The times are changing for the solid waste management industry and for most other environmentally related industries as well. Solid waste management, first developed in response to public health issues associated with waste disposal, has evolved into systems that not only deal with public health, but also environmental impact, resource management, energy production and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The general public is quick to recognize the public health and environmental impacts of solid waste management systems, as evidenced by the almost universal opposition to new solid waste management facilities (landfills, transfer stations, waste to energy systems, composting facilities, etc), but slow to recognize the role the general public plays in the integrated solid waste system. The same public in the United States that attends County Commission meetings to oppose solid waste management facilities and solid waste rate increases, continues to generate solid waste at a rate more than twice that of similar western economies.

The per capita waste generation rate in the United States has hovered around 4.5 pounds per person per day for more than a decade. One of the impacts of our “throw away” society is the large volume of solid waste that must be managed every day. And one of the enduring facts of solid waste management is that customers want to spend the absolute minimum amount for solid waste services. Since landfilling continues to be the least expensive waste management option in most communities (in spite of more stringent environmental requirements), this “low bidder” mentality on the part of the consumer of solid waste services drives waste to landfills preferentially, even when other management options are available, albeit at a higher price. Currently in Florida, about 50% +/- of the solid waste generated is disposed of in landfills, about 30% +/- is recycled, and about 20% +/- is combusted for energy recovery.

The 50% portion that goes to landfills in Florida still contains significant amounts of recyclable materials. Some of this recyclable material is disposed of by individuals and business that do not participate in existing recycling programs, and some of it is material for which no formal recycling systems exist. Sometimes recyclable material finds its way to the landfill simply because it costs less to dispose of the material than to recycle it. Anyone who has visited a large American landfill should be shocked by the amount of recyclable materials easily recognized in the “waste” delivered.

So how do we break the deadlock and maximize resource conservation and recycling while minimizing environmental impact and at the same time providing services for a reasonable cost? One key to the answer to this question is contained in the question itself: how do we define “reasonable cost”. A “reasonable cost” for solid waste management is not necessarily the lowest possible short term cost. We must set firm goals for the overall solid waste system and provide a system to meet and exceed those goals, rather than determining how to meet minimum requirements for minimum price.

For instance, an argument could be reasonably made that no waste should be transported to a landfill without passing through a processing facility first to remove basic recyclable commodities. Other than the price of processing, there is no reason why metals, cardboard, paper products, plastic beverage containers and many other materials should be going to landfills for disposal. Pre-processing all solid waste prior to disposal will recover much more recyclable material and reduce the demand on landfill capacity.

All combustible waste material is a candidate for combustion for energy recovery. A variety of new technologies are coming on the market that reduce the air pollution impacts of these facilities while also reducing our dependence on imported oil to provide our electrical power needs. While it is true that waste combustion emits carbon dioxide (the major greenhouse gas associated with global warming), the impact on global warming from waste combustion is arguably less than the impact of landfilling combustible wastes. In a landfill setting, about half the gas generated as a potential air emission is methane which has a much higher capacity for trapping heat that the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. Even with gas recovery systems at landfills, significant amounts of methane escape to the atmosphere.

A more radical proposal to promote new technologies for solid waste management might be to place a disposal surcharge on all waste going to landfills and to utilize this revenue to fund innovative waste management projects in both the public and private arenas. This surcharge will serve to raise the price of landfill disposal, making existing recycling options more competitive, while at the same time generating a revenue stream that can be used to develop further improvements in the system.

Regardless of the approach, it is obvious that the major environmental issue of this century will be addressing (and hopefully preventing) the impacts of global warming. Solutions that have been adequate in the past will no longer be viable. Public education regarding available options and their true impacts will be key to making good policy decisions. The “best “solution is unlikely to be the cheapest.

Even the terminology must change. What we call “waste management” today must eventually be looked at as “resource management” in the future.

New at UF TREEO

Ron Trygar, CET-Ron has recently joined the UF TREEO Center staff as our Senior Training Specialist for Water and Wastewater. He has worked in the wastewater industry for twenty five years in a variety of locations and jobs. In 1998 Ron became a Certified Environmental Trainer (CET) and has since provided training for associations and regulatory agencies such as FDEP; UF-TREEO Center; FW&PCOA Short Schools; USABlueBook; FWEA sponsored training events and local school environmental programs. He has also assisted the U.S. EPA in providing flow measurement training in Tallahassee, and along with the FDEP Northeast District, he helped begin the FRWA/FDEP joint operator certification review classes that are still given around the state today. Ron holds a Florida class A wastewater treatment operator’s license and a Florida class C drinking water operator’s license.

U.S. Homebuilders Go Green, or Do They?
Green Building: Housing
By: Jerry Yudelson, PE, MBA, LEED AP - Sunday, February 24, 2008
Source: iGreenBuild.com (Retrieved from the World Wide Web at: http://www.igreenbuild.com/_coreModules/content/contentDisplay.aspx?contentID=3098)

The big green home news in mid-February was the announcement of the new national green home rating system from the National Association of Home Builders (www.nahb.org), representing more than 230,000 U.S. homebuilding companies. In making the announcement, NAHB officials termed the program “voluntary, market-driven, flexible and affordable” and stressed that the certification paperwork would cost less than $500 per home.

The NAHB National Green Building Program, an education, verification and certification program, allows builders anywhere in the U.S. to certify a green home to bronze, silver or gold levels, using third-party verifiers furnished by the NAHB Research Center.

The NAHB rating system features an online scoring tool, which shows builders how to accumulate points in seven categories: water, energy and resource efficiency; lot and site development; indoor environmental quality; global impact and homeowner education. To be eligible for certification, the NAHB program requires a builder to achieve a minimum score in each category. (Click here to read more……………..)

To unsubscribe send an email with REMOVE in the subject line to lbrown@treeo.ufl.edu.