Toward Integrated Resourc Management-Er)vironmental Political, and Economic Issue While most of this book deals with the technical aspects of integr It I I ‘lit’ waste management, many issues related to solid waste engin I” 1’1 II
managerial, financial, regulatory, and even political. This chapter inc Itl,1
number of current issues that influence solid waste engineering t I,IV II may have an increasing impact in the future.
9-1 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMEN
One means of understanding questions about material and product use a”t! II I production is to conduct what has become known as a life cycle assessment ‘,11I1 an .asse.ssment is a holistic approach to pollution prevention by analyzillJl ill enure life of a produce process, or activity-encompassing raw materials, 11101 1111 facturing, transportation, distribution, use, maintenance, recycling, and fill,1Itil posal. In other words, assessing its life cycle should yield a complete picru«- 111111 environmental impact of a product.
The first step in a life cycle assessment is to gather data on the fII)IV I Ii I material through an identifiable society. Figure 9-1, for example, shows 111\ II” of paper through Switzerland. Once the quantities of various component II such a flow are known, the environmental effect of each step in the produ. i “” manufacture, use, and recovery/disposal is estimated.
9-1-1 Life Cycle Analysis Life cycle analyses are performed for several reasons, including the comp.tu« ‘II u] products for purchasing and the comparison of products by industry. In till’ II” “”
“( Ii I 1’1
Paper production
887 Total
consumption
1041 Import
388
I igure 9-1 Flow of paper through Swiss society. All figures in tonnes/yr. Source: From “/\111 ” Methods for the Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste.” Brunner, P. H., and W. R. Ernst, WOI II Management and Research 4: 155, copyright © 1986 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted I y 1’1 It of SAGE.
se, the total environmental effect of glass returnable bottles, for example, could I compared to the environmental effect of non-recyclable plastic bottles. If all of the factors going into the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of both types of I ottles are considered, one container might be shown to be clearly superior. In th ase of comparing the products of an industry, we might determine if the use of
phosphate builders in detergents is more detrimental than the use of substitutes, which have their own problems in treatment and disposal.
One problem with such studies is that they are often conducted by industry roups or individual corporations, and it should be no surprise that the results ften promote their own product. For example, Procter &.Gamble, the manufac-
turer of a popular brand of disposable baby diapers, found in a study conducted for P&’Gthat cloth diapers consume three times more energy than the disposable kind. But a study by the National Association of Diaper Services found disposabl diapers consume 70% more energy than cloth diapers. The difference was in th
 

 
a unLing pI” xlurc. II’on’ II ‘1I1h’ ’11’If outn 11’1111Ill’ dIMJl()M,lhl~’ 111111I I recoverabl in a wast -t – 11rgy llity, then the lillp sable dlnp ‘1’1, 1)1 )I ‘1’11111′ efficient. 2
Life cycle analyses also suffer from a dearth f data, S m r th illl()lllI.11I1I1I critical to the calculations is virtually impossible to obtain. F I’ xample, (1111 thing as simple as the tonnage of solid waste collected in th Unit I Slall: I~ 11111 readily calculable or measurable. And even if the data were th r ,Lh PI’ ‘1\111′ III fers from the unavailability of a single accounting system. Is ther an opt im.il I. I I of pollution, or must all pollutants be removed 100% (a virtual imp ssil illty),’ II there are both air pollution and water pollution, how must these be rnp.u.-d ‘
This issue is schematically illustrated in Figure 9-2. For exampl , the W’! III remove heavy metals from wastes increases with lower concentrations r 111’l.tI III be recovered. The technology to reduce the metals in the waste gets m 1″ 1.1\ 11111 ous as concentrations get lower. As a benefit, these metals may no 10ng{‘1Jill I an environmental risk but could be recycled. However, if no measures arc I,d I II the potential risk that the metals pollute the environment in the futur in( 1t’,1 1_ In case of the landfill Kolliken, exorbitant costs were created in ord I’ to II, II the wastes after they have been landfilled. The goal is to find the optimal II ‘1I of treatment. But life cycle assessment that considers potential future risks IH 1111\ straightforward. Hellweg et al. applied potential long-term emissions in Iill’ 1\’111 assessment and also gave a comprehensive introduction to life cycle asses, 1111III and compared different waste treatment technologies.”
‘”•…t/)o U
Ecrit Eopt•Recovery, Recycling, Diversion Emissions
Figure 9-2 Costs as a function of increase in recovery and diversion rates (left y ,I” I’) and of damage in case no measures to reduce emissions are taken (right y-axis) Adapted from source [20].
Ilow ‘v ‘I’, II ,Impl,’ I’ illllpll” ( I Ill, I 111111(11’11III” ry(‘1•. 111111S N would I • III fill ling th ‘ solut un ill 111• gr’, I olT’v Clip I-Iml ‘-wlwlh ‘I’ ( ) IIse I ,II ‘I’ 11111- – III S I’ poly nyr ’11\ coffc ups. ‘I’ll’ nnsw ‘I’ III lst p pi w ul I give is 1101 III II • ith r, but inst a I l r Iyon lh p rnl< n ‘nt rnu . But th r n v rth less illl’ rlrn S when disposabl ups are necessary ( .g., in hospitals) and ad’ isi II 11111S1made as to which type to choose.’ So let us use life cycle analysis t mt I ‘ II de i i n.
Th paper cup comes from trees, but the act of cutting trees results in nvi 1011m ntal degradation. The foam cup comes from hydrocarbons such as oi I nd filS, nd this also results in adverse environmental impact, including the us or II )111’n wable resources. The production of the paper cup results in signif ani Will I’ I ollution, while the production of the foam cup contributes essentially no wat I’ pollution. The production of the paper cup results in the emission of hlo- tin , chlorine dioxide, reduced sulfides, and particulates, while the produ lion Or the foam cup results in none of these. The paper cup does not require ch101’0 Ilu rocarbons (CFCs), but neither do the newer foam cups ever since the CI:Cs
11 polystyrene were phased out. The foam cups, however, result in the emission or pentane, while the paper cup contributes none. From a materials separation p .rspective, the recyclability of the foam cup is much higher than the paper lip In e the latter is made from several materials, including the plastic coating 011
th paper. However, many communities do not have recycling programs for poly- styrene. Paper and foam cups both burn well, although the foam cup produ cs 17,200 Btujlb (40,000 kJjkg), while the paper cup produces only 8600 Btu/lh (20,000 kJjkg). In the landfill, the paper C\lP degrades into CO2 and CH4 (both greenhouse gases) while the foam cup is inert. Since it is inert, it will remain in the I ndfill for a very long time, while the paper cup will eventually (but very slowl y!) d compose. If the landfill is considered a waste storage receptacle, then the foam up is superior, since it does not participate in the reaction, while the paper up
produces gases and probably leachate. If, on the other hand, the landfill is thought f as a treatment facility, then the foam cup is highly detrimental, since it do s
not biodegrade. So which cup is better for the environment? If you wanted to do the right
thing, which cup should you use? This question, like so many others in this book, is not an easy one to answer. Private individuals can, of course, practice pollution prevention by a simple expedient such as not using either plastic or paper dispos- able coffee cups but by using a refillable mug instead. The argument as to which kind of cup, plastic or paper, is better is then moot. It is better not to produce the waste in the first place. In addition, the coffee tastes better from a mug! We win by doing the right thing.
9-1-2 Life Cycle Management Once the life cycle of a material or product has been analyzed, the next (engineering) step is to manage the life cycle. If the objective is to use the least ener- gyand cause the least damage to the environment, then much of the onus is on the manufacturers of these products. The users can have the best intentions, but if the products are manufactured in such a way as to make meeting the goal impossible, then the fault is with the manufacturers. On the other hand, if the manufactured
 

 
mz t ri Is arc .usy I s ‘ptlr, L’ nil II” yrlc, then III 0, t III ‘I ‘II ”I y , ,ilVl’ I, .uul III environment is prot t d. This PI’ ess ht s be 0111′ III iwn n “o/llllfllll {II’I’III’III/,,” There are numerous examples of how industrial (il’lns have r’ILI” I ‘1111.1011 .” other waste production or have made it easy t r ov r wast r I’ till ISfill I, II III process, save money. Some automobile manufacturers, for Inl I , arc 1110(\111.11 izing the engines so that junked parts can be easily reconditi n d and 1(‘1111Ii Printer cartridge manufacturers have found that refilling cartri Ig s is far (IH”1I’1I than remanufacturing them and now offer trade-ins. All ofthe eff rts by illllll’ll\ to reduce waste (and save money in the process) will influen e th . sol id IV,II. stream in the future.
Bad examples abound of industrial neglect of environmental n L’1I11••1 the sake of short-term economic gain. The use and manufacture of non-r ry,l.lll\I beverage containers, for example, is perhaps the most ubiquitous x Illpl,’ It might be instructive to establish some baseline of absolutely un ons iOI,,”,I. industrial behavior in order to measure how far we have come in th polhu “” prevention process. The authors of this book recommend that there be an ,lIv,lld established, called the Trabi Award, which could commemorate the worst, 1111/I environmentally unfriendly product ever manufactured. The Trabant, aff IiOIl,111 ly known as the Trabi, was manufactured in East Germany during the 1c 70M ,IIII 1980s. This homely looking car (Figure 9-3) was designed to be the East el’IIII,111 version ofthe Volkswagen, “the People’s Car.” Its design objectives were l 111.1111II
Figure 9-3 The East German Trabant, or “Trabi.” (Courtesy William A. Worrell)
I tll(‘ iply ns POHIIIIIt” I 111111”lIf,4ill”I’ II. l’d II Iwo 11’01. ‘1lgl11″ will ’11 IIa 11010 I I tlHI llrty ’11iin ” ,111I IIIwi I’ uti’ nus ‘d 111,1 ,Iv’ air p llution I I’ II ‘IIIH, All .iI the om] n nrs W ‘I” I .stun I ar the I ‘(\sl ‘osl, and few survived n rill, I LIS’, W 11’IlLr, II, th b dy W’IS m de of a fib ralass ru] osit that was irnpossihl . 10 I ‘X pt with duct tape! As far as the solid waste management was on ern xl, 111”1’1′ bi had absolutely no recycling value, since it could not be melt d down lit I’.pr ‘sed in any other way, nor could it be burned in incinerators. 1\1’1 ‘1’ Ih(‘ I lll1i I arion of Germany, thousands ofTrabis were abandoned on the stre IS and 11,1(\t be disposed of in landfills. The Trabi is the best example of engin ~rinH I ‘sign when the sole objective is production cost and environmental con ems me II(11 istent. The Trabi deserves to be immortalized as an exemplar of nviron III.ntally destructive design.
9-1-3 Product Stewardship Product stewardship, sometimes referred to as producer responsibility, is, according 1 the EPA, a product-centered approach to environmental protection. It calls 011 Ih se in the product life cycle-manufacturers, retailers, users, and disposers=-ro h re responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of products. lnst ‘a I
(Jr the traditional approach, where local government becomes responsible ror n PI’ duct at its end of life, product stewardship shares that responsibility among all I arties. Typically, product stewardship programs focus on products that are dif I LIltto dispose of such as batteries, fluorescent bulbs, medical waste, and paint.
On a national level, the best example of product stewardship is the It chargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC). In 1995, members of the I”chargeable battery industry established the RBRC. Joined by over 28,000 r .tail- rs, the RBRClaunched a nationwide industry-funded recovery system to take I <1(‘1< nd recycle rechargeable batteries.
Product stewardship can also be implemented on a local level. In 2008, Illl’ an Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) irnplc
mented an award-winning product stewardship program. The program was ncccs ary, because on February 8, 2006, the Universal Waste Rule exemption, whi h
allowed households and some small businesses to dispose of batteries, electronic devices, and fluorescent light bulbs in the landfill, expired. To meet these hr I lenges, the IWMAneeded a program that would be cost effective yet convenient for the public.
A retail take-back program replaced the collection of these materials at the existing permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities (PHHWCFs). While there are six PHHWCFs, these facilities are open only on Saturdays from 11 AM to 3 PM. In addition, the PHHWCFs are at locations such as landfills and wastewater treatment plants. While these facilities are adequat ‘ to accept the occasional household hazardous waste from the public, they ar not convenient enough to serve as collection locations for household batteries and fluorescent tubes.
The IWMAselected the retail take-back program because it provided the pu h lie with very convenient locations to return household batteries, fluorescent tubes, latex paints, and sharps (needles). The retailers are located throughout the region
 

 
and ar Lypi ally pen H v n days I ‘I’ W’ .k Ibl’ • (‘I) I’d hour, III I Idll (III, III publicshopsatthes 10 ati nswb n it is tim to rcpla Ih’il’hclIS’holdlwlIlll and fluorescent tubes.
The IWMA’s staff began setting up batt ry and flu r s nL ILII(‘ loll, II II retailers in December 2006. An initial list of potential take-ba k r l( llcrs W.I IIIIII I ated using local chamber of commerce and telephone directori s. As pari 01 111111 ing with each retailer and discussing the take-back program, ea h retail ‘I’ W,lH HI I battery and fluorescent tube collection containers. The size and 1111 mI (‘I III III containers given to each retailer was contingent upon the size of th rctalh-i Will, full implementation 354 retail locations accept batteries and 111. r 1<il 1<1\,111’1″ accept fluorescent tubes. Over 50,000 fluorescent tubes and 1 million bnll(‘I,’ II collected annually. Government, producers, and retailers have all corurihun Ii In the funding of these programs.
The IWMA initiated the battery and fluorescent tube retail tak -b.« I IIII1 gram as a free and voluntary program to the local retailers. While many 11’1,\ I I signed up for the program, the large national and international chains wouh] 11111 participate. This created an undue burden on those retailers who had “1\”‘1 II III participate. It was also very difficult to advertise the program to the puhlh III advertising program was based on the premise that you could return y01l1’old 11.11 teries and fluorescent tubes to any retailer who sold them.
Because of these problems, the IWMA adopted a mandatory or lillllllil It March 2008. The ordinance requires retailers to take back batteries and nIiOIC’IHIIII tubes from the public under the following three scenarios:
1. From a consumer that buys batteries and/or fluorescent tubes (maxi ,,111111 amount equal to number of batteries and fluorescent tub S 1111111 purchased) .
2. From a consumer who documents the previous purchase of batteries ,III II or fluorescent tubes (maximum amount limited to the number of baIII I” and fluorescent tubes previously purchased).
3. From a consumer who lives in the jurisdiction (maximum amount li,,1I1 11 to 15 batteries and 8 fluorescent tubes per week).
Retailers are required to accept the items at no cost to the public. With,” I month of adopting the ordinance, all the retailers who had previously r filiII’ll III participate in the program were now participating.
9-1-4 Integrated Waste and Life Style Management One of the major obstacles we still face in waste management is that waste pill , lerns only become visible at the end of the pipe. Only if the waste is not colh« IIII at our home or if littered trash is visible do we realize that there is obviouslv II problem. Our society has much of an “out of sight out of mind” attitude. M,lIIVIII the waste reduction initiatives start, therefore, at the end of the life cycle. HOWl VI I upstream measures must be considered more seriously in the future, as WoIlll ~ are also produced during mining and production. The contribution of refuse .11111 recycled fractions only accounts for about 14% of the entire wastes produced 111111I different sectors in OECD countries.”
Sy t ‘171 u /1/ /Ir——————————————-~ , I I I I
DISPOSAL = (treatment and final 01-1—1..-1 CI’l
disposal) p:f CONSUMPTION I-~~—~:.-.—–i–I ~ (and distribution) ~
r.—..—.I ~
——————————————-~ Figure 9-4 Scheme defining the integrated waste management (IWM) system and representing the relevant material flows, after Winzeler et al.”
Recovered and recycled waste flows need to be better integrated into all sc – tors of societal activities. A diagram of integrated waste management (IWM) is shown in Figure 9-4.
Another difficulty is that poorer countries have much smaller waste quaru i· ties.” although diversity and quantities are rapidly increasing in some develoj ing ountries. Moreover, the different waste fraction quantities differ considerably.
The ideal waste management practice may therefore differ from country to oun- try. Nevertheless, the approaches we have laid out in this textbook are generally valid and of use for the waste management engineer in the context of differ ‘Ill waste management systems. As specific needs of the local population can be unique, bottom-up approaches can be very valuable for further developing waste management practices that fit the society. If successful, they will find further imitators worldwide.
Such a bottom-up movement is the Zero Waste Approach to Resource Management. Over the last two decades a new approach and understancl ing of solid waste management has been advocated by various groups. Crassroots movements introduced the zero waste approach, which was dismissed by lhe established waste management industry. However, those who supported zero waste continued to advocate for this approach. At one conference, lapel buttons were handed out that said, “If you are not for zero waste, how much waste are you for?” There was a blank line, and then you could write in a number. By 2015, many of those established groups were including zero waste in their discussion. A description of the zero waste approach is given in the appendix at the end of’ this chapter. Such an approach also calls on lifestyle changes for everyone in till: society, independent of social status, education, income, or race.
 

 
9-1-5 Integra d R ourc M n m nt A different approach [Tom int grai d wast n l1nd em ‘nt is llllc$:/”{/t(‘(/ “(‘Sf)/I/’j jl 1/1,1/, agement (IRM). Instead oflooking at the end-of-th piJ (w sl ‘),011′ would nt 111111 the front of the process. There is a paradigm chang that fo LISs n inrrc \, “I 1111 resources’ efficiency over the entire life cycle. This approach is not pri rn: rlI 1111111II at a diversion of waste from the landfill, but at a reduction of the mal rinls i 111″1111\ This approach puts more emphasize on the design of a product. As a cons”Ii’111111 products will be designed so that there will be less waste at the end 01 tlH’ I I, III the product.
Automobile recycling in Europe is an example of applying lRM I !’ill( 11’1, The European Union aims to limit the use of hazardous substances in new Willi It designs and also to design vehicles that facilitate reuse and recycling at till’ (‘Ildot their life. Those automobile parts that cannot be reused or recycled ar slllt’!!d, II in order to obtain different metal fractions for mechanical separation. $Cp.II,1I11111 continues until it is no longer economical to recover and recycle the marcri.il 1111 EU target for materials recycling at the end of the life of a car is 85%.
9-2 FLOW CONTROL
The San Diego Materials Recovery Facility is a perfect example of how nonu« III I cal issues often override successful engineering. This 550,000-ton-per-y Ill’ III III waste materials recovery facility (dirty MRF) was built as a result of an agl’l'(‘1I111I1 between a private company and the County of San Diego. When it W(‘111111′” operation, it met all of its performance requirements. Local communities, h()WIv I rather than send their municipal solid waste to the facility, elected to expo It IIi II waste to remote landfills owned by their local haulers. Without sufficient w,llll, III the MRF, the county closed the facility after less than two years of opera Iion.’ 1111 county’s inability or failure to control the solid waste stream was the prin ill,lIl1 ,I son why the plant closed. Restrictions or directives by local government Ih:1III 11II in waste being transported only to designated facilities for handling, treaLIlH’III,III disposal are generally referred to as flow control.
There are two facets to flow control: The first is the ability of governnu-ut III direct MSW generated in a jurisdiction, and the second is to prevent waste 1′,1’111I ated outside your jurisdiction from entering a jurisdiction. For example, ,I 1I1I” county may want to build a solid waste landfill for waste generated in the (tJ 1111 but does not want to accept waste from outside the county. This example raiSI”jI\ II legal issues that the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed in several decisions.
For many years, states and local communities struggled with the issue ()f III II authority to direct waste to a particular disposal or processing facility. At SIal”, I I locality’s ability to finance a solid waste disposal facility. For example, a wasil’ “I energy facility might cost $200 million, and this represents a large investnu-ru II the community. Before such a facility can be financed, the waste-to-energy 1.\11111 owner must obtain “put-or-pay” garbage commitments from participating 111111 munities who agree to send their solid waste to that facility or pay if the W.I’II I not delivered. Such agreements provide the security to the bond holders Ih.11III facility will be able to pay the projected debt service during the life of the h01111
III (;cM OIl’/IU//lI, /1/1, II, U/rl/”‘SIOI/I/I , !lllll.,’, 1/11 (11)\)11), III!’SlIP”‘IlIl.lCOIIII 111/\ I rh: t H local ()I’dIIHIIH’l’ I 1″ lil1l-1 hauler 10 d ,I WI’ wnsrc 10. I( WIl-Sdl'(‘ICI I’ vntcly own d rn ilil run afoul of th :0111111(‘”‘~\ ;Inus \ thc t l.S, nstltut: in, wl: I I r hibits stat end 10,11 gislati n favorlng crtain privet businesses over IHII-O(-st( t omp titors.
After atbone, local government had two options to regain control or th ir W,IH-l . !\ community could enter into franchise agreement with a private hauler Ill’ th ollection of solid waste. As part of the franchise agreement, tile 0111- 1111111ity could include the ability to direct solid waste to a specific facility. The (‘ nd option is to replace the private collector system in the community with a
munidpal collection system. While both of these options are available, they may III as long as five years to implement. Thus, municipalities have been looking [0 : ngress for relief but have not yet received it.
Some 13 years after Carbone, the high court again addressed flow contr I. In (/”‘i/:ed Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management AULhorUy, I 1:0 U.S. 330 (2007) by a 6-3 margin, the justices made a distinction between now
ntrol to private facilities and flow control to public facilities. Important legal and I Iicy considerations required treating public and private entities differently, the m jority opinion said. “It is not the Office of the Commerce Clause to control ih ‘ I .cision of the voters on whether government or the private sector should provide
waste management services,” 550 U.S., at 344. Flow control to public faciliii s loes not discriminate against interstate commerce where all private companies- I cal, in-state, and out-of-state-are treated exactly the same.
The reverse side of flow control is the ability to restrict solid waste from en ter- lng a jurisdiction. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of New lersey unlawfully discriminated against interstate commerce by banning the disposal or
ut-of-state waste at all landfills. City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617. States and localities get into trouble when they attempt disposal bans that
restrict the ability of private landfills to accept waste from outside the jurisdiction or that impose higher fees on local disposal of waste generated elsewhere. Private facilities that challenge such regulations in court are likely to be successful becaus \ government officials can rarely, if ever, prove that the risks and hazards from non local wastes are worse than from wastes generated locally. See, for example, Chemical Waste Management v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992); BPI Medical Waste ystems v. Whatcom County, 983 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1993). The practical implica-
tion of this restriction is that some states have become dumping grounds for orh I” states. In 2013, 23% of the waste disposed of in Michigan came from out of stat . In fact, 17% of all waste disposed of in Michigan came from Canada as allowed for under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Michigan landfills have only 28 years of remaining capacity, which is being used up by waste generated out or state. Consider the dilemma that a local recycling coordinator in Michigan must face trying to implement a recycling program to preserve landfill space when 23% of the waste is coming from out of state. However, a locality or public authority that seeks to forbid the disposal of non local wastes at its own facilities may do so. Government, acting as a private entrepreneur-that is, participating in the market-may choose its customers without creating any Commerce Clause issues. Red River Service Corp. v. City of Minot, 146 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 1998).
 

 
9-3 PUBLIC 0 PRIVAT OWN AND OPERATION
HI
The debate between public and private ownership and op rali n is < In’ Oil ‘ .11111 will continue into the foreseeable future. One thing can b said with (,l’t:1IItl’ There is no one right answer that applies to all communities.
Collection of solid waste is considered an essential public s rvi ,(\11(1tli. question is whether this service should be provided by private haul rs 01′ tHIIll1e employees. The private garbage company will claim it is more efficient, I SS W,I!.I. ful, and more motivated. The public sector will claim it is less costly becaus ‘ it 1),1\ no tax and does not make a profit is more responsive to the public. and provul. a living wage for its employees. There is some truth to both claims. In the I lI.d analysis, the municipality should consider cost, liability, and control wh n (I ‘\ Iii ing on privatizing a solid waste system.’
A trend is to place collection services out to bid and let the muni ipalir II Ii against the private companies. This approach is referred to as competitive SI’I JI/’, delivery. Unlike privatization, which turns the function over to the private S,’Itill under competitive service delivery the public sector is allowed to compet [“01 till project.”
While this approach appears to be good in principle, in reality it can be VII difficult to implement. For example, once the public entity loses its collection “\ tern, it is almost impossible to get back into the business. The infrastructur IH'” sary to provide the service-such as the personnel, equipment and mainrcu.uu , facilities-will no longer be available. Unlike private companies, govenuueut rules such as civil service and competitive procurement prevent local governuu-ut from rapidly obtaining the resources necessary to provide collection services III addition, public entities are subject to open-record requirements. Thus, the pi iV,ill companies bidding against a municipality may be able to view historical fin.IIIlI,1I data prior to bidding.
Another concern is the consolidation of the private sector. As comp.11I11 purchase each other, the number of viable competitors continues to dccrc.v« This has been described as the monopolization of solid waste through 111(”1′,\’1 and acquisitions.” With this approach, companies can achieve vertical integratlvu whereby the company controls not only the collection of the waste but ,d’\I the transfer operation, the landfill, and the recycling operation. This decrease III competition may lead to an increase in costs for collection services.
Public or private ownership of landfills is another current solid waste i\’,1I1 A landfill provides an essential public health function and is needed by (‘ I 1\ municipality. The public perception based on such well-publicized incident- II “the garbage barge” is that there is a landfill shortage. At the time of the “gall1.1/11 barge” incident. there was fear that landfill costs would soon exceed $100 pc: 11111 In reality, no such shortage existed, and landfill prices dropped.
Public ownership does offer benefits to the local community. It can :0.(‘1 1\ own rates, it can restrict the flow of MSW to the landfill, it can direct flow to till landfill, and it can decide on the level of service to be provided. On the other 1),11111 a private landfill is free to compete in the open market and must offer cornpct it \,
1.11′” Oil’ ,lltl’III,ltlv 111011pi lvii’, 111.111IWII\’II 10 have (II’ 0/11’1’1/(/(/1/ 01 ,I I uhl] I own’ I I.llldl II ( 111l1,l(I I our. ‘I’ll, .illow Ilw 10 al ommunlt In OWIl 1111imp irtant ass ‘I while n hlcvin the bell ‘filS of’ ornp titi n r. I” the I .rntinn.
..4 CONTRACTING FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES , II’a municipality does decide to contract with a private company for solid wnsrr ervi es. it will likely use a competitive bidding process to select the company. Till’
municipality will prepare a request for proposal or RFP. In the RFP the muni ip.d lty’s I vel of solid waste service and terms and conditions for the contra Lor 1’1″,11 rhis agreement are described. While every RFP by its very nature is different. thcr , nr common elements that should be included. Those elements are describ .d here.
Basic Service to Be Provided ‘I’h municipality must describe in detail the service included in the RFP. An ix.un I I might be weekly curbside garbage collection of 12,000 residential custom ‘I, with up to six 32-gallon cans of MSW per customer. This description spe ifics IIH’ r. llowing:
• Collection frequency-weekly • Location of collection-curbside • Material collected-refuse • Number of customers-12,000 • Type of customer-residential • Quantity of material-up to six 32-gallon cans • Container provider-customer
Each of these factors influences the cost of providing service and must be carefull spelled out in the RFP.
Options In addition to the basic service to be provided, the municipality can include o[lIcl options that mayor may not be part of the proposal. For example, a municip: lily may request that the company bill the customer directly, or the municipality m,IY instead include the refuse collection bill with the water and sewer charges.
Term of Agreement The cost of providing the requested service is directly related to the term (If the agreement. Start-up costs and capital costs are amortized over the life or Ihr agreement. Usually seven years is the minimum amount of time needed to fully amortize equipment. Thus, the longer the term of the agreement. the lower lilt’ annual cost.
Cost of Service Every RFP must specify how the proposer is to provide the cost information. Some RFPs ask for a very detailed breakdown of costs, while others ask only for the IIHid
 

 
Sl. III c Idlll )11, Lit’ III”hod )1 agreement sh III I b sp iflcd.
lh ,t! 10 ,ldjllNt IIH’ COHI, dill’ 111\ 111’11’1111111111
Resources Provided The RFP typically requires the proposer to provid a d tail I I S ‘!’iPlloll III II! resources being provided. For example, the number and typ r tru 1<11Ill’ 1’1 I’I!I vided helps the municipality compare the proposals. In addition, I~FPs11).1 “‘1″11 the names and resumes of the key personnel who will be assign d 10 1111’ (11111 I I A classic example of needing to know this information was a proj I ill Pintid, III which a private company was to assume the operation of a waste-to-en ‘l’f.I 1’1 I” ” One company proposed a plant manager who was currently und r in li( 1111,”1 ”’1 violating an order of the fire marshal at the waste-to-energy plant that he W,I’ I tll rently operating.
Company Experience An RFP usually includes a requirement that the proposer include a J iSIof H III I I projects and references. This allows the selecting agency to determ inil’ 1111′ I”” poser is qualified to provide the required service.
Record of Violations Proposers are asked to provide a list of violations and judgments agains l llll’ I “III pany and its officers. This information is used by the municipality to cI l~’1 1111111 II the company meets its standard for contracting. For example, if the cornp.uu 11,1 defaulted on its last three municipal contracts or if the corporate officers II;!VI’ I” I 1\ convicted of bribing local officials, the company would probably not b :;(’11’1 II II for your contract. A record of past problems and poor performance may Iw ‘itlil cient reason for rejection. For example, the County of San Luis Obispo, (lil'”lli I rejected a large national firm because of its past practices. After being rej CIl’d, 1111 firm appealed to the courts to overturn the decision but lost the appeal.
Financial Resources The municipality must be assured that the proposer has the financial Il’,\(11111 es to complete the project. Thus, financial data are requested as part 01 lit RFP. Examples might be audited annual financial statements or the most 11’1I III annual report.
Draft Agreement A draft agreement should be included in the RFP.All proposers should be I’Cqllllll1 to comment on the draft agreement and put any objections in writing prio: III I selection being made. Finalizing the agreement with the selected company will 1,\ easier if the objections are known prior to the selection.
Standard Terms and Conditions Most municipalities have a set of standard terms and conditions that are in. 111.11II in all RFPs, For example, the municipality has the right to reject all proposals, ,11111 the municipality will not reimburse any of the proposers for the cost of prcp.uln their proposal.
In some cases, a municipality will decide not to use a competitive process 1.111 instead to negotiate an extension with the existing hauler or service provider. II III
• I 1I11H con 11:1 101 hu IIiOV Ii .t! lood (‘IV ( , uul I (IH’ pi (‘I’ \ 1’1 olllhi ” ( III 1(‘ \lrgllcd th: I 111(‘ 111111111 II tilly will save 1\111’ \lId 111011 ‘Y I y nOI !0 II through \ \,1′ II II PI’ ‘S,
Whil not g il g III t bid might s v tlinc lid mon y in most ‘as’s, it I. 11 t Iways true. For example, a city in California de ided not t g through \ s I ti n but instead to enter into a new IS-year agreement with th xisting lmul r. However, the opponents to this approach were successful in gelling enough ,igll lures to place an initiative on the ballot to require a competitive bid .. ‘I’!lis nill live became the most expensive election in the history of the city. The exrsuni
h( ul r spent $379,515 and the city spent $107,493 to defeat the initiative, while rh proponents of competitive bidding spent $352,547.10 In the end, the initiaiiv ‘. w defeated, and the city entered into a IS-year agreement with the haul r as originally planned.
Agreement or Contract If a municipality decides to contract for solid waste services, an agreement r C{/II tract will be required. Some agreements are as simple as several pages, while oth ‘1/1 r quire hundreds of pages. The agreement may be referred to as a service agreelllt’ll/, franchise agreement, or contract and may be either exclusi~e or nonexc.’usive. I”. all
elusive agreement, only the selected company can provide the specified service. Typically, residential garbage service is an exclusive service, because a muni ipal- ity only wants the contracted company providing the service. In other cases (SLIII as recycling) the agreement may be exclusive under certain circumstances bUI not under others. For example, the following is a section from the city of Arroyo
rande, California, recycling agreement: The Agreement for the Collection, processing and marketing of Recyclable Materials granted to Contractor shall be exclusive except as to the following categories of RecyclableMaterials listed in this Section. The granting of this Agreement shall not preclude the categories of RecyclableMaterials listed below from being delivered to and Collected and transported by others provided that nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed to excuse any person from obtaining any authorization from City which is otherwise required by law: A. RecyclableMaterials separated from Solid Waste by the Waste Generator
and for which Waste Generator sells or is otherwise compensated by a collector in a manner resulting in a net payment to the Waste Generator for such Recyclingor related services;
B. Recyclable Materials donated to a charitable, environmental or other nonprofit organization;
C. RecyclableMaterials which are separated at any Premises and which are transported by the owner or occupant of such Premises (or by his/her full-time employee) to a Facility;
D. Other Governmental Agencieswithin the City which can contract for separate solid waste and recycling services; and,
Contractor acknowledges and agrees that City may permit other Persons beside Contractor to Collect any or all types of the RecyclableMaterials listed in this Section 4.2, without seeking or obtaining approval of Contractor under this Agreement.
 

 
This A{tr’CIllnu to ‘oil ‘(, (1′,lIlSI)()II,110 \’M, 11IHIIll.lI’I\’1H’ y( LIIlII’ Materialsshall be inter] r t c1to b I1SiSlnt wlih NlnlC,I1dr(‘d~’I’nll,lWN,JlIIW and during the term oftbe Agreement,and th s p or this Agrc’1IIl’III111111 be limited by current and developing state and federal lawswith I’ Wild 10 RecyclableMaterialshandling, RecyclableMaterials flow corur I, and 1′(‘1.111’11 doctrines. In the event that future interpretations of current Jaw, naCllIlI’ll( or developing legaltrends limit the ability of the City to lawfullyprovidr 101 the scope of servicesas specificallyset forth herein, Contractor agrc ‘S 111,1t the scope of the Agreementwill be limited to those servicesand mat ri,ll, which may be lawfullyprovided for under this Agreement,and that Ihe :11 shall not be responsible for any lost profits and/or damages claim d by Ill\’ Contractor as a result of changes in law.
Some municipalities that enter into franchise agreements with waste 11,11I11I will require that a franchise fee be paid by the waste hauler. This fee is ill ,lIldl tion to the cost incurred by the selected company to provide the spe ificd SI’I III Franchise fees may be as little as 1 or 2% or in excess of 20%. In some aSl’li, 110 franchise fee is used to support related activities (such as recycling centers) willi, in other cases, the fee goes to the general fund of the municipality.
9-5 FINANCING SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ,
. Solid waste processing and disposal facilities can be either privately or puhlh h owned. In either case, the owner must minimize cost at a given level of sri VIII Because solid waste facilities are most often long-term investments, the time v.ilru of money is important, and engineering economics plays a major role in til’, Iii ing what kind of facility will be constructed. Funding of solid waste opera: illil is similar to funding other utilities, such as water and sewerage services. Bud’~1 I consist of two general components: revenues and costs. Depending on the SIH’II ics of the solid waste system, such as ownership and contractual arrangemen IS,1III complexity of the financial system can vary. Some systems are complex and rcqu III financial experts, while others may require only a simple accounting system.
Solid waste operations receive revenue from the sale of services and good’i When the home or business pays its monthly garbage bill, these funds provide IIII revenue to cover the costs of the operation. Other sources of revenue are tippllI)\ fees at the landfill, the sale of recyclables, and the sale of electricity from a landl III gas turbine or waste-to-energy plant. In a publicly owned system, the revcmu should equal the cost. In a privately owned system, the revenue should exceed 1111′ cost, resulting in a profit.
A central idea in engineering economics is the time value of money. A doll.u today does not have the same value as a dollar a year from now. Ignoring inflarion for now, a dollar today can be invested in an interest-bearing account and a y(,,11 from now will be worth a dollar plus the interest earned. Thus, a dollar today alld a dollar a year from now cannot be added to get two dollars. They are as differcm as apples and oranges.
The initial cost of the facility is very important to the municipality or agent Y Such a cost is known as a capital cost and is a one-time investment. Capital cost: are paid from the proceeds of bank loans, general obligation bonds, and revenue
I (III I” It i. 0111111011101.101 I W,\. 1\’UltlIJl.IIIYIII IIldlll -tor HI ,111110,111(0 hu II f \1’1:11.uu Ie The 1(‘1’11101 III ‘ 101111is sho: ( ‘I I11II11III I II~’ )1’111: I I’ll 1<.’l’he 111’1\”,1 r.uc 011Ih I n is bas’ Ion the risk the lcudt-r Jl’1 .lvcs < ud III ludcs SLIh Villi .rhlcs (S th exist nor” rr n his agr .m .nt all t th n l w rth a th ompnny.
Muni ipal governm nt can use general obligauo« bonds lO finan <1pit:II IIOJ IS,These bonds are based on the full faith and credit ofthe gOY rnm ‘Ill. 111 lid liti n, the interest paid to the bond holder is usually tax exempt, an I thus, IhI’ Ilt I’ 51 rate on these bonds is low. One problem with bonds of this typ is Ih’ll
Ih ‘y may require a vote of the citizens before they can be issued. . , Municipal government can also use revenue bonds to finance capital prOJCIS,
1\ I’ venue bond is guaranteed by the project. For example, a landfill may b funded by a revenue bond, and the revenue from the landfill (such as tipping fees) WOI II I I ‘used to payoff the bond. Unlike a general obligation bond, these bon Is have m re risk because only the project revenue is pledged-not the full faith and I’edil I’ the municipal government. Thus, these bonds have a higher interes.l rate :\11 I
I’ suit in a higher cost to the municipality. The interest rate is generally still tax 11’\’\’, and thus, the rates are lower than normal bank loans.
One variation to the revenue bond is the ability of private compani ‘S In n cess revenue bond financing through government. This allows a private COllI pany to own the capital project while at the same time use tax-exempt fin(1Il(~ing nd receive a low interest rate. In addition, the private company can deprc 1,11l’
the assets and reduce its tax bill. Many waste-to-energy facilities have been bu iII LIing these bonds. The companies may also receive accelerated deprec~ali.on 1I11d investment tax credits for the project. In 1984, the federal government limited Ill(‘ mount of private projects that could be financed using the tax-exempt bonds:
now solid waste projects must compete with other beneficial projects, such as low ost housing, for this limited amount of funding.
Another complication is that public facilities require not only the capital (<lSI for their construction but also a yearly cost for their operation and maint ‘l1illH (‘ (O&M). The latter are called the O&M costs and includ: such items as s<.I,~r~’S, replacement parts, service, fuel, and the many other costs ll1cu~redby the fa IIIII\’S, Each year the elected body must approve the expenditure, so It can be difficult In guarantee multiyear financing. , ,
Because of the time value of money, estimating the real cost of mu nI Ip,II facilities (such as solid waste collection and disposal operations) can be tricky, Economists and engineers use two techniques to “normalize” the dollars so rluu ” true estimate of the cost of multiyear investment can be calculated. The first Iceil nique is to compare the costs of alternatives on the basis of annual cost, while tll(‘ econd calculates present worth. Both include the capital cost plus the O&M cosr.
9-5-1 Calculating Annual Cost The capital costs of competing facilities can be estimated by calculating th ‘ (‘(lst that the municipality or agency would incur if it were to pay interest on a 10,111 of that amount. Calculating the annual cost of a capital investment is exactly Iii \’ calculating the annual cost of a mortgage on a house. The owner [municipnliry or agency) borrows the money and then has to pay it back in a number of (‘(jII,11 installments.
 

 
Table 9-1 6.125% Compound Int r
Years CRF PWF S
1 1.06125 0.942 1.00000 2 0.54639 1.830 0.48514 3 0.37497 2.666 0.31372 4 0.28941 3.455 0.22816 5 0.23820 4.198 0.17695 6 0.20416 4.898 0.14219 7 0.17993 5.557 0.11868 8 0.16183 6.179 0.10058 9 0.14782 6.764 0.08657
10 0.13667 7.316 0.07452 11 0.12760 7.836 0.06635 12 0.12009 8.326 0.05884 13 0.11378 8.788 0.05253 14 0.10841 9.223 0.04716 15 0.10380 9.633 0.04255
If the owner borrows X dollars and intends to pay back the loan inr: 111’11 III ments at an interest rate of i, each installment can be calculated as
[ i(l + i)n ]¥= X
(1+ i)” -1 where
¥ = the installment cost, $ i = annual interest rate, as a fraction n = number of installments X = the amount borrowed, $
The expression ‘
[ i(1 + i)” ]
(1 + i)” -1 is known as the capital recovery factor or CRF. The capital recovery factor dot- 11111 have to be calculated, since it can be found in interest tables or is programmed 111111 hand-held calculators. Table 9-1 shows the capital recovery factors if the i1111’11 II is 6.125%.
A town wants to buy a refuse collection truck that has an expected life of 10 years. It wants to borrow the $150,000 cost of the truck and pay this back in 10 annual payments. The interest rate is 6.125%. How much are the annual installments on this capital expense?
rom Tabl 9-1,th italrecov ry’f t (C )f rn=10i 0.1 667. The annual cost to the town waul th n b 0.13667 X $150,000 $20,500. That is, the town would hay to pay $20,500 each year f r 10 years to pay back the loan on this truck. Note that this truck do not cost 10 X $20,500 = $205,000, because the dollars for each y are different and cannot be added.
9-5-2 Calculating Present Worth An alternative method for estimating the actual cost of a capital investment is 10 figure present worth: how much one would have to invest right now, Y doll: I’M, at some interest rate i so that one could have available X dollars every year lor ” Y ars. This method is
[1]y- X(1 + i)” where
Y = the amount that has to be invested, $ i = annual interest rate n = number of years X = amount available everyyear, $
The term
[(l~i)”]
is called the present worth factor (PWF).
From Table 9-1, the present worth factor (PWF) for n = 10 is 7.316. Thus, the money required is 7.316 X $20,500 = $150,000.
9-5-3 Calculating Sinking Funds In some situations, the municipality or agency must save money by inv SLing ir so that at some later date a specified sum of the money would b available. In solid waste engineering, this most often occurs when the landfill own r mLiSI invest
 

 
m J)’Y lurln Lh. (ltliv’ III’- 01’till’ l,llldllll HOtil,It, wh ‘II (ii- l,lllt/Ill I. lilli, lilt I are sufficient funds l pia – the final over II 111 • lall IIi/I. ‘LI II funds (1n’IIIII\ II as sinking funds. It is necessary to calculate the Iun Is Y n ssary I b’ iIIY(‘ II Ii III an account that draws i percent interest so that at the end of n ycr rs t11 ‘ 1’1II1I1 II I X dollars in it. The calculation is
[ i Jy- X(1 + i)” – 1 and the term
[(1 + i~n – 1J is known as the sinking fund factor (SFF).
From Table 9-1, the sinking fund factor (SFF) at 10 years is 0.0745/, and the required annual investment is therefore 0.07452 X $500,000 == $37,260.
Note again that lOx $37,260 == $372,600, which is consid I ably less than $500,000. The reason is that the investments durinCJ the early years are drawing interest and adding to the sum availabl \
9-5-4 Calculating Capital PlusO&M Costs Capital investments require not only the payment of the loan in regular ill’/I.III merits but also the upkeep and repair of the facility. The total cost to the ((llllill” nity is the sum of the annual payback of the capital cost plus the operarim. ,11111 maintenance cost.
A community wants to buy a refuse collection vehicle that has all expected life of 10 years and costs $150,000. It chooses to pay bacl the loan in 10 annual installments at an interest rate of 6.125%. The- cost of operating the truck (gas, oil, service) is $20,000 per year. How much will this vehicle cost the community every year?
-rom blc 9·1, h c it I r COy IY I H t ” I I 11 10 i 0.1 66/, th annual cost of the capital inv m I 1 0.13667 x $1 0,000 $20,500. The operating cost is $20,00 , so the total annual cost to the community is $20,500 + $20,000 = $40,500.
-5-5 Comparing Alternatives )11 f the main uses of engineering economics is to fund the lowest-cost so.llI
I on La a community need. The foregoing analysis for a single truck can be applied , Ilia Ily well to alternative vehicles, and the annual costs (capital plus O&M) a 11 h ornpared.
As an alternative to the truck analyzed in Example 9-4, suppose the community can purchase another truck that costs $2?0,000 initially but has a lower O&M cost of $12,000. Which truck will be the most economical for the community?
The annualized capital cost for this truck is 0.13667 X $200,000 == $27,300. Adding the O&M cost of $12,000, the total annual cost to the community is $39,300. Comparing this to the total cost calculated in Example 9-4, it appears that the $200,000 truck is actually less expensive for the community to own and operate.
9-6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Increased technological complexity and population densities have resulted in the identification of a new type of pollutant, commonly called a hazardous substance. The reported incidence of damage to the environment and to p~op~e by ~hes\’ materials has increased markedly in the last few years. The EPA mamtains a list 01 such incidents, and some of the better documented ones have been published. I I
The term hazardous substance or hazardous waste is difficult to define, and YI’I a clear definition is necessary if specialized disposal standards are to be ap~1 il’t! II I such materials. A legal definition” of a hazardous waste suggested by the I~P;\IS
… any waste or combination of wastes of a solid, liquid, co~tained gaseous. or semi-solid form which because of its quantity, concentration, or phYSI- cal chemical, or infectious characteristics, may (1) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or
 

 
in apa il.ling rcvcrsll k 11I1l(‘ss;01’ ( ) p ), (‘ ,I (II) 1.1111,II !ll\’ (‘Ill 01 !lOIl’1I1.iI hazard to blll11al:h alth r th .nvironrn ru wh -n 11111r pcrly 1I'(‘fll~’d,,lilll’d, transported or disposed of. or otherwis manag d.
When deciding whether or not a specific substance is hazs I’dous, I I II I to ~se a set of criteria against which the properties of the mat ri, I ill (jIll’ I 1111 I ?e J,udged. The EPA has defin:d hazardous materials in two ways: (I) Ill(‘ lit. IIlh IS ltsted. as a hazardous material. or (2) the material fails one of six tcst, ill.I’ ill I defin~ It as a hazardous material. The listing includes speci 6 ch IIIie,till ‘1111It 010rmated pesticides, organic solvents, and over 50,000 others. The PI'()(I’ II ~s generally that the EPA lists the material and then waits for a ha II(‘111\1’1111111I m~:rested party. If the interested party conducts tests that show th 1ll.111’11Ii III ~allmg. any of the six tests, it is delisted, making it possible to dispose r 1111’III II I m ordmary landfills. All listed materials must go to specially constru tcd 11,1/,11.11II ~aste landfills or other treatment centers at many times the cost of n 1111,1″.11111111 disposal.
The six tests used to define a hazardous material are given here,
• Radio.~ivity. The stipulation is that the levels of radioactivity not exce d 11101111111I permissible concentration levels as set by the Nuclear Regulatory Com 1111,Nil ItI
• Bioconcentration. This criterion captures many chemicals such as (hl.1I11I1111 hydrocarbon pesticides. •
• Flammability. T~is stand~rd is based on the National Fire Protection Assl III.”,.. test for how easily a certam substance will catch fire and sustain combusth ill
• Reactivity ..Some chemicals, such as sodium, are extremely reactive if brollf~1111111 contact WIth water.
• Toxici~y.The criterion for toxicity is based on LDso (lethal dose 50), or tll,lt tI” at which 50% of the test species (e.g., rats) die when exposed to th(‘ I III till cal through a rou~e other than respiration. Inhalation and dermal to 1111\t ~ext, where LCso.IS the lethal concentration resulting in 50% monulltv 1111 mg a.n .expo~ure ume of 4 hr. Dermal irritation is measured on a Fedcr.rl 11111 Administration scale of 1 to 10. A grade 8 irritant causes necrosis 01 lit. II I wh~n ~ 1~/osolution is applied. Aquatic toxicity is measured by the % II I11II I toxic ~Imlt .o~ le.ss than 1000 mg/liter, although the present EPA critcuou I I aquatic to~Clty I~ set ~t 500 ppm.” Phytotoxicity is the ability to cause flill III ous or tO~ICreactions ~n p.lants based on the mean inhibitory limit of 1000 PIIIII or less. Smce the publication of these criteria, the EPA has lowered its dellil 111111 of phytotoxic poisons to 100 ppm.
• Genetic, Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, and Teratogenic Potential. These arc ,III 111I1 sured by tests developed by the National Cancer Institute.
Note ~at with this system of defining what is and is not hazardous, tl1(‘ .\1tllil quantity of the material is not specified. This is unreasonable when dl:II'”_ tl schemes are to be evaluated.
The mos~ en~ironmentally sound disposal scheme for hazardous 111.11.II” (at any quantity] IS destruction and conversion to nonhazardous substanu-, III ~~ny cases, however, ~his is. either .expensive (e.g., dilute heavy metal ,II1d III ticide wastes) or technically impossible (e.g., some radioactive waste mil1\’II,1I I
Ill’ll1,lllv ,\II. po ,II (1I’111l ,\1’111111111(’11’III ,II IW(‘V’t,IIlO II1IHI Itoll” 1/,.111\ \ \1 w;HHl’iH -tlwl’ tll’,\( , I ( 1 IIH In(‘l’:\(‘d,
1\ wi lcly used 111-iho I or diHj)OII”H (II 11.11.oIl’IOlISwaste SlIhSl:llw’/i l. ,Ih(‘ 1I,\’1.fll’c\OllSwast lan I “I, whi his lIS'(\ to I 1’0VI I’ om I l I ng-t I’m I rote IIOIl II I l\1e q 1 lity of surfac and sub urf, wntcrs I’ 111hazardou w sr d P Sil d
I) th landfill as well as to prevent oth r publi health and environm ntal 11’01- 1(1)1$,’I’ll hazardous waste landfill differs from the ordinary sanitary landfill, pl’in arily in the degree of care taken to ensure minimal environmental ilT’,1a t. :I( y liners, monitoring wells, and groundwater barriers are some of the techn Iqu~s
liS ‘el in such landfills. The overall philosophy is strict segregation from the IWI- I’Onm nt. It should be noted that just as is the case with aboveground storage, su h \.111lfills are usually not strictly disposal schemes, but rather holding operations, ‘I’I’LI disposal is still willed to future generations.
9.7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful Involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or incorn wi Ih r pect to the development implementation, and enforcement of e~~ironm ntal laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has set this goal for all commumtles a.n II r s ns across the United States. The goal will be achieved when everyone enjoys th . arne degree of protection from environmental and health hazards a~d has equal (cess to the decision-making process in the quest for a healthy envlronmen tin
which to live, learn, and work. In the solid waste field, the issue of environmental justice is an important
factor because of the size and potential impact of solid waste facilities, SLI h as landfills, transfer stations, and equipment yards. For example, in 2008, Californi;t adopted Senate Bill 826, which required the adoption of ~tate. minimu~11 st. 11 dards to identify and mitigate environmental justice impacts 10 d~sprop~rtlOnat~’ly affected communities in which solid waste facilities are located, including provid ing advance notice regarding permitting or enforcement and specified mitigat ion
measures. Laws, such as the one passed in California, are needed because of a history or
siting undesirable facilities in communities of color and low wealth. In the ab~ .1: I.’ of action to promote environmental justice, the continued need for new faClIIII(‘S could exacerbate this environmental injustice. I? In one classic case of taking advan tage of less-advantaged people, the town council of Chapel Hill, North Car liuu, made a solemn promise to a minority neighborhood that as soon as the new liln~1 fill to be sited near their homes was full. the town would find another Iocanon In another part of the county and turn the old landfill into a comn:unity parl~. ‘I’h . landfill was finally closed 20 years later (at least 10 years after It was onglllally supposed to have been capped). The new town administration claimed that Ihcs(‘ promises to the neighborhood were null and void because they had no legal ~lan I ing. The members of the present council also argued that they personal~y d lei not make these promises and therefore they should not be bound by promises maclr
by previous town councils!”
 

 
9-8 TH L OF TH LI WA T N IN The .”good old days” in solid waste rnanag III ‘ilL in lud .d OJ) n IlIII1P~ 111.11\ II routinely set on fire. These dumps polluted the groundwr L 1′, I I’ vidcd IlO l.uulli]] gas control, and had unsafe working conditions resulting in I1l1/11rous illillill but all at low cost. While the public liked the low cost for garbag dispo, .il, 1111 were not aware of the many problems these practices caus I. The solid \. I I engineer has been responsible for transforming the industry int a PI'()I\’S’IIIIIIIi field ,:ith best practices. Today, open dumps have been replaced by sanir.u I.lild fills WIth gas-control leachate collection systems. Garbage incinerators II,IVI III III closed, and. modern waste-to-energy plants with state-of-the-art air polhlllllil control ~qUlpment have replaced them. Collection has evolved from I lIll!III’ ,It garbage into a can to a series of recycling bins, yard waste cans, and W.lNII 1111 containers. Household hazardous waste is managed separately from I’ fu:w \ 1111 all of these changes have been beneficial to society and the enviroru m-ru 110 have resulted in an increased cost to the public. Thus, on one hand, II\(” .dll waste engineer is hailed for bringing improvements to solid waste man”!’.l’1I11 lit on the other hand, the engineer is blamed for increasing the cost of sol id “’01 II! management.
To be effective, the solid waste engineer must be competent in (h 1′(‘.. 11, I technology, regulations, and publ ic communications. These three areas it rl~1111III three legs on a stool. Without all three the stool will fall over.
. Tec~rlOlogy in t~e solid waste field is constantly evolving. For example, III \ lan.d.fi.lI hners are bemg developed for different applications. Materials 11’1″ I’ fac~lltles are being ~eengineered to process different types of waste streams. 1\111″11 lution control equipment has become so extensive that it can be larger <lilt! 111111 complex than the actual furnace in a waste-to-energy facility.
.. Regulations become more stringent and complex every year. Regulation I’ I tamm.g to solid waste management are issued by federal, state, regional, ,11111I”, II agenoes. In many cases, regulations from various agencies conflict with e;t<11,,1″ I For example, landfills must have caps that restrict the infiltration of water illi” III landfill, but at the same time, landfills must have gas extraction wells 111,11I’ I etrate the cap and could allow for the infiltration of surface water into the 1.ll1t/lill
Communication is integrally important in solid waste engineering. Tlu: , “11 neer ,?ust be able to communicate with the public and at the same time It”\,, lit te~mcal and regulatory knowledge to develop effective solid waste SYSlCl1lS”tli engineer cannot convey that information to the public, including such dl’l 1’111t makers. as elected officials, then projects will not be implemented. For (,X.I” ‘I III an engineer must be able to explain what it means when a health risk aSS(‘HI1IIIII determines that the waste-to-energy plant results in a 37 in one million im u I I II risk of cancer. 14
. Integrated solid waste management services and supporting faciliri, .., I, their very nature, are public facilities and services. The public will use 1111’111, the~, and be af~ected by them. Because of the public nature of these faci IiIII”, .11 ” services, the solid waste engineer cannot forget that it is the elected offiri.il-, \ IIt represent the public. Thus, those decisions that impact the public are best m.uI, II an informed elected official. More than one solid waste engineer has had ,I ’41’1ill
1111(‘(‘1′ Iw< aUHl’ (Iii’ ‘IIf 1111′(‘1IlIp,u( whuru 1111′(l111t1 (’11′((l’d III 111.11(. 11\(‘ ,,111111,1((, II ‘( I, ion.
..9 FINAL THOUGHTS
‘I’ll;’ ivility of our society depends on all of us agreeing to abide by good marin .rs. IIlgh m ral standards, and the law of the land. Given the choice, we all w~lIld w.int LO live in a society where everyone agrees to abide by these cony nu ns II’ use doing so benefits everyone. This argument is applicable to professi nal (‘ngi neering as well. To help maintain a viable engineeri~g professio~, we sh .lIlt! I -monstrate good professional manners ourselves, and If the occasion requir ‘S,
.1 lrnonish others for boorish behavior. We should act as role models in can luct I1g ngineering on a high moral level and promote such behavior in oth rS.I\I\,1
without doubt, we should not become criminals. In short, we all have a responsi I ility to uphold the honor of professional engineering and to create a culture w’ .111desire and in which we can all flourish.
But there is a larger question of why any of us should act in such a way. That I ” if we find that having bad manners, or acting immorally, or even breaking a law Is advantageous to us individually, why should we (at any given moment) nOll/({ In a manner that we would not necessarily want others to emulate?
The obvious answer to that question is that we don’t want to get caught an I suffer the consequences. Bad manners would subject us to ridicule; immoral con- duct might cause us to be ostracized by others, or we might lose clients and busi- n ss; and, of course, breaking a law might result in a fine or jail time. But consid I’ now the possibility that we would not get caught and could not suffer any adverse onsequences. Of course, we never know for sure that we will nO.t get caught. but
for the sake of argument, let’s assume this extreme case. We have It all figured ut, t nd it simply is impossible for us to get caught being ill-mannered, immoral, or illegal. Why should we, all things considered, still act as honorable engineers, eSI ‘ ially if doing so might involve financial cost to us or in some other way cause us
harm? The answer comes in three parts. First, we are all members of a larger community-in this case, the engin r-
ing community-and we all benefit from this association. Actin~ in a manner that brings harm or discredit to this community cannot be beneficial to u.s Jl1 the long run. Granted, the destruction of professional engineering may be far mto the future, and our small antisocial act would not be enough to destroy the profes- sion. But we (along with all our contemporaries) have an obligation to uphold the integrity of the profession, eventually for our own good. Engineers should act honorably because the profession depends on them to do so. ..
Second, the antisocial act-even though we might get away WIth It-takes something out of us. There are circumstances where it clearly is better.to lie than to tell the truth (such as saving an innocent life, for example), but all lies come at a cost to the teller. IS There is, as it were, a reservoir of good in each human, and this can be nibbled away one justified lie at a time until the person is incapable or differentiating between lying and being truthful. This would also be true for bad manners and illegal acts. Every time we get away with something, we reduce our
 

 
WI) stan Illig (IS henorahlc hUI1Hll1 be IlH’. 11,111\ ‘/4 1\1\ 11lIllllUI!\l’lil ‘Ill 11I’I’dll reduces our own standing as I r (“88iol1:118,
Finally, the reason for not being antis i, I, ‘v ’11assumlng w ‘ ‘oliid 11’1,11′,1\ with it, is that eventually our conscience waul III l stand for it. W’ all hav ‘.1 1111\ science within us that tells us the difference betwe n right an I wr ng. Mo. I I Ii II when we do antisocial things, know we are behaving badly and vcntuull 11’1\111 such actions.”
But if by telling lies and becoming a scoundrel one gains matcriul!v \ ·11\ would this be an undesirable result? If an engineer ran an engin ‘rilll-\ 1’1,11Iii I where she made it a habit to lie to clients, why is this detrimental? Why will 1″‘1 II lies (lies that one continues to get away with) necessarily be a bad thing?
The truth is that engineers who behave without regard to mann rs, 11101,11-,11\ laws will eventually cause harm to themselves. They will lose clients, th ir UIIIIIIIII will cause their works to fail, and they will have a bad conscience tha t will 1111.1111I them. They will eventually think poorly of their own standing in the prok- 11111 and regret their self-serving actions that may have been ill-mannere I, inum u.r] or illegal.
So why be a good engineer? We might get caught if we don’t b havr 111111 orably; we have a common responsibility to the professional engineering 111111 munity; we lose something of our own integrity when we behave badly; ,’11i1\ have a conscience. But what if, in the face of these arguments, we sti 1’1,III 11111 convinced? There appear to be no knock-down ethical arguments avail.ihh III make us change the mind of a person set on behaving badly. We have the Illllll,ul option to act in any way we wish. But if we have bad manners, act i rnnu u ,t! II or break the laws, we are not behaving honorably, and eventually, we will I. harmed by our regrets for acting in this manner. That is, such behavior will. tI \ ,” result in harm to us as professional engineers.
While the Viking society of northern Europe was in many ways (1’111’1,lilt! crude, the Vikings had a very simple code of honor. Their goal was to liv« Ilu II lives so that when they died, others would say “He was a good man.” ‘l’lu- d. II nition of what they meant by a “good man” might be quite different hy 11111 temporary standards, but the principle is important. If we live our profcssruu.rl engineering lives so as to uphold the exemplary values of engineering, the 1′,11,II est professional honor any of us could receive would be to be remembered ,I I good engineer.
9-10 EPILOGUE
Well, dear reader, you have made it to the end of the book. The authors, will: 11\I I 80 years of experience in solid waste management between them, have llild ItI share with you their collective knowledge. For some of you, the only future’ Illhl waste practice will be taking out the garbage. If that is the case, at least YOII \ III know that it does not just disappear when it goes into that truck. For othci ‘I, I1I1 introduction may lead to a career in some aspect of solid waste management 1111 those readers, your journey is just beginning.
1. I3rUl111r, p, II., and W. It Ernst, 1( SG, “Alt rnativ M th Is for the Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste.” Waste Management and Research 4:155.
“Life Cycle Analysis Measures Greenness, but Results May Not Be Black and White.” 1991. Wall Street Journal (28 February).
Solano, E., R. D. Dumas, K. W. Harrison, S. Ranjithan. M. A. Barlaz, and E. D. Brill. “Integrated Solid Waste Management Using a Life- Cycle Methodology for Considering Cost, Energy, and Environmental Emissions- 2. Illustrative Applications.” Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University.
4. Hocking, M. B. 1991. “Paper versus Polystyrene: A Complex Choice.” Science 251, 1 (February).
5. Worrell, W. A. 1999. The San Diego, California Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility: Technological Success, Political Failure. R’99 Recovery, Recycling, Reintegration Proceeding, Volume 1. Gallon, Switzerland: EMPA.
6. Waste News 5, Issue 38 (February 7, 2000).
7. County of San Diego Privatization Study. 1991. Deloitte and Touche and R. W. Beck (October 16).
8. The Local Government Guide to Solid Waste Competitive Service Delivery. 1995. Public Technology Ine.
9. Biering, R. A. 1999. “The Art of Saying ‘No’ or Bambi Meets Godzilla.” Proceedings WasteCon 1999. Solid Waste Association of North America.
10. The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 12, 2000.
11. Wentz, e. A. 1989. Hazardous Waste Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
12, Blackman, W. e. 1993. Basic Hazardous Waste Management. Boca Raton, Fla: Lewis Publishers.
I La .rega, M. “p, L. Hu I lngluuu, Evans. 1994. J tazardou: WIISIItv/II New York: McGraw-llill Puhll, III
14. Health Risk Assessmenl, fa’/’ rill’ UlwlIl Recovery Facility Boner Nil, t . 1989. Department of Solid W.I Management, Dacle ounty, 1,’11 Malcome Pirnie (May),
15. Bok, S. 1978. Lying: Moral 0;(111’1′ and Private Life. N w York: P.111
16. Pritchard, M. 1991. On /3>;118 HI’.I/’III/l Lawrence, Kans.: University 1>1i’1l,I
17. Norton, J. M., S. Wing, II, r. I.lp/H Jay S. Kaufman, St phcn W, MI and A. J. Cravey. una ” Wr.dllt, and Solid Waste Fa ili[i(’11III NI Carolina.” Environrn ural l lc.r] Perspectives. Septem b r 00’1,
18. Azar, S. 1998. The Proposer! lillllllll Landfill: The Ramifications OJ’11 Broken Promise. Senior IndCIh’1I Study. Durham, N.e.: Duke University Department of’ Civil Environmental Engine ri Ill’,
19. Winzeler, R., P. Hofer, and Moil, Towards Sustainable Was/,e tv/I/I/II in Municipal Solid Was/.e ‘i/’I’IIIIIII ChI. Ludwig, S. Hellweg, S, Sill Springer, 462-513.
20. Brunner, P. H., and H. Rechhcu; 2003. Practical Handbook oj’ fI/ Flow Analysis (Advanced M’lit Resource & Waste Managcuu-:
2l. Hellweg, S., G. Doka, G. Finuvcdru K. Hungerbuhler, 2003. “1′:col(lH Which Technologies Perform 11(‘/1 Municipal Solid Waste Mallll,\(I’IIII’i/ e. Ludwig, S. Hellweg, and S, SII Springer, 350-404.
22. Stucki, s..c. Ludwig, and j, WIll II 2003, “The Diversity or MUll\( I Solid Waste,” in: Munici/lill Soli Waste Management, Eels. C. lur] Hellweg, and S. Stucki, SprilllW
 

 
The Zero Waste Approach to Resour Management
Richard Anthony Zero Waste International Alliance
www.zwia.org
The genesis of the Zero Waste movement comes from the realization that diSt .1111101 materials are resources. These resources have been manufactured from a raw ‘11.11 with energy and labor. In the cases of metal and oil they are irreplaceabJ . Thr V.tlil of that energy and labor is still in the commodity, even after the user has dis :1111″1111
A Zero Waste system is a resource management system. The process of IV.I~I ing resources is against nature. In a Zero Waste system everything has a pl.I; I before, during, and after use. There is no away. In the best-designed system, III mantling or demanufacturing would be designed into the product. Th sv: Ii III of extraction, manufacturing, use, and disposal to incinerators or landf II wi II III replaced with systems that capture the materials and recycle them into a (Ie 11111 loop system of reuse, repair, recycle/compost, and redesign. Raw materials will It. used as reserves.
This is called the “closed circle economy,” and the analysis is called a ”\ I.ldlt to cradle” design. The recognition that disposal by burning and landfill wi II 11’.11’1 a legacy of depletion and pollution for our children will provide the basis rOI III \ analysis and new rules. These new rules will recognize the right of future A(‘lll 1.\ tions to the planet’s resources and will discourage wasteful and polluting pra. III I
DEFINITION OF ZERO WASTE
Toward the development of these new rules, The Zero Waste International All i,I1I11 (www.zwia.org) has peer reviewed and approved of the following definitiou III Zero Waste.
“Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical, efficient, and vision.u V to guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustain able natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to becouu: resources for others to use.”
“Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste alld materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them.”
“Irnplci ‘nllnlJ, /,,( 1’0 W III will (1lllllllal’ nil lis h, I’g ‘8 to Inn~I,wnt ‘1’, I’ if that ar < Ihl'(‘, I l I I n tary. hum, I, anlrnr I r pl: nl h alth.
ERO WASTE AND GLOBAL WARMING
\” ndfills are one ofthe largest sources of greenhouse gases (c.HGs) in an~ ~()~)\, nit Accordin to the USEPA, on a pound per pound baSIS the corn: ,\I,)\IV!
mum y. f h g climate change is 28 to 36 times greater than carbonImpact 0 met ane on . . ., I’ , lioxid r a lOO-year period (see Chapter 7). In most California CIty S 1111.\\\ I XI e ove . . ., (t· en \1\(1 I th landfill is among the top three GH G-emlttmg entitles Ia ”
~< ~l~~ ro:nd out the top three). In 2014, California Air ~esource Board ,(Ci\IUI) fficials recommended that compostabJe organic matenals be :nanag I wltl)
( robic and anaerobic digestion technologies. A NASA photo (Figure I) shnw: methane hovering over the north and south poles of Earth.
F· 2 hich shows a “waste berg,” illustrates that there are 71 lOll.igure ,w f ., I’ II I “upstream” of wasted materials and energy for every 1 ton 0 murucrpa so (
Figure 1 NASA photo showing the location of methane in the atmosphere. Source: GISS, NASA.
Figure 2 Waste berg. Source: adike/Shutterstock.com.
 

 
wast dis ard ‘d. Thus s 1I1′((‘~ Il’ III 11011 PIOW’\llI” III I only %nll1,\I’ 111\111 111111 solid waste, they also elirninat signif ant upstr “1111 wa ! ‘CJ Ill. I ‘rial. nd (’11(”1′
If every discard in California was re ycl d I’ rnp Sl d. th ss vin] S wouh] III the equivalent of eliminating all auto exhaust in California (ErA wast AS~WSNllillll Model). In 2011 California passed legislation establishing a 75% I’ du rlou f\II\I and recommending to cities that source separation be required.
ZERO WASTE COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES
The Zero Waste movement is becoming increasingly prevalent in the till II d States, but, New Zealand and Japan were the first nations to come up with 11111 Waste campaigns. Today cities all over the world have adopted Z 1’0 W” ill goals. These include San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, 0 ‘nll.~ldl and San Luis Obispo and dozens more in California. Other cities around 1111 United States include Fort Collins, Colorado; Austin, Texas; and Chicago, 1111111 II International examples include over 66% of New Zealand cities; Buen s Alii Argentina; 400+ cities in Italy; Nagoya, Japan; and Vancouver, Canada.
In the business sector, Zero Waste is a cost-cutting and efficiency I I(Wilill tied into international management policies. Hundreds of businesses are :111111 ing 90% diversion from disposal at landfills and/or incinerators. New illll’lIl’ tional measurements are being developed by Quality Control Rating $(‘1 Vii I (Underwriter Laboratories, UL). Today companies like Walmart, Toyota, SII II I Nevada Brewery, Frito-Lay, Vons/Safeway. and hundreds of other have adopll II sustainability plans that call for Zero Waste practices.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Different from the Integrated Waste Management approach, the Zero W,I I approach considers all discarded resources as commodities. Unwanted dis. .url can be separated at the source, stored separately, separately collected, pro: ,’VII Ii and sent to markets for reuse and recycling/composting. Ninety percent oj 11111 daily discards could be managed this way in a community collection program Iltl handling of the residual (less than 10%) can be discussed in the public f01’l111I 1111 whether to require a product redesign or local ban.
There are five basic principles that are the pillars of the Zero Waste appro.u It
• The first prinicple is that resources are finite. The process of wasting resources is against nature. Therefore the ultimate opl III is to control population and recycle resources to survive. Because the 1111111 III species is driven to survive, the reasons and the answers can be seen in 11,111111 Where there are limits in materials and space, contradictions to the flow of’ 11,11111 are obvious.
• The second principle is that there is no away. The notion of Zero Waste is as much as a principle of survival for the hum.u I “I” cies as it is a matter of fact in nature. A close examination of natural systems 1″\ I ,II
II ‘II (el11l1 ‘I H’d 10 ‘V’I 111111\ (‘I I’, 11m!IlIl’l” Is WI IIII WII II 1111.\1 IIrc, ,vI I ‘”I ‘” f 1 II’ 1111 ‘Il’ \I
• ‘ \ .’ J •• \ to k Wh ‘\I Ih ‘ I 1.11I ‘I S, 11 ,I ,I I P.v .ry (JIS (11’0 I~ ‘1″1 11 1 I I ‘)11′ pi I’ I )/(ll’lll )/V(‘I lhlng that is S ‘111, way I11l1HII-\0 • pt ,I h ran ‘no .1W,lY ( ,. ,I S 1TI pi ,
. ” d lluti n rob th fuuir of res urt’. • ‘I’h third principle IS that today s wasting an P
the t future generations will need.. burni nd landfilling of th ash may hr gv n though disposal by l~ndf~llm~or I u:~n~/depletion and pollution ~ I’ our
~t effecti:le l
und:rd t°thdaeYbsa~s 7~r n:we!Iles. These new rules will recogn iz 1II l’h ildren WI proVl e future’s right to the planet’s resources and will discourage waste.
• The fourth principle is highes; and b.eslt~:t involves the highest and best LIS’ or There is a hierarchy of use 0 maten~ :esources This hierarchy includ s I’ durr. materials in the areas of energy an ‘. d ti Th “three
h li includes repair an compos mg. .reuse, and recycle, were recyc mg. f R’ th “three R’s” (I’ ducc, , /I d ch II tion prevenuon. The nst m e
R s are use to tea po u ducti or the area of discard manag I))CI\! reuse, and recycle) refers to source ~e ucnon. d Th “three Its” are t( ugh:
k .ng and smgle-use pro ucts. e that addresses overpac agi h duct design can lead to decreasing was: ” ~o~s:;:~: ~~ed::~::~~~~ t~~::~der buying products that can be reus ‘LI,
repaired, recycled, and composted.
• ~~~:~e~2~~;:eiSt:::~~a~~ris s~;rc~i:~:~ti~y~~ems that place ~ispos~ld ~~ , ibility on the manufacturers and encourages them to. redeSign pi . II ,
rcsponsi . . . ard mana ement service provider, whether gov- for recyclable .abillty. The disc. d :ed to collect source-separated mat rial
t or private contractor, IS man a d I’
~;::::e~early la~eled antd ctohnaVte:~~;:~rtIOp~~t~!sst~~~g;ei~;~~:~:St:~~ ma:~I~;1 them to processmg cen ers ” als back into the use system.
RESOURCE USE . d livin standards increase, world resources are Usel I
As the world populatlOn an g f tho . creasing demand on the remaillinJ.l at increased rates as well. The imp.act 0 lISIn d metals-and its biodiv rsit
I ‘s finit sources-hke petro eum anof the p anet s im e re . 1 di t the depletion or these of animals birds, flowers, fish, and trees-Is ea mg o. .
‘. h . d I l’ and in some cases, extmctlOn. resources leading to t err ep e lbon k T’h Limits to Growth shows poululaiiou
F e 3 from the 1972 00, e ‘ . Iigur , the ear 2000 the lines cross, showing I II’ growth ~rom 1900 to 21.00. N~~ whXe resourc~s are depleted. This projc tion popula~on of the planet m~~easl ?lls and factories in India and China are using is a reality today; new rec:c mg rru the resources become depleted an 11\1 ‘ Western ~iscards as ~aten~l fee~st~~~~ ~scards increases as well. The moneta: y ~:::::~ :~~:~~:er:~c~e~a;:t:rials market is 100 times higher than what it wn:
in 1970.
 

 
tate or rh ‘ Wol’id
1900 2000 YOU ARE HERE
2]00
Figure 3 Relationship between population and resouces.
GREENHOUSE GAS AND OTHER POLLUTION REDUCTION
Table 1 shows the reductions in energy use, air pollution, water pollutio n, I II I II “I waste, and water use when recycled resources are substituted for virgin material- III the case of aluminum, no new bauxite has to be mined and added to the alunil 111111\ melt to recycle it into another product. Today, steel is the most recycled rnci.rl
Table 1, which was created by the United States Environmental Proux Iii III Agency (EPA), is the basis of the Waste Assessment Model. For each corruumlln the reduction by recycling in energy use, air pollution, water pollution, 1111111111 waste, and water use is given.
The Zero Waste approach to managing resources considers the Earth’s 111’1.\ and demand for these materials and the energy and greenhouse gas savings Iii II occur when discards are managed as commodities.
ZERO WASTE MANAGEMENT
Today, whether it’s your home, your business, or your community, there arc h.1 I. approaches to handling discards. The Zero Waste approach looks at discards, 11,,111 upstream and downstream of what some would call the waste stream. Efforts to Ii ·,1111.
Table 1 Pollution, Energy, and Waste Reductions with Recycling
Aluminum Steel Paper (,Ii ——–
Energy Use 90-97% 47-74% 23-74% .t1 I’ Air Pollution 95% 85% 74% (I’ Water Pollution 97% 76% 35% Mining Wastes 99% 97% 1111 Water Use •. 40% 58% ‘III
1111 ,II ‘,\111 )/ II. 1,lIdl’d 111111 ‘11111. “‘llll”1l1l ‘111 -I HI 11111111,1. ‘tllHlli. – (111’.11 ‘,1111, ()I Ill’ ‘V ‘1111011) I’ ,11’1’1′ tI.I’ ( IOWI1 trcam. ‘lid 01 P,P’ OJ I” very). 111 )111 ‘l’.w.{)l’ds, Ill’ ‘/, ‘1’0 W SL (PI roach III “I nn the I I’ V ‘nli )1\ or wu tc an l thc 1″ V ‘I’Y 01 hs ards.
UI str am I I”.v ‘Illi )11I I’ grams in I rdc III G Ilowing:
• I n Production • ‘Ih goal of the final product is that the manufacturing of product will not hurt
the product, the profit, and the planet (triple bottom line). Factory manag I’S ill” I’ sponsible for not incurring additional cost by creating and disposing of waste and/or toxic materials.
• Product Redesign • If any of the triple bottom-line parameters (actions that hurt product, plan I, or
profit) are exceeded, the product needs to be redesigned. In our energy-con ious economy, the product must be repairable and/or recyclablejcompostabl • (111(\ there will be no toxins used or created by the process that cannot be reused and recycled by the manufacturer.
• Product Stewardship • A company takes pride in its products and creates sustainable materials b ‘(Jus’
is the right thing to do for the planet. In the past, product stewar~shlp ‘::1S voluntary, but today companies are being required to take the lead III making their products and packages conform to international requirements.
Downstream recovery programs focus on capturing commodities at the poi nI of discard.
• Reuse materials should be handled through box truck collection and drop-off centers, where materials can be evaluated for reuse and repair. If not reusable and repairable, materials are dismantled into the basic recycling categories. All reusable and durable goods should be collected separately and processed as commodities.
• Composting compostable organics is the basic way of handling organic discards. These materials can be collected as yard trimmings and food scraps and cornposted in the back yard and/or collected separately and sent to farms and facilities tha: have composting and anaerobic digestion capabilities. The result will be healthy farms with less water and petrochemical demands and no local, human-created sources of leachate and methane emissions from the landfill.
• All containers and paper products must be recycled. These containers include metal, glass, paper, and plastic.
• Resource recovery parks are the new transfer stations where commodity clusters can be collected separately and then transferred to the processing facilities. Spe ial discards like rocks and wood have recovery areas at these parks.
MARKET CATEGORIES
All discards can be sorted into the following 12 market categories. The percentage of each of the above market categories in the discard~ v~ries
by community. Figure 4 is a typical composition of these market categones III (I community’s discards.
 

 
Note: t ialjo] LIi.- I,> Is rganlc MII/I’iI,,1 ,””/(fI!J/(J jl)r C:()l/If)()S(/II.~
Reuse 3%
Polymers Textiles 11%
4% Ceramics
2%
Plant Debris 10%
Figure 4 Market categories.
The following are the twelve market categories: l. Reus~ble are materials that can be reused, repaired, and lor dismantled I1I1
recycling. 2. Paper incl~d~s cardboard, newspaper, writing paper, tissues, and towels 3. Plant debris mcludes all yard trimmings. 4. Putres~ible are food scraps and organics that putrefy 5. Wood m~udes painted and unpainted, although some painted wood
problematic because of lead based paint. 6. Ceramics are rocks, concrete, and asphalt. 7. Glass includes containers but not leaded glass. 8. Polymers are plastic and can be sorted into resin codes for high /I’, •.tlt
value. 9. Soil includes dirt.
10. Metal i~dudes ferrous magnetic metals like steel and iron and nonk-u, III metals like copper, aluminum, brass, gold, ete.
11.Textiles are reusable but in a class of their own and include cloth .uu] woolen natural fibers as well as synthetic fibers.
12. Chemicals are hazardous when disposed of but can by recycled {Ol I111 ther use.
~ach of the materials in the~e categories has a positive monetary value. (:11’1111 ~or this system ~fma.rket categones must be given to Dr. Dan Knapp ofUrb:lII I lie m Berkeley, California.
MAS R A )fl 11, wh n p ‘opll’ III11I1′.1I11t’ .as hay dis ards, ih iy try (0 LISall OflllcII”llo(h (he
Sl nd distan inv lvc I iI r moval and th saving and pra ti 31 us’ or I”sour’s ar k y drivers. Typically r usable products are taken to the hur h or (I 31 harity or given to the family and neighbors for reuse and repair (reuse). Ex ss ~ ad go’s ( ‘family, workers, neighbors, animals, and ultimately the land (compost). BOlli’s ( nd cans can are a problem but are used for storing material and ultimately re y led at rural transfer stations (recycling). Paper and wrappers are burned as fuel. I ial liscards like pesticide containers must be hauled away.
Based on practical experience in marketing commodities, in a Zero WnSI’ system, discards should be sorted into four clusters, reusable and repairable prod ucts. recyclable materials, compostable organics, and landfill (for legacy and bad Iy designed materials). Containers can be varied and different colors. As of 20 11, tate-of-the-art programs use wheel carts for storage and collection. Thes v.IlY
in size. The blue cart (recycle) is for paper and containers (paper, metals, glass, and
polymers). The comingled four commodities can be sorted with magnets and Irand sorters at a materials recovery facility (MFR), baled, and sold.
The organic cart should be green and can collect food, vegetative debris, dirty paper, paper, plant debris, putrescibles, wood, and soil. The corninglcd organic commodities are taken to a composting facility to be processed into soil.
Discarded items, sometimes called bulky waste or items set out for charily pickup, need to be collected in a box truck and taken to a warehouse for further sorting. These materials include furniture, appliances, clothing, toys, tools, reus able goods, and textiles. This collection can be made on call.
Transfer stations and landfills need to be converted to resource recov .ry parks to handle self-hauled loads and special discards. These materials in ludc chemicals, construction and demolition materials, wood, ceramics, soils, an I, ill case of self-hauled reuse, recycle and compost categories.
CLUSTERS AND FACILITIES
Table 2 shows the facilities needed for each cluster. Reusable materials need a warehouse for sorting and dismantling. 1\1\
unloading area, baler, and loading dock are necessary. Recycling materials need a materials recovery facility (MFR).This facility takes
in comingled containers and papers and with magnets, lasers, blowers, and hand sorting creates bales for global markets. Many MRFs are completely hand-sorted.
Compostable materials need land for grinding the materials, trorn 111l’1 sorting, windrowing the material, wetting the materials, and turning the soil I()r aerobic composting. CO2 and soil are the products. In an anaerobic system Ill\’ material is reduced without air and creates methane, which is extracted for reuse. The final digestate needs to be composted and stabilized and can be used as a soil amendment.
 

 
T bl Commodl y nd Job of I w Facilties
—-~.——–.- Market PriceRecyclables: Construction nd M rket Categories Jobs Tons per Year $IT (est.)containers made Papers, plastic, glass and metal contain- Demolition (C and D): metals, glass, ers (Materials Recovery Facility, MRF) Rock, soils, concr l , 1. Reuse 350 28,000 550
Organics: asphalt, brick, I nd 2. Paper 65 370,000 20 Food, vegetable debris, and food clearing debris, nd 3. Plant Trimmings 30 100,000 7
letative debris, food paper, putrescibles, untreated wood mixed construction 4. Putrescibles 85 190,000 7 er, paper, plant and sheetrock [Composting or and demolition 5. Wood 24 40,000 4 trescibles, wood Anaerobic Digestion (AD)) materials (Sorting 6. Ceramics 7 20,000 4
:lucts: Reuse & Repair: and Grinding) 7. Soils 20 10,000 7 appliances, Reuse, repair, dismantling, Regulated Materials: 8. Metals 35 60,000 40
:oys, tools, reconditioning, remanufacturing, Used motor oil, paint, 9. Glass 75 30,000 10 :::Joods,textiles manufacturing and resale of furniture, pesticides, cleaners, 10. Polymers 1,020 110,000 100 ;ards: large and small appliances, electronics, and other chemicals 11. Textiles 340 40,000 200 s, construction and textiles, toys, tools, metal and ceramic (Reuse, Take Back, 12. Chemicals 4 2,000 15 n materials, wood, plumbing, fixtures, lighting, lumber and and HHW Disposal) Total 2,055 1,000,000soils other used building materials
(Repair and Dismantling)
Construction and Demolition (C and D) material can be as much ,I’ one-third of all discards disposed of at a landfill. Comingled C and D materials c.u be sorted on a belt to recover metal, wood, and rock.
Toxic materials need to be taken back to manufacturers or collected and safely packed for proper disposal.
REVENUE AND JOBS FROM DISCARDS
To estimate the value of discards, take the annual tons disposed of at the landfi II and/or incinerator and apply the percentages in the pie chart (Figure 4). You call look at local studies to see if there is a waste characterization analysis. These studies typically sort samples of discards in 75 or more categories. These can be combined into the 12 market categories.
Once the annual amounts of materials discarded by category are calculated, their value can be estimated. The value of baled material is based on official pub lished market prices. These prices are posted in market journals, newsletters, and Internet sites. The price for finished compost is used for organic materials.
There is a collection and processing cost for discards, but when compared to the cost of polluting (landfill and incineration), these materials have net positive end value. Table 3 shows the market values for each commodity class. One-third of the value is from reusable materials. This is a good illustration of why we should manage these materials away from landfills. Other commodities like paper, metal, and polymers have a global value as well.
t I V lu of Disc’ rd In D lawar ($)
15,400,000 7,400,00
700,000 1,330,000
320,000 80,000 70,000
2,400,000 300,000
11,000,00 8,000,000
30,000
47,030,000
The Washington, D.C. based Institute for Local Self Reliance has calculated the number of jobs created in the processing of discards. The Institute claims that, on average, one job could be created for every 10,000 tons disposed of at the landfill or incinerator. For the one million tons listed in Table 3, there was nearly $50,000,000 was lost annually to the landfill and more than 2000 potential jobs.
Table 3 shows the value of commodities in terms of revenue and job rc ations. The value of a ton of baled paper, metal, and polymers (plastic) is a global price and is basically the same worldwide. Reusable and organic materials arc locally used products. The value and amount of labor used for reuse and repair varies because labor rates are different around the world.
RESIDUALS
After all the commodities are recovery, less than 10% of discards remain and arc considered residuals. Diapers often comprise as much as 6% of residuals. Diapers are a product that should be redesigned so that they would no longer be unrecover able. Counties, cities, and joint powers agencies have the power to make rules ill the name of health and safety. Products like diapers should be compostable.
Residuals also include composite packaging material, wrappers, and legacy waste like lead painted wood. Some of this waste can be redesigned, and the remainder can be buried in a secure landfill with no unprocessed organics mixed in. The goal would be in the future to find a use for all discards so that residuals could be eliminated.
 

 
Table 2
Construction and Demolition (C and D) material can be as much .1. one-third of all discards disposed of at a landfill. Comingled C and D materia Is , .111 be sorted on a belt to recover metal, wood, and rock.
Toxic materials need to be taken back to manufacturers or collected .uu] safely packed for proper disposal.
Clusters
Recyclables: Paper and containers made of paper, metals, glass, polymers
Organics: Food, vegetative debris, food dirty paper, paper, plant debris, putrescibles, wood
Reused Products: Furniture, appliances, clothing, toys, tools, reusable goods, textiles
Special Discards: Chemicals, construction and demolition materials, wood, ceramics, soils
Facilties
Recyclables: Papers, plastic, glass and metal contain- ers (Materials Recovery Facility, MRF)
Organics: Food, vegetable debris, and food paper, putrescibles, untreated wood and sheetrock [Composting or Anaerobic Digestion (AD))
Reuse & Repair: Reuse, repair, dismantling, reconditioning, remanufacturing, manufacturing and resale of furniture, large and small appliances, electronics, textiles, toys, tools, metal and ceramic plumbing, fixtures, lighting, lumber and other used building materials (Repair and Dismantling)
Construction nd Demolition (C nd D):
Rock, soils, con r I., asphalt, brick, I nd clearing debris, L n f mixed constructi 11 and demolition materials (Sortin and Grinding)
Regulated Materials: Used motor oil, p 1111, pesticides, clean r , and other chemicals (Reuse, Take Back, and HHW Disposal)
REVENUE AND JOBS FROM DISCARDS
To estimate the value of discards, take the annual tons disposed of at the landlill and/or incinerator and apply the percentages in the pie chart (Figure 4). You, .111 look at local studies to see if there is a waste characterization analysis. These studirn typically sort samples of discards in 75 or more categories. These can be combined into the 12 market categories.
Once the annual amounts of materials discarded by category are calculated, their value can be estimated. The value of baled material is based on official pull lished market prices. These prices are posted in market journals, newsletters, anti Internet sites. The price for finished compost is used for organic materials.
There is a collection and processing cost for discards, but when compared Ii I the cost of polluting (landfill and incineration), these materials have net positive end value. Table 3 shows the market values for each commodity class. One-third “I the value is from reusable materials. This is a good illustration of why we should manage these materials away from landfills. Other commodities like paper, metal, and polymers have a global value as well.
, II Commodl y tlm
M rk t Pri Market Categories Jobs Tons per Year $/T ( t.)
1. Reuse 350 28,000 5 0 2. Paper 65 370,000 20 3. Plant Trimmings 30 100,000 7 4. Putrescibles 85 190,000 7 5. Wood 24 40,000 4 6. Ceramics 7 20,000 4 7. Soils 20 10,000 7 8. Metals 35 60,000 40 9. Glass 75 30,000 10
10. Polymers 1,020 110,000 100 11. Textiles 340 40,000 200 12. Chemicals 4 2,000 1
Total 2,055 1,000,000
The Washington, D.C. based Institute for Local Self Rcli.u« ( the number of jobs created in the processing of discards. ‘I’ll ‘ Illslll on average, one job could be created for every 10,000 tOII,~Ii , I landfill or incinerator. For the one million tons listed in ‘I’ahlc I, II $50,000,000 was lost annually to the landfill and more than )()()()
Table 3 shows the value of commodities in terms of f(‘v(‘111 ations. The value of a ton of baled paper, metal, and polymers (I)1.1 price and is basically the same worldwide. Reusable and (llg.1I1 locally used products. The value and amount of labor used I()I I varies because labor rates are different around the world.
RESIDUALS
After all the commodities are recovery, less than 10% of disr.ud: I considered residuals. Diapers often comprise as much as GOA, 01 II’. are a product that should be redesigned so that they would no 1011111′ able. Counties, cities, and joint powers agencies have the pOW!’1 II the name of health and safety. Products like diapers should be (()Il
Residuals also include composite packaging material, wl”‘PI waste like lead painted wood. Some of this waste can be rnll’, remainder can be buried in a secure landfill with no unprocessed in. The goal would be in the future to find a use for all discards, I could be eliminated.
 

 
SUMMARY
The elements of a Zero Waste system in Iud:
1. Producers taking responsibility for the impact of ih ir produ L ( n 111. t’lll’l ronment.
2. Producers designing products for the environment. 3. Clean production systems at factories that create neither wast d 111.111’11.11
nor toxic discharges. 4. Retail stores taking back products that are not recyclable or mpost.ihl. 5. Consumers purchasing products that are environmentally fri Idly. 6. Resource recovery parks replacing transfer stations and landfills. 7. Rules changing to require separation, ban organics from landfill, b.II1111111
C and D materials unless there is a plan to take back where no r(‘cyl 1111, system or composting system is in place.
8. Tax rules changing so that resources, not labor, are taxed. 9. Many new jobs being created in reuse, repair, recycling and composllIll\
he Phantom Solid W
-1 BACKGROUND
‘I’ll ityManageroftheCityofPhanloml,.IN.11 I’ integrated solid waste manag m nt. II’ ‘xp
Ilrrn detailing the possible options for (urrher: It’ The impetus for this study is the ex p i1′.11(
Landfill, which is presently receiving all )r I’ll, ntract. Trash County has told Phantom th.11 I
y ar X + 3 when the present contract xpircs. ‘1’111 tudy you are conducting. (Note: X = the pl’tlll’ll
In addition, the state has passed III’W I(‘/II r duction requirements and recycling m<1I1\1:11’/’I,
fwaste being landfilled by 50% in X -I . yC,II, The populations to be served and the SOIiII
waste (MSW) are estimated first. Unfortun.ur-l waste generation in Phantom, and th hesl.lv.ill. must be used. The first task is to estimate lilt, 01 and composition, generated in Phantom,
The second task involves designing ,III 11111’11 the residential and commercial solid wast ‘. POlt” waste management system include:
1. Recycling and composting fa iliti ‘S 2. Waste-to-energy facility, with Ill\’ Pi’ I ”
electricity that will be bought by Ih” unacceptable items and the incincr.uru
3. Sanitary landfill
You have decided that your report should I which will be incorporated into the final rl’l)(HI:
Chapter 1Sources, Composition, and ()lli Chapter 2 Collection Chapter 3 Recycling Chapter 4 Compo sting Chapter 5 Waste-to-Energy (Mass Buruing Chapter 6 Siting the Sanitary Landf II Chapter 7 Design of the Sanitary Land IiII Chapter 8 Technical, Economic, and 1~IlVil