DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodegradable Waste in Landfills

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Indicator Fact Sheet Signals 2001– Chapter Waste Biodegradable waste in landfills W4a: Biodegradable Municipal Waste landfilled as percentage of total generation of Biodegradable Municipal Waste in 1995. Landfill Directive target indicator 120 Target 2006 - 75 % 100 Target 2006 - 75 % ercentage of the 80 1995 TargetTarget 2016 2016 - 35 - 35 % % 60 ion in 40 generat 20 0 Denmark The France Norway Catalonia Ireland Biodegradable waste landfilled as p as landfilled waste Biodegradable Netherlands 1995 1996 1997 1998 Note: The reference year is 1995, although data for Germany refers to 1993, Finland 1994, Greece 1997, Italy 1996 and Sweden 1994. Biodegradable waste includes paper, paperboard, food and garden waste. Source: ETC/W questionnaire on biodegradable municipal waste and OECD/Eurostat Questionnaire 1998. L Too much biodegradable municipal waste goes to landfills. There have been no improvements in the countries that make the most use of landfilling. 1 Results and assessment Relevance for development in the environment The landfilling of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) is of environmental concern because its decomposition results in the production of landfill leachate and greenhouse gas emissions and because a potentially valuable resource is being wasted. By diverting BMW away from landfill to recycling and recovery operations such as composting, anaerobic digestion and material recycling, a valuable resource can be produced from the waste, and the exploitation of virgin resources and the amount of land required for landfill can be reduced. Policy reference Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste sets, as a policy target, the phased reduction of BMW going to landfill. By 2006, Member States are restricted to landfilling a maximum of 75 % of the total amount by weight of BMW produced in 1995. This target increases to 50 % in 2009 and 35 % in 2016. Countries that landfilled more than 80 % of BMW produced in 1995 may postpone the attainment of these targets for a maximum of four years. Assessment Countries can be grouped into: • those that are currently landfilling less than 35% of BMW produced (Denmark, Austria, The Netherlands and the Flemish region of Belgium); • those that are currently landfilling between 35% and 75% of BMW produced (France, Finland, Norway, Germany and Italy); • those that are currently landfilling more than 75% of BMW produced (Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Greece and Portugal). Initial trends for countries with relatively high landfilling rates that reported information for both 1995 and 1998 indicate that Italy and Norway are moving in the right direction while the United Kingdom, Ireland Finland are experiencing growth in relative quantities of BMW landfilled. Trends in Luxembourg, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Greece and Portugal could not be assessed, due to an absence of information for the years since 1995. The Landfill Directive places an absolute target on the tonnage of BMW that can be landfilled by 2006, 2009 and 2016 by linking the quantity permitted to the quantity produced in 1995. This means, for instance, that if BMW production doubles between 1995 and 2016, only 17,5 % of BMW produced in 2016 can be landfilled. A key potential barrier, therefore, to meeting the targets set by the Directive is the continuing growth in the production of municipal waste. Countries need to plan for this and ensure that adequate recovery capacity (e.g. composting, anaerobic digestion, material recycling, energy recovery etc.) is available for the increasing quantities of waste that will require diversion away from landfill. This applies to all countries, including those with currently low landfill rates. According to a study by the ETC/W approximately 107 million tonnes of BMW (paper, paperboard, food and garden waste) was produced in the EEU plus Norway in 1995, of which 70 million tonnes (66 %) was landfilled. As illustrated above, there is large variation from one country to another. These variations are mainly a function of differences in approaches to waste management. Generally, countries that have high levels of separate collection also have high levels of BMW recovery and low levels of BMW disposal to 2 landfill. Recovery practice also varies from country to country with some countries more heavily reliant on incineration with energy recovery than others. A key conclusion of the ETC/W study is that an integrated package of options is needed at national level to achieve high diversion rates. An integrated approach must start with separate collection of materials so that relatively uncontaminated materials are available for subsequent recovery. It is also important that recovery options be linked clearly to available markets and outlets for materials diverted away from landfill, because there is little point in separating and collecting material for which neither a market nor an outlet exists. Meta data: Technical Information 1. Data sources: Eurostat: “Waste Generated in Europe”. Luxembourg 2000. Based on: OECD/Eurostat questionnaire 1998, ETCW: “Topic report on Biodegradable Municipal Waste in Europe”. Copenhagen September 2000 (draft publication). 2. Description of data: Official reports from Member States. 3. Geographical coverage: EU plus Norway. 4. Temporal coverage: The reference year is 1995 although data for Germany refers to 1993, Finland 1994, Greece 1997, Italy 1996 and Sweden 1994. 5. Methodology and frequency: Joint OECD/Eurostat questionnaire with some limited guidelines and definitions is send to OECD-members every second year. In addition ETC/W has send a specific BMW questionnaire to the EEA member states. Methodology of data manipulation: The outset for the Landfill Directive is Eurostat figures on Municipal Waste on landfills 1995 or latest year available. The data on BMW landfilled is based on information reported by countries to ETC/W. Where information was not available from the ETC/W survey, OECD/Eurostat estimates were used. Quality information 7. Strengths and weaknesses: Some member countries did not report information on the total amounts of biodegradable municipal waste produced or their management routes. In these cases OECD/Eurostat estimates were used. 8. There is limited monitoring of BMW going to landfills. Monitoring at this point would be more precise than the estimate. 9. Statistical improvement needed. The proposed Council Regulation on Waste Management Statistics will provide some of the necessary statistical improvement for this indicator but data will only be collected every three years. Each country should be capable of describing the flow of BMW, i.e., the quantity produced and its fate (i.e. how much is recycled, incinerated and landfilled). 3 Data. Biodegradable municipal waste for EU + Norway Country/Region Baseline year Latest year Year BMW BMW Year BMW Produced Landfilled Landfilled Ktonnes Ktonnes Ktonnes Austria 1995 1,495 302 1996 322 Belgium1 19952 4,055 2,132 Belgium (Flanders) 1995 1,671 623 1998 322 Denmark 1995 1,813 205 1998 106 Finland 1994 1,664 928 1997 1,155 France 1995 15,746 5,988 1998 6,742 Germany1 1993 28,700 12,000 - - Baden Württemburg 1995 5,859 2,502 1998 1,705 Greece1 1997 2,688 2,688 - - Ireland 1995 990 903 1998 1,049 Italy 1996 9,170 6,821 1998 6,586 Luxembourg1 1995 160 34 - - Norway 1995 1,572 1,069 1997 915 Portugal1 1995 3,301 3,301 - - Spain1 1995 11,633 8,823 - - Catalonia 1995 1,984 1,481 1998 1,536 Sweden1 1994 2,656 956 - - The Netherlands3 1995 4,830 1,365 1998 700 U.Kingdom4 1996/97 16,366 14,675 98/99 15,250 Total 106,839* 70,338* - *) Excluding Flanders, Baden Württemburg and Catalonia 1) Source Eurostat 2) Figures relate to 1995 and earlier years, due to separate data collection for Flanders, Walloon and Brussels. 3) Figures relate to waste from households only. 4) England and Wales only 4.
Recommended publications
  • State of Utah DIVISION of WASTE MANAGEMENT GARY R

    State of Utah DIVISION of WASTE MANAGEMENT GARY R

    Department of Environmental Quality L. Scott Baird Executive Director State of Utah DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT GARY R. HERBERT AND RADIATION CONTROL Governor Ty L. Howard SPENCER J. COX Director Lieutenant Governor November 5, 2020 Cassady Kristensen Environmental Business Partner Rio Tinto Kennecott 4700 Daybreak Parkway South Jordan, UT 84009 RE: Kennecott Utah Copper Tailings Impoundment Refuse Class IIIb Landfill Permit Dear Ms. Kristensen: The Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Division) has completed its review of the application to permit the Rio Tinto Kennecott Utah Copper Tailings Impoundment Refuse Class IIIb Landfill located on the Rio Tinto Kennecott Tailings Impoundment facility in Salt Lake County, Utah. Enclosed with this letter is the approved Permit Number 1905 and applicable attachments from portions of the application. The Permit approval and expiration dates are shown on the permit cover page. Also, the Statement of Basis for this permit (DSHW-2020-014707) is included with the permit. If you have any questions, please call Doug Taylor at (801) 536-0240. Sincerely, Ty L. Howard, Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Over) DSHW-2020-014711 195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144880 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 Telephone (801) 536-0200 • Fax (801) 536-0222 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4284 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper TLH/DT/ar Enclosures: Permit (DSHW-2020-004084) Attachment #1 - Landfill Design (DSHW-2020-004510) Attachment #2 – Operation Plan (DSHW- 2020-004512) Attachment #3 – Closure and Post-Closure Plan (DSHW-2020-004514) Statement of Basis (DSHW-2020-014707) c: Gary Edwards, MS, Health Officer, Salt Lake County Health Dept.
  • Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: Good Practice Examples

    Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: Good Practice Examples

    SAFE USE OF WASTEWATER IN AGRICULTURE: GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES Hiroshan Hettiarachchi Reza Ardakanian, Editors SAFE USE OF WASTEWATER IN AGRICULTURE: GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES Hiroshan Hettiarachchi Reza Ardakanian, Editors PREFACE Population growth, rapid urbanisation, more water intense consumption patterns and climate change are intensifying the pressure on freshwater resources. The increasing scarcity of water, combined with other factors such as energy and fertilizers, is driving millions of farmers and other entrepreneurs to make use of wastewater. Wastewater reuse is an excellent example that naturally explains the importance of integrated management of water, soil and waste, which we define as the Nexus While the information in this book are generally believed to be true and accurate at the approach. The process begins in the waste sector, but the selection of date of publication, the editors and the publisher cannot accept any legal responsibility for the correct management model can make it relevant and important to any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or the water and soil as well. Over 20 million hectares of land are currently implied, with respect to the material contained herein. known to be irrigated with wastewater. This is interesting, but the The opinions expressed in this book are those of the Case Authors. Their inclusion in this alarming fact is that a greater percentage of this practice is not based book does not imply endorsement by the United Nations University. on any scientific criterion that ensures the “safe use” of wastewater. In order to address the technical, institutional, and policy challenges of safe water reuse, developing countries and countries in transition need clear institutional arrangements and more skilled human resources, United Nations University Institute for Integrated with a sound understanding of the opportunities and potential risks of Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources wastewater use.
  • Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Operation and Management Workbook

    Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Operation and Management Workbook

    MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT WORKBOOK Revised April 2018 Preface In many ways, constructing, operating and maintaining a municipal solid waste landfill is similar to constructing, operating, and maintaining a highway, dam, canal, bridge, or other engineered structure. The most important similarity is that landfills, like other engineered structures, must be constructed and operated in a manner that will provide safe, long-term, and reliable service to the communities they serve. Proper design, construction, operation, monitoring, closure and post-closure care are critical because after disposal the waste can be a threat to human health and the environment for decades to centuries. This workbook is intended to provide municipal landfill operators and managers in Wyoming with the fundamental knowledge and technical background necessary to ensure that landfills are operated efficiently, effectively, and in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. This workbook contains information regarding basic construction and operation activities that are encountered on a routine basis at most landfills. The basic procedures and fundamental elements of landfill permitting, construction management, monitoring, closure, post-closure care, and financial assurance are also addressed. The workbook includes informative tips and information that landfill operators and managers can use to conserve landfill space, minimize the potential for pollution, reduce operating costs, and comply with applicable rules and regulations. In addition to this workbook, operators and managers need to become familiar with the Wyoming Solid Waste Rules and Regulations applicable to municipal solid waste. The DEQ also provides numerous guidelines that may help understand regulatory requirements in more detail.
  • Five Facts About Incineration Five Facts About Incineration

    Five Facts About Incineration Five Facts About Incineration

    Five facts about incineration Five facts about incineration Across the globe, cities are looking for ways to improve their municipal solid waste systems. In the search for services that are affordable, green and easy to implement, many cities are encouraged to turn to waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies, such as incineration.1 But, as found in WIEGO’s Technical Brief 11 (Waste Incineration and Informal Livelihoods: A Technical Guide on Waste-to-Energy Initiatives by Jeroen IJgosse), incineration is far from the perfect solution and, particularly in the Global South, can be less cost-effective, more complicated and can negatively impact the environment and informal waste workers’ livelihoods. Below, we have collected the top five issues highlighted in the study that show why this technology is a risky choice: 1. Incineration costs more than recycling. How incineration may be promoted: Incineration is a good economic decision because it reduces the costs associated with landfill operations while also creating energy that can be used by the community. The reality: • In 2016, the World Energy Council reported that, “energy generation from waste is a costly option, in comparison with other established power generation sources.” • Setting up an incineration project requires steep investment costs from the municipality. • For incineration projects to remain financially stable long-term, high fees are required, which place a burden on municipal finances and lead to sharp increases in user fees. • If incinerators are not able to collect enough burnable waste, they will burn other fuels (gas) instead. Contract obligations can force a municipality to make up the difference if an incinerator doesn’t burn enough to create the needed amount of energy.
  • The Biological Treatment of Organic Food Waste

    The Biological Treatment of Organic Food Waste

    The Biological Treatment of Organic Food Waste HALYNA KOSOVSKA KTH Chemical Engineering and Technology Master of Science Thesis Stockholm 2006 KTH Chemical Engineering and Technology Halyna Kosovska THE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF ORGANIC FOOD WASTE Supervisor & Examiner: Monika Ohlsson Master of Science Thesis STOCKHOLM 2006 PRESENTED AT INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TRITA-KET-IM 2006:2 ISSN 1402-7615 Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology www.ima.kth.se Abstract This Master Thesis “The Biological Treatment of Organic Food Waste” is done in the Master’s Programme in Sustainable Technology at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in co-operation with the company SRV återvinning AB. The report is dedicated to analyze different biological treatment methods (that is composting and fermentation), which are used for the handling of organic food waste. From this analysis I will suggest the best method or methods for the company SRV återvinning AB (the Södertörn Area in Sweden) and for the Yavoriv Region in Ukraine in order to increase the environmental performance and to improve the environmental situation in the regions. To be able to do this, a lot of factors are taking into consideration and are described and discussed in this Thesis Work. General characteristic of the regions, different means of control for organic food waste handling, sorting methods of organic waste, as well as composting and fermentation methods for treatment of organic waste are described and the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, their treatment and investment costs are distinguished in the Thesis. Different treatment methods are discussed from technical and economical points of view for applying them for the SRV and the Södertörn Area in Sweden and for the Yavoriv Region in Ukraine and some solutions for these two regions are suggested.
  • A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment

    A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment

    sustainability Article A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment Alternatives: The Case of Oita City, Japan Micky A. Babalola Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739 8524, Japan; [email protected] Received: 27 January 2020; Accepted: 23 February 2020; Published: 3 March 2020 Abstract: As the generation of food scrap, kitchen, and biodegradable wastes increases, the proper handling of these wastes is becoming an increasingly significant concern for most cities in Japan. A substantial fraction of food and biodegradable waste (FBW) ends up in the incinerator. Therefore, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) benefit–cost analysis technique was employed in this study to compare different FBW treatment technologies and select the most appropriate FBW disposal technology for Oita City. The four FBW treatment options considered were those recommended by the Japanese Food Waste Recycling Law: anaerobic digestion, compost, landfill, and incineration, which is currently in use. The fundamental AHP was separated into two hierarchy structures for benefit analysis and cost analysis. The criteria used in these two analyses were value added, safety, efficiency, and social benefits for benefit analysis, and cost of energy, cost of operation and maintenance, environmental constraints, and disamenity for cost analysis. The results showed that anaerobic digestion had the highest overall benefit while composting had the least cost overall. The benefit–cost ratio result showed that anaerobic digestion is the most suitable treatment alternative, followed by composting and incineration, with landfill being the least favored. The study recommends that composting could be combined with anaerobic digestion as an optimal FBW management option in Oita City.
  • Dust Emissions from Landfill Due to Deposition of Industrial Waste: a Case Study in Malmberget Mine, Sweden

    Dust Emissions from Landfill Due to Deposition of Industrial Waste: a Case Study in Malmberget Mine, Sweden

    Dust Emissions from Landfill due to Deposition of Industrial Waste: A Case Study in Malmberget Mine, Sweden Qi Jia, Yi Huang, Nadhir Al-Ansari and Sven Knutsson Civil, Mining and Nature Resources Engineering of Luleå University of Technology Abstract A great amount of industrial wastes are produced in Sweden every year. In 2008 there were 97.9 million tons of wasted generated, among which 93 million tons industrial waste were produced. 64.1% of industrial wastes were deposited in the landfill sites. Dust generation is one of the most important problems associated with industrial waste and landfills. The particulate dust emissions come from the industrial waste may contain heavy metal and produce environmental problems and potential health risks. Active and passive samplers, deposition pans are common equipment to collect dust samples. Real-time monitors use laser diffraction to recording continuous dust concentration. Dust emission from Malmberget mine in Sweden was analyzed as a case study. Dust was collected by NILU deposit gauge from 26 stations. Generally speaking the amount of dust fallout was decreasing with time because of implemented dust control methods. During the period August 2009 to August 2010, among all the measuring stations through the year, the maximum and the minimum value were 1284 g/100m2/30d and 9 g/100m2/30d. Two sources of dust generation were identified. The first was located close to the open pit, and the second near the current mining industrial center. The dust generation due to road construction was calculated. On the other hand dust generation was also closely related to weather conditions.
  • Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites: a Review of Epidemiologic Literature

    Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites: a Review of Epidemiologic Literature

    Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites: A Review of Epidemiologic Literature Martine Vrijheid Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom This review evaluates current epidemiologic literature on health effects in relation to residence solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), near landfill sites. Increases in risk of adverse health effects (low birth weight, birth defects, certain and heavy metals, have shown adverse effects types of cancers) have been reported near individual landfill sites and in some multisite studies, on human health or in animal experiments. and although biases and confounding factors cannot be excluded as explanations for these A discussion of findings from either epi­ findings, they may indicate real risks associated with residence near certain landfill sites. A general demiologic or toxicologic research on health weakness in the reviewed studies is the lack of direct exposure measurement. An increased effects related to specific chemicals is beyond prevalence of self-reported health symptoms such as fatigue, sleepiness, and headaches among the scope of this review. residents near waste sites has consistently been reported in more than 10 of the reviewed papers. It is difficult to conclude whether these symptoms are an effect of direct toxicologic action of Epidemiologic Studies on chemicals present in waste sites, an effect of stress and fears related to the waste site, or an Health Effects of Landfill Sites risks to effect of reporting bias. Although a substantial number of studies have been conducted, The majority of studies evaluating possible is insufficient exposure information and effects health from landfill sites are hard to quantify.
  • Appendix a Basics of Landfill

    Appendix a Basics of Landfill

    APPENDIX A BASICS OF LANDFILL GAS Basics of Landfill Gas (Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfides) Landfill gas is produced through bacterial decomposition, volatilization and chemical reactions. Most landfill gas is produced by bacterial decomposition that occurs when organic waste solids, food (i.e. meats, vegetables), garden waste (i.e. leaf and yardwaste), wood and paper products, are broken down by bacteria naturally present in the waste and in soils. Volatilization generates landfill gas when certain wastes change from a liquid or solid into a vapor. Chemical reactions occur when different waste materials are mixed together during disposal operations. Additionally, moisture plays a large roll in the speed of decomposition. Generally, the more moisture, the more landfill gas is generated, both during the aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Landfill Gas Production and Composition: In general, during anaerobic conditions, the composition of landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide with trace amounts (<1 percent) of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs). The more organic waste and moisture present in a landfill, the more landfill gas is produced by the bacteria during decomposition. The more chemicals disposed in a landfill, the more likely volatile organic compounds and other gasses will be produced. The Four Phases of Bacterial Decomposition: “Bacteria decompose landfill waste in four phases. The composition of the gas produced changes with each of the four phases of decomposition. Landfills often accept waste over a 20-to 30-year period, so waste in a landfill may be undergoing several phases of decomposition at once.
  • New Biodegradable Waste Management Plans Proposed and Evaluated

    New Biodegradable Waste Management Plans Proposed and Evaluated

    New biodegradable waste management plans proposed and evaluated Researchers have designed and proposed a new organic waste management plan for Catalonia, Spain, and presented it in a recent study. They say that the plan would reduce a number of environmental impacts that arise from landfilling 23 April 2015 biodegradable waste, including natural resource depletion, acidification, and Issue 411 eutrophication. Subscribe to free weekly News Alert To reduce the negative environmental effects of landfilling and to promote the sustainable management of biodegradable municipal waste, the EU Landfill Directive1 has Source: Colón, J., Cadena, E., Belen Colazo, A.B., set targets for EU Member States to limit the amount of landfilled biodegradable municipal Quiros, R., Sanchez, A., waste to no more than 35% of the amount produced in 1995, by 2020. Font, X. & Artola, A. For this study, the researchers proposed a new biowaste management plan. They used (2015). Toward the model simulations to examine the outcomes of using the plan to treat the annual amount of implementation of new regional biowaste organic municipal solid waste produced in Catalonia in 2012 (1218 gigagrams (Gg)). In management plans: particular, they looked at the impact of using anaerobic digestion for recycling biowaste to Environmental assessment produce biogas, adding sludge to soil, and various forms of industrial and home composting of different waste treatments. management scenarios in Catalonia. Resources, They compared this new plan with those of actual waste management in 2012 in terms of Conservation and impacts on abiotic (non-living) natural resource depletion, acidification, eutrophication, Recycling. 95: 143–155. global warming, ozone layer depletion and summer smog.
  • Introduction to Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria C R Training Module Training

    Introduction to Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria C R Training Module Training

    Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W) EPA530-K-05-015 A R Introduction to Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria C R Training Module Training United States Environmental Protection September 2005 Agency SUBTITLE D: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CRITERIA CONTENTS 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Regulatory Summary .............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Subpart A: General Requirements ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Subpart B: Location Restrictions ..................................................................................... 6 2.3 Subpart C: Operating Criteria .......................................................................................... 8 2.4 Subpart D: Design Criteria ..............................................................................................12 2.5 Subpart E: Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action ..........................................12 2.6 Subpart F: Closure and Post-Closure Care ......................................................................17 2.7 Subpart G: Financial Assurance Criteria .........................................................................19 Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 1 1. INTRODUCTION This module provides a summary of the regulatory criteria for municipal solid waste
  • Inert Landfill Operations Inert Waste Definition

    Inert Landfill Operations Inert Waste Definition

    Inert Landfill Operations Inert Waste Definition North Dakota Administrative Code 33-20-01.1-03 (26) defines inert waste as: “Inert waste” means nonputrescible solid waste which will not generally contaminate water or form a contaminated leachate. Inert waste does not serve as food for vectors. Inert waste includes, but is not limited to: construction and demolition material such as metal, wood, bricks, masonry and cement concrete; asphalt concrete; metal; tree branches; bottom ash from coal fired boilers; and waste coal fines from air pollution control equipment. Acceptable Wastes for Disposal? Yes (although concrete could No (aerosol cans, chemical be recycled) containers and electronics are not inert) Acceptable Wastes for Disposal? No (household waste could attract No (could attract vectors, vectors, create leachate putrescible) and/or be putrescible) Waste Collected for Non-Disposal Management • Major Appliances: – Freezers, Refrigerators, Ovens, Water Heaters, etc. – May require Freon removal with licensed equipment or removal of residual liquids – Aka “White Goods” • Scrap Metal Waste Collected for Non-Disposal Management • Grass and Leaves: – Manage by Composting – Separate from Burn Pile and Disposal Area – Soil Amendment for Cover or for Contractor/Resident Landscaping Projects – Run-off Management Waste Collected for Non-Disposal Management • Electronics*: No! – Challenging waste to recycle: • Storage • Outlet • May Contain Heavy Metals and Other Toxic Substances – Aka “E-Waste” or “Brown Goods” – Recycling Facilities and MSW