Page images
PDF
EPUB

concentrate first on the materials that make up the largest part of the municipal waste stream-paper and yard trimmings-then add other materials, such as plastics, metals, glass, and wood.

Behind all these numbers, what has been going on in the country that has affected attitudes toward the ways in which wastes are managed? Source reduction and recycling are certainly not new. People have always fed food scraps to livestock, made leftover fabrics into quilts, and used metal scraps to patch and reinforce everything from the roof to machinery. The use of recovered paper in paper manufacture was at a higher

percentage 40 years ago than it is now. In years past, many an immigrant started a thriving family business as a "junkman" or scavenger. The private salvage industry has always recovered materials for recycling: metals, glass, paper, textiles, and rubber. This traditional salvage industry includes in addition to junkmen or scavengers-dealers, secondary materials processors, brokers, and refuse haulers. In addition, there is a long tradition of recovered materials collected by social service and civic organizations, which earn money for their projects in this way.

In reviewing the subjects of source reduction and recycling for the last 20 years, it became obvious to the authors that the nation had been through several cycles.

The 1960s were an age of unrest, both politically and environmentally. Many people were influenced by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. The gathering public indignation over environmental pollution became focused on the view that the United States was rapidly becoming a "throwaway" society. Nevertheless, most people loved the new products and the convenience they provided,

Overloaded landfills are a key factor in the nationwide interest in alternatives to traditional disposal of municipal solid waste.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small]

The Situation Today

beverage container became the symbol of the wasteful society. This era culminated in Earth Day 1970-the symbolic rejection of a materialistic society.

The forces set in motion in the 1960s continued into the 1970s. In 1970, EPA was established. In the waste arena, Congress passed the Resource Recovery Act, which amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act. An early study of recycling revealed that salvage markets were in decline, and use of virgin raw materials was on the rise. The trend was ominous. In combination with increasing disposables and throwaways and less recycling, the solid waste. stream was a real growth item.

EPA sponsored many studies and initiatives to encourage recycling in this period, with industry and environmentalists usually at odds. Beverage-container deposit laws were often a focus. It was argued that such laws would save the refillable bottle, reduce litter, and achieve reuse and recycling. While a national deposit law was not enacted, 10 states did pass some form of this law, with Oregon leading the way in 1972, closely followed by Vermont. (The others were Michigan, Maine, Massachusetts, Delaware, Iowa, New York, Connecticut, and California.) In spite of these efforts, refillable bottles declined in use and, in many places, disappeared.

Another focus of attention for EPA and others in this era was the reduction of discards of consumer products and packaging. Packaging of all kinds, plus newsprint, tissue paper, and printing and writing paper, received most of the attention.

Many waste reduction proposals were put forth in the early 1970s. A few were successful; some were never put into action; others died, to be revived only recently. Here's what happened to some of the proposals: • The 100,000 mile tire. Tire life increased to 40,000 miles, and tires got smaller. However, these developments were unrelated to source reduction efforts.

State Your Claim

On July 28th, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued national guidelines for environmental claims on products. The guidelines, based on FTC investigations, hearings, and more than 100 written public comments, provide operating definitions of what is "recyclable" and what is not, as well as other environmental terms.

The following summary definitions are paraphrased from the new FTC guidelines:

Recyclable products or packaging must be able to be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for use in the form of raw materials in the manufacture or assembly of a new product.

Recycled Content refers only to products made from materials that have been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste

stream, either during the

manufacturing process

(pre-consumer) or after consumer use (post-consumer). Refillable packages should be labeled as such only if a system is provided for either the collection and return of the package for refill or the later refill of the package by consumers with product subsequently sold in another package. If it is up to the consumer to find new ways to refill the package, it should not carry a "refillable" claim.

Compostable products or packaging are comprised only of materials that will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g.,

soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device.

Degradable/Biodegradable/Photodegradable product label claims should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific

evidence that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature-i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonable amount of time after customary disposal. Ozone Safe and Ozone Friendly products cannot contain an ozone-depleting substance.

Source Reduction claims should be clear about the amount of waste reduction and the basis for any comparison asserted.

In general, the guidelines stress that: labeling should be clear and not deceptive; companies should delineate clearly whether claims apply to products, packaging, or just a portion of either; claims should not overstate environmental benefits of products, expressly or by implication; and if comparisons are used, they should be clear and the maker should be able to substantiate the comparison.

[graphic][merged small]

• Elimination of excess packaging. Packaging proliferated but shifted to lighter materials.

⚫ Package design to reduce waste. Efficiency in packaging is still increasing.

• Generic bottles and cans to encourage reuse. Brands and sizes of packaging proliferated.

⚫ Buying in bulk. Smaller households, more working women led to more packaging and convenience foods.

⚫ Backyard composting of yard wastes. Relatively little took place until recently.

The stage was set for a new era when the Middle Eastern nations embargoed oil exports to the United States for six months. Long lines at the filling station and instructions to turn down thermostats focused everyone's attention on energy.

In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, better known as RCRA. This provided the seeds of what is now recognized as integrated solid waste

management. RCRA addressed hazardous waste management, solid waste management, and procurement of products made from recovered materials. However, the overriding concern became safe disposal of hazardous wastes. The federal budget for nonhazardous wastes, including MSW, dried up, and MSW became firmly established as a local problem. Procurement guidelines, intended by the Act to encourage development of markets for recovered materials, were not forthcoming from EPA.

The limited waste reduction research that was sponsored by EPA was cast in terms of energy conservation. Most EPA grants to communities focused on recovery of energy from wastes through combustion, with recycling receiving secondary attention.

One reason why MSW took a back seat during this period was that landfill costs were still relatively low, and recycling programs were simply not cost effective at the community level. On the other hand, energy prices were escalating, and waste-to-energy projects could be shown to be cost effective within a few years of a plant's being put in operation.

Waste Age photo.

Another important factor was that solid waste officials were facing increasing volumes of MSW, as urban areas grew and as material prosperity continued. It became expedient for these officials to seek "one step" solutions. Energy recovery, especially by burning, fit their criterion perfectly.

Recycling got some push in this era, but with no significant support from industry, except in the case of beverage containers, which were still under siege by bottle bills at the state level. Some faithful individuals and organizations kept their recycling goals alive, and the private recycling sector continued to function, but the white hat was hung up at EPA.

The early 1980s were quiet years for those interested in MSW management. Appropriations by Congress were all going to hazardous wastes, and EPA, along with most of the consultants that had been working on MSW, geared up accordingly. It is reported that EPA's technical nonhazardous waste staff declined from more than 150 employees in 1980 to fewer than 10 at one point. "Love Canal," "Times Beach," and dioxins were the buzzwords of the day. The missing

11

[blocks in formation]

ingredient was building but had not
surfaced in a big way yet-an
honest-to-goodness crisis in solid
waste disposal at landfills.

In November 1984, Congress enacted the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). These helped to revitalize MSW management by requiring EPA to revise solid-waste disposal criteria for facilities that received hazardous household waste or hazardous waste from small quantity generators. In other words, the criteria were to apply to nearly all landfills. States were given responsibility for permitting these facilities. The next era had begun.

Enter, then, some real landfill crises, and a new infrastructure to do something about it, especially in the Northeast, where states facing urgent disposal problems led the way. Integrated solid waste management was born in 1985 and is now a reality in many parts of the country. In large part, it is the extreme difficulty of siting new landfills and combustion units that now drives the need to reduce and recycle.

During this period, when EPA's MSW resources have been limited, a great many states have required local governments to prepare integrated solid-waste management plans, often with goals or requirements for reduction and recycling as part of the

plans. The northeastern states have
been particularly active, with the
Coalition of Northeastern Governors
(CONEG) taking the lead on many
source reduction and recycling
initiatives. Organizations such as the
U.S. Conference of Mayors have also
taken leadership roles.

While increased recycling and composting have made a big difference, most of the country is still relying mainly on the combustion and landfill alternatives at the lower end of the hierarchy. Recycling experiences have shown that there are still some problems to be overcome, such as: ⚫ Separating and collecting recyclables is proving to be quite expensive in many locations.

• Collected recyclables often need further processing to make them acceptable to those who manufacture a new product from them. This adds another layer of expense.

• There have been disparities between the amounts of recyclables collected and the amounts that can be used. There are reports of collected materials being landfilled or combusted, instead of recycled.

The complete recycling and composting loop creates some unrecyclable residues that must themselves be disposed of. For example, deinking old newspapers to produce recycled newsprint creates a sludge.

There has been some resistance to purchasing products containing recycled materials. Some people have the perception that recycled products are somehow inferior to products made of virgin materials. There have also been some real problems with recycled products. For example, many copy machines malfunctioned while using recycled paper, but these problems are now largely solved. Education of consumers is also beginning to overcome some of the image problems: For example, manufacturers that have avoided labeling their packaging as

"recycled" now often display that information prominently.

What of the future? A number of trends are developing.

The rate of growth of municipal solid waste generation is slowing. Between 1960 and 1970, MSW grew at a rate of 3.5 percent per year, while population grew at a rate of 1.2 percent per year. Between 1980 and 1990, MSW grew at a rate of 2.8 percent per year, while population grew only 1.0 percent per year. While the reasons for this decline are not fully understood, use of lighter materials, such as plastics instead of glass, is almost certainly a factor. The decline in growth may stem from a sluggish economy, from people perhaps becoming less materialistic, or from serious public and private efforts to reduce materials at the source (especially in packaging, but also in some products). It is expected that this decline in rate of growth will

continue, but growth will still exceed population increase.

Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 2000 (Projected)

[graphic]
[blocks in formation]
[graphic][merged small]

The emphasis on recycling and composting is strong and will continue. Industry has gotten the word; the new capacity to absorb, recovered materials is coming on-line. In particular, the paper industry has responded to increased collection of paper and to increased demand for paper with recycled content by committing the resources to build many new and expanded recycling paper mills. Some grades of recovered paper may actually be in short supply by 1995 or 1996. Industries using other recovered materials-plastics, glass, metals, and wood-have also stepped up their efforts to recycle more. An overall recovery rate of 30 percent of MSW generation seems within reach by the year 2000.

Finally, combustion with energy recovery struggles along, increasing slowly. This management alternative has been plagued with a legacy inherited from the earlier years of this century, when old fashioned incinerators belching smoke were a feature in many communities. New facilities are required to meet stringent air pollution regulations and to dispose of their ash properly, but this increases the cost of combustion. Further, the public often strenuously resists siting new facilities.

The picture that emerges is this. The country's generation of MSW continues to increase, although at a slower rate. Recovery for recycling and composting, which began to increase in the late 1980s, continues to grow.

At the same time, combustion of MSW, which declined greatly when pollution controls became mandatory, is again on the increase. As a result of these changes, less MSW is projected to be landfilled in the year 2000 (about 109 million tons, or less than half of total generation) than was landfilled in 1980 (about 123 million tons, or 81 percent of total generation). Thus, changes in the way we manage our wastes-like increasing recycling can make a dramatic difference over time.

The problems will not end-landfills will still fill up. But the country is already into a new era; the new landfills that are sited tend to be large, but there is a decreasing need for landfill capacity-thanks to all those efforts to reduce and recycle. ☐

« PreviousContinue »