We are left with the conclusion that, though proposals may be written, they will always compete at a disadvantage with an imagined salvage' facility located somewhere other than a landfill. This is a formula for frustration and burnout of people who are working toward more effective and complete recycling systems at landfills. The capital and operating costs of salvage operations at a disposal site are usually high, even if it is properly designed and operated. (p. 38) This is completely false. Capital and operating costs can be as little as a bag of tools for separating materials, and a piece of the landfill's surface for storage of bins and barrels. Materials buyers will often supply and service larger containers in exchange for a contract to buy the materials that are collected. And for secondhand sales, not even the tools or containers are necessary, only the surface for temporary storage and a place for the customers to park while they shop. People love bargains, and they like the unexpected find; experience shows that very significant tonnage diversions are possible with absolutely minimal capital. It is also true that the most elaborate and complete front-end recycling system imaginable would cost only a fraction of what a garbage-to-energy plant costs, and may even cost less than the equipment necessary to run an efficient sanitary landfill, especially when long-term operating and maintenance costs are factored in. So it is just not true that capital costs for scavenging are high; quite the opposite is the case. Without front-end salvage and recycling, people are put in the position of a cat or dog that is kept indoors and not given a litter box: sooner or later pollution of living space is inevitable. Scavengers are too intent on searching to notice the approach of spreading and compacting equipment, and they risk being injured. Moreover, some of the items collected may be harmful, such as food waste, canned or otherwise; these items may be contaminated. Vehicles left unattended by scavengers interfere with operations at the fill. (p. 38) • This section is insulting to the intelligence of both the scavenging profession and the reader. Spreading and compacting equipment is large, noisy, intrusive, and easily avoided when its drivers are not - being coached to destroy salvageable items "immediately ... to keep them off the market." Equipment operators can be trained to work safely around scavenging activities, just as' they learn to avoid running over workers at construction sites. Parking spaces can be provided for workers' cars. Bright and protective clothing can be worn. October 1980 RAIN Page 21 If. these writers want to say something about landfill safety, they should try explaining why by far the most frequent and serious accidents occurring at landfills result from vehicles and people falling into the disp9sal pit. It is the landfill design which is responsible for the most accidents. Besides the mitigating measures described above, it is also true that landfill salvage work is insurable, just as is any other form of labor in the American economy. The question of who is liable for accidents can be dealt with through normal procedures for occupations of comparable hazard. Management and incentives can be ' contracted for, job descriptions and standard operating procedures outlined. There do not seem to be any major management or organizational obstacles standing in the way of landfill salvage. None, that is, unless you count utterly hostile and misinformed statements such as the ones just critiqued. And objections from the USEPA can be formidable, particularly in areas used to receiving substantial amounts of federal money. Local administrations are .quick to fall into line with what they take to be official federal thinking when they believe their grants and subsidies may be held. up because their sanitary landfill or sewage disposal facilities are not operating in the approved manner. As a further point in favor of the conclusion that the USEPA is hostile to and prejudiced against landfill salvage, consider the fact that nowhere in the discussion is there any mention of the very considerable and immediate flow of revenue that can begin when the landfill is turned into a m'arketplace instead of an arena for disposal. This, and the consequent lack of discussion of how to manage the potential revenue flow, is one of the most serious and flagra~t omissions in a generally discouraging a·nd dispiriting approach to the most workable known form of resource recovery at sanitary landfills. • □ □ REFERENCES: Available Information Materials on Solid Waste Management: Total Listing, 1966 to 1978. Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, 1979. Catalog SW-58.29. Dirk R. Brunner and Daniel J. Keller, Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation. SW-65ts, Stock Number 5502-0085, USEPA. Second Printing, November 1977. • . , Dan Knapp, for~erly with Oregon Appropriate Technology in Eugene, is now a professional scavenger in Berkeley, California, and has set up a $2000-a-month non-ferrous and second-hand operation at the Berkeley landfill. See also Dan's articles "Mine the Trash Cans, Not the Land" (RAIN V:2), and "Tu/ning Waste Into Wealth," Part I (RAIN V:9) and II (RAIN V:10).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz