The Wave of Waste Management - Case Study Example

Waste Management Literature Review: In today’s world, more than ever, the mass consumption of commodities lies at the heart of social life and economic growth and intrinsic to consumption is waste. In the United States over the last 30 years waste output has doubled (USEPA, 2003). Today almost 80 percent of US products are used once and then thrown away (Seldman, 1995). US comprise just 4% of the global population, but churns out almost 30% of the waste generated by OECD nations (Heather, 2005). Through an elaborate public relations campaign the organizations generated a popular narrative about garbage/waste that shifted responsibility from industry to the individual. in 1980’s manufacturers exploited the rise of recycling to further ingrain a sense of personal culpability for increasing levels of trash, and to crack open new consumer markets. The wave of waste management accompanied the rise of mandatory recycling programmes which were a product of a major landfill crisis and public pressure. Often from the diverse groups that started the environmental justice movement to reprocess rather than dispose of wastes. With the measures that would restrict the generation of waste, like mandatory laws and source reduction changes and in 1980’s recycling underwent a renaissance. In 1980’s curbside recycling systems were adopted many of them mandatory. In 1993, the US environmental protection agency reported that domestic recycling had tripled by weight from 70% to almost 22% (Strasser, 1999). Rather than resist all this recycling, the highest level of industry appeared to undergo a green conversion. Industry accepted recycling in lien of more radical changes like bans on certain materials and industrial processes, production controls, minimum standards for product durability and higher prices for resource extraction. Faced with all these potential regulations, capital recognized that recycling had an advantage that other option lacked. In industry’s eyes recycling was a lesser evil. But by the early 1990’s some recycling centers were criticizing the code-stamps for creating public confusion over what was actually recyclable and driving up costs for local waste handling facilities. The start of Waste Management was intensified in 1990’s during the Rio Earth summit in 1992. Agenda 21, signed by 178 nations put up a detailed plan involving 27 principles to guide countries towards sustainable development through proper Waste Management including three R’s (UN, 2004). The EU Waste Management policies were started in 1975 (Johnson and Corcelle, 1995). Article 8 of sixth Environmental Action Programmes based on decoupling waste generation from economic activities in such a way that it does not increase waste in any ways (EU, 2005). Integrated Waste Management aims at reducing the waste generated through applying suitable technologies. Environment Management systems objectives and goals set by different national and international treaties, agreements & legislations (Simmons, 1991; Tehobanoglous et al. 1993). The EU main guidelines for Waste Management follows Waste hierarchy principles, prioritizing Waste reduction to waste recovery as material and energy and having disposal in landfills as the last priority. Recent US data indicate about 25% diversion, including more than 20 states that prohibit landfilling of garden waste (Simmons et al., 2006). Labor intensive informal recycling often occurs in developing countries, at the higher level. Waste management can significantly reduce the mass of waste that requires more centralized solutions rather than diversion and small-scale recycling activities and decentralized living form. The great challenge for the future is to provide safer, healthier working conditions than currently experienced by scavengers on uncontrolled dumpsites. Available studies indicate that recycling activities can generate significant employment, especially for women, through creative microfinance and other small-scale investments. For example, in Cairo, available studies indicate that 7–8 daily jobs per ton of waste and recycling of >50% of collected waste can be attained (Iskandar, 2001). Landfill gas recovery and utilization will continue to increase at the historical rate of 5% per year in developed countries (Bogner and Matthews, 2003; Willumsen, 2003). The maximum rate of incineration that could be implemented was 85% of the waste generated. The increased recycling scenario assumed a growth in paper and cardboard recycling in all parts of the world using a technical maximum of 60% recycling (CEPI, 2003). The recent studies by Beigl and Salhoger (2004), Holmgren and Henning (2004), Finnveden et al. (2005), Moberg et al. (2005), Dahlbo et al.(2005 a) and Bovea and Powell (2006) conclude that waste hierarchy is valid as a rule of thumb, but the priorities are dependent on the existing condition. OECD (1975) basic principal of polluter pays have significant impact on to minimize waste. This principal promotes organizations to reduce the waste generation through adopting reuse and recycling technologies. Through evaluating the overall cost of environmental impact to costs of products and services, the organizations has to take measures like reduction, redesign of products, product recyclability, packaging, weight (Fullerton and Wn, 1998; Choe & Fraser, 1999; Calcott and Walls, 2000), material content (Eicher & Pethig, 2001) and product durability (Runkel, 2003) to reduce the amount of waste. Economic instruments generally promote environmentally responsible behavior, (Joos et al, 1999). Even small increase in economic waste policy instrument results in activities to reduce waste amounts (Kautto & Melanen, 2003). Waste generation is closely linked to population life style, development; urbanization etc. in developed world, trying to reduce waste generation the current goal is to decouple waste generation from economic driving forces such as GDP (OECD, 2003; Giegrich and Vogt, 2005). Waste prevention/reduction recovery, recycling and reuse represent a growing potential for indirect reduction of GHG emissions through decrease waste generation, lower raw material consumption, reduced energy demand and fossil fuel avoidance. Material efficiency can be increased by more efficient design, material substitution, product recycling, material recycling and quality cascading (use of recycled material for a secondary product with lower quality demands) at several stages in the life cycle of a product. Both material recycling and quality cascading occur in many countries at large scale for metals recovery (steel, aluminium) and recycling of paper, plastics and wood. All these measures lead to indirect energy savings, reductions in GHG emissions, and avoidance of GHG generation. This is especially true for products resulting from energy-intensive production processes such as metals, glass, plastic and paper (Tuhkanen et al., 2001). Waste components can be recovered as material (recycling) or as energy (energy recovery). Treatment by recovery reduces the demand for natural resources and energy consumption and the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. At recycling, waste is treated as a resource in its own right (for example Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). Waste can be recycled to produce new products of the same type, such as aluminium cans into aluminium cans (primary or closed loop recycling) or a range of lower quality conversion products, such as biodegradable waste into compost (secondary or open loop recycling). Recycling has many advantages (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993; Corbitt 1999, Porter 2002). Sorted and collected waste components offer a stable domestic source of raw materials with uniform and known composition. Recycling decreases the need for disposal of by-products at production and saves raw materials resulting in resource conservation by extending the lifetime of materials. The savings in raw materials and production costs can be referred to the price of the final product. Recycled products are also well accepted by consumers, the positive effect being, and limited to establish brands (Mobley et al. 2005). Recycling of all materials is not economically feasible, because recycling is highly material-dependent and it is closely related to the equivalent manufacturing processes (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993, Corbitt 1999). Secondary recycling in particular may produce recycled products inferior in quality having lower grade applications and limited markets (Porter 2002). Regarding the future of up-front recycling and separation technologies, it is expected that wider implementation of incrementally-improving technologies will provide more rigorous process control for recycled waste streams transported to secondary markets or secondary processes, including paper and aluminium recycling, composting and incineration. If analyzed within Life cycle assessment (LCA) perspective, waste can be considered a resource, and these improvements should result in more advantageous material and energy balances for both individual components and urban waste streams as a whole. For developing countries, provided sufficient measures are in place to protect workers and the local environment, more labour-intensive recycling practices can be introduced and sustained to conserve materials, gain energy benefits and reduce GHG emissions. Recent studies (e.g. Smith et al, 2001; WRAP, 2006) have begun to comprehensively quantify the significant benefits of recycling or indirect reductions of GHG emissions from the waste sector. Waste has an economic advantage in comparison to many biomass resources because it is regularly collected. Assuming an average heating value of 9GJ/t for mixed waste (Dornburg and Faaiz, 2006) and converting to energy equivalents, global waste in 2002 contained about 8EJ of available energy, which could increase to 13 EJ in 2030 using waste projections (Monni et al., 2006). Currently more than 130 million tomes per year of waste are combusted world wide (Themelis, 2003). Quantifying the GHG reduction benefits of waste minimization, recycling and reuse requires the application of life-cycle assessment (LCA) tools (Smith et al., 2001) Recycling reduces GHG emission through lower energy demand for production and by substitution of recycled feed stocks for virgin materials. Efficient use of materials also reduces waste. Virtually all developed countries have implemented comprehensive national, regional or local recycling programmes. For example Smith et al. (2001) thoroughly addressed the GHG emission benefits from recycling across the EU and Pimenteira et al. (2004) quantified GHG emission reductions from recycling in Brazil. Smith et al. (2001) highlighted major cost differences between EU member states. Based on fees (including taxes) for countries with data, this study compared emissions and costs for various waste management practices. Recycling costs are highly dependent on the waste material recycled. Waste reduction has been promoted by recycling programmes, waste minimization and other measures (Miranda et al, 1994; Fullerton and Kinnaman, 1996). Although policy instruments within the waste sector consist mainly of regulations, there are also economic measures to promote recycling, waste minimization and selected waste management technologies. Both policy and regulatory drivers’ will encourage, waste minimization and recycling in industrialized countries. Major policies are aimed at restricting the uncontrolled dumping of waste in developing countries. Extended producers responsibility (EPR) regulations providing a strong incentive mechanism to redesign products using fewer materials and increased recycling potential (OECD, 2001). Initially EPR programmes were reported to be expensive (Hanisch, 2000), but the EPR concept, later on implemented in various countries. In Germany, the 1994, closed substance cycle and waste management act, other laws and voluntary agreements have restructured waste management act, other laws and voluntary agreements have restricted waste management over the past 15 years (Giegrich and Vogt, 2005). Huhtala (1997) studied optimal recycling rates for municipal solid waste using a model that included recycling costs and consumer preferences; results suggested that a recycling costs and consumer preferences; result suggested that a recycling rate of 50% was achieved, economically justified and environment preferable. This rate has already been achieved in many countries for more valuable waste fractions such as metals and paper (OECD, 2002b). For many countries, they rely on land filling and increase utilization of landfill CH4 can provide cost effective mitigation strategy. The combination of gas utilization for energy will biocover landfill cover design to increase CH4 oxidation can largely mitigate site specific CH4 emissions (Hyuber-Humer, 2004; Barlaz et al. 2004). The existing studies on the mitigation potential for recycling yield variable results because of differing assumption and methodologies applied, however, recent studies (Mylklyma et al, 2005) are beginning to quantitatively examine the environmental benefits of alternative waste management strategies including recycling. Monni et al. (2006) developed baseline and mitigation scenarios for solid waste management using the first order decay (FOD) methodology in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which takes into account the timing of emissions. Research plan: The Gnatt chart is depicting the methodology which will be followed during the complete tenure of evaluation study. We will start with site visit which will provide us an overview of the company which has to be evaluated. This site visit provide us the first hand knowledge of the company, its all activities, its nature of waste, establishing good relationships with staff and to facilitate the release of internal documents, collection of data by observing, talking to people, and collecting samples of waste they have generated. This activity requires almost one week. The next step will be to interview top management people, people related to environmental management in the company, to interview those directly or indirectly related to waste management practices. Kvale (1996) defines an interview as an inter view, that is, an interchange of views between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest and providing data on understandings, opinions, what people remember doing, attitudes, feelings and the like that people have in common. Face to face interview will provide us the in-depth knowledge of current waste practices in the company. During interview, interviewer has to prepare questions to be asked to have specific information required for study. Due to informants nature of job and involvement we will need more time so that we can seek appointment from them. This stage of study requires one month. Now the next step of the study will be to audit the current activities of the company to know the likely individual waste streams, ensuring that procedures set out for collection and transportation of the waste, initial planning, selecting an audit team with expertise in the industry, familiarization with the site, and Methodology One week One month Two week Two week Three week Two week One month Two week Site Investigation Interview (key informants and focus group) Quantitative waste audit: A. Pre-audit activities B. On-site activities C. Post audit activities Designing the Questionnaire Field testing of Questionnaire Revision & Finalization of Questionnaire Administration of Questionnaire & acquiring responses To review the current waste management practices Gnatt chart for proposed research plan then preparing the checklist for the audit. In the process we will audit all the process from production of waste to disposal, so that we must have complete knowledge of the company’s waste disposal system. Finally in the last phase of audit we will categorize waste. The next step in the study will be designing the questionnaire. This requires careful analyses of the objectives of the study. The questionnaire will reveal how knowledgeable respondents are on waste management, awareness of what happens to their waste, attitude concerning the methods of waste disposal, barriers and solutions to managing waste, and identify the ways to improve a more sustainable approach to waste management. After formulating a questionnaire we will field test the questionnaire and revise accordingly if necessary. After finalizing the questionnaire we will send the questionnaire to already identified sample with in the company and may be outside the company. The questionnaire will be available on the web site of the company so that any one could respond. After one month of time we will collect the responses, categorize it, and analyze it using simple mathematical tool and statistical tool to reach at the conclusion. Finally the main objective of the study to evaluate present environmental management system will be achieved and the alternative or best solutions will be recommended. References: 1. Barlaz, M., R. Green, J. Chanton, R.D. Goldsmith, and G. Hater, 2004: Evaluation of a biologically-active cover for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(18), pp. 4891- 4899. 2. Beigl, P. and Salhofer, S. 2004. Comparison of ecological effects and costs of communal waste management systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41: 83-102. 3. Bogner, J. and E. Matthews, 2003: Global methane emissions from landfills: New methodology and annual estimates 1980-1996. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17, pp. 34-1 to 34-18. 4. Bovea, M.D. and Powell, J.C. 2006. Alternative scenarios to meet the demands of sustainable waste management. Journal of Environmental Management, 79: 115-132. 5. Calcott, P. and Walls, M. 2000. Can downstream waste disposal policies encourage upstream “Design for Environment”? American Economic Review, 90: 233-237. 6. CEPI, 2003: Summary of the study on non-collectable and non-recyclable paper products. Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI), Brussels, Belgium. 7. Choe, C. and Fraser, I. 1999. An economic analysis of household waste management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38: 234-246. 8. Corbitt, R.A. 1999. Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 9. Dahlbo, H., Laukka, J., Myllymaa, T., Koskela, S., Tenhunen, J., Seppälä, J., Jouttijärvi, T., and Melanen, M. 2005a. Waste management options for discarded newspaper in the Helsinki Metropolitan Are. Life cycle assessment report. The Finnish Environment 752. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute. 10. Dornberg, V. and A. Faaij, 2006: Optimising waste treatment systems. Part B: Analyses and scenarios for The Netherlands. Resources Conservation & Recycling, 48, pp. 227-248. 11. Eichner, T. and Pethig, R. 2001. Product design and efficient management of recycling and waste treatment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41: 109-134.esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm. 12. EU. 2005. The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme. In European Union www-pages. Updated July 4, 2005. retrieved June 23, 2008. From: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/newprg. 13. Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., and Moberg, Å. 2005. Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste – Part 1: General methodology and results. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13: 213-229. 14. Fullerton, D. and T.C. Kinnaman, 1996: Household responses to pricing garbage by the bag. American Economic Review, 86 (4), pp. 971-984. 15. Fullerton, D. and Wu, W. 1998. Policies for green design. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36: 131-148. 16. Giegrich, J. and R. Vogt, 2005: The contribution of waste management to sustainable development in Germany. Umweltbundesamt Report FKZ 203 92 309, Berlin. 17. Hanisch, C., 2000: Is extended producer responsibility effective? Environmental Science and Technology, 34(7), pp. 170A-175A. 18. Heather, rogers. 2005, Titans of Trash, The nation, 281(21), p.22. 19. Holmgren, K. and Henning, D. 2004. Comparison between material and energy recovery of municipal waste from an energy perspective. A study of two Swedish municipalities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43: 51-73. 20. Huber-Humer, M., 2004: Abatement of landfill methane emissions by microbial oxidation in biocovers made of compost. PhD Thesis, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, 279 pp. 21. Huhtala, A., 1997: A post-consumer waste management model for determining optimal levels of recycling and landfilling. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10, pp. 301-314. 22. Iskandar, L., 2001: The informal solid waste sector in Egypt: prospects for formalization, published by Community and Institutional Development, Cairo, Egypt, 65 pp. 23. Johnson, S. P. and Corcelle G. 1997. The Environmental Policy of the European 24. Joos, W., Carabias, V., Winistoerfer, H., and Stuecheli, A. 1999. Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland. Waste Management, 19: 417-425. 25. Kautto, P. and Melanen, M. 2003. How does industry respond to waste policy instruments – Finnish experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12: 1-11. 26. Kvale, S (1996), Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing (Sage, London). 27. Miranda, M.L., J.W. Everett, D. Blume, and B.A. Roy, 1994: Marketbased incentives and residential municipal solid waste. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(4), pp. 681-698. 28. Moberg, Å., Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., and Lind, P. 2005. Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste – Part 2: Landfilling compared to other treatment methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13: 231-240. 29. Mobley, A.S., Painter, T.S., Untch, E.M., and Unnava, H.R. 1995. Consumer evaluation of recycled products. Psychology and Marketing, 12: 165-176. 30. Monni, S., R. Pipatti, A. Lehtilä, I. Savolainen, and S. Syri, 2006: Global climate change mitigation scenarios for solid waste management. Espoo, Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Publications, No. 603, pp 51. 31. Myllymaa, T., H. Dahlbo, M. Ollikainen, S. Peltola and M. Melanen, 2005: A method for implementing life cycle surveys of waste management alternatives: environmental and cost effects. Helsinki, Suomen Ympäristö - Finnish Environment 750, 108 pp. 32. OECD, 2001: Extended producer responsibility: A guidance manual for governments. OECD publishers, Paris. 33. OECD, 2002b: Environmental data waste compendium 2002.Environmental Performance and Information Division, OECD Environment Directorate. Working Group on Environmental Information and Outlooks. 27 pp. 34. OECD, 2003: OECD Environmental Data Compendium 2002. Paris. accessed 24/06/08. 35. OECD. 1975. The Polluter Pays Principle: Definition, Analysis, and Implementation. Paris: OECD. 36. Pimenteira, C.A.P., A.S. Pereira, L.B. Oliveira, L.P. Rosa, M.M. Reis, and R.M. Henriques, 2004: Energy conservation and CO2 emission reductions due to recycling in Brazil, Waste Management, 24, pp. 889- 897. 37. Porter, R.C. 2002. The Economics of Waste. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.300 p. 38. Runkel, M. 2003. Product durability and extended producer responsibility in solid waste management. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24: 161-182. 39. Seldman, neil, 1995. recycling- history of US, in Attilio Bisio and Sharon boots, eds. Encylopedia of energy techno;ogy and the environment, Hoboken: John Wiley, pp.23-52. 40. Simmons, I.G. 1991. Earth, Air and Water. Resources and Environment in the Late 20th Century. London: Edward Arnold. 41. Simmons, P., N. Goldstein, S. Kaufman, N. Themelis, and J. Thompson, Jr., 2006: The state of garbage in America. Biocycle, 47, pp. 26-35. 42. Smith, A., K. Brown, S. Ogilvie, K. Rushton, and J. Bates, 2001: Waste management options and climate change. Final Report ED21158R4.1 to the European Commission, DG Environment, AEA Technology, Oxfordshire, 205 pp. 43. Strasser, susan. 1999. Waste and want: A social history of trash, New York, Henry Holt,p. 285. 44. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Vigil, S.A. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 45. Themelis, N., 2003: An overview of the global waste-to-energy industry. Waste Management World, 2003-2004 Review Issue July-August 2003, pp. 40-47. 46. Tuhkanen, S., R. Pipatti, K. Sipilä, and T. Mäkinen, 2001: The effect of new solid waste treatment systems on greenhouse gas emissions. In Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Proceeding of the FifthInternational Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-5). D.J. Williams, R.A. Durie, P. Mcmullan, C.A.J. Paulson, and A.Y. Smith, (eds). Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing, pp. 1236- 1241. 47. UN. 2004. Agenda 21, June 1992. In United Nations www-pages. Updated December 17, 2004. retrieved on June 22, 2008. From http://www.un.org/ 48. US Environmental protection agency. 2003. Office of the solid waste and emergency response, municipal solid waste in US: 2001, facts and figures, Washington, pp.3-4. 49. Willumsen, H.C., 2003: Landfill gas plants: number and type worldwide. Proceedings of the Sardinia ‘05, International Solid and Hazardous Waste Symposium, October 2005, published by CISA, University of Cagliari, Sardinia. 50. WRAP, 2006: Environmental benefits of recycling, an international review of life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling sector. Waste and Resources Action Program, Peer reviewed report prepared by H. Wenzel et al., Danish Technical University, published by WRAP, Banbury, Oxfordshire, England. Read More