United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA530-K-93-002
September 1993
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-305)
Reporting on
Municipal Solid Waste
A Local Issue
st landfills expected to close by jw
Printed on paper that contains
at least 50 percent recycled fiber.
-------
Reporting on Municipal
Solid Waste:
A Local Issue
-------
This document has been funded in part by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under Grant No. X815290-03 to
the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). It has
been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and
has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 -- A Reporter's Roundtable 7
Beware: Don't Trust Superman. 8
Beware: Limitations of scientific information 8
Beware: 'Association is not necessarily causation.' 9
Beware: 'Bias in science doesn't mean prejudice.' 10
Beware: Inflated Claims for Recycling 10
Beware: What your own paper, station is doing 11
Beware: Told 'State of the Art' ... Ask 'What's Art?' 11
Beware: The politicians' or the public's health? 12
Beware: Big Outside Conglomerate, Local Citizens
Dynamic 12
Beware: Grandiose economic projections 12
Chapter 2 -- Federal/State/Local Roles in Solid Waste
Management 14
The Federal Role 14
State/Local Role 17
Private Sector Initiatives 19
What You Can Do 21
Chapter 3 -- Options for Municipal Solid Waste Management 23
Options: Source Reduction and Recycling 23
Source Reduction 24
Recycling 26
Questions for Reporters to Keep in Mind 34
Option: Solid Waste Incineration 35
Types of Incineration Facilities 35
What Cost? Who Pays? 37
Public Confidence ... and Opposition 39
Questions for Reporters to Keep in Mind 44
Option: Landfills 46
A Landfill Is Not A Dump 46
Living Down the Reputation of a Legacy of 'Dumps' 47
Can Landfills Measure Up? 48
Public Confidence ... and Opposition 49
Questions for Reporters to Keep in Mind 53
Outlook 54
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations
(RCRA, Subtitle D) 55
-------
Chapter 4 - Information Sources 63
Appendix A ~ Major Laws Affecting Municipal Solid Waste
Management 71
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 71
Clean Air Act of 1970: 71
Clean Water Act (1972): 71
Safe Drinking Water Act (1984): 72
Public Utilities Regulatory and Policy Act (PURPA) (1978) 72
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (Superfund) (1980) 72
Appendix B - Municipal Solid Waste Management:
State-by-State 73
Appendix C -- Compounds and Metals for Groundwater
Detection Monitoring 79
Index 81
List of Figures:
1. Materials in the Municipal
Solid Waste Stream, by Weight, 1990 2
2 Management of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S., 1990 3
3. States Offering Recycling Tax Incentives 19
4. Types of Materials Discarded in Landfills,
by Volume, 1990 48
5. Types of Materials Discarded in Landfills,
by Weight, 1990 49
6. RCRA Subtitle D Design Criteria for New Landfill Units 60
List of Tables:
1. Management of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960-1975-1990 4
2. Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Management,
1988-1992 18
3. Recovery Rates for Selected Consumer Goods,
1960-1975-1990 28
4. Recycling Revenues for Selected Consumer Goods,
by Region 29
5. Materials Recovery Rates for Municipal Solid Waste
Stream Components, by Weight, 1990 32
6. Estimates of Post-Consumer Plastic Packaging
-------
Recycled, 1991 33
7. Public Attitudes Toward Garbage Disposal 40
8. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Tipping Fees,
by Region, 1990 51
9. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Rankings: Tipping Fees,
Environmental Protection Features, and Capacity, 1990 52
10. RCRA Subtitle D Recordkeeping Requirements 57
11. RCRA Subtitle D Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act 59
12. RCRA Subtitle D Effective Dates for Landfill Regulations 61
-------
Preface
Ask any reporter who has ever covered the City Hall beat:
The business of disposing of garbage is not only a big business,
it's also a big story. One need only be reminded of the local
headlines reporting a municipal sanitation workers' work
stoppage or slow down to recognize that.
But waste generation, waste management, waste transport,
and waste disposal go on year-round, 24 hours a day, strike or
no strike. And waste itself is a big story, a continuing story in
community after community.
Journalists need not be advocates to recognize that
environmentally and economically sound and prudent waste
management is in everyone's best interests. That's a point
audiences inherently know and understand. But like other
important environmental resource and management issues facing
American citizens, there's more to the story than that.
Reporting effectively on the solid waste challenges and
opportunities facing America as it moves toward the 21st
Century will demand all the experience and traditional skills that
the best professional journalism can offer. In that way, it's no
different from most other challenging and stimulating stories
environmental reporters face.
This guidebook is intended to be one more tool in the
reporter's arsenal. If it helps pave the way toward better public
understanding through better environmental journalism, it will
have accomplished its sole objective.
-------
Introduction
Reporters covering environmental issues see their share of
end-of-the-earth doomsday predictions and "crises." They build
their defense mechanisms early.
In the solid waste area, headlines using the words "garbage
crisis," "garbage glut," and "solid waste dilemma" are illustrative.
Wait there. The world isn't going to end next Tuesday. And the
Statue of Liberty isn't really going to soon be up to her elbows in
paper, corrugated boxes, or even discarded tires.
But does the U.S. face a mounting challenge to effectively
manage its solid wastes? There's little doubt of that based on
the increasing volumes of wastes being produced each year by a
growing population and an expanding economy.
Covering local solid waste management issues involves the
full range of public health, economic, social, legal, and
scientific/technical issues that make environmental journalism so
intriguing. But, go beyond the rhetoric in the choice of words to
examine some of the real reasons behind this country's solid
waste dilemma.
Behold ... the compact disc, a wafer-thin marvel of technology
that long was packaged in three layers hard plastic, cardboard,
and plastic shrink-wrap -- giving it an apparent bulk that belied its
name "compact"
... the individualized, convenient drink container in a foil-lined
box, decorated with a plastic-wrapped straw, and shrink-wrapped
in plastic
... the single-portion, microwaveable meal on a plastic tray,
inside a box, with microwaveable or oven-ready packaging
.... the fast-food container whose whole purpose for being is
to keep the food hot for a few minutes from grill to table, only
then to be discarded for what can be years and years in a landfill.
Governments call it municipal solid waste. The person on the
street calls it trash or garbage. Whatever you call it, each
American now throws away 4.3 pounds of it per day. That
represents a 37 percent increase from the 2.7 pounds we
discarded each day in 1960.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that as a
nation, we generate 195.7 million tons of solid waste per year,
more than double the nation's 88-million-ton waste output in
1960. (Figure 1 shows what materials are in the municipal solid
waste stream.)
-------
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 1
Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream,
by Weight, 1990
Other (8.3%)
Plastics (8.3%)
Glass (6.7%)
Yard Trimmings (17.9%)
Wood (6.3%)
Paper & Paperbrd. (37.5%)
Metals (8.3%)
Food Waste (6.7%)
Total Weight 195.7 million tons
Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1992 Update, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That's a lot of trash. And the problem, at least in the absence
of a refuse workers' strike, isn't so much in picking it up as in
finding a good place to then put it back down.
If there has always been a lot of solid waste, why has it
suddenly emerged as a major environmental domestic issue for
the 1990s? Pogo said it first: "We have met the enemy, and he
is us." And there's no one to blame but ourselves.
One explanation is that as a society we're running out of
landfill room. For instance, EPA estimates there were 6,034
operating landfills in the U.S. in 1986. A study conducted for the
agency in 1992 estimates there were 5,345 active landfills in the
U.S., an 11 percent decline from 1986.
Sweeping national statistics on their own can be misleading
for individual regions. But the correlation between high
population density and dwindling landfill capacity is clear-cut:
heavily populated northeastern states are feeling more of a landfill
crunch than those in other parts of the country, and landfills in
cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and
Philadelphia may be filled to capacity by the mid-1990s.
-------
Introduction
Figure 2 shows how we are managing our solid waste. About
67 percent of the waste ends up in landfills; about 16 percent is
burned; and 17 percent is recovered for recycling or composting.
Table 1 shows changes in management of municipal solid waste
for 1960, 1975 and 1990.
Figure 2
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
in the U.S., 1990
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Total weight 195.7 million tons
Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1992 Update, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Social forces to factor into the solid waste equation include
shifts and growths in population in many areas of the country.
Also contributing to the equation is the "throwaway mentality" of
both manufacturers and consumers who contribute to
overpackaging, "convenience" products, and a "don't fix it --
pitch it" attitude.
Another is the NIMBY -- Not In My Back Yard ~ phenomenon
that is responsible for the often emotional, but increasingly
sophisticated, public opposition to both landfills and solid waste
combustors, or incinerators as they are commonly called. This
attitude is slowing the rate, and substantially increasing the
building and operating costs, at which both are being built.
Adding to the public's disillusionment with landfills are recent
findings that biodegradation doesn't occur as quickly and as
-------
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Table 1
Management of Muncipal Solid Waste, 1960-1975-1990
1960 1975 1990
(million tons (million tons (million tons
& % of total) & % of total) & % of total)
Recovery for
recycling 5.9 6.7% 9.9 7.7% 29.2 14.9%
Recovery for
composting 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.2 2.1%
Combustion with
energy 0 0.0% 0.7 0.5% 29.7 15.2%
Combustion without
energy 27 30.8% 17.8 13.9% 2.2 1.1%
Discards to
landfill/other 54.9 62.5% 99.7 77.8% 130.4 66.6%
disposals*
Total 87.8 100.0% 128.1 99.9% 195.7 99.9%
*Does not include residues from recycling, composting or combustion
processes.
Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1992 Update, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
effectively as the public had come to believe.
Just as controversial with the public are incinerators. Also
referred to as resource recovery or waste-to-energy plants,
municipal waste incinerators can provide electricity from burning
trash. There are 184 incinerators in operation, of which 147
recover energy and 37 do not. While there are facilities under
construction, many additional incinerators have been blocked,
canceled or delayed because of concerns in some cases over air
emissions and the ash left from burning, however safe or unsafe
it may be.
Economic factors also complicate consideration of waste-to-
energy facilities. With construction costs potentially in the
-------
Introduction
millions of dollars, the plants need a steady supply of trash for
fuel and its' energy nonetheless needs to be competitive in the
marketplace.
Given the state of solid waste, landfill space and public
sentiment in the 1990s, how can the country and the mass
media deal with all this trash?
If "all politics is local," as former House Speaker Tip O'Neil
believes, so too is all solid waste management. Producers and
users -- the manufacturing industry and the individual consumer -
are the hubs of the solid waste wheel; local municipalities and
states are the spokes, the powers that control the directions in
which solid waste management heads.
The environmental, economic and health implications of the
solid waste story become more interesting and relevant as they
become more local. Consider these examples:
At the state level: Under a statewide program in Rhode
Island, residents recycle aluminum and tin cans, glass and plastic
soda and milk bottles by placing them in a separate trash
container at the curb. If the recycling bin isn't set out on the day
the trash is collected, the household's regular garbage isn't
picked up either.
In large cities: In a 420-page study of the economics and
practicality of recycling, the Seattle Solid Waste Utility examined
recycling programs that would divert between 50 and 76 percent
of the city's waste. Based on this study, Seattle's city council
voted for a plan that would reduce or recycle 60 percent of the
city's waste by 1994.
In small localities: During the first three months of its
recycling program, Takoma Park, Maryland, collected 603,000
pounds of newspaper, glass and aluminum. Despite paying to
have the glass and aluminum processed and recycled, the town
says that it saved $10,700 in three months because of reduced
landfill tipping fees and because it could sell the recycled
newspapers. Takoma Park has expanded the program to include
the recycling of tin cans, corrugated and packaging cardboard,
plastic bottles, office paper, junk mail, magazines, phone books,
and catalogs, and the composting of leaves and grass clippings.
Takoma Park estimates the net cost avoided between 1990,
when the program was initiated, and June 1993, at about
$125,000. The town also estimates that 53 percent of its
-------
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
municipal solid waste is recycled or composted.
There are standard options for localities faced with handling
solid waste: reduce it, recycle it, burn it, or landfill it. And there
are individual actions which are critical to journalists whose
audiences are asking, "What can /do to help?": the "three R's"
of reuse, reduce and recycle.
The national perspective on solid waste is important, but the
local angle is the story.
-------
Chapter 1
A Reporter's Roundtable
Sit a group of reporters around a table and the talk inevitably
turns to their experiences in covering solid waste.
Well, not necessarily. It helps if they're environmental
reporters.
It helps even more if the table is on a dias before an audience
of the First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Solutions
for the 90s, which took place in June 1990. The reporters were
brought together by the not-for-profit Environmental Health
Center, author of this reporters' guide, for the explicit purpose of
airing their laundry, clean and otherwise, on their experiences in
covering municipal solid waste issues.
The plot thickens, and the plan worked. Reporters Mitchel
Benson, of the San Jose Mercury News, Victor Cohn, of The
Washington Post, Stuart Leavenworth, then with the Macon,
Georgia, Telegraph and News, and now with the Raleigh, North
Carolina, News & Observer, and Chuck Wolf, of KIKK-FM in
Houston, took the bait. They gushed forth with a veritable
textbook of tips for reporters covering the myriad issues that
characterize solid waste policy and decisionmaking. Their talks,
and the questions and answers that followed them, made writing
this chapter a breeze.
Opening the plenary panel before an audience of several
hundred gathered for the meeting in Washington, D.C., Mitchel
Benson said he would resist the reporter's instinct for merely
relating self-congratulatory "war stories" detailing their news-
gathering conquests. Instead, he would discuss also the
"pitfalls" environmental reporters encounter in coverage of issues
such as solid waste.
Acknowledging that reporters share the same frailties and
shortcomings as fellow human beings, Benson conceded that
reporters occasionally may simply "screw up" in their coverage of
complex and technical issues. "They're sometimes inexperienced
or rushed: Reporters need to be given the benefit of the doubt
that they can just make bone-headed mistakes, and not have
some sort of conspiracy theory in their mind or some ulterior
motive" in their reporting,.
-------
8 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Beware: Don't Trust Superman.
Among "tips" to help reporters in their coverage, Benson said,
"My first rule is: Don't trust Superman."
He cited an upper New York State newspaper headline to the
effect that "Superman May Join Fight Against Interpower Plant."
"Actor Chris Reeves Wants the Facts," the newspaper
reported in a second headline. He paraphrased the lead
paragraph:
Actor Chris Reeves is studying a proposed coal-burning power plant
after environmentalists said the facility would contribute to acid rain
in the Berkshires .... If he concludes that the plant would be an
environmental threat, he would seek the help of the Creative
Coalition, a group of about 500 actors and actresses and writers in
New York State.
"Obviously a well-read, well-researched environmental
lobbying group, the Creative Coalition," Benson teased. He
warned that "too often reporters can get sucked-in by celebrities
who all of a sudden are born-again environmentalists, or by
politicians who, seeing a primary election coming up, or a general
election, have a new-found concern or a new-found commitment
to projects."
"If these people are brought into the political arena, you press
them like you press anyone else," Benson advises other reporters.
"You get their autograph, you get your picture taken with them,"
he joked. "Then you press them like you would anyone else, in
terms of 'Where's their scientific data coming from?' 'Who are
the experts they're relying on, ... either to knock down or to build
up a project?"1
Beware: Limitations of scientific information
As for the kinds of questions reporters can ask to get to the
bottom of an issue, Washington Post science writer Victor Cohn,
author of the 1989 book News and Numbers, outlined a series of
probing questions aimed at separating the statistical wheat and
chaff. He outlined "five basic, bedrock concepts" reporters need
to understand in their reporting:
uncertainty,
-------
Chapter 1
probability,
power of the statistics,
bias, and
variation.
In covering technical and scientific issues such as those
arising in solid waste reporting, Cohn reminds reporters that
"science is almost always uncertain to some extent. Information
is rarely complete."
At the same time, Cohn cautions that "uncertainty need not
stand in the way of either good reporting or of sensible actions ...
When action is required or involved, there still can be enough
information for prudent steps."
Cohn suggests that science and environmental reporters
become familiar with the world of statistics. "Scientists manage
uncertainty by measuring probability with the numerical
expression called the "P value,1" he says. That factor "takes into
account the number of subjects or events with a given result that
would occur just by chance, and not affected by other factors
being examined .... The P value tells you whether or not
something has statistical significance, whether it could or could
not have been produced by some random process."
Statistical significance and even a high confidence level "does
not necessarily mean biological or medical or practical
significance, though these may be the case," Cohn says. "It just
means that the numbers probably didn't occur by chance."
Nobody said environmental and health reporting should be
easy.
Beware: 'Association is not necessarily causation.'
Recalling the story of "the rooster who thought his crowing
made the sun rise," Cohn cautions that "association is not
necessarily causation."
"Laws of probability and chance also tell us to expect some
unusual, even impossible-sounding events. A persistent coin
tosser will occasionally toss heads or tails several times in a row
... It takes more than one study to make almost any case."
Reminding reporters that science "cannot prove a negative,"
Cohn cautions reporters that "no one can prove that little green
men from Mars have not visited Earth. And no study can prove
-------
10 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
that something is not harmful or does not exist. The burden of
proof is on those that say something does exist."
On "the power of numbers," Cohn cautions reporters to be
mindful that "the size of the sample, the greater the number of
subjects studied, the greater the power, the greater the probable
truth of an effect or an association."
Beware: 'Bias in science doesn't mean prejudice.'
On the issue of statistical bias, Cohn emphasizes that "bias in
science doesn't mean prejudice." Rather, bias involves
"introducing false associations by failing to take into account
other influential factors. Scientists call them confounding
variables."
Variation is another factor complicating reporters' jobs in
assessing potential risks, Cohn says. "Ask about a study's
statistical strength, the odds against an association's being a
matter of chance," he advises. "If someone says that something
makes it 1.3 times as likely that an individual would get cancer,
or even twice as likely, this could fall well into natural variability
or variation. If a risk is 10 times stronger, that's strong ....
That's a real association."
Beware: Inflated Claims for Recycling
"Tip number two" from Benson is that reporters covering solid
waste issues should be dubious of claims that recycling alone is a
panacea. Recycling "is a very valuable weapon in reducing the
need for landfills and in slowing the filling-up of these landfills.
However, I think that sometimes the public out there gets the
wrong message: they think that if they stack up all their bottles
of soda and all their newspapers every Tuesday night for
Wednesday pick-up, they think that's it, and there'll never be a
need for a landfill again. I think that's misleading," he said.
Benson cautioned that the public can develop unrealistic
expectations for recycling as a result of overstatements by
proponents or of inadequate reporting. He urged reporters to
pose questions such as: "If this recycling program works as you
plan it to work, for how many years will that extend the life of
the landfill? If this recycling program works the way you expect
-------
Chapter 1 11
it to work, how will this reduce the amount of waste going into
that landfill?"
Beware: What your own paper, station is doing
Benson characterized the newspaper industry itself as being
"schizophrenic" in its approach to solid waste management and
recycling.
"Their editorial pages often preach the benefits of recycling,
the need for recycling, the demand for recycling." But reporters
approaching their editors with an idea for a story on the use of
recycled newsprint frequently encounter resistance. While there
are many reasons that recycling may not be easy, or economical,
for papers, "it's definitely a worthwhile story for people to do,"
says Benson.
Beware: Told 'State of the Art'... Ask ' What's Art?'
Told that projects are "state of the art," Benson said reporters
should respond, "What is art?" He said many so-called state-of-
the-art projects end up that way in name only. Warning of the
"axe to grind" from unsuccessful bidders on a proposed project,
he said reporters nonetheless should check with the losing
bidders to try to verify state-of-the-art claims. "I don't think
anybody knows more about their own industry than someone in
the industry itself," he said.
He also encouraged reporters to seek outside experts, such as
at local universities, to sort out claims on individual facilities.
"Find someone who doesn't have a vested interest, and run the
ideas by him or her," he encouraged. "Look for good sources of
information who will not have a direct vested interest in the
subjects you're writing about." In that way, reporters have a
better chance of avoiding the "on-the-one-hand this, and on-the-
other-hand that" kind of reporting which, he said, is not helpful to
readers in understanding the pros and cons of a controversial
issue.
Asked how he handles the common dilemma of experts'
disagreeing on a particular issue, Benson suggested that reporters
often can find a common trend or theme among the experts'
views.
-------
12 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Beware: The politicians' or the public's health?
Stuart Leavenworth, then with the Macon Telegraph, said he
is frustrated that so much coverage of solid waste issues involves
"emotionalism" rather than serious consideration of potential
public health issues. "The inevitable controversies over the
original siting of those facilities" tend to dominate news
coverage, he said, jesting that "the biggest health threat is to the
political health of the politicians who support the facilities."
"It makes it real tough for us reporters sometimes, because
we have to deal with a lot of emotional topics," he said. "As an
environmental reporter, I would rather deal with the technical
issues," but he acknowledged all the same that "these kinds of
controversies are very important to local communities."
Beware: Big Outside Conglomerate, Local Citizens Dynamic
In his coverage of the issues in Georgia, Leavenworth said he
found two "major forces" emerging: large corporations buying up
smaller waste handling companies, and grassroots environmental
interests. He pointed out that waste collection in the U.S. is a
BIG business, increasingly dominated by fewer and fewer mega-
corporations. He urged reporters to be sensitive to the dynamic
between those large and often remote companies and local
citizens.
In addition to merely reporting the predictable differences
between those interests, Leavenworth encourages reporters to
"go beyond competing claims and explain how local impacts
sometimes are a reflection of what's going on nationally."
Beware: Grandiose economic projections
He said interests supportive of building a new waste
management facility should be pressed to explain the professional
qualifications of the people making their technical judgments.
Reporters also should ask project proponents to document
promises of new jobs to be generated and of economic
development gains overall. Leavenworth said grandiose
economic projections made during project planning and siting
warrant a skeptical eye.
-------
Chapter 1 13
"Are they going to end up taking just the kinds of wastes they
say they will?" Leavenworth asked. "Reporters really need to pin
this down, and force interests to be honest from the start."
Speaking from the broadcast journalism perspective, KIKK-FM
News Director Chuck Wolf cautioned that most TV and radio
reporters "are general assignment reporters. They have no
knowledge of RCRA, PURPA, or SARA Title III," [the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Utilities Regulatory and
Policy Act, and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act's Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(also referred to as SARA Title III)].
Wolf said broadcast media "don't try to tell the truth. It's not
the media's job to tell the truth, who's lying and who's not.
Instead, most stations go to the middle ground by presenting
both sides of the story: We'll present the landfill operator, then
we'll present the neighbor."
Citing strong competition among broadcast outlets, Wolf
cautioned the audience that broadcast reporters' goals are to "be
on the air fast and first." He lamented reporters' propensity to
find certainty in inevitably uncertain situations, and he pointed
out that in most cases "claims of safety are not newsworthy."
Reporting on solid waste won't be easy, and the best
reporting, as is usually the case, may be the hardest work of all.
Along with the tips and insights offered by the journalists above,
the additional background material provided in this guidebook is
aimed at helping reporters, and through them the citizens who are
their readers and viewers, better understand the municipal solid
waste issues likely to confront our society in coming years.
-------
Chapter 2
Federal/State/Local Roles
in Solid Waste Management
All levels of government - federal, state and local - play a
role in managing the nation's solid waste and planning the mix of
management options that will most effectively handle it.
The federal government establishes national goals and
standards, develops education programs, provides technical
assistance, and issues regulations applying to solid waste
management. Six federal laws establish the primary role of the
federal government in solid waste management.
Most programs for managing solid waste and handling
hazardous waste, recycling and composting are implemented by
states and localities. In the 1990s, solutions will also
increasingly rely on initiatives from the private sector and on
individual actions.
The primary federal law governing the federal government's
role in handling and disposing of solid waste, setting standards
for state and local waste management, and assisting the states
with their solid waste programs is the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. Other federal environmental laws affecting various
aspects of municipal solid waste management include: the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Public Utilities Regulatory and Policy Act, and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (or
Superfund). The relevant sections are described in Appendix A of
this guidebook.
Tfye Federal Role
The funnel is a perfect metaphor.
Picture your city, any city, from the largest to the smallest,
sitting atop the funnel.
Now picture its hourly, daily, weekly, annual solid waste
stream, the detritus of modern society's cumulative activities.
Picture it accumulating over the years. Like a leaking faucet.
Incessant. But more like a torrent than a drip.
For our purposes here, it's not especially important whether
the total volume is the 195 million-plus tons of solid waste
generated annually in the U.S. or the 222 million tons experts
-------
Chapter 2 15
predict for the year 2000.
What does matter is what happens to the unending solid
waste stream once it is in the funnel, once it is in the proverbial
"pipeline."
It's the "Where" in the journalist's traditional "Five Ws" of
"Who? Why? Where? What? And When?"
"Where does it go next?"
What happens to it depends on answers to those same "Five
Ws." What is the specific waste? What option - or, as is often
the case, what combination of options - makes the most sense
in a particular instance and for a particular waste stream?
Even with a contentious issue such as solid waste
management and environmental protection, most observers
would find little argument with the "less is better than more"
theory when it comes to the volumes of waste actually
generated.
It's simple logic: When the volumes of solid waste can be
reduced, issues arising from the need to treat and dispose of it
can become more manageable. (Not easy, mind you, just easier.)
That reasoning helps explain the federal government's
frequent emphasis on "source reduction" in its solid waste
education programs: Reducing the amounts or toxicity of waste
from products and packages before they enter the waste stream.
Simply put, source reduction is waste prevention. This is not to
be confused with recycling, which can be an effective way of
managing waste after it is generated.
While there surely might be a point of diminishing returns from
a financial standpoint -- no one seriously argues that we're
anywhere close to it in terms of recycling and reuse potential! -
few would argue with-the federal government's encouragement
of product recycling and reuse as a second essential piece in the
solid waste management puzzle. Seeing a nationwide increase in
the amounts and percentages of solid waste recycled and reused
is likely to be an important trend for the remainder of this century
and well into the next.
At the same time, don't be confused if growth in recycling
numbers isn't exactly a "bull market" from year-to-year.
Changing well-ingrained life styles and consumer patterns takes
time, and change will come only incrementally and over time.
In the "real world" scheme of things, no one yet has devised
-------
16 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
an even remotely feasible solid waste management strategy that
does not in part also involve some continued reliance on
incineration and/or landfilling.
Simply put, they're integral pieces of the solid waste
management puzzle and key elements to finding the "solution" to
the "garbage crisis" facing the country. Where well-engineered,
well-constructed, and properly maintained and monitored, the
federal government says both incinerators and landfilling can play
important roles in managing the nation's solid waste today and
tomorrow.
Working together and working cooperatively -- each doing
what it does best and each contributing what it can, where it
can, and when it can - source reduction, recycling/reuse, con-
trolled incineration, and effectively managed and monitored land-
filling in the 1990s and for the foreseeable future comprise the
practical arsenal in the nation's efforts to manage solid waste.
Solid waste management professionals have a name for it,
"integrated waste management." The term gained currency as a
result of the Environmental Protection Agency's 1989 report, The
Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action.
Government and private sector experts use "integrated waste
management" as short-hand to describe the four-phase approach
for managing solid waste through source reduction, recycling and
reuse, incineration, and landfilling. The plan is that together, the
four solid waste management options will create a comprehensive
mosaic for solid waste management.
Integrated waste management. It's a term likely to become
more familiar as society increasingly decides not to put "all its
eggs in one basket," but rather to use its full arsenal of resources
in managing solid wastes.
It's the federal government's primary responsibility to see that
that arsenal -- those "arrows in the quiver," if you will are used
effectively. And, to continue the metaphor, it's the federal
government's responsibility to see that each arrow individually is
as straight and true as possible.
Toward that end, the federal government encourages and
prods source reduction and product recycling and reuse
programs. It establishes uniform national goals, develops and
carries out education programs, supports research and
development, provides technical assistance, and issues
-------
Chapter 2 17
regulations applying to solid waste management. It works with
state and local governments to encourage practical planning at
the local level, sets minimum standards for facilities, and
encourages manufacturers to design products and packaging
which help solve, rather than exacerbate, the long-run solid
waste management challenge.
At the end of the day, the faucet still is leaking and the funnel
still is filling up with trash. After all the source reduction and
recycling efforts, the question for policy makers - and for
journalists - remains: Where? If not here, then Where?
State/Local Role
Every state has at least one agency responsible for overseeing
the state's solid waste management. Local authorities are
generally responsible for the actual collection and disposal of the
waste. The movement in state solid waste management
programs is toward recycling, composting, materials recovery,
and incineration, with reduced reliance on landfills to handle
municipal solid wastes.
EPA estimated in 1992 there are approximately 5,342 land-
fills, although it says no one knows the exact number. BioCycle
magazine, which periodically conducts surveys, estimates that
5,386 landfills were in operation in 1992 (see Table 2). Its 1992
survey also found that the numbers of curbside recycling and
yard waste composting programs are increasing significantly.
States have passed legislation that addresses many aspects of
solid waste management. These various state laws include:
Setting statewide waste reduction goals;
Requiring municipalities to pass recycling ordinances,
develop recycling programs, reach specified waste
reduction goals, or include recycling in solid waste plans;
Banning disposal of certain products, such as recyclables,
vehicle batteries, tires, motor oil, or yard waste;
Setting packaging or product taxes or fees for products
that commonly find their way into landfills or incinerators;
and
Raising funds for recycling programs, usually through a fee
or tax at disposal sites, or a sales tax on garbage collection
services.
-------
18
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Table 2
Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Management
1988- 1992
Curbside
recycling
programs
Yard waste
composting
programs
Materials
recovery facilities
Number of Incin-
erators (Capacity
in tons per day)
Landfills
1988
1,050
651
16
136
1989
1,515
1990
2,711
1991
3,912
986 1,407 2.201
41
154
92
164
191
171
(59,000) (69,000) (82,000) (100,000)
7,924 7,379 6,326 5,812
1992
5,404
2,981
1911
169
(90,000)2
5,386
^Differences in terminology used by state officials to define materials
recovery facilities made it difficult to calculate the number of MRFs
in operation in 1992, BioCycle says, although the total number most
likely increased.
2BioCycle reports that the number of incinerators operating in 1992
remains fairly stable at 169. The reported capacity was 90,000
TPD, but CO, Ml, NH, TX, VT and WA did not report a figure in that
category.
Source: BioCycle magazine, March 1990, May 1991, April 1992,
and May 1993.
Appendix B is a state-by-state listing of state municipal solid
waste management programs and activities. The success of
many of these efforts depends a great deal on their economic
viability. Many states are providing incentives to help stimulate
the market for recycled materials.
More than half of the states which by 1990 had passed
mandatory recycling laws had also passed some form of financial
incentives to stimulate the marketplace. In March 1993,. Waste
-------
Chapter 2
19
Age magazine reported that 13 states have some kind of
minimum content law covering one or more materials, with
newspaper the most common product subject to requirements.
Additionally, Waste Age says, 11 states have voluntary
agreements covering newspapers (11 states) and telephone
directories (1 state) and 27 states now offer some type of
recycling tax incentive (see Figure 3). Frequently used incentives
are low-interest loans and grants targeted to the recycling
industry. Other incentives include tax credit programs,
requirements for newspaper publishers to purchase newsprint
with recycled fiber content, and procurement provisions that
encourage or give preference to the use of products made from
recycled materials.
Figure 3
States Offering Recycling Tax Incentives
Source: "Recycling in the States: 1992 Update, " National Solid
Wastes Management Association, March 1993.
Private Sector Initiatives
Figures on industry's share of solid waste generated vary
substantially. According to one estimate, industry generates
between 55 and 400 million tons of solid waste a year.
According to another estimate, the yearly total is 7.6 billion tons,
which includes industrial nonhazardous waste, oil, natural gas
and mining wastes, and trash. Numbers are hard to verify
because industrial waste is disposed of primarily on-site, with
-------
20 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Publishers Join Recycling
Efforts ... Voluntarily?
What is the publishing industry doing in terms of recycling?
Should it be regulated to accomplish certain recycling goals in
coming years, or are voluntary agreements between publishers and
states working?
A December 1992 article in Editor & Publisher magazine
discusses an ongoing debate on whether the publishing industry
should be forced through federal legislation to use recycled fiber in
printing newspapers.
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group says, for instance,
that newspapers are using recycled fiber because - at the time the
article was published --11 states have laws requiring it. The
Newspaper Association of America says the reason also is that
there are about 14 voluntary agreements between state
governments and publishers.
Editor & Publisher says "although reuse of newspapers in
recycled newsprint has not kept up with the increased diversion of
newsprint from the waste stream, its use by paper companies is
governed not only by demand, but also by papermakers1 de-inking
capacity."
Newspapers in 1990 made up 6.6 percent (12.9 million tons)
of the solid waste stream, according to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and 42 percent of newspapers generated were
recovered for recycling.
little public scrutiny, study or regulation.
The private sector also plays a significant role in managing
solid waste -- private waste management companies handle 42
percent of the nation's solid waste. Many incinerators are
privately owned and operated. Professional waste management
companies, including processors and handlers of secondary
materials, work with state and local officials to plan and
implement integrated waste management and educate the public.
In addition to picking up and disposing of solid waste, the
private sector has a significant financial stake in reducing waste,
collecting recyclable solid waste and manufacturing marketable
products from those recycled materials, and much is being done.
For example, the plastics industry formed the Partnership for
-------
Chapter 2 21
Plastics Progress to explore plastic recycling opportunities; it
changed its name in October 1992 to the American Plastics
Council.
In December 1989, New York announced a voluntary
agreement between publishers and the state that publishers had
set a goal to use 11 percent recycled fibers by 1992 (which the
industry said it attained in 1991), 23 percent by 1995, and 40
percent by the year 2000.
McDonald's Corporation has undertaken a major effort, in
cooperation with the Environmental Defense Fund, to reduce and
recycle its waste, and other efforts by the private sector also are
under way.
What You Can Do
With the increasing public support for environmental
protection, reporters and editors have been finding high audience
interest in specific actions they can take to help reduce the solid
waste stream. For one thing, individuals help salve the feelings
of frustration and powerlessness that much of the public feels in
confronting seemingly formidable environmental problems. Some
ideas for "What You Can Do" sidebars follow:
1. Recycle as much as possible: newspapers, magazines,
catalogs, white paper, phone books, aluminum, tin, cardboard,
glass, and plastic. Look for comparable products packaged in
materials that your community recycles.
2. Select, if possible, products that are not overpackaged,
packaged for individual servings, or packaged in non-recyclable
materials.
3. Take a washable, reusable coffee cup to the office.
4. Recycle junk mail -- save the letters and envelopes for
scratch paper, recycle the white paper, or use the envelopes that
don't have a prepaid postage indicia on them.
5. Use reusable storage containers for food or look for items
that are available in refillable containers.
6. Bring paper bags back to the store for the clerks to reuse
or bring a reusable cloth bag for your next round of groceries.
7. Use rechargeable batteries.
8. Leave grass trimmings on the lawn or compost grass and
leaves, or save them for local compost collections. Learn how to
-------
22 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
start a compost pile in your yard; compost fruit and vegetable
trimmings, egg shells, coffee grounds, and other compostible
food waste.
9. Recycle at the office, home or school -- newspaper, office
and computer paper, glass, and cans. Use both sides of a piece
of paper, even just for scratch paper or casual notes or reminders
to yourself and colleagues. Then recycle it.
10. Use cloth napkins, sponges or dishcloths that can be
washed over and over again.
11. Try alternatives to gift wrap paper, such as newspaper
comics (these can also be recycled), magazine covers, old maps,
or other materials around the house that might otherwise be
thrown out.
12. Select grocery, hardware and household items that are
available in bulk.
13. Take used motor oil, used car batteries and antifreeze to
participating auto service centers.
14. Maintain and repair durable appliances, electronic
equipment, and other products.
15. Sell or donate unwanted goods rather than discarding
them.
-------
Chapter 3
Options for Municipal
Solid Waste Management
Four major options are available for reducing and managing
the volumes of the nation's solid waste:
Source reduction producing less waste needing to be
discarded in the first place.
Recycling - using in other forms materials that otherwise
would be waste.
Incineration -- burning solid waste usually to produce
energy.
Landfilling - using an area of land to dispose of solid
waste.
Each option has requirements or influencing factors to
consider that are key to its becoming a viable option for individual
communities.
Options: Source Reduction and Recycling
Source reduction and recycling are generally the preferred
options for managing the nation's municipal solid waste output.
They are separate but compatible waste management strategies
and each should not be mistaken as a single approach to reducing
the solid waste stream.
Source reduction means reducing the quantity and toxicity of
waste. It involves reducing the waste content of products and
packaging, reducing the volume of material and/or increasing the
useful life of products to reduce the frequency of replacement. It
can require changes in the way products are made, the raw
materials used in their manufacture, and/or the ways the
products are used.
Recycling involves separating, collecting, reprocessing,
marketing, and ultimately reusing in other forms materials that
otherwise would be waste materials.
While decreasing the volume of waste being discarded, these
two options also can reduce the need for new raw materials,
thereby conserving natural resources, and can cut down the
environmental burden caused by mining, logging and
manufacturing raw materials. They also can help reduce the
amount of hazardous substances in the waste stream which
-------
24 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
eventually ends up in landfills or in ash that is left after burning
solid waste.
Many factors influence the success of specific source
reduction and recycling efforts:
the specific products and materials affected;
the viability of markets for the recycled goods;
the price of virgin materials;
public understanding of and support for, or opposition to,
the effort; and
economic incentives and government regulations.
The U.S. recycling rate is approximately 17 percent, according
to EPA. This lags behind many other industrialized countries. In
Japan, for instance, about 40 percent of solid waste is recycled,
including about 55 percent of glass bottles and 66 percent of
food and beverage cans. Depending on which region of the
country they live in, Japanese households separate their garbage
into seven to 21 different categories. Recycling rates in some
western European countries are estimated at 25 to 30 percent.
Source Reduction
EPA defines source reduction as the design, manufacture, and
use of products to reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste
produced when the products reach the end of their useful lives.
Preventing the pollution in the first place -- rather than cleaning it
up later -- is the first step in an integrated waste management
system.
The benefits of source reduction are fairly clear:
the amount of waste to be handled is reduced, thus
reducing disposal costs;
energy and natural resources are saved in production and
disposal processes;
air, water and land pollution often are reduced; and
the amount of hazardous substances in other parts of the
disposal process (recycling, incineration and landfilling) is
reduced.
Source reduction often carries its own economic incentives.
Businesses and households can reduce costs by avoiding waste.
Approaches can include product reuse, reduced amounts of
material, reduced toxicity of products, increased product lifetime,
or decreased consumption. The design and manufacturing
-------
Chapter 3 25
Source Reduction Activities
Product reuse
Reduced material volume
Reduced toxicity of products
Increased product lifetime
Decreased consumption pattems anrf decreased
Source: Decision-Maker's Guide consumption of materials
to Solid Waste Management,
as. EPA, 1989.
industries have a clear role
in source reduction efforts.
Source reduction can also
be practiced at the
individual and/or corporate
level through reuse of
products, selective buying
(e.g., packaging).
The publishing industry
also can do its share in this
regard: More and more
newspapers have been
getting excellent results by shifting from inks formulated from
heavy metals to newer inks produced primarily from the
ubiquitous soy bean.
Barriers, Obstacles. There are, however, many obstacles and
complicating factors. Packaging contributes about half the
volume of household waste, and some of the bulk associated
with packaging of certain products is designed to prevent petty
theft and shoplifting of those products from retail stores. One of
the primary obstacles facing source reduction is the value
consumers place on convenience, time savings and newness in
products. A significant change in attitudes and lifestyles,
therefore, will be required at the consumer level for some source
reduction activities. Others, such as switching to reusable cups,
are simple.
Some source reduction measures by manufacturers may
require substantial initial costs for planning and capital
investment. Others, such as internal policies to use both sides of
a sheet of paper when making copies, can be easy to implement
and may immediately reduce costs.
In the past, society and industry have focused on treatment
technologies rather than on source reduction in response to
regulation, in part because of costs and in part from lack of
education on cost effectiveness.
There also is the potential that substituting one material at the
source would have other negative environmental impacts and/or
-------
26
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
net result in overall
reduction in the waste
stream. This is not an
issue if less of the same
material is used,
however. In addition,
the benefits of source
reduction are difficult to
measure, making it more
difficult to gain
government and public
support.
Source reduction as
a means of waste
management has
practical limitations and
can be only part of the
means of dealing with the
Considerations in Assessing
Source Reduction Options
Social and economic return
Feasibility, efficiency, and cost
Useful life of the products
Potential side effects of source
reduction measures
Impact on local waste
management system, and
Impact on waste generation by a
facility or a product
Source: U.S. EPA.
municipal solid waste problem.
Recycling
The basic steps to recycling include collecting and separating
recyclables from other trash; preparing the material so it can be
used in manufacturing or for some other use; and actually putting
the recycled material to a commercial use.
The collection and separation of recyclables can be
accomplished through curbside collection of separated materials,
drop-off centers, or separation of mixed waste at materials
recovery facilities. Curbside collection can range from simply
separating out newspapers to separating waste into four or more
individual components. Collection can be expensive - ranging
from $75 to $150 per ton in some areas - depending on things
such as the frequency of pick-ups and number of houses
participating. Drop-off centers are less expensive and provide
convenient central locations for processors or recyclers but
require a more active role on the part of individuals.
Materials recovery facilities (MRFs) are processing plants
which use a combination of manual and mechanical means of
separating commingled materials into individual recyclable
commodities. Individual households must separate out recyclable
materials, such as paper, bottles and cans, which are collected
-------
Chapter 3 27
and stored together (commingled.) At the MRF the materials are
separated for recycling and processed to meet market
specifications. By 1991, there were 191 MRFs operating in the
U.S., up from 92 just one year earlier.
What is being done today? While the current national
materials recovery rate for recycling and composting is about 17
percent, areas such as Seattle and San Francisco recycle 25
percent or more of their municipal waste streams. On the other
hand, some areas recycle only about 5 percent.
Reporters in particular should beware of wildly ranging
estimates on the proportion of U.S. garbage that overnight could
be recycled using available technologies. Estimates of 75 to 80
percent are not uncommon, but reporters, upon hearing such
estimates, should probe for substantiation from a technical,
economic and practical perspective.
Practical rather than technical constraints in fact impede most
recycling. However, the technical and economic feasibility of
recycling varies greatly among various components of the waste
stream. While markets for old newsprint are experiencing a glut
as a result of increased municipal recycling efforts and a lack of
capacity to process, there is unused capacity to recycle high-
quality white paper like computer paper. American paper
manufacturers have invested heavily in new mill capacity so they
can recycle more paper in coming years.
The American Paper Institute estimates that by 1995 the
recycling rate for all waste paper will be between 38.5 and 41.7
percent. It may reach 66 percent by the year 2000, according to
a recent study for the National Solid Wastes Management
Association.
Glass. Glass makes up about 6.7 percent of the waste
stream, of which about 90 percent is glass containers. While
recycling glass is more economical than using virgin materials,
only about 20 percent is currently being recycled. Recycling
efforts are complicated by having to separate differently colored
glass in order to meet the needs of glass recyclers.
Aluminum. The aluminum industry has one of the highest
recycling rates, primarily because a viable market exists for it. It
is significantly more economical to recycle used cans than to
create new aluminum. Unlike other materials, aluminum
maintains much of its value through the recycling process and is
-------
28 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
marketable. EPA estimates that about 53 percent of all aluminum
containers and packaging was recovered for recycling in 1990.
According to the Can Manufacturers Institute, an industry trade
group, 60.8 percent of aluminum cans were recycled in 1989, up
from 55 percent in 1988.
Reynolds Aluminum, Inc., is experimenting with reverse
vending machines where the customer feeds in empty cans and
receives money in exchange. The steel and aluminum cans are
automatically separated and then crushed.
Aluminum recycling saves 95 percent of the energy required
to process bauxite ore, while recycling glass reduces energy
costs by 30 percent. But even with half the nation's aluminum
beverage cans being recycled, enough aluminum is thrown out
every three months to rebuild the country's entire airline fleet.
Table 3
Recovery Rates for Selected Consumer Goods
(in percentages)
Type
Beer, soft drink:
Aluminum cans
Glass bottles
Corrigated boxes
Newspapers
Office paper
Rubber tires
Books,
magazines
1960
7.1
34.2
25.4
20.0
36.4
5.3
1975
20.0
6.3
26.7
27.3
26.9
8.0
8.7
1990
63.2
33.2
48.0
42.5
26.5
11.6
21.0
Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.:
1992 Update, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Yard and Food Waste. About 25 percent of the waste stream
is made up of grass clippings, leaves, and yard and food wastes,
-------
Chapter 3 29
much of which can be effectively composted, although little
currently is. Proponents of increased composting argue that the
potential environmental benefits go beyond merely reducing the
amount of wastes having to be landfilled. They point out, for
instance, that increased use of composted materials could help
reduce reliance on manmade fertilizers dependent on petroleum
products, thereby also helping to address energy conservation
and groundwater pollution concerns.
Table 3 shows recovery rates (comparing rates from 1960,
1975 and 1990) for selected consumer goods.
Is what's being done working? Barriers to recycling take
several forms including technical, economic and political. In
many cases, recycling is simply not cost-effective, and it is
cheaper and more efficient to use virgin materials than it is to
collect, separate, transport, and reprocess used materials.
Much of the success of recycling efforts depends on the
match of supply and demand and the overall economics of the
effort for those involved. The recycled commodity must be able
to be used profitably - it must be competitive in terms of quality,
price and reliability of supply. In some cases, the current
recyclables collection system is inadequate to provide the steady,
high-quality supply required by manufacturers.
In an April 1993, Governing magazine article Tom Arrandale
wrote that government's role in managing solid waste may give
communities "a chance to take mounting supplies of recyclable
commodities and turn them into economic assets." But right
now, Arrandale says, "nothing seems to hold more promise ...
than old-fashioned regulatory mandates." Governments can
require industries to use recycled feedstocks rather than virgin
raw materials.
For instance, publishers in California and some northeastern
states because of laws and voluntary agreements now have
invested $42 million over three years to install de-inking plants
for reprocessing used newsprint, reports Arrandale.
Supply and demand also varies from region to region of the
country. Table 4 shows recycling revenues by region for several
materials. Many states and localities are addressing the issue of
markets in part by buying recycled commodities themselves or by
providing incentives or requirements for private industry to use
recycled materials.
-------
30
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Table 4
Recycling Revenues for Selected Consumer Goods, by
(in dollars per ton)
Aluminum
Region Newspapers Cans
Northeast -30 to -15 27-33
Mid-Atlantic -30-0 28-32
South 0-10 25-32
East Central 0-20 33-35
West Central 0-10 20-28
South Central 0-10 21-31
West 1 0-20 25-32
Northeast: CT MA ME NH NJ NY Rl VT
Mid-Atlantic: DE MD PA VA WV
South: AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
East Central: IA IL IN OH Ml MN MO Wl
West Central: CO KS MT NE ND SD UT
South Central: AR AZ LA NM OK TX
West: CA ID NV OR WA
Clear
Glass Plastic
0-22 8-12
10-20 7-10
0-20 7-10
10-20 8-12
0-10 4-7
0-10 0-3
5-100 3-10
WY
Region
White
Paper
65-75
25-45
30-50
40-60
20-60
60-80
60-70
Source: Governing magazine, August 1991.
Steven Kraten in an April 1990 article in Environmental
Decisions, published by the National League of Cities, calls
collection the "major economic bottleneck in nearly all recycling
systems." There are a number of direct and indirect costs
associated with collection including fuel and wear-and-tear on
collection vehicles, vehicle emissions into the air, and increased
traffic congestion. Cleaning and sorting can also be expensive.
There are also technical difficulties with recycling certain
materials, such as multi-layer and mixed plastics. Successful
recycling also requires the capacity to process the recycled
material into new products and a market for the end product.
Another obstacle to increased recycling is potential liability.
-------
Chapters 31
Several major recyclable materials -- such as used oil, autos,
household hazardous waste, lead-acid batteries, and white goods
- may create potentially toxic byproducts during recycling pro-
cessing, which is a disincentive for operating recycling facilities.
Several specific items create particular challenges for
recycling. Tires, for instance, are virtually indestructible.
Approximately 1.6 million tons of rubber tires were discarded in
the U.S. in 1990, about 1 percent of the waste stream, according
to EPA. Rubber tires in 1990 were recycled at a rate of 11.6
percent.
In addition to the problem of sheer volume, piles of discarded
tires may catch on fire, posing serious fire-fighting challenges as
hundreds of thousands of tires can burn uncontrollably for weeks
at a time. Also, tires buried under ground may cause other
problems. Some tires are recycled for use in asphalt in highway
construction, but some methods for dealing with discarded tires
long have been viewed as being prohibitively expensive or as
showing adverse environmental effects. In recent years, use of
used tires as fuel in electrical power plants has shown increasing
promise, and chopped-up tires also are being used increasingly as
fuel in cement plants, paper mills and other factories.
Another recycling challenge involves vehicle batteries. The
concern focuses on lead from the batteries (about 20 pounds of
lead per automobile battery) that contributes to the metals levels
in incinerator air emissions and ash, and in landfills. Recovery of
batteries for recycling has fluctuated between 60 and 90 percent,
according to EPA.
Plastics Recycling. Plastics recycling also has received much
attention, but it poses a number of logistical collection and
preparation issues. According to EPA, plastics make up about
8.3 percent by weight of the materials discarded in the municipal
solid waste stream (after composting, recycling and combustion)
and an estimated 21 percent by volume. Plastics are the fastest
growing component of the waste stream.
While virtually all plastics are technically recyclable -- meaning
they can be remelted and formed into other items -- less than 2
percent is currently recovered for recycling. Soft drink bottles
and milk jugs make up most of the plastic currently being
recycled. According to a 1991 survey for American Plastics
Council (formerly the Partnership for Plastics Progress), the
-------
32
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Table 5
Materials Recovery Rates
for Municipal Solid Waste Stream Components,
by Weight, 1990
Percent Percent
of Waste Stream Recovered
(millions of tons) (millions of tons)
Paper and paperboard
Yard trimmings
Metals
Plastics
Food wastes
Glass
Wood
Textiles
Rubber and leather
Other nonfood
Miscellaneous inorganic
Total
37.5 (73.3)
17.9 (35.0)
8.3 (16.2)
8.3 (16.2)
6.7 (13.2)
6.7 (13.2)
6.3 (12.3)
2.9 (5.6)
2.4 (4.6)
1.6 (3.2)
1.5 (2.9)
100.0(195.7)
Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
Update 1992, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
28.6 (20.9)
12.0(4.2)
23.0 (3.7)
2.2 (0.4)
-(-)
19.9 (2.6)
3.2 (0.4)
4.3 (0.2)
4.4 (0.2)
23.8 (0.8)
-(-)
17.1 (33.4)
U.S.:
recycling rate for PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic
packaging used for soft drink bottles and base cups used with
the bottles was about 36 percent in 1991, approximately 327
million pounds a year (see Table 5). The recycled plastic is used
in a variety of products such as fiberfill for pillows, sleeping bags
and jackets; bottles for household cleaners; flower pots; plastic
for park benches; and even the "fuzz" on tennis balls.
-------
Chapter 3 33
Table 6
Estimates of Post-Consumer
Plastic Packaging Recycled (1991)
Virgin
Percent Percent Plastic
Type Recycled of Sales Sales*
LDPE/LLDPE: Low- 46.9 1.0 4,678
linear/low-density
polyethylene
PVC: Polyvinyl chloride 1.6 0.2 685
HOPE: High-density 280.5 6.3 4,425
polyethylene
PP: Polypropylene 5.2 0.4 1,304
PS: Polystyrene 23.9 1.2 2,031
PET: Polyethylene 326.8 35.8 912
terephthalate
Examples of Products:
LDPE/LLDPE: Film packaging, shrink/stretch wrap, retail bags.
PVC: Bottles for water, food, Pharmaceuticals & cosmetics.
HDPE: Milk and water bottles, soft drink bottle base cups, film bags.
PP: Flexible plastic.
PS: Protective and food service packaging.
PET: Soft drink bottles and base cups.
* In millions of pounds.
Source: "Post-Consumer Plastics Recycling Rate Study," for The
Partnership for Plastics Progress, 1990 and 1991.
A primary obstacle to increased recycling is that plastic
recycling does not always save energy or money. The difficulties
are in the collection, cleaning, separation, and marketing of the
end products. Plastics include a wide variety of resins or
polymers, with different characteristics and mixed plastics
producing a lower quality end product (see Table 6). Multi-layer
-------
34 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
plastics, such as some squeezable mustard and catsup bottles,
with up to six layers of polymers, are particularly difficult to
separate for recycling.
Several joint ventures have been formed recently between
chemical companies and the waste industry to address these
obstacles. Procter & Gamble is marketing a cleaning product in a
new container made completely with recycled PET. However,
critics question whether recycling can be done on a sufficient
scale to make a difference. They argue that reducing the use of
wasteful plastics and packaging should be the priority.
Used Oil. Used oil also creates disposal problems. Approxi-
mately 58 percent (550 million gallons) of used oil is reprocessed
annually into fuel, lubricant, and hydraulic oils, while 42 percent
(400 million gallons) ends up in trash, in sewers or buried in the
ground - more than 30 times the amount spilled by the Exxon
Valdez in the March 1989 spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound.
The recycling rate for do-it-yourself oil changers is less than 10
percent. Concerns over the potential liability involved with used
oil has been a major deterrent to increased recycling efforts.
(Reporters should beware such Valdez comparisons, which often
ignore that a major spill occurs in one place and at one time.)
Questions for Reporters to Keep in Mind
O What type of source reduction efforts are currently under
way? Which industry is doing that? Is it economical?
O What are the possible negative environmental or economic
impacts source reduction or recycling can have?
O What causes the difference of percentage of recycled waste in
the country (e.g., in Seattle and San Francisco the rates are
25 percent or more, while in some areas it is only 5 percent)?
O In some areas, mixed household waste is sent to materials
reclamation facilities. This option may save on collection
costs, yet, is it feasible and beneficial in the long run? Can it
become an effective alternative?
O It is obvious that source reduction and recycling are for the
most part environmentally sound and save energy, but certain
limitations exist in terms of cost effectiveness. How do these
limitations impact potential options for a particular
community?
-------
Chapter 3 35
Option: Solid Waste Incineration
Until the early 1970s, Americans routinely managed much of
their trash by burning it. The scent of burning leaves was a
harbinger of winter in parts of the country, and in many areas
garbage was burned year-round. Individuals often burned
practically anything burnable to help lighten their weekly garbage
load. As concern about air pollution increased, local governments
began to impose restrictions on burning trash in the open air.
The energy crisis in the 1970s also influenced changes in the
handling of garbage, or solid waste, through development of a
more sophisticated system of incineration that could recover
energy as the garbage burned. This and other factors led to more
and more stringent regulations, and today under the Clean Air Act
and subsequent amendments, regulations require incinerators - or
municipal solid waste combustors, as they are formally called -
to meet specific air pollution control standards or to cease
operations.
By the mid-1970s, waste-to-energy facilities became a viable
component of an integrated waste management system. In
1992, 184 municipal waste incinerators were operating in the
U.S., according to EPA.
In 1990, 16.3 percent (31.9 million tons) of America's 195.7
million tons of municipal waste was incinerated, and EPA
estimated that about 15.2 percent (29.7 million tons) of that
waste was incinerated with energy recovery.
EPA estimated that the 37 non-energy recovery facilities that
were operating in 1992 had a combined capacity of 6,219 tons
per day. The 147 operating energy recovery facilities had a
combined capacity of 102,755 tons per day and a combined
capability to produce 17 million megawatt-hours of electricity (net
energy) per year.
Types of Incineration Facilities
There are three basic types of municipal waste incineration or
solid waste combustion facilities operating in the U.S.: mass
burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
The mass burn combustor is designed to burn all municipal
waste delivered to it en masse. Typically, a waste hauler dumps
a truckload of solid waste into a holding pit at the facility. A
-------
36 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
A Word About Words
It would be easier to write about incinerators, or municipal
solid waste combustors, as many solid waste professionals prefer
to call them, if everyone agreed on one term. But they don't,
perhaps for good reason.
Reporters dealing with municipal solid waste issues should
expect to hear many terms used to describe an incineration facility
waste-to-energy, mass burn, refuse-derived fuel, combustor,
resource recovery, and so forth.
Part of the reason is that there are important distinctions
among the various types of incinerators. Another reason is that
many professionals believe the word "incinerator" conjures up
images only of the pre-controlled, belching smokestacks that were
common years ago: The image is of urban apartment buildings in
the 1950s randomly incinerating waste in an uncontrolled fashion.
In everyday language, the word "incinerator" is used
interchangeably with the mix of terms that perhaps more precisely
describe an incineration facility. But professionals will be loath to
use the word incinerator because of the stigma that is attached to
it in the eyes of the public.
The modern municipal solid waste incinerator, or combustor, is
required by law to be equipped with pollution control equipment.
Newer incinerators usually recover usable energy from solid waste.
Older incinerators are required to use pollution control equipment
or close.
It's important not to lose some of these distinctions in the
shorthand of "incinerator."
crane lifts and places the solid waste into a combustion chamber
or kiln, where it fe burned.
The hot air generated from the burning process is funneled to
boilers that create steam. In some cases, the steam is used on-
site to operate turbines that generate electricity to sell to utilities.
In other cases, the steam is sold directly to industries and
institutions to power their own turbines. Hot exhaust gases pass
through an air pollution control system designed to remove
pollutants before the air is emitted from a smokestack.
Once the solid waste is burned, two types of ash remain.
Smaller, lighter ash is caught by the air pollution control system
as the exhaust gases pass though the hot air. This fly ash makes
-------
Chapter 3 37
up about 10 percent of the incinerator's ash waste. The
remaining ash, left at the bottom of the combustion chamber, is
called bottom ash. The larger and heavier bottom ash includes
chunks of unburnable material. The ash then is typically shipped
from the facility to an ash monofill or it is co-disposed with
municipal solid waste in a landfill.
A modular combustor works like a mass burn combustor but
is physically smaller. Also, it is usually prefabricated so that it
can be put in place fairly quickly.
The third type, the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) combustor,
differs from the mass burn in two significant ways.
First, RDF facilities include a materials separation process.
After the solid waste is dumped at the plant, it goes through a
system of shredders, screens, and magnets to remove metals and
other unburnable debris, such as rock and grit.
Second, the combustible solid waste is then further shredded
or processed into pellets to form a uniform size fuel to feed the
combustor.
Separating unburnable wastes and metals from other solid
waste can reduce the toxicity of air pollutants and ash created by
a combustor. It also increases the burning efficiency of waste, a
key element in controlling resulting air pollution.
Why are there more mass burn and modular plants - which
don't routinely do separation -- than RDF facilities operating in the
U.S.?
For one thing, in the early days of waste-to-energy
incineration, RDF plants had more parts to break down. Experts
say RDF plants are better built and more reliable than they used
to be, but because they involve more steps and more equipment,
they still tend to be more expensive than mass burn plants.
What Cost? Who Pays?
Waste-to-energy incinerators have two characteristics that
distinguish them from most other energy-producing facilities:
They get paid to take the fuel they use to generate energy, and
the energy they generate has a guaranteed market.
The federal Public Utilities Regulatory and Policy Act (PURPA)
requires investor-owned utilities to buy energy from waste-to-
energy incinerators at a cost equal to what the utility saves by
not having to build another power plant or operate existing plants
-------
38 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
at higher capacity. Some state laws similar to PURPA make it
even more lucrative for waste-to-energy facilities to sell energy to
utilities.
These incentives give municipal solid waste combustor
facilities that recover energy an assured source of revenues.
However, that does not mean that waste-to-energy facilities are
the most efficient way to create energy. Alan Hershkowitz, of
the Natural Resources Defense Council and who has written
widely on this topic, cautions in the July 30, 1987, issue of
Technology Review that "it would be a mistake for towns to
regard their incinerators as energy-producing ventures. Rather,
they are an important means of disposing of municipal waste."
They also can be one of the most expensive disposal means, a
factor that helps elevate source reduction and recycling as
priorities in solid waste management.
Typically, incineration proponents say a facility's initial costs -
construction and financing - are estimated (in 1990) at
$100,000 per ton of capacity per day. Plant sizes are usually de-
scribed according to how many tons per day they are designed to
burn. However, these figures are only estimates and may vary
significantly in either direction for a particular type of facility.
Who foots the bill and assumes the risk for a facility depends
on who will own it. There are two common ways to build and
finance a facility.
The first is for a community to invite a vendor to design, build
and operate the facility. In some cases, the community and
vendor share costs. In other cases, either the community or the
vendor can be the sole owner. In either case, the financing
usually is obtained through bond sales, and the community, the
vendor or both assume financial risk.
A second financing path is for a private vendor to do
everything -- design, build, operate, and own the facility -- and
then give a discount on the tipping fee (discussed below) to the
host community or to certain customer communities. The vendor
usually obtains financing through bond sales, just as in the first
case. However, in this case, the community assumes no up-front
financial risk. Nor, usually, does it have any say in the design of
the facility.
The capitol cost of building the plant, though, is just one part
of the costs involved with waste-to-energy facilities. In addition.
-------
Chapter 3 39
operating costs include labor, repairs, maintenance, and utilities.
In comparing landfill versus incineration costs, it's important that
reporters, to develop a reasonable overview, keep in mind not
only initial costs but also full life-cycle costs.
Tipping fees - the amount the operator charges for each ton
of waste delivered to the facility -- range widely from region to
region. Incineration tipping fees initially are often higher than
landfill tipping fees, but here too it's important to make compari-
sons over a long term and to keep in mind that comparative costs
can vary from state to state and region to region, depending on
factors such as regulatory and enforcement considerations and
relative availability of landfill space.
Incineration facilities need a constant, predictable flow of solid
waste to continue producing a constant, predictable flow of
energy. To ensure that flow, vendors or investors often require
communities to guarantee to deliver a specific amount of
municipal solid waste to the plant each day or week. If for some
reason the community cannot meet the quota, then under some
contracts, it must pay a fee for the unmet quota. This sort of
arrangement not only raises the price of disposal, but environ-
mentalists and some solid waste management experts say that it
also can create a disincentive for source reduction and recyling.
These reasons help explain the importance of carefully planning
plant size and capacity.
In the early "learning curve" years of U.S. operation of
municipal solid waste combustors, plants in many cases
demonstrated all the usual characteristics of a new and imperfect
technology. Since the mid-1980s, some 130 combustors have
gone on-line nationally, and the plants are on-line and fully
operational far more than was true of the earliest combustors.
Public Confidence ... and Opposition
While the number of incinerators and the percentage of solid
waste incinerated have increased in the United States,
incinerators have not escaped from the public anxiety and
concern -- the NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard, phenomenon - that
greets many types of industrial siting actions (see Table 7).
Proponents of increased reliance on waste-to-energy incineration
point out that the facilities require far less acreage than is
required of landfills, thereby increasing the number of potentially
-------
40 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Table 7
Public Attitudes
Toward Garbage Disposal
Yes No Not sure
Would you object to a new 55% 37% 8%
waste-to-energy plant in your
community?
Would you object to a new 36% 59% 5%
landfill in your community?
Should federal and state officials 44% 50% 6%
override local opposition to a
disposal facility?
Source: National Solid Wastes Management Association, May 1990.
available siting locations.
All the same, reporters won't be surprised to learn there
actually are more than two sides to the story.
"Since 1985, some 40 mass burn plants, valued at about $4
billion, have been canceled, most before reaching the
construction stage," Neil Seldman, a vocal critic of mass-burn
waste-to-energy incineration and advocate of recycling, wrote in
Environment in September 1989. "In 1987, for the first time,
more plant capacity was canceled than was ordered ... Of the
100 plants that remain in the planning stage, most face very stiff
opposition and probably will not be built."
The process of incineration produces two byproducts: air
emissions and ash. These byproducts are at the heart of environ-
mental concerns about and community opposition to incinerators.
Some state and local agencies have imposed comprehensive
air pollution regulations on incineration facilities. Under the Clean
Air Act prior to passage of the 1990 Amendments, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was constrained in setting
standards. With more stringent standards authorized under the
1990 Amendments -- and with coverage extended for the first
-------
Chapters 41
time to include existing facilities and not just new ones -- the
agency in 1992 was to strengthen its regulations and apply them
also to smaller facilities.
Specifically, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required
EPA to set standards for large capacity facilities by late 1991 and
for small capacity facilities (less than 250 tons per day) by late
1992. The Act requires that emissions limitations be established
for particulates, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides
of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, dioxins,
and dibenzofurans (see Appendix A).
In February 1991, EPA set standards and guidelines for
existing facilities with more than 250 tons per day capacity and
mandated the following types of controls:
good combustion practices;
particulate emission limits;
organic emission limits;
acid gas controls; and
nitrous oxide (NOx) emission limits (new sources only).
For ash, though, the regulatory status is less clear. While the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments prevented EPA from addressing
ash as a hazardous waste for two years, until November 1992,
individual states for the most part have moved to regulate ash
management in some way (see "Incinerator Ash" below).
Air Emissions. Municipal solid waste combustor facilities
produce air emissions that contain four general types of
pollutants that can pose a range of health effects depending on
exposures, concentrations, and other factors:
particulate matter;
acid gases (including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride);
trace metals; and
dioxins and furans.
Specific pollutants identified by EPA as existing in incinerator
stack emissions include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, chromium, formaldehyde, lead,
mercury, and polychorinated biphenyls. Again, if audiences are
to draw informed judgments, reporters need to keep in mind not
just whether a pollutant is in the emissions but also in what
concentrations and amounts.
The amount of air pollution produced and then emitted can be
-------
42 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
reduced primarily by doing three things:
controlling what goes into the incinerator;
keeping the temperature in the combustor consistently
high; and
installing, operating and maintaining control equipment to
effectively trap pollutants before they can be emitted into
the atmosphere.
Three types of air pollution control equipment are typically
used in waste-to-energy facility smokestacks. The most common
is an electrostatic precipitator, which electrically charges
particulate matter, then attracts and holds it like a magnet.
Another type of equipment is a scrubber, which uses an
alkaline material to cool and neutralize acid gases. The third type
is a baghouse or filter, which traps particulate matter through a
system of tubular bags.
EPA has determined that the most effective control system for
removing incineration air pollutants is one that combines a
scrubber with a baghouse or filter. The agency found that this
system "can reduce emissions by more than 95 percent, in most
cases." However, these control systems are more expensive
than electrostatic precipitators, and the increased costs have led
to resistance to using the more effective technology, especially in
retrofitting older incinerators whose remaining lifetime raises
cost-efficiency questions.
The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act require that
standards be set for the emissions of particular pollutants from
solid waste combustion facilities, and that the emissions be
monitored and the results made available to the public.
Incinerator Ash. Until the 1980s, most of the public concern
- and also most of the mass media attention -- about incineration
facilities focused on air emissions. Current debate now also
focuses on the resulting ash.
Inform, a nonprofit research organization, conducted a study
of 15 waste-to-energy facilities that "mirror the diversity" of the
128 that were operating at the end of 1990. Making certain
assumptions, Inform estimated that the nation's 128 waste-to-
energy facilities were generating more than 5.5 million tons of
ash requiring disposal per year. (There were no national statistics
at the time of the study.)
-------
Chapter 3 43
Incineration facilities, as some scientists point out, are not
waste disposal systems but waste reduction systems. Once the
solid waste is burned, ash remains as waste.
Ironically, as air pollution control equipment has become more
efficient and effective in containing the emissions, the ash that
remains from burning has become a focus of debate because the
once-airborne pollutants become trapped, particularly in the fly
ash, inside the incinerator. And just how toxic and potentially
hazardous the ash might be is in dispute, as is the regulatory
status of ash.
Some challenge the laboratory testing and methods used to
determine whether potentially toxic pollutants are present at
certain levels in the ash. Some regulatory authorities use the
outcome of a test to determine how the ash is to be managed.
U.S. EPA currently does not regulate municipal waste com-
bustion ash as a hazardous waste, and therefore does not require
that ash be tested (for example, through a leaching test) to deter-
mine whether metals concentrations exceed certain limits. The
agency has performed leaching studies on ash using a variety of
leaching tests (including the Extraction Procedure Toxicity, or EP
Tox, test and the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure, TCLP,
test). Although the ash may sometimes fail these tests, studies
have shown that these tests may not be realistic indicators of
"toxicity"; i.e., they may not yield results that accurately predict
actual leachate quality. For example, ash generated in modern
combustion facilities equipped with lime injection to control acid
gas emissions generally "pass" a leaching test because of
buffering by the lime-laden ash.
At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) (see Appendix A) exempts the burning of municipal
solid waste in waste-to-energy facilities from being regulated as a
hazardous waste. But the law is unclear on whether the
exemption applies to the resulting ash.
EPA has interpreted the RCRA statute as saying that municipal
waste combustion ash generated by energy recovery facilities is
exempt from hazardous waste regulation. The agency contends
that this interpretation is consistent with the text and legislative
history of the statute and that Congress intended that the ash be
regulated as a non-hazardous waste. EPA's position is that the
ash can be safely managed in a municipal solid waste landfill
-------
44 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
designed in accordance with the new landfill criteria in its
regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 258 (see end of Chapter 3).
Despite this regulatory interpretation by EPA, the final decision
regarding the regulatory status of the ash remains somewhat
unclear and ultimately will rest in either the federal courts and/or
Congress.
Many states, seeing what they view as a regulatory void,
have moved ahead to regulate ash on their own. As of 1991,
according to EPA, 49 states regulated ash management, with 40
states requiring testing of the ash. Of the 40 states that require
testing, 25 require that ash found to be hazardous according to
state standards be managed as a hazardous waste. Forty-eight
(48) states have some kind of requirements concerning ash
disposal.
So, how should ash be treated? As a solid waste or as a
hazardous waste? Should it be disposed of in a hazardous waste
landfill or in a monofill (a landfill for a single commodity) designed
for only ash? Or where?
Some suggest an untapped commercial value for incinerator
ash to be used in cinder blocks or as artificial ocean reefs. In this
process, called solidification or stabilization, the ash is mixed with
cement and/or alkaline scrubber materials to form a hard mass
with less leaching potential. Stability of the ash remains a
question mark. Would concrete containing ash leach lead or
cadmium over time, and in concentrations that could pose public
health risks? Reuse of the ash and other treatment technologies
are under research at the State University of New York, Stony
Brook, and other places.
Questions for Reporters to Keep in Mind
O Does the community have a comprehensive solid waste
management plan that includes source reduction, recycling
and composting?
O If they are planning a new incinerator, have community
leaders carefully sized the incinerator to handle only the
amount of waste the community produces after recycling and
source reduction?
O Who is building the plant? Does the builder have experience
building incinerators that are up and operating? What is the
-------
Chapter 3 45
operation history of those other plants?
O What is the incinerator's basic cost? Who is financing it and
how?
O How much does it cost to dump solid waste at the incinerator
(i.e., what is its tipping fee -- fee for dumping at a landfill or
other waste facility)? Is the community contractually
obligated to provide a minimum amount of solid waste?
O Who owns the plant? Who operates it? Does the operator
have experience operating incinerators?
O Are plant employees formally trained and certified? How and
by whom?
O Does the incinerator use mass-burn or a refuse-derived fuel
technology? Are certain types of waste banned from the
incinerator to reduce ash and emissions toxicity?
O What type of air emission control devices are used? How
efficient are those devices? Is a regular maintenance program
built in to keep the devices operating at maximum efficiency?
O What happens to the ash? Is there a plan for safe and
effective ash management? Is the more toxic fly ash
combined with less toxic bottom ash? Does the ash go to a
landfill, a monofill devoted to a specific waste, or a hazardous
waste dump? How much does ash disposal cost?
O What state, local and federal regulations govern ash disposal
and air pollution controls?
O What happens to the garbage during scheduled shutdowns of
the incinerator for maintenance?
O How often are ash toxicity and air emission levels tested, by
whom and with what equipment?
O Are necessary state, local and federal permits and testing
reports up to date?
O Is the combustion chamber working at highest possible
performance standards?
O Who is buying the energy created by the plant and for how
much?
Note: An important point for reporters and editors to keep in
mind: Much press coverage of incinerator controversies has
centered around the trace air emissions. Are reporters in effect
"missing the story" in perhaps over-playing air emissions ... and
under-playing ash?
-------
46 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Option: Landfills
Landfills are another option for handling the nation's municipal
solid wastes.
They are not necessarily a preferred option, but rather landfills
are a fact of life. Ultimately, they are a necessity, for the most
resourceful minds cannot conjure a near-term future when the
U.S. will have no need for landfills anywhere.
"There's no scheme that eliminates them," Gregg Easterbrook,
contributing editor for Newsweek and The Atlantic, wrote in the
April 30, 1990, issue of The New Republic.
A Landfill Is Not A Dump
Webster's Unabridged Third New International Dictionary
defines landfill as "disposal of trash and garbage by burying it
under layers of earth in low ground." The American Society of
Civil Engineers takes the definition further, saying a sanitary
landfill is:
a method of disposing of refuse on land without creating
nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing the
principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest
practical area, to reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and
to cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's
operation or at such more frequent intervals as may be
necessary.
Webster's defines dump as "an accumulation of refuse or
other discarded materials" or "a place where such materials are
dumped."
It comes down to this: A landfill is not, should not be, a
dump. In its November 1989, Decision-Makers Guide to Solid
Waste Management, EPA makes the distinction neatly: "The
technologies used at modern landfills are more sophisticated than
the open dump methods of the past," it says.
When is the last time your newspaper used "Sanitary Landfill"
in a headline? Or the last time you saw the term used anywhere
in a headline? Don't hold your breath. "Dump" is a headline
writer's delight: Short, one-syllable, pithy, and at the same time
graphic. Ideal. But perhaps inaccurate.
We've all seen "No dumping" signs along the highway. A
-------
Chapter 3 47
dump is someplace where people wantonly pull up, discard
something, usually in a random heap, and drive off. No advance
planning, no design aspects to it all, no continued maintenance,
and certainly no thought to quality control or long-term care.
That's about it.
There's no analysis. There's no follow-up, no systematic
intervention or monitoring.
Living Down the Reputation of a Legacy of 'Dumps'
Some of those same characteristics that give dumps their bad
name could be said to apply to what were intended to have been
landfills, not dumps. That's a past, and a painful reality, that
well-engineered landfills are having a tough time putting behind
them when it comes to popular perceptions.
Unlike the "spontaneous and unrehearsed" nature of a dump,
a modern landfill is no accident. The best ones are carefully
planned and meticulously sited from the start. New and existing
landfills are subject to an array of federal, state, and local
restrictions:
siting standards;
design and operating criteria;
groundwater monitoring requirements;
corrective action provisions;
closure and post-closure care and financial assurance
provisions; and
landfill bans for particular wastes such as oil, batteries,
household hazardous wastes, tires, and yard wastes.
EPA says that in 1990, landfills were used to accommodate
66.6 percent of the nation's 195.7 million tons of municipal
waste, with recovery for recycling and composting at 17.1
percent and solid waste combustion the remaining 16.3 percent.
In its Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.:
1992 Update, EPA predicts recovery for recycling and
composting to increase from 17.1 percent to 25 and 30 percent
in the years 1995 and 2000, respectively. It expects solid waste
combustion to increase from 16.3 percent to 17 and 20.8
percent in 1995 and 2000, respectively. Also, EPA predicts the
percentage remaining for landfill disposal to decrease to 58
percent in 1995 and to 49.2 percent in the year 2000.
-------
48
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Can Landfills Measure Up?
With a growing population and expanding U.S. economy
generating more and more waste each year - at a rate that
exceeds the overall rates of both economic and population
growth -- are landfills up to the task? Reporters are well-familiar
with reports of a landfill "capacity crisis," and many experts have
come to accept, albeit reluctantly, that all landfills leak ...
eventually. How do those factors enter the solid waste equation,
and how can reporters responsibly deal with them?
Figure 4
Types of Materials Discarded in Landfills, by Volume, 1990
(Percent of total)
Textiles (6.4%)
Aluminum (2.2%)
Ferrous Metals (8.9%)
Rubbers Leather (6.1%)
Other (1.4%)
Plastics (21.1%)
Total Volume:
418.3 million
cubic yds.
Glass (2.2%)
Yard Trimmings (9.8%)
Wood (6.8%)
Paper & Paperboard (31.9%)
Food Wastes (3.2%)
Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.:
Update 1992, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Writing in The New Republic in April 1990, Gregg Easterbrook
said, "Except in a few densely populated cities, it's nutty to
maintain that a country as vast as America is 'running out1 of
space for landfills. There is room to landfill our trash till the
Lord's return. What we are running out of is willingness to
tolerate landfills."
Easterbrook says that although landfills "can be built with
reasonable environmental safety, they are fundamentally bad
ideas: enablers of an irresponsible attitude toward resource
consumption."
Given that source reduction and recycling "won't ever solve
-------
Chapter 3 49
Figure 5
Types of Materials Discarded in Landfills, by Weight, 1990
(Percent of total)
Textiles (3.3%)
Aluminum (1.0%)
Ferrous Metals (6.4%)
Rubber & Leather (2.7%)
Other (3.5%)
Total weight
179.6 million tons Yard Trimmings (19.0%)
Wood (7.3%)
Paper & Paperboard (32.3%)
Food Wastes (8.1%)
Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.: Update
1992, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
all disposal problems," Easterbrook concludes that municipal solid
waste "is probably best managed with a combination of moderate
recycling, waste-to-energy plants burning the bulk of the trash,
and some landfills (there's no scheme that eliminates them) for
ash from the burners."
Figures 4 and 5 show, by volume and weight respectively, the
percentage by types of materials discarded in the municipal solid
waste stream (after composting, recycling and combustion).
Landfill regulations adopted in October 1991 are summarized
at the end of this chapter.
Public Confidence ... and Opposition
Resolving the issue of public opposition to siting will be diffi-
cult, unless citizens are confident of the engineering design of the
landfills and environmental integrity of whoever manages them.
Several factors should be kept in mind when reporting on
municipalities' efforts to cope with their solid waste challenges:
Location restrictions should be applied and enforced so that
they forbid siting of landfills at, on, or near airports; floodplains;
wetlands; fault areas; seismic impact zones; and geologically
unstable areas.
-------
SO Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
To help protect groundwater resources, new landfills should
be designed with effective low-permeability membranes or soil
liners to minimize the movement of leachates from the landfill to
groundwater. In some cases, more than one liner, or a mix of
different kinds of liners, may be needed.
Another important design element in new landfills is that they
incorporate effective groundwater monitoring and sampling
techniques to ensure that any contamination is detected early.
Groundwater around existing landfills should be monitored to
ensure adequate protection.
Even the presumed truism that "all landfills leak" might in the
end merely raise other important follow-up questions:
"Eventually," but when? And how much before the leak can be
detected and stopped? What is the effect of the leak? Does
monitoring detect the leak before important groundwater
resources are affected?
Releases of leachates to ground and surface waters are not
the only obstacle facing landfills when it comes to public
opposition and anxieties. Air emissions from landfills, including
odor problems, also are a concern.
Methane gas in particular is a problem, since methane is a
highly combustible byproduct of the decomposition of organic
refuse in the absence of air.
"Landfill gas emissions are comprised of a mixture of carbon
dioxide and methane, of which methane comprises 50 to 60 per-
cent," EPA says in its Decision-Makers Guide. "At and around
municipal solid waste landfills, methane can migrate through soil
and accumulate in closed areas (e.g., building basements) where
it can present significant explosion dangers if not properly con-
trolled. A normal landfill will generate methane at these concen-
trations for 10 to 20 years as waste decomposition takes place,
although methane generation can continue for over 100 years."
"A system that recovers methane -- the volatile gas given off
by decomposition within the landfill - should be installed after
closure of the landfill to minimize air pollution and recover a
valuable fuel," writes Ford Fessenden of Newsday in the
newspaper's 1989 book Rush to Burn: Solving America's
Garbage Crisis?, a paperback that reprints a 10-part,
55,000-word series done for the paper by more than two-dozen
staffers in what became known as "The Garbage Project."
-------
Chapter 3 51
Table 8
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Tipping Fees
by Region, 1990
Region Average Minimum Maximum
Northeast 64.76 12.00 120.00
Mid-Atlantic 40.75 6.00 89.00
South 16.92 5.25 40.00
Midwest 23.15 5.65 50.00
West Central 11.06 8.88 13.50
South Central 12.50 6.75 26.25
West 25.63 14.75 55.00
National 26.56 5.25 120.00
Northeast: CT MA ME NH NY Rl VT
Mid-Atlantic: DE MD NJ PA VA WV
South: AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
East Central: IA IL IN OH Ml MN MO Wl
West Central: CO KS MT NE ND SD UT WY
South Central: AR AZ LA NM OK TX
West: CA ID NV OR WA
Source: National Solid Wastes Management Association, 1990.
Such a methane recovery effort might consist of a passive
system of trenches housing gravel and perforated piping and
circumventing the landfill's perimeter. With such a system,
methane from the landfill moves to the perimeter trenches and
through the piping system until it is vented or flared. With an
active methane control system, blowers would help to extract the
gas from the landfill.
EPA cites 1989 data indicating that 155 landfills in the U.S.
were recovering methane gas, or planning to do so. "Methane
recovery is expected to become an important aspect of municipal
solid waste landfill operation in the future," the agency says,
-------
52
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
explaining that when impurities are removed from the methane it
can be used as a low-grade fuel or upgraded to pipeline-quality
methane.
Table 9
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Rankings:
Tipping Fees, Environmental Protection
Features, and Capacity, 1990
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Source:
Highest
Average
Tipping Fee
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
West
Midwest
South
South Central
West Central
National Solid
Most Environ-
mental Protection
Features
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
West
South
West Central
South Central
Wastes Management
Least
Average Remain-
ing Capacity
Northeast
South
West
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
South Central
West Central
Association, 1990.
One ironic effect of the increasingly stringent landfill siting and
operation requirements over the past several years has been to in-
crease the waste "capacity crisis," as higher design and operating
costs and tougher regulatory thresholds have driven some
low-end landfills out of existence, unable to compete financially
and unable to survive environmentally. From an environmental
standpoint, such a "loss" may not be much of a loss after all,
though the capacity challenges it presents are no less significant.
The likelihood over the near term is for a trend toward fewer but
larger regional landfills -- properly sited, designed, built and
maintained, and serving a larger geographical area.
Citizen concerns and more stringent environmental require-
ments are among the factors which have led to significantly
to U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993715-00.3 / 87082
-------
Chapter 3 53
increased costs for using landfills. The National Solid Wastes
Management Association (NSWMA) conducted a survey of 219
municipal solid waste landfills owned predominantly by NSWMA
members but also nonmembers, for their disposal tipping fees.
Northeast facilities averaged the highest fee at $64.26 per ton
and West Central facilities averaged the lowest at $11.06 per ton
(see Table 8).
In its survey report, NSWMA said the "tip fees in all regions
were related to the level of environmental protection afforded by
the facilities," with the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic reporting the
most widespread use of environmental protection features.
Tipping fees also were inversely related to capacity, said
NSWMA, with the Northeast reporting the highest fee ($64.26)
and the least remaining capacity (see Table 9).
Questions for Reporters to Keep in Mind
O What are the technical criteria that went into the siting of a
new landfill? What was the environmental and economic
basis for selecting a particular site? What other sites were
judged less well-suited to siting a landfill? What is the
company's track record? Is the site in a watershed? a flood
plain? upstream from a water supply reservoir? Will less safe
"dumps" be closed when this new landfill is opened? What
other options are available?
O What measures and what technologies are being used to
ensure that groundwater resources are adequately protected?
What monitoring protocols and techniques are being used to
minimize migration of leachates?
O What is being done to control releases of methane gas and
other air pollutants from the landfill? Are methane recovery
techniques being planned or used?
O What is the protocol for day-to-day effective operation and
maintenance, and what steps are taken to make sure that the
protocol is followed? Are operators certified? How? What
criteria are used in certification?
O What are the options to landfilling in particular instances?
What are the "tradeoffs" involved with those options, both
from a financial and from an environmental standpoint? What
steps are being taken to reduce, where possible, over-reliance
-------
54 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
on landfilling? What steps are taken to ensure that banned
wastes do not nonetheless end up in the landfill?
O If the landfill is private, how much is the community being
compensated (fees or other) and how does this compare to
other communities with similar projects?
O Is the company new in the business? If not, what is their
environmental compliance track record with other landfills or
incinerators?
O Will the waste operation actually provide the economic
development and jobs it promises? What has been the
economic impact on communities with similar projects?
O What is the life expectancy of the landfill? What if any
wastes will be prohibited from being disposed of there? Was
it the low bid? If not, why was low bid rejected?
Outlook
Even the most successful source reduction and recycling
initiatives inevitably will leave some wastes to be managed
through efficient and environmentally protective combustion and
landfilling. In the case of landfilling, the prospects for building
and maintaining public confidence essential to their operation will
rest heavily with restricting from landfills those special wastes
unsuited to landfilling, and ensuring effective siting, design, and
opera-tion and maintenance practices for those wastes that are
landfilled.
Effective reporting on municipal landfills will help flag environ-
mental and public health shortcomings where they exist, and help
allay unfounded public anxieties when they are truly unfounded.
The increased environmental awareness of Americans in the
early 1990s is likely to lead to increased recycling and reuse, and
source reduction increasingly is becoming a part of the American
"corporate environmental ethic," in part because of cost savings
and fears of liability associated with waste disposal.
As mentioned earlier, however, source reduction and recycling
in themselves are no panacea. After they have accomplished
what they realistically can, the challenge to environmental
journalists will remain: how best to help the lay public reach
informed decisions on the optimum handling of the remaining
waste stream.
-------
Chapter 3 55
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations
(RCRA, Subtitle D)
EPA on October 9, 1991, adopted regulations affecting about
6,000 municipal solid waste landfills nationwide. The regulations
establish minimum federal criteria for municipal landfills, including
those used for co-disposal of sewage sludge and disposal of
nonhazardous municipal waste combustion ash. The rules set
standards for location, operation and maintenance, design,
closure and post-closure care, and for financial assurance for
municipal solid waste landfills. The rules were adopted under the
authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Subtitle D, as amended in 1984.
The regulations are intended to give states flexibility to meet
state-specific conditions. To be implemented by states, the rules
are expected to lead to the closure of many smaller community
landfills and development of fewer, larger regional landfills. The
new federal standards are described below.
Location requirements: Restrictions apply to siting new or..
existing landfills near airports and in ecologically valuable
wetlands or areas subject to natural disasters, such as
floodplains, fault areas, seismic zones, or unstable areas.
Airport safety: Any new or existing landfill within 10,000 feet
of a runway used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet of a
runway used only by piston-type aircraft must demonstrate that
the unit does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. Any new
owner/operator proposing a unit or lateral expansion within a five-
mile radius of an airport runway must notify the airport and the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Floodplains: Any new or existing landfill located in a 100-year
floodplain may not restrict the flow of the 100-year flood, reduce
the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result
in the washout of solid waste.
Wetlands: New units or lateral expansions are forbidden in
wetlands unless the owner/operator can demonstrate to the
director of the approved state: that there is no practical
alternative; that it will not contribute to violation of water quality
or marine sanctuary standards or degradation of wetlands; that it
will not jeopardize endangered species or critical habitats; that
ecological resources are protected; and that steps have been
-------
56 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
taken to achieve no net loss of wetlands.
Fault areas: In general, new units or lateral expansions are
banned within 200 feet of faults and within seismic impact
zones. The director of the approved state may establish
alternative setback of less than 200 feet.
Seismic impact zones: New and lateral expansions are
prohibited unless demonstrated to the director of the approved
state that all containment structures are designed to resist the
maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material.
Unstable areas: New or existing landfills located in unstable
areas must demonstrate that the structural components will not
be disrupted by events such as landslides.
All the restrictions apply to new units and expansions, while
existing units must only comply with the airports, floodplains and
unstable areas restrictions. Existing landfills that cannot meet the
criteria must close within five years (by 1996). An extension for
up to two years is allowed by the director of the approved state if
there is a showing that no alternative treatment capacity is
available and that human health and the environment will not be
threatened as the result of an extension.
Operation and maintenance standards:
1) A cover of at least six inches of earthen materials must be
applied at the end of each operating day. Alternative materials
and thicknesses are allowed by the director of the approved
state.
2) Regulated quantities of hazardous waste and
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes must be kept out (for
instance, through use of random inspections of incoming loads).
3) Methane gas must be monitored at least quarterly to ensure
that concentration does not exceed 25 percent of the lower
explosive limit (LED in on-site buildings and does not exceed the
LEL itself at the facility property boundary. "Lower explosive
limit" means the lowest percent by volume of a mixture of
explosive gases in air that will propagate a flame at 25 degrees
Centigrade and atmospheric pressure.
4) To control illegal dumping and public exposure to hazards,
public access must be restricted.
5) Except in limited circumstances, open burning must be
eliminated.
6) Stormwater run-on and run-off must be controlled.
-------
Chapter 3 57
7) Surface water must be protected from pollutants to comply
with the Clean Water Act.
8) The disposal of bulk liquid waste must be restricted.
Leachate or gas condensate recirculation is allowed under limited
circumstances.
9) Disease vector populations (rodents, flies, mosquitoes, etc.)
must be controlled.
10) Appropriate operating records must be kept and made
available to the state agency upon request (see Table 10).
Table 10
Recordkeeping Requirements
Any location restriction demonstration required;
Inspection records, training procedures and notification
procedures;
Gas monitoring results from monitoring and any
remediation plans;
Any municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) unit design
documentation for placement of leachate or gas
condensate in a MSWLF unit;
Any demonstration, certification, finding, monitoring,
testing, or analytical data required by the groundwater
monitoring requirements;
Closure and post-closure care plans and any monitoring,
testing, or analytical data required under the closure and
post-closure care requirements;
Any cost estimates and financial assurance documentation;
and
Any information demonstrating compliance with small
community exemption.
The owner/operator must notify the state when any of these
documents have been placed or added to the operating record,
and all information contained in the operating record must be
furnished upon request to the state agency or be made available
at all reasonable times for inspection. Also, the state agency can
set alternative schedules for recordkeeping and notification
requirements except for the notification requirements in Sections
258.10 (airport safety) and 258.55(g)(1)(iii) (a particular
-------
58 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
requirement for assessment monitoring programs).
Design standards: In states that specified Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) with EPA-approved permitting
programs, landfills must be designed to ensure standards are not
exceeded in groundwater. Certain values cannot be exceeded in
the upper-most aquifer at a point specified by the state agency
(see Table 11). That "point" must be on the facility property and
be no more than 150 meters from the waste management unit
boundary.
In states without EPA-approved programs, landfills must be
designed with a composite liner system which includes a flexible
membrane liner, a layer of compacted soil, and a leachate
collection and removal system (see Figure 6).
Closure and post closure care: When a landfill stops
accepting waste, it must be covered with a minimum of two feet
of earthen material (six-inch erosion layer, plus 18-inch infiltration
layer) to keep liquids out and prevent erosion. Once the landfill is
closed, the owner/operator is responsible for maintaining the
integrity and effectiveness of the final cover, monitoring
groundwater and methane gas, and continuing leachate
management (if applicable) for 30 years. The state may decrease
the post-closure period if doing so does not threaten human
health or the environment. Closure operations must begin within
30 days of final receipt of waste and must be completed within
the succeeding 180 days. Approved states have the flexibility to
extend these deadlines. Also, after the unit is closed, the
owner/operator must record a notation in the property deed
indicating the property had been used as a landfill and that its use
is restricted.
Owners/operators are required to prepare closure and post-
closure plans by October 9, 1993, or by their initial receipt of
waste, whichever is later. Plans must describe the steps
necessary to close the landfill and the maintenance and
monitoring activities that will be performed after closure.
Financial assurance: Landfill owners/operators by April 1994
must demonstrate their financial ability to cover costs of closure,
post-closure care and any known corrective actions. The cost
estimates must be updated annually. The financial assurance
may be in the form of a trust fund with a pay-in period, surety
bond, letter of credit, insurance, state-approved mechanism, or
-------
Chapter 3
59
Table 1 1
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
CAS No.
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-343-2
7440-43-9
56-23-5
7440-47-3
94-75-7
106-46-7
1 07-06-2
75-35-4
75-20-8
7-
58-89-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
72-43-5
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
8001-35-2
71-55-6
79-01-6
93-76-5
75-01-4
Under the Safe Drinking
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chromium (hexavalent)
Water Act
MCL (mg/l)
0.05
1.0
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.05
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 0.1
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
Endrin
Fluoride
Lindane
Lead
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Toxaphene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy
acid
Vinyl chloride
0.075
0.005
0.007
0.0002
4.0
0.004
0.05
0.002
0.1
10.0
0.01
0.05
0.005
0.2
0.005
acetic 0.01
0.002
state assumption of responsibility, or a combination of
mechanisms. (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
expects in 1993 to propose a local government financial test that
will allow financially strong municipalities to demonstrate
financial assurance.)
Groundwater monitoring: The regulations require a system of
monitoring wells to be installed at existing landfills and new units.
New units must have monitoring systems in place before they
-------
60
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 6
Design Criteria for New Landfill Units
DESIGN CRITERIA
New MSWLF units and lateral expansions must have one
ot the following designs:
COMPOSITE UINER AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION SYSTEM DESIGN
DESIGN THAT MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARD AND
APPROVED BY AN APPROVED STATE
Approved
Design
Uppermost Aquifer
Source: Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria (40 CFR Parts 257
and 2581, Final Rule.
can accept waste. Existing landfill units and expansions must
install systems on a schedule determined by proximity to nearest
drinking water intake (see Table 12). States may establish an
alternate schedule whereby all existing facilities install monitoring
systems by 1996. Each groundwater monitoring system must be
certified as adequate by a qualified groundwater scientist or
approved by the director of the approved state.
Closure and post-closure periods are exempt from the
groundwater monitoring requirements if owners/operators can
demonstrate to the state that the landfill unit is located above a
hydrogeologic setting that will prevent hazardous constituent
migration to groundwater during the active life.
The regulations include specific procedures for sampling
monitoring wells and methods for statistical analysis and
determination of groundwater elevations and background
groundwater quality. Samples must be taken at least semi-
-------
Chapter 3
61
Table 12
Effective Dates
for Landfill Regulations
Date Provision
OCT 1991 Final cover requirements (for facilities receiving
wastes after that date).
OCT 1993 Location restrictions.
Design criteria.
Operating criteria.
Groundwater monitoring and corrective action (new
units).
Closure and post-closure care.
APR 1994 Financial assurance.
OCT 1994 Groundwater monitoring and corrective action
(existing units or lateral expansions less than one
mile from drinking water intake).
OCT 1995 Groundwater monitoring and corrective action
(existing units or lateral expansions greater than one
mile but less than two miles from drinking water
intakes).
OCT 1996 Groundwater monitoring and corrective action
(existing units or lateral expansions greater than two
miles from drinking water intakes).
annually during a facility's active life and during the closure and
post-closure periods. Approved states can specify an alternative
monitoring frequency, but no less than annual for detection
monitoring.
If any of the constituents listed in Appendix C (which includes
47 volatile organic compounds and 15 metals) is detected at
statistically significant levels above background, then the
owner/operator must: establish an assessment monitoring
program within 90 days. The assessment monitoring program
-------
62 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
includes sampling of all the constituents listed in Appendix D, and
if any constituent is detected at statistically significant levels
above an established groundwater protection standard then an
assessment of correction action remedies and the selection of a
corrective action must be undertaken.
-------
Chapter 4
Information Sources
Aluminum Association
900 19th St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 862-5100
Aluminum Recycling
Association
1000 16th St., NW, Suite 603
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 785-0951
American Paper Institute
260 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
(212) 340-0654
American Paper Institute
1250 Conn. Ave., NW
Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 463-2420
AM Iron & Steel Institute
1133 15th St., NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 452-7100
American Plastics Council
1275 K St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 371-5319
American Recovery
Corporation
900 19th St., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 775-5150
Association of
Petroleum Refiners
P.O. Box 427
Buffalo, NY 14205
(716) 855-2212
Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
444 N. Capitol St., Suite 388
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624-5828
Biocycle Magazine
Box 351
Emmaus, PA 18049
(717) 957-4195
Center for Plastics Recycling
Research, Rutgers University
Bldg. 3529-Busch Campus
Piscataway, NJ 08855
(201) 932-4402
Citizen's Clearinghouse for
Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 926
Arlington, VA 22216
(703) 276-7070
Can Manufacturers Institute
821 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 232-4677
-------
64
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Clean Water Fund
317 Penn. Ave., SE, 3rd Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 547-2312
Coalition for Recyclable Waste
17 E. Church St.
Absecon, NJ 08201
(609) 641-2197
Concern, Inc.
1794 Columbia Rd., NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 328-8160
Cook College
Department of Environ-
mental Science
P.O. Box. 231
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
(201) 932-9571
Council of State Governments
Iron Works Pike
P.O. Box 11910
Lexington, KY 40578-1910
(606) 231-1866
Council on Packaging
in the Environment (COPE)
1275 K St., NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 789-1310
Environmental Action
1525 New Hampshire Ave.
NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 745-4870
Environmental Defense Fund
257 Park Ave., South
New York, NY 10010
(212) 505-2100
Environmental Defense Fund
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 387-3500
Environmental Institute for
International Research
331 Madison Ave., 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
(212) 883-1770
Food Service and
Packaging Institute
1025 Conn. Ave., NW
Suite 513
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 347-3756
Garbage Magazine
435 Ninth St.
Brooklyn, NY 11215
(718) 788-1700
Glass Packaging Institute
1801 K St., NW, Suite 1105-L
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 887-4850
Inform
381 Park Ave., S.
New York, NY 10016
(212) 689-4040
-------
Chapter 4-
65
Institute for Local
Self-Reliance
2425 18th St., NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 232-4108
Institute of Resource Recovery
1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 659-4613
Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries Inc.
1627 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 466-4050
Integrated Waste
Services Assoc.
1133 21st St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 467-6240
International City Manage-
ment Association
777 N. Capitol St., NE
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
(202)289-4262
Keep America Beautiful Inc.
Mill River Plaza
9 West Broad St.
Stamford, CT 06902
(203) 323-8987
Municipal Waste Manage-
ment Association
16201 St., NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 293-7330
National Association for Plastic
Container Recovery
5024 Parkway Plaza Blvd.
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28217
(704) 357-3250
National Association
of Counties
440 First St., NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 393-6226
National Association of
Recycling Industries, Inc.
330 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017
(212)
National Association of
Solvent Recyclers
1333 New Hampshire Ave.,
NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 463-6956
National Association of Towns
and Townships
1522 KSt., NW, Suite 730
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 737-5200
-------
66
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
National Container
Recycling Coalition
712 G St., SE, Suite 1
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 543-9449
National League of Cities
1301 Penn. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 626-3000
National Oil
Recyclers Association
2600 Virginia Ave., NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 333-8800
National Recycling
Coalition, Inc.
1101 30th St., NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 625-6406
National Resource
Recovery Association
16201 St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202)659-4613
National Soft
Dr{nk Association
Solid Waste Manage-
ment Department
1101 16th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 463-6740
National Solid Waste Institute
10928 North 56th St.
Tampa, FL 33617
(813) 985-3208
National Solid Wastes
Management Association
1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 659-4613
National Tire Dealers and
Retreaders Association
1250 I St., NW, Suite 4000
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 789-2300
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036-6800
(202) 797-6800
Natural Resources
Defense Council
40 W. 20th St.
New York, NY 10011
(212) 727-2700
North American Water Office
15119 E. Franklin Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55404
(612) 872-1097
V
Organic Gardening Magazine
Rodale Press, Inc.
Emmaus, PA 18098
-------
Chapter 4
67
Plastic Bottle
Information Bureau
1275 K St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 371-5244
Polystyrene Packaging
Council, Inc.
1025 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 822-6424
Resource Recovery Institute
2045 N. 15th St., Suite 310
Arlington, VA 22201
(703) 528-5756
Solid Waste
Information Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 7219
8750 Georgia Ave., Ste. 140
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 67-SWICH
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
(800) 424-9346
(703) 920-9810
Renew America
1400 16th St., NW, Suite 710
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 232-2252
Rubber Manufacturers Assoc.
1400 K St., NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 682-4800
Society of Plastics
Industry, Inc.
1275 KSt., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 371-5200
Solid Waste Association of
North America
P.O. Box6126
Silver Spring, MD 20916
(301) 585-2898
Steel Can Recycling Institute
680 Andersen Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
(800) 876-SCRI
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Institute for
Resource Recovery
1620 I St., NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 293-7330
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Soil Microbial Systems Lab
Building 318, Barc-E
Beltsville, MD 200705
(301) 344-3327
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Regional Offices:
Region 1 -- (617) 565-3715:
CT ME MA NH Rl VT
Region 2 - (212) 264-2657:
NJ NY PR VI
Region 3- (215) 597-9800:
DE DC MD PA VA WV
-------
68
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Region 4 -- (404) 347-4727:
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC
TN
Region 5 -- (312) 353-2000:
IL IN Ml MN OH Wl
Region 6 -- (214) 655-6444:
AR LA NM OK TX
Region 7 -- (913) 551-7000:
IA KS MO NE
Region 8- (303) 293-1603:
CO MT ND SD UT WY
Region 9-- (415) 556-6322:
AZ CA HA NV AS GU
Region 10 -- (206) 442-1200:
AK ID OR WA
U.S. Public Interest
Research Group
215 Penn. Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 546-9707
Vinyl Institute
155 Route 46W.
Wayne, NJ 07470
(201) 890-9299
WorldWatch Institute
1776 Mass. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 452-1999
North American Waste
Exchanges
Some of the exchanges below
may operate nationally, while
others are limited to one or
two regions. Reprinted with
permission from The Green
Business Letter.
U.S. Exchanges:
California Waste Exchange,
Toxic Substances Control Div.
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 324-1807
Indiana Waste Exchange
2129 Civil Engineering Bldg.
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907
(317) 494-5038
Industrial Materials Exchange
172 20th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98122
(206) 296-4633
Industrial Materials
Exchange Service
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794
(217) 782-0540
-------
Chapter 4
69
Industrial Waste
Information Exchange
NJ Chamber of Commerce
50 West St., Ste. 1110
Trenton, NJ 08608
(609) 989-7888
Montana Industrial
Waste Exchange
Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 1730
Helena, MT 59624
(406) 442-2405
Northeast Industrial
Waste Exchange
90 Presidential Plaza, Ste. 122
Syracuse, NY 13202
(315) 422-6572
Pacific Materials Exchange
South 3707 Godfrey Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 623-4244
RENEW
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 463-7773
Resource Exchange & News
3250 Townsend NE
Grand Rapids, Ml 49505
(616) 363-3262
Southeast Recycling
Market Council
P.O. Box 11468
Montgomery, AL 36111
(205) 277-7050
Southeast Waste Exchange
Urban Institute, UNCC Station
Charlotte, NC 28223
(704) 547-2307
Southern Waste
Information Exchange
P.O. Box 960
Tallahassee, FL 32302
(800) 441-SWIX
(904) 644-5516
Canadian Exchanges:
Alberta Waste
Materials Exchange
Alberta Research Council
P.O. Box 8330, Postal Station
F, Edmonton, Atla T6H 5X2
(403) 450-5408
British Columbia
Waste Exchange
1525 West 8th Ave.
Vancouver, BC V6J 1T5
(604) 731-7222
Canadian Chemical Exchange
P.O. Box 1135
Ste. Adele, Que 1LO
(514) 229-6511
-------
70 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Canadian Waste
Materials Exchange
ORTECH Intl, 2935 Speakman
Dr, Mississauga, Ont. L5K 1B3
(416) 822-4111 x265
Manitoba Waste Exchange
c/o Biomass Energy Institite
1329 Niakwa Rd E.
Winnipeg, MB R2J 3T4
(204) 257-3891
Peel Regional Waste Exchange
Regional Municipality of Peel
10 Peel Dr.
Brampton, Ont L6T 4B9
(416) 791-9400
-------
Appendix A
Major Laws Affecting
Municipal Solid Waste Management
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): In 1965,
the Solid Waste Disposal Act was passed to improve solid waste
disposal methods. It was amended in 1970 by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which itself was
amended in 1980 and 1984.
Subtitle D of RCRA is for the environmentally safe operation
of solid waste management facilities. At a minimum, state
waste disposal facilities must comply with federal standards,
although states may adopt more stringent standards.
Subtitle D also established a program under which states may
develop and implement solid waste management plans. Because
this portion of the law is voluntary, EPA's role has been limited to
setting the minimum regulatory requirements that states must
follow in designing their plans, and approving plans that comply
with these requirements. Responsibility for developing and
implementing the plan lies with each state.
Subtitle F of RCRA, also known as Section 6002, requires the
federal government to participate actively in procurement
programs fostering the recovery and use of recycled materials
and energy. It requires federal agencies and other groups
receiving federal funds to procure items composed of the highest
percentage of recovered materials practicable and to delete
requirements that products be made from virgin materials.
Subtitle C of RCRA regulates the generation, transportation,
and treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes. Wastes
designated by RCRA as hazardous are excluded from Subtitle D
incinerator and landfill facilities and must be discarded at facilities
permitted under the Subtitle C regulations.
Clean Air Act of 1970: Under the Clean Air Act, incinerators
must meet performance standards that limit emissions of
individual pollutants to the air. Facilities must meet these
standards by using the best available technology.
Clean Water Act (1972): The Clean Water Act applies to
waste disposal facilities generating ash-quench water, landfill
leachate, and surface water discharges. Disposal of ash-quench
water and landfill leachate can present problems for solid waste
facilities because many wastewater treatment plants cannot
-------
72 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
accept these discharges. Facilities generating surface water
discharges must use best available technology to control these
discharges and must obtain a discharge permit.
The 1987 reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, called the
Water Quality Act, mandates site-specific requirements for
facilities that discharge to streams where the best available
technology still fails to meet water quality standards. It also
requires storm water management plans for facilities whose
storm runoff volume exceeds specified limits. A facility within a
wetlands area needs a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water
Act.
Safe Drinking Water Act (1984): The protection of water
wellhead areas, the sources of springs or streams, as defined in
the Safe Drinking Water Act may affect municipal waste disposal
facilities. Facilities located in wellhead areas must comply with
state and local restrictions on their activities, including design
specifications that may add significantly to the cost of the
facility.
Public Utilities Regulatory and Policy Act (PURPA) (1978):
Developed to encourage cogeneration and small power producers
to supplement existing electrical capacity, PURPA requires
investor-owned utilities to purchase electrical power from
cogenerators or small producers, such as municipal incinerators,
at rates developed by state public utilities boards and overseen
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. PURPA therefore
guarantees a market and a fair price for the energy produced, to
control project risk.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (Superfund) (1980): Under Superfund, municipalities
can be held liable for current and past waste disposal practices.
Superfund applies to any environmental cleanup, and a
substantial number of the sites currently listed as Superfund sites
are municipal landfills.
-------
Appendix B
Municipal Solid Waste Management:
State-by-State
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona1
Arkansas1
California2
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware1
D.C.3
Florida4
Georgia
Hawaii1
Idaho
Illinois2
Indiana5
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine3
Maryland
Massachusetts
Total Municipal
Solid Waste
(MSW) Generated
(Tons/Year)
5,200,000
500,000
4,147,000
2,154,000
44,535,000
3,500,000
2,900,000
790,000
919,000
19,400,000
6,000,000
1,300,000
850,000
14,140,000
8,400,000
2,088,000
2,400,000
4,650,000
3,484,000
1,246,000
5,000,000
6,600,000
Percent
Recycled
12
6
7
10
11
26
19
16
30
27
12
4
10
11
8
23
5
15
106
30
15
30
Percent
Incinerated
8
15
0
5
2
1
57
19
59
23
3
42
0
2
17
2
0
0
0
37
17
47
Percent
Landfilled
80
79
93
85
87
73
24
65
11
49
85
54
90
87
75
75
95
85
90e
33
68
23
-------
74
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Michigan1
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire13
New Jersey3
New Mexico
New York34
North Carolina2
North Dakota
Ohio2
Oklahoma
Oregon1
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
Carolina1
South
Dakota16
Tennessee2
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
13,000,000
4,270,000
1,400,000
7,500,000
744,000
1,400,000
2,300,000
1,138,000
7,513,000
1,487,000
22,800,000
7,788,000
466,000
16,400,000
3,000,000
3,350,000
8,984,000
1,200,000
5,000,000
800,000
5,800,000
14,469,000
1,500,000
550,000
7,600,000
26
38
8
13
5
106
10
10
34
6
21
4
17
19
10
23
11
15
10
10
10
11
13
25
24
17
35
3
0
2
0
0
26
21
0
17
1
0
6
8
6
30
0
5
0
8
1
7
3
18
57
27
89
87
93
90"
90
64
45
94
62
95
83
75
82
71
59
85
85
90
82
88
80
72
58
-------
Appendix B
75
Washington3
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
5,708,000
1,700,000
3,352,000
320,000
291,742,000
33
10
24
4
17
2
0
4
0
11
65
90
72
96
72
11ncludes some industrial waste.
Includes significant industrial waste.
includes out of state disposal.
"Includes construction and demolition waste.
Includes construction and demolition, and sewage sludge.
6Data from BioCycle's 1992 "State of Garbage in America" survey.
Source: "1993 Nationwide Survey: The State of Garbage in America,: BioCycle,
May 1993.
-------
76
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal Solid Waste Management:
State-by-State
Ijfl
c *
> i2 c
1 1
III
« O
c
&
V)
o
M
Q
1
5
£ "o
5 o
0 _
o
S
o S
*" s
S
F
(A
JJ 0)
o =
g «
CO
CO
CO
'o
_c
X
X
O
8
S
Mandat
Indiana
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
o
CN
Mandat
1
X
X
X
CO
CO
CO
c
03
-------
Appendix B
77
x
r-
01
01
Mandated 1
Kentucky
X
X
x
x
X
CM
0)
m
Mandated 1
Louisiana
X
X
X
X
01
o
o
Z
c
i
X
X
X
x
Ol
01
Mandated
Maryland
X
X
x
X
X
X
o
o
o
Mandated 2
j Massachusetts
x
X
X
in
O
o
Z
Michigan
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
to
CD
01
Mandated
Minnesota
X
X
to
0)
Ol
Mandated 1
Q.
D.
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
00
O)
Mandated 1
I Missouri
x
to
Not M'd 1
03
C
ffl
1
X
X
x
X
x
CN
8
Mandated 1
1 Nebraska
X
X
X
01
01
Mandated 1
| Nevada
"x
X
x
8
Mandated 2
0)
a.
I
I
Z
X
X
X
X
LD
C)
O)
Mandated
I New Jersey
x
x
X
8
o
Mandated ^
New Mexico
x
x
o
o
Not M'd 2
I New York
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
en
en
Mandated
North Carolina
X
X
X
X
§
Mandated ^
| North Dakota
x
X
X
en
en
Mandated 1
0
O
X
X
I Oklahoma
x
X
X
o
X
X
X
X
X
o
8
Mandated '*
c
6
x
X
x
f-.
O)
01
Mandated 1
Pennsylvania
-------
78
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
X
X
X
s
TO
T3
C
(3
Rhode Islan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r^
m
o>
g
CO
O
C
5
c
South Caro
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
CS
Si
CO
T3
C
5
<0
o
.^
co
Q
JC
3
O
(/)
X
X
X
CD
O)
en
s
to
D
S
5
| Tennessee
X
X
X
X
X
X
^
0)
o>
SJ
CT]
o
C
5
w
ra
H
X
X
JZ.
ro
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
o
CN
T3
5
o
1 Vermont
X
X
\f>
01
01
T3
0)
CD
T3
C
2
(D
5)
X
X
X
X
ID
0)
O)
g
CO
o
c
5
Washington
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
CN
13
>
to
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
| Wisconsin
X
Wyoming
C) J -
II 8 I
aj c ° 13 in 5
IliHi
-------
Appendix C
Compounds and Metals
for Groundwater Detection Monitoring
CAS No.* Common Name**
Inorganic constituents:
(Total) Antimony
(Total) Arsenic
(Total) Barium
(Total) Beryllium
(Total) Cadmium
(Total) Chromium
(Total) Cobalt
(Total) Copper
(Total) Lead
(Total) Nickel
(Total) Selenium
(Total) Silver
(Total) Thallium
(Total) Vanadium
(Total) Zinc
Organic constituents:
67-64-1 Acetone
107-13-1 Acrylonitrile
71-43-2 Benzene
74-97-5 Bromochloromethane
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane
75-25-2 Bromoform; Tribromomethane
75-15-0 Carbon disulfide
56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride
108-90-7 Chlorobenzene
75-00-3 Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride
67-66-3 Chloroform; Trichloromethane
124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane
96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP
106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB
95-50-1 o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7 p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
110-57-6 trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene chloride
-------
80
Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene;
Vinylidene chloride
156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-
Dichloroethane
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride
10061-01 -5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene
591-78-6 2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone
74-83-9 Methyl bromide; Bromomethane
74-87-3 Methyl chloride; Chloromethane
74-95-3 Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane
75-09-2 Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane
78-93-3 Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone
74-88-4 Methyl iodide; lodomethane
108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone
100-42-5 Styrene
630-20-6 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene;
Perchloroethylene
108-88-3 Toluene
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-01-6 Trichloroethylene; Trichlroethene
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-11
96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
108-05-4 Vinyl acetate
75-01-4 Vinyl chloride
1330-20-7 Xylenes
* Chemical Abstract Service registry number. Where "Total" is entered,
all species in the ground water that contain this element are included.
**Common names are those widely used in government regulations,
scientific publications, and commerce; synonyms exist for many
chemicals.
-------
Index
air emissions 41,46, 50
aluminum 27-30
ash 37, 41-44
batteries 31, 47, Appendix B
biodegradation 3
bottom ash 37, 45
Clean Air Act 41, 42, Appendix A
composting 18, 28, 47-48
design and operating criteria 47, 61
economic 5, 12, 24, 27-30
energy 4, 35-40
EP Tox 43
Extraction Procedure Toxicity 43
fly ash 37, 43, 45
glass 27-28, 32
groundwater monitoring 47, 50, 58, 60, 61
hazardous waste 41, 43-44, 57
incineration 23, 35-43, Appendix B
incinerator 31, 36, 37, 41-43
integrated waste management 16, 24
landfills 17, 18, 46-51, 54, 56, Appendix B
leachate 43, 58, 59, 72
mass burn 36, 37, 40
materials recovery 26-27
methane 50-51, 57
modular 36-37
monofill 37, 44
plastics 30-34
polymers 34
public opposition 3, 49, 50
Public Utilities Regulatory and Policy Act 38, Appendix A
recycling 5, 23-24, 26-34, Appendix B
refuse-derived fuel 37-38
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 14, 43, 56, Appendix A
reuse 24-25
reverse vending 28
siting 40, 49-51, 56
solidification 44
source reduction 15-17, 23-26, 54-55
stabilization 44
Subtitle D 56, Appendix A
tax 17-19
tipping fees 39, 52, 53
tires 29, 31, Appendix B
-------
82 Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste
Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure 43
toxicity 24, 37, 43
used oil 31, 34, Appendix B
utilities 38-39
variation 9-10
waste-to-energy 35-40, 42, 43
white goods 31, Appendix B
yard and food waste 28
------- |