Archive for July, 2010

There is no one definition of the term zero waste. It means different things in different places, and it is popular with many politicians around the world, as it answers a popular wish perfectly.

The only way it is possible to define the zero waste philosophy is to study the schemes which describe themselves as zero waste projects around the world.

However, let me make it clear, nowhere that I know of does it mean literally “zero waste” to landfill. As I said, this is a term coined by politicians rather than waste management engineers.

The “Zero Waste” or “No Waste” goals in the places which were studied by the Green Alliance in 2006, were found to mean in effect no un-recycled waste, and not much more.

Yes, most are articulated as Zero Waste to landfill, however, none of the places in question at that time seemed to be planning an increase in incineration for example, which would reduce the waste tonnage greatly, and some appear to have ruled it out (Canberra, Kamikatusu, New Zealand, Philippines) citing negative public opinion.

Some of the Zero Waste goals have target dates attached (Kamikatsu, Japan, 2020; New Zealand, 2020; San Francisco 2020). For others, “Zero Waste” provides a notional target with some interim targets (Bath, Philippines).

Canberra’s target of no waste by 2010 is acknowledged to mean in practice 95 per cent diversion from landfill.

Those municipalities espousing zero waste will nevertheless be some of the highest recycling rate achievers, and studies appear to show recycling rates are and will be raised to between 37 per cent and 80 per cent

The experience of a Flanders, France experience was thought in 2006 to indicate that household recycling rates of 60 per cent ought to be obtainable in the UK with the right mix of instruments – although until the new UK government was elected in May 2010, it was expected that local authorities would be allowed to charge householders extra for non-recycled (black bag) waste, as way to achieve these high goals. However, the Conservative/Liberal Coalition has already announced that no such an incentive will be allowed by the new UK Government.

A common feature to many of the Zero Waste targeted schemes is rigorous source separation and collection of recyclables, but so far, in no case, does this appear to be mandatory.

In many places zero waste recycling is driven by pricing of landfill (Bath, Canberra, Flanders, New Zealand) and variable charging of householders (Flanders, San Francisco).

All case studies assume that good markets will exist from now onward for most recyclates, although some will always be awkwardly distant (China and India). So, this raises questions as to whether the goal of zero waste is sustainable, in a market sense, or whether recycling will continue to suffer from the recessionary effect on China’s need for imported secondary materials.

The notions of designing out waste, changing the nature of products and making producers responsible for the consequences of wasteful consumption are still not really on the agenda for zero waste advocates, but shouldn’t they be?

Beyond European or European-style agreements on recycling of packaging and WEEE, there seems little real appetite for imposing more biting producer responsibility. The “Cradle to Cradle” concepts of beneficial products and continual recycling of biological and non-renewable materials are being developed, but are not yet necessarily a part of the Zero Waste philosophy in many places.

The UK is well investing heavily to take a lead on waste prevention with large amounts of landfill tax money being channelled into bodies such as WRAP, Envirowise, BREW, and the Centre for Sustainable Design. Let’s hope they will soon be able to produce some truly ground-breaking ideas and initiatives to actually achieve close to what the public must think the politicians and the waste industry mean by zero waste..

Underpinning the philosophy of zero waste is an aspiration for continuous improvement that goes beyond being compliant with legislation, targets or contracts. While practically delivering zero waste is a significant challenge, the desire to do more and do it better is perhaps the most important lesson we can draw from these case studies.

Zero waste had been portrayed as utopian and undeliverable, yet getting as close to it as possible is worth striving for, and the zero waste concept is already delivering results. Let’s hope the backwash from the press and media, and the public when they realise that most of the landfills will stay open, is not too great.

Visit the web-site: www.green-alliance.org.uk .

Tags: landfill, management engineers, incineration, recycling, uk government

Final Storage Quality of a landfill is a term which, for each and every one of the modern “Sanitary” and “EU Directive Landfills” ever constructed, is at the moment a purely academic concept. None of them will ever reach it in the lifetime of any of us alive today.

The term “final storage quality” was first defined twenty years ago by Baccini and Henseler and other members of a Swiss working group on landfills. In the meantime, the definition has been modified by several authors in various published papers.

In essence, final storage quality is used to imply an “environmentally sound flux/load for short, medium and long term periods”, to use one of the academic versions that I rather like for its brevity.

Which criteria should be used to determine when the “Final Storage Quality” has been reached, is being debated.

What will be the final contaminating parameter of the large number of potential pollutants in a landfill at the end of that that long awaited transition from active aftercare management to passive aftercare?

Which contaminant will be the most critical in the long term, which when it is dissipated, we can all stop concerning ourselves that what was once a landfill no longer has a potential to harm the environment which surrounds it?

Well, having I hope now wetted your curiosity, I am going to disappoint you by saying that I don’t think that academia really yet knows for certain the answer to that. Given the huge number of sanitary (lined and capped landfills) now being filled around the world as I write this, I think we should all think hard and get a little worried for our offspring.

However, two aspects of long term landfill which are of direct economic importance and about which more can be said, are:

1. The longevity of economic landfill gas production for energy production,
2. And, (for those tasked with landfill aftercare duties) it is from the point of economic aftercare, how the escape of the remaining methane to atmosphere without first oxidising it, can be achieved.

It is important to achieve “final storage quality” while consistently burning/flaring the methane in landfill gas, or in another way oxidising the methane to prevent serious climate change implications.

We can be sure that in the long-term, gas produced by landfills will be characterized by low methane content.

The methane content and rate of gas production will be so low that there will be scarcely any possibility for its use in economically-sound energy recovery procedures and yet it will still amount to a significant discharge due to the very long period of its slow discharge.

There is no escaping that the gas produced in the long tail of the “elk” requires treatment due to its global warming potential.

New low-cost technologies must be found, either to extend the phase of profitable landfill gas utilization, or methods developed to, if possible, reduce the landfill gas aftercare phase and mitigate long-term emissions.

At our sister landfill gas web site we have started to look at possible aftercare strategies with respect to dwindling landfill gas, and we have written about:

• The proportion of total Active Landfill Gas Recovery that can be economically utilised by active landfill gas extraction
• The developing concept of bio-oxidation of landfill gas instead of flaring, either in specially designed vessels or within modified landfill caps during landfill aftercare.

Click on the linked text in the above lines to read more.

Tags: energy production, methane, economic importance, pollutants, lifetime

In a welcome development toward waste avoidance, SEPA has announced that scrapped plasterboard that meets BSI PAS109:2008 won’t count as waste. This is very encouraging to the recycling companies invloved as it will cut down on their costs and also on paperwork when it comes to reprocessing it.

Between 1.1 and 1.75 million tonnes of plasterboard enters the waste stream each year in the UK, which is not only a waste of resources but also, potentially, an environmental problem.

Scotland’s environment watchdog is hoping to encourage more businesses to increase the amount they are recycling, by confirming that waste plasterboard which has been processed to the correct specification, is no longer classified as waste.

If gypsum comes into contact with biodegradable waste in landfill, toxic and smelly hydrogen sulphide gas is produced. However, if producers separate it for recovery and recycling, it can then be used to replace virgin gypsum in the plasterboard, cement and soil conditioner markets.

To promote the market for quality gypsum recycling, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has taken the position that where waste plasterboard is processed in accordance with BSI PAS109:2008, it will no longer be regarded as waste.

The recently published BSI PAS 109:2008 “Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard” specifies minimum requirements for the recycling process itself. It covers the selection, receipt, handling of inputs, specification of product grades and the storage, labeling, dispatch and traceability of the products that are produced from that process.

BSI PAS 109:2008 compliant gypsum which has been recycled to the correct specification and is to be used for plasterboard manufacture, cement manufacture and as soil conditioner, will no longer be regarded as waste by SEPA. This means the subsequent storage, movement and use will not be subject to the requirements of waste legislation, meaning it does not need to be transported by a registered waste carrier or accompanied by a controlled waste transfer note.

Kenny Boag, SEPA’s Head of Waste Policy, said:

“SEPA supports the responsible processing of waste materials into high quality products as part of achieving a Zero waste society. SEPA’s policies on the disposal and recovery of gypsum from plasterboard will reduce pollution from landfilling and will also facilitate the recycling of this valuable resource.”

Iain Gulland, Director of Zero Waste Scotland, said:

“We are delighted that SEPA has adopted the BSI PAS 109:2008. Scotland has a vibrant building industry and SEPA is sending strong signal to industry that it takes the issue of construction waste very seriously.”

To take advantage of this position the local SEPA team must be contacted and a demonstration of compliance with PAS109 must be provided. BSI PAS 109:2008 covers the selection, receipt, handling of inputs, specification of product grades and the storage, labelling, dispatch and traceability of the products that are produced from that process.

Processors and users are not obliged to comply with these terms, but reprocessed gypsum that is not BSI PAS 109:2008 compliant will remain classified as waste.

The full position is available under the category “regulatory guidance” – click here.

Tags: PAS, waste, regulation, plasterboard, traceability