Solid Waste--Do We Have a Problem? (1998)

League of Women Voters^®
of Marion and Polk Counties

Solid Waste--1974 local League position. Modern Garbage. Marion County Solid Waste Program. Vocabulary. Options. Landfills. Sites. Incineration. Comparison Table for Landfills and Incineration. Bibliography.

Solid Waste--1974 local League position

"The League of Women Voters of Marion and Polk Counties, Oregon, supports long range planning to encourage recycling and to enable coordination of solid waste disposal management and operation. Specifically, the League endorses recycling that is regulated as part of the solid waste system. Eventual goal should be for house-to-house collection by the garbage industry where possible, but the League would also support other types of collection directed toward achieving the eventual goal. To support recycling, League endorses subsidies and/or higher user fees, provided low cost minimums could be maintained for lower income households. Emphasis needs to be put upon strong educational efforts to achieve voluntary public cooperation in all areas of our community with legislation being implemented if necessary to achieve recycling. The League supports a franchised operation of solid waste disposal for periods longer that five years. Endorsement is given for a regional system of solid waste management with coordination done at the regional level. Operations should be regulated on a regional basis. We support a combination of public and private ownership and operation of landfills."

Modern Garbage

The following was summarized from the Master Recycler manual of 1998:
Our modern solid waste stream includes glass, complex metal alloys, plastics, construction materials, paper, and products such as paints, pesticides and cleaning agents--many of them classified as hazardous wastes. Composition of the waste stream varies from area to area throughout the world, the country, and the state due to factors such as industrialization levels, climate patterns, cultural differences, demographics and socioeconomics.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality analyzes the composition of our local waste stream every three years. They sample and weigh the waste entering the disposal facilities every three months and categorize the waste. New figures will be coming out next year. Not only has the composition of waste become more complex over the years, but the sheer volume of what we throw away has grown. EPA states that Americans generated about 208 million tons of waste in 1995. Thirty years ago the average American generated about 3 pounds per day. That has risen to 4.4 pounds nationally and in Marion county to 4.5 pounds per day. Numbers may, however, be affected by measuring methods.
The amount of solid waste disposed of in Marion County in1996 was 353,486,000 pounds by a county population of 252,800. Construction and demolition debris accounts for about 7% of this total. As our urban areas have expanded and the amount of waste we generate has increased, land suitable for dumping or handling garbage has become scarce. The spread of suburban development leaves few large parcels of land available that are far from residential areas, yet close to urban waste generating centers. Enter the NIMBY dilemma--Not in My Back Yard!
A typical solid waste management system has three components: collection, transfer and disposal. The State of Oregon sets the standards for collection, storage, transportation and disposal of solid waste. However, the system is managed at the local level by a franchise system. In Marion County responsibility is split: cities and county have authority over collection, and Marion County has authority over transfer and disposal.
Consider this background, look at the position and in Part II next month you will be provided with information comparing the two major disposal methods of landfills and incineration, as directed by the membership at the Annual meeting last May.

Marion County Solid Waste Program

Waste Not, Want Not
Questions to consider regarding the Marion County Solid Waste system:
What should be the role of the landfill in Marion County's waste management program?
What should be the role of incineration in Marion County's waste management program?
Are there any materials from the waste stream that should be directed to one disposal method or the other?

Vocabulary

WASTE REDUCTION - refers to methods used by the generator to reduce the amount of solid waste requiring recycling, composting, incineration, or disposal. The generator can be the consumer or producer.
MEDICAL WASTE - These wastes include biological waste, blood and blood products, cultures and stocks, pathological waste, and sharps which are syringes, scalpels and other instruments. Generated by health care facilities like doctors' offices, dentists, hospitals ,laboratories, and veterinarians.
WTEF - Waste to Energy Facility located at Brooks and managed /owned by Ogden Martin Corp. Leased by Marion county . At the facility wastes are combusted to create ash and steam or electricity. Incinerated at temperatures between 1,800 and 2,400 degrees F. in a burning time from 30-60 minutes.
TRANSFER STATION - Depots for trash and recyclables brought in by individuals and businesses. All trash from these sites ( SKRTS at Deer Park Drive in Salem and NMCDF at Woodburn) goes to WTEF . Full scale recycling occurs here with the addition of clean yard debris and waste wood.
NIMBY - Not in My Back Yard
MSW - municipal solid waste is a term used to represent all the garbage created by households, commercial sites like restaurants and institutions like schools. It includes household hazardous waste, but not regulated hazardous waste.
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT - Five different waste management options including: source reduction, recycling, composting, ,landfilling and incineration. Composting-The aerobic, biological decomposition of organic waste materials into nutrient-rich, soil additive. Compostable yard wastes are second largest portion of waste stream.
BOTTOM ASH - includes both large and moderate-sized unburned and unburnable matter that remains after the MSW has passed through the furnace or combustion chamber. This ash comprises 75-90% of all ash produced in a WTEF.
FLY ASH - is a powdery material suspended in the exhaust gas stream that is collected in the pollution control equipment. It tends to have higher concentrations of metals and organic materials. Bottom ash and Fly ash are usually combined at the WTEF.
MONOFILL - A landfill specially designed and dedicated for the disposal of one type of material such as ash from the incineration process.
LANDFILL - is an engineered method of disposing MSW in which a place is selected to where garbage is hauled, deposited and then buried.
LEACHATE - Liquid that has perculated through soil or decaying waste. It can contain any water-soluble chemicals, minerals or pollutants present at the time of perculation.

Options

As our population has grown--along with the variety and amount of commercial products that we use--so has the total amount of MSW that Americans generate in the course of a year. In fact MSW volume has increased upwards of 250% since 1960. The first thing to remember about MSW management is that what is good for one community--environmentally, economically--may actually be different than what another community values. The important thing in an integrated approach is that each element of the community's waste stream is handled in the most effective, cost-efficient, safe and environmentally beneficial manner that is realistically practical. Each option in this system entails both benefits and costs.

Landfills

Modern landfills are no longer simply a hole in the ground. Strict enforcement of environmental standards has played a role in the decreasing number of landfills in the US. Prior to 1970's some landfills were basically open pits but now MSWL (landfill)are tightly regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recover Act (RCRA) passed in 1976 and the 1991 US EPA Land fill Rules. Again in 1993 EPA set minimum design and operation standards.
In general, the regulations apply to all municipal landfills that receive waste 24 months after the rule published in the US Federal Register and to those serving more than 100,000 households. It can often take five or more years from the time a site is selected until designs, permit applications, and public hearings are completed and the facility is built. The siting of new landfills is affected by the poor environmental track record of older dumps. More than 20% of the 1200 sites on the Superfund List are garbage dumps.
A typical modern landfill is divided into a series of sections called cells. Solid waste is placed on what is called a working face which is a portion of the landfill cell currently exposed. Only limited sites in the landfill are exposed at any given time to minimize effects from rain, wind. At the conclusion of each day's activity, a layer of earth or ash called daily cover is spread across the compacted waste in the cell to minimize odor, prevent windblown litter and prevent insect and vermin problems. Daily cover may also consist of a layer of foam materials or synthetic materials.
A groundwater monitoring system consists of a series of wells located near the landfill. By sampling groundwater around the landfill, the presence and the migration of contamination can be detected. Managing leachate is of high concern as it can contain a broad range of chemicals including metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury and organic chemicals such as benzene. This is influenced by precipitation levels, topography, design and operation. To ensure better pollution control; landfill regulations require that all new and expanded landfills be constructed with a liner, a leachate collection system, a landfill gas control system and a groundwater monitoring system.
Once a landfill is full, the owner/operator must implement the landfill's closure plan previously submitted to the state. Subtitle D requires that closure plans include activities to properly close and monitor the site for at least 30 years after closure. All closure plans including capping the site with soil. Marion County has three closed dumps that are currently under this 30 year plan. There are few local rules governing how the closed site is used afterwards.( Parks, developments etc). MSWL cannot be located close to airports and restrictions are against siting in wetlands, floodplains, fault areas and unstable terrain.
Landfills must keep out regulated hazardous waste ( ash has not yet been labelled hazardous by EPA) ; apply a daily cover; control disease vectors; monitor methane gas in the air just above the landfill cover to a safety limit of 500 parts per million; restrict public access; control storm run-off; protect surface water and keep appropriate records.

Sites

Brown's Island Demolition Landfill is an approximate 14 acre site located five miles SW of Salem near the Willamette River. It began in 1967 and was used as an open dump until 1986. Upon closure, an unused portion was granted DEQ authorization for inert non-burnable materials not accepted at the WTEF (sheet rock with high sulfur content). It is owned and operated by the county. It has projected capacity through the year 2000.
Coffin Butte Landfill serves as a backup landfill for the county and is located in Benton County near Corvallis. It is run by Valley Landfills. Marion county directs waste to Coffin Butte when the WTEF is at capacity or shut down for maintenance or repair.
The ash monofill near Woodburn is a 10 acre ash site that receives approximately 140 tons of ash per day (chart available for more detail). The cell is lined both with a composite liner of clay and a flexible membrane liner. A second monofill is north of the existing one. Beyond 2004 the county would need to develop additional capacity. The county owns the property and has an operation agreement with Valley Landfills.
In the early 1980's, the county went through a preliminary siting process and identified a potential site for a landfill. The site is near Jefferson, close to I-5; it has received a land use permit. Other permits are pending. This is called a dedicated site according to the Solid Waste Plan of 1995. (Plans are updated each three-five years. An update is due this year but is not yet ready). Jim Sears, Director of the Maron County Department of Solid Waste, states that the Jefferson site needs DEQ permission; County Commissioner Randy Franke states that he doesn't see the County siting another landfill but retains the Jefferson site as an undeveloped option. Although he supports retaining the site for future consideratin as a landfill, Commissioner Franke sees drier climates as better landfill sites than our area. He also says it is beneficial to let industry do what industry does rather than creating small pockets to maintain in the county. NIMBY applies especially to landfill siting.

Incineration

There are 114 WTEF plants operating in 32 states throughout the US as of 9/20/1996. These plants burn about 15% of the trash nationwide and can generate more than 2,650 megawatts of electricity at a value of $850 million. The Marion County site is located on a 16 acre site just off I-5 near Brooks. It is owned and operated by Ogden Martin Systems. All employees are employed by Ogden Martin.
The WTEF processes all MSW that meets the County's standard of acceptability. The technology used is known as a mass burn in which solid waste is burned with little or no precombustion processing taking place. (diagram of plant design available at units) The WTEF at Brooks has two processing lines or burners with room for a third to be added each with a design capacity of 275 tons of solid waste per day .
Once the waste is received, it is stored in the waste pit and fed into the burners by overhead cranes . As the waste is burned on the grates , it releases hot exhaust gases. This energy heats water into steam and which turns a turbine to produce electricity. This is sold to Bonneville or PGE on a thrity year contract that lasts till 2014 and brings in about $4million/year.
The cooler gases flow through an economizer to continue cooling and then travel to the quench reactor where lime is injected to neutralize them. In the bag house gas is filtered to remove particles. They are then released through the stack. Ash from air pollution control equipment is collected separately and conveyed to the ash removal system for handling together with bottom ash. In 1988 equipment was installed to recover the 75-80 tons of ferrous metal weekly. Twice yearly each boiler is shut down for cleaning and maintenance and once a year both are down.
Ogden Martin routinely samples the ash(according to Jim Sears it is twice a year) to check for toxicity standards leaching procedure, or TCLP. TCLP is a characteristic test and is an indirect measure of the contaminant levels in a mixture of wastes. It is designed to simulate the effects of leaching on waste after is is landfilled.
In 1984 ash was considered solid waste but the Supreme Court decided that incinerator ash should not be exempt from hazardous waste regulations. In 1992 EPA stated that ash should be exempt under Subtitle C but this is only a recommendation. Therefore ash is tested to see if it tests out as solid waste or meets the qualifications of hazardous waste and then must be disposed of accordingly. The ash residue must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill and cannot be mixed with MSW or demolition debris.
Future ash monofill cells could be potentially sited in the 65 acres south of the current MSW cell. The land is currently county owned farmland which is being sprayed with diluted leachate . Incinerators generate two kinds of ash(see vocab). Public concern over fly ash focuses on the heavy metals and dioxins that tend to attach to ash particles. Fly ash accounts for only 10-25% by weight of the total ash, but is often more toxic that bottom ash. The composition and toxicity of both types of ash depend on the contents of the waste burned and the efficiency of combustion. Ash can be potentially harmful to humans and the environment if improperly managed.
MSW inherently contains toxic elements because it is composed of the remains of household, business, commercial and sometimes construction and hospital waste. It can contain high levels of heavy metals and dioxins which when burned attach to ash particles. Since it is lightweight and can be dispersed easily, the bioavailability is increased. It can also leach heavy metals and threaten surface and groundwater sources if not monitored properly. Some strategies include: covering ash in transport trucks and piles; mixing lime with ash and water to form"concrete".
Environmental organizations have developed recommendations for sound ash management: manage fly and bottom ash separately; dispose of in secure monofills; chemically or physically treat ash to reduce toxicity and keep materials containing heavy metals out of incinerators.
There is controversy whether the ash has a use in road beds, cinder blocks if it is known to contain heavy metals. Jeff Bickford , an engineer with Marion County Department of Solid Waste, states that this is an option in his presentation to Master Recyclers. Commissioner Franke doesn't see any plans to do this as information is not certain. It is impossible to provide long term control over ash when it is used in the open environment.

Comparison Table for Landfills and Incineration

LANDFILL versus INCINERATION
Funding
Landfill: $18-20/ton local
Incineration: $67 ton in county
Landfill: $26.75-$60 long haul
Incineration: $200 out of county (W. Salem)
Costs
Landfill: $31/ton
Incineration: $50/ton
Landfill: $28,529,624 (cost to establish in 1994)
Incineration: $47.5 million forconstruction; $57.3 million for financial/bonds
By-products
Landfill: Leachate, methane gas, heat; Piles of unusable resources
Incineration: Ash, ferrous metals, electricity, mercury, dioxins,leachate with salts
Pollutants
Landfill: Groundwater--leachate, methane, lost soil; bacterial gases of benzene, toluene
Incineration: Airborne--mercury, SO2, CO, heavy metals, dioxin,cadmium, NO2, lead
Life span
Landfill: Varies; about 20 years
Incineration: 30 years with upgrades
Future Status
Landfill: New monofills needed 2004; no new demolition planned
Incineration: Third burner available, net cost$82-103/ton
Decommission
Landfill: $150,000/yr/30yrs
Incineration: $80 million includes bonds, minor fees, loss of revenue, fees to Ogden Martin
Testing time
Landfill: Random on old sites
Incineration: 2 times per year
Landfill: Regularly on current DEQ/EPA standards; 2 times per year on ground water
Incineration: DEQ standards, Center for Disease Control
Technique
Landfill: Local sites with standards; distant non-urban areas
Incineration: Mixed waste burned; removal of metals
Basic Advantages
Landfill: Proven method
Incineration: Produce electricity
Landfill: No behavior changes
Incineration: No behavior changes
Landfill: Sites identified
Incineration: Plant exists; decrease landfill bulk, less CO2 than oil
Basic Disadvantages
Landfill: Expensive to ship wastes
Incineration: Special handling/landfill for ash
Landfill: Wastes resources
Incineration: Wastes resources
Landfill: Must meet EPA costs
Incineration: Air emissions
Landfill: Risk of water pollution
Incineration: Heavy truck travel
Landfill: NIMBY
Incineration: NIMBY
Landfill: Preserve waste up to 35 yrs.
Incineration: Requires large $ input
Landfill: $ to monitor for 30 yrs.
Incineration: Public involvement low

Bibliography

Books and videos available through the Salem Public Library

Colborn, Theo, <i<Our Stolen Planet

Steingraber, Susan, Living Downstream

Harr, Jonathan, A Civil Action, Vintage Books, 1996

Stauber and Rampton, Toxic Sludge is Good for You, Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME.

Gibbs, Lois, and the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste; Dying from Dioxin, South End Press, Boston, MA.

The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act, US Environmental Protection Agency, April, 1993
Greenpeace Magazine, Fall, 1997, Washington, DC
Dept. of Environmental Quality Publications:
Solid Waste in Oregon, Jan. 1997 Oregon State, Integrated Resource & Solid Waste Mgt Plan, Jan, 1994 Oregon State, Integrated Resource & Solid Waste Mgt Plan Background Document Oregon State, Integrated Resource & Solid Waste Mgt Plan Infomation Update, 1996
Coppinger, Philip F.; "The Hospital's Dilemma: The Incineration of Infectious Waste a Threat to Public Health," Winter 1996, New Solutions, pp. 51-60.

"Hospitals and Plastics," Public Health Reports, July/August, 1996

Envirosense, "Municipal Landfill Regulations"
Solid Waste Asst. Program, "Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities"
Discover, "At Play on a Field" June 1997
Memo Solid Waste Management Nov. 17, 1992 and Feb 1997
LWVUS, The Garbage Primer
Interviews: Jim Sears, Solid Waste County Manager/engineer; Randy Franke, County Commissioner
Ogden Martin Trash and Burn Multinational Monitor, July/Aug 1993
Waste Age, "Medical Waste Comes of Age" July 1997
Chemeketa Region, "Solid Waste Management Plan" 1974
Greenpeace Report, "Playing with Fire" 1993
Parametrix Inc. "Solid Waste Management Plan" 1995

Report written by Deanie Anderson.
Report published in February and March 1998.

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: November 13, 2008 15:19 PST.