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 ------- |