 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
In the cellular world of solid waste systems, planning and management are where it all begins. Planning defines the goals and objectives, while management provides guidance and assesses success. By John G. Carlton It is an exciting time to be in the field of solid waste management. But then again, when has it not? Coming out of college, my first professional assignment was to assist with the development of the city of Philadelphia’s solid waste management plan. Looking back, Philadelphia’s goals in 1989 were the same as they are today with a strong commitment to effective source-reduction and recycling programs. Philadelphia’s solid waste planning and management are still highly visible and relevant. In 2007, the Philadelphia Recycling Office received a SWANA Excellence Award for Marketing. Philadelphia unveiled an expansion of its single stream residential collection program on America Recycles Day in November 2007. This article will provide an overview of the current status of solid waste planning and management. It will also focus on some of today’s most pressing issues, such as zero waste, flow control, rail transport, greening, and energy. Getting to Zero One of the first formal policies promoting waste reduction was the EPA waste management hierarchy. The four-tiered solid waste management hierarchy includes (from top to bottom):
Reduction a Priority
The first priority for solid waste management systems is waste reduction. Source reduction addresses product manufacture, purchasing habits, and product use. Implementing source reduction includes product reuse, increasing the recycled content of products or packaging, reduction in material product volume or packaging, increasing the usable life of a product, and decreasing the total quantity or toxicity of products. Though efforts to stem growth in per capita waste generation have been successful, overall waste generation continues to increase substantially. Our source reduction programs need to improve. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) has proposed to our clients a paradigm shift in waste management hierarchy with a clear emphasis on reduction. Many public agencies are demonstrating leadership in the implementation of source reduction strategies. One such agency is the Solid Waste Authority (SWA) of Palm Beach County, FL. The SWA won the 2007 SWANA Excellence Award for its solid waste management program. As part of its integrated solid waste management program, the SWA source reduction goals include:
Another public agency demonstrating leadership in waste reduction is the city of Chicago. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley set a goal to become the “greenest” city in America. The city’s mission statement for solid waste reads: “To make Chicago’s municipal waste management program the best in the country by establishing effective recycling and waste reduction practices for every area of the city’s wastestream, and to ensure city departments and sister agencies are setting the example for the rest of the city through their recycling and waste reduction practices.” CDM was hired by the Chicago Department of Environment to evaluate the municipal wastestreams generated within the city, to prepare a plan to maximize diversion of waste from landfills, and to provide more sustainable alternatives. The results of the project allow the city to develop a zero-waste program applicable and appropriate for the specific waste types. Can communities get to zero? Probably not anytime soon. For some, the zero-waste philosophy embodies the principle of eliminating rather than managing waste. Realistically, we need to refocus our efforts on getting to zero through planning. However, we will also need to manage the waste that will likely remain with us for many years. Recycling (not Necessarily) by the Numbers
But recycling is not only about the numbers; more is not always better. Effective recycling involves more than collecting and diverting more and more materials from the disposal stream. Take the discussion over single-stream recycling. Single-stream recycling is the practice of collecting commingled containers and papers together. For a waste generator, the ease and convenience of a single stream collection system encourages participation. For example, Howard County, MD, reported that switching from a dual-stream collection system to a single-stream system increased participation by more than 15%. For the collector, a single stream can improve collection efficiency, possibly resulting in less labor and energy costs. For example, single-compartment vehicles can be utilized in single-stream collections. Single-compartment vehicles are cheaper to purchase and operate, and collection can be automated with standard bins and hydraulic loading systems. For the recycled materials processor and manufacturer, however, single-stream collection results in processing challenges and possibly lower-quality feedstock materials for manufacturing, primarily as a result of broken glass and paper contamination. Marketing the materials from a single-stream collection has its challenges and, compared to dual-stream collection, a greater percentage of the collected recyclables end up being disposed. Many communities value the benefits of single-stream collection and have moved or are moving to single-stream recycling. In November 2007, the city council of Palm Springs, CA, voted unanimously to implement a single-stream recycling collection program. (Since when does a city council vote unanimously on anything?) The city will spend $2 million on capital equipment (vehicles and containers) to implement the program and they expect great things from the program, including increased participation rates, tonnage, and flexibility to add additional materials. Is single-stream recycling good management practice? Ultimately, the challenge rests on collectors, processors, and manufacturers working together to ensure high-quality materials for remanufacturing. The public likes easy, convenient recycling. Elected officials like to make the public (i.e., voters) happy. Now, it is up to us in the solid waste management community to work on ensuring those materials actually make it back into a manufactured product by insisting on quality sorting and meeting stringent secondary materials market specifications. Planning Toolbox Controlling the flow—Waste flow control is a governmental system that directs haulers to deliver waste to designated facilities. On May 16, 1994, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in C&A Carbone Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, declaring that the town’s flow-control ordinance attempted to regulate interstate commerce and was therefore in violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. The impact and ramifications of the decision were significant. The finances of many solid waste facilities depended on the regulation of both waste quantities and prices within geographic boundaries. Bond ratings of many public entities that owned solid waste facilities, especially those with waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities, were negatively affected. The loss of flow control also affected such waste management programs as education, recycling, and household hazardous waste collection. These programs are often funded by the disposal fees collected at the facilities to which waste is directed in flow-control systems. Last year saw another key court decision on flow control. The US Supreme Court, on April 30, 2007, issued a decision in the case of United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority that a local ordinance directing locally generated wastes to publicly owned waste facilities did not discriminate against interstate commerce. The significance of the Oneida-Herkimer decision is that it apparently permits flow control to solid waste facilities with public ownership and operation. Flow control will likely remain an important tool in the planning and management of solid waste. Public entities that both own and operate their solid waste systems will have greater confidence in their existing or proposed flow control ordinances. SWANA continues to support flow control as evidenced in a policy statement issued in November 2007: “SWANA recognizes flow control as an effective and legitimate instrument of integrated municipal solid waste management. To the extent it is allowed by law and after public discussion, including the consideration of economic, environmental, and social impacts, and input from residents, businesses, and other interested parties, flow control can be implemented without unduly interfering with the free movement of municipal solid waste and recyclables across jurisdictional boundaries.” Railroaded by the STB New Jersey, where I work, has been affected by the STB preemption of local and state regulations on solid waste facilities. As a result of the STB preemption, numerous unpermitted solid waste rail transfer stations have been sited in recent years. These facilities are not subject to municipal planning and zoning, county solid waste management planning, or state permitting. Local and state litigation has attempted to stop this practice without much success. However, New Jersey is not the only state getting railroaded by the STB. In July 2007, the STB issued an important decision with implications for solid waste planning and management. In the decision, the STB ruled that some activities at a proposed Massachusetts rail solid waste transfer facility are subject to federal preemption. New England Transrail LLC (NET) requested that the STB approve their proposed rail solid waste transfer facility that would receive and process municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris (C&D). NET has proposed processing included baling MSW and shredding C&D. NET sought an exemption from state and local permitting. The STB approved NET’s designation as a rail carrier and permitted waste receiving, MSW baling, and loading of MSW and C&D into railcars. NET was therefore allowed to bypass state and local oversight of these activities. C&D shredding, however, was not included in the STB approval. The STB stated “a shredder is not required to pack into rail cars material that has arrived at [the] facility packed into trucks.” There is a large and important body of laws and regulations for the management of solid waste in the United States. States worked for decades to implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other federal legislation. The STB does not have the staff or the expertise to replace experienced personnel at the state agencies who oversee the regulation implementation. Three New Jersey legislators, senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, and Rep. Frank Pallone, have introduced legislation to clarify that solid waste facilities do not fall under the jurisdiction of the STB. SWANA is supporting the legislative efforts and is working with a coalition to stop the STB from allowing rail-based solid waste facilities to sidestep important local regulations. SWANA supports and encourages rail transport of solid waste as an environmentally and economically sound method of hauling waste over long distances. However, local and state regulations that oversee the planning and management of solid waste must not be preempted by the STB if effective planning and management is to continue. Many Shades of Green However, like Crayola’s 32 shades of green, solid waste planning and management incorporates several green hues of its own: One green may represent environmentally sound practices; another may symbolize money, a financial green; while a third green may signify grass, as in the grass that grows on redeveloped landfills. Provided below is a discussion of these three shades of green. Environmental green—When the word green is mentioned in the waste management field, it often refers to environmentally friendly practices. Environmental green should be a high priority for solid waste planning and management. Many public and private waste management entities are on a mission to green their operations. Waste Management Inc., the nation’s largest waste management company, plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make its operations green. The program is known as Think Green. Waste Management’s Think Green initiative includes:
Financial green—Today, as much as always, the financial soundness of a solid waste disposal system is the result of proper planning and management. Financial green equates with financial benefits to the local community. Properly planned and managed solid waste systems are economic engines within their communities. Host community benefits, taxes, local employment, and local purchasing clearly provide financial benefits to the local community and economy. As waste management facilities seek expansions, new sites, or permit renewals, public support often relates to how well the facility has been perceived as a good community member. It is important to put our money where our mouth is, or at least where our solid waste is. Grass green—Proper solid waste planning and management includes planning for the redevelopment (thus, the grass) of our landfills once they have reached capacity. Across the country, landfill redevelopment provides recreation, parks, and open spaces as a continued public benefit from our solid waste systems. In Wake County, NC, CDM is assisting the county with a redevelopment plan for the 260-acre North Wake Landfill, which is scheduled to close in early 2008. The redevelopment master plan will provide for possible recreation, education, and other public uses in a manner that is compatible with maintaining the integrity of the landfill and long-term monitoring and maintenance of the closed cells. Energy, Warming, and Waste
The response of industry and government to climate change provides opportunities for the solid waste industry. Waste reduction, recycling, WTE, and emissions trading will all play a role in addressing global warming and climate change. Emissions Trading—The relationship of energy, warming, and waste has given a boost to the business of emissions trading. Even though the United States has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, opportunities for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading are available through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). GHG emission reductions achieved through the CCX are the only reductions in North America being made through a legally binding arrangement. CCX emitting members make a voluntary but legally binding commitment to meet annual GHG emission reduction targets. Those who reduce below the targets have surplus allowances to sell; those who emit above the targets comply by purchasing credits. CCX defines itself as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding rules-based greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading system, as well as the world’s only global system for emissions trading based on all six greenhouse gases.” CCX is a US corporation that began emissions trading in 2003. Among the 13 charter members are the city of Chicago and Waste Management Inc., two leaders in the green movement. Another member of CCX is the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA). Based in Pennsylvania, LCSWMA joined CCX in October 2006 and was the first public environmental services organization in the US to become a member. Recently, LCSWMA won the 2007 Green Power: Turn It On! Award from Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future in recognition of LCSWMA’s voluntary commitment to reduce GHG emissions generated from its EfW facility and waste transfer vehicles by at least 6% by the year 2010. As of the end of September 2007, LCSWMA had sold 61,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide emission equivalents through the CCX, earning over $230,000. The relationship of waste and energy is on the rise. This relationship is witnessed in the many landfill gas-to-electricity facilities, the expansion of the Lee County, FL, EfW facility, and the proposed St. Lucie County, FL, plasma arc gasification facility. Waste Management Inc. advertises that the company powers over one million homes from solid waste. The Lancaster County (PA) Solid Waste Management Authority also promotes the relationship of waste and energy on their transfer trailer wraps. In Burlington County, NJ, solid waste coordinator Robert Simkins has a long-term vision for the relationship of waste as energy. He envisions a world where a landfill is more than a simple sanitary waste disposal facility. He sees clean, renewable, biomethane transportation fuel being produced from landfill gas and refueling the very refuse trucks delivering waste to the facility. A future where cities require in their disposal bid specifications the production of biomethane for buyback and use in city refuse/recycling trucks and transit buses. Simkins embodies the true spirit of solid waste planning and management by thinking of what should be and working toward that outcome. Looking Ahead Managing our toolboxes will include working with legislators and, if necessary, the courts. We must not forget to incorporate various shades of green into our planning and management. As an industry, we must recognize and take advantage of the links among energy, global warming, and waste. SWANA’s Planning & Management Division will continue to be a gathering place for these and other discussions. I encourage your participation to guide our industry to success. John G. Carlton, P.E., BCEE, is director of the SWANA Planning & Management Division and senior project manager with CDM. MSW - Elements 2009
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Home | Search | Subscribe | About | News | Advertise | Register | Services | Industry Events Copyright FORESTER MEDIA, INC
|
