Environmental Protection
Agency
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas NV 89193-3478
August 1987
Research and Develop
Chareicterizatjon of
Household Hazardous
Waste from Marin
County, California,
and New Orleans,
Louisiana
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM MARIN COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, AND NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
' by
W. L. Rathje and 0. C. Wilson
The Garbage Project
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Y. W. Lambou
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
R. C. Herndon
Center for Biomedical and Toxicological Research and
Hazardous Waste Management
The Florida. State University
Tallahassee, Florida
July, 1937
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 93478
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract 1ii
Tables. v1
Introduction 1
Conclusions ' '. . . ' 1
Materials and Methods. 2
Results and Discussion 5
Literature Cited . 16
Appendix , 17
-------
IV
-------
' , NOTICE
0
The information in this document has been: funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement'
number CR-313151-Q1-0 to Florida State University. It has been subject to the
Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publica-
tion as an EPA document.
-------
ABSTRACT
There is a growing concern that certain constituents of common household
products, that are discarded in residential garbage, may be potentially harm-
ful to human health and the environment by adversely affecting the quality of
ground and surface water. A survey of hazardous wastes in residential garbage
from Marin County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, was conducted in
order to determine the amount and characteristics of such wastes that are
entering municipal landfills. The results of this survey indicate that approx-
imately 642 metric tons of hazardous waste are discarded per year for the Mew
Orleans study area and approximately 259 metric tons are discarded per year
for the Marin County study area. Even though the percent of hazardous house-
hold waste in the garbage discarded in both study areas was less than 1 percent,
it represents a significant quantity of hazardous waste because of the large
volume of garbage involved. The comparison of estimates for the New Orleans
and Marin County Study areas shows that the types of hazardous wastes discarded
in the two areas are very similar in both the rate of discard and composition,
even though the communities are very different in socio-demographic structure.
TM
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
Comparisons of Census Tract Characteristics for Entire
Community With Characteristics Calculated from
- Refuse Sample Area in That Community. ....
Characteristics of Census Tracts Sampled . .
Number and Weight of Solid Waste Pickups Sampled
Number of Household Items Containing Hazardous Waste
in New Orleans, LA. . „
Number of Household Items Containing Hazardous Waste
in Marin County, CA .........
Weight of Household Hazardous Waste
in New Orleans, LA
Weight of Household Hazardous Waste
in Marin County, CA „ .:
Comparison of Household Hazardous Waste Between
New Orleans, LA and Marin County. CA.:
... 8
... 9
... 10
... 11
... 12
... 13
... 14
... 15
-------
INTRODUCTION
There is a growing concern that certain constituents of common household
products may be potentially harmful to human health and the environment by
adversely affecting the quality of ground and surface waters. These household
products are often discarded in residential garbage. The accumulation of
these wastes in municipal landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities
regulated under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is of
major concern. A survey of hazardous wastes in residential garbage from Marin
County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, was conducted in order to
determine the amount and characteristics of such wastes that are entering
municipal landfills. A preliminary analysis of the survey data is reported
here.
This report was prepared by the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
of the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency at Las Vegas and the Center for
Biomedical and Toxicological Research and Hazardous Waste Management at Florida
State University from data and information supplied by the-Garbage Project of
the University of Arizona Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology. The
Garbage Project designed the study and collected the data under contract to
Florida State University as part of the cooperative research program with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency entitled "Monitoring Methods for Waste
Management Facilities Located In or Near Wet Environments" (Cooperative Agree-
ment number CR-313151-01-0). In Marin County, refuse collection and sorting
were facilitated by the Association of Bay Area Governments and by the appro-
priate refuse collection agency; in New Orleans, refuse collection and sorting
were facilitated by the Department of Sanitation of the City of New Orleans and
by the Waste Management's Recovery I landfill operation.
CONCLUSIONS
There are hazardous household wastes in residential garbage, and even the
most conservative estimates of the amount discarded for a large community are
substantial. Based on measurements of household wastes discarded in the New
Orleans and Marin County study areas, it appears that, at least, approximately
0.35 to 0.40 percent of the garbage being discarded is hazardous. The average
household in this study discarded approximately 55 to 60 grams of hazardous
waste per week (not including contaminated containers and articles such as used
paint brushes, oily rags, etc.). This is approximately 642 metric tons of
hazardous waste discarded per year for the New Orleans study araa and approx-
imately 259 metric tons per year for the Marin County study area.
-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Household hazardous waste in residential! garbage'was sampled in Marin
County, California, and in New Orleans, Louisiana. Marin County is a relatively
affluent Bay Area community across the Golden Gate Sridge and to the north of
San Francisco. It is essentially a bedroom community for many of the white
collar workers in San Francisco and is home ais well to a variety of service
personnel. As a whole, the population is relatively homogeneous, mainly upper
income, and predominantly white. The New Orleans study area was the City of
New Orleans (Orleans Parish). This study area did not include East New Orleans.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Census (1933, 1983a), there are 49 and 177
census tracts in the Marin County and New Orleans study areas, respectively.
Eight census tracts were selected for sampling in Marin County, and six were
selected in New Orleans. A judgmental process was used to select the sample
census tracts that (1) together represented the range of selected demographic-
characteristics (income, ethnicity, household; size) in proportion to their
relative proportion within the overall community and (2) were as ho.mogeneous as
possible internally relative to the distribution of selected characteristics.
Once tracts were selected, sanitation collection personnel were interviewed to
help verify that the census tract characteristics had not changed significantly
since the 1930 census. Residential garbage from the various towns within Marin
County is collected by several private companies. To minimize the logistical
problems of sample collection and delivery to', a single sorting facility, the
selection of census tracts was limited to those serviced by the collection
agency that collected residential garbage from the broadest range and largest
number of census tracts.
A comparison of the characteristics of the sample census tracts to the
whole study area from which they were selected is given in Table 1. The sample-
census tracts are very similar to the study area from which they were selected
except for medium income for New Orleans. The reason for the divergence of
medium income is that census tracts were selected with a bias toward tracts
with single family dwellings with separate and identifiable garbage containers.
Because low-cost apartments and other similar housing units do not have separate
garbage containers for each household unit, garbage samples were not collected
from the lowest income households in New Orleans. Characteristics of the
individual census tracts sampled are given in Table 2.
In Marin County, residential garbage was' sampled during three periods:
(1) May 19 to 25, 1986, (2) May 26 to 29, 193,6, and (3) August 4 to 15, 1986.
The second period included the Memorial Day holiday. New Orleans was sampled
only during the period from October 13 to October 25, 1936.
Permission to sample residential garbage was obtained from the appropriate
government officials, and sorting facilities were provided by the solid waste
collection agencies. Samples were collectedly sanitation personnel who
identified each sample by census tract and by date of collection. The person
making the actual collection in both study areas was either the. supervisor
in charge of refuse collection operations or workers who were hand-picked for
their competence and willingness to learn.
-------
Sample collectors were told to select,'using their.judgment, an area
within the census tract which was typical of the tract as a whole; however, the
selection of which households to include in the sample was left up to the
collectors. They were asked to select garbage from 30 individual households
per census tract per pickup day in Marin County and from 150 in New Orleans.
A map, with the sample census tract clearly drawn on it, was furnished to the
sample collectors. The sanitation workers did not record the number of house-
holds that did not place garbage out for collection and that would have been
included in the sample if they had placed garbage out for pickup. When a
census tract was sampled twice, the sanitation personnel were instructed not to
collect garbage from the same households that were previously sampled. Garbage
was collected only from single family dwellings with separate and identifiable
garbage containers. Each sample was placed in large 4-mil plastic bags, and a
tag identifying the census tract and the individual household sample number was
attached to each bag.
Sample household garbage pickups were unloaded at the analysis site and
were placed in groups based on their census tract designation. Generally, the
samples were analyzed the same day that they were collected; however, in some
instances the residential garbage samples were placed in a secured metal
dumpster and were stored for analysis on the following day. Trained student
and staff sorters, garbed in laboratory coats and rubber gloves, processed the
samples. Each individual household garbage sample was weighed, and its total
weight, census tract designation, sample number, and the date of collection
recorded. The number of household pickups by census tract and their total
weight of the garbage is given in Table 3. As an independent check of the
sampling procedure, the field supervisor confirmed that the samples were
obtained from the proper census tract by randomly checking addresses on mail in
the garbage; these addresses were not recorded in order to maintain anonymity
of the source of the samples.
I
Next, each sample was carried to a sorting table where it was opened and
where its contents were examined. Items on the hazardous waste list given in
the Appendix were sorted into hazardous waste type groups (see the Appendix);
all other items were discarded. • Far items that did not easily fit into the .
standardized groupings given in the Appendix, the sorters were instructed to
consult with the field supervisor i-n order to obtain the proper designation for
the item. At least two of the three primary investigators from the Garbage
Project of the University of Arizona were at the analysis site during the
recording process to answer any questions and to make sure that procedures were
systematically followed. For each hazardous waste item the following informa-
tion was recorded: (1) original purchase quantity in solid or fluid ounces (as
marked on package labels), (2) brand name, (3) specific type of item (such as
"oven-cleaner" or "pesticide"), (4) material composition of the container, and
(5) waste characteristics.
Historically, studies of household hazardous wastes have only included
that portion of the waste that contains the hazardous ingredients (e.g., County
Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (1983), Association of Bay Area
Governments (1985), and Cal Recovery Systems (1986)). The preliminary analysis
of the data reported here only includes the weight of that portion of the waste
that contains the hazardous ingredients. Therefore, the total weight of
-------
hazardous waste reported In this study, will represent a conservative estimate
of the actual hazardous waste generated when compared to other EPA studies in
which contaminated container weights, contaminated article weights, etc., were
included in the hazardous waste estimates.
Residue was defined as the remains of the product adhering to the con-
tainer that cannot under normal conditions of use be removed from the container
for use. For example, when oil is added to a car, some residue remains in and
on the can. Neither the residue nor the container were weighed as waste. When
the quantity of the product remaining in a container could be considered usable
under normal conditions, it was recorded as waste. One example of waste would
be the caked and hardened paint in a paint can containing one-third of its
original contents. The decision of whether an' item was residue or waste was
subjective, but when any recorder was in doubt, one of the primary investigators
on site was consulted. . ;
Where possible, the hazardous product was removed from its container and
was weighed as waste; the container was not weighed. When the product could not
be removed from the container, the gross weight of the total item was measured,
and the weight of the package was subtracted; this left the weight of the
hazardous material. For example, in the case ;of a paint can" containing one-
third of its original contents, the recorder would estimate that 33 percent of
the paint was discarded as waste. The gross weight of the paint container and
the waste together would be recorded, and an empty container of the same type
would be weighed. The container weight would :then be subtracted from the gross
weight, and the remainder would be considered -as the weight of the paint waste.
In every similar case the recorder would also record an estimate of the per-
centage of the contents remaining as waste in icase an empty container could, not
be found and weighed. •
In those cases where hazardous waste and'contaminated items (not con-
tainers) could not be easily separated (such as pai-nt brushes with adhering
paint or oil-soaked rags), no weights were taken. Their frequency of occurrence
was recorded and is reflected in the estimates given in Tables 4 and 5; however,
since such items were not weighed, the weight>of such hazardous wastes is not
reflected in the estimates given in Tables 6 and 7. It is important to note
that this procedure consistently leads to an underestimate of the weight of
hazardous wastes relative to other EPA hazardous waste measurements.
Most households do not: always place garbage out for collection every
pickup day. The garbage collectors did not record or sample the number of
households with zero discards in either New Orleans or Marin County; however,
these households should be accounted for in making projections. A previous
study conducted in Tucson, Arizona, estim«ited ,the number of zero discards for
250 households (with the residents permission) over five-week periods through-
out the year (Rathje et al., 1985). 3y assuming that the pattern of zero
pickups in Tucson is representative of other cities, estimates of the number of
households with zero garbage discard that should have been included in the
sample can be derived for Marin County and New Orleans. In New-Orleans where
refuse collection occurs twice a week, the Tucson data suggest that 20.3_per-
cent of the households will not place garbage out for one twice-weekly pickup.
Thus, it is estimated that the 1,061 sample garbage pickups from New Orleans
-------
represent the discard from 1,331 households. This number of households was
then divided by two to obtain 666, the number of households sampled per week.
In Marin County where the garbage is collected once a week, the Tucson data
suggest that 7.2 percent of households will miss placing an entire week s
garbage out for pickup. Thus, the 1,022 sample pickups from Marin County
probably represent the discards from 1,101' households.
In this study the hazardous waste was grouped into the following cate-
gories: (1) household cleaning, (2) automotive maintenance, (3) household
maintenance, (4) pesticide and yard maintenance, (5) batteries and electrical,
(6) prescription drugs, (7) selected cosmetics, and (8) other.
The number of households sampled per week corrected to account for those
households not discarding garbage was used to estimate the mean Dumber and
weight of hazardous items discarded per household per week. Using these gener-
ation factors and the total number of households in each study area, projections
of the total number and weight discarded per week -and year for individual
hazardous household items and groups were made as follows:
M - n • h'1
E * M ' H
where M 3 mean number or weight per household per week;
i
n 3 number or weight observed;
h =* number of households sampled per week corrected to account
for those households not discarding trash during the sampling
period: 666 for New Orleans and 1,101 for Marin County;
™
qw
3 estimated quantity (number or weight) per week;
H = number of households in the study area, 206,435 for
New Orleans 'and 88,723 for Marin county; and
=* estimated quantity (number or weight) per year.
' ! I •
RESULTS AMD DISCUSSION '
The estimated mean number and weight of hazardous items discarded per
household per week, the projected total number annd weight of hazardous items
discarded per week and per year, and the percent composition by number and
weight of the hazardous household items are given in Tables 4 through /. A
comparison between the Mew Orleans and Marin County study areas. of the mean
number and weight of hazardous items discarded per household per week by
hazardous waste type groups as well as the percent composition of the hazardous
waste type groups by number and weight is given in Table 3.
-------
The results of this study should be interpreted with care because of some
important limiting biases. First, on-ly residential solid waste from single
family dwellings with separate and identifiable garbage containers were sampled.
As a result, community-level estimates may not accurately reflect the hazardous
household waste discards from residents of apartments and similar dwelling
units. Second, only actual products with hazardous ingredients were weighed,
and not their packages or containers. Also, while paint brushes and oily rags
were counted, they were not weighed when the contaminates were difficult to
separate from them. As a result, the quantity 'of hazardous household waste is
clearly under estimated and is not directly comparable with measurements of
hazardous wastes discarded by "Small Quantity Generators" or "Industrial
Generators." Third, because of the limited, sampling time, seasonal differences
were not considered in the analysis (Marin County was sampled in May and in
August, 1936; Mew Orleans was sampled in October, 1986).
A total of 11.4 and 15.4 metric tons of household garbage was collected
from the New Orleans and Marin County study areas, respectively (Table 3).
Through the use of formulas 1 through 3, it was estimated that the New Orleans
study area generated 17,120 grams of household garbage per household per week
for a total of 3,533,572 kilograms per week: or 134,381.8 metric tons per year.
If this is compared to the estimated amount of idiscarded household hazardous
waste in the Mew Orleans study area given in Table 6 (59.6 grams of household
hazardous waste per household per week for a total of 12,310.5 kilograms per
week or 641.7 metric tons per year), it appears that, at least, approximately
0.35 percent of the household garbage discarded is hazardous waste. Likewise,
it is estimated that the Marin County study area generated 13,990 grams of
household garbage per household per week for a:total of 1,240,993 kilograms per
week or 64,755.1 metric tons; par year. When compared to the estimated amount
of discarded household hazardous waste in the Marin County study area given in.
Table 7 (55.9 grams of household hazardous waste per household per week for a
total of 4,969.3 kilograms per week or 259.0 metric tons per year), it appears
that, at least, approximately 0.40 percent of the household garbage discarded
is hazardous waste. Even though the percent of hazardous household waste in
the garbage discarded in both study areas was less than 1 percent, it repre-
sents a significant quantity of hazardous waste because,of the large volume, of
garbage involved.
The two most numerous hazardous waste type groups in both the New Orleans
and Marin County study areas were (1) batteries and electrical and (2) selected
cosmetics (Tables 4 and 5). It was estimated that the batteries and electrical
hazardous waste type group was discarded at the rate of 0.1637 items per house-
hold per week for a total of 1,752,949 items per year and made up 29.9 percent
of the hazardous household waste discarded in the New Orleans study area. In
the Marin County study area, this group was discarded at the rate of 0.2334
items per household per week for a total of 1,311,921 items per year and mad-
up 43.3 percent of the hazardous household waste discarded. The selected^
cosmetics hazardous waste type-group was discarded at the rate of 0.1622 items
per household per week for a total of 1,746,775 items per year and made up 29.7
percent of the hazardous household waste discarded in the New Orleans study
area. In the Marin County study area, this group was discarded at the rate of
0.0999 items per household per week for a total of 462,536 items per year and
made up 17.2 percent of the hazardous household waste discarded.
-------
The predominant hazardous waste type group by weight in both the New
Orleans and Marin County study areas was the household maintenance group
(Tables 6 and 7). It was estimated that the household maintenance hazardous
waste type group was discarded at the rate of 25.8 grams per household per week
for a total of 278.4 metric tons per year and made up 43.4 percent of the total
weight of hazardous household waste discarded in the Mew Orleans study area.
In the Marin County study area, this group was discarded at the rate of 15.5
grams per household per week for a total of 71.9 metric tons per year and made
up 27.8 percent of the total weight of hazardous household waste discarded.
The second most predominant hazardous waste type group by weight in the New
Orleans study area was the automotive maintenance group which was discarded at
the rate of 12.6 grams per household per week for a total of 135.6 metric tons
per year and made up 21.2 percent of the total weight of hazardous household
waste discarded. However, in the Marin County study area, the second most
predominant hazardous waste type group by weight was the batteries and elec-
trical group which was discarded at the rate of 14.9 grams per household per
week for a total of 69.0 metric tons per year and made up 26.6 percent of the
total weight of hazardous household waste discarded.
The comparison of estimates for the New Orleans and Marin County study
areas given in Table 8 shows that household hazardous waste discarded in both
areas is very similar in both the rate of discard and composition, even though
the communities are very different in socio-demographic structure. However,*
there were some differences, e.g., the batteries and electrical group and the
pesticide and yard maintenance group were discarded at a higher weight per
household in the Marin County study area while the automotive maintenance group
and the household maintenance group were discarded at a higher weight per
household in the New Orleans study area. The similarity between the two •
communities should be interpreted with care until further studies are conducted.
in other communities.
In summary, there are significant amounts of hazardous waste in household
garbage, and even the most conservative estimates of the amount discarded for a
large community are substantial.
-------
TABLE 1. COMPARISONS OF CENSUS TRACT
CHARACTERISTICS FOR ENTIRE COMMUNITY WITH
CHARACTERISTICS CALCULATED FROM REFUSE
SAMPLE AREA IN THAT COMMUNITY
Median Percent Persons per
Community Income($) White Household
New Orleans
Census Average 11,814 , 57.5 2.63
Refuse Sample Average 20,234 55.6 2.53
Marin County
Census Average 24,554 '• 95.6 2.01
Refuse Sample Average 23422 91.3 2.22
-------
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF
CENSUS TRACTS SAMPLED*
Census Tract
Number
Median
Income(S)
I. New Orleans
NO1
NO2
NO3
NC4
NO5
NO6
Refuse Sample Average
II. Marin County
MCI
MC2
MC3
MC4
MC5
MC6
MC7
MC8
Refuse Sample Average
10,247
20.445
12,291
12,317
14,468
36,306
20,234
21,131
24,779
38,977
14,714
19,605
15,353
26,853
24,591
23,522
Percent
White**
Persons per
Household
1.8
0.5
92.5
79.4
76.5
95.2
55.6
92.2
91.2
95.0
90.0
87.8
76.9
95.0
94.6
91.3
3.05
3.44
1.44
1.76
2.16
2.55
2.S3
2.15
2.40
3.01
1.85
2.20
1.99
2.05
2.18
2.22
From U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983, 1983a)
* Calculation of sample community averages were weighted by number of
sample pickups (see Table 3).
•* Calculated from Tables in U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983, 1983a)
("White" minus "Persons of Spanish Origin: White") / "Total Persons."
-------
TABLE 3. NUMBER AND WEIGHT OF SOLID
WASTE PICKUPS SAMPLED
Total Solid Waste
Sampled
Community Number of Pickups (Metric Tons)
I. New Orleans
NO1 89 1.2
NO2 304 3.3
NO3 164 1.1
N04 137 : 1.7
NO5 123 1.4
NO6 244 . 2.7
TOTAL 1,061 11.4
II. Marin County
MCI 80 1.0
MC2 101 1.9
MC3 119 1.9
MC4 162 ; 2.4
MC5 53 0.8
MC6 82 1-2
MC7 88 .1.1
MC8 221 3.5
Unknown Location 116 1-6
TOTAL 1,022 15.4
III. New Orleans and
Marin County
TOTAL 2,083 26.8
10
-------
TABLE 4. NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN NEW ORLEANS, LA
from Plckupi
ToilM Bowl Clwaar
Drain Opai«r
Haodry Soip
BlMCa
CIUBW
Poliih
Hoar Hniii
Otlur Hmmaold
T«tal
Ant*>i«tiv« M«I»t«w
Oil
Eajjn* Troumnt
AaUftwu/CooUat
ABU Wtx
Otter Asia
T.t.l
Ptiat
Ptiai TUoBvr
SUio/VtifcUh
Oth*r MiiBtwiiuc*
T.I.I
Pulicida »d Y.rd
Fartiliier
Pwtieid**
HirbieidM
P«c Miim«o«no«
T«t«(
Bittcrin i»d
Electrical
Prncriptiv* Drat*
S«l«cl«d C«im«ticx
Oth«r
Hobby Rolatad
MliccUancooi
T«t«l
TOTALS:
0
1
5
- 2
4
6
n 2
14
1
1
4
44
4
0'
1
2
1
4
12
9
0
4
7
19
39
0
4
0
2
«
109
37
10S
5
S
13
364
Houmfeold per We»k
o.oooo
0.0015
0.0075
0.0030
0.0060
0.0090
0.0030
0.0210
0.0015
0.0015
0.0060
0.0640
0.0060
O.OOOO
0.0015
0.0030
0.0015
0.0060
9.01S4
0.0135
0.0000
0.0060
0.0105
0.0285
9.05SS
0.0000
0.0060
0.0000
0.0030
0.0094
0.1637
9.0556
0.1622
0.0075
0.0120
0.0195
0.5465
p«r W«ck
0
310
1,550
620
1.240
1.S60
620
4,340
310
310
1,240
12,400
1.240
0
310
620
310
1.240
2.790
0
1.240
2.170
5,589
12,089
0
1,240
0
620
33,7*6
11,469
33,476
1,550
2.4SO
4,030
112,830
°9til ffuniilitri
per Year
0
16,174
SO.S69
32,34*
64,695
97.043
32,34*
226.433
16.174
16.174
64,695
646,953
64,695
0
16.174
32,34*
16.174
64,695
145.565
0
64,695
113.216
307.303
630,779
0
64,695
0
32.34*.
1,762,949
59*, 432
1,746,775
SO, 869
129.391
210, 266
5,887,277
% of Total
•
T
0.0
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.1
1.6:
0.5
3.S
0.3
0.3
1.1
10.9
1.1
0.0
OJ
0-3
0.3-
1.1
2.5
1.1
1.9
5.2
10.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.5
29.9
10.2
29.7
1.4
2.2
3.6
100
11
-------
TABLE 5. NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN MARIN COUNTY, CA
W««U Tn>" Nnmi»«r Ob««rT«d
from Plekupi
a*»aea«td Cleaaera
Tote Bowi Oaaaer
Dnia Opaaer
Laundry Soap
Bleach
DUh Dctartcat
Cleaner
Ammonia Baaad Oaaaen
Polith
Floor Flaiaa
Air Freeaaaer
Other Hooaaaold
Te»al
AMlaaMti** MaiaUeaaawa
OU
TfituitiiMiea Fluid
Engine Treatment
Antifreeze/Coolant
Auto Wo
OtiMr Auto-
Te«al
H««<«k«U M«i»t«ne«o«
Pitni
• Paiot Thionv
Suin/Vtmiah
GIu*
Other Miintminc»
Tot.l
PMticidu and Yard
M>int«n«nc<
Fertilizer
Peiticides
Herbicide*
Pet Mainuaaaea
Tatal
Ba(tti*n Druf*
Selected Caemctica
Other
Hobby Related
Miieellineou*
Talal
TOTALS:
4
0
6
1
10
22
3
10
2
4
3
<5
9
I
3
0
5
2
29
19
1
S
9
26
$3
1
12
0
11
24
312
23
110
5
12
17
639
Mun Number per
Household per W««fc
0.0036
0.0000
O.OOS4
0.0009
0.0091
0.0200
0.0027
0.0091
0.001 1
0.0036
0.0027
».95»»
0.0012
0.0009
0.0027
0.0000
0.0045
0.001 S
».01H
0.0173
0.0009
0.0073
0.00(2
0.0236
1.0573
0.0009
0.0109
0.0000
0.0100
9.0318
0.2S34
0.0254
0.0999 :
0.004S
0.0109
0.0154
0.5802
p^nfe^ted Total tfUTTltlfir
par W««k
322
0
4S4
SI
S06
1.773
242
$06
161
322
242
5,239
723
(1.
242
0
403
161
1,412
1.531
SI
64S
723
2.09S
5,077
81
967
0
836
1,934
25,142
:,25«
1,864
*03
967
1,370
51,494
p*r Year
16.M9
0
23.229
4-j.as
42.049
92^07
12.613
42.049
S.410
16>S19
12.615
273,317
37.144
4,203
12.613
0
21.024
8,410
14,091
79.193
4,203
33.639
37,844
109.327
264,901
4,203
50,451
0
46J34
100,917
1,311,921
117,73*
462,536
21.024
20,458
71,412
2,686,915
% of ToUl
0.6
0.0
0.9
0.2
1.6
3.4
0.3
1.6
0.3
0.6
0.5
10.2
1.4
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.3
3.0
0.2
1.2
1.4
4.1
9.9
0.2
1.9
0.0
1.7
48.8
17.2
O.S
1.9
2.7
100
12
-------
TABLE 6. WEIGHT OF HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN NEW ORLEANS, LA
Watt* Typ« Wtlfht Obtarrei
from Pickups
Cir)
Haaf«aald Cleaaara
Toflat Bowi Oaaaar
Draia Opanar
Luodry Sot?
Blaach
DUb Datarfaot
Qeasar
liiaBiKiii Baaad Qaaaan
•ollai
Hoar Baiak
Air Fraabaoar
Qtbar HaaaaseU
Tata!
Antaaia
-------
TABLE 7. WEIGHT OF HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN MARIN COUNTY, CA
Typ« Weight Observed Mean Weight
from Pickup* p«r Honichold per Week ,
Tn««l W»l>ht % of ToUl
Wt«k
Year
Toflw Bowl Q»mtr
Onto Opmr
Laundry 3oi»
BlMch
OUh D«urf«at
QMBCT
Aiiiinfiii< BiMd QtnM
Pallia
Floor Hntaa
Air Prwanur
Ottar HooMBoid
T.ta»
on
Trorainioa Fluid
Eatiao- Trauma*
Aota Wot
Oth«r Auio
T.UI
Pilnt
Suia/ViraUa
Otter Mtiaunanra
T*(ai
PnticidM »d Yard
F«rtllli«r
Pmtieidei
H«rbicid««
P«t Milm«nino»
T«t*l
B«(t«ri«< and
EUetrical
PmcriwtU* Dm«*
S«l«et«d C«««M(ic*
OtMr
Hobbr Reliwd
Mi»c«Uin«oa«
T.t.J
TOTALS:
sot
a
S06
SO
666
3.SI5
n 509
997
43S
4O6
1.016
9,311
4.992
12S
793
0
5(2
6(0
7,173
•o
5.77(
173
1.522
1.019
S.599
17,491
771
3.7S2
0
S(l
5,434
1«,407
1,»(S
2,341
1.016
S41
1,*27
«1,6.«
0.4614
0.0000
0.7321
0.0727
0.6049
3.52(6
0.4623
0.9033
0.3971
0.36SI
0.9221
(.4569
4.5341
0.1163
0.7203
0.0000
0.32S6
0.6176
4.3 1<>
5.2479
0.1371
1.3(24
0.9235
7.S102
15.3231
0.7003
3.3431
0.0000
O.(002
4.145*
14.»«1J>
l.JO«I
2.12<3
0.9(64
0.7639
1.7S«3
55.9212
41.0
0.0
63.0
6.4
53.7
313.1
41.0
10.3
35J
32.7
(1.9
402.3
10 J
63.9
0.0
46.9
34. S
463.6
13.9
122.6
S2.1
692.9
62.1
304.S
0.0
71.0
437.J
1,322.1
!((.*
67. (
, 155.3
4,969.3
2.1
0.0
3.4
0.3
2.S
16.3
2.1
4.2
1.1
1.7
4.3
21.0
OJ
3.3
0.0
2.4
2.9
24.3
0.7
6.4
4.3
36.2
3.2
15.9
0.0
3.7
22. (
*'•*
4.6
3.5
(.1
239.0
0.1
0.0
1.3
0.1
1.1
6.3
0.(
1.6
0.7
0.7
1.6
(.1
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.9
1.1
9.4
0.3
13
1.7
13.9
1.3
6.1
0.0
1.4
2*.*
l.S
1.4
3.2
100
14
-------
M
1
|H
3 H
Si
«o
^•v
~ ••
< z
SSA
Si
_ fl
PM i^p
••d ^*
S <
2 •>
S z
i"
io
O Z
rj Ed
w w
S *™
<*
H
^ ii
^ ^5 m
. »-o.2
* ft
•• «• *
41
5"* '
H 5
j>
w
cf*
£s.
|^ =
s s
« B
*fc ^J
«
B
•
U »
2^-
•s 33
iS
•5--1
V* ^
B
m *
fe^S
"1*2
3 ^ ~
z •=
«• *
a *
a o -
• *g e
S • "*
= 1
•
1
1
1
H
.
*
a
I
o
i
2
.
a
2
r
u
1
a
k
2
K
*3
1
|
f
X-
g
I
1
3
1
u
•*
•
i
i
•
»
-*,*!-«
vi«r^ • j « « «
•"? 1 T 9 ^ "! ^ t
=
5SJ? sslqs
-• r*
•r
*
2 **' ? "" 5 — S **
000 ONOQO
bob b b b o o
00*» Of»«M«
S ~ ~ 0 « »> XS —
ooo o^o«»o
bbb b b b b b
V • M
a u •
• a »
a « ~
• » 0 -0 — .
*• ^ • W S M •
* £ ~* • — 3 i
Is|>«w«|
W * a a 1 3
_ • • S " u
, S -a 3 « U
1 1 1 11 1 f 5 .
a 3 e S S ^ 2: " -
a -< B ^ « a, « o
*
^
pa
••
•
•«
t$
r*
«k
v»
m
<•
«
m
>•
•t
«*•
•
•
•'
M
«•
v»
•
m
^
m
••
§
|
15
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Association of Bay Area Governments. 1985. The disposal of hazardous waste by
small quantity generator — magnitude of the problem. Association of Bay
Area Governments, Oakland, California.
Cal Recovery Systems. 1986. Characteristics and impacts of non-regulated
hazardous wastes in municipal solid waste of King County. Report prepared
for Puget Sound Council of Governments, Cal Recovery Systems, Richmond,
California. ,
County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County. 1983. Control of infectious,
hazardous, and radioactive waste disposal at the Puente Hills Landfill.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angles County, Los Angles, California.
Curtis and Anderson. 1981. Household hazardous waste. Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission and Western Massachusetts Coalition for Safe Waste Management,
Report to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Bureau of
Solid Waste Disposal. '•
Geraghty and Miller, n.d. Report on survey of consumer products containing
harmful organic chemicals and having the ipotential of contaminating the
groundwater of Maussau County, Mew York. : Geraghty and Miller, Syosset,
Mew York. [
Rathje, W. L., W. W. Hughes, D. C. Wilson, and D. E. Melson. 1935. A char-
acterization of household solid waste. The Garbage Project, Bureau of
Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Ridgley, S. M. 1982. Toxicants in consumer products: report B of the House-
hold Hazardous Waste Disposal Project Metro Toxicant Program Mo. 1. Water
quality Division, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1933. 1930 census of population and housing census
tracts, Mo. 321 Sec. 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census PHC80-2-321.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983a. 1930 census of population and housing
census tracts, Nos. 258-259. U.S. Bureau of the Census PHC30-2-253.
15
-------
APPENDIX
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS OF COMMON HOUSEHOLD COMMODITIES
Item
Known Examples of
Hazardous Ingredients
Household Cleaners
Toilet Bowl Cleaner
Drain Opener
Laundry Soap, Bleach, Dish-Washing
Detergent, Bathroom Cleaners,
Upholstery Cleaners, Floor Cleaners,
Other General Purpose Cleaners
Ammonia Based Cleaner
Polish (Furniture, Wood, Metal,
Vinyl, etc.)
Trichloro-S-Triazinetrione
Sodium Acid Sulfate or Oxalate
Hydrochloric Acid
Chlorinated Phenols
Sodium Hypochlorite
Sodium Hydroxide
Trichlorbbenzene
Potassium Hydroxide
Hydrochloric Acid
Trichloroethane
I
Surfactants (LAS and others)
Ethoxylated Alcohols
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Sodium Hypochlorite
Hexachloroethane
Ammonium Hydroxide
Surfactants (LAS and others)
Ethoxylated Alcohols
Xylenes
Sodium Hypochlorite
Phenols
Ammonia
Diethyiene Glycoi
Trichloroethane
Petroleum Distillates
Mineral Spirits
Petroleum Solvents
Oxalic Acid
Denatured Ethanol
Isopropanol
Phosphoric Acid
17
-------
Item
Known Examples of
Hazardous Ingredients
Floor Finish
Air Freshener
Other Household (Oven Cleaner, etc.)
Automotive Maintenance
Oil and Transmission Fluid (Grease,
Hydraulic Fluid, Motor Oil,
All Purpose Oil, etc.)
Engine Treatment (Transmission and
Motor Oil Additives, Fuel Additives,
Carburetor Cleaner, etc.)
Antifreeze/Coolant
Auto Wax
Other Auto (Grease Solvents, Rust
Solvents, Refrigerants, etc.)
Diethylene Glycol
Petroleum Solvents
Ammonia
Alkylpfaenoxypolyethoxy Ethanol
Iso butane
Prop'ane
Sodium or Potassium Hydroxide
Petroleum Distillates
Lead
Petroleum Distillates
Mineral Spirits
Trichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Xylenes
Toluene
Methylene Chloride
Ethylene Glycol
Methanol
Petroleum Distillates
Toluene
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Potassium Bichromate
Household Maintenance
Paint (Latex, Oilbase, Art and
Model Paints, etc.)
Paint Thinner and Stripper (Remover)
Toluene
Xylene
Methylene Chloride
Haiogenated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Mineral Spirits
Toluene
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Esters
Alcohols
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Ketones
18
-------
Item
Known Examples of
Hazardous Ingredients
S tain/V arni sh/S eal am
Glue (Model, Epoxy, General
Purpose, etc.) ,
Other Maintenance (Asphalt,
Caulking. Tar Paper, etc.)
Pentachlorophenol
Methylene Chloride
Mineral Spirits
Petroleum
Methyl and Ethyl Alcohol
Benzene
Lead
Toluene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Acetone
Hexane
Methylene Chloride
Asbestos Fibre (Asbestos Cement)
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Asbestos
Ketones
Pesticide and Yard Maintenance
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Herbicides
Pet Maintenance (Flea and Tick Treatment
Powders and Liquids, Flea and Tick
Collars, etc.)
Concentrated Potassium, Ammonia,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus
Aromatic Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Distillates
Naphthalene
Xylenes
Carbamates
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Organophosphates
Urea
Uracil
Triazines
Coumarin
Chlorinated Phenoxys
Dipyridyls
Nitrophenols
Carbaryl
Dichlorophene
Chlordane
Other Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
19
-------
Item
Known Examples of
Hazardous Ingredients
Batteries and Electrical
Auto and Flashlight Batteries, Solder, etc.
Prescription Drugs
Selected Cosmetics
Nail Polish Remover, Hainipray,
Make-up Remover, Dyes, etc.
Other
Pool Chemicals (Acid, Chlorine)
Hobby Related Activities, etc.
Mercuric Oxide
Sulfuric Acid
Diverse Ingredients
Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvents
Acetone
Ethyl and Butyl Acetate
Toluene
Alcohols
Dibutyl Phthalate
Sodium Dichloro-S-Triazinetrione
Compiled from: Geraghty and Miller (n.d.); Curtis and Anderson (1981);
Ridgley (1982).
20
-------
------- |