note that a range of factors, such as waste type, density, pH,
temperature and moisture content can influence the rate of degredation. As such, the timeline for the
above sequence of events will vary site by site. The timeline is pertinent to when it would be
appropriate to commence a LFMR operation and in assessing any avoided costs and avoided
environmental impacts.
Table 2.4 below identifies an assumed timeline that is considered appropriate to apply to the ‘typical’
non-hazardous Scottish landfill described in Table 2.2.
Table 2.4 Proposed timeline of a ‘typical’ non-hazardous Scottish landfill
Event Date of event or duration Comment
Ending of filling and provision of Will vary from site to site Since decisions will be made on
capping the age of the landfill, it is
important to establish when this
date was.
Peak gas generation Typically around or shortly Based on author experience of

following end of waste receipt landfill gas modelling
and capping
Utilisation of gas in an engine or 18 years Based on author experience of

turbine landfill gas modelling, this is
typically 15 to 20 years. An
example model in the
Environment Agency’s GasSim
software describes a landfill of
similar nature (1.9M tonnes, 8.3
hectares and containing non-
hazardous domestic and
commercial wastes) to the
‘typical’ Scottish landfill
discussed above. The model
shows utilisation to take place
over an 18 year period.
Event Date of event or duration Comment
Period of insufficent gas for 6 years Based on the example GasSim

utilisation, but sufficient gas for model discussed above.
flaring
Period in which gas is generated 45+ years This is somewhat arbitrary and
at low level which cannot be will vary significantly from site to
effectively collected. site. This is based upon author
experience of landfill gas
modelling and review of
literature. SEPA guidance on
‘financial provision’ (SEPA, 2005)
describes ‘at least 60 years’ for
an aftercare period for
biodegradable non-hazardous
landfills and notes that the actual
duration will be very site specific.
This aftercare period reflects the
time from the ending of waste
deposit to permit surrender.
Due to risks associated with excavating into recently deposited wastes that are still generating high
volumes of gas and high strength leachate, LFMR operations are normally undertaken on wastes that
have achieved a certain level of stabilisation. Although the age will be variable, this scoping study
assumes it is undertaken 25 years following ceasation of filling. In order to undertake a LFMR
operation earlier than this, it is possible to increase the rate of degredation and stabilisation through
creation of an aerobic landfill. In doing this, methane production is greatly reduced, carbon dioxide
production increases and the rate of stabilisation increases which can significantly bring forward the
time at which LFMR can take place. This will alter the economic and environmental aspects of the
project. However, the material available for recovery at the end, the key focus of this high level study,
will remain broadly the same. Furthermore, the waste of most interest for LFMR projects undertaken
for material reclamation is considered to be that deposited in landfills between approximately 1965
and 1995. For these reasons, whilst the aerobic landfill approach may be of interest for certain
scenarios, this scoping study has been undertaken with consideration of the ‘typical’ timeline provided
in Table 2.4.
2.3.2 Overview of economic issues

As highlighted in Table 2.1 and in the Packington Landfill case study in Section 2.1.2, landfill mining in
the UK has been restricted to projects where waste has needed to be moved to undertake repairs to
the landfill liner, or to relocate the waste to make way for a road or other new infrastructure. The
costs of these projects were perhaps seen as inevitable or unavoidable. Where landfill mining is being
considered for the purposes of resource recovery and/or reclaiming land or void space, the economic
viability becomes fundamental to deciding if a project should be undertaken.
The economic factors associated with landfill mining are complex and numerous. Some costs may be
straightforward to estimate, whilst other costs will be more difficult to quantify. Other than the value
from future land sales or new void space, revenues from recyclables are acknowledged to be the
other main source of income in landfill mining projects. Landfills may be potential future ‘mines’ of
recyclable materials, but the on-going uncertainty surrounding markets and prices for recyclables
makes estimating the potential revenues difficult. Some studies have indicated that landfill mining for
the sole purpose of recycling of materials is not cost effective (Morris, 1994) but that the greatest
potential economic benefits are associated with the land value of reclaimed sites, and avoided or
reduced costs of landfill closure.
Attempts have previously been made to develop generic Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) models for
determining the economic feasibility of landfill mining. However, the variation in parameters such as
waste quantity, waste type, energy content, investment costs, operation costs, and revenues, mean
that this is still not possible other than on a site-by-site basis.
One such theoretical CBA was applied to the Enhanced Landfill Mining (ELFM) projects in the Flanders
region of the Netherlands (Van Passel et al, 2010) which established that recovering energy from
waste was the most important benefit, see Table 2.5 below. The CBA included the costs of land
currently used for landfills, and a monetary value was assigned to greenhouse gas savings based on
the EU Emission Trading Scheme. The research concluded that ELFM projects would have a positive
benefits, but that there were complex trade-off between economic, social and environmental issues.
Table 2.5 Social Cost Benefit Analysis for ELFM in the Flanders region (Van Passel et al, 2010)
Cost Benefit Analysis for ELFM in Flanders
Site surface (m2) 20,000,000
Costs (EUR)
Total 12,779,680,000
Benefits (EUR)
Total waste to materials 1,534,382,080
Total waste to energy 9,937,782,556
Landfill reclamation 1,368,000,000
Reduced carbon footprint 256,650,240
TOTAL 317,134,876
Table 2.6 below summarises the main costs and sources of income/revenue of an LFMR project.
Table 2.6 Costs and sources of income/revenue of an LFMR project.
Costs Benefits
Project Planning Revenues
Investigative studies Sale of recyclable materials
Obtaining permits and planning consent Reclaimed soils (either reused on-site or sold as
construction fill materials)
Consultancy and design costs
Energy recovery and incentives
Capital Costs Avoided costs
Site preparation Post closure care and monitoring
Equipment and plant Purchase or development of new landfill
Liability for future remediation
Operational Costs Other benefits
Labour Potential value of reclaimed land
Fuel/ energy Potential value of recovered void space
Maintenance of equipment
Rental of equipment
Transport and haulage costs
Landfilling of residual materials
Administration and regulatory compliance
Staff training
Gate fees for combustible materials at EfW

facilities
2.3.3 Economic issues specific to Scotland

2.3.3.1 Expected material recovery rates for Scottish Landfills
As outlined in Section 1.2.2, it is not possible to determine an accurate waste composition and,
therefore, expected material recovery rate without undertaking detailed studies at a specific landfill. A
typical compostion of a landfill in Scotland, with the absence of specific data, is considered to be that
given in Table 1.1.
Prior to the introduction of recycling in the 1990’s, older wastes going to landfill contained more
metals, glass and organic waste than wastes from the 1990s onwards. Prior to the increasing
consumer society of the 1960s onwards, landfilled wastes are likely to contain less recoverable
materials. It is, therefore, considered that wastes from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s are likely to
contain the highest amount of materials of interest to a LFMR project focusing on resource recovery.
Savage et al (1993) estimates the proportion of various materials which it is possible to recover are as
high as 80-95% for metals and 70-90% for plastics.
Based on review of available information and mechanical processing efficiencies, Kit strange of the
World Resource Foundation (WRF), noted expected recovery rates of:
 85% to 95% for soil.

 70% to 90% for ferrous metals.
 50% to 75% for plastic.
He also notes expected material purity as detailed below (the higher end of each range noted as
reflecting relatively complex process designs):
 90% to 95% for soil.

 80% to 95% for ferrous metals.
 50% to 75% for plastic.
For simplicity, given the approximate assumption of ‘typical’ waste given in Table 1.1 and that a better
quality could be encounterred in a carefully selected landfill (Table 1.3), the high level economic
assessment of a ‘typical’ landfill (Section 2.3.4) has considered that all recoverable waste is recovered.
2.3.3.2 Markets, off-takers and revenues in Scotland

Metals
The primary materials recovered for recycling are anticipated to be both ferrous and non-ferrous
metals. Metals are likely to be one of the simplest materials to be recovered, and also have the
highest value. The metal recycling market in the UK is such that the lack of proximity to an end user
of recycled metals is not a significant barrier to its recycling. There are numerous waste management
and recycling companies across Scotland with the capacity to collect, bulk and transfer metals on to
end users in the UK, or indeed for export. It is anticipated that metals would be sold at the current
market value, which is subject to the global commodities market, with little influence from local
factors.
Plastics
Operators of MSW (non-landfilled) mechanical separation plants in the UK are currently, in general,
sending plastic for use as an RDF or SRF. Some operators are paying for their separated plastic to be
landfilled. Plastic separated in a LFMR is likely to be of poorer quality than plastic from non-landfilled
MSW. Even where attempts are made to separate film from hard plastic, to separate hard plastics by
optical sorting, or to clean the plastic, quality is still likely to be comparatively poor and the processing
cost high. The opportunities for finding a buyer of plastic segregated from excavated landfilled, with
the intention of using the plastic in manufacturing, are considered to be low.
Inert, Construction and Demolition (C&D waste), glass and soils
There are numerous materials recycling facilities and waste transfer stations that accept C&D and
other inert waste for recycling across Scotland, where they are recycled for reuse as aggregates, fill
materials and soils. The market for these materials is robust. However the quality of these materials
from a landfill is likely to be poor when compared to C&D waste being processed directly from the site
at which it arises. Materials are likely to be contaminated with soils, leachate and other organic
materials, resulting in increased difficulties in obtaining quality recyclable materials. Where the landfill
is to be subject to future landfilling, soil can be used for future daily cover and crushed C&D waste for
the construction of site roads. Soils recovered from landfill will be unlikely to meet quality criteria for
subsequent reuse offsite.
It is unlikely that glass will be able to be separated from other inert materials with a high degree of
purity and will have little value and so will be more likely to remain within the inert fraction.
Residual/Fuel Fraction
It is highly unlikely that the residual material from landfill mining will meet the requirements specified
for use as a Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) for use in a cement kiln, therefore, this is not deemed to be a
viable market in Scotland at present.
There is potential for this material to be combusted in a conventional mass burn incinerator, with little
further processing. However, the current scarcity of Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities in Scotland
greatly impacts on the Scottish market for energy recovery from the residual waste fraction. There are
several EfW and Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) plants at various stages of development in
Scotland which may offer potential future markets for a residual fuel fraction from a LFMR project.
Details of these facilities are summarised in Table 2.7 below.
Table 2.7 Planned and proposed energy recovery facilities in Scotland (Ricardo-AEA database-
‘FALCON’)
Annual
Operator Technology Plant Status Location MW
Throughput
Energos ATT - Planning North Ayrshire 6.0 80,000

Gasification granted
Energos ATT - Proposed Renfrewshire 9.0 120,000

Gasification
Scotgen ATT - Planning South 10.0 160,000

Gasification Granted Lanarkshire
Shore Energy ATT - Pyrolysis Planning North 13.7 160,000

Granted Lanarkshire
Covanta Combustion Planning North 24.0 350,000

Granted Lanarkshire
Viridor Combustion Proposed Glasgow CIty unknown 200,000

Annual
Operator Technology Plant Status Location MW
Throughput
J Gordon Combustion Planning Moray 4.0 30,000

Williamson Ltd Granted
Combined Combustion Planning Highland unknown 100,000

Power & Heat Granted
Highlands Ltd
Sita Combustion Proposed Aberdeenshire unknown 100,000
If all of these plants progress to construction and operation, capacity to process residual fuel fractions
from LFMR would increase significantly and it is likely that some of these plants would be actively
trying to source additional feedstocks in addition to any local authority or other contracts they had
secured.
Another potential market would be for export to Europe for use as a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). There
is currently high demand for RDF in Europe, and exports from the UK are increasing. However, even
though quality requirements for RDF are not as stringent as for SRF, it is still unlikely that the residual
material from landfill mining would meet these requirements without an element of further
processing. Key quality criteria are moisture content, particle size and chlorine levels. A means of
overcoming this barrier would be to process the waste further in a Mechanical Biological Treatment
(MBT plant). Again, there are currently limited examples of such facilities in Scotland, and those that
do exist would tend to be tailored to processing a specific waste stream such as Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) or mixed Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste, and may not be configured to effectively
process the residual waste from landfill mining.
Energy Revenues and Incentives
The Renewables Obligation (RO), introduced in 2002, is a Government fiscal support mechanism for
supporting generation of renewable electricity. Under the RO, generators of electricity from renewable
sources can receive Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each unit of electricity generated,
whether used on site or exported to the grid. However, to qualify for ROCs, the generator must be
connected to the grid via an import / export meter.
The rate at which ROCs are earned is dependent on the renewable electricity technology utilised.
ROCs will only be awarded for electricity generated from the biomass fraction (deemed or proven) of
the waste derived feedstock. EfW with power generation only, e.g. not combined heat and power
(CHP), is not eligible under the RO and consequently will not receive ROCs. However, both standard
and advanced gasification and pyrolysis technologies are eligible. The recent banding review
consultation by DECC has confirmed that advanced gasification and pyrolysis will receive 2 ROCs per
MWh in 2013/14, with standard gasification and pyrolysis also receiving 2 ROCS per MWh from
2013/14.
2.3.3.3 Do nothing scenario

In order to compare the potential savings and income of a landfill mining project, the costs of a ‘do
nothing’ scenario must be taken into account. If LFMR does take place, these become ‘avoided costs’.
SEPA has produced a technical guidance note which estimates the amount of financial provision that
needs to be made throughout the full life cycle of a landfill, and this document informed some of the
costs used in this high level assessment, in addition to author judgement.
The ‘do nothing’ costs are considered to apply for a period of 35 years from the end of when the
LFMR operation would have ceased had it have taken place. To further explain this, no costs are
avoided in the first 25 years folowing closure, and costs are not avoided during the subsequent 10
years of the mining activity. Avoided costs (or ‘do nothing’ costs), therefore, only arise after the first
35 years. Given an assumed 70 year full time period, that leaves 35 years of ‘do nothing’ or ‘avoided
costs’. Informed by the timescales in Table 2.4, this is based on the assumptions listed below.
 Overall period of 70 years from end of waste receipt to permit surrender.

 LFMR commences 25 years after end of waste receipt.
 Mining operation for 1.3m tonnes (the ‘typical’ Scottish landfill, which is considered to be 10 ha and
15m deep) takes 10 years. It is assumed that the time limiting factor will be the advanced
mechanical separation processing following soil separation. Assuming 50% soil, an advanced
separation throughput of 25 t/hr and 2,700 hours of operation per year, gives a duration of 10
years. Available LFMR literature suggests excavation, shredding and trommeling can be undertaken
at notably higher throughputs. The advanced separation process throughput will be very much
subject to design, and advanced separation is little proven for landfilled wastes. The authors
consider that 25 t/hr is a realistic assumption.
Indicative costs of likely activities in the 35 year period are provided in Table 2.8 below.
Table 2.8 ‘Do nothing’ costs, e.g. costs that could be avoided through LFMR.
Cost over 35
Activity/Item years (at 2012 Assumptions
rates)
£105k Based on 2 monitoring rounds per year and 3 days per round,
Monitoring staff at a labour cost of £500 per day.
and reporting
£150k Assume the site has 25 perimeter boreholes, 10 in waste
boreholes and 4 surface water monitoring points. Assume that
Laboratory costs half of all boreholes and all surface water locations are
for groundwater subjected to sampling and laboratory analysis twice per year.
and leachate Assume £100 lab costs per sample.
analysis
Treatment of £26k Assume £149.90/ha/yr (SEPA paper value adjusted for
differential inflation) and assume it applies for half of the period.
settlement
£87k Will be risk based and reduced in the aftercare period. This
Annual permit value reflects the SEPA paper value adjusted for inflation.
charge
Total cost (35 £369k This total cost assumes leachate management is no longer
years) undertaken. This may not be the case, but any treatment is
likely to be notably less involved than within the first 35 years
after filling. It is also assumed that no gas management is
undertaken this long after waste receipt ceased.
2.3.3.4 Landfill gas

Utilisation of landfill gas in an engine or turbine to generate electricity, possibly with heat recovery, is
a source of revenue for a landfill operator. However, LFMR activities normally take place after the
waste has stabilised and, therefore, this revenue stream will no longer be present.
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, where landfill gas is being generated, the time will come when
generation levels are so low that it is not possible to collect and utilise it for energy or heat
generation. Gas is normally collected and flared when this occurs, which both manages the gas in a
controlled and safe manner and combustion emissions are of less global warming potential than the
raw landfill gas. However, levels of gas generation will continue to drop until collection and flaring is
not possible and then relatively low levels of landfill gas will be lost to atmosphere for a long period of
time, typically decades. This is an environmental impact and its avoidance could potentially represent
a signficant reduction in Scotland’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Landfill mining has the potential to
mitigate against this fugitive emission of landfill gas. In separating organic combustible material for
inclusion in an RDF for energy generation, the material is removed from the landill and it would,
otherwise, have degraded in the landfill giving rise to fugitive emission of landfill gas. In addition, it is
possible to screen the soil fraction recovered to remove the organic fraction. This concentrated
organic fraction can then be re-landfilled in a cell with gas collection for utilisation, or it could
potentially be sent to an anaerobic digestion facility for energy recovery. The latter option would,
however, give rise to payment of a gate-fee.
LFMR project economics.
The economic assessment presented in this study has not considered incentives/credits for avoidance
of fugitive emissions of landfill gas. It is, however, recommended that consideration is given to this
matter, in particular in relation to any possible future detailed site specific feasibility assessment, as
well as at a national policy level. In particular, consideration should be given to whether a LFMR
project in Scotland could qualify for Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) under the Joint Implementation
(JI) mechanism.
2.3.3.5 Capex and Opex

The capital expenditure (Capex) and operational expenditure (Opex) will vary significantly between
projects, and overall expenditure will be subject to a lot of variables. Depth of landfill, waste
composition, presence of hazardous waste, leachate level and waste moisture content, environmental
mitigation measures, level of reprocessing undertaken and choice of technology are some of the key
factors influencing Capex and Opex.
A review of international LFMR projects has revealed a wide range of capital and operational costs. In
some cases, capital costs were low as equipment used to process mined waste was leased or hired.
On larger projects such as the planned Remo landfill LFMR project in Belgium, which includes on-site
energy recovery, capital costs will be a significant proportion of total project costs.
Many costs discussed in literature reflect costs of operations limited to excavation, shredding and
screening, typically using leased mobile equipment. Many of the projects have also been relatively
short duration involving mining of relatively low quantities of waste.
Capex costs per tonne for USA landfill mining projects have been reported as ranging between $10 to
$30 (£6.20 to £18.60) and Opex costs per tonne at $30 to $90 (£18.60 to £55.80), giving a total cost
in the region of $40 to $120 per tonne, or £24.80 to £74.40 (Hogland 2011). These costs appear to
have included metal separation. Many USA LFMR projects have not, and do not, involve detailed waste
separation, noting the primary driver is seldom resource recovery.
The most recent cost estimates for processing mined landfill wastes are from a Royal Haskoning paper
presented at the Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium in Sardinia in
2011 (W.J. Van Vossen and O.J. Prent, 2011). The paper presents costs in Euros, based on Dutch
costs. These costs have been converted to pounds sterling and are presented in Table 2.9 below. The
paper is not explicit in noting whether these costs include Capex. However, the paper provides
‘construction’ costs eleswhere and the magnitude of the costs in Table 2.9 are such that the costs are
considered to refer to Opex. It should be noted that the paper is a feasibility paper and the costs are
not derived from an actual LFMR project.
Table 2.9 Estimated costs per step of processing mined landfilled waste (costs transferred to pounds
sterling, at €1=£0.80, based on euro costs provided in W.J. Van Vossen and O.J. Prent, 2011)
Separated waste Costs per step Cumulative costs

Separation Step
streams (£/tonne) (£/tonne)
Excavation - £4.00 £4.00
Handpicking Non processables £0.80 £4.80
Shredder - £8.00 £12.80
Drum Sieve Soil £2.40 £15.20
Magnet Ferrous metals £2.40 £17.60
Drum Separator Paper & plastic (light £5.60 £23.20

fraction output)
C&D, stones & glass

(heavy fraction output)
Wood, organic and

textile (medium fraction
output)
Eddy Current Non ferrous metals £4.80 £28.00
Air Knife Plastics & wood £12.00 £40.00
Cumulative costs up to and including the drum sieve (which is considered to be a trommel as the
authors are Dutch and ‘trommel’ is Dutch for ‘drum’ and ‘sieve’ is assumed to refer to ‘screen’) are
£15.20. If metal separation is added to this, the total is £22.40. This is at the lower end of the range
of Opex costs quoted for USA LFMR projects.
It is considered that Opex costs for a LFMR project in Scotland are likely to be broadly similar to costs
discussed in literature for US and european LFMR projects.
A paper presented at the Global Landfill Mining Conference in the UK in 2010 (Peter Jones, 2010)
provides estimated capital costs for investment in waste technology as detailed below.
 Mechanical separation: £10m for a 100,000 tonne/annum facility.

 Small scale advanced thermal treatment: £25m for a 50-60,000 tonne/annum facility.
 Small scale gasifier/syn gas: £40m for a 60-80,000 tonne/annum facility.
 Medium scale EfW: £60m for a 120,000 tonne/annum facility.
The paper estimates that LFMR processing costs could be around £25 per tonne, which is broadly in
line with the values discussed in Table 2.9.
With consideration to the range of costs discussed above, in addition to Ricardo-AEA judgement, the
economic analysis of a LFMR project undertaken on a ‘typical’ Scottish landfill has considered the
range of costs detailed below:
 Opex for excavation and separation: £25 to £50 per tonne.

 Capex for excavation and separation: £5m to £10m.
 Opex for a gasifier with syn gas utilisation: £21 to £35 per tonne.
 Capex for a gasifier with syn gas utilisation: £10m to £15m.
2.3.4 Economic analysis of a hypothetical Scottish LFMR project

Due to the complexities of the economics of landfill mining, it is not possible to present a ‘one size fits
all’ economic analysis. Specific site issues will be fundamental in determining economic viability in
each case. However, making some high level assumptions about a hypothetical ‘typical’ landfill in the
central area of Scotland, an indicative economic analysis has been undertaken. This is based on the
assumed ‘typical’ landfill described Section 2.3.1 and separation equipment described in a recent
paper on LFMR (W.J. Van Vossen and O.J. Prent, 2011). The simple assessment has been undertaken
to allow comparative analysis of a range of possible LFMR projects applied to the hypothetical, typical,
Scottish landfill. The assessment is based on 2012 costs and revenues and takes no account of future
inflation or other potential changes in costs or revenues.
The assessment is based on the assumptions listed below.
 Landfill is to be mined, 25 years after closure, over a period of 10 years.

 1.3 million Tonnes to be excavated, which would be the entire landfill contents.
 15 metre deep cells.
 10 hectare landfill area.
 Separation is 100% efficient (for simplicity).
 Soil is retained on site, either as daily cover for subsequent landfill, or as backfill and landscaping.
 Use of residual waste (variables):
 RDF is exported off site for energy recovery, incurring a gate fee.
 RDF is used onsite at a purpose built facility, with income from energy sales and ROCs.
 Recyclables (metals only) are sold at market value.
 Land use after mining (variables):
 Site is sold for development on completion LFMR project
 Site operates as a landfill with new void space
Figure 2.1 outlines the processes and destinations for materials recovered a part of the economic
model developed.
Four different options have been modelled:
 Option 1a – RDF exported for use off site, landfill void space free for reuse.
 Option 1b – RDF exported for use off site, landfill site sold for residential development.
 Option 2a – Energy recovery on site, landfill void space free for reuse.
 Option 2b – Energy recovery on site, landfill site sold for residential development.
For each option, high, middle and low (best outcome, mid outcome and worst outcome) inputs were
modelled, based on a range of costs and revenues identified for each component of the model.
Printouts of the model and tables of assumptions are provided in Appendix 5. The modelled costs,
revenues and profits are detailed in Table 2.10.
Mined material
Hand Oversized, incompatibles

picking/mechanical Landfill
and inerts
grab
Shredder
Trommel Soils Re-used at landfill
Magnet Ferrous metals Recycled
RDF use off site

Light and medium
fractions (paper, plastic,
organics, textiles and Energy recovery onsite
wood)
Drum Separator
Heavy fraction (C&D, Crushed and used on

stones and glass) site
Eddy current Non-ferrous metals Recycled

separator
Figure 2.1 – LFM operations used in fictional Scottish Landfill economic model
Table 2.10 Indicative economic model of LFMR in Scotland for a hypothetical ‘typical’ landfill.
Option 1a (RDF export & landfill reuse) 1b (RDF export & sale of land) 2a – energy recovery at landfill, 2b – energy recovery at landfill,
reuse of landfill sale of land
Costs:£ Best Mid Poor Best Mid Poor Best Mid Poor Best Mid Poor
millions outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome
Investigation, £0.5 £1 £1.5 £0.5 £1 £1.5 £0.5 £1 £1.5 £0.5 £1 £1.5

planning &
design
Opex £32.5 £48.8 £65 £32.5 £48.8 £65 £32.5 £48.8 £65 £32.5 £48.8 £65
(excavation &
separation)
Capex £5 £7.5 £10 £5 £7.5 £10 £5 £7.5 £10 £5 £7.5 £10
(excavation &
separation)
Landfill costs £6.5 £6.5 £6.5 £6.5 £6.5 £6.5
RDF gate fees £17.1 £17.1 £17.1 £17.1 £17.1 £17.1
&
transportation
Opex energy £4.6 £6.1 £7.6 £4.6 £6.1 £7.6
(recovery)
Capex energy £10 £12.5 £15 £10 £12.5 £15
(recovery)
SUB TOTAL £55 £74.3 £93.5 £61.6 £80.8 £100.1 £52.6 £75.8 £99.1 £59.1 £82.3 £105.6
Option 1a (RDF export & landfill reuse) 1b (RDF export & sale of land) 2a – energy recovery at landfill, 2b – energy recovery at landfill,
reuse of landfill sale of land
Revenue & Best Mid Poor Best Mid Poor Best Mid Poor Best Mid Poor
Savings:£ outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome outcome
millions
Avoided costs £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37 £0.37
that would
have been
incurred in the
35 years
leading up to
environmental
permit
surrender.
Income from £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7 £8.7
recyclables
Energy sales £19.8 £13 £6.2 £19.8 £13 £6.2
ROCs £37.3 £21.4 £5.5 £37.3 £21.4 £5.5
Reuse of void £4.4 £4.4 £4.4 £4.4 £4.4 £4.4
space
Sale of land £22 £17.2 £8.5 £22 £17.2 £8.5
SUB TOTAL £13.5 £13.5 £13.5 £31.1 £26.3 £17.6 £70.5 £47.9 £25.2 £88.2 £60.7 £29.3
TOTAL PROFIT -£41.5 -£60.8 -£80 -£30.5 -£54.5 -£82.5 £18 -£28 -£73.9 £29.1 -£21.7 -£76.3
2.3.5 Summary of economic implications of landfill mining in Scotland

The economic analysis presented in Section 2.3.4 is based on a hypothetical scenario, where best
attempts have been made to consider a ‘typical’ Scottish landfill. Furthermore, the assessment is
based on many assumptions and variables. For these reasons, it is necessary to acknowledge that the
assessment is a relatively simplistic and approximate method of determining the likely overall effect of
a range of possible costs and revenues associated with a LFMR project in Scotland. In addition, where
comment is made in this report in relation to economic considerations discussed by other authors, it
should be noted that these authors also often note similar limitations in relation to their findings.
The assessment has not considered every possible LFMR project, but has focused on four realistic
options:
 Option 1a – RDF exported for use off site, landfill void space free for reuse.
 Option 1b – RDF exported for use off site, landfill site sold for residential development.
 Option 2a – Energy recovery on site, landfill void space free for reuse.
 Option 2b – Energy recovery on site, landfill site sold for residential development.
In all cases, the assessment has considered that the process removes metals for subsequent re-
melting, generating a revenue in doing so. Everything else is either reused on site, landfilled on or off
site or used to form an RDF for use on or off-site. There are other possibilities, such as the use or sale
of soil and hardcore for use elsewhere, or the use of plastic for subsequent manufacture of products.
However, the use of soil on site is considered the most likely scenario for a LFMR project in Scotland
and it is considered most likely that plastic would form part of an RDF. Subject to the nature and
amount of these materials present in the landfill, this may not be the case. However, this assessment
is based on the scenarios considered most probable.
Whilst available LFMR literature does describe projects where offsite use of soils, including as fill and
growing media, has taken place, on-site use is most common. Soil has been used as growing media in
Israel in the 1950s and in China. Since many landfills involve filling of a void, as opposed to land raise,
it is likely that the replacement of some material as fill will be advantageous for subsequent
redevelopment of the land. If future landfilling is to take place, the on-site use of the separated soil as
daily cover material will be highly beneficial to the landfill operator. Finally, the use of soil off-site, in
Scotland, is likely to restricted by quality and regulatory implications associated with end of waste
criteria and environmental permitting. Such implications may not have featured in decision making in
some of the projects undertaken in other countries.
The economics of plastic separation for re-manufacture are unlikley to be favourable. The assessment
assumes the plastic quantity present in the hypothetical typical landfill is 59,800 tonnes. As stated
above, this plastic is likely to have little or no value other than possibly as an RDF. However, if this
was virgin polymer its value would be high. At the time of writing, global polymer prices are very high.
One website article reviewed, dated 31 August 2012, (www.business-standard.com) noted
international polyethylene prices are around $1,250 per tonne (£774). Taking this high virgin polymer
price and including it in the economic assessment (Option 1a- mid outcome) as a recycling revenue,
assuming separation efficiency was 100%, whilst at the same time removing the cost of RDF export,
returns a relatively low profit of £2.5m. However, the plastic from a LFMR will not have virgin polymer
value, will undoubtedly involve increased processing costs to separate and clean, and will not be
100% recovered. It is considered that the only currently viable option for plastic is redeposit in the
landfill or use within RDF.
The outcome of the economic assessment is that, for the typical Scottish landfill, LFMR is not
economically viable for most scenarios considered. The exceptions are with ‘best outcome’ inputs and
options where energy recovery is undertaken at the landfill, e.g. Options 2a and 2b.
The Capex costs for the thermal treatment plant have been selected based on numbers quoted by
other authors and with reference to a previous study undertaken by Ricardo-AEA on behalf of WRAP.
These numbers have been scaled down from figures associated with larger facilties. In reality, due to
economies of scale, smallscale thermal treatment plants are comparatively expensive. It is considered
that an ‘Option 2a’ or ‘Option 2b’ LFMR scheme is likely to be more viable for larger landfills, and
those with a higher content of material suitable for use as an RDF.
Although based on a simplistic and approximate approach with a high reliance on assumptions, this
assessment does reflect findings in LFMR literature, as summarised in Section 2.1 and 2.2. In
particular, the planned Remo landfill LFMR project in Belgium is considered, by those intending to
undertake the project, to be economically viable. The Remo landfill project centres around on-site
gasification of RDF, has better quality waste than considered in this economic assessment, and is a
much larger landfill. The Remo landfill project is expected to be operational for over 20 years, and is
expected to process 100,000 tonnes per annum.
2.3.6 Technical issues

Modern-day LFMR approaches are in their infancy, developed from numerous trial-and-error attempts
using current earth materials handling and management technologies and separation technologies
used elsewhere in the waste management industry and in other industries.
From a technical perspective, an effective LFMR project is dependent on:
 A thorough understanding of the materials to be mined, including their variability and nature.
 The effective selection/use of the appropriate technologies.
 Product output specifications.
 Contingency planning.
To determine feasibility, or select the most appropriate approach, a review of the historic landfill
operations and wastes received, along with interviews with landfill personnel, should first be
conducted. Next, a representative waste characterisation should be performed using a combination of
non-invasive and investigatory methods such as ground-penetrating radar (GPR), test pit sampling,
and/or borehole analyses to estimate composition (types of waste, density, moisture content) by
location. Finally, it should be determined whether or not the test samples collected will, with or
without further processing, meet the required product specifications.
2.3.6.1 Technology Overview

Listed below are a range of technologies that could potentially be employed in a LFMR operation.
Whilst most of these technologies are currently used within the waste management industry, many
are unproven, or little proven, in the application of LFMR. In comparison to waste shortly after the
point of generation, landfilled waste will often be compacted, degraded, mixed, intertwined and often
wet. Furthermore, shredding and separation equipment will most likely operate at different
efficiencies, and degrees of success, for waste from different landfills.
Excavation Screens
 Trackhoe and backhoe excavators  Trommel
 Bulldozers  Vibrating
 Grappling Hoes  Disc/star
Size Reduction/Shredding Ferrous Metal Separators

 Hammermills - vertical and horizontal shaft  Overband magnets
 Shear shredder  Drum magnets
 Rotary, guillotine and scissors-type shears  Head pulley magnets
 Grinders - roller, disc-mill, ball mill
Non-Ferrous Metal Separators
 Flail mill
 Wet pulper  Eddy current separators
 Knife mill Handling Equipment

Air Technologies  Front-end loaders
 Windshifter  Grapples
 Drum separators  Conveyors
 Air classifiers  Forklifts
 Air knife
LFMR projects undertaken around the world to date have most commonly employed excavators,
screeners, trommels, shredders, grinders and chippers for removing and sorting materials from
landfills. More advanced separation technologies are less proven in the application of LFMR.
There are numerous potential approaches to LFMR, numerous potential variations of waste type,
quality and volume, numerous product specifications, and an even larger number of possible
combinations of equipment design and equipment combinations. A thorough examination of all of
these permutations and combinations is not appropriate for this high level scoping study. Instead,
provided below, is a short description of some of the technologies, how they might be applied and
their relative merits.
LFMR processes considered in this study are grouped as follows:
 Excavation/ waste removal.

 Size-reduction.
 Screening.
 Air technologies.
 Metal separation.
Ancillary equipment such as conveyors, chutes, and controls are not considered.
2.3.6.2 Excavation/ waste removal

For most LFMR projects, the excavator is probably the most important piece of equipment required for
waste removal and handling. It is efficient, relatively low cost, can move high tonnages of materials
quickly, and can operate over many terrain types.
Following excavation, mobile or stationary grapples and/or front-end loaders and trackhoes are
typically used to organise the excavated materials into manageable stockpiles and separate out bulky
material, such as appliances and lengths of steel cable. This equipment is also used to load the waste
separation equipment. Once separated or processed, the loaders are used to pick up and transport
the waste and products to designated areas. Front-end loaders are also used for exracting waste from
the lower levels of deposits, or stockpiles. Bulldozers are also used in the excavation and waste
handling operations.
Landfilled wastes can be excavated as follows:
 From the top, working downward in “lifts” (e.g. typically 3m per lift).
 From the bottom, with a front loader removing sides and faces.
Waste is removed following removal and stockpiling of top cover soils/ capping. If leachate/
groundwater interferes with the excavation procedure, the level can be lowered by pumping to allow
dry excavation. This in itself requires prior planning as the leachate/water will need to be managed,
and potentially treated.
The volume excavated per day will depend on the numbers of equipment used and the throughput of
the waste separation processes. For a site with a daily excavation rate of 8,500 m3/day, the following
equipment numbers are typical:
 Excavators (4)
 Landfill trucks (12)
 Grinders and screens (2)
An excavator can typically extract up to 70 to 90 m3/hr from depths of up to 7m.
As extraction activities approach the natural ground or liner system, special care has to be exercised
to prevent liner damage or escape of leachate.
2.3.6.3 Size reduction

Size reduction typically follows excavation and is undertaken to allow ease of subsequent material
handling and sorting.
Industrial grinders and shredders vary in many ways, according to the function they perform.
Appropriate selection is important to minimise damage to equipment and downtime. In mechanical
separation plants, downtime due to shredder breakdowns/maintenance is commonplace.
When deciding upon appropriate size reduction trechnology, it is necessary to carefully consider the
waste it has to handle.
In operation, it is necessary to ensure that operators excavating and moving wastes are diligent in the
removal of incompatibles wastes, in particular large solid metal objects. This will minimise breakdown
and downtime.
Shredder mechanical elements can be expected to require frequent rebuilding and replacement due to
the tough and abrasive nature of the materials normally found in mixed waste. Components of the
size reduction device that are subjected to the extensive and intensive wear and tear are the
hammers (or cutters) and the grate bars, where present. This is to be expected because these
components are in direct and continuous contact with wastes. As landfilled waste typically contains
high levels of sand and grit abrasive wear can also be expected.
In most cases, primary size reduction is usually to a minimum particle size of about 10 cm, considered
a “coarse” size. If primary shredding is designed to shred to a fine particle size, subsequent screening
becomes less effective, and shredder damage is more likely to occur. In many cases, the shredding is
more of a ‘tearing’ action, for example to break-up compacted wastes or large bags of waste.
Secondary size reduction, or re-grinding/shredding, is typically used where a particle size of less than
10 cm is specified, for example in the production of some forms of RDF or glass cullet. As such, this is
likely to occur towards the end of process for such materials. Size reduction also benefits subsequent
recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
For many materials, the best shredder type may be low-speed models or multiple shaft machines with
interlocking cutters or cams with very high torque. Plastics with low melting points will generally need
to be shredded at relatively low speeds, or cut, to avoid clogging machinery.
Shredder throughput capacities are highly variable, but many industrial size shredders will readily
handle throughputs likely to arise during a LFMR operation, typically up to 100 tonnes/hour.
Shredding operations can create dust as well as give rise to high levels of noise. Shredding or grinding
equipment may need to include dust containment and removal systems, as well as acoustic cladding
and/or housing within a building.
2.3.6.4 Screening
Screens are used to separate wastes by size, with material passing through the screen being known
as ‘undersize’, or ‘fines’, and that which does not is known as ‘oversize’, or ‘overs’. Some screen
arrangements allow for sorting to a greater degree, thus creating a ‘midsize’ fraction in addition.
There are several designs of screens. Screens commonly employed in waste management are flat
vibrating screens, trommel screens and star screens.
Screens could be employed at different stages of the process, subject to the nature of the waste and
the required product specification. At different stages, the choice of design is subject to the nature of
the waste feeding the screen. For example, a trommel screen might be employed near to the front
end of the process where the feed is compacted, and highly irregular and varied. However, a looser
drier, more granular waste, which could be encounterred further on in the process, might be more
suited to a vibrating flat screen. Such a screen could, for example, be used for the processing of glass
extracted from the landfilled waste. Flat bed screens tend to blind when loaded with wet wastes.
Trommel screens have commonly featured in LFMR projects undertaken to date around the world,
principally as a way of separating soil from the wastes. It is reported that operators of LFMR projects
prefer trommel screens over flat vibrating screens.
A trommel screen is an open ended cylindrical screen, or drum, which is orientated on its side, with
one end slightly elevated above the other. The drum rotates along its central axis on trunnion wheels.
Bars or ridges are commonly placed running parallel along the length of the inside of the drum at
intervals around its circumference. As waste enters the drum it is thrown around inside it, the drums
or ridges aiding in this process. This action helps to separate wastes which are clumped together, or
intertwined, which is to be expected for wastes excavated from a landfill. Small wastes pass through
the screen, whilst larger wastes remain inside the drum. Since the drum is situated on a slight incline,
the wastes in the drum, which are too large to pass through the screen, eventually exit at the far end
of the drum. The size of the screen influences the materials that are separated. The nature of the
waste and its volume will dictate drum diameter and length. The higher the throughput, the greater
the diameter required. For wastes that may require a greater degree of breaking-up, a longer drum
may be preferred. Other design factors include speed of rotation and angle of inclination, as well as
nature of the screen itself. Screens can be interwoven wire mesh or punch plate and round hole or
square hole. Each has its relative merits subject to the waste being treated. Screens can
blind/block/foul and so brushes are often located running parallel along the length of the outside of
the drum to remove materials, such as textiles, which are blocking the screen. Further to this, it is
often necessary for operators to stop the trommel and to manually remove trapped material.
A trommel with a single screen size will generate two waste streams, that passing through the screen
and that which exits at the far end of the drum. A trommel with two screen sizes will create three
waste streams. In such a situation, the first half of the trommel drum will contain a screen size
smaller than the second half.
Trommels are particularly useful for separating fine organic materials and soils from other wastes. For
this reason, they are commonly employed on LFMR projects where soils can typically make-up half of
all waste. However, trommels are widely used in the waste management industry for a wide range of
waste streams, wherever there are materials with distinct size differences.
Disc screens, or star screens, are a flat bed of upright discs, or star shaped discs, mounted on
horizontal shafts. The discs/stars on each shaft are located so they are offset and interlocking with the
discs/stars on the next shaft along. This arrangement is somewhat like a table football game, whereby
there are many players (discs/stars) on each shaft and with each row of players (shaft with discs/stars
mounted along its length) being located close to the next one along. Waste enters on top of the bed
of discs/stars and the small wastes pass through the gaps in between the discs/stars, whilst the action
of the rotating shafts and inclination of the beds encourages the larger wastes to progress over the
bed.
The authors have found no reference to the use of disc/star screens in LFMR projects undertaken
around the world to date.
Screens can be constructed to any size, and can be readliy designed/purchased to accommodate
throughputs of waste to be expected at a LFMR operation. All types of screens are available as both
mobile and fixed arrangements.
When appropriately designed and set-up correctly, screens are relatively simple and robust in
operation. Periodic manual cleaning will be required and damaged screens will need replacing, as will
worn bearings and worn brushes on trommel screens. However, in comparison to other types of
separation equipment, screens are relatively low maintenance.
2.3.6.5 Air technologies

Air technologies can take many forms, including windshifters, separation drums, air classifiers and air
knives. All air technologies rely on light, low density, fractions of waste being separated from heavy,
high density, fractions in a stream of air.
A windshifter is typically employed at the head of a conveyor, from where light material is either
sucked or blown from the flow of waste exiting the conveyor. Windshifters are commonly used in
waste separation plants, in a range of applications treating a range of wastes. In many cases, wastes
entrained in the flow of air are removed via an expansion chamber wherein the velocity of air is
reduced allowing the waste to settle out by gravity.
A separation drum is a contained unit in which various grades of waste are removed by a series of
varying flows of air. As with windshifters, a separation drum utilises expansion chambers to settle-out
wastes.
An air classifier uses vortex flows and centrifugal force to separate out materials, working on a
cyclone principle. These systems are best suited to fine or granular material. This technology is widely
used in industry, including the waste management industry where it is typically employed within
composting operations.
Air knives are curtains of high velocity air, typically acting vertically or sideways on material passing
along a conveyor. Widely used in industry, including the waste management industry, air knives can
be used to strip-off light material and also to remove moisture from materials.
Although sometimes discussed within LFMR literature, Ricardo-AEA are not aware of examples where
air technologies have been employed in a full scale LFMR project. Whilst air technologies are widely
used elsewhere in the waste management industry, they do have their limitations and their application
to LFMR may be limited to certain stages in the process wherein the waste has been suitably pre-
conditioned.
Air separation technologies work best where the waste is uniform in composition, loose and contains
similarly sized particles of materials of different density. Separation is hampered by waste which is
highly variable, clumped together, wet, entwined and of varying sizes. Balancing the flow of air to suit
the waste can be a challenge and can result in all or nothing being removed from the waste stream.
Trying to extract only one material out of plastic film, textiles and paper can prove difficult since they
are all low density materials.
It is considered air technologies could potentially be employed on a LFMR project, particularly one
creating RDF, but Ricardo-AEA consider that separation efficiency may be poor given the nature of
excavated landfill waste. Inclusion of air technologies within the design of a LFMR operation should be
undertaken with great care, a detailed understanding of the waste to be treated and following suitable
trials.
2.3.6.6 Metal separation

Metal separation within the waste management industry includes removal of ferrous and non-ferrous
metals. Removal efficiency is typically high and equipment robust. Ferrous metal recovery has been
employed on previous LFMR projects.
Ferrous metal removal is normally undertaken by using drum magnets or overband magnets. Drum
magnets sometimes form the head pulley on conveyor systems.
In operation, an overband magnet is placed over a flow of waste. The magnet, which can be
permanent or electromagnetic, is encircled by a single conveyor belt which runs in a continuos loop
around the magnet. The magnet lifts ferrous metal from the flow of waste, whish is attracted to the
conveyor running over the surface of the magnet. This conveyor then moves the metal object,
normally perpendicular to the flow of waste beneath it, until a point beyond the magnet, whereupon
the metal object drops into a chute or container located off-centre to the main flow of waste.
Overband magnets are simple and easy to maintain and can be portable. Their main disadvantage is
that they are not suited to large metal objects. Large metal objects would require a strong magnet,
the result being damage to the overband magnet conveyor fabric and an inability for this conveyor to
move freely.
Drum magnets are better suited to heavy ferrous metal objects. These arrangements comprise a large
diameter metal drum which rotates around a magnet acting upon a limited area of the drum. Placed in
proximity to the flow of waste, ferrous metal objects are removed from the flow of waste, whereupon
they stick to the drum until such point as they rotate beyond the influence of the magnet and drop off
into a chute or container. These arrangements do not involve a conyeyor, as with overband magnets,
meaning that the magnet can be of any strength. As such, these arrangements are more robust.
Drum magnets can be installed as head pulleys on waste conveyor systems. This is quite different to
the overband magnet arrangement. A head pulley magnet does not attract a ferrous metal object
from a flow of waste, since the entire flow of waste passes over the magnet. However, whilst non-
ferrous wastes drop from the end of the conveyor, ferrous metal objects rotate around the head
pulley to its underside until such point as it passes beyond the magnet, whereupon it drops into a
chute or container. Since there is no impact of metal objects hitting the conveyor, conveyor damage is
not an issue.
The term ‘drum separator’ is sometimes used to refer to drum magnets, which could lead to confusion
with the ‘drum separators’ discussed under ‘air technologies’.
Ferrous metal recovery from excavated landfilled waste should be a straight forward operation. The
separated metal may contain greater levels of contamination in comparison to metal extracted from
non landfilled MSW, e.g. in a dirty MRF, due to the compacted nature of excavated landfilled waste.
Eddy current separators are used on waste management plants for the removal of non-ferrous metals,
most commonly aluminium and copper. Waste passes over a drum, or conveyor pulley, in which a
rapidly spinning rotor creates an alternating polarity magnetic field which repels metals. The metals
are repelled from the pulley/drum and thrown over a splitter arrangement allowing separation from
the rest of the material, which drops from the end of the conveyor into a separate chute. This process
requires prior removal of ferrous metals and requires a well separated and evenly presented thin layer
of waste. Any material adhering to, for example, an aluminium can could weigh it down sufficiently to
prevent it from being separated effectively. Similarly, any loose plastic film lying on top of the can can
prevent it from being effectively thrown over the chute partition splitter. Whilst separation can be
effective when handling suitably pre-prepared non landfilled MSW, its effectiveness is likely to be
much diminished when treating excavated landfilled waste. This technology is, to the best of the
authors knowledge, largely unproven in the application of LFMR. Whilst it could prove useful, its
success would depend on how the waste is processed prior to the eddy current separator.
2.3.7 Environmental issues

LFMR can give rise to significant positive environmental impacts, including:
 Removal of potential source of pollution. By removing the waste, or components of it, the
potential for leachate and gas release to the environment is diminished. Leachate migration can
contaminate surface water and groundwater. Fugitive gas emission from the landfill surface to
atmosphere is a contributor to global warming and can give rise to odour issues and dense gases
can accumulate in low ground giving rise to risk to human health. Lateral migration of gas through
surrounding soil can accumulate beneath or within buildings with potential for explosion,
asphyxiation, odour and long term risk to human health. In addition, lateral migration of gas can
give rise to vegetation stress. Although LFMR is normally undertaken once landfills have achieved a
reasonable degree of stabilisation, low volumes of gas are still likely to be being generated, and
will most likely continue to do so for many years if LFMR does not take place.
 Retrofitting liners and removing hazardous materials. If landfill operations are to continue,
or recommence, liners and leachate collection systems can be installed at older landfills where not
present. These systems can be inspected and repaired if they are already installed. Also, any
hazardous waste can be removed and managed in an appropriate fashion.
 Extending landfill capacity. LFMR can extend the life of a landfill by recovering void-space.
Void-space is recovered as materials are removed, for recycling and/or energy generation, and
through improved compaction of any waste replaced. Most waste deposited in a landfill is
compacted using appropriate mobile plant (compactor), following tipping. Over time, as waste
degrades, the waste mass sinks and voids occur as a result of bridging and uneven settlement.
These voids are eradicated as waste is excavated, sorted and placed back into the landfill. In
addition to commercial benefit, the effect of extending landfill capacity gives rise to environmental
benefit by avoiding impacts associated with development and construction of a new landfill facility.
Such impacts include material consumption, material transportation, energy required in
construction and potential impact of a new development upon the local environment, including
impacts upon residents of nearby properties.
 Reclaimed soil. If landfill operations are to continue, or recommence, reclaimed soil can be used
on site as daily cover material, thus avoiding the cost and transportation impacts of importing
cover soil. In addition, the soil could be put to other uses subject to local market demand and
regulatory considerations.
 Producing energy. Combustible waste can be used to generate energy at a thermal treatment
plant, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
 Recycling of materials. Other excavated waste can be processed to remove valuable
components, such as steel and aluminium, for subsequent reprocessing.
 Freeing-up land for other uses. Removal of all waste, or all active waste, is likely to give rise to
earlier surrender of the landfill permit, with financial savings in long term management, and
potentially frees-up the land for other uses quicker. This return of the land to beneficial use will
potentially remove the burden of development elsewhere. It should be noted that removal of all
waste does not automatically give rise to permit surrender. However, the conditions required to
achieve permit surrender are likely to be easier to achieve.
There are also inherent environmental risks and concerns associated with LFMR, many similar to those
encountered during routine landfill construction and waste disposal.
The environmental permit application will be required to fully address all potential risks in advance of
a LFMR operation commencing. Many of the conditions present at the landfill and its surroundings will
be unique to the specific landfill, and specific to the age of the waste being excavated.
Environmental hazards and typical mitigation measures are discussed below. Most risks are reduced
by minimising the size of the exposed working face and excavating waste in a pre-planned methodical
manner.
 Managing hazardous waste that may be uncovered during reclamation operations. Hazardous
wastes are likely to be more prevalent at older landfills that were in operation at a time when
waste disposal practices and waste acceptance criteria were not as robust, or well regulated, as in
the present day. Such wastes may be subject to special handling and disposal requirements to
mitigate risk to the environment and human health of workers, nearby residents and other
members of the public. Management may include:
 Development of appropriate human health and environmental risk assessments.
 Development of management plans, including planning for the unknown, e.g. exposure
of a waste that was not anticipated.
 Training of staff.
 Provision of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for site workers.
 Provision of appropriate set-aside areas and appropriate containers for storage of waste.
 Provision of migration barriers for dust and potentially windblown material, which could
include measures such as water mists/sprays, screens and netting.
 Provision for re-interment of certain wastes elsewhere on the landfill where their
exposure presents an immediate risk, e.g. provision for the rapid re-interment of
asbestos containing wastes.
In planning for the undertaking of a LFMR operation, extensive research into the nature of
landfilled wastes is essential, as is well documented in available LFMR literature. The extent of
required management methods will be subject to the nature and quantity of hazardous waste
expected. The presence, nature and extent of hazardous waste could be sufficient to prevent a
LFMR operation from taking place on the basis of degree of risk, or resulting expense. Should
hazardous waste be uncovered that was not anticipated, or is found to be present in greater
quantity than was envisaged, substantial down-time could arise, potentially bringing a close to the
LFMR operation.
 Controlling releases of landfill gases and odours

Waste excavation raises a number of potential problems related to the release of gases. Methane
and other gases, generated by decomposing wastes, can cause explosions, fires, odours and risk
to human health. Hydrogen sulphide gas, a highly flammable and odorous gas, can be fatal when
inhaled at sufficient concentrations.
The presence of gas generating wastes, the quantity present and the age of the waste are key
factors that dictate the volume of gas being generated. Many LFMR projects undertaken to date
have been undertaken on relatively old wastes, typically over 25 years old. This is because the
decomposition of waste will be advanced, giving rise to low levels of gas generation. The younger
the waste and the higher the production of gas, the greater the risk of odour issues and explosion.
Ensuring the operation takes place on suitably stabilised wastes is a key management method.
However, low levels of gas can still give rise to issues, in particular the risk of accumulation to
explosive or asphyxiating levels within confined structures, including beneath and within buildings.
Subject to a number of factors, the explosive limits of methane are generally between 5 and 15%.
Landfill gas is typically around 50 to 60% methane, although it is variable, especially in older
wastes. As waste is excavated, the gas escapes and is rapidly diluted in the open air. The greatest
risk is that escaping gas builds up in a confined space, bringing with it a risk of explosion. As
reported in literature, gas monitors with alarms are used to monitor levels of gas, including
methane, at the location of waste excavation. The location and design of any buildings or
structures in proximity to the operations will have to be undertaken with consideration to the risk
of the accumulation of landfill gas and afforded appropriate monitoring. This would be expected for
any building on or in proximity to a landfill, irrespective of whether or not LFMR is taking place.
However, consideration should be given to the fact that the risk may be increased as a result of
changes in the rate and manner of gas release as a result of the LFMR operation.
 Controlling releases of liquids and leachate

Suitable containment and drainage will need to be afforded to all areas used for stockpiling and
processing wastes. It is likely that any surface water runoff from these areas will either need to be
collected and treated, or diverted into the landfill mass.
Consideration will need to be given to any changes in surface water run-off that may arise as a
result of changing the landfill form.
Consideration will need to be given to any damage to leachate collection and drainage systems
that may result from the excavation process. Poor drainage could have waste mass stability
implications.
To minimise issues associated with excavating beneath the leachate or groundwater table, and
associated handling of sodden wastes, it may be necessary to pump the level down prior to
excavation. This would require appropriate management of the pumped liquids.
Having removed any capping materials that may be present, rainwater entry and thus leachate
generation is likely to increase. For this reason, minimisation of the exposed working face can be
beneficial.
In addition to the potential risk of escaping liquids and leachate, management methods for dealing
with high leachate or groundwater levels could significantly add to the cost and complexity of the
project.
 Controlling releases of dust. Dust generation is a significant, but manageable, risk at any active
landfill operation, whether or not LFMR is taking place. Dust can result from the excavation and
processing of wastes, as well as traffic movements on site. Water bowsers to dampen roads in dry
conditions, or friable wastes, is an effective mitigation measure. Dust abstraction and collection on
separation and sorting equipment, and possibly containment within a building, may be necessary.
Where asbestos is, or is expected to be, encountered special measures are likely to be required,
such as the use of fine spray mists. Finally, stopping operations in high winds may be necessary at
times.
 Controlling subsidence or collapse. Excavation of a landfill area can undermine the integrity of
adjacent cells, which can sink or collapse into the excavated area. Such events could release
contaminants into the surrounding area, as well as cause damage to engineered structures and
risk of injury to site operators. This can be controlled by ensuring the nature of the waste,
including its compaction, presence of voids, variability, stability, moisture content and levels of
leachate or groundwater are understood in advance of the operation. The working method can be
developed with consideration to these factors. Limiting the depth of excavation for any one lift is
likely to be a key management method.
In addition to the above, the operation will give rise to noise, may attract vermin and is likely to
involve additional traffic movements on the local road network. In addition to conjestion and impact
on local air quality, vehicles leaving site could spread mud onto the highway, unless appropriate wheel
wash and vehicle washing facilities are available. These are risks that are well understood by landfill
operators and regulators, and apply equally to landfilling operations as they do to LFMR operations.
Environmental risks can be managed if considered in advance of the operation and appropriate
mitigation measures designed and implemented in discussion with regulators. Pertinently, these risks
would require addressing in an environmental permit application and the regulator, SEPA, would
require all risks are identified, appropriately assessed and mitigation measures put in place, where
necessary, prior to permit issue and commencement of operations.
When scoping and planning a LFMR project for a specific landfill, it is necessary to fully establish the
‘conceptual model’ of the landfill and its surroundings. The conceptual model is the full understanding
of the waste, the engineered structure of the landfill and the surroundings, including potential
receptors to pollution, contamination or nuisance. This includes any potential migration pathways
within the waste mass and surroundings, such as drains, ditches, buried services, leaks in any liners,
permeable soils or faults etcetera in the surrounding geology. It will be necessary to study any
available gas, leachate and groundwater quality and water level monitoring results from in waste and
perimeter boreholes. This will assist in establishing any possible impacts upon water quality and the
local hydrological and hydrogeological regimes.
Subject to location, there may be sociological issues arising from perception of these risks from
nearby residents or other stakeholders in the local environment. This is discussed further in Section
2.3.9.
2.3.8 Regulatory issues

Regulatory issues are fundamental to any future LFMR project in Scotland for the following reasons:
 Failure to obtain the required authorisations would prevent a project from taking place.
 Failure to comply with conditions within an authorisation could potentially bring a halt to an
operation.
 Making applications for authorisations involves cost and time implications.
 Maintaining and surrendering a permit involves cost and time implications.
 The regulator can influence the manner in which the operation is undertaken, in particular via
conditions within a permission or permit.
 Regulatory requirements, such as engineering requirements or methods of working, could impact
upon the economics of a project, potentially preventing it from taking place.
Given the significance of these potential occurrences, it is highly beneficial to involve regulators in
early discussions when considering whether or not to undertake LFMR at a particular landfill.
The required authorisations and implications of associated conditions will be specific to each individual
LFMR project. It should be borne in mind that LFMR experience in the UK has been limited to date and
has not involved resource reclamation and recovery. As such, regulators as well as operators will not
be able to benefit from the familiarity from having ‘been through it already’. In theory, the concept of
LFMR is sound in terms of sustainability and so, in theory, there should be a presumption in favour of
a project. However, the regulator is there to ensure operations are undertaken in accordance with
relevant legislation and undertaken in a manner that affords protection to the environment and
human health and avoids nuisance. Consideration of regulatory issues is intrinsically linked to
consideration of environmental, sociological, technical and economic issues. These issues are
discussed elsewhere within Section 2.3.
Subject to the nature of the project, a future LFMR Project in Scotland is likely to be regulated by
SEPA via the permitting regime and many will also likely need to meet local planning requirements. At
present, environmental permitting in Scotland is primarily legislated for via the Pollution, Prevention
and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as amended) and the Waste Management Licensing
(Scotland) Regulations 2011. Under the first regime, PPC Permits are issued and Waste Management
Licences (WML) are issued under the second regime. The applicable regime is subject to the nature of
the waste operation taking place. In the case of landfills, operational landfills in the current day are
regulated under the PPC regime and many of the closed landfills under the WML regime, which was in
force prior to the introduction of the PPC regime. In future, it is intended that the two regimes merge
into a single permitting regime as has occurred in England and Wales.
Irrelevant of the specific type of authorisation, and which regulations it is required under, all
applications generally follow the same basic requirements as detailed below.
 A description of the proposed activity including inputs and outputs, resources to be utilised,
infrastructure and equipment and how the operation is to be undertaken, including justification for
the selected infrastructure and equipment.
 Production of a conceptual model of the site. This typically comprises identification of potential
sources of pollution or nuisance (point source or fugitive), potential receptors of any emission or
pollutant and identification of pathways that connect the two.
 Production of risk assessments to assess potential impacts identified in the conceptual model.
 Identification of any abatement or mitigation techniques to reduce or eliminate risks.
 Environmental monitoring plans
 Restoration plans
 Aftercare plans (landfill)
Applications for landfills normally entail amenity, stability, gas and hydrogeological risk assessments.
The requirements for non-landfill waste applications will depend on the nature of the proposal but,
amongst other considerations, typically include noise, odour, dust, emissions to air and water.
In order to surrender a licence or permit for a landfill, it is necessary to demonstrate that the landfill
no longer poses a threat to the environment and that the requirements of the landfills closure plan
have been met. For any other facility/installation, it is necessary to demonstrate that ground and
groundwater conditions at the site are of a quality equal to that at the start of the permit and that any
contamination that has occurred has been remediated.
The exact requirements will vary subject to the nature and location of the activities taking place.
Whilst there is generally a good degree of commonality between a planning application and a permit
application, there are notable differences. For example a permit application will involve less detail on
matters such as visual impact, building fabric and colour, light pollution and suitability of and impact
upon the local road network. A planning application will involve less emphasis on matters such as
resource and energy use and detailed explanation and selection of technologies. A permit cannot be
issued without any required planning consents being in place. A planning consent typically includes a
condition to the effect that operation cannot commence without the prior consent of SEPA.
Future land use, post mining, would most likely be subject to planning permission. If that use is as a
landfill, it would need to operate under a PPC permit which would only be issued if the landfill met
modern engineering requirements as detailed in the Landfill Directive.
Provided below are selected pieces of information obtained from a paper, by Jonathan Atkinson of the
Environment Agency, included in the proceedings of the Global Landfill Mining Conference 2010
(Jonathan Atkinson, 2010).
 ‘The Environment Agency remediation statements make it clear that excavation of materials from a
non-permitted site is not in itself a waste activity. It is the further storage, treatment and disposal
or recovery that are waste activities that may fall under Environmental Permitting Regulations
permitting. If, however, the site has an existing permit, the permit will need varying.’
 ‘Excavating a landfill to create a void, if the site is permitted, does not guarantee immediate
surrender of the permit. There is still a requirement to show that any groundwater contamination
has been cleaned up/has no effect as per permit surrender guidance.’
 ‘……….it is the follow on activities that will be covered by relevant waste regulatory permits up to
the point of full recovery. So the sorting, screening, separation plant, the energy recovery facilities
and the onward transfer of recovered materials like scrap metals would all readily fall under the
existing permitting regime for waste management and duty of care, either as fixed facilities or
under temporary mobile treatment permitting.’
 ‘……….we have a clear starting point, but in a new context and application perhaps, modern
regulation is about “yes if” and risk based approaches, worked up with the regulators from an early
proposal point. This will allow us all to move forward in a positive framework rather than one with
negative mining or disposal perceptions.’
 ‘In line with our position statement on the CLAiRE Code of Practice – excavated materials can be
re-used on site and not be deemed controlled waste in that context if they are “suitable”. Any
treatment of excavated materials prior to re-use is a waste-treatment activity that is covered by a
relevant permit.’
 ‘Temporary treatment plants may be covered under mobile treatment permits and deployments’
These comments broadly apply in concept to Scotland. The Scottish regulatory regime is very similar
to that in England and Wales and the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive, EU Waste Incineration
Directive and EU PPC Directive apply in all EU member states. In particular, the reference to the
excavation of material and reuse on the site on a non-permitted site accords with principles within
SEPAs document ‘Land remediation and waste management guidelines’.
The particulars of the project are likely to be such that planning consent is required. This may require
an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be undertaken under The Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Under these regulations,
developments listed within and meeting criteria of Schedule 1 always requires an EIA and those within
Schedule 2 may require an EIA subject to certain criteria, including considerations detailed in Schedule
3. The details of the particular project should be discussed with the relevant planning authority to
ascertain whether or not EIA is required.
The development of a landfill is a Schedule 1 waste disposal activity. Any redevelopment of a closed
and mined landfill for future landfill purposes would therefore likely require an EIA. One of the
activities listed under Schedule 2 is ‘any change to or extension of development of a description
mentioned in Schedule 1’.
Open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares is listed in Schedule 1 to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. The full wording of the listing is as follows:
‘19. Quarries and open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, or peat
extraction where the surface of the site exceeds 150 hectares.’
Conceivably, landfill mining could be deemed ‘mining’. The regulations offer no definition of mining.
However, in separately stating ‘or peat extraction’ rather than it automatically being included in ‘open-
cast mining’, would infer that open-cast mining is something more specific than simply excavating a
material for subsequent use, which would include excavation of peat and excavation of landfilled
waste. Ricardo-AEA consider that the ‘mining’ referred to in the regulations applies to the extraction of
mineral deposits. It is considered that ‘landfill mining’ is an unfortunate term in this respect and that
the regulations were not made with specific consideration of landfill mining. The waste was landfilled
as a waste management activity and the excavation and further treatment of that waste is considered,
by Ricardo-AEA, to be a subsequent waste management activity rather than ‘mining’. To add further
weight to this point of view, ‘The Management of Extractive Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2010’ refers
only to mineral waste and defines extractive waste as follows:
“extractive waste” means waste produced from an extractive industry and resulting from
prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of
quarries, but does not include-….
These regulations define ‘mineral’ as follows:
“mineral resource” or “mineral” means a naturally occurring deposit in the earth’s crust of an
organic or inorganic substance, such as energy fuels, metal ores, industrial minerals and
construction materials, but excluding water.
These definitions are in line with those in the Directive on the management of waste from extractive
industries.
Irrespective of where a particular project may or may not fit within the EIA regulations, it is possible
that an EIA may be required and hence early discussions with the planning authority are important
when considering undertaking a LFMR project.
Given haulage costs, it is likely that the sorting and separation elements of a LFMR project in Scotland
would be undertaken on site. As detailed above, this will most likely require a waste management
licence/ permit. As also detailed above, where a licence/permit is currently in force for the landfill, this
will also most likely require varying.
Table 2.11 summarises the most likely regulatory requirements for a LFMR project in Scotland. Every
potential project should first be discussed with the planning and environmental regulators at an early
stage in the project planning.
Table 2.11 Overview of regulatory requirements
Potential planning
Potential licensing/permitting
Landfill requirements for LFMR
requirements for LFMR project
project
Old landfills pre- Licence/permit likely to be required for sorting Unless covered by an
licensing/permitting and separation activities and subsequent energy existing consent, planning
recovery, if undertaken on site. consent is likely to be
Landfills that are required for the excavation
closed and have A permit would be required for any future and processing of waste,
surrendered their landfilling activities at the site and the new potentially with an EIA.
licence/permit landfill would have to satisfy Landfill Directive
requirements. Unless covered by an
existing consent, planning
Closed landfills with The permit will require varying. consent with an EIA would
licenses/permits be required if the site is to
Subsequent sorting and separation activities be redeveloped for future
may require their own licence permit if they landfill
Landfills with
licences/permits that cannot be accomodated under the landfill’s
are being restored licence/permit. Subsequent energy recovery will
require permitting, if undertaken on site.
Operational landfills
with permits Future landfilling activities would have to satisfy
Landfill Directive requirements.
2.3.9 Sociological issues
Many stakeholders are likely to have an opinion on a LFMR project in Scotland. Local stakeholders are
likely to include nearby residents, schools, hospitals, businesses, farmers, local interest groups and
associations and users of the surrounding environment for its amenity value. In addition to these local
stakeholders that live, work and spend recreational time in the immediate area will be other
stakeholders at a local and national level, including organisations such as SEPA, SNH, RSPB, water
authorities, operators of airports etcetera. Listed below are a range of viewpoints which Ricardo-AEA
consider could be held by a range of stakeholders in a LFMR project.
 Negative opinion of nearby residents, businesses, places of work and schools and hospitals based
upon concern over health, amenity and nuisance impact, property value and road congestion. This
could be exacerbated if it is intended to reuse the voidspace for future landfilling activities
following the LFMR operation.
 Positive opinion of nearby residents, businesses, places of work and schools and hospitals based
upon removal of landfilled wastes. Removal of waste could be viewed as a process that
reduces/eliminates on-going risks and impacts upon health and environment. A resident may
perceive that a completed LFMR project could give rise to a positive impact upon property value
and subsequent redevelopment could be favoured over living in proximity to a landfill.
 Local and national interest groups and users of the area for recreational purposes may have an
interest in the disruption to the landfill structure and habitat and, or, subsequent development.
This could be in relation to matters such as access rights or habitat and biodiversity, for example
ramblers and local ornithologists or local and national wildlife groups.
 Any LFMR proposal that reduces loading of leachate to sewer is likely to be viewed positively by
the local sewerage undertaker.
 Environmental pressure groups may view the resource recovery consideration in a positive light,
although thermal treatment plants often receive negative attention from environmental pressure
groups.
 Regulators such as the local authority planning officers, local authority contaminated land officers
and SEPA officials may particularly welcome LFMR at a landfill which is giving rise to ground and
groundwater contamination.
It is impossible to consider every conceivable viewpoint that an individual or group might have and
views are likely to vary between individuals, groups and between similar stakeholders at different
landfills. The following considerations are considered by Ricardo-AEA as likely to influence opinion at a
specific landfill.
 Whether or not landfilling or other waste management activities are currently undertaken at the
site. The extent of any negative opinion may be greater where a landfill has been closed for a
while and no waste management activities are currently undertaken. Most landfills in Scotland do
not have other waste management facilities associated with them.
 The presence of, and scale, of habitation in proximity to the landfill, including residential and
business as well as schools and hospitals.
 The scale and duration of the project. A long term LFMR operation may be viewed differently to a
small or short term proposal.
 The proposed after use of the landfill, including the possibility of extending the life of the landfill.
Some stakeholders may not object to the LFMR operation itself, but may not like the proposed
after-use for the site. Conversely, the proposed after use of the landfill may be an attractive
element of the project to certain stakeholders.
 In recent years, the proposed development of thermal treatment plants has often given rise to
adverse public opinion. A large-scale project could give rise to the construction of a thermal
treatment plant, if energy recovery features in the treatment solution and feedstock is sufficient.
Such a proposal could be met with more opposition than a proposal involving no thermal
treatment, or the utilisation of an existing off-site thermal treatment plant.
 The sensitivity of the environmental setting in terms of proximity of sensitive habitats such as Sites
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar sites (wetlands of
international importance), national parks, local nature reserves and Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB).
Waste management development often meets with adverse negative public opinion from stakeholders
whom live, work, or spend leisure time within close proximity to the site. Many of the concerns that
can be expected to be raised, in relation to a LFMR operation, apply for the development of any new
waste operation. However, there are certain environmental and health risks that are different in
nature and extent to that of other waste operations, including new landfill development. Operators
intending to undertake a LFMR will have to fully evaluate, understand and control environmental and
health and safety risks. Engagement with all stakeholders will have to pro-active, thorough and
meaningful in order to address and allay stakeholder concerns, including regulators of the operation.
2.4 Conclusions
It is considered that landfill mining in Scotland is not likely to become a widespread occurrence,
principally due to economic considerations. However, in certain circumstances, it could be viable.
Landfill mining in Scotland is feasible, although viability is subject to a complex mixture of

considerations. Listed below are situations whereby a project may be viable.
 LFMR involving onsite energy recovery at non-hazardous landfills where the waste being mined has
stabilised e.g. generating reduced quantities of gas and lower strength leachate. Where landfilling
has taken place in unconnected engineered cells, it is possible that LFMR could be undertaken at
discreet cells on active landfills that have been in operation for a long time. Economic viability will
be subject to numerous complex considerations, although waste quantity and composition are two
of the most pertinent. Waste from the mid 1960’s to the mid 1990’s is likely to yield the most
favourable results. Due to the capital costs associated with construction of small-scale thermal
treatment plants, economic viability is likely to be better at Scotland’s larger landfills.
 LFMR with resource and off-site energy recovery might be feasible where wastes are to be
excavated anyway, assuming that the alternative is to pay for landfill elsewhere. This is not likely
to be commonplace and restricted to situations where waste is being excavated in order to relocate
it. Even though the LFMR operation may not be economically viable in its own right, the recovery
of soil for use as daily cover, the recovery of metals, and possibly lower gate fees for thermal
treatment of RDF, may help to offset some costs associated with the relocation exercise.
 Excavation, shredding, screening and removal of ferrous metal, with sale of metal, recovery of soil
for use as daily cover and replacement and compaction of waste may be economically viable based
on the voidspace recovered. As the processing equipment used for such an operation is typically
mobile and can be leased, this could potentially be carried out on any size of landfill. This scenario
has not been assessed in this study, which has focused on maximum utilisation of recoverable
material. However, this has been undertaken at landfills in the USA with some reported success.
It is apparent that very few LFMR projects have been undertaken worldwide and that LFMR for
material and energy recovery is in its infancy. The main drivers for projects undertaken to date have
generally been for reasons other than material and energy recovery. LFMR is technnically feasible,
although advanced separation techniques are not well proven in the application of treating previously
landfilled wastes. Although discussed in literature, the reality of applying technologies such as air
classifiers or eddy current separators to the processing of excavated landfill waste is largely unproven
and not likely to be straight-forward. Since all projects require excavation, and most projects to date
have involved shredding and screening, these activities are well understood and proven.
LFMR is feasible from the perspective of environmental, regulatory and sociological issues. However,
all three considerations are capable of preventing a specific LFMR operation from taking place. This
does, however, apply to any waste operation. LFMR is not a simple operation to undertake and there
exists the potential to create significant environmental impact, health and safety risk and nuisance
risk. Whilst mitigation measures can be put in place, the cost of doing so could be prohibitive. If the
project has not been extensively thought through, and planning and permitting applications are below
the required standard, the project cannot take place as it is necessary to satisfy all planning and
permitting requirements before the planning authority or SEPA will allow operations to commence.
Where LFMR projects undertaken in other countries have included material recovery, this has most
commonly been for soil and metal recovery. The soil fraction of landfilled waste is generally very high,
typically around fifty percent, and is easy to separate. It is concluded that the best application of soils
from LFMR in Scotland is considered to be for use as daily cover in landfills. Metals (ferrous and
aluminium) are generally present at low quantities, in the case of the ‘typical’ non-hazardous landfill,
but they are relatively easy to separate out and have high value. The market for recovered metals is
strong.
With reference to metal recovery, landfill mining papers reviewed focused on recovery of ferrous
metals and aluminium. Other metals, including precious metals and rare earth metals, rarely featured
in the literature reviewed and only in a ‘maybe oneday’ perspective. The authors found no examples
of LFMR projects undertaken for the recovery of precious and rare earth metals and no papers
specifically discussing the viability of recovery of such materials.Whilst these metals are present in
some landfills, possibly at relatively high content in comparison to their concentration in their
respective ores, they will be present in a range of different applications, typically in WEEE and in some
industrial wastes. Recovery of precious and rare earth metals would give rise to significantly greater
technical complexity than for the types of LFMR operations discussed in this report.
Recovery of plastics for recycling is considered to be limited by high processing costs, poor anticipated
quality and lack of markets. It is considered that inclusion within RDF is the best route for this
material. If put back in the landfill, it occupies a lot of voidspace for its weight owing to its low
density.
Considering LFMR, at a national strategic level or on a one site basis, is very complex. The
permutations and combinations of drivers, waste type, quality and age, geometory of landfill, landfill
engineering, site setting, materials to be separated, technologies and local markets are very high. At
the outset of this study, the authors considered the information gained in the study might be best
presented in a matrix format, to readily inform those making decisions, such as landfill operators, local
authorities, ZWS, and the Scottish Government policy makers’. In undertaking this study, it has
become apparent that a matrix would need to accommodate too high a range of permutations and
combinations to be user friendly. In particular, the driver or particulars for a given region or landfill
type may give rise to variable weighting of the importance of some considerations.
Most LFMR projects undertaken worldwide have focussed on landfills that contain a mix of MSW,
commercual and industrial wastes. Similarly, it is concluded that the group of landfills, in Scotland,
considered most likely to contain candidates for LFMR are non-hazardous landfills, most of which
commonly contain all these wastes. According to 2010 SEPA data, these comprise:
 48 operational landfills
 2 landfills that were being restored in 2010
 168 closed landfills still subject to regulation
 An unknown number of closed landfills that have surrendered their licences. However, these are
not considered in this study owing to a lack of readily available data.
This study has concluded that LFMR involving onsite energy recovery at non-hazardous landfills could
potentially be economically viable, in particular at Scotland’s larger landfills. The ‘typical’ Scottish non-
hazardous landfill discussed in this study contains 1.3m tonnes of waste. This is based on 2010 SEPA
information for the total capacity of the 48 operational non-hazardous landfills in Scotland. The figure
is a median value calculated by excluding the two largest landfills in Scotland, namely Greengairs
Landfill in North Lanarkshire (35m tonnes) and Dunbar Landfill in East Lothian (13,6m tonnes). The
maximum total capacity of the remaining 46 landfills is 8.35m tonnes and the mean is 2.1m tonnes.
As these are operational landfills, some of this capacity is yet to be filled. In addition, this study has
ascertained that wastes over 25 years old are the most likely to be subject to a LFMR operation.
Therefore, the greatest number of landfills of potential interest are likely to be closed rather than
operational. There is no readily available data on the tonnage in Scotland’s closed landfills. However,
taking the size of Scotland’s operational landfills as an indication of size, and the number of closed
non-hazardous landfills, it is evident that Scotland is likely to contain landfills of sufficient size and age
to be potential candidates for a LFMR project involving onsite energy recovery.
Given the conclusions reached on the landfills likely to be candidates for LFMR and their age, in many
instances where LFMR could be considered the aerobic landfill concept will not be required to speed-
up the degredation process and minimise emissions of methane. The feasibility assessment in this
report has not considered the aerobic landfill concept. However, it is possible that in some situations
the use of the aerobic landfill concept may have merit, namely:
 Where there are wastes worthy of mining although relatively high landfill gas levels would
otherwise preclude mining on the basis of explosion and odour risk. Where landfill gas can be
collected and utilised this approach would, however, have to be assessed in terms of cost and
benefit against collection of landfill gas and utilisation. Ultimately, the aerobic landfill concept only
brings forward the date of landfill mining, it does not alter what can or cannot be mined.
 Where gas collection and utilisation is not practicable due to low gas levels or where gas levels
have declined to a level below which gas can be collected and utilised or flared, but where levels
are too high to allow LFMR.
 Where gassing waste is to be excavated anyway, e.g. to make way for development or liner repair.
Although not necessarily related to LFMR, the aerobic landfill approach could be of interest in
minimising Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions from landfills that are generating gas at levels that
do not allow collection and utilisation or flaring, or where collection and utilisation is otherwise
unfeasable. Besides older landfills, this could also apply to landfills experiencing ongoing reductions in
the receipt of biodegradable waste. Once there is insufficient gas to collect for utilisation or flaring, or
where levels are not sufficient to allow collection, there remains a significant period in which relatively
low levels of methane containing landfill gas is generated and simply lost to atmosphere. In addition
to reduction in the global warming potential of the landfill, additional benefits could include:
 Bringing forward the return of the land to beneficial use.

 Bringing forward the surrender of the landfill licence/permit.
 Possibly mitigating local environmental impacts/risks from gas and leachate generation.
It is concluded that a LFMR project in Scotland is potentially feasible, given an optimum set of
conditions. However, the economic assessment undertaken in this study has been undertaken for a
hypothetical set of circumstances and with many assumptions. To undertake a detailed feasibility and
viability study for a specific landfill would require site specific data, a more sophisticated economic
assessment and more time and resource than has been applied to this high level scoping study.
Although potentially feasible, a project will only be viable if the landfill operator has the will to pursue
the project and has the ability to undertake it, or there is a third party willing to undertake it.
2.5 Recommendations
This study has been undertaken as a high level scoping study to inform ZWS and SG, whom want to
investigate whether or not LFMR is feasible and viable in Scotland. The study has not considered any
site specific data for any particular landfill. Instead, the focus has been to take an overview of a wide
range of issues that could potentially apply to LFMR across Scotland, as well as provide an insight into
what is involved in undertaking a LFMR project.
It is recommended that this study is shared with interested parties. As well as regulators and policy
makers, this should include landfill operators and companies that may be interested in being involved
in a LFMR project in Scotland. In addition to being a necessary step, if ZWS and the SG wish to
further investigate the undertaking of LFMR in Scotland, the insight and opinions of such stakeholders
will undoubtedly add to the understanding of the feasibility and viability of LFMR in Scotland.
If ZWS, the SG, or any other stakeholder is interested in pursuing the possibility of LFMR in Scotland,
it will be necessary to undertake a screening exercise to identify suitable landfills, and then to
undertake a detailed feasibility and viability study for a specific landfill. The screening exercise would
require access to a greater level of data than reviewed for this scoping study. Following the screening
exercise, it would of course be necessary to first establish operator interest. A screening exercise may
not be necessary if a landfill operator comes forward with a suitable landfill and a keen desire to
establish feasibility and viability of LFMR for that specific site.
LFMR project economics. The economic assessment presented in this study has not considered
incentives/credits for avoidance of fugitive emissions of landfill gas. It is, however, recommended that
consideration is given to this matter, in particular in relation to any possible future detailed site
specific feasibility assessment, as well as at a national policy level. In particular, consideration should
be given to whether a LFMR project in Scotland could qualify for Emission Reduction Units (ERUs)
under the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism.
Whilst detailed composition analysis would be required in the development of a specific LFMR project
on a specific landfill, there would be merit in better understanding the waste in Scotlands landfills at a
higher level. The authors found no reference to the undertaking of composition analysis on landfilled
waste in Scotland. Understanding the compostion of landfilled waste in Scotland will better inform
assessment of LFMR feasibility. This would require trial pitting and sorting and analysis on landfilled
waste of known age and waste type. Whilst it would be prefereable to consider a high number of
landfills and undertake a high degree of sampling, such an exercise would not be straight forward.
Complications and expense would stem from health and safety considerations, environmental
considerations and subsequent repair of any damaged capping. It may be preferable to excavate one
or two trial pits on a number of landfills, instead of a greater number of trial pits on a lower number of
landfills.
In undertaking a landfilled waste composition exercise it would be useful to undertake detailed

analysis of specific wastes, e.g. in addition to having a category for small WEEE, that small WEEE
could be further broken down into type and material content. In-turn, this could inform a study into
the feasibility of the recovery of certain high value metals which, if not feasible now, might be feasible
in a future of increased resource scarcity.
It is evident that on-site energy recovery is a strong factor influencing financial viability of LFMR.
Whilst financial viability is currently borderline at best, it would be useful to undertake an assessment
of energy market trend to ascertain whether at some point in the future it is likely that energy from
landfilled waste (EfLFW) will be viable in its own right.
Finally, this study has highlighted the importance of understanding the waste present in a landfill to
LFMR and how this understanding is generally poor for historically landfilled waste. It is recommended
that consideration is given to methods of improving this situation going forward, e.g. what measures
can be taken to ensure operators record which wastes are placed where in a landfill and when.
Further to informing future potential LFMR, this will also assist those undertaking detailed modelling of
landfill gas and leachate and the undertaking of environmental risk assessments.
3 Feasibility and Evaluation of Oil Shale Bing Resource

Reclamation
3.1 Overview
The bings located in West Lothian are post-industrial spoil heaps, the result of retorting mineral oil
from deep-mined carboniferous shale beds at a time when Scotland was the major oil producing
nation in the world. The bings seen across the West Lothian landscape are comprised of the waste
materials resulting from this process. The trade in crude oil and paraffin lead to the establishment of
several towns in the West Lothian area. The bings are now seen as a potential source of aggregate
replacement material, which can be used for construction purposes such as road bases and
foundations. The bings are also highly valued by local communities and historians. They are
considered an important landscape feature both as visual amenities and for the role they play in
reminding communities of their historical mining heritage. They are also seen as valuable for the
unique habitat which they provide, and for their use as a public open space.
At the end of the oil production era in Scotland, there were initially 27 bings in West Lothian as of the
end of 1963. There are now 19 bings remaining, which cover a total area of around 330ha.
A number of the West Lothian bings have been either restored or partially extracted already.
Restoration works in the past have historically been earth-moving exercises, changing the overall
shape of the bings to be rounder and theoretically more visibly attractive, and covering them with
topsoil, seeds and fertilisers. Extraction activities have been undertaken at other bings for the
purposes of the utilisation of the aggregate materials for construction purposes.
3.2 Evaluation of issues

3.2.1 Technical issues
Oil shale bings, as opposed to coal mining spoil heaps, have a greater physical stability. Therefore
there is less risk of collapse or landslides during excavation. This stability comes from the heating
process during shale oil extraction, whereby the oil shale is heated to enable separation of the shale
oil and the remaining bings are subsequently more chemically stable, absorb less water and contain
limited ‘fines’ materials. Recovering material from oil-shale bings is technically straightforward, and
will involve conventional excavating plant and equipment such as excavators, bulldozers and trucks.
Historically, material from oil shale bings has been used as a fill and subbase. WRAP, as part of the
AggRegain project, published a Material Information sheet (WRAP, 2011) which outlines the following
uses for bings material.
‘Based upon the Specification for Highway Works [MCHW Volume 1] and the Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges [HD 35/04], spent oil shale can be recycled into:
 Hydraulically bound mixtures (HBM) for sub-base and base – spent oil shale is suitable for use in
HBS assuming it meets the appropriate material and grading requirements.
 Unbound mixtures for sub-base – spent oil shale is suitable for use in sub-base assuming it meets
the appropriate material and grading requirements.
 Capping – may contain spent oil shale.
 Embankments and Fill – spent oil shale is generally suitable for embankment and fill applications.
The technical feasibility of recovering and using aggregate-type material from bings is well
established. Spent oil shale was used extensively and successfully in Scottish construction during the
1960s and early 1970s, but largely fell from use until the mid-1990s. The particle size distribution of
spent oil-shale means that it is particularly suitable for use as a granular subbase. Successful
applications of oil-shale bing material in the past has included general granular fill and unbound sub-
base on the M8, M9 and M90 motorways.
One of the more recent examples of the use of oil-shale bing material was in the upgrading of the
M8/M9 interchange in the early 1990’s. The junction was redesigned in order to allow through-traffic
to avoid a busy roundabout. This involved the excavation of an underpass below the roundabout.
Whilst the project requirements for fill material was limited, the nature of the excavations and limited
space on site meant that recycling the excavated material was not practical. The quality of the
excavated material was also not of sufficient quality to be recycled on-site. However, the site was in
close proximity to the West Lothian oil-shale bings, with the nearest bing (known as ‘Green Bing’) only
four miles from the site. In this instance, the use of locally available oil-shale as an aggregate was
therefore preferable to the recycling of the excavated material or the import of virgin aggregate.
Approximately 15,000m3 of oil-shale bing material was used as fill in the entry and exit ramps of the
M8 and M9 junctions at the interchange. The oil-shale material meets the requirements of the
Specification for Highway Works (SHW) 600 series. The SHW describes which recycled and secondary
aggregate materials are acceptable for use in earthworks, and specifies the tests which need to be
carried out.
There is no performance data relating to the use of oil-shale bing material in the M8/M9 interchange
project. However, the work was completed in accordance with the SHW specification and since the
new junction opened in 1997 there have been no adverse issues related to the spent oil-shale
earthworks.
During excavations of compacted oil-shale, it has been observed that the material undergoes a small
amount of crushing when compacted. This means that there is less void space between the particles,
which in turn leads to a higher strength, less permeable material when compared to other aggregate
fill materials, including many primary and virgin aggregate materials.
3.2.2 Economic issues

In the West Lothian Local Biodiversity Action Plan report on Oil Shale Bings (Harvie, 2005a), the
economic value in the bing materials as construction materials is noted, but also says that
‘…paradoxically, this monetary value has also protected them from demolition and landscaping at the
end of the twentieth century when reclamation and restoration of mine waste was fashionable.’
However, the economic value of the bings is now seen as a threat to their security, especially in light
of some of the bings being privately owned.
Research into the current market and costs of virgin and recycled aggregates in the West Lothian area
has been undertaken in order to determine the potential value of the bing material. Using the Zero
Waste Scotland, Aggregates Quality Protocol Supplier Directory (http://www.zwsaggsuppliers.org.uk),
suppliers in or neighbouring the West Lothian area were contacted. This directory is based upon the
businesses that have been proved to comply with the WRAP Aggregates Quality Protocol.
The range of estimated prices for virgin or secondary aggregate was as follows:
 Virgin aggregate: £11 – £12 per tonne

 Secondary aggregate: £6 - £12.50 per tonne
 Transport: £5 per tonne (up to 10 mile radius)
Based on these price estimates, it is clear that aggregates recovered from oil-shale bings would have
significant value, and could compete with other aggregate materials in terms of cost. Whilst the exact
quantities of oil-shale bing material remaining is not known, some estimates have been in the region
of 100 million tonnes.
Oil-shale aggregate is a cost-effective material to extract, as with many aggregate materials, the
transportation costs are the barrier to their use elsewhere and it is likely to be uneconomical to
transport bing material significant distances. Most of the organisations listed on the supplier directory
will deliver up to a 30 mile radius.
The demand for oil-shale from bings has been cyclical in the past, with high levels of demand being
associated with major construction projects.
In terms of current demand for aggregates (either virgin or recycled) within the West Lothian area,
the biggest single construction project currently in progress is the Forth Replacement Crossing.
Construction work began in September 2011 and is due to completed by 2016. Aggregates suppliers
to the project have been announced as Tarmac (Ravelrig Quarry in West Lothian) and Aggregate
Industries (Glasgow Depot). The environmental statement for the Forth Replacement Crossing work
(Transport Scotland, 2009) states that in addition to imported aggregates, the blasted rock gathered
during excavations at the site will be utilised as aggregates during the construction (App A4.1 section
5.9.4).
3.2.3 Environmental issues

The original process of producing shale oil had significant environmental impacts on the West Lothian
area. The production of a barrel of shale oil can result in up to 1.5 tonnes of spent shale, which is
evident in the large bings now remaining across the region. The disruption to land was perhaps the
most significant impact of the oil shale industry, but the legacy of the bings may also give rise to
further environmental impacts. The weathering of the oil shale waste may result in these materials
leaching into local water courses. It is thought that the impact on water quality by oil shale wastes is
similar to that of coal mining wastes, but a 2005 European Parliament study on the EU oil shale
industry recommended that further research is carried out into the environmental impact of oil shale
wastes on the environment and water environment.
Local studies have confirmed that bing water run-off has resulted in significantly elevated levels of
iron in water courses. One paper (Haunch et al, 2011) outlines how 300 years of both coal and oil
shale mining activity continues to impact water quality in the Almond River catchment area. Oil shale
wastes in Scotland have been identified as containing significant quantities of iron (Fe 2O3) and sulphur
(SO3). Scottish shale oil was produced almost entirely within this river catchment area. However the
study determined that it was predominantly coal mining waste which contributed to the impact on
water quality, with the contribution of iron and sulphate loading from oil shale waste more difficult to
determine.
During the working of a bing, any neighbouring residents and communities are likely to be subjected
to adverse environmental consequences. These will include dust, mud, and traffic noise. In 2009, the
City of Edinburgh Council undertook a review of conditions of an existing minerals permission at the
Niddry Castle bing. The Niddry Castle bing lies within West Lothian Council, but is near to and visible
from areas of the City and County of Edinburgh. The review was undertaken as a requirement of the
Environment Act 1995 which requires that any mineral permissions are reviewed every 15 years to
ensure that modern operational and environmental standards are maintained over the life of mineral
planning permissions. The Niddry Castle Bing has been an operational minerals site for at least 15
years (in 2009). The review established that any adverse environmental impacts from the working of
the bing are linked to noise, dust or air quality but are likely to be limited to the area immediately
surrounding the operations. The review also outlines the set of planning conditions in place to limit
environmental impacts. These include measures aimed at ensuring lorries are suitably sheeted, and
wheel cleaning facilities are in place. Hours of operation of the site are also restricted to minimise the
impact of noise.
3.2.4 Regulatory issues

Subject to the application of end of waste criteria, the processing and reuse of bing material may be
subject to waste management licencing. Ricardo-AEA consider that the material in the bings meets the
definition of waste as given in the Waste Framework Directive. Ricardo-AEA consider that its reuse as
an aggregate would either require confirmation that it is no longer considered a waste, or require the
application of waste management licensing provisions. On a case by case basis, this will require prior
discussion with SEPA.
The ‘quality protocol for the production of aggregates from inert waste in Scotland’ (WRAP, 2004)
provides information on determining end of waste status. In using this protocol, it would first be
necessary to establish if the bing material meets the criteria for ‘inert waste’ given in appendix C of
the protocol. The waste does not neatly align with the list of wastes considered ‘inert’ in appendix C of
the document and it is possible that it may not be considered ‘inert’ given references reviewed which
suggest both iron and sulphate can potentially leach from the bings (see Section 3.3.3 above), with
resultant potential impact on water quality.
The main regulatory issues relating to the excavation of materials from the oil-shale bings are
associated with planning. In 1998, West Lothian Council published ‘ A development control policy to
control the extraction of oil shale bings in West Lothian Scottish’ (West Lothian Council, 1998) as a
Supplementary Planning Guidance document. The policy outlines the Councils’s approach to
encouraging or resisting the excavation of bings. It also documents good practice and considerations
for future bing developers and restoration projects to limit environmental consequences.
The council’s policy towards extraction of materials is based on a preference to work already partially
worked bings and to resist extraction of many of the intact bings. Their past experience of extraction
from the oil-shale bings has led to the division of bings into four categories:
1 Category 1: Bings where extraction is encouraged. Bings in this category include some with
existing planning permission and some without planning permission.
2 Category 2: Intact bings where extraction is resisted. This includes bings such as Five
Sisters, which is a particularly large bing and striking landscape feature. The council would
encourage the development of recreation and tourist facilities here. The council has also identified
other bings in this area for which it would support scheduling as an ancient monument.
3 Category 3: Restored bings where extraction is resisted. The council have identified bings
for which there is no potential for further extraction, and which have been restored to either
recreational or industrial land. However, some of these may be considered for extraction should all
other resources be worked.
4 Category 4: Bings which have been abandoned or where resources are exhausted.
Restoration encouraged. These include bings which have been abandoned by the operators, and
some which have only been partially restored.
Planning applications for extraction from bings will be subject to the following conditions set by West
Lothian Council:
 Planning permission will be subject to conditions specifying a limited working area within the bing,
including areas for disposal of clinker and other unsuitable materials.
 Extraction should proceed in level steps avoiding jagged edges.
 Bing operators will be expected to install a tarmac surfaced access road and wheel wash.
 Detailed conditions will be included in planning consents with respect to site restoration.
 The Council may also require a restoration bond before granting planning permission.
3.2.5 Sociological issues

The West Lothian bings are considered by many to have significant social and historic importance.
Some bings are already scheduled as historic industrial monuments. They also have an educational
value, in terms of the industrial history of the local area. They are considered by many to be an
important landscape feature, both for visual amenity value and for the part they play in reminding the
community of its historic mining heritage.
The bings are also used for recreational purposes, especially those that have been restored for this
purpose. Many bings are situated in close proximity to residential areas, and some are used on a daily
basis by dog walkers and joggers, and provide important open spaces for communities in the area.
Some bings have been restored specifically with recreation in mind, including one bing that is now a
Scottish Wildlife Trust nature reserve. Other recreational users of the bings include botanists and
cyclists.
The sociological impact of extracting materials from the bings will impact communities in two different
ways. Firstly, extraction will change the landscape, which for many has become an integral part of the
identify of West Lothian communities. Extracting material from the bings can also add to their derelict
appearance, with some working leaving unattractive profiles. Secondly, the environmental impact of
extraction may have an adverse impact on local communities, as outlined in Section 3.2.3. Whilst
measures can be put in place to minimise the impact of extraction activities, the review of activities at
the Niddry Castle bing revealed that local roads were often covered in dust, and residents had
complained of excessive noise. Local roads have been damaged, and other issues such as works
vehicles travelling at excessive speeds and the parking of heavy goods vehicles in the village centre
were reported as having an adverse impact on village amenities. These impacts, however, could be
encounterred with any mining activity, including the quarrying of virgin aggregates, and are not
unique to the extraction of materials from bings.
3.2.6 Ecological value

The oil shale bings of West Lothian have been of significant academic interest to ecologists at the
University of Edinburgh since the early 1970s and have been the subject of undergraduate and
masters’ projects and a doctorate thesis (Russell, 1971; Martin, 1992; Maka, 1995; Harvie, 2005b).
The West Lothian Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) for oil shale bings (Harvie, 2005a) regards the 19
bings that survive as unique in Britain and north-west Europe. Those bings that are of greatest
ecological importance have remained largely unmanaged since shale extraction ceased (1920–1962),
and are examples of primary succession, a process resulting from natural colonisation usually only
associated with sand dunes, glaciers and volcanoes. Their vegetation has been determined primarily
by local seed sources and to a lesser degree by the rare and chance arrival of species from further
afield (Dickson, 1990; Harvie, 2005a, 2005b, 2012; Harvie & Russell, 2007; Harvie et al., 2003,).
Other bings have been re-landscaped and planted, mostly during the 1970s and 1980s.
Increasingly intensive agriculture and urban development means that the bings have become a refuge
for wildlife. Allowed to develop naturally, the bings’ varied substrates give rise to a wide range of
habitats, from almost bare ground to semi-natural grassland, heather, scrub and birch woodland (Hall,
1957). Eight species (all lichens and mosses) with Nationally Scarce status in Great Britain are only
found in West Lothian on oil shale bings (Harvie, 2005a; Steven & Long, 1989). Sixteen of West
Lothian’s rarest plants are recorded on the bings (Smith et al., 2002). The bings are cited in the LBAP
as playing a major role in the success of 15 of the 45 West Lothian habitat indicator species: bird’s
foot trefoil, brown hare, bullfinch, grey partridge, kestrel, linnet, orange tip butterfly, red grouse,
skylark, song thrush, spotted flycatcher, swallow, wild hyacinth (bluebell), yellowhammer, and yellow
rattle (Harvie, 2005a). Some bings are also home to badgers, which are protected by the Protection of
Badgers Act 1992 .
1
The bings contribute to wider habitat networks, defined by species’ abilities to disperse across the
landscape, which can be viewed using a web-based tool, currently being trialled by Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH) for the Central Belt of Scotland, at
http://mapgateway.snh.gov.uk/maps/usertool_editor.html (see Figure 3.1).
1
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents
Figure 3.1 Habitat networks for generalist species
a) Heathland (purple) b) Woodland (green) c) Grassland (orange)
The bings may act as functional links between wildlife sites in their vicinity, including a number of
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Easter Inch Moss and Seafield Local Nature Reserve (LNR),
and numerous Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) reserves and Woodland Trust (WT) sites (see Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 Wildlife sites in the vicinity of the 19 surviving bings
SSSIs (pink polygons) LNR (mauve polygon)
SWT reserves (green dots) WT sites (pale pink polygons)

3.2.6.1 Biodiversity Action Plan target and actions

Only four of the 19 surviving bings have formal protected status, three are Scheduled Ancient
Monuments (SAMs) and one is part of the LNR already mentioned, see Table 3.1. An LBAP target is
to:
“Secure formal protection for all of the remaining oil-shale bings through the local plan, as examples
of primary succession processes and for their contribution to the biodiversity of West Lothian, and as
industrial heritage sites because of their historical significance” (Harvie, 2005a).
The LBAP advocates that the best management of oil shale bings is no management. Low nutrient
availability, grazing, trampling, and off-road biking have all helped to increase plant diversity.
Restoration and management of spoil waste are viewed as unnecessary and undesirable from a
biodiversity perspective. The LBAP reports that restoration policies have led to species-poor, visually
boring sites, except where semi-natural habitats have been deliberately established and steep slopes
retained. A proposed action for the bing habitat in the LBAP is to:
“Discourage restoration programmes on all 19 bing sites even after extraction. To maintain and
enhance the bing habitat management should be kept to a minimum. Sites only require minor
regrading to remove overhangs and stabilise large blocks of clinker so that they are made safe. Retain
old elder trees whenever possible as they are a unique source of epiphytic lichen and moss diversity ”
(Harvie, 2005a).
The LBAP proposes specific actions for each bing, only where required. Broadly speaking, these seek
to:
 Protect and, where appropriate, manage existing habitats

 Control non-native and invasive species
 Use enrichment planting to make badly restored sites more attractive and interesting
 Promote and manage public access.
3.2.6.2 Planning context
A development control policy to control the extraction of oil shale bings in West Lothian (West Lothian
Council, 1998) categorised the bings based on the need first to remove those that were already
partially worked and to restrict extraction from intact bings. It also noted that some restored bings
may have potential for further extraction once other sources are exhausted.
The LBAP (Harvie, 2005a) stated that recent changes to local conservation policy had ensured that
many remaining were safe from demolition, reshaping, reclamation and restoration, although a few
had been sold with a pre-designation allowing them to be removed for construction work and that
application could be made to excavate some others, as listed in Table 3.1.
Policy NWR4 and Policy NWR5 in successive West Lothian Local Plans (West Lothian Council, 2005;
2008) are of relevance to mining and reclamation of bings and include clauses that relate to ecological
issues.
Policy NWR4 states that proposals for mineral extraction are more likely to be given favourable
consideration where areas of derelict or contaminated land would be rehabilitated. In this context,
although oil-shale waste is generally non-toxic and alkaline (Harvie, 2005a), it may be notable that
two bings (Table 3.1) have been documented as being sources of water run-off and minewater
rebound that have resulted in significantly elevated levels of iron in water courses, with ferruginous
inputs smothering habitats and reducing biodiversity (Johnston et al., 2008; McConnell, 2011).
However, Policy NWR4 also states that circumstances where mineral extraction is unlikely to be
acceptable include ecologically and geologically sensitive areas and that:
“Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special
Scientific Interest, Local Nature Reserves and other sites of local ecological, or earth science
importance will be protected from proposals which affect the integrity of the feature”.
Policy NWR5 states that proposals for mineral extraction are less likely to be given favourable
consideration in ecologically sensitive areas or where the long-term biodiversity value of the site would
be reduced by the development.
Table 3.1 The 19 surviving bings (Harvie, 2005a, 2005b; Johnston et al., 2008, McConnell, 2011)
Categories in LBAP
Impacts on surface water bodies

Abandoned or resources exhausted
Restored: extraction resisted, no
Extraction may be encouraged,
Restored : extraction resisted,

planning permission required
Extraction encouraged , with
potential once other sources

National Grid Reference
Intact: extraction resisted
potential for extraction

planning permission
Basal area (ha)
Protected sites
Closure date
exhausted
Addiewell north NT002631 12ha 1932      
Addiewell south NT005627 30ha 1932      
Albyn NT085729 6ha 1925      
Bridgend NT037758 12ha 1932      
Clapperton NT079697 11ha 1925      
Deans Bing NT015685 74ha 1946      
Drumshoreland NT075700 26ha 1925

north      
Drumshoreland NT078695 7ha 1925

south      
Faucheldean NT085742 9ha 1925       SAM
Five Sisters NT009641 17ha 1962 SAM

(Westwood)       
Green Bing NT070710 9ha 1920       
Greendykes NT087736 33ha 1925 SAM

(north part)       
Mid Breich NT009646 4ha 1915       
Niddry NT097746 8ha 1961      
Oakbank NT076664 13ha 1932      
Philipstoun north NT057769 10ha 1932     
Philipstoun south NT056765 27ha 1932     
Seafield NT005667 12ha 1932      LNR
Stankards NT063711 10ha 1920     
3.2.6.3 Impact assessment

There are no sites of European importance for nature conservation in the vicinity of any of the
surviving bings. As such, the requirements of the The Habitats Regulations are not a relevant
2
consideration.
Open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares is listed in Schedule 1 to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations , as such mining and reclamation of bings that
3
meets this criterion will require an EIA (see Table 3.1). Mining and reclamation that covers a lesser
extent is addressed by Schedule 2 to the EIA Regulations and will require EIA if it is likely to have a
significant effect on the environment, by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location.
Guidelines for ecological impact assessment (EcIA), as part of an EIA, produced by the Institute of
Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) advocate that an EcIA should include the following
stages:
1 Consultation to ensure the widest possible input to the definition of its scope, which should be
iterative throughout the EcIA process
2 Identification of the likely zone of influence during the project’s entire lifespan
3 Identification and evaluation of ecological resources and features likely to be affected
4 Identification of changes likely to affect valued ecological resources and features
5 Assessment of whether changes are likely to have a significant ecological impact on the integrity
of a site and/or conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area,
including cumulative impacts of a project in association with other developments in the vicinity
6 Refinement of the project to incorporate ecological enhancement measures, mitigation measures
to avoid or reduce negative impacts, and compensation measures for any residual significant
negative impacts
7 Assessment and definition of the significance of the refined project’s ecological impacts
2
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994; The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004;
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007; The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2)
(Scotland) Regulations 2007. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
3
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
8 Advice on the implications for decision-making of those ecological impacts deemed significant
9 Monitoring implementation and success of mitigation measures in relation to predicted ecological
outcomes.
More specifically, SNH has identified a number of questions that should be considered when a bing,
which is perceived to have natural heritage value, is scheduled for reclamation (McKenzie, undated;
Allan et al., 1997):
1 What features of a bing are of natural heritage value worthy of protection? Are they
unique/rare/common? If so:
2 Is it essential to retain the whole bing to protect the natural heritage interest?
3 Will earth moving operations and/or application of amendments, change the important habitat or
environmental features of the bing?
4 Can the natural heritage aspects of the existing bing be incorporated into the landscape design for
the reclaimed site?
5 Are there any opportunities to create natural heritage interest on a reclaimed bing, for example,
by creation of an artificial wetland habitat?
6 Are there any educational opportunities to use a site because of its industrial heritage or
habitat/nature conservation value?
SNH uses the questions to highlight that any bing reclamation proposals should ensure that the
distinctive and potentially unique natural heritage interest is adequately considered.
In practice, potential ecological concerns arising from any intent to mine and reclaim the bings will be:
 Habitat and species loss associated with the sites themselves, particularly given:
 The presence of Nationally Scarce species and habitat indicator species
 The length of time species have had to colonise some sites (Table 3.1)
 The fact that re-colonisation will be more difficult due to the increased intensity of land use
in the intervening matrix between bings and wildlife habitats
 Fragmentation of habitat networks in the wider landscape. This may be assessed using the web-
based tool currently being trialled by SNH at
http://mapgateway.snh.gov.uk/maps/usertool_editor.html. As well as allowing users to view
existing habitat networks, it can be used to scenario plan reclamation options by drawing the
shape of resultant land parcels on screen, assigning a land use choice from a drop down list, and
then viewing the effects the changes have on the wider habitat network associated with a bings.
The tool is web-based, freely available and requires no specialist software or GIS expertise. A
guide to its use is available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B1029694.pdf
 Emissions to water that may also impact on other wildlife habitats of national or local importance
within a wider zone of influence, particularly SSSIs, Easter Inch Moss and Seafield LNR, SWT
reserves and WT sites
 Ability to retain important habitat features
 Ability to retain vestiges of the substrate as chaotic micro-topography for repeat colonisation
 Ability to promote, accommodate, adapt or augment specific actions identified for each bing in the
LBAP (Harvie, 2005a), as part of extraction or post-extraction operations.
 Any proposal for active restoration, including habitat and species translocation, which will not be
viewed as suitable mitigation (Harvie & Russell, 2007).
3.3 Conclusions
The recent extraction of material from oil-shale bings demonstrates that the recovery of material for
use in construction applications is both technically and economically feasible. The economic feasibility
does depend on distance between the bing and point of use, and it is unlikely that the bing material
would be used other than in areas in proximity to West Lothian. Whilst the aggregate material does
have some advantages in particular applications, it is generally used as low grade fill material, of
which there are numerous other sources, both virgin and secondary, in the wider area and the rest of
Scotland.
A review of the ecological issues associated with the bings has demonstrated the ecological
importance of the bings, due to the unique and diverse habitats that they provide. There are
undisputable ecological benefits as a result of leaving bings untouched.
The environmental impacts of extracting bing material will be localised, but could be significant for
local communities. Similarly, the sociological impacts of working or removing the bings will also impact
locally, on communities who have come to accept the bings as a permanent and important feature of
their local landscape.
West Lothian Council have already taken into consideration the National Planning Policy Guideline
NPPG 4: Land for Mineral Working, which suggests that local planning policies should provide for the
recycling of demolition and construction wastes (including oil-shale bings) wherever possible. In
recognition of the policy guideline, the council have categorised the bings to determine which type of
bing has the most potential for extraction of materials. Out of the 19 remaining bings, only four have
existing planning permission with extraction being encouraged. There are a further three at which
extraction may be encouraged, but which do not currently have planning permission. The remaining
bings are either restored, protected or have already been exhausted of materials. Therefore the actual
potential for extracting materials from the bings may be smaller than initially expected. The fact that
the council have stated that they will resist extraction proposals for bings which remain fully intact
suggest that the ecological and social importance of these sites has been recognised.
In conclusion, whilst there are some sources of aggregates which could readily and economically be
extracted from the bings, the ecological, environmental and sociological impacts on local communities
will be significant, and will need to be considered on a case by case basis.
References
Landfills
Hogland, W, Hogland, M, Marques, M (2011) Material Recovery, Energy Utilization and Economics of
Landfill Mining in the EU (Directive) Perspective. Presented at the Sustainable Solid Waste
Management in Eastern Europe - Prospects for the Future, 19-20 May, Ukraine.
Jonathan Atkinson, Environment Agency (2010) Landfill mining regulation: how do we start?
Proceedings of the Global Landfill Mining Conference and Exhibition, 2010.
Kit Strange. Landfill Mining- Preserving Resources through Integrated Sustainable Management of
Waste-Technical Brief from the World Resource Foundation.
(www.enviroalternatives.com/landfill.html accessed 29/07/2012)
Morris, J., (1994) Does Recycling Pay? World Wastes Volume 37, Issue 8, P56.
Peter Jones (2010) Divert, dig up or distributed energy?.....Balancing the drivers of carbon and
financial desires - a 5 Dimensional approach. Proceedings of the Global Landfill Mining Conference
and Exhibition, 2010.
Quaghebeur Mieke (2010) Valorisation of materials within enhanced landfill mining: what is feasible?
Presentation at the International Academic Symposium on Enhanced Landfill Mining, 2010.
Reno Sam (2009) Landfill Mining Process, Feasibility, Economy, Benefits and Limitations. Report
published by Reno Sam (a Danish association of municipal waste management companies).
Savage, G. M., Golueke, C. G. & Von Stein, E. L. (1993) Landfill Mining: Past and Present. BioCycle,
34 (5), 58-61.
SEPA (2011) Landfill sites and capacity report for Scotland 2010.
SEPA (2011) Waste sites and capacity report for Scotland 2010.
SEPA (2005) SEPA Technical Guidance Note- Estimate of Amount of Financial Provision for Landfill
Steven Van Passel, Serge De Gheldere, Maarten Dubois, Johan Eyckmans, Karel Van Acker (2010)
Exploring the socio-economics of Enhanced Landfill Mining. Proceedings of the International
Academic Symposium on Enhanced Landfill Mining, 2010
Stuart Hayward-Higham (2008) The practical, technical and commercial realities of large scale waste
movement and its application to landfill mining. Proceedings of the Global Landfill Mining Conference
and Exhibition, London, 9 October 2008.
Van Vossen, W.J, Prent, O.J (2011) Feasibility study – Sustainable material and energy recovery
from landfills in Europe. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium, Sardinia 2011.
Waste Management World, 2011. Plasma Power Goes Large at Landfill Mining project
William Hogland, Linnaeus University, Sweden (2011) Landfill Mining. Presentation dated 2
November 2011.
Bings
Allan, R.L, Dickinson, G., Dickson, J.H., Duncan, H.J., Murphy, K.J., Pulford, I.D., Rogerson, R. and
Watson, K. (1997) The natural heritage interest of waste tips (bings) in Scotland: inventory and
review. Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 48. Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby.
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/review/048.pdf
Collinson, M. & McLean, C. (1997) Addiewell Bing SWT Reserve. West Lothian Wildlife 2, 34-43
Dickson J.H. (1990). Conservation and the botany of bings. Transactions of the Botanical Society of
Edinburgh, 45, 493-500.
Hall, I.G. (1957) The Ecology of disused pit heaps in England. Journal of Ecology, 45, 689-720.
Harvie, B.A, Legg, C.J. and Russell, G. (2003) Seedbanks and shale bings; four successful weed
species, Aspects of Applied Biology, 69, 21-28.
Harvie, B.A (2005a) West Lothian Biodiversity Action Plan: Oil Shale Bings, Published, on behalf of
West Lothian Local Biodiversity Action Plan partnership, by West Lothian Council, Linlithgow.
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/846
Harvie, B.A (2005b) The mechanisms and processes of vegetation dynamics on oil-shale spoil bings
in West Lothian, Scotland, PhD Thesis, The University of Edinburgh.
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/640
Harvie, B.A. (2007) The importance of the oil-shale bings of West Lothian, Scotland to local and
national biodiversity. Botanical Journal of Scotland, 58(1), 35-47.
Harvie, B.A. and Russell, G. (2007) Vegetation dynamics on oil-shale bings; implications for
management of post-industrial sites. Aspects of Applied Biology, 82, 57-64.
Harvie, B. (2012) Urban Biodiversity: Successes and challenges: biodiversity on bings. The Glasgow
Naturalist 25:4. http://www.glasgownaturalhistory.org.uk/urban_bio/harvie.pdf
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact
Assessment.
http://www.ieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/EcIA_Guidelines/TGSE
cIA-EcIA_Guidelines-Terestrial_Freshwater_Coastal.pdf
Johnston, D., Potter, H., Jones, C., Rolley, S., Watson. I. and Pritchard, J. (2008) Abandoned mines
and the water environment. Science project SC030136-41. Environment Agency, Bristol.
http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0508bnzs-e-e.pdf
Maka, G.(1995) The Ecological Status and Refuge Potential of Selected Oil Shale Bings in West
Lothian. MSc Dissertation. The University of Edinburgh
Martin, P. (1992) A Nature Conservation Audit of Selected Bings in the Central Belt of Scotland. MSc
Dissertation. The University of Edinburgh
McConnell, S. (2011) River Almond Catchment Profile. September 2011. Scottish Environment
Protection Agency. http://www.sepa.org.uk
McKenzie, F. (undated) The natural heritage interest of bings (waste tips) in Scotland. Scottish
Natural Heritage Information and Advisory Note Number 50. Scottish Natural Heritage.
http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/advisorynotes/50/50.htm
Russell, G. (1971) The Development of Soils and Vegetation on the Shale Bings of West Lothian. BSc
honours project, The University of Edinburgh.
Haunch, S., MacDonald, A., Brown, N. and Christopher McDermott (2011) The Environmental Legacy
of Historic Mining Activities in the Almond River Catchment, Scotland. IMWA 2011.
Smith, P.M., Dixon, R.O.D., and Cochrane, M.P. (eds.) (2002) Plant Life of Edinburgh and the
Lothians. Edinburgh University Press.
Steven, G. & Long, D.G. (1989) an update on the status of Buxbaumia aphylla on bings in Central
Scotland. Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 45, 389-395.
Transport Scotland (2009) Forth Replacement Crossing: Environmental Statement
West Lothian Council (1998) A development control policy to control the extraction of oil shale bings
in West Lothian. Revised July 1998.
http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1841832/1875738/2173476/oil_shale_
bings
West Lothian Council (2005) West Lothian Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Planning for biodiversity
action 2005 – 2009.
http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1842967/Biodiversity_action_plan
West Lothian Council (2006) Easter Inch Moss and Seafield Law (EIMSL) Local Nature Reserve.
http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/downloaddoc/1799514/1842967/local_nature_reserve
West Lothian Council (2008) West Lothian Local Plan (Chapter 11, Natural Resources, waste
management and renewable energy). December 2008.
http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/Documents/qA297654/A3094556.pdf
WRAP (2004) Quality protocol for the production of aggregates from inert waste in Scotland
WRAP (2011) AggRegain Material Information sheet: Spent Oil Shale

Appendices
Appendix 1: Scotland’s licensed/permitted landfills (in use- 2010)
Appendix 2: Scotland’s licensed/permitted landfills (closed- 2010)
Appendix 3: Summary of selected SEPA data on Scotland’s landfills
Appendix 4: Worldwide historic and current LFMR projects and drivers
Appendix 5: Economic model

Appendix 1 – Scotland’s licensed/permitted landfills (in use-

2010)
Appendix 2 – Scotland’s licensed/permitted landfills (closed-

2010)
Appendix 3 - Summary of selected SEPA data on Scotland’s

landfills
Landfill Number
Landfill Date of permit/
status of Waste type Site Type Capacity
classification licence issue4
(2010) landfills
Operational 72  23 (31.9%)  Of the 48 non- 39 (59.1%) of the Of the 48 non-hazardous landfills: All between 2004 and
inert (incl. 4 hazardous landfills, 16 66 active sites 2010, reflecting the
inactive) contained cells for were just landfill,  Remaining landfill capacity is 63,977,097 tonnes introduction of the
 asbestos waste the remainder had PPC permitting
1 (1.4%)  Overall total capacity is 143,071,473 tonnes
hazardous  43 (65%) of the 66 other facilities regime. Most of the
 Minimum total capacity is 27,000 tonnes, maximum landfills will have
 48 (66.7%) active sites were is 35,000,000 tonnes, mean is 3,044,074 tonnes
permitted to receive been in operation
non- and median is 1,500,000 tonnes.
household waste, of prior to this.
hazardous  Excluding the 2 largest landfills (Greengairs Landfill
(incl. 2 which all but 1 was
in North Lanarkshire at 35,000,000 tonnes and
inactive) also permitted to
Dunbar Landfill in East Lothian at 13,601,000
receive commercial
tonnes), the maximum total capacity is 8,350,000
waste and all but 7
tonnes, the mean is 2,099,344 tonnes and the
was permitted to
median is 1,320,000 tonnes.
receive industrial
waste as well.
 The data indicates a probability that 6 to 8 landfills
are nearing being full (likely to be the case by
2015)
Licence or 10  8 (80%)  1 non-haz site was Both non-haz One of the non-haz landfills had a remaining The non-haz landfills:
Permit in inert licensed to receive landfills are landfill voidspace of 2,000,000 tonnes
force and in household, only facilities 
 2 (20%) 1 in 1998
restoration commercial, industrial
non-  1 in 1995
hazardous and asbestos waste All sites are regulated
 1 non-haz site was under the waste
licensed to receive management
household, licencing regime
commercial and
industrial waste
Licence or 175 Not stated  5 (2.9%) inert only 159 (90.9%) were Of the 74 landfills receiving household waste, 4 did  9 were either not
Permit in 16 (9.1%) household just landfill, the not have a restriction on the rate of waste receipt, 2 known or entered

force and only remainder had had a daily waste limit and 68 had an annual limit. Of in error
4
The date of licence/permit issue is an indicative but not absolute indication of landfill age. Many licences and permits are varied or replaced with issue of new reference numbers and so the landfill may be older than the
dates listed.
Landfill Number
(2010) landfills
closed  26 (14.9%) other facilities these annual limits:  12 were issued

commercial only between 2000 and
 46 (26.3%) industrial  1 was 1,000,000 tonnes 2007
only  were between 500,000 and 600,000 tonnes  124 were issued
 1 (0.6%) special  6 were between 100,000 and 300,000 tonnes between 1990 and
waste only 1999
 7 were between 74,000 and 80,000 tonnes
 1 (0.6%) unknown  25 were between 15,000 and 49,500 tonnes  20 were issued
 81 (46.3%) with more between 1980 and
 25 were between 1,000 and 7,400 tonnes
1989
than 1 waste type
 2 were less than 1,000 tonnes
 74 (42.3%) took  10 were issued in
household waste (16 either 1978 or
only HH waste) 1979
Of the 74 landfills
 12 of the landfills
taking household that received
waste also took inert household waste:
waste
 7 of the landfills  6 were issued
taking household between 2000 and
waste also took 2005
asbestos waste  54 were issued
 7 of the landfills between 1990 and
taking household 1999
waste also took  11 were issued
special waste between 1980 and
 54 (73.0%) of the 1989
landfills taking  were issued in
household waste also either 1978 or
took industrial and 1979
commercial waste
Licence or 100 Not stated but Not stated Not stated Not stated Tend to have older
Permit not in review of permit issue dates, or
Landfill Number
(2010) landfills
force and operator names incorrect dates, than

closed5 suggests high other closed sites
prevalence of
inert landfill
5
These landfills feature in the SEPA data associated with ‘landfill sites and capacity report for Scotland 2010’ but not ‘waste sites and capacity report for Scotland 2010’. It is suspected that these 100 landfills refer to
landfills previously regulated which have now surrendered their licences, although this is not categorically stated in the SEPA data. These sites tend to have older permit issue dates, or incorrect dates, than the other sites
and perusal of the operator names suggest many of these sites are probably inert landfills.
Feasibility and Viability of Landfill Mining and Reclamat
Appendix 4 - Worldwide historic and current LFMR projects

and drivers
Sites (UK) Project drivers Comments
Packington Landfill, In order to enable the landfill lining to be

Birmingham, UK upgraded.
In order to fulfill landfill directive obligations

(restructuring and re-lining the site). To
Whinney Hill, allow for a free-standing bund to be
Lancashire installed.
In order to fulfill landfill directive obligations

(restructuring and re-lining the site). To
Jameson Road, allow for a free-standing bund to be
Lancashire installed.
No sorting of waste other than

removing obvious hazardous
Old dockyard tip at wastes. Waste removed by train
Chatham dockyard to Bedford brick pits. Undertaken
estate, UK To allow housing development in the 1980’s.
Complete relocation of pre 1974

waste to a specially constructed
engineered landfill (Marley Pit).
No sorting of waste other than
Two Domestic waste landfills excavated and removing obvious hazardous
Two council landfills, moved to allow construction of the channel wastes. Undertaken in year
Kent, UK tunnel rail link. 2000.
Trial excavation only. No sorting

To make way for extension to the of waste other than removing
Sussex, UK recreational Bluebell railway in Sussex. obvious hazardous wastes.
Sites (Europe) Project drivers Comments
Sondermulldeponie To avoid potential groundwater pollution

Kolliken, Switzerland risks. Hazardous waste landfill
Goettingen landfill,
Deidrode, Germany Not specified.
Believed to be the first of its kind

Burghot, Germany Not specified. in Europe.
Schoneiche, Germany Not specified.
Dresden, Germany Not specified.

Sengenbuhl,
Germany Not specified.
Basslitz, Germany Not specified.
Dobeln-Hohenlauuft,
Germany Not specified.
Arnhem, Netherlands To develop the site as an industrial area.
Born, Netherlands To develop the site as an industrial area.
Appledoorn, To avoid polluting the environment

Netherlands surrounding the landfill.
Heiloo, Netherlands In order to create more landfill capacity.
Zeeasterweg landfill, Smwell-Well System for reducing

Lelystad, Netherlands Not specified. odours prior to excavation.
For the recycling of materials and capture of

residues to be processed through APP's
patented Gasplasma technology (feeding
Remo landfill (Remo into the national electricity grid and vitrified
Milieubeheer NV), recyclate in the form of Plasmarok). For the
Houthalen- reclamation of the site for community
Hechteren, Belgium recreation. Not commenced yet
Sardinia, Italy For the recovery of landfill capacity.
This was a research investigation to

evaluate the rate of degradation of buried
waste and research recycling and energy
Masalycke landfill, recovery potential of the materials
Sweden excavated. Research investigation

waste and research recycling and energy
Gladsax landfill, recovery potential of the materials
Sweden excavated. Research investigation
Filborna landfill,
Sweden Not specified. Pilot test.
Filborna, Sweden Not specified. This was a pilot test carried out
in 1994 on a 10 year old section
of the landfill.
For the recovery of landfill capacity and the

Strangnas, Sweden recovery of materials.
Landskrona, Sweden Not specified. Pilot test.
Laguja Landfill, For the rehabilitation of a ponded area and

Estonia in order to facilitate landfill capping.
Vassiliko Cement,
Cyprus Not specified.
Sites (North
Project drivers Comments
America)
McDougal, Ontario,
Canada To mitigate groundwater contamination.
Due to the identifications of a threat to

groundwater locally and the high cost Now being undertaken for the
Naples Landfill, required to comply with the State's capping removal of the soil fraction only
Collier County regulations (impermeable cap on as quality of recyclates was too
Florida, USA completion). poor.
Martone Landfill, In order to expand existing landfill capacity High leachate head found to
Barre, with new cells to be lined for future filling have reduced degradation of
Massachusetts, USA (landfill upgrade). waste.
New owners took over the site.

Regulators required them to
Bethlehem, New move 160 tonnes of material to
Hampshire, USA Pollution prevention. new lined cells.
In order to upgrade the site via the removal

of old waste (from 1942 onwards), re-grade
the slopes and put in a new liner. Allowing
Bethleham, future landfilling. Also, for the purposes of
Pennsylvania, USA avoiding groundwater contamination.
Sites (North
America)
In 1988, the New York State Energy

Research and Development Authority put
out a request for an appropriate landfill
mining project site.
The objectives of NYSERDA in undertaking
the Edinburgh project were as follows:
- to determine the equipment needs and
develop optimal procedures for excavation,
- to understand the extent of separation,
handling, and storage of landfilled materials
- to determine appropriate uses for the
reclaimed material
- to identify available markets for the
materials
- to develop required processing needs for
the reclaimed materials
- to develop recommendations regarding
health and safety requirements
- to conduct contingency planning for This work was based upon the
Edinburgh, New York, future landfill reclamation projects in New success of the Collier County
USA York. landfill mining work.
Frey Farm landfill,

Manor Township, In order to supply more feed for a three- Mining ceased once the
Lancaster, train massburn facility with a design neighbouring capacity for the
Pennsylvania, USA capacity of 1,100t/d. mass burn facility was reached.
This was considered a temporary

In order to stop the landfill from having to activity while a new landfill
Town of Thompson, close (by it's planned due date), to solution for the area was
Connecticut, USA recapture landfill volume. confirmed.
Horicon, New York

State, USA Not specified.
Chester, New York,

USA Not specified.
Coloni, New York,

USA Not specified.
Sandtown, Delaware,
USA Not specified.
Sites (North
America)
To remove the old waste from the landfill

Hague, New York, mitigate any future monitoring and aftercare
USA risks.
To reclaim the 9 acre footprint. To create a

Newbury, new lined cell to avoid the potential for
Massachusetts, USA groundwater contamination.
The landfill was deemed not to have been

engineered correctly (the sides were too
Halifax, Vermont, steep). To remove the waste, re-engineer
USA the slope sides and re-landfill the waste.
Nashville, Tennessee, In order to alleviate contamination concerns

USA and to recycle soil and ash as road base.
To create voidspace and allow the State to

decide whether or not it would continue
landfill mining on the remainder of the
Perdido landfill, unlined sections of the landfill. To define Substantial State funding
Escambia County, economic feasibility and operational received for this demonstration
Florida, USA considerations that need to be made. project.
Sites (Asia) Project drivers Comments
Landfill mining was first reported in Tel Aviv,

Israel. The objective was to excavate waste
to obtain 'soil amendment' materials (with a
concentration of NPK fertilisers of 1.4%).
This soil amendment was used to cultivate
Citrus groves in the area. Materials were
City of Tel Aviv, not used in other agricultural activities due First landfill mining project
Israel to the large amount of broken glass present. undertaken.
Metro Manila
Commission, Island
of Balut, Tondo, Never went ahead due to a
Philipines To upgrade the existing landfill. shortage of funding.
Non Khaem Landfill,

Bangkok, Thailand Not specified.
Non Khaem, Thailand Not specified.

Sites (Asia) Project drivers Comments
In order to alleviate the environmental

Nanjido Landfill, concerns and create a recreation area on
Seoul, Korea the site.
This was a pilot test to enable the recovery

Deonar, India of decomposed waste as compost. Pilot test
Ajmer Project, In order to capture an alternative fuel

Rajastan, India source.

waste and research energy recovery
Kodungaiyur, India potential of the materials excavated. Research project

waste and research energy recovery
Perungudi, India potential of the materials excavated. Research project
The objectives were for the soil fraction to

be applied as fertiliser, for the residual
inorganic fraction to be used as a source of
energy and to create space for new waste.
Sin Lin, China General landfill upgrading.
Normandy Landfill, Cancelled (mid-way) due to

Beirut, Lebanon For the purposes of land reclamation. political situation.
Appendix 5 – Economic model

Material Revenues and Costs
Tonnes recovered by recovery rate Revenue / tonne Revenue per recovery rate
Material 30% 60% 90% 100% 30% 60% 90% 100%
Glass 4290 8580 12870 14300 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Ferrous 6630 13260 19890 22100 £140 £928,200 £1,856,400 £2,784,600 £3,094,000
Aluminium 780 1560 2340 2600 £750 £585,000 £1,170,000 £1,755,000 £1,950,000
Non ferrous 390 780 1170 1300 £2,850 £1,111,500 £2,223,000 £3,334,500 £3,705,000
£2,624,700 £5,249,400 £7,874,100 £8,749,000
Tonnes recovered by recovery rate Gate fee

RDF 30% 60% 90% 100% RDF Gate Fee (avg of EfW, MBT and RDF export costs)
Plastic 17940 35880 53820 59800 £78.67
Paper and cardboard (P&C) 20670 41340 62010 68900
Leather 6240 12480 18720 20800
Textile 6240 12480 18720 20800
Wood 14040 28080 42120 46800
TOTAL RDF 65130 130260 195390 217100 £17,078,533
% Biomass 72.46%
Tonnes recovered by recovery rate Gate fee

Landfilled materials 30% 60% 90% 100%
Other 75400
Non MSW 3900
79300 £82.00 £6,502,600.00
Assumptions
Only '100% recovery rate' values used in assessment
Tonnages from 'composition breakdown' table.
WRAP Gate Fee Report 2012 (Scotland Specific Figures where available)
MRF 20
Open Windrow Composting 20
Wood recycling 11
Wood waste to WID compliant facilities -21
EfW (pre-2000 facilities) 64
EfW (post 2000 facilities) 82
MBT 79
Non haz landfill 18
Landfill tax 64
Haz landfill (soil and stones) 29
Haz landfill (construction materials containing asbestos) 30
Current materials recycling (Letsrecycle.com September 2012 and London Metal Exchange)
Mixed plastics 30
Ferrous (Steel can prices) 140
Aluminium (cans) 750
Non Ferrous(based on brass and copper mix) 2850
Glass (-5 to 5 for mixed glass) 0
RDF Costs £/tonne MBT cost?

Gate Fee (EU EfW facility) 55 £79
Baling and wrapping 5
transport 15
TOTAL £75
Energy Revenue
Calculations: electricity revenue

Low High
kg of RDF 1000 1000
MJ/kg 7 20
MJ 7000 20000
MWh in 1.94 5.56
MWh to grid 0.72 2.28
£/tonne 28.78 91.11
Calculations: ROC Revenue

Low High
£25.18 £171.64
Assumptions:
Low High
NCV (MJ/kg) 7 20 AEA Experience
ROC factor (per MWh) 0 2 Min and Max ROC factors (DECC) (only 'high' value used and applied to biomass fraction only)
ROC trading (per MWh) £35 £52 from e-ROC.co.uk
Biomass % 50% 72% High' based on assumed waste composition and 'low' is an AEA assumption
Electricity (per MWh) £40 AEA market knowledge
Efficiency 37% 41% electrical conversion efficiency (%) for Gas Engine (APP Presentation)

Feasibility of Landfill Mining and Reclamation in Scotland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility of Landfill Mining and Reclamation in Scotland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility and Viability of Landfill Mining

and Reclamation in Scotland

Final Report April 2013

Find out more at

Written by: Simon Ford, Kathryn Warren, Carrie Lorton, Richard

The study comprised three main elements:

Local environmental and sociological factors

Assessment of the Potential to Mine and Reclaim Materials from Bings

2 Landfill Mining and Reclamation Feasibility and Evaluation 8

3 Feasibility and Evaluation of Oil Shale Bing Resource Reclamation 52

1.2 Scotland’s Landfills

 Landfill sites and capacity report for Scotland 2010.

1.2.2 Waste composition

Plastic 4.6 10.3

Paper and cardboard (P&C) 5.3 11.8

Glass 1.1 2.5

Organic 5.3 11.6

Wood 3.6 8.0

Leather 1.6 3.5

Textile 1.6 3.6

Construction and demolition waste 9.0 19.9

Stones 2.5 5.5

Other 5.8 12.8

Non-MSW 0.3 0.8

Soil (diameter less than 24mm) 54.8 0.0

Inert 2.6 5.8

In a presentation by Joakim Krook of Linkoping University (Sweden), composition of landfilled waste

Waste type % by weight

Waste type (Municipal Solid Waste- mostly

Waste type (Industrial Waste) % by weight

1.3 Oil Shale Bings of West Lothian

2 Landfill Mining and Reclamation Feasibility and Evaluation

2.1 Historic and current LFMR projects worldwide

Europe (excl. North

Total projects 17 projects of

2.1.2 Case studies

Case Study 1- Packington Landfill, Birmingham, UK (Stuart Hayward-Higham, 2008)

Case Study 2- Masalycke Landfill, Sweden (Reno Sam, 2009)

Case Study 3- Halifax Landfill, Vermont, USA (Reno Sam, 2009)

2.1.3 Feasibility studies undertaken elsewhere

2.2 Implications of worldwide experience to landfill mining in Scotland

2.3 Evaluation of issues (Scotland)

Table 2.2 Attributes of a ‘typical’ non-hazardous Scottish landfill

Attribute (single ‘typical’

Overall mass of waste 1.3 million tonnes Ignoring Scotland’s 2 largest

The total capacity of closed but

Depth of waste 15m This is an arbitrary depth.

Depth will vary greatly between

Landfill area 10 hectares This is derived from the total

Waste composition Non-hazardous and a mix of Based on literature review, as

Presence of other waste Assume none More than half (59%) of

The majority (91%) of closed

Table 2.3 Further variables for a ‘typical’ non-hazardous Scottish landfill

Landfill type Considerations

With and without an asbestos cell/s

With and without cells of low landfill gas production.

With ‘typical’ capacity and with range of capacities.

Closed With and without other waste facilities at the same

With and without an asbestos cell/s

With and without cells of low landfill gas production.

With ‘typical’ capacity and with range of capacities.

With and without known presence of hazardous waste.

With and without Landfill Directive compliant base and