Futuristic Garbology: A Vision

We gaze with some apprehension at a sleek, shiny machine that looks like a cross between a sports car and a small spaceship. Illuminated in a vertical cylinder of light, the time capsule silently awaits our entry; it gives no clue to what we can expect at our destination, the year 2032. With racing hearts, our small group of garbologists enters; we strap ourselves in. Soon the countdown begins. There is only the briefest feeling of levitation, a slight rising sensation in the pit of the stomach as though descending in a fast elevator, and then we are there. As we exit, our curiosity is at fever pitch. What has happened to the Earth in the three decades we miraculously skipped over? Before we departed, the world’s population was rapidly approaching 6 billion, with many signs that the environment was finally wilting under this onslaught. We could only guess at what three more decades of continued environmental degradation might yield. Would we find air that was breathable, only traces of an ozone layer, any remnants of tropical or old-growth forests, any parks or green spaces in cities? Would North America be one giant parking lot? With these questions buzzing through our brains, we begin our futuristic exploration, like archeologists working in reverse. We move invisibly through this new time domain, knowing that we can only observe and not affect anything we see. It is clear that we are still in New York City, but what a change! The streets are no longer choked with car traffic, although small motorized bicycles, some built for two or three people, are darting everywhere. There is no haze in the sky, the air feels clean and brisk, and the streets are completely free of litter. Recycle containers are ubiquitous; they are green and divided into six compartments. As we soon discover, every house, apartment building, streetcorner, park, airport, shopping mall, and baseball diamond has recycling containers; there are no waste bins. People treat garbage as a resource rather than as something undesirable, and they spend considerable effort in separating the various recyclable components, whether they are at home, at work, in a cafeteria, or at play.

The All-Powerful NIMBY

Our society has reached a frustrating impasse: everyone wants consumer goods, but nobody wants the associated waste. In all levels of society from the grass-roots to the highest level of politics, enormous public opposition has developed to siting landfills, incinerators, or transfer stations. With complex judicial and political systems that promote empowerment of the people, it has become common for opposition groups to delay or halt altogether the introduction of new waste management facilities. The NIMBY—Not In My Back Yard—syndrome has become a powerful force. This chapter explores the process by which the sites for landfills and related waste facilities are selected. This fascinating topic goes far beyond technical issues: it provides insight into human behavior and the ways political decisions are made. An understanding of the NIMBY phenomenon is essential for anyone who wishes to pursue a career in waste management. In some regions there is already a crisis. In New Jersey, for example, the number of landfills has dropped from more than 300 to about a dozen in the past two decades. As a result, more than half of New Jersey’s municipal solid waste must be exported to other states. In New York state, 298 landfills were closed and only 6 new ones opened in the decade since 1982. The same story is unfolding in almost all jurisdictions in North America; the number of landfills in the United States dwindled from 20,000 in 1979 to about 5,300 in 1993 (Miller, 1997). There is a very strong trend toward fewer—but much bigger—landfills. In the United States it is estimated that 8% of the existing landfills handle 75% of the country’s garbage. As the number of landfills decreases, their heights grow, casting dark shadows across the land. There is no doubt that new landfills are safer than old ones: they are generally better sited and incorporate better engineering and modern technology such as liners, covers, and leachate and gas extraction systems. However, people still do not want them next door. Thus, the few new landfills that are being developed are getting larger and larger; the megadump is the trend of the future.

Incineration: The Burning Issue

Fire has always held a fascination for humans, and it has been one of our most useful tools. Fire has provided warmth, cooked food, cleared forest lands, offered protection against marauding animals, and much more. Although garbage has probably been burned ever since humans discovered fire, it has been incinerated in a systematic manner for only about a century. Perhaps surprisingly, given its long history and obvious benefits, waste incineration is a topic that is both controversial and emotional. In this chapter we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of incineration and how it can contribute to an integrated waste management program. Under proper conditions, incineration provides a number of benefits: • It greatly reduces the volume of waste that must go to disposal in landfills—a vitally important objective. In conventional municipal incinerators, the volume reduction ranges from 80% to 95%, with a mean of about 90%. • It can be used in conjunction with landfill mining (see chapter 8) to reclaim closed landfills and greatly extend the operating lifetimes of existing landfills. • The ash produced is relatively homogeneous and thus more suitable than raw waste for treatment such as solidification in concrete. • A relatively large proportion of the organic compounds, including putrescible and hazardous wastes, is destroyed; thus, there is a net reduction in the quantity of toxics. • Energy can be generated as a useful byproduct, which preserves nonrenewable fuels like natural gas, oil, and coal. Fewer air pollutants are produced by burning waste than by burning coal or oil. The use of incineration has been increasing in the United States since about the mid-1980s, and currently the country burns about 16% of its municipal wastes (EPA, 1994). This figure is significantly lower in Canada—about 4%—but it can be much higher overseas. For example, Japan, which faced its waste disposal crisis in the 1950s, 20 years before the crisis reached North America, incinerates approximately 34% of its municipal garbage (Hershkowitz & Salerni, 1987). Most Japanese incinerators generate electricity.

Are There Better Disposal Methods?

Most of the solid waste generated by society ultimately winds up in near-surface landfills. Let us put our thinking caps firmly on, place our prejudices aside, and explore what other methods might be used to dispose of waste. We should seek, in particular, the approaches that best fulfill the three basic principles described in chapter 2. That is, we should strive to find disposal methods that are in accord with sustainable development. Existing and abandoned pits, quarries, and mines are attractive for waste disposal because a hole to contain the wastes has already been excavated. Such abandoned areas, when left unreclaimed, cannot be used for agriculture or other beneficial uses. Thus, they generally do not have significant market value and can often be obtained relatively cheaply. For these reasons, pits and quarries have been extensively used for landfills. Operating and abandoned mines, on which this section focuses, are somewhat similar to pits and quarries, though usually larger. Abandoned mines hold promise as disposal facilities because they are resource areas that have been depleted and thus have little future value. There are two basic types of mine: the open pit mine, which is effectively a large pit or hole in the ground; and the underground mine, where the mined-out openings are deep underground and there is no surface expression except for the shafts used to gain subsurface access. Because underground mines occupy minimal surface land, their use for waste disposal would be in accordance with the sustainable development principles that were advocated in chapter 2. Several European countries, with higher population densities and much smaller land mass than in North America, have long used abandoned underground mines to dispose of their rubbish. The major advantage of placing wastes deep in underground mines is that it is inherently safer than placing the wastes in a surface facility. The amount of groundwater and its flow rate decrease with depth; this fact, combined with the long transport paths back to the biosphere, minimizes the possibility that contaminants will be carried by groundwater to the surface, where they could damage the environment. The waste is contained deeper and more securely.

Recycling and Composting: Making a Molehill Out of a Mountain

Recycling, which includes composting, is the current rage. Almost every community in North America has established some kind of recycling program in the past few years. This chapter focuses on the science and technologies that are involved in recycling programs and explores what is needed to make these programs successful. This section describes the part of recycling that is associated with blue-box or streetside programs. It includes paper, cardboard, metal, aluminum, and plastics; composting is described in the next section. A successful waste recycling program relies on more than a systematic application of equipment and other resources. It also depends very significantly on attitude. It is vital that everyone participate. To achieve a meaningful level of participation, some degree of legislative guidance may be necessary. In fact, studies have shown that mandatory recycling programs are much more effective than those run on a voluntary basis (Platt et al., 1991). Legislation or bylaws can also be used to • stipulate that soft-drink, beer, wine, and other bottles be Reused • require the use of recycled material in manufacturing new products • avoid excessive packaging • reduce tipping fees for recyclable or compostable materials brought to designated drop-off sites • set higher tipping fees for waste from which recyclables have not been removed • ban the landfilling of certain substances, such as yard wastes Public education is an indispensable part of an integrated waste management system. First, the public must be informed of the details that involve them: what days pickups are made, how to obtain recycle containers, what materials can be recycled, how they are to be sorted, and so on. This information can be disseminated by flyers, newsletters, ads in the local paper, features on local television channels, and telephone hot lines. Second, an ethic of conservation should be instilled so that people will want to participate in three Rs programs. Methods of achieving this objective include videos and slide shows at schools, posters, buttons, and awards to businesses and groups that make outstanding contributions to recycling.

Integrated Waste Management: More than Just Landfills

Just as a general fights a battle with tanks, infantry, artillery, and air support, the campaign against waste also requires an arsenal of many weapons. Instead of relying solely on landfills, as has been done since time immemorial, the industry is developing an integrated waste management strategy. The objective is to minimize impact on the environment by employing all possible waste management technologies—especially reduction/reuse/recycling and incineration—in addition to landfills. An integrated waste management strategy is required by law in many jurisdictions and is now being used in most North American communities. Most U.S. states, for example, have made recycling mandatory and have established goals for reducing waste per capita by 25% to 50% over a period of four to ten years. In Canada, a comprehensive waste reduction plan established in the province of Ontario in 1991 has the goal of reducing the amount of waste going to disposal by at least 50% per capita by the year 2000, compared to the base year of 1987. The goal is to be achieved through implementing the “three Rs”: reduction (10%), reuse (15%), and recycling (25%). Some jurisdictions have set even higher goals; for example, Seattle is aiming to reduce waste going to landfill by 60% by the year 2000. An integrated waste management plan follows the life cycle of consumer products from cradle to grave, seeking to maximize the useful life of the resources that are involved. A complete suite of elements that might be used in an integrated waste management system is illustrated in Figure 4.1, although any municipality may utilize only some of these. 1. Source reduction: The objective is to reduce the amount of waste that is created in the first place. This can be accomplished in a number of ways: purchasing products with minimal packaging; developing products that are more durable and easily repaired; substituting reusable products for disposable single-use products; or implementing tax and other economic measures to encourage producers to generate less waste and use fewer resources. For source reduction to have a significant impact, society needs to turn away from the current consumer preference for once-through, disposable, and limited-life products.

Starting from Basics

The landfill has been a child of convenience. Historically, waste was simply dumped in depressions, ravines, and other handy locales that were close to the population centers producing the waste. For centuries this was an acceptable method, but two developments caused serious environmental difficulties with this approach. First, the enormous growth in population resulted in much more garbage being generated, at the same time as land was becoming a scarcer and more valuable resource. Second, the technological and consumer revolution led to the creation of many more hazardous products—particularly synthetic organic substances such as pesticides, PCBs, paint removers, and degreasers, which ultimately wound up in landfills. Landfills grew bigger, and their contents were more toxic than ever before. The child of convenience grew up and turned into an environmental ghoul. Instead of convenience, we need to seek methods of waste disposal that do not impair our environment, use up valuable resources, or place limitations on future resources. Changing engrained habits is not an easy task. We need a revolution that sweeps aside the old ways and introduces new concepts and technologies that are in accord with philosophies that value and protect our environment. Although the gravity of the situation is becoming recognized, and some positive steps—such as streetside recycling programs—are being implemented, there is still an enormous amount to be done. Perhaps we need a different outlook on waste disposal. We should seek disposal technologies and methods that protect the environment; furthermore, these methods must be based on fundamental philosophies that the public understands, agrees with, and buys into. When we seek to redesign waste management, it is important to start with the ultimate objectives firmly in mind. We need goals and a set of rudimentary principles to guide us. Many of us have read a science fiction novel in which a lonely spaceship has been sent to explore a distant galaxy, hundreds of light years away in the farthest reaches of the known universe. Even at hyperspeeds, the spaceship must travel for centuries to reach its destination, requiring several generations of crew to pass their lives aboard the ship.

A New Approach

We need waste disposal methods that allow the human race to live on this planet in harmony with nature, preserving our resources and habitat and leaving a legacy for our children and grandchildren that does not deprive them of opportunities. These changes will not come easily; they will require resolve and foresight. Just as a mathematician develops the proof to a mathematical theorem, we must start from a basic axiom, and step by step, following a logical progression, we must build a practical framework for waste management. We started this task in chapter 2, where we derived three general principles from the axiom of sustainable development. Can we apply these general principles to develop practical guidelines—first, to overcome the shortcomings of existing landfills, and second, to find other, innovative disposal methods that will conform with sustainable development? Let us look at each of the three principles in turn. Human health and the environment must be protected, both now and in the future. This principle is fundamental and places important constraints on the siting and design of disposal facilities, and also on the form of the waste. In particular, the final four words, “and in the future,” are very important. This principle can be satisfied in two ways: by reducing the toxicity of the wastes so they pose minimal risk, or by containing wastes so that they cannot escape and cause harm. In some cases, the latter method includes controlled leakage at a rate that the environment can assimilate without long-term degradation. Wastes must be managed so that no burden is placed on future generations and they are not deprived of the opportunities we have had. In other words, our grandchildren should not have to spend their valuable resources to solve our waste problems, nor should they be denied resources because our generation has depleted them. Neither should their health and environment be placed at risk because of our actions. The main impacts of landfills on future generations are the requirement to provide ongoing guardianship and maintenance; the loss of valuable land; and impairment of groundwater, surface water, and the atmosphere.

Landfills: How Do They Work?

Throughout history the landfill has been the bottom line of waste management: this is where the buck stops. Because of its fundamental importance, a thorough understanding of how a landfill is designed and operated is necessary. Municipal landfills are the most common; they accept our household garbage and often take some commercial and industrial waste as well. They are generally operated by local municipalities, although some are privately owned. We are all stakeholders in the landfill, however, contributing our share when we place our garbage by the curbside each week. Another type of landfill is that used by industries. These are generally situated near the industrial plants they serve and are usually dedicated to the specific process wastes produced at the factory. In terms of design, they do not differ significantly from municipal landfills. There are also “secure” landfills for hazardous waste, known in the United States as Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal sites. These different landfills do not differ greatly in design, and the following descriptions are largely applicable to all of them. A number of specific case histories are presented in chapter 11. Historically, it has been convenient to site landfills in depressions such as ravines, canyons, abandoned quarries, and open pits that could be easily filled up. These locations were selected largely on the basis of convenience, with proximity to the centers being served and price of land being key parameters. In the early 1900s, and even as late as the early 1970s, landfills were seen as an ideal way of “reclaiming” swamps and wetlands. With the loss of natural areas to urbanization and agriculture, and with the recognition that wetlands play an important role in the ecosystem, this practice is no longer condoned. It is now recognized that one of the most effective ways of protecting the environment is by carefully siting landfills at locations that provide natural security. In particular, the geological formation should contain or naturally attenuate contaminants to acceptable concentrations. If natural attenuation is not possible, then engineered barriers must be incorporated. Today, the trend is toward both incorporating extensive engineered barriers and seeking sites that offer geological containment.

Case Histories

Theory is fine, but practical experience is the heart of real learning. This chapter provides—as much as a book can—some real-life experience through seven case histories of how wastes are managed. The case histories describe a state-of-the-art materials recycling facility, five waste disposal facilities in three different countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden), and a large mass-burn incinerator. Choosing which of the many thousands of landfills in existence to include was a difficult task. Three municipal solid waste landfills are described. The first, Fresh Kills landfill in New York City, was constructed in 1948 and represents older landfill technology. The second, a new landfill in East Carbon County, Utah, was built in 1992 and incorporates the latest engineered barriers and features of a modern landfill. The third is being developed in a large, abandoned open-pit mine in California. In addition, we discuss a landfill and treatment center for hazardous waste, located in Swan Hills, Alberta. A unique Swedish facility for disposing radioactive wastes rounds out the suite of landfill case histories; this facility takes a very innovative approach to waste disposal and is included to provide a different perspective on this topic. Materials recovery facilities (MRFs) are the vital heart of modern integrated municipal waste management systems. Without MRFs, recycling on any practical scale would not be possible; it is here that recyclable materials are collected and made ready for sale to secondary markets. One of the most innovative recycle centers in North America has recently been constructed in the city of Guelph in southern Ontario (Guelph, n,d.). It offers good insight into what can be achieved through recycling, and the equipment that is involved. The city of Guelph, with a population of 95,000, is situated about 60 kilometers west of Toronto. In the mid-1980s, the city began studying ways to reduce the amount of waste being placed in its landfill. These studies received a major impetus in 1991, when the province of Ontario developed a waste reduction plan that required municipalities to reduce the amount of garbage being placed in landfills by 50% by the year 2000. A number of pilot studies were conducted before the present approach was selected.