By H. Lanier Hickman

In the 1950s, with hundreds of thousands of open, burning dumps on the US landscape, our nation launched a drive to eliminate those dumps. Based on the findings of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) that open dumps were a source of the causes of polio, surface and ground water pollution, and fouled air, the introduction of the sanitary landfill as an alternative began.

The sanitary landfill of the 1950s was a direct result of the efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers during World War II, and the foresight of a number of public works and sanitation folks in California. No way did the sanitary landfill of those days resemble the sites of today. In the 1950s and early 1960s the USPHS issued a number of guidance documents about the basics of the sanitary landfill. Those basics remain today as the foundation of the modern Subtitle D landfill—limited access, a controlled working face, no open burning, no dumping in the groundwater or surface water, no scavenging, no animal feeding, compaction to maximize the available air space—and most important of all, a 6-inch layer of compacted soil at the close of every day (aka daily cover).

Early Criteria
Over time, as we learned more about the sanitary landfill, other controls emerged. Notably, the control of landfill gas, groundwater monitoring, and surface water management. Finally, the sanitary landfill of today began to emerge in the late 1980s and, with the last set of amendments to federal solid waste legislation, became what is known as the Subtitle D Sanitary Landfill. However, those early USPHS criteria remain as the foundation of the Sub D sites in the US. Further, the Sub D landfill concept has been used internationally to move other countries away from open burning dumps. Today our Sub D municipal solid waste sites receive well over 50% of the MSW generated in the US and serve as foundations for the many integrated municipal solid waste programs across the US.

Many devotees of “recycle everything” have attacked the sanitary landfill as the reason we do not recycle everything. It is easier to -attack an inanimate object such as the sanitary landfill than tackle the many other reasons that we cannot recycle everything. One wonders why the multi-national companies who use so much of our limited supply of hydrocarbons to make plastic-based products that cannot be recycled are not attacked equally with as much vigor. One wonders why such concepts as deposit laws are not advanced with as much vigor as attempts to eradicate the sanitary landfill. One -wonders why multi-material packaging, that not only challenges the physical strength of many users to open, but is also very difficult to put back into the materials-use matrix, is also not on the radar screen of these “recycle everything” devotees.

Making Sense
Indeed, we need to make all speed (warp factor 9) toward reducing the amount of materials destined for final burial. At the same time, however, we need to examine the ever-burgeoning presence of consumer products that challenge our economic and technical abilities to recover and recycle. The makers of these products-regardless of what they say about environmental ethics-are in the business of making money, not good environmental and materials-use sense. Finally, we need to understand that no matter how hard we work on resource recovery, we need sanitary landfills. Not everything will ever be recycled. Not all local governments can continue to bear the costs of managing discards created by multi-national profiteers (Ayn Rand) who are not held accountable for their lack of social conscience. Mechanical equipment cannot run 24/7/52 into the next millennium. Whether it is a failure of markets, equipment, poor economic sense, or a run-away manufacturing infrastructure, the landfill must remain the basic foundation for our integrated municipal solid waste system.

H. Lanier Hickman Jr., P.E., is a member of MSW Management’s Editorial Advisory Board.

MSW - July/August 2005