COMMENTARY : Alternatives for Trash Disposal Better Than Defeated SANDER Plan

We can breathe a sigh of relief since San Diegans for Clean Air, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Health Coalition and other public-interest groups forced Signal Environmental Systems Inc. to withdraw its proposal for a trash-burning plant in Kearny Mesa.

Known as SANDER, it was the fifth mass burning plant to be canceled in the United States within the past six months.

SANDER would have discharged nearly five tons of nitrogen oxides into the air each day, even with pollution controls, according to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Nitrogen oxides create the whiskey-brown smog seen on many days in Los Angeles and increase ground-level ozone. San Diego already violates federal clean air standards for ozone about 50 days each year.

The APCD also determined that SANDER would emit sulfuric acid gas, carbon monoxide, dioxins and vaporized heavy metals.

SANDER and other mass-burn proposals are not legitimate solutions to San Diego’s solid-waste problem. Mass burning turns landfill refuse into air pollution.

The deficiencies of SANDER’s approach to incineration was underscored by its differences with a proposed mass-burn plant proposed for San Marcos. The operators of that plant, which will be voted on by San Marcos residents Sept. 15, would be required to remove dangerous materials such as lead-acid batteries from the trash stream as it passes on a conveyor belt. Valuable materials such as aluminum cans would be removed, and automated air separators would help separate out plastics. This would result in a less hazardous discharge into the air than the SANDER-style mass burning would have produced.

In reality, however, both projects are seriously flawed. Trash incinerators would add several tons of hazardous pollutants each day to air the Environmental Protection Agency already calls the second most polluted in the nation. Such pollutants would ultimately result in respiratory diseases for San Diego County residents.

With SANDER seemingly out of the picture, we still face the question of what to do about the growing trash problem. San Diego’s principal landfill at Miramar may reach capacity in the next eight years. Non-degradable plastics, tires and glass containers are rapidly filling this landfill.

Landfills do have a role to play in the trash solution, but they can pose health risks if they are not managed properly. Illegal dumping of industrial chemicals in landfills, and even disposal of household chemicals such as paint and motor oil could eventually threaten drinking water supplies of people who depend on wells.

The solution to the trash problem is a program that would reduce the amount of trash bound for landfills and that properly deals with household toxic materials. About a third of San Diego’s trash is made up of bottles and cans. Another third is paper and plastic. Most of the rest is wet trash consisting of vegetable skins and fruit peels, coffee grounds, chicken and steak bones and other organic materials.

Landfills are well-suited to disposing of wet trash. These wastes, which are predominantly water, occupy minimum volume per pound, are degraded by natural processes and have extremely low toxicity.

Landfills would be safe for bottles and cans, except these wastes take up a great deal of space, do not degrade and can fill a landfill quickly. Bottles and cans are not suited to mass burning either, so the SANDER plant would not have helped with them.

A huge amount of energy goes into making bottles and cans. Electricity is the most costly known form of energy, and tremendous amounts of it are needed for the process that converts aluminum ore to the metal used in beverage cans. Converting silica to the glass in bottles requires the melting of sand in a high temperature furnace. Much of this energy could be saved if bottles and cans were not buried in landfills.

The problem of bottles and cans could be handled with legislation. A bottle bill such as the one proposed statewide but defeated would keep most bottles out of the trash. Legislation of this type could be enacted locally, and aluminum cans could also be included. This would reduce the cost of cleaning up parks, roads and beaches as well as save energy and extend the life of landfills.

Paper is low in toxicity and degradable. It can be disposed of in landfills with little harm to the environment. However, if paper is not buried in landfills, it can be used as a cheap and efficient raw material for production of new paper. This would spare trees and reduce the serious air and water pollution caused by the nation’s 475 pulp mills that convert trees into paper. Paper is valuable and should be picked up at curbside.

What’s left to worry about are plastic and household chemicals. Some plastics release toxic fumes when burned and should not be incinerated. They are not dangerous if buried, but they occupy a lot of space in landfills and don’t degrade. The solution to plastics filling our landfills is to cut down on sources. Much plastic comes in the form of packaging for foods. Treated paper could easily replace this and would be degradable. Paper products could fill many of the other uses of plastic. Where plastic is needed, biodegradable forms should be used when possible.

Household toxic chemicals are a problem for any disposal system. The lead and cadmium in batteries and paints cannot be incinerated since it would be dispersed by the smoke plume and harm the population. Used motor oils and some paints, pesticides and cleaners cannot be disposed of safely in landfills. Though these make up no more than one-hundredth of 1% of the weight of municipal trash, they require special treatment. Cities could arrange a special quarterly pickup for household toxics, with pickup within a day or two if specially requested. This type of home pick-up for household toxics is successful, as a demonstration project carried out by the Environmental Health Coalition of San Diego has shown.

Each year, the sprawl of new development takes up many times the relatively small area needed for San Diego landfills. A small portion of developers’ profits could easily pay for the needed space. Because of its location at the Miramar landfill, the SANDER project would have done nothing to ease the volume of landfill traffic.

The siting of landfills is a matter of common sense and intelligent zoning. Commercial, industrial and warehouse areas are the only appropriate zones for landfills or any other waste management facility. Siting landfills in residential areas would be no more wise or practical than putting industrial plants near homes.

A source reduction plan would markedly cut the amount of solid waste going into landfills and make them safer. The plan would also save energy and trees and help prevent air pollution. Beginning Oct. 1 of this year, Assembly Bill 2020, now law, will mandate a 1-cent deposit on plastic, aluminum and glass containers for carbonated drinks, including beer.

This is a start, but source reduction programs enacted locally by the city councils of the 18 cities in San Diego County and the Board of Supervisors are needed. These programs could begin within a year, and the concern about a landfill crisis could be put aside and more pressing environmental issues pursued.