-------
TABLE 13. OPEN-DUMP AND SANITARY-LANDFILL LAND REQUIREMENT IN ACRES
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Percent Open Dump 40 50 60 70 80 90 99
(without burning)
Open Dump 11,298 13,667 14,888 14,354 11,423 11,471 4,494
(without plastic)
Plastic Requirement^) 52 78 116 167 194 181 135
Sanitary Landfill 807 1,247 1,759 2,270 2,851 3,238 3,266
(without plastic)(c)
Plastic Requirement 16 32 64 135 261 435 676
(a) Assumed dump density 320 Ib per cu yd at 20-ft height.
(b) Assumed plastic density 33 cu. ft/ton.(36)
(c) Assumed sanitary landfill density 900 Ib per cu yd at 30 ft.
-------
Ecological Effects
Ecological impacts are those processes which disrupt or change the
basic relationships between living organisms and their environment.
There is a need to determine whether land disposal of plastics disrupts
or changes the basic relationships which exist at the disposal site, or
its environs, between living organisms and their environment. Such
disruption or changes may result from the leachate and/or gases
emitted from the plastic disposed at the sites.
Leachate from sanitary landfills and open dumps reaching stretches
of natural surfacewaters (streams, rivers, and lakes) may be suf-
ficiently high in BOD and other pollutants but low in others (such as
dissolved oxygen) as to cause fish kills and the destruction of other
aquatic life therein. Leachate from sanitary landfills may be con-
tained by proper drainage or collected and treated. Open dumps,
however, have been major sources of water pollution, since leachates
are usually uncontrolled. There is no direct impact of plastic waste
on leachate characteristics as discussed earlier as long as there is
no direct emissions by the plastics. Until data are available on the
decomposition emissions from plastic waste, no conclusive statement
can be made on the ecological impact.
Because sanitary landfills are covered with soil when completed, the
site can be used to support plant growth such as grasses and shrubs,
even before full stabilization of the site. The site subsequently can
be used as a playground or for light-structure buildings. It is not
possible to put open dumps into such use because high heat and low
dissolved oxygen existing during decomposition do not allow the growth
of all plant life. The open dump site must be reclaimed before the
site can be put to any use comparable to that of a sanitary landfill.
Decomposition-gas movement in sanitary landfills has been known to
cause the destruction of plant life in the immediate vicinity, probably
as a result of the exclusion of dissolved oxygen from the root zone
by methane and carbon dioxide. Again, there is no direct plastic-
waste influence other than its volume and/or weight effects.
Landfill and open-dump encroachment upon the land environment tends
to displace the terrestrial fauna and biota previously inhabiting the
sites. It is-logical to assume that species that are incapable of
58
-------
adapting to the environment existing at the fills will perhaps disappear
from that area. At present there is no substantiation of such effects
that plastic waste and its decomposition products may have on fauna
and biota. The greatest impact however is that of the open dump,
which provides habitats for rodents, insects, flies, and other disease
vectors. Such an environment may be a threat to wildlife in the vicin-
ity and even to human health. Some plastics, depending on the pig-
mentation, are fly and insect attractants, and so may promote such
infestation.
Aesthetics and Human-Factors Effects
Various methods of refuse disposal have varying degrees of effects on
our well-being. Such important effects are the aesthetic, health, and
economic impacts. Best disposal methods, as are evident from the
preceding sections, are those that are technically efficient, econom-
ically sound, and environmentally safe. Specific impacts of the plastic
component of the solid waste are presently unclear, and so far as is
known, they are insignificant. Some schools of thought feel that plas-
tics are advantageous. 37 The various land disposal methods are se-
quentially discussed according to their aesthetic, health, and economic
impacts. Where possible, plastic impacts are qualitatively discussed.
Litter is ugly, unsightly, and it defaces or mars the appearance of the
landscape. The aesthetic impact of plastic waste is significant be-
cause (1) it is a significant fraction of the packaging industry which
produces nearly all the refuse litter, (2) it is of low bulk density, thus
can be blown about in the air, onto natural surfacewaters, or to other
less accessible areas of the countryside, where it is not possible or
desirable to send in crews of people to pick up the litter, and (3) it has
a long life in the environment. Certainly, if it were possible to assess
aesthetic impacts quantitatively, that of litter should be found to be
more than its volume fraction of the solid-waste. If photodegradable
plastics become a sizable fraction of litter plastics in the years ahead,
the aesthetic impact will tend to decrease because the life span in the
environment will decrease.
Litter is unhealthy. If litter accumulates sufficiently at a spot, it will
provide a breeding place for rats, insects, and disease. Accumulated
59
-------
litter is hazardous from the viewpoint of being flammable. It is diffi-
cult to put a quantitative figure on this impact since it will depend on
factors of human activity and the environment. There is a need to
study the potential health effects of the degraded plastics, and this
need will become greater with the availability of degradable plastics.
As was indicated earlier, the concern will be greatest with the litter
because it is usually deposited closer to populated areas than are
wastes disposed of by another method. Because of exposure to the at-
mosphere and to photodegradation, its emission rate per unit weight
to the environment may be greater too. No data are available on the
air emissions from plastics degradation. For decomposed plastic
which remains on the soil (plastic sand), studies on polyethylene and
polystyrene have shown that there is no long-term damage to the soil
from the accumulation of photodegraded plastic particles. 37
Litter is costly. One source estimates that about a billion dollars a
year is spent to retrieve the newspapers, wrappers, cans, bottles,
plastics, etc. , tossed carelessly aside. It is further estimated that
(1) half of this tax money is spent to clean up parks and recreational
areas, (2) $28 million is spent recovering trash from primary high-
ways, and (3) business, industry, and labor together are known to be
spending more than $25 million a year to combat litter, both in private
effort and in support of organizations like KAB (Keep America Beau-
tiful). 3° A litter-free state attracts industry. West Virginia claims
to have attracted 46 new industries that created 5, 000 jobs by its
clean-up program. A litter-free state also attracts more tourists.
In Kentucky, the year after its first antilitter campaign, figures
showed that tourists spent an extra $7 million in the state. In general,
it will be assumed that the economic impact of plastic will be in direct
proportion to its volumetric fraction of the refuse litter. Two ap-
proaches have been suggested as means to combat littering - litter
laws with strong teeth for enforcement and education against littering.
Only 28 states have litter laws; in the years ahead, other states prob-
ably will be under increasing pressure to enact such laws. Education
through public communication and persuasion to inform citizens that
they are individually responsible for the attractiveness of their sur-
roundings will be conducted by government and private agencies.
Open dumps are aesthetically objectionable by their unpleasant appear-
ance and the odors they produce. Urban development near open-dump
60
-------
areas tends to be restricted due to the reduced scenic beauty and psy-
chological, and perhaps physiological, stressful conditions created
by the open dump site. People just don't want to live near such sur-
roundings. The contribution of plastics to this impact is assumed to
be in direct relationship to their volumetric presence in the refuse.
Unless the site is well stabilized, light structures for such activities
as playgrounds and parking lots will be the only activities allowed on
such sites because of low bearing strength of the soil on the site.
The presence of plastic will tend to delay the site stabilization and,
thus, the reuse of the site.
Open dumps threaten human health. Their relationship to disease
potentials in humans has been reviewed by Hanks. 39 They provide a
food source and harborage for rodents, insects, and disease vectors.
Hanks observed that open-dump encroachment upon land which hitherto
had been a wilderness poses the threat of increased interaction be-
tween the wild and "domestic" rodents, thus creating a possibility of
spreading disease. It is hard to put quantitative value on the plastics
impact which may be in direct proportion to its volume percent in the
open dump. As observed previously, the presence of plastics will
cause an increase in the acreage for open dumps, and harborage time
of rodents may be longer because of the delay in stabilization. Be-
sides odor produced during the biodegradation of the materials in the
dump, particulates, odor, intense smoke, and other air contaminants
are also produced from the open burning of the refuse. These instal-
lations not only produce adverse aesthetic reactions in man, but some
of the pollutants emitted are dangerous to health.
The economic impact of open dumping of plastic and other refuse in-
volves collection, transportation, and land cost. No cost is incurred
on site management. Plastic economic impact associated with open
dumping is assumed to be in direct proportion to its percent in the
refuse as shown in Table 9.
Sanitary landfill, when properly designed and operated, is considered
the most technically efficient and environmentally safe method of land
disposal of refuse. However, when improperly designed and misman-
aged it creates aesthetic problems and danger to human and animal
life.
61
-------
The aesthetic impact is associated with odor generation while the pos-
sible danger to animal life is caused by leachate. Odor production in
landfill is usually not a serious problem since most landfills are cov-
ered with soil. However, leachate can create very serious problems
if land-selection, drainage-design, and filled-site management are in-
adequate. Under this condition, leachate may percolate through the
soil to contaminate groundwater with metal ions, pathogens, nutrients,
etc. , making it unsuitable for drinking and recreational purposes.
Run-off to the surfacewater may also pose the same danger to water
supply. Landfill gases, if not properly vented, can cause asphyxiation
and serious explosions when they accumulate in sufficient concentra-
tions near residential areas.
The main human factor of landfill is the economic impact. Land acqui-
sition constitutes the major investment item, amounting to more than
half the total capital requirement. The next important cost factor is
the cost of transporting wastes from the sources of generation to the
landfill site. The importance of the latter has been increased by the
present energy crisis.
For landfill within 100 miles of the center of generation, cost of dis-
posal may vary from around $2 to $3 per ton per year, while the capi-
tal cost for a 2, 000 TPD landfill capacity may be as much as
$5, 000, 000. ^O The differences in land costs from region to region
can easily cause the capital costs to vary by a factor of 2 or more.
The economic impact of the plastic fraction will be proportional to its
volume fraction in the landfills.
Impact of Resource Recovery
The environmental impacts of resource recovery of plastic wastes
create no major pollution problems for air, water, or land, but rather
it effects some definite economic impacts. Efficient recycling of plas-
tics that are currently disposed on the land will perhaps result in a
cost saving in the manufacture of new end-products. However, major
problems in salvaging plastics for reuse and recycling include the
heterogeneity of the wastes and the diversity of types of plastics in the
municipal refuse, lack of cleanliness, and the fact that they are usually
present in forms not directly usable without reprocessing. Therefore,
62
-------
this study assumed that plastic recovery will occur only at the manu-
facturing end where different types and forms of plastics can easily be
separated for recycle, and not at the postconsumer end of the spec-
trum, where such separation is presently technically inefficient, and
economically unsound.
Various studies are under way to develop methods or processing and
separating the various components of the refuse into reclaimable ma-
terials. Because of low specific gravity, plastics may present prob-
lems in pulverization, and may be entangled in the refuse-processing
machinery. This aspect of plastic may be an adverse impact on its
recovery.
Because current plastic waste does not decompose readily, its impact
on composting is economically adverse since it has to be sorted out.
When photodegradable and biodegradable plastics appear in the munic-
ipal refuse stream, the requirement for sorting out the plastics may
no longer be necessary, thus providing some cost-saving.
AIR-POLLUTION IMPACT OF THERMAL TREATMENT
The disposal of solid waste by thermal treatment includes ordinary in-
cineration, burning to generate electrical energy, process steam, or
to provide central heating, and pyrolysis. With the possible exception
of pyrolysis, these thermal processes will result in emissions to the
atmosphere that come under regulation as air pollutants. The contri-
bution of plastics to these emissions can be calculated on the basis of
the plastic composition and its percentage in the solid waste. Some
pyrolysis treatment of solid waste is designed to convert the refuse
into useful chemical products that can be returned to the stream of in-
dustrial feedstocks, and this pyrolyzed portion would not be expected
to become a source of air-pollutant emissions.
To determine the extent to which the plastics contribute to emissions,
one must know the emission factors for the various pollutants. Studies
made by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have resulted in
the following incinerator-emission factors for air pollutants which are
under control regulations at the present time. ^> 41
63
-------
Incinerator-Emission
Pollutant Factor, Ib/ton
Carbon monoxide 35.0
Particulates 14. 9
Nitrogen oxides (as NC>2) 3. 9
Sulfur oxides (as 803) 2. 5
Hydrocarbons (as CH^) 1. 5
Although these emission factors have been derived from measurements
made on incineration processes that do not include heat recovery and
power generation, the addition of a boiler to the unit, as projected for
future years, will not have significant effect on the emission factors.
Consequently, the calculations made for this report have been based on
the same factor for all forms of controlled burning of plastics.
The initial data from the experience with combined firing of pulverized
coal and solid waste at the Meramec Station of the Union Electric Com-
pany in St. Louis indicates that the amounts of gaseous components of
the emissions were not affected by the waste. 42 Particulate emissions
were increased, but this effect is considered to be the result of poor
precipitator performance and firing difficulties, rather than any inher-
ent contribution of the solid waste. In this report the incinerator
emission factor has been used for solid waste that would be consumed
in combined firing in future years.
Because it has not come under regulation as yet, HC1 is not included
in the list of official emission factors. However, Achinger and
Baker 18 arrived at an emission factor of 6 pounds per ton from their
data compilation. Recent data on HC1 obtained by the Battelle's
Columbus Laboratories at the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, incinerator
result in an emission factor of 5. 1 pounds per ton. ^3 Hence, an HC1
emission factor of 5 to 6 pounds per ton of solid waste appears to be
reasonable. \As the amount of chlorine-containing plastic that is
burned increases, this factor will become larger.
Carbon Monoxide Emissions From Plastics
Inasmuch as all plastics contain considerable carbon, they are poten-
tial contributors to the carbon monoxide emissions from incinerators.
64
-------
If the CO emission factor of 35 pounds per ton of waste is used for the
plastic components, on the assumption that its contribution is propor-
tional to the amount of plastic in the waste, the values shown in Table
14 are obtained. In this table the emission factors have been applied
to the plastic component of solid waste as projected to the year 2000.
TABLE 14. EMISSIONS FROM CONTROLLED COMBUSTION OF
PLASTICS IN SOLID WASTE
Waste Burned,
106 tons
Plastic Content,
percent
Plastic Burned,
106 tons
CO Emissions,
106 Ib
Particulates,
106 Ib
Hydrocarbons,
106 Ib
1970
14.8
2.32
0.34
11.9
5. 1
0.51
1975
18.
2.
0.
19.
8.
0.
5
99
55
2
2
83
1980
22.8
4.2
0.96
33.6
14.3
1.44
1985
31.4
6.7
2. 1
73. 5
31.3
3. 15
1990
40.
10.
4.
3
0
0
140
59.
6,
6
0
1995
48.6
14.2
6.9
241
103
10.4
2000
56.5
20.0
11.3
396
168
17.0
Current CO emission in the United States from all sources is esti-
mated to be about 150 million tons per year. The CO emissions from
burning of plastics, as projected for 1975 will be about 10, 000 tons.
Hence, today's contribution from plastics is negligible. In future
years, the CO emissions from this source are expected to increase
to about 200,000 tons by the year 2000. The CO emissions from auto-
mobiles in the U, S. , which is the largest source at present, will de-
crease in future years as stricter regulations are applied. Hence the
impact of plastics on the total CO emissions will become greater as
the time passes. However, it is expected that the total CO from other
sources will still be measured in millions of tons when the plastics
contribution reaches the 200,000-ton level.
65
-------
Particulate Emissions From Plastics
The emission factor for particulates from incineration processes is
14. 9 pounds per ton of waste. There is some question as to whether
this number is strictly applicable to the plastic components, as they
appear to burn well, with a high-Btu flame. Boettner^ presented
data on laboratory-scale incineration of plastics that showed no resid-
ual ash from combustion of polyethylene, polystyrene, or major types
of polyvinyl chloride. This implies that the small metallic content,
from catalysts and additives, is completely volatilized and will appear
as oxides in the flue-gas stream. There could be some unburned car-
bon particulate if the combustion of the plastic occurred in a zone
where insufficient air was present at the time. Although it may be
high, the emission factor of 14.9 pounds per ton was used for Table 14.
On this basis the 1975 value of 8. 2 million pounds is trivial compared
to the 26. 2 million tons that are generated in the United States at the
present time. The projected level for the year 2000 reaches only
84, 000 tons, which will still be only a small fraction of the U. S. total,
even with stricter control on other sources.
Hydrocarbon Emissions From Plastics
Since the chemical structure of plastics is based on carbon-hydrogen
compounds, there is a possibility that some hydrocarbons from the
decomposition of the plastic will survive the combustion process.
Hence it may be assumed that hydrocarbons will be produced in pro-
portion to the amount of plastics in the refuse. Using that basis, the
hydrocarbon factor of 1. 5 pounds per ton of waste was applied to obtain
the values shown in Table 14. The 1975 emissions of 830,000 pounds
will be insignificant compared to the 35 million tons of hydrocarbons
emitted from other sources, chiefly automobiles. Even by the year
2000, when the projected emissions from burning of plastics will be
8500 tons, and auto emissions are greatly reduced, the plastics con-
tribution will still constitute a small part.
HC1 Emissions From Plastics
The unique contribution of plastics to air pollution from, combustion of
solid waste results from the HC1 produced by the combustion of
-------
polyvinyl chloride (PVC). It has been shown by Boettner et al, 44
that all of the chlorine is released from PVC on combustion and ap-
pears as HC1. Other sources of HC1 are present in the solid waste,
as there is chloride in the plant and food waste, in addition to that
which occurs as inorganic salts. The formation of HC1 from organic
sources would take place readily during incineration. To form it
from the inorganic compounds requires volatilization and reaction
with incinerator flue gases such as SC>2 and CC^, That these reac-
tions occur is evidenced by the chemical changes observed in the in-
cinerator deposits, where chlorides are converted to sulfates as
exposure time increases. ^5
The projections for HC1 emissions as the result of the controlled com-
bustion of PVC are shown in Table 15. In 1975 about 26, 000 tons of
HC1 will be generated in this fashion. This amount is small when
compared to that of the major pollutants presently under regulation.
However, the amount of HC1 will increase in future years as the per-
centage of PVC in the waste increases.
TABLE 15. PROJECTED HC1 EMISSIONS FROM CONTROLLED
COMBUSTION OF POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)
PVC in Waste, 106 tons
PVC Burned, 106 Ib
HC1 Produced, 106 Ib
1975
0.5
90
52.5
1980
0.7
154
90
1990
1.6
563
329
2000
2.8
1300
760
During the period 1975 to 2000, the amount of HC1 generated will be
greater than that of the other pollutants, namely CO, particulates, or
hydrocarbons. However, it has been claimed that more HC1 is emit-
ted to the atmosphere from coal-burning power plants than from
municipal incinerators, ^o Fortunately HC1 can be removed from flue
gases very efficiently by water scrubbers, and the emissions could be
controlled readily in this fashion.
An air-pollution problem could develop in the immediate vicinity of an
incinerator as a result of HC1 emission. This might occur if
67
-------
insufficient dispersal of the stack gases were to cause the ambient
concentration of HC1 to exceed the 5-ppm level designated as the al-
lowable limit for health. 47
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Plastics
Only a relatively small amount of the U. S. plastic production com-
prises nitrogen-containing plastics, which would be the source of
nitrogen oxide emissions. These plastics would be the polyurethanes,
urea-melamines, nylons, and acrylate materials. It was estimated
that in 1973 these plastics constituted only 0. 1 percent of the total
solid waste. 12 ]\jo breakdown in these plastic categories was avail-
able for projection to future years, but it is reasonable to assume that
they will still represent a very minor contribution in future years as
well. The 1973 estimate showed that if all the nitrogen in the poly-
urethane waste incinerated was converted to nitrogen oxides, the total
would only have been 1200 tons. This can be compared to the total
incinerator emissions of 16,780 tons of nitrogen oxides or the total
from all sources of 22, 800, 000 tons. 18
Other Emissions From Plastics
Only small amounts of plastics contain sulfur (such as polysulfones)
and the contribution to sulfur oxide emissions from such materials
would be negligible.
Several other air pollutants could be formed by combustion of special
plastics, or as a result of some additive in the plastic. Thus, HBr
might result from, bromine compounds added as flame retardants,
Acrylonitrile materials may form some HCN. However, the amounts
of these materials would necessarily be small, and could be a prob-
lem only if a large quantity of one such plastic were being burned at
one time, and stack emissions were swept down to ground level rap-
idly enough to create a toxic concentration in the vicinity of the source.
68
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
1. United States Department of Commerce, "Bureau of Census,
Population Estimates and Projections", Series P-25, No. 470,
1971.
2. Neissen, W. R. et al. , "Systems Study of Air Pollution from
Municipal Incineration", Vol. 1, Eighth Chapter, PB 192378
(1970).
3. Predicasts, Quarterly publication of Predicasts, Inc., 200 Uni-
versity Circle Research Center, 1001 Cedar Ave. , Cleveland,
Ohio 44106.
4. Plastics Technology, March, 1974, p. 9.
5. Chemical Week, May 15, 1974, p. 34.
6. Chemical and Engineering News, June 17, 1974, p. 10.
7. Chemical Marketing Reporter, April 8, 1974, p. 5.
8. Chemical Marketing Reporter, April 8, 1974, p. 10.
9. Industrial Marketing, January, 1974, p. 14.
10. Glauz, R. L. , Jr. , Kridl, A. G. , Schwaar, R. H. , and Soder,
S. L. , "The Plastics Industry in the Year 2000", April, 1973
(prepared by Stanford Research Institute for the Society of the
Plastics Industry).
69
-------
11. Cross, J. A. , and Park, W. R. , "The Role of Plastics in
Resource Recovery", May 23, 1973 (prepared by Midwest
Research Institute for Manufacturing Chemists Association).
12. Vaughan, D. A. , Anastas, M. Y. , and Krause, H. H. , "An
Analysis of the Current Impact of Plastic Refuse Disposal Upon
the Environment", July 7, 1974 (prepared by Battelle's Columbus
Laboratories for Office of Research and Monitoring, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency).
13. Warner, A. J. , Parker, C. H. , and Baum, B. , "Solid Waste
Management of Plastics", December, 1970 (prepared by DeBell
and Richardson, Inc. , for Manufacturing Chemists Association).
14. The Litter Fact Book, issued by the Glass Manufacturers Insti-
tute, Inc., New York, New York (197 1).
15. "Thermal Processing and Land Disposal of Solid Waste",
Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 158, August 14, 1974.
16. Flintoff, F. , and Millard, R. , "Public Cleansing", McLaren &
Sons, London (1972).
17. Flintoff, F. , "The Disposal of Solid Wastes", Hutchison Benham
Limited, London (1973).
18. Achinger, W. C., and Baker, R. L. , "Environmental Asses s-
ment of Municipal Scale Incinerators", Report SW-111, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
19. Hall, E. H. et al. , "Refuse Combustion in Fossil Fuel Steam
Generators", Battelle Report to EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0611,
Task 9, September 23, 1974.
20. Baun, Bernard, and Parker, C. H. , "Plastic Waste Disposal
Practices in Landfill, Incineration, Pyrolysis, and Recycle",
DeBell and Richardson, Inc. (May, 1972).
21. Flintoff, F. , "Recycling Reuse, and Recovery of Plastics",
The British Plastics Federation, 47 Piccadially, London WIV
ODN (1973).
70
-------
22. American Public Works Assoc. (APWA), "Solid Wastes - The
Job Ahead", Special Report APWA Reporter, p. 5-11, 25
(August, 1966).
23. Warner, A. J. et al. , "Plastics Solid Waste Disposal by Incin-
eration or Landfill", a report to the Manufacturing Chemistry
Association, Washington, D. C., by DeBell and Richardson,
Inc. (December, 1971).
24. Black, R. J. , "Role of Sanitary Landfilling in Solid Waste
Management", Waste Age (September/October, 1972).
25. Hitte, S. , Office of Solid Waste Management Practice, personal
communication, February, 1973.
26. Second Report to Congress, "Resource Recovery and Source
Reduction", U. S. EPA (SW-122) Publication (1974).
27. Darnay, Arsen, and Franklin, W. E. , "Salvage Markets for
Materials in Solid Wastes", U. S. EPA Study (SW-29C) under
Contract No. CPE G9-3 (1972).
28. Stearn, J. R. , "Municipal Incinerators, "A Review of the
Literature", Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air
Programs Publications No. AP-79 (June, 1971).
29. Fenton, R. , "Present Status of Municipal Refuse Incinerators
with Particular Reference to Problems Related to Non-
residential Refuse Input", ASME Solid Waste Processing
Division, New York, January 29, 1975.
30. Titus, Joan B. , "Plastics Technical Evaluation Center",
Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey 07801 (Feburary, 1973).
31. Zanoni, A. E. , "Potential for Ground Water Pollution from the
Land Disposal of Solid Waste", 225-260 in CRC Critical Reviews
in Environmental Control, 3_ (3), CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio
(1973).
32. Thorton, R. J. , and Blane, F. C. , "Leachate Treatment by
Coagulation and Precipitation", Journal of Environmental
Engineeringing (August, 1973), p. 535-544.
71
-------
33. Stone, R. et al. , "Land Conservation by Aerobic Landfill
Stabilization", Public Works, 9^(12), p. 9 5-97 (December,
1968).
34. Brunner, D. R. , and Keller, D. J. , "Sanitary Landfill Design
and Operation", Report SW-65 ts, U. S. EPA (1972).
35. Stone, R. , "Sanitary Landfill Disposal of Chemical and
Petroleum Waste", 68th National Meeting, American Institute
of Chemical Engineers, Houston, Texas (February 28 -
March 4, 1971).
36. Midwest Research Institute Report, "The Role of Packaging in
Solid Waste Management (1966-1976)".
37. Guillet, James E. , "Plastics, Energy, and Ecology are
Harmonious", Plastics Engineering (August, 1974).
38. "Fact Sheet - Litter", National Center for Resource Recovery,
Inc., 1211 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C.
20036 (March, 1973).
39. Hanks, T. G. , "Solid Waste/Disease Relationship", a Litera-
ture Survey, prepared for the U. S. PHS, Publication No. SW-
Ic (1967).
40. "Cost of Clean Air", EPA Report No. 230/3-74-003, April,
1974.
41. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", 2nd Edition,
U. S. EPA Publication No. AP-42, April, 1973.
42. Shannon, L. J. , Schrag, M. P., Honea, F. I., and Bendersky,
D. , "St. Louis/Union Electric Refuse Firing Demonstration Air
Pollution Test Report", U. S. EPA Report 650/2-74-073,
August, 1974.
43. "Incinerator Gas Sampling at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania",
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories, Contract No. 68-02-0230,
EPA Office of Air Programs, September 4, 1973.
72
-------
44. Boettner, E. A. , Ball, G. L. , and Weiss, B. , "Combustion
Products from the Incineration of Plastics", Report No. EPA-
670/2-73-049, July, 1973.
45. Miller, P. D. et al. , "Corrosion Studies in Municipal Incin-
erators", SHWRL-NERC Report SW-72-3-3, 1972.
46. Huffman, G. L. , "The Environmental Aspects of Plastics
Waste Treatment", Symposium on the Disposal and Utilization
of Plastics, New Paltz, New York, June 25, 1973.
47. "Threshold Limit Values", American Conference of Govern-
mental and Industrial Hygienists", 1973.
73
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-670/2-75-058
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE DISPOSAL
METHODS FOR PLASTICS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
5. REPORT DATE
June 1975
(Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
D. A. Vaughan, C. Ifeadi, R. A. Markle,
and H. H. Krause
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Battelle
Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DB314 (ROAP 21EFS, Task 017)
R803111-01-1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Production of plastics for engineering and consumer items in the United
States has been predicted to reach 113 million tons per year by the year
2000. This figure does not include the production of polymer used for
synthetic fiber or fabric. From 31 to 38 million tons of the plastic
produced is expected to reach the solid waste stream, depending on the
basis of estimation. The largest amount will go to sanitary landfills,
and the next largest amount will be thermally treated using such methods
as power generation, incineration, and pyrolysis. Small amounts of
plastic are expected to be disposed of in open dumps or as litter.
Resource recovery for plastics in municipal refuse up to the year 2000
is expected to be insignificant. Air pollution as a result of plastics
in the landfills and open dumps will be negligible, even if there is
still some burning of open dumps in 2000.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
*Plastics
*Impact
Waste disposal
*Plastic waste
Solid waste
Future trends
*Environmental
effects
Sanitary landfills
111
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
86
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
74
•fr U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-657-59V5402 Reg I on No. 5-1
-------