Managing urban solid waste by filling coal mined space in southern

Brazil

Jorge Dariano Gavronski

PhD, MSc, Mining Engineer

Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul

Jorge.gavronski@ufrgs.br

1
Highlights

 The landfills are the most common method of disposal urban waste in Brazil.
 There is no legal barrier to the change of an exhausted coal mine in a landfill.
 The economic and financial parameters of a landfill built on old coal mine.
 Urban areas can share a landfill.
 Landfill in southern Brazil.

Abstract

Urban waste management is a public utility issue in developed countries, and lack of

waste disposal as a public utility affects social welfare. This is particularly a problem in

developing nations.

This work concerns propose an alternative for solid urban waste disposal, showing the

economic advantages and environmental justification for using coal mine workings for

waste landfills. The article describes the practices in coal mining areas in southern

Brazil.

Keywords

Landfill

Coal mine

Urban environment

2
Brazil

1. Introduction

One of the most apparent impacts of fast increasing urbanization and economic

development can be viewed in the form of piles of municipal solid waste. Apart from

the contamination of water resources and severe air pollution due to the exposed

burning of solid waste, the health hazard is another key issue to be addressed. Urban

waste management is a public utility issue both in developed as in non-developed

nations and lack of waste disposal as a public utility affects social welfare. It is a

growing and hard problem especially for governments in developing nations, whose

policies have impact on people in public health, sanitation and environmental

sustainability.

Society, private sector and governments are encouraged to improve their environmental

efficiencies by eliminating waste through resource recovery practices. One way to do

this is recycling materials such as glass, food scraps, paper and cardboard, plastic bottles

and metal. In spite of a growing worldwide trend for waste products to be recycled, it is

likely, however, that there will always be something which needs to be discarded (US

Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). An environmentally acceptable alternative is

the containment of waste in adequate and well-projected areas such as a landfill.

Sanitary landfill is the most cost-effective system of solid waste disposal for most urban

areas in developing countries. Composting of solid waste costs 2-3 times more than

sanitary landfill, and incineration costs 5-10 times more (World Bank, 2003). Sanitary

landfill that is a public good, because the benefits of good waste management spread

collectively. The landfill would be designed, built, owned by government. Nevertheless,

3
ideally, it would be operated by a private company under a 15-20 year concession

agreement, with a guaranteed minimum of waste quantity delivered by its municipal

clients, and carefully structured arrangements for closure and post-closure requirements.

Private sector involvement, if properly arranged, can increase the likelihood that landfill

design and operation specifications will be followed (Cointreau, 2004).

In a concession arrangement, the concessionaire is allowed to operate, for a specified

period, disposal facilities that are owned by the grantor of the agreement. For the

duration of the concession, the concessionaire is responsible for financing the operation,

maintenance, and the expansion of the disposal facilities. After the specified period, the

responsibility for operating the assets is transferred back to the grantor of the agreement.

Landfill is a favoured solution because the technology is relatively simple, and the

current state-of-the-art technology permits the operation of a sanitary landfill in a

manner that largely avoids nuisance to adjoining residents – from odours, fires or

explosions – and prevents environmental damage from leachate. Nevertheless, for the

duration of its operation, the landfill presents a burden on the environment from

particulate emissions and microorganisms. Besides the concerns of directly-affected

residents, there is increasing pressure as a result of other demands, such as

environmental and natural resource protection and recreational uses. Together, these

increasing demands make it increasingly difficult to find suitable large areas of land for

future landfill sites, while fast-growing cities both increase the demand while at the

same time leaving less and less available space.

The landfill disposal of municipal waste shared by several neighbouring cities can

provide a good solution, although it can often mean higher transport costs. In this

context, the use of coalmine workings, which provide a large storage capacity and some

environmental advantages, has been addressed. To support these ideas, this article
4
discusses the peculiarities found in a coal mining area that may favour its use for

landfill after the exhaustion of mining work. The case of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), the

southernmost state of Brazil, is presented.

2. Utilizing coalmine workings as alternative landfill sites for solid waste

Mining brings about a number of environmental changes that have to be minimized

during operations and also when they have ceased, when the area is recovered, using

various reuse techniques. However, even with the best recovery techniques, the land

will take many years to return to such a condition that it can be used for certain

activities, such as agriculture. Given that such a site has already been affected by mining

activity, the environmental impact of waste landfill construction is potentially lower

than in an unspoilt area.

The nature of coal seams in surface coalmines leads to the type of mining called ‘Strip

Mining’, which involves the excavation of parallel horizontal strips. Each strip begins

with the removal of top soil, which is then used for rehabilitating the land, and is

followed by the removal of the rock situated above the coal and the coal seam. Usually

the coal and the overburden rocks are removed using explosives, and are loaded and

transported by mobile hydraulic excavators and trucks. The overburden rocks are then

deposited back inside the workings from which the coal has already been removed.

After the removal of the coal, the mined area is reconstructed to roughly the original

contours, and the waste material is covered with the stockpiled topsoil. Planting of, for

example, perennial grasses, takes place in an appropriate manner, followed by

reforestation. Monitoring and maintenance are carried out on a continuous basis.

5
This is repeated for each strip, in such a way that the volume of rock moved is similar

and can be deposited within the confines of the already-mined area. However, the last

strip at the end of the mine remains open, as filling it would involve considerable cost.

Fig. 1.

Typical cross section of a surface coal mine utilizing the strip mining method.

Source: Jorge.Gavronski

In Brazilian coalmines this last cut is usually used for the construction of a large pond.

Depending on the water quality, the pond can be used to develop a fishery project, or to

supply fresh water for agriculture or for a nearby town in the dry season. However, if

local conditions are suitable, an alternative could be to use the site for the confinement

of urban waste, in line with existing Brazilian standards for this purpose (University of

Wollongong, Research Online, 2005).

3. The establishment of a landfill site

Landfill setting can have widespread social and environmental concerns on nearby

populations so; all activities in solid waste management involve risk. The provision of

municipal solid waste services is a costly and vexing problem for local authorities

everywhere. In developing country cities, service coverage is low, resources are

insufficient. One solution commonly proposed is to contract service provision with the
6
private sector in the belief that service efficiency and coverage can be improved, and

environmental protection enhanced (Cointreau, 2004).

Landfill creation will certainly produce dust, noise, and increased traffic. The landfill

facility itself, if not right planned or maintained can cause health problems and even

bring about damages to workers and neighboring settlements.

The establishment of a landfill site involves the deployment of resources and the

movement of a large amount of clay with earthmoving equipment, for waterproofing as

well as for embankment and infrastructure works. With the choice of a coal mine site,

there may well be a plentiful supply of waterproof clay available from the rock layers

that were removed to reach the coal seams, which will have a beneficial impact on

costs. Costs may also be reduced by sharing existing facilities and infrastructure with

the coal mine that is operating nearby. At this point it must be acknowledged that one of

the biggest costs of running a central residue is the daily movement of waterproof

material for the containment of waste.

In addition, to minimize the risks of releasing contaminants into the environment, and in

recognition of the possible long-term impact on the surrounding area, the geology,

hydrogeology, soil and geotechnical conditions must be taken into account before siting

the landfill. Since no containment structure is able to prevent leachate migration from

landfill ‘over an infinitely long period’, the location of the landfill itself must provide a

protective barrier.

There is no legal impediment with regard to transforming a mine into a landfill site,

once special requirements pursuant to the exploration of minerals and the laws relative

to the creation of a landfill are met (Brazilian Environmental Legislation 2003). The

main technical constraints laid down in the standards, in terms of location and

7
construction of landfills, can be summarized as follows, according to Brazilian standard

NBR 13.896/1997:

 Ensure that landfill is built in suitable geological area, away from faults,

wetlands, flood plains, or other restricted areas.

 Slope of land should be between 1 and 30%;

 Ground with 5.10-5 < k <1.10-4 cm/s (K = coefficient of permeability);

 Unsaturated zone >1.5 m (depth of water table);

 Not within 200 m of watercourses or 500 m of housing units;

 Deposition of natural or artificial layers to prevent or reduce the infiltration of

leachate into the soil (clay and/or webs of high density polyethylene);

 Four monitoring wells, one upstream and three downstream of the landfill.

In addition, to avoid any direct impact on nearby residents, a distance of at least 300

meters to the nearest residential area must be maintained (Oliveira Neto et al., 2010).

All of these conditions are frequently found or can be implemented in a coal mine area.

4. Domestic waste disposal in Rio Grande do Sul state

The amount of solid waste generated in the cities is much higher than in rural areas. The

generation rate in rural areas can be as low as 0.15 kg/cap/day, while in the urban areas

the rate can be above 1.0 kg/cap/day (Solid Waste Management: Issues and Challenges

in Asia, 2007)

Rio Grande do Sul (RS), the southernmost state of Brazil, is located between the

Atlantic Ocean, Uruguay and Argentina in South America. The state is 268,000 km² in

size, with a population of 10.69 million inhabitants, of which 9.10 million are urban

8
inhabitants. The state gross domestic product (GDP) is US$119 billion, and the Human

Development Index (HDI), composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and

income indices used to rank countries published by the United Nations, reaches 0.832,

the fifth largest in Brazil (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, 2010).

Landfills are the most frequent method of waste disposal in RS, despite irregularidades

still persist in some municipalities. From data published in 2010, 358 from a total of 496

municipalities, representing 76% of the population (8,081,600 inhabitants), use this

method. The State Protection Agency (FEPAM) considers this land disposal technique,

using adequate technologies, to be the best option, as it does not cause public health

problems and causes minimum environmental impact (FEPAM, 2010).

In the metropolitan area of Porto Alegre, the capital, with a population of 4 million

inhabitants (Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre, 2012), some 3.5 thousand tons per

day (t/d) of waste is produced, that is, 0.86 kilograms per inhabitant per day (kg/inhab.d -
1
). The household waste is collected and taken to a centre to be sorted. There, the non-

recyclable waste is sent to a landfill built in a coal mining area (Minas do Leão) located

90 km from Porto Alegre. Around 42 thousand tons per month are sent by trucks. The

total cost of the operation is around US$30/t. The transportation cost is US$14.05/t and

the storage in the landfill is US$15.71/t (Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre, 2012).

Such as directives published by the World Bank in 2004, the expected cost of waste

disposal in a sanitary landfill is between five and $ 20 per ton.

Research shows prices in Brazil for solid waste landfill range between US$13.5/t and

US$29.4/t, highlighting the competitiveness of using old coal workings as landfill

(Mello, 2008). This competitiveness of old coal mines used for landfill is reinforced by

the fact that Leão Mines receives waste from more than 140 cities, representing about

34% of the state population of RS (Public Ministry of Rio Grande do Sul, 2012). The
9
competitiveness is so favourable that cities as far away as 500 km send waste to this

landfill. However, it is neither practical nor desirable for distances much greater than

100 km, because of excessive traffic on the roads and associated fuel consumption,

which is harmful to the environment.

5. Potential for landfill in coal workings in Rio Grande do Sul

The Brazilian coal industry’s mining operations are concentrated in the three

southernmost states of Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul (RS) and Parana. Presently,

most of the coal mined is used for power generation. The coal reserves in Brazil are

some 32 billion tons, of which about 10 billion tons is considered to be recoverable

(Geological Survey of Brazil, 2014). It is estimated that 21% are shallow enough to be

mined by surface methods. Most of them are in RS, where the coal deposits are present

in the form of an arch, stretching south-west from the border of Santa Catarina state to

the border with Uruguay (Geological Survey of Brazi,1986). This region has a very well

developed infrastructure – in terms of roads, power, water supply and

telecommunications – and has a long tradition in coal production which goes back to the

beginning of the 20th century. The shallow coal reserves spread out in areas like Jacuí

River (Leão/Iruí Capané), located in the centre of the territory, and in Candiota in the

south. In these areas there are huge open pits, either abandoned or still in operation, that

can be used, now or in the future, for the processing of household waste.

Figure 2 shows the areas in RS where the coal deposits are not very deep, and the urban

areas within are no more than 100 km of them. 

10
There are currently projects underway, at different stages, to use these mining areas as

landfill, which will take the urban waste of a great number of municipalities in an

adequate manner and at low cost.

Fig. 2.

Location of coalmines in RS/southern Brazil and some neighbouring cities (distance less

than 100 Km).

6. Experimental model

The work simulates with data from capex and opex, a case in Rio Grande do Sul state.

The State government or a private company, which is controller of mining area, could

provide by contract to a private company the landfill construction and operation (In

Brazil coexist government mining companies and private).

The economic parameters of a landfill project housed in a former coal mine can be

checked using the model presented here, which simulates the installation and operating

costs involved and the expected cash flow of the enterprise. The model is designed

according to the usual standards of project analysis with data investments (CAPEX) and

operating (OPEX). The input values of the model are averages based on those charged
11
in similar operations in southern Brazil. The pre-operating costs for the project,

environmental licensing, land acquisition and implementation of the landfill site are

shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Pre-operating costs.

Pre-operating costs Items US$

1 - Environmental licensing Studies and the Environmental Impact Report 300,000.00
2 - Acquisition of the area About 1.000.000 m2 1,500,000.00
3 - Document Deployment License Project Executive 100,000.00

Topography, access, bottom and side sealing

with clay; Installation of waterproof blankets,
pipes to drain the methane, Brita protection,
4 - Implementation of the landfill
leachate treatment system (lagoons and filters;
piezometers), fencing the area; green curtain;
scale road; administrative buildings
1,000,000.00
Total (1 + 2 + 3 +4) 2,900,000.00

The following operating costs are considered: disposal/overlaying the waste with clay,

venting of gases, wastewater treatment and administrative services. The equipment

necessary to realize the project are rented and the prices are those normal for surface

mining in the region. They are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Monthly operating costs.

Operating cost Description US$/mês

1 – Equipments/operation Bulldozer, backhoe, truck 40,000
2 – Drain the gas Brita (drain/gas); daily cover material 10,000
3 – Coatings with clays Mining clays + transport 10,000
4 – Labor cost 1 Engineer; 18 workers, 3 administrative 20,000
5 – Serviços Technological control; other expenses 6,000
Total operating cost/month (1+2+3+4+5) 86,000

To estimate the revenue of the project it was considered that the landfill may cover a

population of 1 million people, each generating 0.86 kg of trash per capita per day, and

a price of US$17/t of waste deposited (Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre, 2012)

12
  Population: 1,000,000

 Waste generation: 0.86 kg/inhab.d-1

 Landfill factor: 60%

Table 3 presents the estimated amount of municipal waste to be deposited in the landfill.

Table 3.

Estimated storage waste per year.

Population 1,200,000
Waste Factor Kg/inhabitant 0.86
% Waste sent to landfill 0.6
days per Year 365
Storage Waste/Year ton 188,340.00

Table 4 shows the estimated revenue of the project.

Table 4.

Landfill revenue.

Operating cost Description

1 – Equipments/operation Bulldozer, backhoe, truck
2 – Drain the gas Brita (drain/gas); daily cover material

In order to verify the financial costs of installation of the landfill, financing conditions

usually provided by the Brazilian Government Bank (Banco Nacional de

Desenvolvimento Econômico, 2014) were assumed. Table 5 presents the terms of

financing used in the model.

Table 5.

Funding terms.

13
 3 - Document Deployment License Project Executive

Topography, access, bottom and side sealing

with clay; Installation of waterproof blankets,
pipes to drain the methane, Brita protection,
4 - Implementation of the landfill
leachate treatment system (lagoons and filters;
piezometers), fencing the area; green curtain;
scale road; buildings administrative

7. Cash flow

Simulating a cash flow over 10 years with the data above, we can see that a rate of

return of 22% a year would be normal for this type of task in Brazil. In the example

above the pay-back would be in 5 years (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Project landfill cash flow.

Cash Flow Landfill - Paralyzed open pit coal mining

YEARS
DISCRIMINATION
-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I. STATEMENT OF INCOME

1. Gross revenue 0 0 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821 2,958,821
2. Deductions 0 0 137,585 137,585 137,585 137,585 137,585 137,585 137,585 137,585 137,585 137,585
3. Net revenues 0 0 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236 2,821,236
4. Cost of Goods Sold
0 0 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000
5. Gross Income 0 0 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236
6. Financial Expenses 0 0 145,000 145,000 140,000 140,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Operating Income 0 0 1,644,236 1,644,236 1,649,236 1,649,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236
8. Taxable Income 0 0 1,644,236 1,644,236 1,649,236 1,649,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236 1,789,236
9. Federal income tax 0 0 411,035 411,035 412,285 412,285 447,285 447,285 447,285 447,285 447,285 447,285
10. Social Tax 0 0 147,981 147,981 148,431 148,431 161,031 161,031 161,031 161,031 161,031 161,031
10. Net income 0 0 1,085,220 1,085,220 1,088,520 1,088,520 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920

II. CASH FLOW

1. Net income 0 0 1,085,220 1,085,220 1,088,520 1,088,520 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920
2. Not payable costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Total revenue 0 0 1,085,220 1,085,220 1,088,520 1,088,520 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920

6. Loan 870,000 2,030,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Other debts 0 0 0 0 0 0 145,000 0 0 0 0 0
8. Loan amortization 725,000 725,000 725,000 725,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
9. Total output 870,000 2,030,000 725,000 725,000 725,000 725,000 145,000 0 0 0 0 0

11. Net Cash Flow -870,000 -2,030,000 360,220 360,220 363,520 363,520 1,035,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920 1,180,920

However, if the population were to increase to 1,200,000 inhabitants, then the rate of

return would be 33%, with pay-back in 4 years, which shows the improvement in

profitability with increasing scale of the project.

14
Conclusion

Planning effective and sustainable investments in municipal solid waste management

systems requires an understanding of the needs and preferences of a wide range of

stakeholders in the service delivery, costs, and corresponding environmental and social

impacts.

Municipalities or cities alone are faced with difficulties in solving their waste problems

in an environmentally sustainable way. A good option is the establishment of a regional

landfill, especially if old coal workings can be used. Besides having the environmental

advantage of using an area already in use, implementation and operating costs may be

lower. Good solid waste service occurs only where reliable, regularized and adequate

cash flow is available.

Urban areas of 1 million inhabitants up to about 100 miles from a coal mining area can

share a landfill. As the waste issue is set to worsen due to increasing urban populations

and the consumption patterns of society, we propose that the license granted to new

areas of coal mining should be conditional upon the future use of exhausted mines for

landfill, if there is no other local impediment to doing so.

Reference

Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico, 2014 Banco Nacional de

Desenvolvimento Econômico (BNDES)

http://www.bndes.gov.br/SiteBNDES/bndes/bndes_pt/Institucional/Apoio_Finan

ceiro/Produtos/FINEM/saneamento.html

15
Brazilian Environmental Legislation, 2003 Brazilian Environmental Legislation

(In Portuguese) RESOLUÇÃO CONAMA Nº 308 de 21 de Março de 2002,

Licenciamento Ambiental de Sistema de disposição final dos resíduos sólidos

urbanos, gerados em Municípios de pequeno porte, Ministério Público. Centro

de Apoio Operacional de Defesa do Meio Ambiente. Coletânea de Legislação

Ambiental) – Porto Alegre: Procuradoria – Geral de Justiça, 2003. 1320pp.

Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (2010) Brazilian Institute of Geography

and Statistics. Census 2010 First Results.

http://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/perfil.php?sigla=rs

Cointreau, Sandra - Sanitary Landfill Design and Siting Criteria. Guidance Published in

May 1996 by the World Bank as an Urban Infrastructure Note, updated 2004

http://sandracointreau.com/?page_id=2

Environmental Management Centre, Mumbai, India, 2007 - Solid Waste Management:

Issues and Challenges in Asia ©APO 2007, ISBN: 92-833-7058-9 Report of the

APO Survey on Solid-Waste Management 2004–05

http://www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/ind-22-swm.pdf

16
FEPAM, The State Environmental Protection Foundation Henrique Luis Roessler –

Periodic publication of scientific and technical disclosure of the State

Environmental Protection Henrique Luis Roessler, 2010

Fepam em Revista, Porto Alegre, v.3, n.2, p.26-33, 2010.

Diagnosis of final disposal of municipal solid waste generated in the state of Rio

Grande do Sul. (In portuguese) “Diagnóstico da disposição final de resíduos

sólidos urbanos gerados no estado do Rio Grande do Sul”

http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/fepamemrevista/downloads/Revista_V3N2%20-

%202010%20-%20LEVE.pdf

Geological Survey of Brazil, 1986. Geological Survey of Brazil (CPRM).

Aboarrage, Michael Antonio; LOPES, Ricardo da Cunha. Project The East Edge

of the Paraná Basin: Geological integration and economic evaluation. Porto

Alegre: CPRM / DNPM, 1986 CD ROM half. 2 CD ROM. Scan report - DOC

PRO technology. Coal Deposits in Rio Grande do Sul State.

Geological Survey of Brazil, 2014. Geological Survey of Brazil (CPRM).

http://www.cprm.gov.br/

Neto, R. O. ; PETTER, C. O. ; Cortina, J. L. . Report: The current situation of sanitary

landfills in Brazil and the importance of the application of economic

models. Waste Management & Research (ISWA), v. 27, p.1002-1005, 2009..

Mello, G. 2008. Notas sobre o gerenciamento de residuos sólidos no Brazil.

17
 BNDES Setorial, Rio de Janeiro, 27, 101–120, March 2008.

http://www.bndes.gov.br/SiteBNDES/export/sites/default/bndes_pt/Galerias/Arq

uivos/conhecimento/bnset/set2705.pdf

Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre, 2012, Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre –

Departamento Municipal de Limpeza Urbana (DMLU).

Processo 005.000560.3, Contrato 20/2007 e Termo Aditivo 78/2011. December

21th, 2011 and 4th public hearing – 1. Transportation to the final destination of

waste MSW generated in Porto Alegre

http://lproweb.procempa.com.br/pmpa/prefpoa/limpezaurbana/usu_doc/apresent

acao_audiencia_publica.pdf

Public Ministry of Rio Grande do Sul, 2011 Public Ministry of Rio Grande do Sul

Centros de Apoio do MP visitam aterro sanitário em Minas do Leão,

December 5, 2011

http://mp-rs.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/2954405/centros-de-apoio-do-mp-visitam-

aterro-sanitario-em-minas-do-leao

University of Wollongong, Research Online. J.C. Koppe, A. Grigorieff, J. F. Costa

Environmental Reclamation Practice in a Brazilian Coal Mine – In an Ecomomical

Approach, 2005

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=coal

18
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012 - Environmental Protection Agency.

Response to Comments: US-Mexico Border 2020 Program, September 2012

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/08-2012-us-mexico-

border2020-response-to-comments-border2020.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010 US Environmental Protection Agency.

Wastes – Non Hazardous Waste – Municipal Waste.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm

World Bank, 2008 - Landfill ER Revenues versus Landfill costs

Sandra Cointreau, Solid Waste Advisor, FEU/URB

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUWM/Resources/340232-

1208964677407/Cointreau.pdf

World Bank, 2004 – Social Assessment and Public Participation in Municipal Solid

Waste Management ECSSD - Janis Bernstein, Urban Environment Thematic

Group

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/Resources/463617-

1202332338898/socialassesstoolkit.pdf

19