Zero Waste Guidance on Destructive Disposal

  1. Purpose and Scope

    This guidance is deemed necessary because while there is steady progression toward zero waste, many localities continue to opt for traditional waste disposal methods.

    While the rate of new landfill proposals has slowed, the date for the last one is not yet in sight. The purpose of such a guidance document is to aid Club activists and others who reside in communities that lack a proper zero waste plan in addressing these issues while adhering to the policy. To be clear, Sierra Club Zero Waste Policy opposes landfills and incinerators, and adopts a Hierarchy of Best Use for incremental steps to address the problems. The Club has ruled that “Entities may . . . take positions that involve the incremental realization of the Club's long-term policy goals.”1

    This guidance addresses non-hazardous solid waste in landfills, incineration in all its various forms, “chemical recycling,” and transfer stations.

  2. Landfills

    Landfills receive about 50 percent (as of 2018) of U.S. municipal solid waste (MSW) plus unknown amounts of construction and demolition (C&D) waste, municipal wastewater sludge and non-hazardous industrial waste (U.S. EPA). Non-hazardous solid waste is regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).2 States have a leading role in enforcing those regulations and may set more stringent requirements. The revised criteria in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 2583 addresses seven major aspects of MSW landfills, which include: location restrictions, composite liners, leachate collection and removal systems, operating practices, groundwater monitoring, closure and post-closure, corrective action provisions, and financial assurance. Each of these topics should be studied in reference to a proposed landfill, realizing that in many instances EPA has set an unacceptably low standard. Most states have their own set of standards that may be stronger than the EPA requirements, so they need a similar review. Some of the topics are discussed in detail below, along with additional areas of concern.

    Note: While the following topics of concern are primarily directed at landfills, many can also be applied to other facilities, such as incinerators.

    1. Location. The EPA sets some limits regarding proximity to airports, wetlands, floodplains and seismic and other unstable areas but a cautious reviewer should, first, look for requested exemptions from the standards, and especially at claims that the alternative will provide equivalent protection. Second, one must be watchful about the quality of the data and other justifications made for issues they do cover. Finally, the EPA is silent on proximity to: residential areas, especially for lower income or minority populations (see VI Environmental Justice below); surface water bodies; natural areas, including parks and forests; and habitats. The EPA does not discuss access roads or their quality. Many of these topics are subjective and the acceptability depends on the interests of the community.

      General strategies for landfill opponents to use to challenge the location or pursue alternatives are:

      1. Organize opposition and build negative pressure on decision makers by presenting in direct communications, at hearings and to the media that they find a better alternative.
         
      2. Organize to pursue zero waste initiatives, adopt a zero waste goal and adopt a zero waste plan instead of siting a new landfill.
         
      3. Organize to extend the life of existing landfills through expanded recycling and composting programs.
         
      4. Organize to ban wastes from out of the area from being buried there, or advocate for significant landfill fees to be charged to discourage out of area wastes from flowing there (e.g. in Europe, landfill fees are $20-40/ton, which are then used to help fund new recycling and composting programs).
         
      5. Seek mitigation of the negative aspects of the proposed landfill site, such as better buffers, more and better emission controls (including continuous emission monitoring), and better oversight.
         

    2. Sizing. The EPA is silent on landfill size, but citizens are justified in asking that their jurisdiction demonstrate the need for the landfill by preparing a zero waste plan that includes values and a timeline for: source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Such values, combined with population and employment trends over a time horizon, should enable the derivation of a total amount for disposal. Note that this offers an opportunity to challenge some of the diversion amounts, thus reducing the assumed size of the facility. That weight, combined with the density of waste (nominally 110 lbs/cubic yard) and the depth and height of the disposed waste to get the area of the active landfill. Assume additional area for buffers, roads and support facilities. The original proposal can be a guide for making the calculations and certain assumptions.

    3. Operating practices. The EPA covers a long list of topics under their rule, which should be reviewed thoroughly, but a subset will be discussed here.
      1. Excluding hazardous waste. This is absolutely necessary and covered by the EPA. The Sierra Club has a separate policy on hazardous waste.4
         
      2. Excluding organic waste, especially food waste. Other major sources of organic material are landscape and yard debris and a portion of C & D materials.Organic materials are the largest share of landfill waste, their decomposition generates methane, and they can be diverted from landfills by composting.5
         
      3. Excluding recyclables and reusables. Other items that should be excluded include: all recyclables (glass, metal, paper, plastic), medical waste, batteries, electronics, items containing mercury, tires, coal ash, and white goods (household appliances). Some diversion of reusable items can be facilitated with accessible on-site or off-site salvage facilities.
         
      4. Sludge from municipal wastewater. To the extent that sludge will be landfilled, this should be a factor in its sizing. Currently about half of the sludge generated in the United States is either applied to the land or placed in landfills. This goes against the goal of keeping all organics out of landfills. Sierra Club’s adopted Land Application of Sewage Sludge Guidance6 opposes land application. Approximately 20% of sewage sludge is incinerated. The Zero Waste Policy opposes all incineration and thermal treatments of sewage sludge because toxic air emissions and residues are not protectively regulated. Better treatments for sewage sludge are needed and are being investigated. Presently, anaerobic digestion is used at many sewage plants to generate energy to fuel the facility. Some sewage plants collect the excess biogas and sell it to local industries. The downside is there are always residues (biosolids) which are either applied to land or landfilled. Sewage utilities prefer selling or giving away the biosolids as fertilizers because landfilling is expensive. Current landfilling practices include leachate collection, and the leachate may be sent to the sewage treatment plant. For contaminants like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals”), which are not fully destroyed by any treatment, this perpetuates the pollution problem.
         
      5. Daily cover. Nominally, daily cover should be 6 inches of dirt, but considerable latitude is given for using alternatives, such as foam, sludge or retractable tarps. The Sierra Club objects to the use of landscape debris, coal or incinerator ash, or C & D waste as daily cover. It also opposes assignment of a beneficial use determination (BUD) or recycling credits to waste materials (such as sludge or C & D debris) for their use as daily cover.
         
      6. Methane control. Methane is generated from organic material decaying anaerobically (oxygen starved conditions) and many operators seek to use the methane as an energy source. The Sierra Club opposes landfill gas-to-energy (outlined in the Landfill Gas to Energy Policy noted below) because it conflicts with proper landfill management and exacerbates the release of methane. A properly managed landfill built and operated to minimize the release of pollutants into the environment must be kept dry to minimize mobilization of the pollutants, which is also much too dry to generate commercially useful volumes of methane from decomposing food, grass and leaves. In order to generate enough energy rich gas, the operator must artificially increase moisture levels by as much as 300%. This is done by recirculating massive volumes of leachate back into the waste and by delaying installation of the critical final cover for many years in order to let rainfall infiltrate the site. Unfortunately these reversals of sound management practices make gas collection dysfunctional (often as little as 20% of the gas generated is captured over the life of a landfill) and undermines the stability of the site. This means that the remaining methane escapes into the atmosphere as a significant greenhouse gas. In summary, the Sierra Club advocates for the elimination of organics from landfills; in landfills without energy capture, the gas should be flared. A landfill should be required to have back-up flares with auxiliary power, either a battery or a gas generator.7
         
      7. Odor control. Some waste materials are notable sources of offensive odors. For example, when coal fly ash comes in contact with leachate it becomes exothermic and that heat exacerbates general landfill odors. Gypsum creates a sulfurous gas when it gets wet. Odor misting is not a solution. It is meant to hide the problem and should not be allowed. The best approach to odor control is to manage the materials being disposed. For example, controlling the gypsum problem would have the gypsum disallowed (it can be recycled), and similarly with most putrescible wastes. Alternatively, it may be possible to scrub the gasses being removed as they are collected.
         
      8. Financial assurance. The EPA requires that landfills charge fees sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining the landfill properly for 30 years after closure (known as “post-closure”). After 30 years, the regulations let industry off the hook and no one is responsible for maintaining the landfill thereafter. When weather erodes the cover, water enters and leachate and gasses are produced and leak from the landfill. Additional financial assurance is needed to extend the post-closure liability period to address this unregulated liability. State and federal regulations should require perpetual maintenance and monitoring of these facilities as is done for cemeteries.
         
      9. Transparency and availability of operational parameters. A landfill should make all monitoring information, such as for groundwater wells, air quality, leaks, incidents, inspection reports and any other relevant information available to the public transparently. At a minimum, it should be accessible via a website with up-to-date information.
         

  3. Incineration

    Sierra Club Zero Waste Policy opposes any form of combustion of wastes, and the definition of incineration in the policy lists included technologies. This opposition is based on:

    1. The energy produced by incineration is less than what would be saved by managing the material higher in the hierarchy.
       
    2. The unavoidable emissions from the processes, including air emissions and ash that is likely toxic and would require an enhanced disposal site.
       
    3. Raw materials are lost that might have a better use than as fuel.
       
    4. An incinerator has a daily capacity, and economics requires that it be fed as closely as possible to that capacity. This has the effect of discouraging efforts to increase recycling or composting. This is the reason that “flow control” agreements are sought by jurisdictions with incinerators.8 Such agreements should be opposed.

    Note that the definition of incineration in the Sierra Club Zero Waste Policy is temperature-based, to guard against changes in technologies or industry terminology. As a result, technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification are treated similarly to incineration in the policy.9

    Of particular concern are cement kilns, as they are regulated less stringently than incinerators and there is a major loophole in regulations.10

    The one processing technology that sometimes is included in references to “chemical recycling” that is acceptable in the Sierra Club Zero Waste Policy is anaerobic digestion, which operates at a low temperature and can be used for reduction of organic materials materials.11 However, toxic materials must not be included in the wastes, as they harm the bacteria and contaminate the residues (digestate). The digestate from anaerobic digestion should be composted.

  4. Chemical Recycling”. “Chemical recycling” refers to a diverse set of technologies that subject plastic discards to a combination of heat, pressure and/or chemicals inside some form of reaction vessel.12 Frequently the plastic is converted to fuel, which is a form of destructive disposal. The primary types of processes are incineration (i.e. thermal) processes such as pyrolysis, catalytic cracking, and gasification. Much of this plastic waste is headed to cement kilns to be burned as fuel, as these kilns do not have as stringent air pollution control regulations as required for incinerators. The Club opposes all such plastics-to-fuel processes. Some systems that sometimes are considered “chemical recycling” use solvent-based purification instead of thermal systems. However, mechanical recycling is still preferred over such solvent-based systems, as they are more resource intensive and there are uncertainties regarding the energy and carbon balance, the use of outputs, and the treatment of the spent solvent.

    Making new plastics perpetuates and favors the production of toxic, polluting, single-use plastic products over other models higher in the zero waste hierarchy such as reuse and refill. Moreover, “chemical recycling” is often marketed as a so-called circular economy approach in a blatant attempt at greenwashing. The Club’s objection to incineration and “chemical recycling” processes extends to their non-acceptance as “recycling” in waste plans or “renewable energy” in any energy plan. Each system needs to be individually evaluated transparently for its environmental impacts as these technologies are evolving rapidly.

  5. Transfer stations. Sierra Club Zero Waste Policy discourages the dispersal of mixed wastes, especially export to economically challenged communities or nations. A community with a good zero waste plan probably will not need to send material to another community particularly one that may be disadvantaged and unable to fend off a disposal site. If a transfer station is to be built, it must adhere to EPA rules 13 and consider issues, as with landfills, that EPA covers poorly or not at all. They should also be built to LEED Gold standards if at all possible.

    Transfer stations should also arrange for the regulated salvaging of materials at the transfer station, as is being done in Berkeley, CA. There, a private company named Urban Ore has been salvaging at the transfer station since 1980 with permission from the City. In 2020, the City reinstated payment to Urban Ore for every ton they remove for reuse and recycling, the City is paying Urban Ore the exact amount per ton, $47.74, as it is to Waste Management, Inc. for landfill disposal.14 Transfer stations can also be designed as Resource Recovery Parks15 that would include extensive drop-off locations for all 12 Market Categories of Discarded Materials and the co-location of reuse, recycling, and composting collection, processing, manufacturing and sales activities (comparable to a shopping center, but in reverse).

  6. Environmental Justice. Most of the above - landfills, incinerators and “chemical recycling” facilities - tend to be located in under-resourced or socio-politically marginalized communities, or communities of color. Community members face adverse health impacts, emissions from waste hauling and burning trash, ash and wastewater generated, and residue disposal at landfills, public debt due to costly construction and maintenance of incinerators, as well as the stigma of living next to a dumping ground.16 Prevention of such impacts needs to be vigorously addressed, which could be approached as a hierarchy of resistance.

    1. Community development of zero waste plans to help ward off initiatives for new disposal facilities of all types.
       
      1. All engagement on zero waste plans and related community decisions should be firmly rooted in the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing and ensure representation from disadvantaged/impacted communities.
         
      2. Plan implementation activities should honor and support the right to organize and promote quality union jobs and livable wages for both construction work and the permanent jobs that follow. Construction work should pay prevailing wages and utilize apprentices.
         
    2. Enforcement of existing EPA and state waste disposal regulation, which may make the proposed facilities impractical/uneconomic.
       
      1. When siting and sizing of facilities are considered, discriminatory policies that marginalize, segregate and/or isolate communities based on race, beliefs, socioeconomic or disability status, or gender and/or gender identity, must be removed.
         
    3. Seek to establish vibrant and relevant citizen oversight entities. Such bodies should include strong representation from stakeholder communities and with people of all races, socioeconomic status and gender/gender identities.


    Resources

    1. Zero Waste Community Planning Toolkit; Zero Waste USA
    2. Zero Waste Community Planning Toolkit Manual; Zero Waste USA
    3. Managing and Transforming Waste Streams, U.S. EPA
    4. Eight Steps on the Path to Zero Waste, Zero Waste USA
    5. For a list of communities that have adopted zero waste as a goal and/or have developed a zero waste plan, see: Zero Waste Europe Zero Waste Cities
    6. Basic Information about Anaerobic Digestion, by U.S. EPA
    7. Chemical Recycling: Distraction, Not Solution by Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
    8. Berkeley Moves The Ball Forward For Salvage and Reuse by Northern California Recycling Association
    9. Resource Recovery Parks: A Model for Local Government Recycling and Waste Reduction by California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
    10. U.S. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators: An Industry in Decline by Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
    11. Pollution and Health Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Incineration by Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
    12. Cement Manufacturing Guidance, by Sierra Club
    13. Landfill Gas to Energy Facilities Policy, by Sierra Club
    14. Report on Landfill-Gas-to-Energy, by Sierra Club


    An alternative for methane control may be the destruction of the methane by way of filters or chambers that leave less pollution than flaring. These are under development at MIT via a DOE- ARPA-E grant and at the University of Copenhagen and also being offered for field testing by Ambient Carbon, a Danish firm run by an American in cooperation with the University of Copenhagen team. Club Chapters are encouraged to inquire with EPA or state greenhouse gas programs and directly with those developing the methods as to the availability of such options.

     

    Footnotes

    1. Jurisdiction within the Sierra Club | Campfire Community: II, C

    2. EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Regulations -Non-hazardous Waste

    3. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 258

    4.  Sierra Club Hazardous Waste Management Policy

    5. Sierra Club Compost and Composting Policy

    6. Sierra Club Land Application of Sewage Sludge Guidance

    7. For a more thorough discussion of these issues, see Sierra Club Landfill Gas to Energy Facilities Policy and Sierra Club Report on Landfill-Gas-to-Energy.

    8. Flow controls are legal authorities used by state and local governments to designate where MSW must be taken for processing, treatment or disposal. This approach requires waste to be delivered to specific facilities such as waste-to-energy facilities, materials recovery facilities (MRFS), composting facilities, transfer stations and/or landfills. The facilities can be either publicly or privately owned. One of the direct effects of flow control is that designated facilities are assured of receiving a guaranteed amount of materials, and consequently, an assured revenue stream from any applied “tipping fees.

    9. A thorough report on the industry by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) can be found here:U.S. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators: An Industry in Decline

    10. Sierra Club Cement Manufacturing Guidance

    11. EPA Basic Information about Anaerobic Digestion

    12. Chemical Recycling: Distraction, Not Solution by Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

    13. EPA A Regulatory Strategy for Siting and Operating Waste Transfer Stations

    14. Berkeley Moves The Ball Forward For Salvage and Reuse by Northern California Recycling Association

    15. Resource Recovery Parks: A Model for Local Government Recycling and Waste Reduction by California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

    16. Pollution and Health Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Incinerationby Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

     

    Adopted by the Board of Directors, June 15, 2023