Overview of ACOE/DEQ 1999 Study - Scope of Work

The items addressed within this study's scope of work fall under four main issues. A listing of these issues along with an overview of the nature of related work and analyses is provided below. To assist the reader, a glossary of key terms is provided in the back of this report.

1. MSW Landfill Capacity in Virginia - Determine the available capacity of all active municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in Virginia (Non-Subtitle D and Subtitle D) and project the needed future capacity of MSW landfills based upon 1998 disposal rates.
2. Analysis of Non-Subtitle D (HB 1205) versus Subtitle D MSW Landfills in Virginia - Provide an analysis of active Non-Subtitle D landfills and, where appropriate, provide a comparison with active Subtitle D landfill facilities. For Non-Subtitle D landfills, evaluate the threat to human health and the environment, establish the average and range of costs associated with closure and corrective action, and determine the short term benefits of continued operation versus the long term costs and liabilities related with closure and corrective action. (See the definition of FIB 1205 in the glossary at the end of the report.)
3. Waste Disposal Reduction Practices in Virginia and Other States - Review and summarize the waste disposal reduction practices in Virginia and other states. Identify and analyze options to reduce municipal solid waste which includes source reduction and recycling. Summarize the most widely used and apparently effective technologies and options to enhance waste reduction and recycling.
4. Alternatives To Landfills - Evaluate alternatives to landfilling wastes and compare the alternatives to landfills on a cost/benefit or economic standpoint.

In order to obtain information needed in this study, two questionnaires were jointly developed by the ACOE and the DEQ. (See Appendix B) The first, a "Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities Survey Questionnaire," was developed to supplement the DEQ database, as needed, and to provide information for numerous study items delineated within the scope of work. The second, a "States Survey Questionnaire," was developed to determine information regarding the operation and regulatory status of MSW landfills in other states and, in particular, the status of Non-Subtitle D landfills. In addition, the states survey questionnaire was used to provide information associated with waste reduction and recycling, and alternatives to landfilling.

The ACOE implemented the two surveys. The owner or operator of each active municipal solid waste landfill facility in Virginia was contacted to complete the MSW Landfill Survey Questionnaire, while the following states were contacted to complete the States Survey Questionnaire: New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, California, and Oregon.

Executive Summary of ACOE Study (2000)

More on Alternatives To Landfills

Review of alternatives to landfills and a cost/benefit comparison of alternatives versus landfills reveals that:

An incineration or a Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility is usually not competitive with landfilling in less densely populated areas. A WTE facility typically requires a minimum municipal solid waste (MSW) flow rate of at least 500 tons/day (tpd), which is above the flow of most communities with Non-Subtitle D facilities. The economic feasibility of a WTE facility also depends on revenues from the sale of electricity or steam. Prices received for energy produced by a WTE may be insufficient to cost-justify a WTE facility when fuel prices are low. A WTE facility has limited flexibility to handle waste flow rates below or above the facility's design capacity due to the high capital and operation and maintenance costs, which dictate that the design capacity of a WTE facility be optimized. The design capacity of the largest WTE are between 2,000 to 3,000 tpd; this capacity is much less than a large regional landfill which may be capable of accepting up to 10,000 tpd. Additionally, the option of constructing a WTE facility does not preclude the need to operate a landfill, since the any noncombustible waste and the incinerator ash must be disposed of properly.

Recycling and composting can reduce the inflow of waste to landfills and save landfill capacity. Recycling and composting operations that are managed with attention to cost effectiveness can also reduce the total MSW disposal costs for a community. Programs that have documented their recycling and composting success stories, with a full accounting of costs and revenues, provide the best models for other communities looking for ways to improve their waste diversion and recycling rates.