Australia as the Highest Producers of Waste in the World - Essay Example

Landfills Executive Summary Australia is among the highest producers of waste in the world (OECD 2002). It generates waste at a rate of 2.25 kilograms per person per day, the majority of which ends up in landfill (AGO 2004). During 2002-03 over 17 million tones of waste was disposed of at landfills in Australia. Over 30% of this was domestic or municipal waste. As defined in Wikipedia, Landfills also known as a dump (US) or a tip (UK), is a site for the disposal of waste materials by burial and is the oldest form of waste treatment. Historically, landfills have been one of the most common methods of organized waste management (along with incineration), and remain so in many places around the world. This paper includes the history and development of property type of landfills in Australia. The story of how the Australian comes up with this method is also discussed in this paper. The development and application of various methods for this property type is also described. This paper shows the comparison of landfills in Australia with other countries such as the USA, Canada and New Zealand. Graphs and tables are included in this study as your reference about landfills in Australia. The management of wastes is an important environmental issue. Some wastes are toxic and can harm living organisms and their disposal is of particular importance. Other wastes, while not directly toxic, can physically harm the environment. Effective maintenance of waste can help us a lot. History of Landfills Landfills were introduced in England in 1912. It was formerly called as the Controlled Tipping and involves natural fermentation brought about by microorganisms. Waste materials or refuse are deposited in shallow layer, compacted and covered within 24 hours with earth or other chemically inert material from an effective seal. (Britannica, 2006). United States of America and New Zealand are among the countries that use landfills and experienced controversy in using landfills as waste management. Below are some details about the history and development of landfills in both countries. United States of America At the end of World War II, urban growth accelerated. With this growth came increased refuse generation. The impacts of open-burning dumps on public health became a concern. Experience in the military with sanitary fill methods and the interests by some local governments in eliminating open dumps led to increased efforts to dispose of refuse in a sanitary manner, but what prescribed a sanitary manner was unknown. Many local governments that bragged about using the "sanitary landfill" method were actually using modified open dumps. The landfill in 1940 was described in a report prepared by the Sanitary Engineering Research Project of the University of California in 1952.1 The landfill studied in 1949 was described as a refuse dropped and spread out over a large to allow scavengers easy access. At the end of day pigs were allowed on the spread-out refuse for overnight feeding. It is in this year that the landfills made their appearance. Most of the landfills were located on former wetlands. This 1 Sanitary Engineering Research Project. "An Analysis of Refuse Collection and Sanitary Landfill Disposal." practice does not take long and was subjected to change because of obvious reasons. Open burning of refuse created air pollution. Allowing the pig to eat raw garbage was not a sanitary . During this time there were no minimum requirements set as to what constituted a sanitary landfill. Like the landfills in Australia, most of the landfills in USA where also subjected to closure because of the following reasons; it can cause air pollution, the leak is unsafe for the residents that surrounds the area, groundwater contamination and others that affect the health of the people. The commitment of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) to provide national leadership to eliminate open-burning dumps and replace them with sanitary landfills also served as the basis for a broader national strategy to improve the management of refuse. Therefore, the stage was set for agents of change to create a new technology: the sanitary landfill. The change started in 1949-50 by the USPHS, they started using a cover of compacted soil. In 1955, Ralph Black of the California State Health Department introduced a cover material that can cover the landfills and deal with flies. Working with entomologist A.M. Barnes, their efforts indicated that 2.625 in. of compacted soil would prevent the emergence of flies from a landfill. However further studies led the researches to recommend that 6 in. of compacted soil would eliminate the operational problem.2 In 1953, a joint committee of the USPHS and the American Public Works Association (APWA) published recommended guidelines for refuse collection and disposal practices for small community. These recommendations reflect how dramatic the change from open-burning dumps to sanitary landfills would be. In 1965, with the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the USPHS accelerated its efforts to introduce sanitary landfill practices in the US. The term refuse was being phased out and replaced with the term solid waste. Landfill gas migration and the possibility of explosions resulted in a need for control measures and eventually birthed a new industry to capture and utilize the gas as an energy source. In early 1970 the USPHS encourage the states, local government and private landfill owners to change to the sanitary landfill. The USPHS solid waste program was moved to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1976 the momentum of change started by the USPHS almost came to a standstill. From 1979 until 1984 limited investments in solid waste (nonhazardous waste) were principally in nonlandfill-related programs. From here EPA regulatory authority prepared for a landfill criteria as granted by the congress. The criteria include the series of design, operating, monitoring, and remediation requirements on MSW landfills. The landfills built to comply with these rules truly eliminate the mosquitoes, flies, rats, swine, and smoke of the open-burning dumps of the 1940's and 50's and provide what the pioneers sought: a means of disposing of solid waste in a sanitary manner. New Zealand New Zealander produces an estimated 2.5kg of waste per day. Landfills are the primary method of waste management in New Zealand. 20 years ago, landfills where dug whenever there is an available unwanted lands, old quarries, abandoned mines, gravel pits and marshlands. Modern waste disposal facilities are known as sanitary landfills. Sanitary landfills are a 2 Black, Ralph J. and Allan M. Barnes. "Effect of Earth Cover on Fly Emergence from Sanitary Landfills." Public Works. 87[3]: 109-11, 1956. designated piece of land where rubbish is tipped, compacted, and covered daily. The household waste collected at the gate in Gisborne goes to the Resource Recovery Centre and is then transported to a landfill out of the Gisbone District. From 1975- 2002 Gisborne's waste went to Paokahu landfill. The landfill site covered an area of 20 hectares. In the early years 70,000 tonnes of waste are landfilled here annually. Towards the end of its life, following the introduction of both charging and recycling, this figured dropped to 18, 000 tonnes. 3 In Ruatoria the landfill is much smaller. Transfer Station are not a disposal method but rather a means of transferring the refuse to landfill. The refuse where brought to the station and transferred to bulk haulage vehicles which take it to the Resource Recovery Center or Landfill. Landfills in New Zealand are filling up quickly. The process of siting a new landfill is long and difficult. Few people want to have a landfill in their community. This feeling is commonly referred to as the NIMBY or "Not in my Backyard" syndrome. Because of the unsafe and unsanitary disposal in the landfill residents of the area are having this syndrome. They are afraid for the effect of the landfill in their health, water and surrounding. To be able to produce a safe landfills New Zealand government for waste management provides guidelines for the operation of landfills. Landfills in Australia One of the most first country to have landfills is Australia. The South Fremantle Landfill in Western Australia is among one of the first landfill and was operated between the years of 1931 and 1986 and received a wide range of domestic, industrial and other hazardous waste. The 3 http://www.gdc.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres said landfill is also the focus of investigation from 1931 to 1986 because of the following problems; gas production with the potential for explosion, groundwater contamination, settlement of the waste and other health hazard associated with hazardous waste. The site was then partially covered with clean sand and left largely unremediated (Environmental Health Department, City of Fremantle 1990). It is divided into 3 areas for further studies; the Sandown Park, Hollis Park and the Daly Street. The site is bounded with residential on the north and highway and commercial on the east. Table 1 below shows the history of waste filling in 3 landfills areas in the City of Fremantle Council 2001. Table 1. History of Waste Filling in the City of Fremantle Areas Dates of filling Nature of waste Depth of fill Approx. amount of waste (tones) Comment Hollis Park 1931-1959 Domestic, sewage, waste oil 4.4m 52,000 Waste deposited between sand dunes, East-west Daly Street 1955-1974 1980-1986 Domestic, industrial, fly ash, heavy metals,PCBs 8 m 240,000 Dumping recommenced here when Sandown Park reached capacity Sandown Park 1956-1980 Domestic, industrial, fly ash, wool bales, skins, tires, car bodies, marine bilge oil, hydrocarbons, asbestos, batteries, chemical drums 12 m 600,000 Caravan Park located on SE corner of site After further investigation, the dumping was ceased; the waste was covered with a capping layer of uncompacted clean sand and rubble. In some areas, this layer is up to 1m thick, however, over much of Sandown and Hollis Park, the layer is absent or less than 0.5m thick. The capping layer is ideally supposed to protect the environment from the waste within the landfill by preventing infiltration of water and enabling vegetation to grow and minimize erosion. Apart from this layer, efforts to rehabilitate the site were minimal. In Southern part of Australia, the Metropolitan of Adelaide has developed a landfills and is now also for closure. (Venning, 1997). The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) of South Australia sets policy and regulates and monitors waste management. It has developed waste management strategy called " Integrated Waste Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide 1996-2015" The strategy was written to provide a practical framework for waste management. There are twenty one solid waste depots servicing the Metropolitan of Adelaide but according to EPA, most of these has a very limited lifespan and will close within the next few years. Most of the landfills in Australia end up in closure after a few years of operation because of the non compliance of the policy being set by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to ensure the safety of the people. Generation of wastes An estimated 21.2 million tonnes of solid wastes were received and disposed at landfills throughout Australia. This is the reason why Australia is among the top 10 solid waste generators within the OECD (OECD 1999). Figure 1: Solid waste disposal in Australia. [HS Indicators 10.1 and 10.2] Source: ABS (1998l). The primary pressure from waste generation is the need for disposal, and the consequent environmental impacts. The main form of waste disposal in Australia is landfill, which accounts for over 95% of solid waste disposal in some states and territories . The impact of landfill disposal includes consumption of increasingly scarce urban land, potential leachates from toxic wastes, release of methane from the decomposition of organic wastes, and greenhouse emissions through the transportation of wastes to landfills, which are located mostly on the fringes of cities. Existing landfill capacity in some urban settlements is extremely scarce and proposals for new landfill sites often meet with community opposition (EPA NSW 1997). In New South Wales, the EPA estimated that existing landfill capacity would not last beyond 2007 at present rates of waste disposal. If the state waste reduction targets of 60% by the year 2000 were met, the existing landfills would last another eight years. The waste generation characteristics of human settlements throughout Australia can be inferred from data on waste disposal and waste diversion. The former is principally waste disposed in landfills, and the latter includes waste quantities reused or recycled. Therefore, the total amount of waste which potentially affects environmental quality would be roughly the sum of wastes disposed, diverted, reused and recycled. In general, data on waste generation in Australia is patchy, and waste data has been collected only relatively recently in some states and territories. The primary data sources on waste are state Environmental Protection Agencies or Authorities (EPAs) and, where they exist, waste boards or other government agencies overseeing waste minimisation programs. Waste data is obtained primarily through the collection of landfill levies and various waste collection services. A National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) has also been established, consisting of a database on emissions to the environment, including those of a hazardous nature or involving significant impact on human health and the environment (Environment Australia 2000). Wastes from human settlements are generally categorised as either urban solid wastes or hazardous/prescribed wastes. Urban solid wastes are further classified under three subcategories, namely: municipal (M) - domestic and council, commercial and industrial (C and I), and construction and demolition (C and D). Other Classifications: Sewage sludge and bio-solids Hazardous or prescribed wastes Low-level radioactive wastes The composition of urban solid wastes can vary significantly and is indicative of the modes of economic activity and drivers for waste generation in each urban centre. Across the major capital cities, overall waste composition is as follows: 40% domestic waste, 23% C and I waste and 37% C and D waste (Table 2). In inner Sydney, only 14% of total urban waste was municipal in origin, while 60% was due to construction and demolition (Inner Sydney Waste Board 2000). The relatively high level of C and D wastes has been attributed to high levels of ongoing development, activities related to the Olympics, and the government's urban consolidation policy . Table 2: Composition of solid waste in major metropolitan centres. (Percentages by weight.) Inner SydneyA Sydney metroB ACTC BrisbaneD MelbourneE Perth metroF TasmaniaG AverageH Municipal 14 36 40 51 34 28 50 40 Commercial & industrial 26 40 24 17 32 17 26 26 Construction & demolition 60 23 36 32 34 55 24 34 A1996-97 (Inner Sydney Waste Board 2000). BAverage 1995-1999, data supplied by EPA NSW, 2000. CAverage 1994-1999, domestic including private delivery (ACT Government 2000). D1994 (EPA Queensland 1999). E1996-97 (EcoRecycle Victoria 1998a, 1998b). FAverage 1997-2000 (Department of Environment Protection WA, 2001). GData supplied by Department of Primary Industries, Water and the Environment, Tasmania, 2000. HExcluding inner Sydney. Source: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2005 Waste classification and composition Municipal and domestic wastes Approximately 40% of all solid wastes are municipal or council wastes, much of it from domestic households. The per capita disposal rate for municipal waste in Australia is 620 kg/year, placing it second only to the USA. Domestic or household waste streams typically include garden wastes, paper, glass, plastic and food wastes. The rate of household waste disposal in Australia is among the highest 10 in the OECD (OECD 1999). Based on 1996-97 data, the per capita disposal of domestic waste in Australia was approximately 400 kg/year (OECD 1999). Within the municipal waste stream, a number of specific solid waste streams pose significant environmental impacts and costs. The NSW EPA has estimated that almost six million used car tyres require disposal each year in New South Wales. Of these, 45% are transferred to landfill, while 25% are improperly disposed through dumping, burning or stockpiling . Apart from landfill pressures, tyre stockpile fires emit toxic gases that pollute the environment. Litter is also a significant problem and cost to many municipalities. In Queensland, 50% of councils spend more than $25 000 each annually on litter collections . The Gold Coast City Council alone collects approximately 1500 tonnes of litter each year, including cigarette butts, bottles, cans, paper and packaging materials . Since streets and gutters cover one-third of the urban 'catchment' area, loose litter can contribute significantly to stormwater pollution, which in turn causes poor water quality on beaches and waterways . Figure 81: Top 10 municipal waste disposers in the OECD. [HS Indicators 10.1 and 10.2] Source: OECD (1999); data generally for 1995-1997. 2. Construction and demolition wastes Construction and demolition (C and D) of buildings contributes 30-40% of all solid wastes disposed at landfill. This equates to approximately eight million tonnes nationwide, or 430 kg/year per capita. C and D waste streams typically consist of concrete, soil/rubble, clay or timber-based materials and plasterboard. In Victoria, 1.4 million tonnes of C and D wastes were sent to landfill, of which almost 25% was concrete. 3. Commercial and industrial waste Commercial and industrial (C and I) wastes typically contribute 10-20% of the total urban solid waste stream. The primary sources of C and I wastes are commercial establishments and non-biodegradable wastes from industrial and manufacturing processes. Significant quantities of industrial wastes are also generated from power generation, minerals processing and mining industries but are not counted under urban solid wastes. The C and I sector generates urban solid wastes and hazardous wastes. Solid waste from the C and I sector has a very wide range of composition that arises from the packaging, food and hospitality industries, and manufacturing. A small fraction of commercial and industrial wastes are currently reused or recycled, the majority being either stockpiled or disposed of to landfill. 4. Sewage sludge and bio-solids Bio-solids are the dry by-product of sewage treatment and are rich in plant nutrients. There are indications that the rate of bio-solids reuse is increasing. Between 1992 and 1998, Sydney Water Corporation collected an average of 41 000 dry tonnes of bio-solids every year. While the generation rates did not changed significantly over this time , the rate of beneficial reuse has improved dramatically, from 67% in 1992-93 to 99.5% in 1997-98. The bulk of this reuse is in agriculture and composting/horticulture (67.5% and 25% respectively in 1997-98; Sydney Water Corporation 1998). A longer-term strategy for improving the handling and transporting of bio-solids for Sydney is currently being developed (Sydney Water Corporation 2000). In Brisbane, 20 000 tonnes of bio-solids need to be disposed of annually. With on-site stockpiling being phased out, options that are being considered include incineration, worm reactors and pelletisation . 5. Hazardous or prescribed wastes Hazardous or prescribed wastes may originate from all sectors, but the majority are generated by the commercial, industrial and trade sectors. Sources of prescribed industrial wastes include hospitals; food outlets; chemical, paint and plastic manufacturers; and food processing plants. Potentially hazardous wastes of domestic origin include paints, solvents, used car batteries and motor oils. Hazardous or prescribed wastes require careful management and/or treatment due to their potential to harm the environment and the community. The environmental or health risks from these wastes may arise because of their toxicity, flammability, leachability or odour . 6. Low-level radioactive wastes Australia currently generates 60 cubic metres of low-level radioactive wastes (LLRW) annually, mainly from industrial and research uses involving radioactive materials. (This figure does not include uranium mining wastes, which are disposed of locally at mine sites.) This is a relatively low generation rate when compared to countries such as France and Britain, each of which generates 25 000 cubic metres per annum . Risks in operating Landfills Landfills for disposal of hazardous wastes are required to meet very stringent Federal and state standards to protect public health and the environment. These standards have been established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of the U.S.A. and govern the location, design, construction, operation and final closure of the landfill. All hazardous waste landfills must have RCRA permits that incorporate these standards. In addition, landfills must meet any more stringent state requirements, which often include on-site state inspectors, additional groundwater monitoring wells, restrictions on radioactive wastes, and more specific siting standards. State requirements cannot be less protective than the federal baseline. The following are the possible risks in landfills: 1. Groundwater contamination - leakage could be the cause of contamination in groundwater. To prevent this, a double line and leachate must be engineer to ensure that the leakage is prevented. 2. Air Pollution such as emission of methane gas can be harmful unless treated well. Landfills must control run-on and run-off. Run-on must be diverted to prevent erosion to the landfill. Run-off of precipitation must be collected and managed to reduce the potential for off-site migration and to determine if the run-off is itself hazardous waste. Landfills must also be covered or managed so as to control wind dispersal. 3. Identify what is the hazardous waste present in the landfills for proper treatment of the said waste. 4. In UK, Women living within three kilometers (two miles) of a hazardous waste landfill site have a 40 percent greater risk of conceiving a child with a chromosomal birth defect, such as Down's syndrome. (ENDS, 2002). Conclusion Landfills as a means of waste managements must follow guidelines and proper sanitation. It may be a help to dispose refuse but once it has operated without proper sanitation it may endanger the safety and health of the resident that live near the area of landfill. In Victoria, Adelaine and other cities in Australia they are strict and carefull in dealing with this matter. Most of the landfills has a shorter time to operate because of it's poor sanitation. Most of the landfills were covered with 6m compacted soil to prevent the flies and other insects in penetrating the said refuse. In United States and New Zealand the government are very much concerned with the leakage of methane and contamination of water. They are focusing their study in the said danger. It is best to operate landfills away from the residential area. Landfills operator should be aware of the proper guidelines and procedure in operating it. Coordination with the city government and other healthcare agency should be done to prevent problems in the future. As stated above Australia is among the top ten producer of refuse, so they must be aware and informed of the possible consequences of poor sanitation in landfills. Reference: 1. Sanitary Engineering Research Project. "An Analysis of Refuse Collection and Sanitary Landfill Disposal." Technical Bulletin No. 8, Series 37. University of California, Berkeley, CA, December 1952. 2. City of Fremantle Council (2001) South Fremantle Landfill Site Community, Discussion paper, Fremantle, WA. 3. Parliament of South Australia, Environment , Resources and Development Committee, Waste Management Practices in South Australia, 24th report of Committee, Ivan Venning , July 23, 1997. 4. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2002, Environmental Data Compendium, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris 5. AGO (Australian Greenhouse Office) 2004, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2002, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra 6. Environmental Health Department, City of Fremantle, (1990) An overview of the South Fremantle tip site, Fremantle, WA 7. Black, Ralph J. and Allan M. Barnes. "Effect of Earth Cover on Fly Emergence from Sanitary Landfills." Public Works. 87[3]: 109-11, 1956. 8. Sydney Water 2001, Lets Get Water Wise, last viewed October 2004, 9. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 1999, Environmental Data Compendium, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris 10. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2005 < http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf > 11. Technology and Environmental Issues, Treatment Technologies: Landfills < http://www.etc.org/technologicalandenvironmentalissues/treatmenttechnologies/landfills> 12. Toxic Waste Landfills Pose Birth Defect Risks, ENDS Environment Daily; January 25, 2002 < http://ens-news.com > Read More