Why aren’t we mining landfills for valuable materials like metals and soil?

October 23, 2018

October 23, 2018


Many old dumps contain useful materials. Whether they’re worth extracting depends on how we value other benefits such as preventing pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


The car tires were abundant and easy to spot. As were newspapers, made from trees with tough cell walls. Then there were tons of soil aged and packed with decomposed garbage from the 1980s, when Madonna belted out “We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl” and Star Wars brought us a future that didn’t seem to include trash cans anywhere.


At the closed Perdido Landfill in Escambia County, Florida, they’re digging into the past to eliminate old garbage that could contaminate groundwater and clear space for future trash. In the process, they’re also mining for any treasure that could help offset the cost of doing so. During its first phase, which ran from 2009 to 2011, the dig uncovered a copious amount of soil that was then used to cover up new trash, a practice required by federal and state regulations.


The project, which will start phase 2 in 2019 or 2020, is a classic case of landfill mining — an intriguing idea to address multiple growing problems worldwide: increasing population, depleting natural resources and climate change.


“I’m a big proponent of mining landfills,” says Mark Roberts, vice president of engineering consulting firm HDR and project manager for the landfill mining work at Perdido. “Garbage real estate is really valuable.”


The biggest challenge to make landfill mining work is economics, experts say. The cost of excavating trash, sorting out valuable materials such as metals and then reburying the rest tends to exceed the revenues from selling recovered materials.


“Resource recovery alone can’t justify these projects financially,” says Joakim Krook, associate professor in the Department of Management and Engineering at Linköping University in Sweden. “They need to have alternative benefits.”


However, if alternative benefits such as the value of preventing pollution, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the need to mine new materials, and making room at an old dumpsite for modern, more environmentally friendly waste disposal are factored in, landfill mining in some cases becomes an attractive option.


Making Room


Landfill mining can be traced back to a 1953 project in Israel to find fertilizers for orchards by scooping up soil from decomposed trash.

Few other projects were reported until the 1990s when, in an effort to prevent groundwater contamination and other pollution, new regulation in the U.S. required landfill owners to use plastic liners and soil to sandwich the garbage like a layer cake.


The national effort to modernize garbage dumps shut down many old landfills and required 30-year monitoring of closed dumps for groundwater contamination and methane gas production. It also forced communities to look for new space for landfills.


Other goals include eliminating a potential source of pollution, reclaiming valuable materials and acquiring waste to burn to generate steam and electricity. Digging up closed landfills to make room for new ones has been one of the goals behind some of the landfill mining projects that have sprung up since the 1990s. Other goals include eliminating a potential source of pollution, reclaiming valuable materials and acquiring waste to burn to generate steam and electricity, says Jeremy O’Brien, director of applied research at the Solid Waste Association of North America, an industry trade group.


The U.S. has seen sporadic projects scattered across the country with a variety of primary goals. For example, the main goal of a 1989 project in Connecticut was to move waste from an unlined cell to a lined one, and a 2000 effort in Iowa aimed mainly to protect groundwater and recover space.


Costs and Benefits


The costs and benefits of landfill mining can vary so widely that projects that aren’t deemed cost effective in one place could be considered worthwhile elsewhere.


The city of Denton, Texas, for instance, scrapped a project to excavate a 30-acre (12-hectare) site last year after determining that it wasn’t going to generate nearly as much revenues from selling recyclable materials, such as metals and plastics and creating new landfill space as had been anticipated back in 2015.


In southern Maine, on the other hand, a four-year reclamation work that began in 2011 created an estimated US$7.42 million worth of recovered metals, according to Travis Wagner, professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Southern Maine and co-author of a study of the project that was published in the journal Waste Management. A private scrap-metal company contracted with Ecomaine, the nonprofit owner of the landfill, to mine metals from the site.


The project dug up 34,352 metric tons (37,867 tons) of metals at an estimated cost of US$158 per metric ton. In addition to the value of the metals, Wagner pegged the economic value of the newly created landfill space at US$267,000.


The landfill wasn’t your typical garbage pile, however. It was a space reserved for the ash created by a nearby incinerator that vaporized trash from the regular landfill onsite, such as auto parts and mattress springs, to produce electricity. The process creates the ash with a concentrated amount of metals. The ash also contains metals that are uniformly distributed in the pile. The metals included steel, silver, copper and aluminum.


“At a regular landfill, the metals aren’t uniform, and to get to the metal, you have to get rid of a lot of nasty crap and rocks. It’s expensive to process that waste,” Wagner says. “If you want to mine something, you want to know exactly what the metals are and their concentration.”


Soil and Space


The Escambia County project dug up mostly soil made from decomposed organic materials mixed with dirt used to cover the garbage. Roberts says the soil is valuable because it could be used to cover trash in the adjacent, active part of the landfill. Reusing the soil reduces the need to buy and truck in soil from elsewhere. The ability to rebury unwanted trash in the newer section of the landfill also helped to lower the project’s cost.


“A lot of the economics of it is due to transportation — you don’t have to haul mined garbage across the county,” Roberts says. Even so, the soil was only the second-most valuable item recovered. First was the room for more garbage. “The value is not necessarily in the recovered materials. It’s the air space you will gain — that’s worth a fortune,” he says.


The first phase of the project cost US$2.7 million in mining and processing the long-buried waste, and another US$3 million to build new landfill space of 2.8 million cubic yards (2.1 million cubic meters), Roberts says. That new space will bring in US$60 million in fees charged to haulers. Overall, the return on the investment is at least fivefold, he says.


Similarly, a 2015 project in Washington State didn’t generate a lot of money from recovered metals, mostly unidentifiable rusty pieces, but it cleared out space for a new stormwater detention pond and created a new landfill space, or cell, in the pond’s former location.

“It was not a spectacular success in terms of recovering resources. However, we did successfully relocate the waste into a modern cell to mitigate risk to the environment,” says Pat McLaughlin, director of solid waste division for King County, which operates the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. “We were able to upgrade our stormwater detention system and increase landfill capacity in the new cell.”


The project took place in part of Cedar Hills that began burying trash in the 1970s, next to an area built to modern standards. The project provided good lessons for the county to experiment with excavating and relocating old garbage, an undertaking that could be under consideration in the future, McLaughlin says.


Shifting the Balance


Currently landfill mining projects are few and far between. However, some see that due to change.


A good number of academic and government-funded research projects in Europe, including in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Sweden and Germany, are working to shift the cost-benefit balance of mining materials from landfills by bringing down the sorting costs and factoring in the value of the environmental benefits that can be gained. Projects range from improving the technology for sorting and recovering materials to calculating environmental benefits, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, from using previously mined materials, says Krook.


“Right now, I would generally say that there’s a lot of landfill capacity out there. When supply starts to dwindle then you will see more interest in this.” – Jeremy O’Brien


Available landfill space plays a role, too. Trash generation is rising globally and projected to increase by 70 percent and reach 3.4 billion metric tons (3.7 billion tons) per year by 2050, according to the World Bank. The upward global trend is echoed in the United States, which has seen the amount garbage from cities and counties grow from 217.3 million tons (197.1 million metric tons) in 1995 to 262.4 million tons (238.0 million metric tons) in 2015, the most recent data available, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Right now, I would generally say that there’s a lot of landfill capacity out there. When supply starts to dwindle then you will see more interest in this,” O’Brien says.


While landfill mining can create values beyond pure profits, for now the waste management industry is paying more attention to solving sustainability problems through promoting recycling and other efforts that divert trash from landfills.


“It always seems silly that we put in all this energy to produce these materials and goods, and then we dispose perfectly good materials,” Wagner says. “Meanwhile, we are mining and producing more virgin materials.”



O’Brien echoes the sentiment. “Once we stop new materials from reaching landfills, then we can focus on reclaiming old ones,” he says. 

Ucilia Wang is a California-based environment and technology journalist. Ensia is an independent, nonprofit magazine presenting new perspectives on environmental challenges and solutions to a global audience. Their mission is to share stories and ignite conversations that motivate and empower people to create a more sustainable future. The article is reposted here under the terms of Creative Commons’ Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license.


NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Megan Schulz-Fontes. Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

By Megan Quinn | Waste Dive March 26, 2026
Northeastern states concerned with contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in sewage sludge are moving forward with new projects and proposed legislation meant to better manage the material in 2026 and beyond. During a Northeast Recycling Council webinar on Wednesday, officials from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Maryland Department of the Environment offered updates on how their states are managing PFAS in sludge. They also offered perspectives on how looming landfill capacity issues, proposed infrastructure projects and state legislation could influence how these states — and neighboring states — handle this material in the immediate term. Disposal capacity concerns prompt infrastructure plans in Maine Maine has been in the spotlight for several years for how it handles PFAS in sludge and in landfill leachate in the state. It was the first state to ban the land application of sewage sludge in 2022, and several projects are moving forward in 2026 that are meant to manage regional disposal capacity for the material as landfill space dwindles. That pressure on disposal capacity is expected to build as more Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states consider similar sludge fertilizer prohibitions due to PFAS concerns, said Susanne Miller, Maine DEP’s director of the bureau of remediation and waste management. “Right now, everything’s going to a landfill because there’s nowhere else to put it in Maine, and this is a big problem,” she said. Casella Waste, which operates the state’s Juniper Ridge Landfill, has been seeking a landfill expansion for several years, but that matter has been tied up in court. “Without an expansion, it’s going to be running out of capacity in about 2028 which is just around the corner.” One project to address capacity issues is the state’s first biosolids dryer , which is being built at WM’s Crossroads Landfill to reduce liquid volume of the material. That project, originally expected to come online sometime in 2025, is now expected to open in the second quarter of 2026, Miller said. It has a capacity of up to 200 tons a day and up to 73,000 tons a year. That project could handle up to 83% of Maine’s municipally generated biosolids, she said. The dryer is meant to help create a closed-loop system, she said. Sludge from wastewater plants will be treated in the dryer, and landfill leachate and dryer liquids will be treated onsite via a foam fractionation system that is already in operation at the landfill, she said. Treated water goes to a nearby wastewater plant, and sludge from that wastewater plant then returns to the dryer. Another proposed PFAS management project, a sludge processing plant by Aries Clean Technologies, could also be in the works in coming months. It aims to use a gasification and oxidization process to remove PFAS from sewage material and significantly reduce biosolids volumes in the process. The company built a similar facility in New Jersey in 2024. The project is currently under permit review, which Miller said will likely include a DEP review, public comment period and public hearing. The proposal has faced some public pushback over potential traffic, odor and pollution concerns, Maine Public reported . “With any kind of new technology relating to waste or that takes in a waste stream, there’s controversy and concern about it, and so we need to go through the entire permitting process to get to the point where the department is able to determine if an application can be granted,” Miller said. Meanwhile, the Portland Water District, which Miller says is Maine’s largest wastewater treatment facility, is also exploring its own treatment system for sludge. It’s an effort to reduce reliance on limited landfill capacity and unpredictable disposal costs, she said. The water district is considering a few different technologies like anaerobic digestion, drying and thermal treatments such as pyrolysis to reduce the amount of biosolids for disposal. “With the prices going up to go to landfill and the space at landfills shrinking, they want to take destiny into their own hands,” she said. According to DEP, several other sewer districts are working on similar projects. York Sewer District is planning a 2028 pilot project meant to use supercritical water oxidation technology to help destroy PFAS and reduce wastewater sludge volume. Meanwhile, landfill operators in the state have been subject to new PFAS leachate testing rules since September. A new law requires operators to test for PFAS in landfill leachate and report results annually to DEP. Wastewater dischargers that accept leachate must also maintain leachate records to report to DEP each year. Though these projects hold promise, Miller emphasized that source control efforts are just as important to reduce the amount of PFAS-containing materials entering landfills and being treated at wastewater treatment plants. The state has already passed laws that phase out intentionally added PFAS in certain products, with the list of applicable products expanding through the next few years to include artificial turf and outdoor gear by 2029 and most types of products by 2032. Maryland moves forward with biosolids ban bill Maryland is focusing on its own efforts related to PFAS in biosolids through new regulations and state legislation, said Thomas Yoo, chief of MDE’s biosolids division. The state generates about 600,000 wet tons of sewage sludge a year, and about 56% of that is hauled out of state for either land application or landfilling, mainly to Virginia and Pennsylvania, he said. Maryland has about 250 agricultural sites that are permitted to take sewage sludge, but in 2023 the state put a hold on issuing any new land application permits. It also began requesting PFAS data from out-of-state permittees bringing biosolids into the state and terminated permits for those that did not provide that data, he said. Maryland also requires all wastewater treatment plants where land applied biosolids originate to sample for PFOS and PFOA . About 50 biosolids generators are submitting this data, he said. The state already has recommended limits for PFAS in land applications , but a bill moving through the state legislature, SB 719 , would set enforceable limits starting in 2027. The bill calls for prohibiting land application for sludge that has a total concentration of PFOA and PFOS above 50 parts per billion and calls for other source tracking and mitigation plan measures. The neighboring state of Virginia passed a set of bills on March 11 with a similar intent. If signed by the governor, the bills would regulate the levels of PFAS in biosolids and would prevent the use of biosolids as fertilizer beginning in 2027 if levels of PFOA and PFOS are too high. Yoo says Maryland will continue to focus on state-level options for managing PFAS in biosolids as it awaits U.S. EPA guidance on the matter. The EPA released a draft risk assessment in January 2025 that found farmers who used the sludge may be at risk of exposure, but consumers who eat food from those sources may face less risk. The draft report says certain PFAS may leach from sludge when it’s land applied, disposed of in a landfill, or incinerated. The agency has not yet finalized the assessment. Read the article of Waste Dive
By Sophie Leone March 25, 2026
WRAP is a global environmental action NGO with a mission to "embed Circular Living in every boardroom and every home". Established in the UK in 2000, it has since expanded to offices in Europe and the USA, with live projects in over 30 countries. There are four main priorities driving their work: future-proofing food, preventing problematic plastics and packaging, accelerating the circular economy, and transforming textiles. Textiles, food, and manufactured products account for nearly half of the climate problem, and WRAP has acknowledged that a new approach is needed to mitigate the climate crisis. Their new approach, "Circular Living" — detailed as "design-make-reuse" — targets the root causes of this crisis across the entire product lifecycle. Their website offers diverse resources, including successful case studies on housing, farming, food waste, waste collection, and much more. Along with these case studies, WRAP offers webinars, resources guides, campaign tools, reports, and more. Their dedicated work has allowed them to expand their reach globally, impact the industry on all levels, and produce critical information materials. "Everyone I meet in this field is someone who looks at an object and says, "I can make something with that" - and they built a career on solution-seeking. In a time of supply chain disruptions and market volatility, the recycling industry's can-do (pun intended) mindset is critical for recovering value and reducing demand for resource extraction. WRAP is excited to join NERC and connect with members supporting this vital component of the circular economy." Sarah Morley – Strategic Engagement Manager at WRAP Americas NERC is excited to welcome WRAP to our impactful team of NGO’s. We look forward to supporting their mission and the incredible work they do around the world. For more information on WRAP visit.
By Sophie Leone March 24, 2026
The University of Vermont (UVM) launched the Casella Center for Circular Economy and Sustainability in 2025, with support from a large gift by Casella Waste Systems, Inc. The Center is a “research hub developing sustainable solutions for waste and materials management that reduce pollution and create economic opportunities.” The work done in the UVM Casella Center builds on three decades of collaboration between Casella Waste Systems and UVM. The Casella Center is a part of the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources. The Rubenstein School has “prepared environmentally and socially responsible leaders, scientists, practitioners, and advocates” for 50 years. While based in the Rubenstein School, the Casella Center includes UVM faculty affiliates and students spanning multiple disciplines and Colleges, including engineering, agriculture, life sciences, and policy. “At the UVM Casella Center, we are focused on the intersection of rigorous scholarship and practical solutions. This requires us to work collaboratively with many stakeholders, including those in the public and private sectors working hard daily to improve our materials management systems. Joining NERC will help us stay connected to the Northeast sustainable materials management community.” – Dr. Eric Roy, Director, UVM Casella Center for Circular Economy and Sustainability NERC is excited to welcome The University of Vermont Casella Center for Circular Economy and Sustainability to our growing group of academic institutions. We look forward to supporting their students and ongoing efforts to make lasting environmental impacts. For more information on UVM Casella Center for Circular Economy and Sustainability visit .