By N. C. Vasuki

Global warming is a "hot" topic on the political and cocktail circuits. On cold winter days, global warming seems like a good thing. On hot, humid summer days, one yearns for global cooling. The population explosion and the consequential demand for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and material goods have resulted in an increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Nature itself creates GHG, and human interference could be destabilizing the natural balance. To what extent human activity is causing global warming is not a simple issue, and experts differ about the magnitude. The widening ozone hole in the Polar Regions is another serious global problem.

Some island nations are particularly worried about the rising sea level as a consequence of global warming. There is even an international treaty to reduce global warming through reduction of certain gases. Even the development of the treaty language in Kyoto, Japan, by the gathering of politicians created a lot of hot air.

Garbage fits in this miasma simply because garbage collection, recycling, storage, and transfer and disposal activities generate GHG. The federal agencies---USEPA and the Department of Energy (DOE)---say that methane is more potent (21 times more) than carbon dioxide in terms of global-warming potential.

The standard measure is million metric tons of carbon equivalency, or MMTCE. The most recent EPA report, Inventory of Greenhouse Gases and Sinks 1990-1996, states that landfills in the United States contribute 65.1 MMTCE (or 4.13% of the national GHG emissions) to the problem. How do they know how much is emitted? It is simply a scientific guess based on a number of assumptions and mathematical models. The assumptions include a guess on the organic-materials content of the MSW, a conversion factor based on biological activity, and the total amount of MSW in place at the landfill. The collection of information is not standardized, making the estimate just that. Even EPA admits in its report that numbers quoted could be off by as much as 30%. EPA estimates that, globally, landfills and dumps contribute anywhere between 6% and 13% of the global methane emissions. This is much less than the earlier claims that stated landfills and dumps were responsible for 35% of the global methane emissions.

A rational approach in the US would suggest that we first do a credible inventory of all landfills and obtain detailed information on the actual area of landfill cells, tonnage of MSW landfilled, waste characterization data, climatological factors, leachate production data, landfill-capping information, and actual landfill gas (LFG) production data. A state-by-state compilation would provide a view of the national distribution of landfills and hot spots of methane emission. If industrial plants are required to report every year in a state Toxics Release Inventory, the states should also be required to report annually on all solid waste-disposal management systems (in addition to MSW systems) within their borders. Import and export quantities should be reported as well.

EPA could use such data to refine its mathematical model. Periodic chemical testing of LFG for a class of nonmethane volatile organic compounds (VOCs) could also provide EPA with a national assessment of the type of VOCs emitted by the solid waste industry. Reliable data are essential for pragmatic and cost-effective decision-making. Without them, emotional and political issues will affect decisions.

EPA and DOE could come up with standards for collection of LFG data (quantity and characteristics). Standardization would include methods for collection, storage, transportation, and analysis of LFG samples. Reporting should be in both USA and International Metric Units. They can also set up a standard format (both electronic and hard copy) for reporting data.

If EPA requests states to collect such data, many states will balk, stating they do not have the resources to collect information. But many will cooperate. We in the solid waste industry can step forward and start reporting the data. It would be in our best interest to assist the federal agencies to obtain reliable data on a voluntary basis. Otherwise, it will be only a matter of time before the federal agencies are forced to adopt mandatory reporting requirements.

Five European solid waste professional organizations conjoined to review what was being achieved during implementation of environmental management systems. European nations have actively participated in the development of international standards (ISO). In 1996, ISO 14001 was launched as an International Standard for Environmental Management Systems. Many companies and organizations have started to comply with the new standard. The US has been the world leader in standardizing systems, quality, measurement techniques, and procedures.

It is time now for EPA and DOE to work together and develop a standard voluntary reporting system to measure the real (not assumed) contribution of GHG emitted by solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal activities.

SWANA can assist by accessing available data from state regulatory agencies and building a database of solid waste management activities. If reliable data are not available, it will indicate the real weakness of the state regulatory agencies.

It is time for all of us in the solid waste industry to stand up and be counted. If we are really concerned about environmental issues, we can volunteer to assist in reducing the magnitude of the problem.

MSW

Erosion Control Magazine | Grading and Excavation Contractor Magazine
MSW Management Magazine | Stormwater Magazine
Forester Communications | E-mail Us