SOLID WASTE FACTS
-------
May 1978
SOLID WASTE FACTS
Page
I. Overview 1
II. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act 3
III. Hazardous Waste Management 5
IV. Land Disposal 8
V. Resource Conservation 10
This fact sheet (SW-694) was prepared
by the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
I. OVERVIEW
Volume of solid waste
— Municipal solid waste (residential, commercial and institutional sources) amounted
to about 130 million metric tons in 1976, enough to fill the New Orleans Super-
dome from floor to ceiling, twice a day, weekends 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 industrial
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.
How the wastes are being managed
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 collection
of the waste. Slightly over half the work force is employed by private contractors,
the rest by municipal and county 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; collection 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 hazard-
ous waste; studies indicate that their current capacity may be only 50 percent
utilized given the availability of "cheap" alternatives.
— Expenditures by industry for hazardous waste disposal is estimated at $ 155
million annually, according to EPA studies.
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 incinerated.
— 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.
Effects on health and the environment
— Among the various problems observed to result from inadequately managed dis-
posal 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 dis-
posal sites have been documented. For example, of 50 industrial waste sites
evaluated by an EPA contractor in 1977, 43 showed migration of hazardous con-
stituents into ground water.
— Ground water contamination is the most common mechanism involved in docu-
mented cases of damage from hazardous waste disposal. Other major routes are:
surface water contamination by runoff from disposal sites; air pollution via open
burning, evaporation, 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 being disposed of by the same
methods that have produced the damages documented to date.
- In addition to pollution of water and air, problems at municipal solid waste dis-
posal 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 operation of disposal facilities.
— The spreading of municipal sludge on agricultural land, if uncontrolled, poses a
threat to public health, plant growth, water quality, and wildlife.
-------
II. THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
The basic objectives of RCRA:
— Improved practices in solid waste disposal to protect public health and environ-
mental quality.
— Regulatory control of hazardous waste from generation through disposal.
— Establishment of resource conservation as the preferred solid waste management
approach.
RCRA provides the following means to achieve these objectives:
— 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 govern-
ments with their solid waste problems by making available panels of personnel
consisting of Federal, State, and local employees and consultants. Requests for
such assistance are being 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 required by the Act.
— EPA has authority to operate and enforce the hazardous 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 management, and re-
source conservation.
— The interagency Resource Conservation Committee is mandated to study and
report on policies and proposals 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 comment
on RCRA issues, and educational programs are being sponsored around the country.
EPA strategy in implementing the law over the next 5 years will emphasize:
— Controlling waste disposal through hazardous waste regulation, land disposal pro-
visions, and development of State programs.
— Encouraging resource conservation through development of economic incentives,
State and regional programs, and research, development, demonstrations, and
evaluations.
-------
— Focusing priority attention on disposal of industrial wastes, because of their rel-
atively 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
Office of Solid Waste
Regional Offices
Office of Research and
Development
Office of Enforcement
Grants to States
Grants for resource recovery
Total
1977
$ 8.2
1.8
4.2
0.1
2.9
-
$17.3
1978
$14.7
2.2
7.6
1.0
14.3
—
$39.8
1979*
$11.6
7.1
10.9
1.1
26.2
15
$71.9
* Requested in the President's Budget
State programs and RCRA
— State government budgets for solid waste management 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-1080.
-------
III. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
• EPA philosophy for regulating hazardous waste
— Hazardous wastes include reactive, corrosive, ignitable, 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.
• Generators of hazardous waste
— Major generators among the 15 industries EPA has studied in detail are:
(Million tons per year)
Primary metals 8.3 Textiles 1.8
Organic chemicals 6.7 Petroleum refining 1.8
Electroplating 5.3 Rubber and plastics 0.8
Inorganic chemicals 3.4 Mies. (7 sectors) 0.7
Total 28.8
— Ten States generate 65 percent of hazardous waste; these States are: Texas, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and California.
• Technology options and costs
— Environmentally adequate technology options are feasible for treatment and dis-
posal of hazardous wastes; their costs are substantially above those of inadequate
practices (open dumping). Costs vary according to type and volume of waste
handled.
Cost per ton
Secure chemical landfill $30-55
Incineration (land-based) 75-265 (110 typical)
Landspreading 2-25 (6 typical)
Chemical fixation 10-30
Physical, chemical, Variable
biological treatment
-------
- 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 forecasts
(current hazardous waste disposal costs is estimated at $155 million per year).
The affected industries have gross annual sales of about $ 154 billion.
Federal regulatory program
- Seven sets of regulations and guidelines are being developed under Subtitle C,
RCRA:
Identification and listing Standards for facilities
of hazardous waste (Section 3004)
(Section 3001) Permit regulations
Standards for generators (Section 3005)
(Section 3002) Guidelines for States
Standards for transporters (Section 3006)
(Section 3003) 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
— 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 pro-
gram, consistent with other State and Federal programs, and provide for adequate
enforcement.
— EPA must operate the program in any State not gaining 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.
Public aversion to waste processing and disposal facilities—a key problem
— Local opposition to establishment of waste management facilities is a major
obstacle not only for hazardous waste management but for solid waste management
in general. Such opposition has often blocked siting that was desirable from environ-
mental and economic viewpoints.
-------
Several States and a number of localities have imposed bans and restrictions on
the movement of waste into their jurisdictions. Restrictions on the movement
of hazardous waste have caused especially difficult problems—many of the spe-
cialized facilities equipped to handle certain hazardous wastes must serve large
areas in order to be economically viable.
Assurance of improved management of waste and incorporation 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.
-------
IV. LAND DISPOSAL
The criteria and their scope
— EPA criteria for solid waste disposal facilities, now being 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 surface 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
The inventory process to identify open dumps
— 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 enforce-
ment actions. The total inventory process is expected to take much longer than
the 1 year originally envisioned in RCRA.
Eliminating the open dumps
— Open dumps are to be closed or upgraded within a reasonable time after the
inventory (not to exceed 5 years) in accordance with State-established compliance
schedules. States must implement this program to eliminate open dumps in order
to continue eligibility for Federal financial aid for their solid waste management
programs.
— States are expected to establish 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 Administra-
tor 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, guide-
lines, development of improved methods, and promotion of public education
and participation.
-------
In order to overcome local opposition to the establishment of disposal facilities,
development of public understanding and support will have to be an essential 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 affect-
ing land disposal (such as ground water protection laws) is $ 1.7 billion a year
(37 percent would be attributable to the criteria; 63 percent to State standards).
-------
V. RESOURCE CONSERVATION
• Resource recovery is being implemented primarily because cities badly need an alter-
native 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 separation, 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.
• 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
Switzerland 40
Netherlands 30
Sweden 30
Germany 20
England 10
United States 1
• Energy recovery technology is available to support a significantly greater rate of imple-
mentation in this country; however, there is limited commercial experience and, thus,
technological risk. The four types of systems of greatest interest currently are:
— Waterwall combustion: the concept has been proven in over 200 plants in Europe
and Japan; it is attracting 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 communities.
— 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.
10
-------
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, 111.^
Chicago, 111. * Hempstead, N.Y. *
Lane County, Oreg.* Nashville, Tenn.*
Milwaukee, Wis. * Niagara Falls, N.Y. *
Monroe County, N.Y.* Norfolk, Va. (USN)
Small modular incinerators Portsmouth, Va.
Saugus, Mass.
Blytheville, Ark.
Crossville,Tenn. Codisposal
Groveton, N.H. Duluth, Minn.*
North Little Rock, Ark. Franklin, Ohio
Snoam Springs, Ark. Harrisburg, Penn*
*Under construction.
fSteam not being sold at present.
• Economics of resource recovery
— 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 neces-
sity in others.
— Typical capital cost for a 1,000-tons-per-day plant is $25 to $50 million.
• Institutional factors related to planning and implementing resource recovery are a major
barrier to implementation.
• Source separation accounts for 90 percent of materials recovery from solid waste:
— Recycling centers number about 3,000.
— Curbside collection of recyclable materials is practiced in 215 cities (multimaterial-
40 cities; paper only— 175 cities).
— Curbside newspaper collection may grow to 400 programs by 1985.
— Recycling programs are concentrated in the northeast and California.
• Municipal waste materials recycling rates (1976):
Percent
Paper 18
Aluminum cans 25
Ferrous cans 3
Glass containers 1
11
-------
To create a "demand pull" for recycled materials, RCRA requires Federal agencies to
procure items containing the highest percentage of recycled materials practicable,
effective October 1978. State and local governments and contractors must also meet
this requirement 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. Feasibility of
glass recovery is questionable.
• Used lubricating oil is a potential resource and a potential hazard. Rerefining the oil
for reuse as a lubricant 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 percent reported for the European Economic Community. Unless properly
managed, waste oil can cause environmental and health hazards; the lead content is of
particular concern.
• Industrial waste exchanges or clearinghouses are promoting awareness and use of waste
materials among industries: one factory's waste can be another factory's raw material.
About 17 waste exchanges have been established recently in the United States, stimu-
lated by rising costs of materials and waste management.
• Major EPA program thrust
Provide resource conservation as an alternative to disposal through:
— Technical assistance
— Financial assistance for State and local planning and implementation
12
-------
Development of economic incentives through the Resource Conservation Com-
mittee, 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
ya!703
SW-694
13
------- |