Jessica Curran, Grade 12

Technology is finding its way into every corner of our lives including the industrial production process. This use of technology has been able to increase manufacturing efficiency by relying on machinery that can work 24/7 with little error [1]. This way, significantly more goods can be produced, but this comes at the cost of producing significantly more industrial waste. Industrial waste is a leftover byproduct of manufacturing processes that are deemed useless. For example, this can include oil, solvents, chemicals, pesticides, garbage, dirt, gravel, concrete, scrap metals, scrap lumber, etc [2]. These materials serve no purpose to the companies, but trouble arises in what to do with them. It would be legally irresponsible to set industrial waste aside allowing it to become a pollutant. But, it would also be environmentally irresponsible to dispose of industrial waste according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, as they pose their own strains on the environment. The severity of this issue will only continue to worsen until proper action is taken to address the environmental impact of industrial waste.
Factories can often be found near bodies of water because most manufacturing processes require extensive amounts of water. This can be troubling as industrial waste can be discharged and pollute this water with unwelcome chemicals, disrupting aquatic ecosystems [3]. The EPA offers legislation to prevent this from happening in the United States, but countries that are only beginning to industrialize do not have the same technology to treat and dispose of industrial waste properly, and thus tend to let it pollute the environment [4]. Hazardous chemicals and metals found in industrial waste can be harmful to marine life, changing their tissue and reducing life expectancy if they absorb these harmful toxins [5]. Similarly, marine plants can be severely affected by industrial waste oil spills which can block sunlight from reaching the sea floor and preventing them from being able to photosynthesize [6]. Industrial waste possesses high levels of danger through water pollution.
In attempts to directly address industrial waste, the EPA enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This act ensures legal regulation aiming to remove hazardous industrial waste [7]. Even if the EPA can ensure industrial waste is disposed of properly, the current methods are almost as environmentally harmful as pollution is. These typical techniques include landfills, incinerations, and injection wells, all posing threats to the environment. Although these techniques are used because they prevent industrial waste from direct pollution by setting it aside in a specific location, it does not justify its use due to the other ramifications that arise.
Landfills are one of the more popular waste disposal methods with 50% of waste ending up in landfill sites [8]. This can be harmful as landfills release methane when organic masses decompose, which is 84 times more effective at trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere than CO2 [9]. Landfills also release CO2, further increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations alongside methane, both contributing to climate change [9]. Another downside for the environment is that landfill sites require massive amounts of land as a typical site is 600 acres and the US has approximately 3,000 active sites. This means that roughly 1,800,000 acres of land were used as landfills that otherwise could have been used as wildlife habitats [10].
Another technique of industrial waste disposal is using incinerators. Incineration is the burning of waste and claims to be a waste-to-energy solution. However, this is not accurate as the process itself takes energy to run incinerators meaning the net amount of energy gained through incineration is low to nonexistent [11]. Not only is the net energy not effective, but incineration also contributes to air pollution, releasing harmful chemicals. This can include particulate matter and heavy metals, which can cause lung and neurological diseases respectively [12]. Additionally, studies have found that residents of nearby incinerators had an increased risk of cancer, reproductive issues, and other health concerns [13]. These examples indicate the use of incinerators escalates environmental and health issues.
Lastly, injection wells are another method of disposing of industrial waste, specifically liquid, which is done with a device that stores fluid underground into permeable rock or soil layers. The idea was to contain the waste, however, this was proven ineffective as geological structures can twist and turn meaning the waste could spread, leak, and even travel upward into groundwater or land [14]. This can be especially harmful if the wastewater leaks into wildlife habitats or farmland. Furthermore, the high pressure that is required to place the wastewater underground can destabilize seismic fault lines, and cause earthquakes in surrounding areas, proving its danger to the environment [14].
The EPA has the best intentions regarding the environment and is making a reasonable choice in ensuring that industrial waste is placed in a designated area. However, if environmental protection is the objective, there should be a reconsideration of the techniques that are primarily being used to reduce net environmental harm.
It is important to address the industrial waste removal methods, but it may be more critical to address the root cause of the problem — waste generators. Instead of using technology to increase productivity and thereby industrial waste, technology should instead be used to refine the production process and limit the amount of waste they produce. Using technological advancements to gear their production process towards waste avoidance would be an ideal solution for the environment. But, asking a company to change its production process is a high demand and is the reason why enacting change is so difficult. Asking industries to completely change their manufacturing process is unreasonable because it would have endless social and economic consequences. Even though enacting change will always be difficult, the destructive nature of industrial waste pollution and poor removal techniques will continue to be detrimental until action is taken.

Citations:
[1] D. Acemoglu & P. Restrepo, Automation and new tasks: How technology
displaces and reinstates labor. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,
33, 3-30 (2019).
[2] Report on the Environment, Wastes. EPA, (2023).
[3] National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Industrial Wastewater. EPA, (2023).
[4] J. Clapp, The toxic waste trade with less-industrialized countries: Economic linkages and political alliances. Third World Quarterly 15, 505-518 (1994).
[5] J. Briffa et al., Heavy metal pollution in the environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon 6, (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04691
[6] B. Zhang et al., Chapter 21 – Marine oil spills—oil pollution, sources and effects. Academic Press, 391-406 (2016). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00024-3
[7] EPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) overview. EPA, (2023).
[8] EPA, National overview: Facts and figures on materials, wastes and recycling. EPA, (2023).
[9] M. Brownstein et al., Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight. Environmental Defense Fund, (2023).
[10] K. Vasarhelyi, The hidden damage of landfills. University of Colorado Boulder Environmental Center, (2021).
[11] L. Guerrero, Facts about “waste-to-energy” incinerators. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, (2018).
[12] D. Rosenberg, V. Singla, & D. Hoover, Burned: Why waste incineration is harmful. NRDC, (2021).
[13] P. Tait et al., The health impacts of waste incineration: a systematic review. PubMed 44, 40-48 (2020). doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12939
[14] E. Hand, The toxic legacy of waste injection wells, EcoWatch, (2013).