Paper
Balefill and wrapped baling technology versus conventional land
filling analysis.
1
31/03/2005
Conference Name: Landfill 2005
Title: Environmental performance review and cost benefit analysis of landfill operations utilizing
Bale fill and wrapped baling technology versus conventional land filling Analysis.
Presenter: Grant Lacey
Author: Grant Lacey and Danny Glennon
Company: New Waste Solutions Pty Ltd
Postal Address: PO Box 2064 Nerang DC QLD 4211
Telephone: 07 3209 9180
Mobile: 0418 784 341
Fax: 07 3208 8044
E-mail: grant@newwaste.com.au
Bale Fill and Wrapped Baling Technology versus Conventional land filling
analysis.
Introduction
This study reviews the difference between “conventional landfill” and “wrapped balefill” through
environmental economical and operational analytical results. The core focus of this paper is the
economical analytical review. The landfill industry consists of many varying classes, sizes,
methods and types of waste burial treatment facilities. For the purpose of this study we have
reviewed and compared a large quantity of 20,000 ton landfill sites, compared their current cost of
running the existing “conventional landfill” vs. operating the site as a “wrapped balefill” process.
2
The “conventional landfill” is where waste that is delivered by general waste trucks is compacted
using man powered machinery with steel wheels and sequentially the waste is covered in 2m lifts
with 300mm of soil floors and batters that are covered nightly by 150mm of soil to reduce
environmental impact and to meet compliance. This has been seen to date as the most
economical means of handling waste treatment and burial. For this reason the predominant form
of waste treatment and burial in Australia and throughout the world has been “conventional
landfill” even though there have been obvious problems both operationally and environmentally
and now increasing pressures on air space availability. All other merging solid waste technologies
have been expensive compared to the current waste charges per ton achieved at most 20,000 ton
landfills.
The “wrapped balefill process” includes the automatic square baling of waste in a controlled
environment using an oxo-degradable landfill bale wrap (Enviro Wrap™). Wrapped and
temporarily treated bales are then transported to the landfill working face by flat deck trucks and
fork lifted into place. There is no exposed work face therefore proposed that the lift heights for the
waste can be up to 10 meters high before the requirement of the 300 mm soil floor layer. Due to
the temporarily treated bales there would be no working face or batter 150mm soil cover
requirements.
3
Bale fills have been operated in Europe and around the world for many years without the
availability of a landfill degradable stretch wrap to cover the bales as all plastic technologies at the
time did not degrade in this controlled landfill environment.
A balefill without a degradable wrap was seen to be a similar operation to a conventional landfill
with some advantages in the sheltered receivable area and initial treatment of waste before
delivery to the landfill site. Unwrapped baled waste was not fully treated leaving exposed areas
that required further treatment or covering at the landfill site generally with soil. The lift height
would remain the same as conventional landfill regulations (varies 2m – 2.4m) before a 300mm to
350mm soil floor would be required.
New OXO-BIO-DEGRADABLE plastic stretch wrap technology (http://www.epiglobal.com/en/products/landfill/ecs_intro.htm) has been tested and developed to encapsulate the
bale temporarily and sequentially degrades in the heat of a landfill environment. This creates a
normal landfill environment which has potentially highlighted significant advantages economically,
socially and environmentally. Bale technology has also been through many years of reform and
improvements thanks to material recovery facilities.
Operational Comparisons: Conventional Landfill vs. Wrapped Balefill
The conventional landfill process consists of: 1. Consolidation of refuse volumes at a transfer station
2. Recycling, resource recovery operations
3. Transfer of remaining refuse to the disposal facility
4. Direct tipping of the refuse on to the ground at a prepared site.
5. Placement, compaction and covering of the refuse at the site
The landfill system through previously compacted waste or “wrapped balefill”: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Consolidation of refuse volumes at transfer station
Recycling resource recovery operations
Balers compress the refuse into dense, self contained degradable wrapped bales.
Placement and floor covering of the bales at the landfill site.
4
The following assessment is the perceived differences between “conventional landfill” and
“wrapped balefill” from direct customer feedback during the evaluation of many potential balefill
sites, through group forums, balefill studies and results from balefill operations internationally.
Certain elements of this study are in the early stages and require further investigation. Further
studies by QUT in Brisbane are currently looking at deeper bio-reactive and design advantages or
disadvantages with this process.
Advantages and drawbacks of bales
Aspects
Conventional
Landfill
***
***
***
Visual Impact
Leachate
Odour/gas
emmisions
Windblown litter
***
Birds
***
Spontaneous
**
ignition
Density
***
Operating Labour
***
Reception structure **
Moving machinery
***
Services
**
Infrastructure
Closure
***
Assessment *Good **Medium *** Poor
Bale fill
**
**
**
Plastic wrapped
Bale fill
*
*
*
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
*
**
*
*
*
*
**
**
*
The results indicate many advantages in the wrapped balefill process over the
conventional landfill process. It was determined during the study that the landfill market
is broken up into many segments all containing site specific requirements and
infrastructure which vary greatly. In each case however these common elements in the
above table appeared to be favouring the balefill process. Waste stream analysis
information had little variance over borders and councils.
The conventional landfill process could be improved










Increased air space and life span of each cell and the landfill site.
increased incentive/opportunities to recycle, pre process waste
reduced fire risks
reduced litter and vermin problems
reduced noise
reduced dust
reduced vehicle numbers using the site
no requirement for specialized refuse transfer vehicles from transfer stations to the landfill
reduced leachate generation in the early stages of operation
reduced gas generation in the early stages of operation
Most studies available on the balefill operations relate only to the unwrapped balefill operations.
The oxo-degradable technology was only recently developed as a wrap for balefill.
5
Wrapped Balefill Process
Methods for baling-wrapping refuse consist of a mechanical press which allows compression of
the refuse. Traditionally they have been developed from those already existing for compression of
materials such as textiles, paper, straw, etc. The newer machines have been specifically designed
and built for refuse applications. There are two types of bales: rectangular and cylindrical.
Cylindrical bales are produced by a single mechanical press which both compresses and plasticwraps the refuse. However, the rectangular bale technique involves two separate machines
working in sequence: first the press compacts the waste into bales, then a second machine linked
in series wraps the bales in plastic.
A major difference between the two systems is the degree of compression, which is lower for the
cylindrical technique. In the case of highly compressed rectangular bales, the process results in
the pressing-out of a liquid when compressing materials with a high moisture content diminishing
the potential generation of leachates. However, the compression liquid has to be treated. The
quantities of liquid produced with the cylindrical technique are negligible compared to the
rectangular method.
In general, the baling-wrapping facility consists of a reception are that constitutes the feed for a
conveyor belt, which in turn feeds measured doses into a continuous automatic press. The
produced bales can be transported and stacked by a forklift truck or a front loader fitted with a
special loading device. In both cases, the same material can be used as plastic-wrapping film:
Enviro Wrap degradable plastic with a thickness of 25µm. This material has a high, although not
total, degree of resistance to perforation and tearing. Its stretching produces adhesive effects
which facilitate a stable union between the different layers of Enviro Wrap™.
With regard to the stability of the plastic wrap against UV-light, the maximum storage time of the
bales, without covering the bale stock, should be 28 days. Pointed or sharp edged objects within
the waste can perforate LDPE plastics. Enviro Wrap is a stretch degradable film similar to shrink
wrap that does not suffer from perforations to the same extent. Any perforations can easily be
repaired using off the shelf tapes.
The main reasons for wrapping bales with a degradable plastic film are:
 It protects the refuse from moisture, rainwater or any other liquids.
 The internal surface of the plastic film is adhesive, so that the different layers of the
wrapping adhere to each other.
 The wrapped material inside the bale preserves its properties.
 Protection from atmospheric conditions enables the outdoor storage of the bales.
 Fewer fire risks. Self ignition is avoided.
 Odours are considerably reduced or eliminated.
 Litter is considerably reduced or totally eliminated
The rectangular wrapped bale technique
These systems consist of a metal conveyor belt, which acts as the waste receiver and feeds
doses of waste into the rectangular continuous automatic press, where only the compression
process is performed. The previous shredding of the refuse is not technically required by the
rectangular method. The quantity of liquid pressed out depends on the moisture content of the
waste.
Essentially, they use two different materials to band the bale before the wrapping process in order
to ensure that the bales do not break open: an automatic binding system using tough polyester
bands, with a variable number of bindings depending on the type of waste and an automatic
binding system using steel wire.
6
Performance of the wrapped bales
The behaviour of the wrapped bales differs from the processes that occur in a conventional
landfill. The most obvious are the increased time before leachate is generated as the initial baling
process presses out leachate from any high moisture content refuse which is easily contained and
disposed of at the bailing facility. Secondly the bales are wrapped and protected from rainfall
infiltration during storage, transport and placement at the disposal site. Intermediate cover is
placed prior to degradation of the wrap occurring further delaying and reducing leachate
production. As a result of the baling process landfill gas production is delayed and landfill odours
greatly reduced or eliminated.
Analytical review of “Conventional Landfill” vs. “Wrapped Balefill Process”
This example produced similar results as other similar sized landfill results during the studies.
Key Landfill information
The table below is the key information about the landfill site and cell construction that help form
the analysis.
Conventional Landfill vs. Wrapped Balefill data:
Normal
Gate price per tonne
(gp)
Length
Width
$
Baled
70.00
Height
M3 capicty per Lift
60
40
see below
cl
4,800
21,600
M3 capacity of Cell
60
40
32
cmc
76,800
76,800
=LxW
fa
2,400
2,400
Floor Area M2
EPA Soil Depth Required for workface 150mm * in reality 250mm
(dsd)
0.15
0
EPA Soil Depth Required for Floor 300mm *
(fsd)
0.35
0.2
Lose soil to Compacted soil ratio
(sr)
1.3
1.3
Waste Compaction ratio
(cr)
0.7
0.65
in reality 350mm
Work face size m sq
= nbw x bd x nbd
Height per lift
= bh x bd
Engineered void cost per m3
(wf)
700
lh
(ev)
7.90
2
$
9
8.00
$
8.00
7
Key Landfill Information cont.
Tonnes
Through put per
year
Tonnes
C & D Waste per
year
Tonnes
Through put per
day
Cubic meters used
per day
Cubic meters used
per year
Cubic meters used per
day in Daily cover
Cubic meters used per
cell in Daily cover
Density m3 per tonne
incl daily cover
No of daily covers per lift
No of days per Lift
=
No of floors per
Cell
M3 of airspace consumed by floor cover per
lift
M3 of airspace consumed by floor cover per
cell
M3 of airspace consumed by refuse & daily
cover per cell
Total Refuse
tonnes that can
be placed in cell
tpy
24,000
15%
20,400
3,600
= tpy/op
tpd
= tpd/cr
80
68
cmd
114
104
= op x cmd
cmy
34,286
31,385
= wf x dsd
dcm3
= (fc - 1) x wl x dcm3
ydcm3
=(dcm3 + cmd)/tpd
d
= cl / (cmd + dcm3)
wl
22
207
= H / lh
fc
16.0
4.0
= L x W x fsd
acf
840
480
= acf x fc
acfc
13,440
1,920
= cmc - acfc
acbc
63,360
74,880
= acbc/d
tr
23,078
44,532
105
34,535
-
2.75
8
Bale Stacking Configuration Analysis
The study included identifying different techniques to place the bales and the Commercial and
demolition waste. The system and technique can vary however the results remain fairly similar as
long as the stacking height is achieved.
Height
BALE STACKING
CONFIGERATION
Bale Dimensions
Bd
Airspace between Bales
Ab
Length
& Width
1.10
0.75
0.05
M3 of air space consumed by a bale plus gap
0.99
M3 of air space consumed by a
bale
Weight of each Bale
0.91
0.59
m3 per
tonne
Density of Bale including airspace
void
Number of bales high
1.68
16
Number of bales wide
5
Number of bales deep
1
Suface area of floor each
day
Suface area of floor each
week
No of days between floor
covering
m2
11
m2
66
* assume 1 days cover
min 250m3 & max
exposure of EC is 14
days
14
34,584
No of Bales per year
No of Bales per day
115
No of Bales per cell
75,493
No of days per Cell
657
5.8
Length of Workface
-
1.7
Length of Side Batter
-
9
Daily Operating Costs Conventional Landfill vs. Wrapped Balefill Process
The table below identifies the daily operational cost for the conventional landfill vs. the wrapped balefill
process considering that daily cost may vary from site to site. The key cost component in this case study is
the cost to cart and cover with venom or soil. The use of soil cover uses up valuable air space and costs to
cart are normally not known or are hidden in the operational cost pool in conventional landfill.
Daily operating costs for Normal and Wrapped Baled landfills
Cost
Landfill
Compactor
$120.00
6
Refuse Bulldozer
$153.00
5
Equipment
Normal
Baled
Bale fill
Weighbridge ops
Excavator/ Manitoe
$72.97
Excavator
$72.97
Trucks x2
$75.00
Cover bulldozer
$91.73
Forkhoist
$45.00
Pointsman
$25.00
720.00
$
-
$
765.00
$
-
8
$
-
$
583.76
4
0.29
$
291.88
$
20.85
4
0.29
$
300.00
$
21.43
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
83.06
$
-
$
249.17
$
-
$
2,409.11
$
30.21
0
Odour/Bird/Windblown Litter
$25,000.00
General Roading, Staff Etc
$75,000.00
0
ttcd
Total Cost per day
Total Cost per tonne
Net Movements per day
$
Per Cell
Net Movements per tonne
$
-
$
-
$626.04
$7.85
AIRSPACE COSTS
Daily value of airspac used by daily cover
=dcm3 X ev
vdev
$
840.00
$
-
Yearly value of airspace used by daily cover
= vdev X op
ydev
$ 252,840.00
$
-
Value of airspace consumed by daily cover per tonne
= ydev / tpy
Value of airspace used by Floor Cover per Cell
Daily value of airspace used by Floor Cover
= acfc X ev
= yfev / ( tr /
tpd )
Value of airspace consumed by floor cover per tonne
= yfev / tr
$
10.54
$0.00
yfev
$ 107,520.00
$ 15,360.00
dfev
$
371.48
$
$
4.66
23.38
$0.34
10
20,000 tonne Wrapped balefill Construction and Equipment Costs
The table below reviews the cost of the facility and in this case a retrofit to the existing building was
possible. Construction costs may vary however in the 20,000 ton market it is not anticipated that cost will be
much greater. (Note that the result in each table drills down to the price per ton).
Cost
Facility
$350,000.00
Miscilanious
$100,000.00
$350,000.00
$
100,000.00
Baler
$ 175,000.00
$
175,000.00
Second Baler
$ 175,000.00
$
175,000.00
Wrapper
$ 100,000.00
$
100,000.00
Forklift
$
$
50,000.00
$
950,000.00
$
76,000.00
TOTAL
Simple Interest
50,000.00
8%
Int
Life expectancy in years say
le
Total cost over 10 years
= total + (Int X le)
Facility Cost per year
= tc10/le
10
tc10
Staff
$ 1,710,000.00
3
Weighbridge & Excavator
-
0
R & M & Electricity per year
$
50,000.00
Total Operating Cost per year
per Day
Total Cost per tonne
$
171,000.00
$
171,570.00
$
-
$
50,000.00
$
-
$
392,570.00
$
-
$
1,304.22
$
-
$
16.36
Bale Transport Costs
Transport savings can be realised if the waste is being transferred to the landfill through improved density and flat deck
transport as opposed to specialised transport. In this case the bale plant is at the landfill and these costs represent the
delivery of the bales to the work face.
Transport Costs
No of trucks per day
Trucking costs
Total Cost per tonne
per lift
Payload tonnes
12
20
= tpd/12
= bpd/20
6
$70.00
$
420.00
$
5.27
11
OXO-Degradable Enviro Wrap™ and Bale Strapping Costs
The Oxo-degradable Enviro Wrap™ degrades through heat in the landfill environment. The bales
after stacking can be exposed for up to 28 days and longer in cooler months. The degradation
times can be controlled and are being adjusted for the maximum advantage at the landfill.
The added cost of wrapping in facts saves money operationally and air space. It is important to
look at the overall costs of both options.
ENVIRO WRAP
Cost of Enviro Wrap per Bale
Total Enviro Wrap Cost per Day
= cost/bpr
cpb
ewcd
$
$
4.16
477.97
$
5.99
cpb
$
2.01
scd
$
231.47
$
2.90
Total Cost per tonne
BALE STRAPPING
Cost of Strapping per Bale
Total Strapping Cost per Day
= cost/bpc
Total Cost per tonne
Days operation per week
dow
6
Days operation per year
op
301
Hours of operation per day
wh
6
301
7.6
12
Analytical Results
The following tables asses the results from the above information and compare the difference
between conventional landfill to the balefill process.
Revenue and Air Space Analysis
This table looks at the air space consumed by daily cover and floor cover with the conventional landfill
method. Conventional landfill especially smaller 20,000 tonne landfills are filling up to an amazing 67% of
the cell with soil.
Revenue & Airspace Analysis
Normal Landfill Soil Analysis
Total revenue of
Cell
M3 of airspace consumed by floor cover per cell
47,975
Total Refuse tonnes that can be placed in cell
23,078
Total cost
per cell
Gross
Margin per
cell
see below
$ 1,615,474.97
$
1,047,938.83
$567,536
This table looks at the air space consumed when operating the wrapped balefill process. As you can see the
revenue per cell dramatically increases as less soil is required to cover.
Enviro® Wrap Baling Analysis
Total revenue of
Cell
M3 of airspace consumed by floor cover per cell
1,920
Total Refuse tonnes that can be placed in cell
44,532
Total cost
per cell
Gross
Margin per
cell
see below
$ 3,117,216.18
$
1,724,204.67
$1,393,012
13
Air Space and Revenue Analysis per Cell
The table below shows that in this case 60% air space savings can be achieved with a wrapped balefill
process and an extra $825,475 of revenue can be achieved per cell.
Actual Air Space analysis EW vs Landfilled per Cell
% of Cell
consumed
by Soil
Airspace saved by using Enviro® Wrap per Cell
Landfilled
Enviro®
Wrap
47,975
m3
62.5%
1,920
m3
2.5%
Total
46,055
m3
Revenue Value saved using Enviro® Wrap per Cell
per Cell
Enviro®
Wrap
$1,393,012
$567,536
Unwrapped
Total Revenue Value Saved Using Enviro® Wrap per Cell
$825,475
% of Cell consumed by Soil
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
% of Cell consumed by Soil
Landfilled
Enviro® Wrap
% of Cell consumed by Soil
Landfilled
Enviro® Wrap
62.5%
2.5%
Landfilled
Enviro® Wrap
14
The table below calculates the results overall and shows that wrapped baling in this
instance will be a less expensive option than conventional landfill. It also identifies that
wrapped baling costs $38.72 per ton.
Comparison of Costs per Day
$
Operating
Costs
Landfilled
$
2,409.11
$
1,211.48
$
$
-
Void Costs
Net Movents
Trucking Costs
Total Value of Operational Costs per Day Normal Landfill
Operating
Costs
Balefilled
$
1,304.22
$
477.97
$
231.47
$
420.00
Facility Costs
Enviro® Wrap
Costs
Strapping
Costs
20,400
30.21
$
15.19
$
-
$
$3,620.58
$
626.04
$
23.38
Void Costs
Tonnes
$
$ per tonne
Trucking Costs
Total Value of Operational Costs per Day Using Enviro® Wrap Balefill
Total Savings of Operational Costs Using Wrapped Balefill Day/tonne
$
7.85
$
0.34
$
16.36
$
5.99
$
2.90
$
5.27
$45.41
$
649.41
$
8.20
$
2,433.66
$
30.52
$3,083.07
$38.72
$537.51
$6.69
Plus savings in roading useage, airspace utilization, gas extraction construction,
Odour control, bird and litter
controll
leachate controll stormwater controls,
Operational Cost Analysis
$50.00
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
Operational Cost Analysis
Landfilled
Balefilled
Landfilled
Operational Cost Analysis
Balefilled
$45.41
$30.52
Landfilled
Balefilled
15
Conclusions
While the idea of bale filling has been around for several decades, wrapping the bale will make the process
of balefill now viable and in fact it gives the opportunity to reduce soil cover requirements therefore
increasing life span of the respective sites from 25% to 62.5% through the reduced need for soil cover. The
baling-wrapping process halts the short term biological activity and consequently the emission of gases and
leachates. It also facilitates the handling of the refuse, and considerably reduces the main environmental
impacts of a conventional landfill.
The cost of operating the wrapped balefill in this cas e $38.72 per ton which makes the wrapped balefill
process very viable and affordable option that improves the landfills ability to improve compliance. There
are many more benefits to the baling process both operationally and environmentally that have not been
identified in this analysis such as settlement (bio-reactor), required methane and leachate vertical and
horizontal pipe work, improved gas extraction, improved leachate circulation etc.
These early results prove that wrapped balefill process should be considered as an alternative to
conventional landfill methods with the introduction of the Enviro Wrap™ oxo-degradable bale wrap.
Some Reference Websites:
http://www.forester.net/mw_0106_year.html#msw
http://www.worldbank.org/urban/uswm/glossary.html
http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/KeyStatistics.asp?industry_id=690
http://www.industrialdyn.com/balefill.htm
http://www.homestead.com/thedumpsite/cover1.html
http://www.rppinternational.com/RPP%20Logo.jpg
http://www.town.truro.ns.ca/waste_man.htm
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGCentral/WasteStream/
http://www.landfilldesign.com/cgi-bin/gasstability.pl
http://www.ihlenberg.de/media/illus/illu_material_kl.jpg
http://stormwatercenter.com/msw_0003_balers.html#4
http://www.binderwrap.dk/us/binderwraproi.xls
http://www.skullvalleygoshutes.org/feis/Appendix_E.pdf
Search Web Key Word
Balefill
16