- Email: [email protected]
Capital and Operational Costs
21.1 CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS Kai-Uwe Heyer
INTRODUCTION For a landfill to be built and operated, the operators have to make sure that they follow certain steps. In most parts of the world, there are regulations that govern where a landfill can be placed and how it can operate. Very often sanitary landfilling is local government’s responsibility. Before a city or other authority can build a landfill, a site selection and an environmental impact study must be done. Once the environmental impact study has been completed, permits must be obtained from the local, state, and federal governments. In addition, money will have to be raised from taxes, fees, or municipal bonds to build and operate the landfill. The basic cost elements for the construction, operation, and aftercare of a landfill may be due to the specific regulations: • planning and design, permissions: • feasibility study, economic study, siting • spatial needs depending on the planned capacity • permission procedures: cost of approval process, legal documentation, taxes, licenses • landfill construction (capital expenditure): • land purchase/cost of land (with amortization) • geological barrier and bottom sealing system • leachate drainage and collection system, leachate treatment facility • gas collection system, gas treatment/utilization facility • infrastructure such as water and power supply, sewage installations, roads on the landfill, access to public road, weighbridge, wheel washing, office and other buildings, fence, laboratory, workshop/garage, entrance area • tree plantation, supporting areas • investment machinery (compactor, bulldozer, trucks, cars) • landfill operation: • energy demand (and production), electricity, fuel • staff, human resources, management • equipment such as computers, telephone, etc. • maintenance costs • waste emplacement and compaction • daily cover
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
1109
• leachate collection, treatment, and disposal of residues • surface water management • gas collection and treatment/utilization • emission control during operation: noise, dust, fires • emission control and monitoring costs (leachate, groundwater, gas, settlements, etc.) • landfill closure and aftercare • temporary cover (if necessary) • in situ stabilization/remediation methods (investments and operation costs): infiltration, aeration, landfill mining • final cover (investments, maintenance) • gradually reducing - leachate collection and treatment (reinvestments, maintenance, operation) - gas collection and treatment (reinvestments, maintenance, operation) - monitoring costs - regular inspections (as part of monitoring and maintenance) • final plannings, reports, and expertises • landfill after-use options for financial benefits such as commercial use, recycling facilities, material deposits, agricultural use such as Miscanthus grass or managed woodland In the following, relevant cost elements will be addressed. Their range and some examples of the total costs for landfill construction, operation, and aftercare will be compiled.
ECONOMIC ISSUES IN THE EUROPEAN LANDFILL DIRECTIVE The European Landfill Directive (Article 8(a)(iv)) states (CEC, 1999): “.adequate provisions, by way of a financial security or any other equivalent, on the basis of modalities to be decided by Member States, has been or will be made by the applicant prior to the commencement of disposal operations to ensure that the obligations (including after-care provisions) arising under the permit issued under the provisions of this Directive are discharged and that the closure procedures required by Article 13 are followed. This security or its equivalent shall be kept as long as required by maintenance and after-care operation of the site in accordance with Article 13(d).” In addition the European Landfill Directive (Art.10) states: “Member States shall take measures to ensure that all of the costs involved in the setting up and operation of a landfill site, including as far as possible the cost of the financial security or its equivalent referred to in Article 8(a)(iv), and the estimated costs of the closure and after-care of the site for a period of at least 30 years shall be covered by the price to be charged by the operator for the disposal of any type of waste in that site.” Moreover the European Landfill Directive states in Article 13(d): “. for as long as the competent authority considers that a landfill is likely to cause a hazard to the environment ., the operator of the site shall be responsible for monitoring and analysing landfill gas and leachate and groundwater regime in the vicinity of the site ..” Worldwide landfill regulations often contain similar articles as is briefly reviewed by Scharff et al. (2011).
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
CALCULATION METHODS AND FINANCING OPTIONS Calculation Methods The unit costs per tonne of deposited waste (expressed as V/tonne or $/tonne) are mainly affected by the technical standard and operation costs of a landfill site, yearly input and the total capacity. The last two aspects together effectively determine the period over which waste is accepted, and thereby, the depreciation period for capital. Total capacity determines the quantity of material which can be used as the basis for effectively generating a fund to support aftercare expenditure. For financial calculations, interest rates and depreciation periods, that reflect the technical life of the components being costed, should be obeyed. Sometimes investments are written off much quicker than necessary (reflecting required rates of return on capital). Depreciation periods of 6e8 years e.g., for gas engines are not unusual even if those capital items show a considerable working life (15e20 years or so). Financing Options, Gate Fee, Landfill Tax The gate fee paid represents a unit (usually per tonne) payment to the service provider to generate a stream of revenue. The payment is often made by the local authority if municipal solid waste is collected and delivered by them. Additional public subsidies may support the construction and operation of the landfill. A landfill tax or levy is a form of tax that is applied in some countries to increase the cost of landfill. The tax is typically levied in units of currency per unit of weight or volume. The tax is in addition to the overall cost of landfill and forms a proportion of the gate fee. A tax or fee may be imposed on landfills as a means of raising general revenues, to generate funds for inspection programs or long-term mitigation of environmental impacts related to disposal, or as a means of inhibiting disposal by raising the cost in comparison to preferable alternatives, in the same manner as an excise or “sin tax” (Wikipedia, 2014). COST UNITS/COST ELEMENTS Development Costs: Planning and Design, Permissions Development costs comprise: • • • • •
feasibility study, economic study, land search spatial needs depending on the planned capacity site selection and environmental impact study detailed plannings and design of the landfill permission procedures: cost of approval process, legal documentation, taxes, licenses
A bill of quantities for all works and cost estimates of pay items for each component of the design has to be compiled. All construction quantities and costs shall be estimated to an accuracy of plus or minus 10%. The methods of payment per item (lump sum, unit cost) shall be defined, which would be most appropriate to enable and facilitate cost and quality control. Taxes which are anticipated for each pay item, such as value added taxes and customs duties have to be taken into account. The development costs can require up to 10% of the total investment costs for landfill construction.
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1111
Landfill Construction The main cost elements for landfill construction (capital expenditure) are: • acquisition costs: land purchase/cost of land (with amortization) The costs for the purchase of needed land, and the way in which this is accounted for, can vary enormously, especially for landfills where site acquisition may reflect strategic investments. Within a country, as well as across countries, acquisition costs are difficult to specify in any formulaic manner. In some cases, the site may be acquired outright for a fee, in others, a royalty may be paid, or the site may be leased. It is difficult to generalize about the costs of acquisition and much depends on the landowner in determining these costs (Eunomia, n.d.). • geological barrier and bottom sealing system with leachate drainage and collection system Capital expenditure and development costs are affected by legal regulations in terms of the requirement for liners, as well as the geology of the site, and the site’s proximity to sensitive aquifers, etc. The detailed approach to regulation in this respect will determine whether the approach allows reduced expenditure (on liners, etc.) where a low risk is illustrated. A bottom sealing system under European regulations and requirements for • preparation/upgrading of the geological barrier • mineral sealing layer • geomembrane (such as HDPE-High Density PolyEthylene, 2.5 mm) • drainage layer with leachate collection system • additional protection layers/geotextiles can cause costs between 40e100 V/m2. • leachate treatment facility (see landfill operation) • gas collection system, gas treatment/utilization facility Landfill gas (LFG) recovery requires investments in both extraction and utilization systems. The extraction system consists of the collection system (in the waste) and a suction system (of pumps, valves, etc.). The LFG collection system utilizes either vertical wells (placed after infilling of waste) or horizontal drains (placed during infilling of waste). On average, the two systems require the same level of investment; however, horizontal drains tend to fall at the higher end of the cost range. For an average 20-m-deep landfill, the investment in the collection system may range from V15,000 to V30,000 per hectare. The LFG extraction system consists of vacuum pumps, monitoring equipment, and control systems. The investment depends largely on the sophistication of the monitoring and control system and on the volume of LFG to be extracted. For an average 20-m-deep landfill, the LFG suction system requires investments ranging from V10,000 to V20,000 per hectare. Many developing countries may not need equipment of the highest level of sophistication, and the investment range for these countries may therefore be lower. Utilization of LFG is most commonly achieved through the production of electric power. This is the most dependable and applicable method for utilization of LFG in lower- and middle-income countries. However, conversion of LFG to fuel by separation of methane is of growing importance. So the level of investment for energy recovery depends primarily on the type of power to be generated and the distance over which the power can be delivered. • infrastructure: • water and power supply, sewage installations to a remote site can be costly • roads on the landfill, long access roads from a public road to a remote site can be costly
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
• weighbridge, wheel cleaner, transfer station, office and other buildings, fence, laboratory, workshop/garage, entrance area • tree plantation, supporting areas • investment machinery (compactor, bulldozer, trucks, cars) depending on the size of the landfill, the type of waste and the annual waste acceptance Landfill Operation Leachate Treatment and Disposal of Residues Plants currently in operation for the treatment of leachate often consist of several treatment methods to meet the limiting concentrations for the effluent (See Chapter 10.5, Figure 10.5.1). Leachate from landfills in the methanogenic stage may also be treated by a single step (e.g. multistep reverse osmosis). The costs of leachate treatment in industrial countries can vary roughly between 10 and 50 V/m3 sometimes up to 70 V/m3 leachate. This has several reasons: • the same treatment procedures may be realized in totally different ways e.g., treatment facilities may be installed in cheap containers or in expensive buildings • the technical equipment can be very simple or very sophisticated, e.g., for online measurements of the leachate components • the total capacity and the utilization coefficient of the treatment plant; a small capacity and a low utilization coefficient means high costs per m3 of treated leachate • a growing competition between companies who are producing treatment plants leads to lower prices • changing prices for energy and chemicals such as oxygen or active carbon • cut backs in the budgets of landfill operators for landfill operation (reduced waste quantities for disposal, dropping prices for waste, growing competition between landfill operators etc.) In 2012 seven German treatment plants with capacities from 10,000 up to 80,000 m3/a were investigated (Heyer et al., 2012). The total costs for investment and operation varied between 30 and 50 V/ m3 leachate. The biggest treatment plant with a capacity of almost 250,000 m3/a required costs of only 10e20 V/m3 leachate. Gas Utilization, Energy production, Costs, and Benefits The economics of LFG recovery depends on several factors. Two of the most important economic factors are the possibility of selling the produced energy and the determination of price. Thereby some revenues may be generated from the sale of energy from LFG depending on the regime governing energy sales. As a further option of LFG recovery, environmental benefits (e.g., reduction of greenhouse gases, replacement of fossil fuel) may be included. In some cases, operators may contract out the management of landfill gas for energy recovery. The annual operational and maintenance costs for an enhanced bioreactor landfill are higher than those of standard managed landfills. The additional costs reflect the operation of pumps to circulate leachate and the cost of extracting and utilizing LFG in larger plants, which have higher annual yields of LFG. The additional annual operation costs for an enhanced bioreactor landfill may therefore be
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1113
from 40% to 60% higher than operation and management costs of conventional landfill gas project. This increase in cost may be compensated by higher annual energy revenues. Revenues from LFG recovery will depend significantly on the type of energy produced, price fluctuations, and on country-specific regulations regarding the subsidy of renewable energy sources (to promote CO2 reduction). Moreover any combustion of LFG will reduce emissions of methane, the powerful greenhouse gas. Utilizing LFG in controlled combustion for the purpose of producing energy and thereby displacing fossil fuel (and abating carbon emissions) is an added global environmental benefit. Landfill Closure and Aftercare The regime regarding aftercare potentially becomes more and more important in the wake of legal regulations like the EU Landfill Directive, and the fact that old big municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are phased out and require a long-term aftercare. This requires adequate financial provisions to be made by the operator to cover the costs of aftercare. Basic and optional measures in the closure period that determine the costs may be: • optional installation of a temporary surface cover A temporary surface cover can be installed after the end of waste deposition period to control and reduce the climatic leachate generation (Fig. 21.1.1). The temporary surface cover should be applied as long as there are still significant settlements of the waste body that could damage a final surface cap. After the end of the significant settlements the temporary surface cover should be replaced by the final surface liner. Temporary covers may consist of soil with and without a drainage and/or an additional sealing layer. Costs for the installation can range between 10e40 V/m2. On several German landfills, average costs of 18e28 V/m2 became necessary for soil covers or by the installation of a 1.5-mm HDPE-geomembrane (Heyer et al., 2012).
80.000
leachate generation [m3/a]
70.000
60.000
disposal
closure period (temporary cover) aftercare period
50.000 40.000
estimation
30.000 20.000 10.000
implementation final surface cap (2018 - 2021)
Section IV Section III Section II Section I
0 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053
Figure 21.1.1 Estimation of future leachate generation based on monitored values respecting the
application of a surface liner (German conditions).
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
• continuation of the leachate collection and treatment Leachate will continue to be produced for many years, although the quantity should be minimized by the optional temporary cover and the final surface cap that has to be properly maintained to limit and control water infiltration into the waste. Costs are necessary for the leachate control systems that collect, store, treat, and discharge leachate and have to be maintained during the aftercare period. Cost calculations especially for leachate treatment require an estimation of the future leachate quality and generation based on the monitoring results of the operation period. Fig. 21.1.1 shows an estimation of leachate generation in the closure and aftercare period of a German landfill divided in four sections. • implementation or continuation of the landfill gas collection and treatment/utilization Landfill gas will continue to be generated by biological degradation of the organic waste fraction. Where a landfill has a gas collection system such as horizontal or vertical gas wells and a gas flare or a gas utilization plant on site, this will need to be maintained, and probably continuously staffed, during the closure and aftercare period as long as the gas emissions and their impacts or risks are still significant (many years to several decades). • infiltration measures for the optimization of biological degradation processes in the landfill body • aerobic in situ stabilization (aeration) for an accelerated reduction of biodegradable organic waste components for an improvement of the long-term behavior Infiltration measures and especially landfill aeration have been investigated, developed, and carried out on municipal waste landfills for more than 20 years. They reduce the emission potential and improve the long-term landfill behavior. Costs for an infiltration and/or aeration may range between 0.5 and 3 V/m3 of landfill volume. The technical and financial demand requires about 2%e10% of the total costs for landfill closure and aftercare. On the other hand, the biologically stabilized landfill offers cost saving potentials of 15%e25% of the total costs for landfill closure and aftercare and an earlier release from aftercare of several decades (Heyer et al., 2009; see also Chapter 16.2). • Installation of the (final) surface cap According to the legal requirements and regulations different surface sealing systems for similar nonhazardous waste landfills are possible. When the regulated surface sealing construction is known, a calculation of the cost is straightforward. Moreover the maintenance costs and the expected functional lifetime of the surface sealing respectively the necessary aftercare period is essential for cost calculations. A combination surface sealing is often composed of (from bottom to top) a support layer, a gas drainage layer, a mineral liner, a 2.5-mm HDPE-geomembrane, rainwater drainage, and a recultivation layer of a height of at least 1 m (see also Chapter 11.1). Assuming that regulations require a combination surface liner on an MSW landfill and that a gas extraction is already in place, the cost for capping can be calculated to V40e60 per m2, sometimes up to 80 V/m2. Further measures that may affect the costs in the aftercare period: • • • • •
final plannings, reports, and expertises monitoring measures for a control of the landfill behavior optional: groundwater remediation measures optional: landfill mining (reconversion of landfill sites) landfill afteruse
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1115
CASE STUDIES, REFERENCE EXAMPLES Reference Examples for Landfill Costs EU Landfill costs can typically be disaggregated into the following components: • • • • •
Acquisition costs Capital expenditure (landfill construction) and development costs Operating costs Restoration Aftercare costs
As an example a breakdown for a new extension of an existing landfill site in the United Kingdom is shown in Table 21.1.1. The annual waste input amounts to 175,000 tonne over a period of 10 years (Eunomia, n.d.). The costs which have been collected by Eunomia for 15 European countries are shown in Table 21.1.2. These are not costs in all cases. In some cases, only gate fees were available. There is
Table 21.1.1 Estimated landfill costs for a new extension of an existing landfill site in the United
Kingdom (Eunomia, n.d.) Investment Costs (V)
Yearly Depreciation over 10 years (V)
Specific Costs (V/tonne)
320,000.00
45,560.80
0.26
Acquisition
1,600,000.00
227,804.00
1.30
Landfill construction and development
14,088,729.60
2,005,918.14
11.46
960,000.00
136,682.40
0.78
Landfill aftercare
4,924,582.40
701,149.74
4.01
Total
21,893,312.00
3,117,115.09
17.81
1,920,000.00
10.97
CAPITAL COSTS Site assessment
Landfill closure/restoration
OPERATING COSTS Operation Energy recovery from landfill gasa Total costs
ca. 1.00 5,037,115.09
27.78
The energy recovery is taken on by a third party, which pays a royalty to the operator of approximately V1 per tonne.
a
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
Table 21.1.2 Comparative costs of landfilling in different EU member states Country
Operational Cost (V/tonne)
Austria
Total Cost (Excl. Tax) (V/tonne)
Gate Fees (Excl. Tax) (V/tonne)
Landfill Tax (V/tonne)
Total Costs (Incl. Tax)a (V/tonne)
43
110
47.5 ec
52e55
100 45
67
Belgium (Fl) Belgium (Wa)
No data No data
45
Denmark
No data
44
50
94
Finland
4
37e46
15
52e61
France
3e8
31e85
9
40e94
Germany
7.3
20e51
35e220
30e51
Greece
1.5e15
9e30
Ireland
13
Italy
13
52
Luxembourg
35e43
123e147
Netherlands
No data
43e100
Poland
No data
6e15
6e15
Spain
No data
6e40
25e35
35e78
25e35
Sweden United Kingdom
3e8
28
19
60e95b
Variesc
70e75 123e147d
64
107e164
20e60
30.6
50.6e90.6b
8e35
19.2
40e48e
a
Where only gate fees are available, values are based on estimated average gate fees. Estimation is based on the assumption that the entire landfill tax is respected. c Varies by region (and sometimes, degree of source separation in municipality or level of pretreatment). d The costs reflect landfilling including cost for mechanical biological pretreatment. e The costs are estimated for new landfills of different size and capacities. Older landfills (still operating) may be less costly (associated with aftercare and other needs). Adapted from Eunomia (n.d.). b
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1117
enormous variation in the cost also due to additional landfill taxes. The table shows that total costs are higher for small landfills so the size has a significant effect. The picture is likely to be quite dynamic in ensuing years, especially for those countries where costs have been, historically, at low levels. Reference Examples in Australia Estimations of the costs of landfilling in Australia (private companies) were compiled by the BDA Group (2009) (Table 21.1.3). They comprise the full cost of landfill disposal related to the landfill size. This reflects the impact of small, medium, and large landfills on costs and the corresponding waste disposal in tonnes per annum. Case Study in Brazil A study made on Brazilian sanitary landfills economic aspects was conducted in 2009 (Machline et al., 2011). The 40 landfills analyzed are privately owned. They receive both municipal and nonhazardous industrial wastes. These 40 landfills adhere strictly to national technical and legal standards in the construction, operation, and future remediation phases. To take into account the effects of economy of
Table 21.1.3 Cost estimations of landfilling in Australia (private sector) (A $a per tonne) (BDA
Group, 2009)) Mediumc ($/tonne)
Larged ($/tonne)
5
3
2
Approvals/site development
10
6
4
Best practice liner
13
8
5
Leachate collection
6
4
3
Gas recovery
6
4
3
Amenity management
1
1
1
Operations
34
20
14
Capping and remediation
10
6
4
Postclosure maintenance
15
9
6
100
60
40
Type of Cost
Land purchase
Total costs
Smallb ($/tonne)
1 A $ z 0.7 V z 1.1 US $. waste acceptance < 10,000 tonnes/year. c waste acceptance 10,000e100,00 tonnes/year. d waste acceptance > 100,000 tonnes/year. a
b
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
scale, the landfills were divided into large, medium size and small categories, corresponding to 2000, 800, and 100 tonnes daily receiving capacity. The landfill lifecycle was divided in five periods: • • • • •
feasibility studies: 1-year duration construction and development: 1-year duration operation: 20 years closure: a month remediation and land recovery: 20 years
The total lifecycle considered was 42 years. The following costs focus on the larger landfills (adapted from Machline et al., 2011): • Feasibility studies: economic study, land search, land purchase (965,314 m2 V1.2 per m2), legal documentation, taxes, licenses: V1.56 Mio. • Construction: • infrastructure, detailed construction plans, area enclosures, access roads, internal roads, water and sewage installations, electricity, power, telephone, facilities • disposal cells construction, soil removal, liner system (56,632 m2 V21 per m2), leachate treatment system, surface water drainage, trees plantation, supporting areas, management, taxes, licenses: V7.0 Mio. • Operation: disposal cells (continuation), liner system (509,686 m2 V21 per m2), waste disposal, drainage, flare system, green areas plantation, and maintenance, environment monitoring, labor, management, taxes: 20-year costs: V177.5 Mio. • Closure: covering works, with special clay. Cost: V2.5 Mio. • Remediation and land recovery: leachate transportation and treatment in a sewage treatment plant, green areas maintenance, environment monitoring, labor. 20-year costs: V13.9 Mio. The total cost per tonne of landfilling of waste amounted to about V14. Similar data collected for medium size and small landfills resulted in total costs of V15.6 and V27.6 per tonne. Costs Related to Technical Standards Furthermore costs are determined by the requirements and technical standards like in: • highly industrialized countries (such as Germany, United Kingdom, France, United States, etc.) • emerging countries at the stage of economic takeoff (India, Brazil, etc.) • developing countries Examples (ISWA, 2004): • France: 60e80 V/tonne (including insurances, landfill taxes, final closure provisions, initial investment, investments during operation, etc.) • United States, Delaware: 22 V/tonne for landfill operation only • Private sector operated landfills, over 3000 tonnes/day in developing countries: 13e20 V/tonne
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1119
Research sponsored by the World Bank, estimated the cost of disposal, per tonne, to be in the range between V4 and V15 (cost for land not included). These studies have been carried out in developed, developing, and less developed countries (Cointreau, 2008). Results from newer calculations and experiences show that nowadays the costs have significantly increased. Costs for Landfill Closure and Aftercare Due to new regulations in Germany in 2005, landfilling of waste deposition of untreated municipal solid waste on landfills ended in Germany. Many landfills were closed and are now in the closure or aftercare period. In 2012 several German landfills were investigated concerning their costs for closure and aftercare (Heyer et al., 2012). In Fig. 21.1.2 the results of the evaluation related to the landfill volume are compiled under the following boundary conditions: • All landfills (AeF) were operated by public authorities. • The landfill bodies have a volume between 1.3 and 5.7 Mio. m3. They cover an area of 6e23 ha and have a maximum deposition height of 20e70 m. • Landfill A is already covered with a surface cap. • The costs are related to the year 2014 and market prices without future inflation and value added taxes. • The emission behavior of all landfills shows that a release from aftercare will probably not possible after 30 years. Therefore site-specific cost estimations for a longer aftercare period over 40e70 years were conducted.
25 miscellaneous 20
staff, management maintenance surface cap
15 €/m3
surface cap temporary cover
10 in situ stabilization—aeration or infiltration landfill gas collection and treatment leachate collection and treatment
5
0 A
B
C D landfill
E
F
Figure 21.1.2 Estimation of costs for closure and aftercare for several German landfills (AeF) (Heyer
et al., 2012).
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
The estimations show: • Leachate collection and treatment is one of the most cost-demanding aftercare measures. It may require 21%e47% of the total costs for all closure and aftercare measures. That corresponds to 3.4e9.6 V/m3 landfill volume. • Costs for landfill gas collection and treatment/utilization are significantly lower compared to the leachate emissions and correspond to 0.2e0.9 V/m3. • In situ stabilization by aeration is for almost all municipal landfills an option to improve the emission behavior and to reduce costs in the aftercare period (reduced investments for the surface cap, reduced costs for leachate treatment, landfill gas treatment, monitoring, earlier release from aftercare, etc.). Costs for aeration of the landfills AeF amount to 0.5e1.0 V/m3. • The temporary cover requires costs of 18e28 V/m2 respectively 0.1e0.9 V/m3 landfill volume. • The application of the final surface cap was calculated to 50e70 V/m2 with a cost saving potential after a successful aeration of the landfill (specific German situation). This corresponds to 2.8e8.2 V/m3 landfill volume and 15%e41% of the total costs for closure and aftercare. Maintenance costs were estimated to 5%e15% (0.2e0.5 V/m3) of the investment costs. They are regarded as very uncertain and may be higher according to damages caused by settlements or nonappropriate afteruse of the surface. • Costs for staff and management were estimated to 0.2e1.8 V/m3 respectively 3%e9% of the total costs. • The costs for further aftercare actions such as monitoring, insurances, maintenance of infrastructure, reports, etc., are in a range of 0.4e1.8 V/m3. According to these calculations and estimations the total costs for an aftercare period of 30 years were determined to be 9e22 V/m3 with an average value of 14 V/m3 (without future inflation). If a longer aftercare period of 40e70 years was taken into account the total costs rose to 12e27 V/m3. In a further German study, typical capping and aftercare costs of V10e12 per m3 of waste were calculated for MSW landfills with an impermeable surface sealing and with an assumption of leachate emissions and aftercare for a period of 30 years (Eitner, 2010). Comparable calculations in the Netherlands led to lower average ranges for the different closure and aftercare measures (Scharff and van Zomeren, 2011): • • • • • •
Surface cap: 2.00e5.00 V/m3 of waste Leachate treatment: 1.40e2.10 V/m3 of waste Landfill gas control: 0.40e0.50 V/m3 of waste Monitoring: 0.40e0.80 V/m3 of waste Maintenance: 0.50e0.90 V/m3 of waste Management: 0.30e0.70 V/m3 of waste
The total financial demand for capping and aftercare in the Netherlands was calculated to be between 5 and 10 V per m3 of waste.
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1121
CONCLUSIONS General Comments • In many countries, landfilling is still the cheapest waste management option. • In the absence of other waste treatment facilities, higher cost for landfilling that are above actual cost may be charged to cross finance other kind of waste treatment such as recycling. This has to be in concurrence with the respective regulations in place. • Cost estimates for a variety of positions may have significantly different degrees of accuracy. Hence the simple addition of all the estimates to arrive at a total cost may not be purposeful. Sensitivity analysis could be undertaken to determine whether changes in assumptions greatly affect the outcomes when a new landfill is planned. • The calculation of additional potential cost for effects that are difficult to predict may be respected as e.g., • Decreasing value of land, i.e., costs for the impact of a landfill on surrounding areas because of their proximity to the landfill • Groundwater contamination and remediation. The possible degradation may impose an intergenerational cost (Thom and MacGreggor, 2009). • Quantitative criteria for the release of a landfill from aftercare should be developed. A combination of general and site-specific criteria shall consider the emission behavior and technical demands, but also general legal and economic conditions. These criteria provide the basis for the decision when a landfill may be released from aftercare within reasonable periods of time, preserve the collective good, and offer a better and more reliable estimation of the closure and aftercare expenditures (Heyer et al., 2007). Remarks for Industrialized Countries • As the EU regulations for landfilling become more stringent, landfills in Europe tend to increase in size. By these means, landfilling may become more economic. • In industrialized countries, costs for landfilling may further increase over the next decade also due to the fact that old landfills are completed. This is likely to lead to smaller numbers of larger landfills in those countries where landfill is still important. • Site reclamation and landfill mining may become an option especially when the occupied land has a high value. Due to the limitations of the availability of raw materials, the exploitation of resources from landfills and old dumps may be an option if the revenues from the recovered materials are high enough and there are significantly amounts of recyclable materials in the landfill. In addition the landfilling of the nonrecycled materials has to be respected. However, in the year 2015, raw material prices are still too low to make the recovery of materials from the landfills economic. In most cases the aftercare measures are still cheaper and more rewarding than the dismantling and the exploitation of the landfill. Due to relative low amounts of recyclable materials and their in general low quality in most German MSW landfills, raw material extraction is not worthwhile in 2015. The decision has to be made site specific on the basis of intense investigations.
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
Remarks for Developing Countries • In most developing countries still open dumping is practiced. There is an as urgent need to remediate and close existing open dumpsites and implement sanitary landfills. Due to the higher cost of sanitary landfilling, little progress toward controlled landfill is made. To improve the situation adequate regulatory framework has to be implemented and enforced. Financial support e.g., by banks, international organizations, and companies may in many cases be the precondition to make this transition from open dumping to sanitary landfills.
References BDA Group, July 13, 2009. The Full Cost of Landfill Disposal in Australia. Prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/waste/publications/pubs/landfill-cost.pdf. CEC, 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the European Communities. Cointreau, S., 2008. Landfill ER revenues versus landfill costs. http://www.worldbank.org/solidwaste. Eitner, R., January 1998. R-29 Hamburger Berichte. In: Entwicklungstendezen in der Deponietechnik, 1. Hamburger Abfallwirtschaftstage, pp. 245e260. Economica Verlag Bonn. Eunomia, n.d. Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU. (Final Report to Directorate General Environment, European Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting, on behalf of Ecotec Research & Consulting). http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/studies/pdf/eucostwaste.pdf. Heyer, K.-U., Hupe, K., Stegmann, R., Willand, A., 2007. Landfill aftercare e options for action, duration, costs and quantitative criteria regarding the release from aftercare. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 1e5, 2007. CISA Publisher, Italy. Heyer, K.-U., Hupe, K., Koop, A., Stegmann, R., 2009. Aerobic in situ stabilization - a new part in the German landfill ordinance. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2009, Twelth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 5e9, 2009. CISA Publisher, Italy. Heyer, K.-U., Hupe, K., Biesterfeld, J., Stegmann, R., 2012. Kosten der Stilllegung und Nachsorge. In: Stegmann, R., Rettenberger, G., Kuchta, K., Fricke, K., Heyer, K.-U. (Eds.), Deponietechnik 2012, vol. 37. Verlag Abfall aktuell, Stuttgart, pp. 313e332. Hamburger Berichte. ISWA, 2004. Data Provided by the International Solid Waste Association. Mentioned in: www.worldbank.org/ INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources. Machline, C., del Bel, D., Caselani, C., Sandroni, P., Machline, V., 2011. Economics of sanitary landfills in Brazil. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 3e7, 2011. CISA Publisher, Italy. Scharff, H., van Zomeren, A., 2011. Landfill end point criteria for groundwater impact. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 3e7, 2011. CISA Publisher, Italy. Scharff, H., van Zomeren, A., van der Sloot, H.A., 2011. Landfill sustainability and aftercare completion criteria. Waste Management & Research: the Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA 29, 30e40. Thom, M.J., MacGreggor, F., 2009. The real costs of landfill design and operations. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2009, Twelfth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 5e9, 2009. CISA Publisher, Italy. Wikipedia, 2014. Landfill Tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_tax.
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1123
INTRODUCTION For a landfill to be built and operated, the operators have to make sure that they follow certain steps. In most parts of the world, there are regulations that govern where a landfill can be placed and how it can operate. Very often sanitary landfilling is local government’s responsibility. Before a city or other authority can build a landfill, a site selection and an environmental impact study must be done. Once the environmental impact study has been completed, permits must be obtained from the local, state, and federal governments. In addition, money will have to be raised from taxes, fees, or municipal bonds to build and operate the landfill. The basic cost elements for the construction, operation, and aftercare of a landfill may be due to the specific regulations: • planning and design, permissions: • feasibility study, economic study, siting • spatial needs depending on the planned capacity • permission procedures: cost of approval process, legal documentation, taxes, licenses • landfill construction (capital expenditure): • land purchase/cost of land (with amortization) • geological barrier and bottom sealing system • leachate drainage and collection system, leachate treatment facility • gas collection system, gas treatment/utilization facility • infrastructure such as water and power supply, sewage installations, roads on the landfill, access to public road, weighbridge, wheel washing, office and other buildings, fence, laboratory, workshop/garage, entrance area • tree plantation, supporting areas • investment machinery (compactor, bulldozer, trucks, cars) • landfill operation: • energy demand (and production), electricity, fuel • staff, human resources, management • equipment such as computers, telephone, etc. • maintenance costs • waste emplacement and compaction • daily cover
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
1109
• leachate collection, treatment, and disposal of residues • surface water management • gas collection and treatment/utilization • emission control during operation: noise, dust, fires • emission control and monitoring costs (leachate, groundwater, gas, settlements, etc.) • landfill closure and aftercare • temporary cover (if necessary) • in situ stabilization/remediation methods (investments and operation costs): infiltration, aeration, landfill mining • final cover (investments, maintenance) • gradually reducing - leachate collection and treatment (reinvestments, maintenance, operation) - gas collection and treatment (reinvestments, maintenance, operation) - monitoring costs - regular inspections (as part of monitoring and maintenance) • final plannings, reports, and expertises • landfill after-use options for financial benefits such as commercial use, recycling facilities, material deposits, agricultural use such as Miscanthus grass or managed woodland In the following, relevant cost elements will be addressed. Their range and some examples of the total costs for landfill construction, operation, and aftercare will be compiled.
ECONOMIC ISSUES IN THE EUROPEAN LANDFILL DIRECTIVE The European Landfill Directive (Article 8(a)(iv)) states (CEC, 1999): “.adequate provisions, by way of a financial security or any other equivalent, on the basis of modalities to be decided by Member States, has been or will be made by the applicant prior to the commencement of disposal operations to ensure that the obligations (including after-care provisions) arising under the permit issued under the provisions of this Directive are discharged and that the closure procedures required by Article 13 are followed. This security or its equivalent shall be kept as long as required by maintenance and after-care operation of the site in accordance with Article 13(d).” In addition the European Landfill Directive (Art.10) states: “Member States shall take measures to ensure that all of the costs involved in the setting up and operation of a landfill site, including as far as possible the cost of the financial security or its equivalent referred to in Article 8(a)(iv), and the estimated costs of the closure and after-care of the site for a period of at least 30 years shall be covered by the price to be charged by the operator for the disposal of any type of waste in that site.” Moreover the European Landfill Directive states in Article 13(d): “. for as long as the competent authority considers that a landfill is likely to cause a hazard to the environment ., the operator of the site shall be responsible for monitoring and analysing landfill gas and leachate and groundwater regime in the vicinity of the site ..” Worldwide landfill regulations often contain similar articles as is briefly reviewed by Scharff et al. (2011).
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
CALCULATION METHODS AND FINANCING OPTIONS Calculation Methods The unit costs per tonne of deposited waste (expressed as V/tonne or $/tonne) are mainly affected by the technical standard and operation costs of a landfill site, yearly input and the total capacity. The last two aspects together effectively determine the period over which waste is accepted, and thereby, the depreciation period for capital. Total capacity determines the quantity of material which can be used as the basis for effectively generating a fund to support aftercare expenditure. For financial calculations, interest rates and depreciation periods, that reflect the technical life of the components being costed, should be obeyed. Sometimes investments are written off much quicker than necessary (reflecting required rates of return on capital). Depreciation periods of 6e8 years e.g., for gas engines are not unusual even if those capital items show a considerable working life (15e20 years or so). Financing Options, Gate Fee, Landfill Tax The gate fee paid represents a unit (usually per tonne) payment to the service provider to generate a stream of revenue. The payment is often made by the local authority if municipal solid waste is collected and delivered by them. Additional public subsidies may support the construction and operation of the landfill. A landfill tax or levy is a form of tax that is applied in some countries to increase the cost of landfill. The tax is typically levied in units of currency per unit of weight or volume. The tax is in addition to the overall cost of landfill and forms a proportion of the gate fee. A tax or fee may be imposed on landfills as a means of raising general revenues, to generate funds for inspection programs or long-term mitigation of environmental impacts related to disposal, or as a means of inhibiting disposal by raising the cost in comparison to preferable alternatives, in the same manner as an excise or “sin tax” (Wikipedia, 2014). COST UNITS/COST ELEMENTS Development Costs: Planning and Design, Permissions Development costs comprise: • • • • •
feasibility study, economic study, land search spatial needs depending on the planned capacity site selection and environmental impact study detailed plannings and design of the landfill permission procedures: cost of approval process, legal documentation, taxes, licenses
A bill of quantities for all works and cost estimates of pay items for each component of the design has to be compiled. All construction quantities and costs shall be estimated to an accuracy of plus or minus 10%. The methods of payment per item (lump sum, unit cost) shall be defined, which would be most appropriate to enable and facilitate cost and quality control. Taxes which are anticipated for each pay item, such as value added taxes and customs duties have to be taken into account. The development costs can require up to 10% of the total investment costs for landfill construction.
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1111
Landfill Construction The main cost elements for landfill construction (capital expenditure) are: • acquisition costs: land purchase/cost of land (with amortization) The costs for the purchase of needed land, and the way in which this is accounted for, can vary enormously, especially for landfills where site acquisition may reflect strategic investments. Within a country, as well as across countries, acquisition costs are difficult to specify in any formulaic manner. In some cases, the site may be acquired outright for a fee, in others, a royalty may be paid, or the site may be leased. It is difficult to generalize about the costs of acquisition and much depends on the landowner in determining these costs (Eunomia, n.d.). • geological barrier and bottom sealing system with leachate drainage and collection system Capital expenditure and development costs are affected by legal regulations in terms of the requirement for liners, as well as the geology of the site, and the site’s proximity to sensitive aquifers, etc. The detailed approach to regulation in this respect will determine whether the approach allows reduced expenditure (on liners, etc.) where a low risk is illustrated. A bottom sealing system under European regulations and requirements for • preparation/upgrading of the geological barrier • mineral sealing layer • geomembrane (such as HDPE-High Density PolyEthylene, 2.5 mm) • drainage layer with leachate collection system • additional protection layers/geotextiles can cause costs between 40e100 V/m2. • leachate treatment facility (see landfill operation) • gas collection system, gas treatment/utilization facility Landfill gas (LFG) recovery requires investments in both extraction and utilization systems. The extraction system consists of the collection system (in the waste) and a suction system (of pumps, valves, etc.). The LFG collection system utilizes either vertical wells (placed after infilling of waste) or horizontal drains (placed during infilling of waste). On average, the two systems require the same level of investment; however, horizontal drains tend to fall at the higher end of the cost range. For an average 20-m-deep landfill, the investment in the collection system may range from V15,000 to V30,000 per hectare. The LFG extraction system consists of vacuum pumps, monitoring equipment, and control systems. The investment depends largely on the sophistication of the monitoring and control system and on the volume of LFG to be extracted. For an average 20-m-deep landfill, the LFG suction system requires investments ranging from V10,000 to V20,000 per hectare. Many developing countries may not need equipment of the highest level of sophistication, and the investment range for these countries may therefore be lower. Utilization of LFG is most commonly achieved through the production of electric power. This is the most dependable and applicable method for utilization of LFG in lower- and middle-income countries. However, conversion of LFG to fuel by separation of methane is of growing importance. So the level of investment for energy recovery depends primarily on the type of power to be generated and the distance over which the power can be delivered. • infrastructure: • water and power supply, sewage installations to a remote site can be costly • roads on the landfill, long access roads from a public road to a remote site can be costly
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
• weighbridge, wheel cleaner, transfer station, office and other buildings, fence, laboratory, workshop/garage, entrance area • tree plantation, supporting areas • investment machinery (compactor, bulldozer, trucks, cars) depending on the size of the landfill, the type of waste and the annual waste acceptance Landfill Operation Leachate Treatment and Disposal of Residues Plants currently in operation for the treatment of leachate often consist of several treatment methods to meet the limiting concentrations for the effluent (See Chapter 10.5, Figure 10.5.1). Leachate from landfills in the methanogenic stage may also be treated by a single step (e.g. multistep reverse osmosis). The costs of leachate treatment in industrial countries can vary roughly between 10 and 50 V/m3 sometimes up to 70 V/m3 leachate. This has several reasons: • the same treatment procedures may be realized in totally different ways e.g., treatment facilities may be installed in cheap containers or in expensive buildings • the technical equipment can be very simple or very sophisticated, e.g., for online measurements of the leachate components • the total capacity and the utilization coefficient of the treatment plant; a small capacity and a low utilization coefficient means high costs per m3 of treated leachate • a growing competition between companies who are producing treatment plants leads to lower prices • changing prices for energy and chemicals such as oxygen or active carbon • cut backs in the budgets of landfill operators for landfill operation (reduced waste quantities for disposal, dropping prices for waste, growing competition between landfill operators etc.) In 2012 seven German treatment plants with capacities from 10,000 up to 80,000 m3/a were investigated (Heyer et al., 2012). The total costs for investment and operation varied between 30 and 50 V/ m3 leachate. The biggest treatment plant with a capacity of almost 250,000 m3/a required costs of only 10e20 V/m3 leachate. Gas Utilization, Energy production, Costs, and Benefits The economics of LFG recovery depends on several factors. Two of the most important economic factors are the possibility of selling the produced energy and the determination of price. Thereby some revenues may be generated from the sale of energy from LFG depending on the regime governing energy sales. As a further option of LFG recovery, environmental benefits (e.g., reduction of greenhouse gases, replacement of fossil fuel) may be included. In some cases, operators may contract out the management of landfill gas for energy recovery. The annual operational and maintenance costs for an enhanced bioreactor landfill are higher than those of standard managed landfills. The additional costs reflect the operation of pumps to circulate leachate and the cost of extracting and utilizing LFG in larger plants, which have higher annual yields of LFG. The additional annual operation costs for an enhanced bioreactor landfill may therefore be
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1113
from 40% to 60% higher than operation and management costs of conventional landfill gas project. This increase in cost may be compensated by higher annual energy revenues. Revenues from LFG recovery will depend significantly on the type of energy produced, price fluctuations, and on country-specific regulations regarding the subsidy of renewable energy sources (to promote CO2 reduction). Moreover any combustion of LFG will reduce emissions of methane, the powerful greenhouse gas. Utilizing LFG in controlled combustion for the purpose of producing energy and thereby displacing fossil fuel (and abating carbon emissions) is an added global environmental benefit. Landfill Closure and Aftercare The regime regarding aftercare potentially becomes more and more important in the wake of legal regulations like the EU Landfill Directive, and the fact that old big municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are phased out and require a long-term aftercare. This requires adequate financial provisions to be made by the operator to cover the costs of aftercare. Basic and optional measures in the closure period that determine the costs may be: • optional installation of a temporary surface cover A temporary surface cover can be installed after the end of waste deposition period to control and reduce the climatic leachate generation (Fig. 21.1.1). The temporary surface cover should be applied as long as there are still significant settlements of the waste body that could damage a final surface cap. After the end of the significant settlements the temporary surface cover should be replaced by the final surface liner. Temporary covers may consist of soil with and without a drainage and/or an additional sealing layer. Costs for the installation can range between 10e40 V/m2. On several German landfills, average costs of 18e28 V/m2 became necessary for soil covers or by the installation of a 1.5-mm HDPE-geomembrane (Heyer et al., 2012).
80.000
leachate generation [m3/a]
70.000
60.000
disposal
closure period (temporary cover) aftercare period
50.000 40.000
estimation
30.000 20.000 10.000
implementation final surface cap (2018 - 2021)
Section IV Section III Section II Section I
0 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053
Figure 21.1.1 Estimation of future leachate generation based on monitored values respecting the
application of a surface liner (German conditions).
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
• continuation of the leachate collection and treatment Leachate will continue to be produced for many years, although the quantity should be minimized by the optional temporary cover and the final surface cap that has to be properly maintained to limit and control water infiltration into the waste. Costs are necessary for the leachate control systems that collect, store, treat, and discharge leachate and have to be maintained during the aftercare period. Cost calculations especially for leachate treatment require an estimation of the future leachate quality and generation based on the monitoring results of the operation period. Fig. 21.1.1 shows an estimation of leachate generation in the closure and aftercare period of a German landfill divided in four sections. • implementation or continuation of the landfill gas collection and treatment/utilization Landfill gas will continue to be generated by biological degradation of the organic waste fraction. Where a landfill has a gas collection system such as horizontal or vertical gas wells and a gas flare or a gas utilization plant on site, this will need to be maintained, and probably continuously staffed, during the closure and aftercare period as long as the gas emissions and their impacts or risks are still significant (many years to several decades). • infiltration measures for the optimization of biological degradation processes in the landfill body • aerobic in situ stabilization (aeration) for an accelerated reduction of biodegradable organic waste components for an improvement of the long-term behavior Infiltration measures and especially landfill aeration have been investigated, developed, and carried out on municipal waste landfills for more than 20 years. They reduce the emission potential and improve the long-term landfill behavior. Costs for an infiltration and/or aeration may range between 0.5 and 3 V/m3 of landfill volume. The technical and financial demand requires about 2%e10% of the total costs for landfill closure and aftercare. On the other hand, the biologically stabilized landfill offers cost saving potentials of 15%e25% of the total costs for landfill closure and aftercare and an earlier release from aftercare of several decades (Heyer et al., 2009; see also Chapter 16.2). • Installation of the (final) surface cap According to the legal requirements and regulations different surface sealing systems for similar nonhazardous waste landfills are possible. When the regulated surface sealing construction is known, a calculation of the cost is straightforward. Moreover the maintenance costs and the expected functional lifetime of the surface sealing respectively the necessary aftercare period is essential for cost calculations. A combination surface sealing is often composed of (from bottom to top) a support layer, a gas drainage layer, a mineral liner, a 2.5-mm HDPE-geomembrane, rainwater drainage, and a recultivation layer of a height of at least 1 m (see also Chapter 11.1). Assuming that regulations require a combination surface liner on an MSW landfill and that a gas extraction is already in place, the cost for capping can be calculated to V40e60 per m2, sometimes up to 80 V/m2. Further measures that may affect the costs in the aftercare period: • • • • •
final plannings, reports, and expertises monitoring measures for a control of the landfill behavior optional: groundwater remediation measures optional: landfill mining (reconversion of landfill sites) landfill afteruse
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1115
CASE STUDIES, REFERENCE EXAMPLES Reference Examples for Landfill Costs EU Landfill costs can typically be disaggregated into the following components: • • • • •
Acquisition costs Capital expenditure (landfill construction) and development costs Operating costs Restoration Aftercare costs
As an example a breakdown for a new extension of an existing landfill site in the United Kingdom is shown in Table 21.1.1. The annual waste input amounts to 175,000 tonne over a period of 10 years (Eunomia, n.d.). The costs which have been collected by Eunomia for 15 European countries are shown in Table 21.1.2. These are not costs in all cases. In some cases, only gate fees were available. There is
Table 21.1.1 Estimated landfill costs for a new extension of an existing landfill site in the United
Kingdom (Eunomia, n.d.) Investment Costs (V)
Yearly Depreciation over 10 years (V)
Specific Costs (V/tonne)
320,000.00
45,560.80
0.26
Acquisition
1,600,000.00
227,804.00
1.30
Landfill construction and development
14,088,729.60
2,005,918.14
11.46
960,000.00
136,682.40
0.78
Landfill aftercare
4,924,582.40
701,149.74
4.01
Total
21,893,312.00
3,117,115.09
17.81
1,920,000.00
10.97
CAPITAL COSTS Site assessment
Landfill closure/restoration
OPERATING COSTS Operation Energy recovery from landfill gasa Total costs
ca. 1.00 5,037,115.09
27.78
The energy recovery is taken on by a third party, which pays a royalty to the operator of approximately V1 per tonne.
a
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
Table 21.1.2 Comparative costs of landfilling in different EU member states Country
Operational Cost (V/tonne)
Austria
Total Cost (Excl. Tax) (V/tonne)
Gate Fees (Excl. Tax) (V/tonne)
Landfill Tax (V/tonne)
Total Costs (Incl. Tax)a (V/tonne)
43
110
47.5 ec
52e55
100 45
67
Belgium (Fl) Belgium (Wa)
No data No data
45
Denmark
No data
44
50
94
Finland
4
37e46
15
52e61
France
3e8
31e85
9
40e94
Germany
7.3
20e51
35e220
30e51
Greece
1.5e15
9e30
Ireland
13
Italy
13
52
Luxembourg
35e43
123e147
Netherlands
No data
43e100
Poland
No data
6e15
6e15
Spain
No data
6e40
25e35
35e78
25e35
Sweden United Kingdom
3e8
28
19
60e95b
Variesc
70e75 123e147d
64
107e164
20e60
30.6
50.6e90.6b
8e35
19.2
40e48e
a
Where only gate fees are available, values are based on estimated average gate fees. Estimation is based on the assumption that the entire landfill tax is respected. c Varies by region (and sometimes, degree of source separation in municipality or level of pretreatment). d The costs reflect landfilling including cost for mechanical biological pretreatment. e The costs are estimated for new landfills of different size and capacities. Older landfills (still operating) may be less costly (associated with aftercare and other needs). Adapted from Eunomia (n.d.). b
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1117
enormous variation in the cost also due to additional landfill taxes. The table shows that total costs are higher for small landfills so the size has a significant effect. The picture is likely to be quite dynamic in ensuing years, especially for those countries where costs have been, historically, at low levels. Reference Examples in Australia Estimations of the costs of landfilling in Australia (private companies) were compiled by the BDA Group (2009) (Table 21.1.3). They comprise the full cost of landfill disposal related to the landfill size. This reflects the impact of small, medium, and large landfills on costs and the corresponding waste disposal in tonnes per annum. Case Study in Brazil A study made on Brazilian sanitary landfills economic aspects was conducted in 2009 (Machline et al., 2011). The 40 landfills analyzed are privately owned. They receive both municipal and nonhazardous industrial wastes. These 40 landfills adhere strictly to national technical and legal standards in the construction, operation, and future remediation phases. To take into account the effects of economy of
Table 21.1.3 Cost estimations of landfilling in Australia (private sector) (A $a per tonne) (BDA
Group, 2009)) Mediumc ($/tonne)
Larged ($/tonne)
5
3
2
Approvals/site development
10
6
4
Best practice liner
13
8
5
Leachate collection
6
4
3
Gas recovery
6
4
3
Amenity management
1
1
1
Operations
34
20
14
Capping and remediation
10
6
4
Postclosure maintenance
15
9
6
100
60
40
Type of Cost
Land purchase
Total costs
Smallb ($/tonne)
1 A $ z 0.7 V z 1.1 US $. waste acceptance < 10,000 tonnes/year. c waste acceptance 10,000e100,00 tonnes/year. d waste acceptance > 100,000 tonnes/year. a
b
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
scale, the landfills were divided into large, medium size and small categories, corresponding to 2000, 800, and 100 tonnes daily receiving capacity. The landfill lifecycle was divided in five periods: • • • • •
feasibility studies: 1-year duration construction and development: 1-year duration operation: 20 years closure: a month remediation and land recovery: 20 years
The total lifecycle considered was 42 years. The following costs focus on the larger landfills (adapted from Machline et al., 2011): • Feasibility studies: economic study, land search, land purchase (965,314 m2 V1.2 per m2), legal documentation, taxes, licenses: V1.56 Mio. • Construction: • infrastructure, detailed construction plans, area enclosures, access roads, internal roads, water and sewage installations, electricity, power, telephone, facilities • disposal cells construction, soil removal, liner system (56,632 m2 V21 per m2), leachate treatment system, surface water drainage, trees plantation, supporting areas, management, taxes, licenses: V7.0 Mio. • Operation: disposal cells (continuation), liner system (509,686 m2 V21 per m2), waste disposal, drainage, flare system, green areas plantation, and maintenance, environment monitoring, labor, management, taxes: 20-year costs: V177.5 Mio. • Closure: covering works, with special clay. Cost: V2.5 Mio. • Remediation and land recovery: leachate transportation and treatment in a sewage treatment plant, green areas maintenance, environment monitoring, labor. 20-year costs: V13.9 Mio. The total cost per tonne of landfilling of waste amounted to about V14. Similar data collected for medium size and small landfills resulted in total costs of V15.6 and V27.6 per tonne. Costs Related to Technical Standards Furthermore costs are determined by the requirements and technical standards like in: • highly industrialized countries (such as Germany, United Kingdom, France, United States, etc.) • emerging countries at the stage of economic takeoff (India, Brazil, etc.) • developing countries Examples (ISWA, 2004): • France: 60e80 V/tonne (including insurances, landfill taxes, final closure provisions, initial investment, investments during operation, etc.) • United States, Delaware: 22 V/tonne for landfill operation only • Private sector operated landfills, over 3000 tonnes/day in developing countries: 13e20 V/tonne
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1119
Research sponsored by the World Bank, estimated the cost of disposal, per tonne, to be in the range between V4 and V15 (cost for land not included). These studies have been carried out in developed, developing, and less developed countries (Cointreau, 2008). Results from newer calculations and experiences show that nowadays the costs have significantly increased. Costs for Landfill Closure and Aftercare Due to new regulations in Germany in 2005, landfilling of waste deposition of untreated municipal solid waste on landfills ended in Germany. Many landfills were closed and are now in the closure or aftercare period. In 2012 several German landfills were investigated concerning their costs for closure and aftercare (Heyer et al., 2012). In Fig. 21.1.2 the results of the evaluation related to the landfill volume are compiled under the following boundary conditions: • All landfills (AeF) were operated by public authorities. • The landfill bodies have a volume between 1.3 and 5.7 Mio. m3. They cover an area of 6e23 ha and have a maximum deposition height of 20e70 m. • Landfill A is already covered with a surface cap. • The costs are related to the year 2014 and market prices without future inflation and value added taxes. • The emission behavior of all landfills shows that a release from aftercare will probably not possible after 30 years. Therefore site-specific cost estimations for a longer aftercare period over 40e70 years were conducted.
25 miscellaneous 20
staff, management maintenance surface cap
15 €/m3
surface cap temporary cover
10 in situ stabilization—aeration or infiltration landfill gas collection and treatment leachate collection and treatment
5
0 A
B
C D landfill
E
F
Figure 21.1.2 Estimation of costs for closure and aftercare for several German landfills (AeF) (Heyer
et al., 2012).
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
The estimations show: • Leachate collection and treatment is one of the most cost-demanding aftercare measures. It may require 21%e47% of the total costs for all closure and aftercare measures. That corresponds to 3.4e9.6 V/m3 landfill volume. • Costs for landfill gas collection and treatment/utilization are significantly lower compared to the leachate emissions and correspond to 0.2e0.9 V/m3. • In situ stabilization by aeration is for almost all municipal landfills an option to improve the emission behavior and to reduce costs in the aftercare period (reduced investments for the surface cap, reduced costs for leachate treatment, landfill gas treatment, monitoring, earlier release from aftercare, etc.). Costs for aeration of the landfills AeF amount to 0.5e1.0 V/m3. • The temporary cover requires costs of 18e28 V/m2 respectively 0.1e0.9 V/m3 landfill volume. • The application of the final surface cap was calculated to 50e70 V/m2 with a cost saving potential after a successful aeration of the landfill (specific German situation). This corresponds to 2.8e8.2 V/m3 landfill volume and 15%e41% of the total costs for closure and aftercare. Maintenance costs were estimated to 5%e15% (0.2e0.5 V/m3) of the investment costs. They are regarded as very uncertain and may be higher according to damages caused by settlements or nonappropriate afteruse of the surface. • Costs for staff and management were estimated to 0.2e1.8 V/m3 respectively 3%e9% of the total costs. • The costs for further aftercare actions such as monitoring, insurances, maintenance of infrastructure, reports, etc., are in a range of 0.4e1.8 V/m3. According to these calculations and estimations the total costs for an aftercare period of 30 years were determined to be 9e22 V/m3 with an average value of 14 V/m3 (without future inflation). If a longer aftercare period of 40e70 years was taken into account the total costs rose to 12e27 V/m3. In a further German study, typical capping and aftercare costs of V10e12 per m3 of waste were calculated for MSW landfills with an impermeable surface sealing and with an assumption of leachate emissions and aftercare for a period of 30 years (Eitner, 2010). Comparable calculations in the Netherlands led to lower average ranges for the different closure and aftercare measures (Scharff and van Zomeren, 2011): • • • • • •
Surface cap: 2.00e5.00 V/m3 of waste Leachate treatment: 1.40e2.10 V/m3 of waste Landfill gas control: 0.40e0.50 V/m3 of waste Monitoring: 0.40e0.80 V/m3 of waste Maintenance: 0.50e0.90 V/m3 of waste Management: 0.30e0.70 V/m3 of waste
The total financial demand for capping and aftercare in the Netherlands was calculated to be between 5 and 10 V per m3 of waste.
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1121
CONCLUSIONS General Comments • In many countries, landfilling is still the cheapest waste management option. • In the absence of other waste treatment facilities, higher cost for landfilling that are above actual cost may be charged to cross finance other kind of waste treatment such as recycling. This has to be in concurrence with the respective regulations in place. • Cost estimates for a variety of positions may have significantly different degrees of accuracy. Hence the simple addition of all the estimates to arrive at a total cost may not be purposeful. Sensitivity analysis could be undertaken to determine whether changes in assumptions greatly affect the outcomes when a new landfill is planned. • The calculation of additional potential cost for effects that are difficult to predict may be respected as e.g., • Decreasing value of land, i.e., costs for the impact of a landfill on surrounding areas because of their proximity to the landfill • Groundwater contamination and remediation. The possible degradation may impose an intergenerational cost (Thom and MacGreggor, 2009). • Quantitative criteria for the release of a landfill from aftercare should be developed. A combination of general and site-specific criteria shall consider the emission behavior and technical demands, but also general legal and economic conditions. These criteria provide the basis for the decision when a landfill may be released from aftercare within reasonable periods of time, preserve the collective good, and offer a better and more reliable estimation of the closure and aftercare expenditures (Heyer et al., 2007). Remarks for Industrialized Countries • As the EU regulations for landfilling become more stringent, landfills in Europe tend to increase in size. By these means, landfilling may become more economic. • In industrialized countries, costs for landfilling may further increase over the next decade also due to the fact that old landfills are completed. This is likely to lead to smaller numbers of larger landfills in those countries where landfill is still important. • Site reclamation and landfill mining may become an option especially when the occupied land has a high value. Due to the limitations of the availability of raw materials, the exploitation of resources from landfills and old dumps may be an option if the revenues from the recovered materials are high enough and there are significantly amounts of recyclable materials in the landfill. In addition the landfilling of the nonrecycled materials has to be respected. However, in the year 2015, raw material prices are still too low to make the recovery of materials from the landfills economic. In most cases the aftercare measures are still cheaper and more rewarding than the dismantling and the exploitation of the landfill. Due to relative low amounts of recyclable materials and their in general low quality in most German MSW landfills, raw material extraction is not worthwhile in 2015. The decision has to be made site specific on the basis of intense investigations.
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann
Remarks for Developing Countries • In most developing countries still open dumping is practiced. There is an as urgent need to remediate and close existing open dumpsites and implement sanitary landfills. Due to the higher cost of sanitary landfilling, little progress toward controlled landfill is made. To improve the situation adequate regulatory framework has to be implemented and enforced. Financial support e.g., by banks, international organizations, and companies may in many cases be the precondition to make this transition from open dumping to sanitary landfills.
References BDA Group, July 13, 2009. The Full Cost of Landfill Disposal in Australia. Prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/waste/publications/pubs/landfill-cost.pdf. CEC, 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the European Communities. Cointreau, S., 2008. Landfill ER revenues versus landfill costs. http://www.worldbank.org/solidwaste. Eitner, R., January 1998. R-29 Hamburger Berichte. In: Entwicklungstendezen in der Deponietechnik, 1. Hamburger Abfallwirtschaftstage, pp. 245e260. Economica Verlag Bonn. Eunomia, n.d. Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU. (Final Report to Directorate General Environment, European Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting, on behalf of Ecotec Research & Consulting). http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/studies/pdf/eucostwaste.pdf. Heyer, K.-U., Hupe, K., Stegmann, R., Willand, A., 2007. Landfill aftercare e options for action, duration, costs and quantitative criteria regarding the release from aftercare. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 1e5, 2007. CISA Publisher, Italy. Heyer, K.-U., Hupe, K., Koop, A., Stegmann, R., 2009. Aerobic in situ stabilization - a new part in the German landfill ordinance. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2009, Twelth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 5e9, 2009. CISA Publisher, Italy. Heyer, K.-U., Hupe, K., Biesterfeld, J., Stegmann, R., 2012. Kosten der Stilllegung und Nachsorge. In: Stegmann, R., Rettenberger, G., Kuchta, K., Fricke, K., Heyer, K.-U. (Eds.), Deponietechnik 2012, vol. 37. Verlag Abfall aktuell, Stuttgart, pp. 313e332. Hamburger Berichte. ISWA, 2004. Data Provided by the International Solid Waste Association. Mentioned in: www.worldbank.org/ INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources. Machline, C., del Bel, D., Caselani, C., Sandroni, P., Machline, V., 2011. Economics of sanitary landfills in Brazil. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 3e7, 2011. CISA Publisher, Italy. Scharff, H., van Zomeren, A., 2011. Landfill end point criteria for groundwater impact. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 3e7, 2011. CISA Publisher, Italy. Scharff, H., van Zomeren, A., van der Sloot, H.A., 2011. Landfill sustainability and aftercare completion criteria. Waste Management & Research: the Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA 29, 30e40. Thom, M.J., MacGreggor, F., 2009. The real costs of landfill design and operations. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2009, Twelfth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; October 5e9, 2009. CISA Publisher, Italy. Wikipedia, 2014. Landfill Tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_tax.
CHAPTER 21 j Capital and Operational Costs
1123