530R78006
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
August 1978
OPA 113/8
Solid Waste
Facts
A Statistical
Handbook
-------
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air and
water systems. Under a mandate of national environmental laws
focussed on air and water quality, solid waste management and the
control of toxic substances, pesticides, noise and radiation, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and nurture life.
-------
This publication is a compilation of solid waste facts
prepared by the Office of Solid Waste Management,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is designed
to provide basic data and statistical information on
solid waste and its management, including Federal,
State and local efforts.
Contents
2 Overview
5 The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
8 Hazardous Waste
Management
11 Land Disposal
13 Resource Conservation
-------
Overview
Volume of Solid
Waste
How the Wastes
Are Being
Managed
Municipal solid waste (residential, commercial and in-
stitutional sources) amounted to about 130 million
metric tons in 1976, enough to fill the New Orleans
Superdome from floor to ceiling, twice a day, week-
ends and holidays included. Per capita generation
amounts to 1,300 pounds a year. By 1985, the yearly
total is projected to increase to 180 million tons.
Industrial waste generation is estimated at 344 million
metric tons a year, with a growth rate of 3 percent
per year. EPA estimates that 10-15 percent of in-
dustrial wastes will be classified as hazardous under
the hazardous waste regulatory program.
Municipal wastewater treatment at 18,000 plants
results in 5 million tons (dry weight) of sludge per
year; the amount is expected to double in the next 8
to 10 years due to higher levels of treatment.
By 1985, flue gas cleaning equipment will be installed
on 100,000 megawatts of power. Over 120 million
metric tons of wet sludge will have to be disposed of
annually, enough to cover an area of over 27 square
kilometers (10 sq. mi) more than 2.7 meters (9 feet).
Agricultural wastes and mining wastes each amount
to billions of tons yearly.
Municipal solid waste
About 227,000 people are employed in management
of municipal solid waste, according to a 1973 study.
About three-quarters of them are needed for collec-
tion-pj the waste. Slightly over half the work force is
employed byprivate contractors, the rest by
anSPSbunty agencies.
-------
Direct costs of municipal solid waste collection and
disposal are estimated to be $30 per ton, or over $4
billion a year in 1976.
Solid waste collection is a hazardous occupation; col-
lection workers suffer injuries at 4 times the rate for
all industry. Individual agencies report injury costs in
excess of $1,000 per man-year.
Municipal solid waste is disposed of on 18,500 sites
covering a total of 500,000 acres, according to the
1976 EPA report to Congress on the effects of waste
disposal on ground water.
Industrial and hazardous waste
Seventy to 80 percent of industrial waste is currently
disposed of on the generator's property.
Surface impoundments for industrial waste total more
than 100,000.
There are approximately 100 commercial facilities
available for disposal of hazardous waste; studies in-
dicate that their current capacity may be only 50 per-
cent utilized given the availability of "cheap" alterna-
tives.
Expenditures by industry for hazardous waste disposal
is estimated at $155 million annually, according to
EPA studies.
-------
Effects on Health
and the
Environment
Municipal sludge
About 25 percent of the municipal sludge generated is
being landfilled, 25 percent is being spread on land
surfaces (mainly agricultural land), 15 percent is
disposed of in the ocean, and 35 percent is in-
cinerated.
Municipal sludge disposal sites on land total about
23,000.
Costs of managing and disposing of municipal sludge
are estimated to total $635 million annually.
Among the various problems observed to result from
inadequately managed disposal of waste on land,
degradation of ground water is of greatest concern.
Once polluted, an aquifer may not be usable as a
drinking water source for decades. At present about
half the U.S. population is served by ground water.
Numerous instances of ground-water contamination
by leachate from waste disposal sites have been
documented. For example, of 50 industrial waste sites
evaluated by an EPA contractor in 1977, 43 showed
migration of hazardous constituents into ground
water.
Ground water contamination is the most common
mechanism involved in documented cases of damage
from hazardous waste disposal. Other major routes
are: surface water contamination by runoff from
disposal sites; air pollution via open burning, evapora-
tion, sublimation, and wind erosion; poisoning
through direct contact or via the food chain; and fire
and explosions.
Up to 90 percent of industrial hazardous waste is be-
ing disposed of by the same methods that have pro-
duced the damages documented to date.
In addition to pollution of water and air, problems at
municipal solid waste disposal sites have included gas
explosions, breeding of rats and flies, odors, litter,
and traffic congestion. These problems can be
avoided or controlled in the siting, design, and opera-
tion of disposal facilities.
The spreading of municipal sludge on agricultural
-------
The Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
The Basic
Objectives of
RCRA
RCRA Provides the
Following Means
to Achieve These
Objectives
Improved practices in solid waste disposal to protect
public health and environmental quality.
Regulatory control of hazardous waste from genera-
tion through disposal.
Establishment of resource conservation as the pre-
ferred solid waste management approach.
Grants are authorized to State and local governments
to develop their solid waste management programs:
In fiscal year 1978, grants to states totalled $14.3
million.
A Technical Assistance Panels program is required to
assist State and local governments with their solid
waste problems by making available panels of person-
nel consisting of Federal, State, and local employees
and consultants. Requests for such assistance are be-
ing handled by the Regional Offices.
Regulations and guidelines are being developed to set
standards for hazardous waste management and for
all land disposal facilities. Guidelines for State pro-
grams, for citizen participation, and for procurement
of goods containing recycled materials are also re-
quired by the Act.
EPA has authority to operate and enforce the hazard-
ous waste regulatory program in States that do not
establish an authorized program.
Research, development, and demonstrations are
authorized to expand knowledge and technology
relating to land disposal, hazardous waste manage-
ment, and resource conservation.
-------
EPA Strategy in
Implementing the
Law Over the Next
5 Years Will
Emphasize
The interagency Resource Conservation Committee is
mandated to study and report on policies and pro-
posals affecting resource conservation.
Public participation is required in the development of
all regulations, guidelines, and programs under the
Act; public education and information programs are
also required to promote public understanding of the
issues and enable constructive participation. Over 100
public meetings have been held to solicit public com-
ment on RCRA issues, and educational programs are
being sponsored around the country.
Controlling waste disposal through hazardous waste
regulation, land disposal provisions, and development
of State programs.
Encouraging resource conservation through develop-
ment of economic incentives, State and regional pro-
grams, and research, development, demonstrations,
and evaluations.
Focusing priority attention on disposal of industrial
wastes, because of their relatively greater toxicity and
greater quantity; programs related to municipal
wastes will be able to proceed more rapidly, however,
due to already existing knowledge and institutional
framework.
Maximizing State assumption of RCRA authorities
through Federal assistance, regulations, guidelines,
and public support.
Appropriations for
EPA Activities
Under RCRA
(in millions)
Office
1977 1978 1979*
Office of Solid Waste
Regional Offices
Office of Research and
Development
Office of Enforcement
Grants to States
Grants for resource
recovery
Total
$ 8.2
1.8
4.2
0.1
2.9
-
$17.3
$14.7
2.2
7.6
1.0
14.3
-
$39.8
$11.6
7.1
10.9
1.1
26.2
15
$71.9
"Requestedin the President's Budget
-------
State Programs State government budgets for solid waste manage-
and RCRA ment totalled an estimated $28 million in 1977. (EPA
solid waste grants that year totalled $3 million.)
There are now about 1,000 employees in State solid
waste management programs, compared with fewer
than 10 in 1965.
All States have some authority over disposal of
municipal solid waste and should be able to move
aggressively into the regulation of such disposal to
meet RCRA requirements.
Many States have enacted legislation for regulation
of hazardous waste in recent years. We expect 30-35
States to qualify for "interim authorization" to
regulate hazardous waste in lieu of EPA.
Few States currently have authority over the disposal
of sludges or industrial solid waste.
Few States have a resource conservation and
recovery program; we would expect all States to have
some form of a program in FY-1980.
-------
Hazardous
Waste
Management
EPA Philosophy for
Regulating
Hazardous Waste
Generators of
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous wastes include reactive, corrosive, ig-
nitable, infectious, radioactive, and toxic wastes.
(Specific criteria are now under development.)
The desired management options are (in order of
desirability):
Reduce the generation of hazardous waste
Separate out and concentrate hazardous waste
Utilize the waste
Destroy in special incinerators or detoxify and
neutralize
Disposal in secure landfills
Hazardous waste must be regulated from creation
through final disposal ("cradle to grave") to assure
that all of it is safely managed.
Regulation will close off indiscriminate disposal and
stimulate use and expansion of hazardous waste
management facilities.
Major generators among the 15 industries EPA has
studied in detail are:
(Million tons per year)
Primary metals
Organic chemicals
Electroplating
Inorganic chemicals
8.3
6.7
5.3
3.4
Textiles 1 .8
Petroleum refining 1 .8
Rubber and plastics 0.8
Mies. (7 sectors) 0.7
Total 28.8
Ten States generate 65 percent of hazardous waste;
these States are: Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Louisi-
ana, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, West
-------
Technology
Options and Costs
Environmentally adequate technology options are
feasible for treatment and disposal of hazardous
wastes; their costs are substantially above those of in-
adequate practices (open dumping). Costs vary
according to type and volume of waste handled.
Cost per ton
Secure chemical landfill
Incineration (land-based)
Landspreading
Chemical fixation
Physical, chemical, biological
treatment
$30-55
75-265 (110 typical)
2-25 (6 typical)
10-30
Variable
Federal Regulatory
Program
Increased waste management costs to industry as a
result of the hazardous waste regulations may amount
to $800 million a year, according to early EPA fore-
casts (current hazardous waste disposal costs is
estimated at $155 million per year). The affected in-
dustries have gross annual sales of about $154 billion.
Seven sets of regulations and guidelines are being
developed under subtitle C, RCRA:
Identification and listing of hazardous
waste
(Section 3001)
Standards for generators
(Section 3002)
Standards for transporters
(Section 3003)
Standards for facilities
(Section 3004)
Permit regulations
(Section 3005)
Guidelines for States
(Section 3006)
Notification system
(Section 3010)
Cradle-to-grave control via manifests and reporting is
the keystone of the program; only permitted sites may
receive hazardous wastes. EPA anticipates 25,000 per-
mit applications nationally.
-------
State Hazardous
Waste Programs
Public Aversion To
Waste Processing
and Disposal
Facilitiesa Key
Problem
EPA anticipates 30-35 States will apply and qualify for
"interim authorization" to operate the program in lieu
of EPA. Such authorization allows 2 years for
upgrading the State program to standards for full
authorization.
For "full authorization," State programs must be
equivalent to the Federal program, consistent with
other State and Federal programs, and provide for
adequate enforcement.
EPA must operate the program in any State not gain-
ing authorization.
State and Federal costs for implementing the program
are expected to total about $20 million a year.
FY-79 grants to States specifically for hazardous
waste program development are expected to total $15
million.
Local opposition to establishment of waste manage-
ment facilities is a major obstacle not only for hazard-
ous waste management but for solid waste manage-
ment in general. Such opposition has often blocked
siting that was desirable from environmental and eco-
nomic viewpoints.
Several States and a number of localities have im-
posed bans and restrictions on the movement of
waste into their jurisdictions. Restrictions on the
movement of hazardous waste have caused especially
difficult problemsmany of the specialized facilities
equipped to handle certain hazardous wastes must
serve large areas in order to be economically viable.
Assurance of improved management of waste and in-
corporation of public education and participation
measures should affect public attitudes, but whether
they will reduce opposition enough to permit all the
well-justified sitings that are needed is uncertain.
-------
Land
Disposal
The Criteria and
Their Scope
The Inventory
Process To Identify
Open Dumps
EPA criteria for solid waste disposal facilities, now be-
ing developed under Section 4004 of RCRA, will
define environmentally acceptable disposal.
Because of the broad definitions of "solid waste" and
"disposal" in RCRA, the criteria will apply to almost
all wastes and all forms of disposal on land, including
dumps, landfills, land-spreading of sludge, and sur-
face impoundments (pits, ponds, lagoons).
Main concerns are:
Protection of the quality of ground water, surface
water, and the air
Protection of environmentally sensitive areas, such
as wetlands
Prevention of adverse health effects from spreading
sludge on land used for food-chain crops
Prevention of safety hazards and breeding of
disease vectors
All land disposal sites (estimated at over 150,000) will
be evaluated against the criteria by the States with
Federal financial and technical aid.
These evaluations will result in an inventory of sites
that fail to meet the criteria (open dumps).
The evaluations must be thorough since they may
serve as the basis for enforcement actions. The total
inventory process is expected to take much longer
than the 1 year originally envisioned in RCRA.
-------
Eliminating the Open dumps are to be closed or upgraded within a
Open Dumps reasonable time after the inventory (not to exceed 5
years) in accordance with State-established compli-
ance schedules. States must implement this program
to eliminate open dumps in order to continue eligi-
bility for Federal financial aid for their solid waste
management programs.
States are expected to estabish the regulatory powers
necessary to bring about the closing or upgrading of
open dumps.
Enforcement actions may also result from suits
brought by private citizens; citizen suits are authorized
by RCRA. Furthermore, the law allows the EPA Ad-
ministrator to intervene through the courts upon
receipt of evidence that an imminent hazard exists
due to solid waste management practices.
In addition to financial aid, the Federal role includes
technical assistance, guidelines, development of im-
proved methods, and promotion of public education
and participation.
In order to overcome local opposition to the establish-
ment of disposal facilities, development of public
understanding and support will have to be an essen-
tial part of the effort to upgrade land disposal.
EPA's preliminary estimate of the additional costs to
industry, municipalities, etc., of complying with the
expected criteria and with existing State standards af-
fecting land disposal (such as ground water protection
laws) is $1.7 billion a year (37 percent would be attri-
butable to the criteria; 63 percent to State standards).
-------
Resource
Conservation
Resource Recovery Resource recovery is being implemented primarily
because cities badly need an alternative to land
disposal due to local opposition to landfills and lack of
available land.
Only 7 percent of the municipal solid waste stream
was being recovered as of 1977:
Six percent was recovered through source separa-
tion, the setting aside of recyclable material at the
point of generation. Paper accounts for 90 percent of
source-separated material.
One percent was converted into energy.
Energy Recovery Potential recovery of energy from municipal solid
waste in urban areas is equivalent to:
400,000 barrels of oil per day, or
Nation's commercial and residential lighting needs,
or
One-third the flow of the Alaskan pipeline
Progress in implementing resource recovery facilities:
1972 1978 1985
Number of 1,000 tons-per-day
equivalents 2 18 40-70
Population served (millions) 1 9 20-35
Percent of waste stream
processed 0.5 3 10-15
-------
Percent of solid waste converted to energy by country
(1977):
Denmark 60 Germany 20
Switzerland 40 England 10
Netherlands 30 United States 1
Sweden 30
Energy recovery technology is available to support a
significantly greater rate of implementation in this
country; however, there is limited commercial experi-
ence and, thus, technological risk. The four types of
systems of greatest interest currently are:
Waterwall combustion: the concept has been pro-
ven in over 200 plants in Europe and Japan; it is at-
tracting rapidly growing interest here.
Refuse-derived fuel: successfully demonstrated in
the United States, but market reluctance is slowing
implementation.
Small modular incinerators: a promising approach
to energy recovery suitable for very small com-
munities.
Codisposal of sewage sludge and municipal solid
waste: the practice is prevalent in Europe and appears
to be technically and economically feasible in this
country.
Facility Locations Locations of major U.S. resource recovery facilities:
Refuse-derived fuel Waterwall combustion
Ames, Iowa Akron, Ohio*
Baltimore County, Md. Braintree, Mass.*
Bridgeport, Conn.* Chicago, Ill.t
Chicago, III.* Hempstead, N.Y.*
Lane County, Oreg.* Nashville, Tenn.*
Milwaukee, Wis.* Niagara Falls, N.Y.*
Monroe County, N.Y.* Norfolk, Va. (USN)
Portsmouth, Va.
Small modular Saugus, Mass.
incinerators
Blytheville, Ark. Codisposal
Crossville, Tenn. Duluth, Minn.*
Groveton, N.H. Franklin, Ohio
North Little Rock, Ark. Harrisburg, Penn.*
Siloam Springs, Ark.
-------
Economics of
Resource Recovery
Source Separation
A rule of thumb is that, on the average, resource
recovery costs from $8 to $15 a ton, a few dollars
more than sanitary landfilling costs. However,
resource recovery is competitive with landfilling in
some locations, and is implemented out of necessity
in others.
Typical capital cost for a 1,000-tons-per-day plant is
$25 to $25 million.
Institutional factors related to planning and imple-
menting resource recovery are a major barrier to im-
plementation.
Source separation accounts for 90 percent of
materials recovery from solid waste:
Recycling centers number about 3,000.
Curbside collection of recyclable materials is prac-
ticed in 215 cities (multimaterial40 cities; paper
only175 cities).
Curbside newspaper collection may grow to 400
programs by 1985.
Recycling programs are concentrated in the north-
east and California-
Municipal waste materials recycling rates (1976):
Paper
Aluminum cans
Ferrous cans
Glass containers
Percent
18
25
3
1
To create a "demand pull" for recycled materials,
RCRA requires Federal agencies to procure items con-
taining the highest percentage of recycled materials
practicable, effective October 1978. State and local
governments and contractors must also meet this re-
quirement in purchasing with Federal funds. EPA is
developing guidelines on how to comply with this
requirement.
-------
Source separation of office paper is rapidly growing
due to 1976 EPA guidelines:
Impact of guidelines on Federal agencies:
1980
1975 1977 projections
Buildings Less than 25 90 500
Employees No involvement 114,000 500,500
Savings amounting to about $7 million per year are
expected to result from wastepaper recovery from
Federal facilities.
Roughly 15 State governments and many private
firms are also carrying out office wastepaper recovery.
Deposits on beverage containers could help maximize
recovery of materials from municipal solid waste and
greatly reduce litter.
Magnetic separation of ferrous metals is technically
and economically practical. Mechanical separation of
glass and aluminum are under development. Feasi-
bility of glass recovery is questionable.
Reuse Used lubricating oil is a potential resource and a
potential hazard. Rerefining the oil for reuse as lubri-
cant is the most energy-conserving method of utilizing
the oil. About 10 percent of waste lube oil is being
rerefined in this country, compared with about 50 per-
cent reported for the European Economic Community.
Unless properly managed, waste oil can cause en-
vironmental and health hazards; the lead content is of
particular concern.
Industrial waste exchanges or clearinghouses are pro-
moting awareness and use of waste materials among
industries: one factory's waste can be another fac-
tory's raw material. About 17 waste exchanges have
been established recently in the United States,
stimulated by rising costs of materials and waste
management.
-------
EPA Role Provide resource conservation as an alternative to
disposal through:
Technical assistance
Financial assistance for State and local planning
and implementation
Development of economic incentives through the
Resource Conservation Committee, which is studying
beverage container deposits, product disposal
charges, litter taxes, and other policies
Research, development, demonstrations, and
evaluations of technologies and systems for resource
conservation
This fact sheet ISW-694) was prepared by the Office of
-------
If you have suggestions, questions, or requests for further information, they
may be directed to your nearest EPA Regional public information office.
EPA Region 1 JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston MA 02203 Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp-
shire, Rhode Island, Vermont
617-223-7210
EPA Region 2 26 Federal Plaza
New York NY 10007 New Jersey,
New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands 212-264-2525
EPA Region 3 6th and Walnut
Streets Philadelphia PA 19106
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia 215-597-9814
EPA Region 4 245 Courtland
Street NE Atlanta GA 30308
Alabama, Georgia, Florida,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky
404-881-4727
EPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn
Chicago IL 60604 Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Min-
nesota 312-353-2000
EPA Region 6 1201 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75270 Arkansas, Loui-
siana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mex-
ico 214-767-2600
EPA Region 7 1735 Baltimore
Avenue Kansas City MO 64108
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
816-374-5493
EPA Region 8 1860 Lincoln
Street Denver CO 80203 Col-
orado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota
303-837-3895
EPA Region 9 215 Fremont
Street San Francisco CA 94105
Arizona, California, Nevada, Hawaii,
Guam, American Samoa, Trust Ter-
ritories of the Pacific 415-556-2320
EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth
Avenue Seattle WA 98101
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
206-442-1220
------- |