Wednesday, 09 March 2011 17:00

Principles of Waste Management

Rate this item
(16 votes)

Environmental awareness is leading to a rapid transformation of waste management practices. Interpretation of this change is necessary before examining in more detail the methods that are applied to waste management and to the handling of residues.

Modern principles of waste management are based on the paradigm of a geared connection between the biosphere and the anthroposphere. A global model (figure 1) relating these two spheres is based on the assumption that all materials drawn out of the environment end up as waste either directly (from the production sector) or indirectly (from the recycling sector), bearing in mind that all consumption waste flows back to this recycling sector either for recycling and/or for disposal.

Figure 1. A global model of the principles of waste management


From this perspective, recycling must be defined broadly: from the recycling of whole objects (returnables), to the recycling of objects for some of their spare parts (e.g., cars, computers), to the production of new materials (e.g., paper and cardboard, tin cans) or the production of similar objects (recycling, downcycling and so on). Over the long term, this model can be visualized as a steady-state system wherein goods end up as waste after a few days or often a few years.






Deductions from the Model

Some major deductions can be made from this model, provided the various flows are clearly defined. For purposes of this model:

  • Po=the annual input of materials drawn from the environment (bio-, hydro- or lithospheres). In a steady state, this input is equal to the annual final disposal of waste.
  • P=the annual production of goods from Po.
  • C=the annual flow of goods in the anthroposphere.
  • R=the annual flow of waste converted to goods through recycling. (In a steady state: C=R+ P)
  • p=the effectiveness of production, measured as the ratio of P/Po.
  • If r=the effectiveness of recycling, measured as the ratio of R/C, then the relationship is: C/Po=p(1-r).
  • If C/Po=C*; then C* is the ratio of goods to the materials drawn out of nature.


In other words, C* is a measure of the meshing of the connection between environment and anthroposphere. It is related to the efficiency of the production and of the recycling sectors. The relationship between C*, p and r, which is a utility function, can be charted as in figure 2, which shows the explicit trade-off between p and r, for a selected value of C*.

Figure 2. A utility function illustrating production recycling trade-offs


In the past, industry has developed along the line of an increase of the efficiency of production, p. Currently, in the late 1990s, the price of waste disposal through dispersion into the atmosphere, into bodies of water or into soils (uncontrolled tipping), or the burial of waste in confined deposit sites has increased very rapidly, as a result of increasingly stringent environmental protection standards. Under these conditions, it has become economically attractive to increase the effectiveness of recycling (in other words, to increase r). This trend will persist through the coming decades.

One important condition has to be met in order to improve the effectiveness of recycling: the waste to be recycled (in other words the raw materials of the second generation) must be as “pure” as possible (i.e., free of unwanted elements which would preclude the recycling). This will be achieved only through the implementation of a generalized policy of “non-mixing” of domestic, commercial and industrial waste at the source. This is often incorrectly termed sorting at the source. To sort is to separate; but the idea is precisely not to have to separate by storing the various categories of waste in separate containers or places until they are collected. The paradigm of modern waste management is non-mixing of waste at the source so as to enable an increase in the efficiency of recycling and thus to achieve a better ratio of goods per material drawn out of the environment.

Waste Management Practices

Waste may be grouped into three major categories, depending on its production:

  1. from the primary sector of production (mining, forestry, agriculture, animal breeding, fishery)
  2. from the production and transformation industry (foods, equipment, products of all types)
  3. from the consumption sector (households, enterprises, transportation, trade, construction, services, etc.).


Waste can be also classified by legislative decree:

  • municipal waste and mixed waste from enterprises which may be aggregated as municipal waste, since both consist of the same categories of waste and are of small size (vegetables, paper, metals, glass, plastics and so on), although in differing proportions.
  • bulky urban waste (furniture, equipment, vehicles, construction and demolition waste other than inert material)
  • waste subject to special legislation (e.g., hazardous, infectious, radioactive).


Management of municipal and ordinary commercial waste:

Collected by trucks, these wastes can be transported (directly or by road-to-road, road-to-rail or road-to-waterway transfer stations and long-distance transportation means) to a landfill, or to a treatment plant for material recovery (mechanical sorting, composting, biomethanization), or for energy recovery (grid or kiln incinerator, pyrolysis).

Treatment plants produce proportionally small quantities of residues which may be more hazardous for the environment than the original waste. For example, incinerators produce fly ashes with very high heavy metal and complex chemical content. These residues are often classified by legislation as hazardous waste and require appropriate management. Treatment plants differ from landfills because they are “open systems” with inputs and outputs, whereas landfills are essentially “sinks” (if one neglects the small quantity of leachate which deserves further treatment and the production of biogas, which may be an exploited source of energy on very large landfills).

Industrial and domestic equipment:

The present trend, which also has commercial contributions, is for the producers of the waste sectors (e.g., cars, computers, machines) to be responsible for the recycling. Residues are then either hazardous waste or are similar to ordinary waste from enterprises.

Construction and demolition waste:

The increasing prices of landfills is an incentive for a better sorting of such waste. Separation of the hazardous and burnable waste from the large quantity of inert materials allows the latter to be disposed of at a far lower rate than mixed waste.

Special waste:

Chemically hazardous waste must be treated through neutralization, mineralization, insolubilization or be made inert before it can be deposited in special landfills. Infectious waste is best burnt in special incinerators. Radioactive waste is subject to very strict legislation.

Management of Residues

Production and consumption waste which cannot be recycled, down-cycled, reused or incinerated to produce energy must eventually be disposed of. The toxicity for the environment of these residues should be reduced according to the principle of “best available technology at an acceptable price.” After this treatment, the residues should be deposited in sites where they will not contaminate the water and the ecosystem and spread into the atmosphere, into the sea or into lakes and streams.

Deposits of waste are usually dated by the combination of multilayer isolation (using clay, geotextiles, plastic foils and so on), the diversion of all exogenous water, and waterproof cover layers. Permanent deposits need to be monitored for decades. Restrictions on land use of a deposit site must also be controlled for long periods of time. Controlled drainage systems for leachates or gases are necessary in most cases.

More biochemically stable and chemically inert residues from waste treatment require less stringent conditions for their final disposal, making it less difficult to find a deposit site for them within the region of production of the waste. Export of wastes or their residues, which always awakens NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) reactions, might thus be avoided.



Read 19220 times Last modified on Thursday, 18 August 2011 01:11

" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content. Certain statistics have not been updated since the production of the 4th edition of the Encyclopaedia (1998)."


Environmental Pollution Control References

American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Alexandria, Va: Water Environment Federation.

ARET Secretariat. 1995. Environmental Leaders 1, Voluntary Commitments to Action On Toxics Through ARET. Hull, Quebec: Environment Canada’s Public Enquiry Office.

Bishop, PL. 1983. Marine Pollution and Its Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brown, LC and TO Barnwell. 1987. Enhanced Stream Water Quality Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS: Documentation and User Manual. Athens, Ga: US EPA, Environmental Research Lab.

Brown, RH. 1993. Pure Appl Chem 65(8):1859-1874.

Calabrese, EJ and EM Kenyon. 1991. Air Toxics and Risk Assessment. Chelsea, Mich:Lewis.

Canada and Ontario. 1994. The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Hull, Quebec: Environment Canada’s Public Enquiry Office.

Dillon, PJ. 1974. A critical review of Vollenweider’s nutrient budget model and other related models. Water Resour Bull 10(5):969-989.

Eckenfelder, WW. 1989. Industrial Water Pollution Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Economopoulos, AP. 1993. Assessment of Sources of Air Water and Land Pollution. A Guide to Rapid Source Inventory Techniques and Their Use in Formulating Environmental Control Strategies. Part One: Rapid Inventory Techniques in Environmental Pollution. Part Two: Approaches for Consideration in Formulating Environmental Control Strategies. (Unpublished document WHO/YEP/93.1.) Geneva: WHO.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: EPA.

Environment Canada. 1995a. Pollution Prevention - A Federal Strategy for Action. Ottawa: Environment Canada.

—. 1995b. Pollution Prevention - A Federal Strategy for Action. Ottawa: Environment Canada.

Freeze, RA and JA Cherry. 1987. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS/Air). 1993. A Global Programme for Urban Air Quality Monitoring and Assessment. Geneva: UNEP.

Hosker, RP. 1985. Flow around isolated structures and building clusters, a review. ASHRAE Trans 91.

International Joint Commission (IJC). 1993. A Strategy for Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances. Vol. 1, 2, Windsor, Ont.: IJC.

Kanarek, A. 1994. Groundwater Recharge With Municipal Effluent, Recharge Basins Soreq, Yavneh 1 & Yavneh 2. Israel: Mekoroth Water Co.

Lee, N. 1993. Overview of EIA in Europe and its application in the New Bundeslander. In UVP

Leitfaden, edited by V Kleinschmidt. Dortmund .

Metcalf and Eddy, I. 1991. Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, JM and A Soudine. 1994. The WMO global atmospheric watch system. Hvratski meteorolski casopsis 29:81-84.

Ministerium für Umwelt. 1993. Raumordnung Und Landwirtschaft Des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Luftreinhalteplan
Ruhrgebiet West [Clean Air Implementation Plan West-Ruhr Area].

Parkhurst, B. 1995. Risk Management Methods, Water Environment and Technology. Washington, DC: Water Environment Federation.

Pecor, CH. 1973. Houghton Lake Annual Nitrogen and Phosphorous Budgets. Lansing, Mich.: Department of Natural Resources.

Pielke, RA. 1984. Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling. Orlando: Academic Press.

Preul, HC. 1964. Travel of nitrogen compounds in soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.

—. 1967. Underground Movement of Nitrogen. Vol. 1. London: International Association on Water Quality.

—. 1972. Underground pollution analysis and control. Water Research. J Int Assoc Water Quality (October):1141-1154.

—. 1974. Subsurface waste disposal effects in the Lake Sunapee watershed. Study and report for Lake Sunapee Protective Association, State of New Hampshire, unpublished.

—. 1981. Recycling Plan for Leather Tannery Wastewater Effluent. International Water Resources Association.

—. 1991. Nitrates in Water Resources in the USA. : Water Resources Association.

Preul, HC and GJ Schroepfer. 1968. Travel of nitrogen compounds in soils. J Water Pollut Contr Fed (April).

Reid, G and R Wood. 1976. Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries. New York: Van Nostrand.

Reish, D. 1979. Marine and estuarine pollution. J Water Pollut Contr Fed 51(6):1477-1517.

Sawyer, CN. 1947. Fertilization of lakes by agricultural and urban drainage. J New Engl Waterworks Assoc 51:109-127.

Schwela, DH and I Köth-Jahr. 1994. Leitfaden für die Aufstellung von Luftreinhalteplänen [Guidelines for the implementation of clean air implementation plans]. Landesumweltamt des Landes Nordrhein Westfalen.

State of Ohio. 1995. Water quality standards. In Chap. 3745-1 in Administrative Code. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio EPA.

Taylor, ST. 1995. Simulating the impact of rooted vegetation on instream nutrient and dissolved oxygen dynamics using the OMNI diurnal model. In Proceedings of the WEF Annual Conference. Alexandria, Va: Water Environment Federation.

United States and Canada. 1987. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 As Amended By Protocol Signed November 18, 1987. Hull, Quebec: Environmental Canada’s Public Enquiry Office.

Venkatram, A and J Wyngaard. 1988. Lectures On Air Pollution Modeling. Boston, Mass: American Meteorological Society.

Venzia, RA. 1977. Land use and transportation planning. In Air Pollution, edited by AC Stern. New York: Academic Press.

Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) 1981. Guideline 3783, Part 6: Regional dispersion of pollutants over complex train.
Simulation of the wind field. Dusseldorf: VDI.

—. 1985. Guideline 3781, Part 3: Determination of plume rise. Dusseldorf: VDI.

—. 1992. Guideline 3782, Part 1: Gaussian dispersion model for air quality management. Dusseldorf: VDI.

—. 1994. Guideline 3945, Part 1 (draft): Gaussian puff model. Dusseldorf: VDI.

—. n.d. Guideline 3945, Part 3 (in preparation): Particle models. Dusseldorf: VDI.

Viessman, W, GL Lewis, and JW Knapp. 1989. Introduction to Hydrology. New York: Harper & Row.

Vollenweider, RA. 1968. Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters, With Particular
Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorous Factors in Eutrophication. Paris: OECD.

—. 1969. Möglichkeiten and Grenzen elementarer Modelle der Stoffbilanz von Seen. Arch Hydrobiol 66:1-36.

Walsh, MP. 1992. Review of motor vehicle emission control measures and their effectiveness. In Motor Vehicle Air Pollution, Public Health Impact and Control Measures, edited by D Mage and O Zali. Republic and Canton of Geneva: WHO-Ecotoxicology Service, Department of Public Health.

Water Environment Federation. 1995. Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Digest. Alexandria, Va: Water Environment Federation.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1980. Glossary On Air Pollution. European Series, No. 9. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Publications.

—. 1987. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. European Series, No. 23. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Publications.

World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 1994. GEMS/AIR Methodology Reviews Handbook Series. Vol. 1-4. Quality Insurance in Urban Air Quality Monitoring, Geneva: WHO.

—. 1995a. City Air Quality Trends. Vol. 1-3. Geneva: WHO.

—. 1995b. GEMS/AIR Methodology Reviews Handbook Series. Vol. 5. Guidelines for GEMS/AIR Collaborative Reviews. Geneva: WHO.

Yamartino, RJ and G Wiegand. 1986. Development and evaluation of simple models for the flow, turbulence and pollutant concentration fields within an urban street canyon. Atmos Environ 20(11):S2137-S2156.