Facing America's Trash: What Next for

Municipal Solid Waste?

October 1989

NTIS order #PB90-157769
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Facing America’s Trash: What Next for

Municipal Solid Waste, OTA-O-424 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

October 1989).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-600716

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)

ii
Foreword

Increasing amounts of municipal solid waste, declining landfill capacity, public

opposition to all types of management facilities, concerns about the risks associated

with waste management, and rising costs are common problems facing communities

across the Nation. As a result, there is increasing awareness about the need to prevent

municipal waste from being generated in the first place and to better manage what is

generated. Many communities, States, businesses, and public interest groups are

undertaking a variety of activities to address these needs. The challenge to improve

the situation ranges from actions by individuals to supportive policies at the Federal

level.

This study on MSW was requested by the House Committee on Energy and

Commerce, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works in anticipation of the reauthorization

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As part of the assessment, OTA

issued a background paper on Issues in Medical Waste Management (October 1988).

Our report discusses options for a national policy based on the dual strategies of

MSW prevention and better management. It also presents options to address

immediate problems such as increased interstate shipments of MSW and unfinished

Federal guidelines for landfills and incinerators.

OTA is grateful for the considerable assistance provided by our advisory panel,

workshop participants, contractors, reviewers, and other

course of the assessment. These individuals helped OTA

enormous amount of available information. OTA, however

ble for the contents of this report.

contributors during the

obtain and examine the

remains solely responsi -
John Bazin

Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc.

Gordon Boyd

Schillinger, Salemi, and Boyd

Paul Connett

Saint Lawrence University

Randall Curlee

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Panel

Joseph Sax, Chair

University of California

Dana Duxbury

Dana Duxbury & Associates

Rodney Edwards

American Paper Institute

Jeffrey Hahn

Ogden Projects, Inc.

Michael Herz

Benjamin Cardozo School of Law

Walter Johnson

St. Paul Metropolitan Waste Control Commission

Richard Kattar

New England CR Inc.

Raymond Naar

General Electric Plastics

Lorie Parker

Seattle Solid Waste Utility

Glenrose Pitt

Citizens’ Environmental Advisory Committee

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Neil Seldman

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Barry Scher

Giant Food, Inc.

Peter Vardy

Waste Management Inc.

Irvin White

New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority

NOTE: OTA appreciates the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The views

expressed in this OTA report, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment. Participation on

the advisory panel does not imply endorsement of the report.

iv
OTA Project Staff-Municipal Solid Waste

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, information, and Natural Resources Division

Robert W. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

Howard Levenson, Project Director

Kathryn D. Wagner, Assistant Project Director

Judy Kowalski, Analyst

Joan Ham, Analyst

Administrative Staff

Kathleen A. Beil

Sally W. Van Aller
Workshop on State and Local MSW Programs, March 17-18, 1988

William Apgar

Pennsylvania Bureau of Waste

Management

Jerome Baiter

Public Interest Law Center

David Buckner

Illinois Department of Energy and

Natural Resources

Fred Clinton

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources

David Colbert

House Committee on Energy and

Commerce

Hershel Cutler

Institute of Scrap Recycling

Industries

Michael Downs

Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality

Shelley Dresser-Gagnon

Council of State Governments

Dana Duxbury

Dana Duxbury & Associates

George Eowan

California Waste Management Board

Randall Franke

Marion County Board of

Commissioners

Joseph Gilson

Camden County Office of Solid

Waste Management

Janet Keller

Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management

Linda King

Citizen’s Clearinghouse for

Hazardous Wastes

Carolyn Konheim

Konheim & Ketcham, Inc.

Ruth Lampi

Environmental Task Force

Gerry Lederer

U.S. Conference of Mayors

Lynne Markus

Missouri Department of Natural

Resources

Cassandra Maurer

Land-of-Sky Regional Council

Hector Mendieta

Texas Division of Solid Waste

Management

Theodore O’Neill

Cape May County Municipal

Utilities Authority

John Reindl

Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources

Ken Rosenbaum

Office of Congressman Ron Wyden

Neil Seldman

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Jere Sellers

Franklin Associates, Ltd.

Mary Sheil

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection

Don Silva

Science & Engineering

Associates, Inc.

Gary Sondermeyer

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection

Nancy VandenBerg

Markets for Recycled Products

Mary Wiard

Ohio Department of Natural

Resources

Elliott Zimmerman

Illinois Department of Energy and

Natural Resources

Workshop on Markets for Recycled Materials, June 8, 1988

Victor Bell David Jeans Paul Relis

North East Recycling American Iron and Steel Institute Gildea Resource Center

Association John P. Josephs Andy Stephens

Leroy Cooper Garden State Paper Co. Eaglebrook

California Office of Procurement Steve Levetan Doug Stewart

Tom Couling Institute of Scrap Recycling Montana Recycling

Great Lakes Recycling Coalition Industries Al Troglio

John Gleason Stanton Moss General Services Administration

New York State Office of Stanton A. Moss, Inc.

Procurement Frank Reid

Jim Grove Anchor Glass Container

Miami Paper Co.

vi
Workshop on Incineration/Waste-to-Energy Issues, June 28, 1988

Donald Barnes

U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board

Marjorie Clarke

INFORM

Thomas Constable

Environment Canada

Richard Cook

Kalamazoo College

Richard Denisen

Environmental Defense Fund

Keith Forester

Wheelabrator Environmental Systems

Michael Gough

Resources for the Future

Warren Gregory

Smith-Barney

Jeffrey Hahn

Ogden Projects, Inc.

Walter Shaub

CORRE

Jim Sears

Marion County Department of Solid Waste

Allan Smith

University of California

Workshop on MSW Reduction, July 14-15, 1988

Judd Alexander Ed FOX Ruth Lampi

James River Corp. Proctor & Gamble Co. Environmental Action Foundation

Mary Amini Marc Goldberg Wayne Martin

General Foods Technical Center Safer, Inc. DuPont

John Burke Erica Guttman Merilyn Reeves

James River Corp. Rhode Island Solid Waste League of Women Voters of the

Management Corp. United States Ron Catlett

Dow Consumer Products, Inc. Roy C. Herndon Shelby Yastrow

Florida State University McDonald’s Corp Dana Duxbury

Dana Duxbury & Associates Ken Hunnibell

Rolf Faste Rhode Island School of Design

Stanford University Bruce L. Kline

Pentapco Inc. Harry Fatkin

Polaroid Corp.

vii
Contents

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

2: The MSW

3: Generation

System in Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Composition of MAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4: MSW Prevention . . . . . . . . .

S: Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6: Incineration.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

7: Landfilling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Index . . .

8: Government

A:

B:

. . . .

Acronyms and

C: Contributors..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

49

73

97

135

217

271

299

363

366

367

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Chapter 1

Findings and Policy Options
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Policy Options .. .. .. .. .. .. . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Enhancing the Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Specific MSW Program Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Waste Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... . .+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Chapter 1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Boxes

Box Page

l-A. MSW Definition and Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

l-B. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1-C. EPA’s Agenda for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

l-E. The MSW “System’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

l-E. General Market Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

l-F. Markets for Recycled Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figures

Figure Page

l-1. Estimated Portions of Materials and Products in MSW, 1986, by Weight. . . . . . . . . . 5

l-2. Estimated Use of MSW Management Methods, 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

l-3. Estimated Decline in Existing Permitted Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

l-4. Waste Prevention and Materials Management in the Context of Materials Use. . . . . 8

l-5. The ’’Environmental Angel’’ Logo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

l-6. MSW Recycling Rates: Franklin v. Industry Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

l-7. States With Deposit or Redemption Systems,....0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table

Table Page

l-1. Potential Policy Options and Activities forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chapter 1

Findings and Policy Options

OVERVIEW

“Waste not, want not”—a notion that helped

carve a Nation out of a wilderness, but increasingly

an ignored concept. It is time to revisit this notion,

reassess our attitudes about MSW, and plan a wise

policy to guide the Nation into the next century.

Today we find ourselves facing growing mounds

of trash and the label “throw-away society. ’ In the

United States, we generate over 160 million tons of

municipal solid waste (M SW) each year-more than

one-half ton per person—and the amount is rising

steadily (box l-A; figure 1-1 shows the estimated

portions of materials and products in MSW, by

weight). In 1986, only about 10 percent of all MSW

was recycled and 10 to 15 percent was incinerated

(mostly with energy recovery), while almost 80

percent—about 130 million tons—win disposed of

in landfills (figure 1-2).

Landfilling has been the most available disposal

method, but many areas of the country are experiencing shortfalls of permitted landfill capacity and

rising landfill costs. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) estimates that 80 percent of existing

permitted landfills will close within 20 years (figure

1-3).1 Landfill capacity is declining primarily because of three interrelated trends: 1 ) older landfills

are reaching the end of their expected lives; 2)

environmental requirements are being strengthened

by some States and local governments (which has

resulted in the closure of substandard landfills, but

which also ensures that future landfills will be more

environmentally sound); and 3) siting new landfills

is difficult, in part due to public opposition.2 This

opposition results primarily from previous experiences with poorly performing facilities, concerns

over potential health and environmental risks, ‘‘Not

In My Backyard” (NIMBY) attitudes, and the

failure of public officials to involve the public

adequately at the beginning of the decisionmaking

process.

The private sector and local non-profit organizations have practiced recycling for decades, both for

profit and to conserve natural resources. Many

activities to increase the collection, processing. and

marketing of recyclable materials are being undertaken by citizen groups, communities, States, and

businesses, and it is likely that recycling of MSW

will increase in the next few years. Incineration also

has been used for many derides, but only recently

has it been coupled with energy recovery. Its use has

increased during the last decade, and additional

capacity is being constructed or planned. Predicting

the extent to which recycling or incineration will

increase is impossible, however, because of factors

such as the volatility of markets for recyclable

materials and public opposition to incineration.3

Even if we attempt to recycle or incinerate all MSW,

landfills will still be needed for managing the

residuals from these methods.

In areas where landfill capacity is declining or

exhausted, and where other management capacity

such as recycling and incineration cannot be increased sufficiently in the short term, one of the

options being pursued is to transport MSW to other

jurisdictions within a State or to other States.

Localities receiving these transported wastes express concern about additional risks to human health

and the environment and the strain on their own

MSW management capacity. Yet their legal leverage to restrict such shipments is limited.

l~ls ~~~lmate was ~~de &forc ~pA proposed its new ]~dfi]] guidelines, which could fuficr increase the number of c]osures. AS the prOpOWd

guidelines are now written, If existing landfills close within 21/2 years of [heir adoption, the landfill owner will be exempt from costly requirements for

closing and cleaning up the facility. Substandard landfills are Iikel) to close 10 avoid these costs.

2S1[1ng is not only a problem for l~dfills, bul alw for o~er MSW m~agement faci]itics, such ~~ incinerators ~d recyc]ing facilities.

3The intensity of pub]ic Oppsltlon is rcflectcd in the suggestion by some spokespersons thal incineration should be banned to force ~~atic ch~ges

in the way our society consumes materials and products.

-3-
4 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 1-A—MSW Definition and Data Needsl

MSW is solid waste generated at residences, commercial establishments (e.g., offices, retail shops, restaurants),

and institutions (e.g., hospitals and schools). This waste may be categorized as materials (e.g., glass, paper) or

products (e.g., appliances, containers, tires). For purposes of this report, MSW does not include construction or

demolition debris or automobile scrap. Medical wastes were addressed by OTA in another report (54).

Solid waste is defined more broadly in RCRA (Sec. 1004 (27)) as “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste

treatment plant water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and

agricultural operations, and from community activities. . .“

Estimates of MSW Generation

EPA has estimated that total MSW generation in the United States is over 160 million tons in 1986, and

that it is rising at a rate of slightly over 1 percent each year. These estimates are based on a materials flow model

(referred to here as the EPA/Franklin model). Figure 1-1 shows the model’s estimates of the composition of MSW

by weight, in terms of different materials and products.

Most of the increase in the generation rate is attributable to population growth. However, each person also

appears to be generating more waste on average. The EPA/Franklin model estimates that each person in the United

States generated 3.6 pounds of garbage per day in 1986; this is expected to grow to 3.9 pounds by 2000.

Determining actual MSW generation rates is difficult. Some evidence indicates that the average generation rate

per person may be higher than the model’s estimates. Different studies report widely different rates, and use different

definitions. For example, it often is not clear whether industrial waste and demolition debris are included in

calculations. 2 This lack of consistent definitions and procedures for measuring, calculating, or reporting MSW data

makes it difficult to aggregate existing local and State data or to compare them with the EPA/Franklin estimates.

Problems caused by inconsistent definitions and data collection techniques also make it difficult to compare

generation rates among countries. It is often stated that U. S. citizens produce more MSW per person than citizens

of other industrialized countries. This may be true—after all, the United States has high rate of purchasing

products-but the magnitude of such differences cannot be reliably estimated with current data.

National estimates of total MSW generation in the United States also are not particularly useful for local

decisionmaking. From a local perspective, information about the generation and composition of MSW in

communities is much more critical for making decisions about capacity needs and management options. For

example, overall generation in a given area affects what size of landfill or incinerator is needed; the types of products

and materials in the MSW influence planning for recovery of materials for recycling; and variations in composition

can affect incinerator design.

Data and Research Gaps

Underlying Factors—Many potentially important underlying factors that affect MSW generation have not

been investigated extensively. Few studies have looked at how degree of urbanization, socioeconomic status, or

family size affect generation and composition. Little has been done to document trends in the production of

single-use, disposable items, or to document the relative contributions from the residential, commercial, and

institutional sectors. Without more detailed analyses of such factors, it will be difficult to focus educational efforts

to change consumption patterns and reduce MSW generation rates.

Weight and Volume-Better data on the weight of MSW components are needed to make decisions about

recycling and incineration. For example, prices for secondary materials are usually quoted on a weight basis, so

officials who have data on individual components can estimate potential revenues. On a national basis, the largest

categories of MSW by weight are estimated to be paper products, yard waste, and food waste.

Data on volume are useful for evaluating landfill capacity, collection vehicle capacity, and the feasibility of

quantity reduction. Unfortunately, most studies have not gathered data on the volumes of different materials

in MSW prior to disposal. Excavation studies at several landfills have provided some data on MSW volume after

it has been landfilled for several years; these excavations show that paper and plastics are the largest components

by volume.
Chapter I-Findings and Policy Options . 5

Calculating Recycling Rates--Calculating recycling rates for the Nation is also problematic. EPA’s estimate

that about 10 percent of MSW is recycled excludes materials and products such as demolition debris and

automobiles. Some observers contend that these should be included, which would raise the overall recycling rate

considerably, For example, approximately 12 million tons of steel were recycled from automobiles in 1983; this

would almost double the EPA/Franklin estimate of tonnage recycled.

1~5 box i5 ~am prirnanly frcrn ch. ~.

2FW ~xmple, indus&i~ waste might make Up 10 percent or more of all waste received at MSW landlills. As new regulations (under RCRA) regarding the

Figure 1-1—Eatimated Portions of Materials and Products in MSW, 1986, by Weight

MATERIALS

Durables=major appliances, furniture, rubber tires, miscellaneous.

Nondurables=newspapers, books, magazines, tissue paper, office and commercial paper, clothing, footware, miscellaneous.

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988), final report, prepared for

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Prairie Village, KS: March 1988).

The costs of MSW management are rising problems and second, by addressing the longer

steeply, driven in part by these factors (ch. 2). term issue of how society uses and disposes of

Per-person MSW costs are still relatively low, but materials and products.

the rate of increase already is causing financial

problems for some communities. Further, as proper The Federal Government could help address the

management of MSW becomes more expensive, the most pressing problems by:

likelihood of illegal disposal will increase.

●

The regional and national implications of these

problems are becoming evident, yet the Nation lacks

a clearly articulated Federal policy for MSW.

Consequently, State and local authorities receive

●

little guidance to help them address their MSW

problems. Although primary responsibility for ●

MSW management rests with State and local

governments, the Federal Government can help

in two areas: first, by addressing some immediate

resolving the uncertainty created by unfinished

Federal guidelines on landfills and incinerators;

addressing issues associated with increased

interstate shipments of MSW; and

providing better information to local and State

governments, businesses, and citizens about

technical capabilities, comparative costs, and

risks of different MSW management methods.
6 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Figure 1-2-Estimated Use of MSW Management

Methods, 1986

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Soli

Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988), final

report, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Prairie Village, KS: March 1988).

One immediate action that EPA could take to

accomplish these goals, possibly with additional

congressional guidance, would be to complete

regulations for all types of MSW management

facilities. This would involve finishing the revision

of the landfill regulations, adopting regulations for

MSW incinerator, and developing regulations for

emissions and residues from comporting and recycling facilities (some of which currently are unregulated at the Federal level). These actions would

reduce uncertainties regarding requirements for new

facilities and could help better protect human health

and the environment. If increased Federal regulation

of MSW management is to occur, it should be

accompanied by strengthened Federal enforcement

provisions. States would also need to increase

enforcement action against improper management.

Congress could also address the issue of ensuring

sufficient management capacity for MSW. For

example, Congress could require each State to

guarantee management capacity for a specified

percentage of MSW generated within its borders-a

“capacity assurance” provision. Even with such

congressional action, States and localities still may

have problems siting the facilities needed to meet

their capacity requirements. To address this problem, EPA could develop model siting and dispute

resolution procedures. These procedures could sugFigure 1-3 Estimated Decline in Existing

Permitted Landfills

Percentage of existing 1986 landfills 100

7 \

gest how a State authority, through binding arbitration or other methods, could resolve siting disputes

that cannot otherwise be settled at the local level.

In addition to addressing these immediate problems, the broader issue of how our society uses

materials-horn manufacturing through subsequent

distribution and disposal (figure 1-4)-should be

considered. A clear national policy on MSW that

addresses the use of materials is essential for

providing a broader context in which specific

MSW programs can be developed and implemented. This has important implications not only

for MSW, but also for other environmental issues

such as global warming, natural resource conservation, and pollution abatement. These issues are all

interconnected. Leaders of countries around the

world now recognize that changes in the way we use

resources and materials are needed if we are to

achieve sustainable economic development without

harming the environment (61). MSW offers

everyone an opportunity to work toward these goals.

A national MSW policy that reflects these ideas

should be based on the dual strategies of waste

prevention and better materials management. It is

important to make a clear distinction between

prevention and management activities to ensure that
Chapter I--Findings and Policy Options ● 7

4This differs from the concept ol“‘integrated waste management’ espoused by EPA and others, because that concept includes prevention within

a hierarchy of management options.

S%oduci modification a]so has implications for the management of produc~s discarded M MSW (e.g., the recyclability of a product). II should ~SO

be noted that OTA includes backyard comporting of yard and food wastes as a form of quantity reduction because no public or private sector

management is involved.
8 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?
Chapter I-Findings and Policy Options . 9

because the Federal Government has the potential to

affect products and materials that move across State

boundaries. In addition, one important consequence

of a national MSW prevention policy would be that

the government would become responsible for

leadership in putting the policy into practice. To

date, MSW prevention has received little congressional attention and EPA has not had the resources

or political motivation to promote it.6

Even assuming notable progress in waste prevention, communities will continue to generate large

amounts of MSW requiring management. In addition, unless prevention efforts successfully reduce

the toxicity of all products, toxic constituents will

remain in MSW, either because some products are

toxic per se (e.g., pesticides) or contain substances

that can be harmless in the product but pose toxicity

problems during waste management (e.g., cadmium

in some plastics). For these reasons, a comprehensive MSW strategy must consider not only prevention, but also better “materials management. ’

OTA suggests that “materials management” has

two aspects. First, the manufacturing of products

should be coordinated with the needs of different

management methods (e.g., by designing products

for recyclability) (figure 1-4). Second, MSW management should be approached on a material-bymaterial basis, in which discarded materials (including discarded products, yard waste, etc.) are diverted

to the most appropriate management method based

on their physical and chemical characteristics.7

To establish a framework for deciding how to

manage MSW when it is generated, OTA considers

materials and energy conservation (already stated as

objectives in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA) to be national goals, and assumes

that each management method is designed to ensure

the safety of human health and the environment. The

framework developed by OTA suggests that local

decisionmakers consider recycling (and comporting)

first, followed by incineration and landfilling, recognizing that all of these management methods may be

viable and complementary in a given situations

Recycling is given the top priority based on: 1) its

materials conservation benefits compared with incineration and landfilling; and 2) its energy savings,

at least for some materials such as aluminum,

compared with manufacturing using virgin materials. Further, assuming that adequate regulations

exist for both primary and secondary manufacturing

facilities, recycling may produce fewer pollutants

when the entire MSW system is considered.9 Incineration of combustible wastes is given preference

over landfilling because it destroys pathogens and

organic materials, decreases the volume of waste

destined for landfills, and often can recover energy

economically.

At the local level, communities should use this

framework to decide how to manage particular

materials in light of local conditions. This entails

considering factors such as: human health and

environmental risks, management costs (including

capital, operating, and collection/transportation costs),

availability of technologies, market conditions for

secondary materials, and public acceptance of various alternatives. Although many communities have

explicitly or implicitly adopted a MSW “hierarchy,’ they generally have not considered all of these

factors (ch. 8). A national policy of materials

management would encourage more complete consideration of them. A materials management strategy should also be flexible, so that MSW management methods can be chosen on the basis of regional

and local variations and limitations, and changes in

these conditions over time.

Where are signs of change at EPA, however—for cxarnple, a proposed policy statement on pollution prevention (54 Federaf Regisrer 3845, Jan. 26,

1989). Wrious pollution control associations also have endorsed this concept (e.g., 59). How applicable these policy statements will be 10 MSW, as

opposed to hazardous waste, remains to be seen. However, a recent EPA report devoted to MSW stressed the idea of MSw prevention (57).

T~ mate~~s mmagement appro~h builds on materi~s use concepts that have been discussed for many Years (e.g., refs. 2.24,35,46). In fact, many

communities practiced a form of materials management prior to the 1960s, when they routinely separated discarded materials for management. Only

in recent decades have most communities collected mixed MSW, a trend that was encouraged. for example. by tie dvent ofcoktion mxks that compact

MS W.

8Ahhough the term ‘‘hierarchy is ofien applied to MSW, OTA does not use the term because it suggests a rigid, Iinetu approach to dccisiorunaking.

q~mw ~~uf~t~ng ~efer~ t. production wl~ Vlrgln materi~s; s~ondary rnmufacturlng wcs tnalerids rwovered from WWJC. [f recycled

products replace products made from virgin materials, potential pollution savings may result from the avoidance of manufacturing and subsequent

disposal of replacement products made from virgin materials (ch. 5).

l~nern alSO CarI be rmovered from landfills, in the form of methane gm.
10 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Implementing a materials management approach

at the local level will require MSW to be thought

about in terms of its components instead of as an

indistinguishable mixture. This means that residences and commercial establishments will have to

keep some waste materials separate to make subsequent management safer and more economical. ”

For example, keeping yard waste separate for

backyard or municipal comporting can reduce, to

some extent, leachate from landfills and nitrogen

oxide emissions from incinerators (chs. 5,6, and 7).

Separating recyclable materials before they are

mixed with other waste results in cleaner, more

uniform commodities, thus making them easier to

market.

Implementing a national policy that emphasizes

MSW prevention and materials management inherently requires strong Federal leadership. Congress

can provide the basis for such leadership during the

reauthorization of RCRA, the primary Federal

authority regarding MSW (box l-B).

Chapters 2 through 8 present discussions of the

MSW system and factors affecting management

costs, amounts and composition of MSW, prevention, recycling, incineration, landfilling, and government programs. The remainder of this chapter

presents specific policy options for Congress to

consider. Each policy option is discussed in the

context of the technical material presented throughout the report.

POLICY OPTIONS

Introduction

Decisions about how to manage MSW today and

tomorrow are becoming increasingly difficult, particularly for the local governments that have primary

responsibility for MSW management. The Federal

Government respects State and local primacy in

MSW issues and to date has assumed a limited role

in MSW management. EPA has primarily focused

on developing guidelines for Subtitle D landfills and

for procurement of products containing recycled

materials. During the late 1970s, EPA also encouraged the development and implementation of Solid

Waste Management Plans by States (box l-B). In

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Separating MSW into different components, such as the

green glass in this bin, is only the first step in a long

recycling chain. The separated “secondary” materials then

must be processed into forms that can be reused as raw

materials for new products. Markets for secondary

materials are highly dynamic and represent the key to

recycling’s future.

general, Federal attention to MSW lapsed during the

1980s, primarily because the Nation focused instead

on hazardous waste. Some States and communities,

even without Federal involvement, have developed

noteworthy programs promoting recycling and requiring that new incinerators and landfills use the

best technologies available (ch. 8).

EPA’s recent Agenda for Action (57), which

outlines goals for the Nation and future MSW

activities at EPA, signifies increased attention to

MSW at the Federal level (box l-C). The success of

EPA’s efforts, as well as other activities within the

public and private sectors, will in part depend on

how Congress addresses MSW issues in the upcoming reauthorization of RCRA,

At least two important MSW concerns are driving

the Federal Government to reexamine its role with

respect to MSW issues. The first is the decline in

existing landfill capacity, along with the inability of

many local governments to site new MSW facilities

of any type. Indeed, grass-roots opposition to new

landfills and incinerators has driven, at least in part,

the development of recycling programs and adoption

I Isepmauon cm ~cw, for exap]c, al drop-off centers, tirough curbside collection, or in centralized facilities. The merits ~d COStS Of SOmC of these

separation modes are discussed in chs. 2 and 5. The choice is not always clear, even on a technical basis.
Chapter l--Findings and Policy Options . 11

Box l-B—The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA is the major Federal statutory authority addressing solid waste, including MSW. 1 Key solid waste

management provisions of RCRA are described here, but it should be noted that many of these programs were not

implemented or have not been functional since the early 1980s (ch. 8).

A major focus of Subtitle D (Subch. IV) of RCRA is to encourage the development of State solid waste

management plans and to foster intergovernmental (Federal, State, and local) and public/private cooperation (Sec.

4001 ). Federal technical and financial assistance are offered to States and localities as incentives for them to develop

plans (Sees. 4002-4003, Sees. 4006-4008).

Another major focus of Subtitle D is the improvement of landfills.2 EPA is authorized to promulgate regulations

containing criteria to classify types of sanitary landfills (Sec. 4004), to facilitate the closing or upgrading of existing

open dumps (Sec. 4005), and to provide assistance for these activities to rural communities (Sec. 4009). HSWA

directed EPA to survey solid waste management facilities across the Nation and evaluate whether current guidelines

and standards are adequate to protect human health and the environment, as well as to revise the landfill guidelines.

RCRA also contains u substantial research, development, demonstration and information subtitle (Subch.

VIII). In addition to establishing broad research authorities for EPA, alone or after consultation with the Secretary

of Energy (Sec. 8001), this subtitle identifies special studies to be supported (e.g., on glass, plastics, tires, waste

composition, small-scale technology, and source separation) (Sec. 8002). Section 8003 identifies a comprehensive

list of topics for which EPA is to “develop, collect, evaluate and coordinate information. ” This includes

information on methods to reduce the amount of solid waste generated, the availability of markets for energy and

materials recovered, methods and costs of collection and management practices, and research and development

projects for solid waste management.

A central reference library was to be established and maintained to house this information and other relevant

data on the performance and cost-effectiveness of various waste management and resource conservation

technologies and systems (Sec. 8003(b)). Full-scale demonstration facilities and grants for resource recovery

systems and “improved solid waste disposal facilities” programs also were to be established (Sees. 8004-8006).

Procurement guidelines are to be prepared by EPA, after consultation with the Administrator of General

Services, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Public Printer (RCRA, Subch. IV). The guidelines should designate

items produced with recovered materials that must be procured by Federal agencies; recommend practices for the

procurement and certification of such items; and provide information on the availability, relative price, and

performance of such items (Sec. 6002(e)). EPA was required to prepare guidelines for paper and three other product

categories, including tires, by 1985. In addition, each procuring Federal agency is required to establish a

procurement program (Sec. 6002(i)).

In addition to EPA, the other Federal agency given major responsibilities under RCRA is the Department of

Commerce (Subch. V). Four special areas of responsibilities are delineated: 1) to develop accurate specifications

for recovered materials; 2) to stimulate and develop markets for recovered materials; 3) to evaluate and promote

proven energy and materials recovery technologies; and 4) to establish a forum for the exchange of technical and

economic data relating to resource recovery facilities (Sees. 5001-5005).

Ipubl}c Law 94.580 (1976), Congress first established a Federal role in solid waste issues in the Solid Waslr Disposal *[ of 1%5 (I%bllc Law W-272;

as amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, Publlc Law 91-512). RCRA Was revised most recently by Ihe Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

(Public Law 98-616) and IS m the process of further revmon and reauthorization (ch. 8 Appendix).

of more stringent State regulations for landfills and consider the MSW management implications of

incinerators. Second, several issues have arisen with their products (e.g., in terms of volume, toxicity, or

consequences that extend far beyond any one recyclability) as they are designed.

community, and these seem most feasible for the

Federal Government to address. One such issue, for The policy options discussed in this chapter focus

example, is the need to encourage manufacturers to on possible congressional actions. Options that can
12 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box l-C—EPA Agenda for Action

EPA’s report, The Solid Wrote Dilemma: An Agenda for Action, concluded that ‘to the extent practical, source

reduction and then recycling are the preferred options for closing the gap [between waste generation and

management capacity] and reducing the amount and toxicity of waste that must be landfilled or combusted” (57).

In the report, EPA set a national goal of achieving 25 percent source reduction and recycling by 1992, and estimated

that incineration would handle about 20 percent and landfilling about 55 percent of MSW at that time. EPA also

developed specific objectives and outlined its future activities, as briefly described here:

● Increase information:

-develop educational and technical materials

—sponsor national conference on research and development

-establish a clearinghouse for information

--establish a peer matching program

. Encourage increased planning:

—help States develop strategies (workshops, selected State plan reviews)

. Encourage increased source reduction activities:

—promote toxicity reduction (e.g., studies, testing guidelines, options regarding lead and cadmium)

—promote quantity reduction (studies, corporate recognition, workshops)

—procurement of products with source reduction attributes

—study source reduction policies

. Participate in and encourage increased recycling:

—stimulate markets (e.g., studies on markets and incentives, guidelines for comporting, Federal Task Group

for implementing procurement)

-promote better separation and processing (model training and education programs, options for batteries and

appliances, interagency work group)

—facilitate formation of a national advisory council

-review hazardous waste liability issue

. Help reduce the risks of combustion:

—upgrade combustor performance standards and ash management

-decide whether to develop model operator certification program

—provide information on problem wastes

. Help reduce the risks of landfilling:

--operator certification (training, State certification guidance)

—issue final criteria on design and operation

-technical guidance on revised criteria

-provide information on problem wastes

be undertaken independently by or in coordination toward a balanced, long-term approach to MSW

with other entities (e.g., State and local govern- problems. Appropriate goals might be:

ments, Federal agencies, and the private sector) also

are noted. Specific actions regarding MSW are ●

likely to be more effective if they are delineated in

the context of a coherent, comprehensive approach

for the Nation, and this can only be done if a national ●

policy for MSW is established. Congress can

provide strong leadership by stating a clear

national policy for MSW, one that contains clearly

articulated goals and sets priorities for action. Such ●

a national policy could set the stage for moving

set MSW prevention as a national priority (i.e.,

reducing MSW toxicity and quantity);

set the development of sufficient MSW management capacity throughout the Nation as a

national priority;

promote the use of management methods that

provide materials and energy recovery benefits;

and
Chapter l--Findings and Policy Options ● 13

● regulate MSW management methods so that

each ensures adequate protection of human

health and the environment, and vigorously

enforce these regulations.

Policy options are discussed here in two major

sections. The first section discusses options related

to the Federal role in enhancing the institutional

framework for MSW (e.g., aiding planning and

coordination, ensuring capacity). The second section consists of four parts analyzing options for

programs and activities specific to prevention,

recycling, incineration, and landfilling. Many of the

options are related in that they all are oriented

toward implementing the goals stated above and an

institutional framework for MSW. Table 1-1 lists

these options.

Enhancing the Institutional Framework

The system that generates and manages MSW

includes a range of participants that manufacture,

distribute, consume, and dispose of materials and

products. The evolving nature of this system is

discussed in chapter 2, while box 1-D highlights

leverage points at which specific options might be

applied most effectively. The institutional framework includes the governmental entities that affect

the interactions between these participants. Five

categories of options to enhance the institutional

framework for prevention and better MSW management are discussed: improving integration (planning

and coordination), ensuring capacity, promoting

enforcement, improving information flow, and devising funding mechanisms for Federal activities.

Integration: Planning and Coordination

A coherent strategy will be required to avoid the

piecemeal approach of past MSW policies. Cooperative efforts already are increasing, especially between States and local governments and between

these levels of government and the private sector

(ch. 8). In many cases, however, there is a critical

lack of teamwork between affected groups, particularly with respect to waste prevention and recycling

(chs. 4,5, and 8). As the Federal Government further

defines its role in MSW issues, the limits of its

authority need to be delineated and the implications

of this authority for actions by State and local

governments need to be considered carefully.

Option 1: Require State MSW Management

Plans

Careful planning is crucial to the development of

effective MSW programs, especially given the time

and resources required for implementation. It is an

open question what the Federal role should be in

MSW planning. The Federal program for State Solid

Waste Plans (RCRA Sec. 4002) essentially has been

inoperative since 1980 (ch. 8). Some States have

continued to develop their own plans, but the content

and utility of these plans varies. Because all State

plans are not comprehensive in their approach to

MSW, Congress could require States to submit

plans to EPA and specify particular issues that

must be addressed.

State plans, for example, could be required to

provide: 1) programs to encourage prevention and

administer materials management; 2) coordination

mechanisms among State and local agencies and the

private sector; 3) specific information on the amounts

and composition of MSW generated; and 4) assessments of how adequate management capacity will be

made available for MSW generated in the State. In

addition, Congress could provide specified Federal

funds to States with approved plans and/or withhold

funds from those whose plans were not submitted or

could not be approved.

Although States currently are not required to

submit Solid Waste Plans, RCRA does list a number

of requirements which must be met if submitted

plans are to be approved (RCRA Sec. 4003). For

example, one requirement is that the plan evaluate

the size of waste-to-energy facilities (i.e., incinerators that generate electricity) in relation ‘‘to the

present and reasonably anticipated future needs of

the recycling and resource recovery interest within

the area encompassed by the planning process”

(RCRA Sec. 4003(d)). Some of the RCRA requirements need modification, however. Some specified

requirements may no longer be relevant and new

issues may warrant inclusion. For example, because

recycling cannot provide a consistent level of

management due to fluctuations in market prices, it

might be useful if plans were required to address

procedures for how MSW will be managed during

periods when market prices for secondary materials

drop below a certain level.
14 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

- 1
Chapter l-Findings and Policy Options . 15

Box l-D-The MSW “System”

The “system” that produces MSW is complex and dynamic, and different parts of it are linked together

in ways that are not always clear. Illustrating the elements of the system can help identify leverage points

at which strategies can be developed and options applied most effectively.

1. Materials/products lifecycle:

● products: design, production, distribution, purchase, use, discard

. non-product materials (yard and food waste): generation, discard

. management: collection, processing, treatment/disposal, etc.

2. Actors that touch materials and products:

● designers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, etc.

● waste managers (haulers, landfills, incinerators, recyclers)

. citizens (purchasing, generation, siting decisions)

3. Private infrastructure:

● collection system, reclamation/other processing (e.g., scrap industry)

. landfills, incinerators, recycling facilities

● vertical integration of waste management industry

. structure and dynamics of materials industries:

-dynamics of prices and disposal costs

—international aspects

● financial sector

4. Public institutional structure:

● local decisionmaking, collection programs

c government programs:

--dynamics of Federal and State roles and plans

—subsidies and incentives (PURPA, tax credits, etc.)

--effects on private sector

5. Social attitudes:

● value judgments, perspectives affect how potential options are viewed

● resource policies:

-extent to which Federal Government is involved

—how the Nation deals with materials and energy policies

● siting of facilities, degree of acceptable risks

Option 2: Interagency Coordination mendations are implemented or at least considered

seriously. Congress could require that the recomTo ensure that a more coherent and coordinated mendations be reviewed and plans for implementing

Federal effort is developed, Congress could require that EPA and other Federal agencies

establish an action-oriented interagency task

force to review and coordinate Federal activities

and policies that affect MSW generation and

management. A task force also could develop

methods to compare the effectiveness of different

programs. The primary difficulty facing such a task

force, however, would be ensuring that its recomthem be made by EPA and other agencies, unless

there are demonstrable reasons for not doing so.

Ensuring Capacity: Siting, Interstate

Transportation

Citizen opposition to the siting of new facilities

remains widespread in many areas, even when the

facilities would meet strict standards, but some new

incinerators, landfills, and recycling facilities are
16 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

being built. Siting a new facility can take 5 years or

more, and an additional 2 to 3 years to obtain a

permit and construct the facility. ’2 Various studies

indicate that if the public is involved early and

substantively in the process of selecting, evaluating,

and locating facilities, the chances of successful

siting are improved significantly (ch. 8).

Interim solutions will be needed to meet immediate capacity needs in areas that will exhaust their

current permitted capacity within a few years and

that have been unable to site new facilities. The most

common interim solutions are increased transportation of MSW to other jurisdictions and expansion of

existing landfills. Shipping the waste elsewhere

often is the only option. Many communities with

available capacity, however, are increasingly unwilling to accept MSW from other jurisdictions.

Some States have enacted bans or restrictions on

waste from out-of-State (or localities have enacted

such restrictions against other localities within a

given State). Some of these restrictions have been

invalidated when the courts have determined that the

bans unduly constrain interstate commerce.13

Option 1: Compacts or Barriers Regarding

Interstate Transportation

One alternative for addressing jurisdictional

problems is to provide a mechanism for cooperation in interstate MSW transportation. For example, interstate compacts have been used to deal with

issues such as low-level radioactive waste disposal,

navigation and flood control, water pollution control, community development, and crime prevention

(25). In fact, provisions exist in RCRA (Secs.

4002(a) and 4006(c)) that encourage interstate

regional planning to facilitate MSW management.

These provisions have not been implemented, but

could provide a basis for allowing States to enter into

agreements on MSW issues such as transportation of

wastes, disposal fees, or development of new

management facilities. Instead of erecting a barrier,

this would allow wastes to move unimpeded across

State lines, but in an orderly manner.

Alternatively, assuming compliance with the

Commerce Clause, which allows the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce, Congress

could allow States to impose fees or other legal

barriers on MSW imports. Or, Congress itself

could impose fees on MSW transported across State

borders or adopt other mechanisms to discourage

interstate shipments. These choices have important

implications. Not least, they would represent a major

change in the Federal approach to both interstate

transportation and MSW management. In addition,

although some States may want authority to restrict

MSW shipments to their jurisdictions, other States

(particularly some with adequate available capacity)

may oppose attempts to restrict interstate transportation of MSW. 14

Option 2: Require State Planning for Adequate

Management Capacity

As part of the State Solid Waste Plan provision

in RCRA, Congress also could require “capacity

assurance” for MSW—that is, require States to

have a planning process for the development of

adequate management capacity within specified

time periods.15 ‘Adequate’ could be defined as the

ability to manage a specified percentage of the MS W

generated within a State’s borders. One mechanism

to encourage the development of new capacity

would be to require that permits to expand existing

landfills only be in effect for a limited time and

include an enforceable timetable for providing new

capacity. Federal funding (e.g., Superfund money or

highway funds) to States could be contingent on

meeting this and other State planning requirements.

Option 3: Develop Model Siting Procedures

Another option is to establish better procedures

for siting facilities. Congress could direct EPA to

develop guidelines for State siting procedures.

Such procedures could, for example, require binding

121n the future, wi~ new siting proced~es, it may be possible 10 reduce the time required to site facilities. See ch. 8 for further discussion of siting

issues.

]3S= ~h. 8 ad ref. 26 for di~ussions of the rclev~[ ~o~ decisions.

141f such b~ers on interstate transportation arc allowed, care should be taken not to disrupt the transportation of secondary materiids to processing

facilities.

ISA ~apxity ~$surmce Provislm, for exmp]e, is included in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, ~d Liability ~t ad me

Low-hvel Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. Implementing such a provision for MSW would require a different approach, however (ch. 8).
Chapter l-Findings and Policy Options ● 17

arbitration by a State authority when siting conditions cannot otherwise be negotiated successfully.

Similarly, the Federal or State Government could

provide resource or mediation teams to help local

communities resolve siting disputes. To enforce

these requirements, Congress could withhold Federal funds from States that did not meet the capacity

requirement, or it could provide supplemental funds

to States that meet siting goals or adopt a siting

process.

Enforcement

RCRA does not include any specific enforcement

procedures for MSW. This is not surprising, given

the currently limited Federal role in this policy area.

The only existing mechanism in RCRA for Federal

action against improper disposal of MSW is Section

7003 (42 U.S.C. 6973), which grants EPA broad

authority to bring suits for action against any entity

(as defined by the Act) whose “past or present

handling, treatment, transportation or disposal of

any solid waste [including MSW] or hazardous

waste may present an imminent and substantial

endangerment to health or the environment. ”

Such suits might help States or localities bring

about necessary, but politically difficult, actions

(e.g., denying a permit to expand a landfill known to

be hazardous, but which offers the only readily

available capacity), or might correct State actions

inconsistent with the stated goals of RCRA. To date,

EPA has made limited use of this authority, consistent with its general deference to States on MSW

issues.16

Option 1: Define a Stronger Enforcement

Role for EPA

Congress could define a stronger enforcement

role for EPA by requiring that Federal permits be

issued for the handling, treatment and disposal

of MSW. If Congress were to choose this option, it

would also need to address how to coordinate

Federal enforcement efforts with those of State and

local governments. This option has several implications. First, it raises the question of how a Federal

permitting program would be structured. For example, EPA’s air and water programs are designed so

EPA delegates the actual permitting and enforcement authority to the States but reserves the right to

oversee the permitting process, take enforcement

actions, and take over programs that are not functioning properly. Substantial resources would be

needed for EPA to enter the MSW arena and develop

standards and guidelines, administer the programs,

and undertake vigorous enforcement actions.

Congress also could address the levels of civil

and/or criminal penalties that can be assessed for

violations of existing and future Federal requirements. Some States are increasing the civil and

criminal penalties for improper waste management

and are placing high priority on enforcement actions

because they fear that the increased costs of complying with new MSW regulations could lead to

increased illegal disposal. Vigorous enforcement

and imposition of stiff penalties are necessary to

provide a strong disincentive for improper management. The ability of citizens to sue the Federal

Government for lack of enforcement (RCRA Sec.

7002) also is a potentially important mechanism to

ensure Federal implementation of existing regulations.

Improving the Flow of Information

The success of any national effort to adopt a waste

prevention and materials management policy and

manage MSW effectively will depend heavily on the

quality and dissemination of key information. “Information” is broadly conceived to include not only

knowledge and data needed by decisionmakers

about the generation of MSW and management of

materials, but also adequate education and research

efforts. 17

Option 1: lnformation Clearinghouse

Legal authority to create an information clearinghouse already exists in RCRA (Sec. 8003), yet one

has never been established. Although EPA has plans

to establish one (57), Congress could specify a

timeframe for doing this and address the functions of

the clearinghouse. Alternative approaches also are

available, for example, establishing a quasi-

. 

16* ~x 1.B, ~ ~-] ~ RCRA $W 4(X)5(C).

17May of&,n~titutlon~ smcture~ n~ed 1. Col]at~di~mina~e information, ~on~r rese~ch, ~d e~o~age edueation are the~fof both

prevention and materials management (particularly recycling), which suggests that programs might be most efficient if they address both elements

together.

,
18 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

governmental organization based on a cooperative

agreement among government, business, and the

public. Such an organization could perform several

functions, perhaps more efficient y and flexibly than

a government clearinghouse. Regardless of the form

chosen for the clearinghouse, the centralization of

MSW information programs could help reduce the

duplication of effort now occurring as more and

more communities reconsider MSW collection and

attempt to control increasing management costs.

To aid MSW prevention efforts, the clearinghouse

could offer technical and economic data on labeling,

MSW generation, sources of toxic substances in

MSW, trends in products and packaging, and actions

that individuals can take to reduce MS W generation.

This information could help consumers and public

interest groups identify ways to change their purchasing decisions, and it could help industrial

producers, especially smaller companies with limited technical resources, make use of techniques

developed by others. For example, information

about certain kinds of product design changes and

chemical substitutions might be transferred across

products and industries, assuming the information is

not proprietary. Information on other environmental

implications of product purchases (e.g., effects of

solvents used in cleansers on ozone formation) also

could be made available through a clearinghouse.

With respect to recycling, a clearinghouse could

provide information and assistance on: 1) specifications regarding secondary materials quality and

methods for ensuring quality control; 2) secondary

materials prices and production; 3) technical developments that minimize costs and improve the quality

of secondary materials; and 4) collection programs

for secondary materials, It also could provide

guidance to consumers about recycling different

materials, as well as assistance to businesses (e.g.,

by providing information about recycling networks).

Much of this information could be provided by the

Department of Commerce under existing RCRA

authorities and existing programs.

The clearinghouse also could provide performance, design, and economic information for incineration and landfilling. In addition, a clearinghouse

could develop procedures to evaluate the costs and

effectiveness of different management programs.

For example, a computer model that helps communi -

ties assess the comparative costs of various management scenarios (e.g., see ch. 2) could be housed and

accessed through the clearinghouse.

One key function of a clearinghouse would be to

disseminate this information. Moreover, a clearinghouse could foster its collection and compilation,

and it could identify and address important information gaps. External activities, such as conferences

and workshops, could support these efforts. Special

institutes could be established to gather information

on specific materials for which information currently is not collected. “Peer matching” programs,

similar to those sponsored by EPA in the past, could

help communities identify other communities with

facilities or programs similar to those which it might

be considering.

Option 2: Education

The Federal Government also has opportunities to

improve education about MSW prevention and

materials management. This could involve not only

an information clearinghouse, but also educational

materials such as pamphlets, grade-school curricula,

and public service announcements. To sustain new

efforts in these areas, it is critical that the Nation’s

children-—the next generation of consumers—be

well-informed about the entire MSW system and the

environmental implications of how the Nation uses

natural resources.

The links between the extraction of virgin resources and the mounds of waste that are discarded

daily, as well as other related environmental problems, must be made more apparent to the next

generation than they are to most Americans today.

Both manufacturers and consumers need to know

how their decisions about products affect MSW

generation and management, and what opportunities

exist for making changes that lead to MSW prevention or increased recycling. States and localities with

established recycling programs usually cite the

importance of education-particularly at the grade

school level—in the success of their efforts (ch. 8).

Congress could encourage Federal MSW educational efforts through a number of specific options.

For instance, EPA and the Departments of Commerce and Education could sponsor conferences

with industry and local and State officials to develop

educational materials, and undertake educational
Chapter I-Findings and Policy Options ● 19

campaigns of their own. Congress also could provide funding for educational grants and programs.

The Federal Government also could promote

using household hazardous waste collection programs to educate citizens about alternatives to toxic

products. Public concern over the proper management of household hazardous wastes (e.g., discarded

solvents, paints, batteries, and cleansers) is evident,

and special collection and management programs for

them are increasing throughout the country (ch. 8).

Although such programs may be expensive and their

significance in terms of risk reduction is not known,

they are useful tools for educating the public and

manufacturers.

Public service advertising could also be used to

educate people about MSW issues. One nongovernmental example is a joint campaign by the

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and The Advertising Council to promote recycling (13). The

campaign uses TV, radio, newspaper, and magazine

advertisements.

Option 3: Increase Federal Research

Another option available to Congress is to increase Federal research funding on MSW issues for

agencies such as EPA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Forest Products Laboratory,

Bureau of Mines, and the Department of Energy.

EPA, for example, listed specific topics that merit

additional research in its Agenda for Action (57) and

is compiling a detailed list of research and development projects as part of a Municipal Innovative

Technology Evaluation Program (19).

Funding for Federal MSW research should address at least three areas: 1) developing evaluation

methodologies to assess the effectiveness of prevention and management programs; 2) exploring innovative methods and technologies for MSW prevention (e.g., developing substitutes for toxic substances, designing products to be more durable or to

generate fewer residuals); and 3) exploring innovative methods and technologies to improve MSW

management (e.g., new uses for secondary materials,

enhanced degradation of MSW in landfills, improved testing procedures and processing techniques for residues from waste management) (see

chs. 5, 6, and 7).

Photo credit Office of Technology Assessment

Advertising could be a powerful tool for motivating consumers to recycle or purchase products that cause fewer

environmental problems. Manufacturers could use ads to

promote their products that are more recyclable or durable,

use more secondary materials, or contain fewer toxic

substances.

Funding

An important concern when considering any new

Federal policy or program is how such activities will

be funded. In general, new or independent sources of

funding are desirable, rather than expecting new

programs to compete with existing ones for scarce

budget dollars. Federal revenues would be necessary

to fund many of the Federal activities that Congress

could require for MSW prevention and materials

management and that are discussed in this chapter.

Funding for planning and implementing MSW

prevention and management programs, of course,

needs to be developed by all levels of government.

Some funding mechanisms used at the State level

could be applied at the national level as well,

perhaps more effectively. Other funding options

might be more appropriate or feasible for State and

local governments, or for any level of government,

to apply.

Federal options for raising revenues are available.

These options include fees on packaging and/or

other products, user or ‘‘waste-end’ fees, and a

national income tax. Such fees, in addition to raising

funds for MSW programs, possibly could help

internalize the costs of waste generation and man-
20 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

agement, if they are set at high enough levels. For

example, high fees might create an incentive for

manufacturers to consider the impact of the products

on the wastestream when they are designing new

products.

Fees of any sort are likely to be discriminatory,

since it is cumbersome to apply fees on all parts of

the wastestream equally. They also can be difficult

to administer, given the number of entities potentially subject to the fees (e.g., manufacturers, retailers, distributors, consumers). Some types of fees

may be better able to overcome these obstacles than

others.

Option 1: Product Fees

One option is to impose a fee either on the virgin

materials used in packaging and containers or on the

packages and containers themselves. Proposals have

been introduced in several States, for example, to

impose a tax on packaging and containers, with the

level of the tax varying based on whether a product

is recyclable and/or made of recycled materials (ch.

8). The product fee concept also could be applied to

products that are more toxic or less durable. In

addition, requiring products to be labeled accordingly would help consumers make purchasing decisions based on these considerations. The advantage

of this approach is that the fee also might affect

decisions regarding product design and manufacturing.18 In addition, this fee could generate significant

revenues for prevention and recycling activities,

although it is not clear whether a decrease in MSW

generation or an increase in recycling would occur

as a result.

Because packaging and containers are estimated

to account for only about 30 percent of the wastestream by weight, this is a selective or discriminatory measure. However, a fee based on a specific

subset of products can be justified as consistent with

the goals of prevention and materials recovery. It can

be argued that packaging and containers are a

significant, visible, and problematic portion of the

wastestream and therefore warrant such discriminatory measures. A more equitable proposal is a fee on

all products that become MSW. However, this

approach would be more cumbersome to administer

because of the large number of products and

manufacturers involved.

Option 2: User or Waste-End Fee

In contrast to these “front-end” approaches, a

user or “waste-end” fee could be charged on a

weight or volume basis when MSW is sent to

management facilities. Some communities and

States already administer such fees for particular

facilities or for “problem wastes” (e.g., tires and

batteries), and they use the fees to find research and

special management programs (ch. 8).

If a waste-end fee was applied to all MSW sent to

management facilities, and consumers were billed

directly (at household and commercial establishments) by the waste haulers to recover the fees, it

could create an incentive for consumers to consider

the quantity, durability, and even toxicity of products. In turn, changes in consumer decisions could

pressure manufacturers to address the potential for

MSW prevention when products are designed and

manufactured. Moreover, if the administering government wished to promote one management method

over others, it could alter the fees as necessary. It is

not known how large user fees would have to be to

accomplish these goals. Furthermore, given that the

amount needed to promote a particular method is

likely to vary locally, such an approach is likely to

be most feasible at the local level.

Concerns have been raised that user fees could

lead to illegal disposal by consumers or haulers.

However, some evidence exists that consumers will

respond to increased waste disposal charges by

changing their purchasing decisions and, for example, recycling more MSW (39). A key to making user

fees effective is to make them part of a comprehensive approach that includes available alternatives

(e.g., ways to reduce generation or to recycle) and

adequate information about the rationale for the fees.

Option 3: National Income Tax

Another possible option would be to establish a

special income tax paid by all citizens. Although an

income tax may not be politically feasible, even at a

low rate it could raise significant revenues. For

example, over $300 million would be raised annu18The ~ific rate ~r ton fm his or any similar fw could be based on the level of funding needed to support various activities. OTA makes no

judgment in this repcm on what funding level would be needed.
Chapter I-Findings and Policy Options ● 21

ally if the rate charged was $1 per person for an

individual or family with an adjusted gross income

of less than $25,000 and $2 per person for higher

incomes. This option is equitable because every

person produces garbage. Distributing these tax

revenues to various MSW programs also could be

justified by potential future reductions in management costs to the public and an improved environment, Moreover, this system would be administratively simple to implement. While it could be

referred to as a waste generation fee, rather than a

tax, one disadvantage is that it could be viewed as

setting an unwanted precedent for establishing taxes

linked to specific issues.

Specific MSW Program Options

Waste Prevention

Reducing the amount or toxicity of MSW is a

preventive action, and thus it has a fundamentally

different function from waste management.19 Reducing MSW generation and toxicity offers many

potential benefits-fewer environmental problems

with waste management, lower waste management

costs, increased conservation and efficient use of

resources (including materials, energy, and land

associated with waste generation and management),

and increased public confidence in government

MSW policies and in industry.

Several obstacles have precluded substantive

waste prevention efforts to date. Some of these are

cultural or economic (i.e., market-driven). For example, one deterrent is that manufacturers have little

incentive to consider the problems or costs of MSW

disposal when they design and make a product

because most products do not become waste until

long after leaving a factory. 20 Similarly, individual

consumers currently have little economic incentive

to consider the implications of their purchasing and

consumption patterns.21

Another consideration is that reducing MSW

generation is inconsistent with America’s demand

for convenience and disposable products and, for

that matter, for all types of products (box l-A).

Containers and packaging, which are mentioned

frequently as potential targets for waste prevention

efforts, are a large and visible part of MS W, but they

serve many functions (e.g., sanitation, theft prevention, public safety, weight reduction, customer

appeal) that must be considered.

The likelihood that production and consumption

patterns will change hinges on behavioral and

cultural attitudes, as well as economic considerations, and thus it is difficult to estimate whether and

when prevention, particularly in terms of quantity,

might have a significant effect on MSW. Also, since

there is no standardized way of defining and

measuring prevention, it can be difficult to know

when it has occurred.

Prevention and recycling efforts can sometimes

work at cross purposes. For example, multicomponent “barrier” plastic bottles (i.e., bottles

made of several layers and types of plastics) are now

being used for products such as ketchup and syrup.

Although this design reduces the weight of waste

generated, glass bottles can be more readily recycled. The new plastic bottles are complex mixtures

and can only be recycled into items such as lumber

substitutes, and few facilities exist to do such

recycling.

Another constraint is that State and local officials,

the traditional decisionmakers for MSW management, can do little to influence manufacturing

decisions or consumer buying patterns. Most products are marketed in more than one State, and

officials cannot easily mandate changes in products

that flow in interstate commerce. In addition,

manufacturers that market products in more than one

State can face severe difficulties if they have to meet

varying State and local requirements on products

and packaging.

1~~ ~W~ent for prevention effofis exists with hazardous wastes (48,50,52). Although MSW probably is not m ~eal EU’I overall threat to human

health and the cnvironmem, the Nation has an opportunity to shift its thinking toward a more preventive mode for MSW as well.

z~ls is different fr~ the situation wi~ industrial wastes, especially hazardous wastes, produced al a mtlIIUfWtUring phlt itself. In that case, the

waste comes directly from production processes and disposat costs can be linked directly to the processes. %oducts and materials only become MSW,

however, after they have been used for some purpose.

21This is in pm ~auw Wrote rn~agernenl costs often we p~d ei~cr ~Ugh municip~ [~es that cover many services or by institutions ~d

businesses, not by individwds. Even if costs rise, there is no assurance that they will reach a sufficiently high level to cause changes in consumption

patterns.
22 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Strong Federal actions, however, might overcome

the various obstacles to MSW prevention, change

general perceptions about its feasibility, and ensure

that attention is not focused solely on developing

management capacity. Possible options for Federal

efforts can be grouped into four categories:

●

●

●

●

establish goals for quantity and toxicity reduction, and give prevention high priority within

EPA and other Federal agencies;

provide economic incentives (e.g., grants, awards,

procurement);

improve information flow to the public and

manufacturers (e.g., labeling, waste audits,

research, clearinghouse); and

ban specific products or substances.

In addition, other critical activities include educating manufacturers and consumers about prevention possibilities (see “Improving the Flow of

Information’ above) and deciding whether to use

product fees to promote prevention (see “Product

Fees” above).

Option 1: Develop National Goals and Assure

Them High Priority

Option 1A: Goals to Reduce Quantity of MSW

Congress could set incremental goals to reduce

the quantity of MSW generated and thus help focus

attention on the potential offered by prevention. One

reasonable goal would be to attempt to offset

estimated future increases in MSW generation. For

example, because MSW generation is increasing by

about 1 percent annually (box l-A), an initial

prevention goal might be 1 percent per year.22 Such

a goal symbolizes a long-term commitment, yet it

should not prove disruptive to the economy or

consumers. If this could be achieved, the volume of

MSW generated would remain constant and local

officials would have to manage the same amount of

MSW as they do now. A more ambitious goal could

be set to lower the actual amount of MS W generated.

Setting any goal raises several problems, however.

23 First, how would quantity reduction be

measured on a national basis? Given the range of

uncertainty in estimates about MSW generation (ch.

3), any change on the order of a few percent would

be overwhelmed by estimating errors, and it would

not be clear whether a real change had occurred.24

Second, even if quantity reduction (and associated

savings in waste management costs) could be

measured, it would still be difficult to resolve all

potential trade-offs, particularly to quantify other

potential benefits (e.g., using less materials and

energy) and costs (e.g., effects on GNP and convenience) offered by prevention and to assess the

performance and effects of new or alternative

products. Quantity reduction also has to be evaluated

in terms of its effects on MSW toxicity; for example,

using cadmium-coated bolts to reduce corrosion

might make bolts more durable and reduce waste,

but it also can increase potential toxicity when the

products are discarded in MSW.

Option 1B: Goals to Reduce Toxicity of MSW

If toxic substances in MSW that pose risks to the

public and the environment could be identified and

then eliminated from products and materials that

become MSW, then recycling, incineration, and

landfilling facilities would be safer and conceivably

easier to site and operate.25 This might even abate

the need for quantity reduction. In addition, manufacturers might lower their own costs by reducing

their use of toxic chemicals in production. Examples

reviewed by OTA demonstrate that reducing the

amount of toxic substances in some products is

technically feasible and is actually occurring, at least

on a limited basis (ch. 4).

Many toxic elements serve important functions in

products (e.g., cadmium as a heat stabilizer in some

plastics). However, it is sometimes possible to

identify more benign substitutes (e.g., to replace

metal-based inks or synthetic organic pesticides)

that are not prohibitively expensive. Identifying

2~nis ~gWe is ~ exmple of a g~l, not an indication of how much prevention is possible.

2sThese problems also are associated with setting goals for any management method (e.g., w% “Recycling” klow).

zqThe sme might & me for tie estimate that per.capi(a generation is incre&ng by about ] prcent mnu~]y, &ause it is based on a mode] of how

materials flow through society (ch, 3). In both cases, standardized methods have not been developed for measuring changes based on ucruaf generation

and collection.

251t is imPflmt t. ~te, however, that ~mc envlromentai problems associat~ wi{h MSW m~agemen~have little tO do with toxic substances in

products. For example, methane emissions and acidic leachate are both generated from the natural decomposition of organic materials in MSW (e.g.,

yard wastes, paper). In addition, small industrial and commercial generators of hazardous wastes can legally dispose of them along with ordinary MSW.
Chapter 1-Findings and Policy Options ● 23

targets for toxicity reduction efforts involves distinguishing substances of concern, particular products

containing the substances, and likely reductions in

toxicity. Thousands of products become MSW,

however, and it is difficult to trace the lifecycle—

from design to discard-of substances or their

potential substitutes in these products. In many

cases, proprietary considerations constrain public

evaluations of substitute substances (e.g., a substitute for mercury and cadmium in household batteries). Requiring industry to conduct waste audits

might help alleviate these problems.26

As an initial goal, Congress could require EPA to

identify those metals and organic chemicals likely to

contribute significantly to the risks associated with

MSW management. EPA could then be required to

study a given number of those substances each

year.

27 For each substance, EPA could evaluate

product sources, technical feasibility of elimination

or of substitution with benign substances, effects on

potential risks, economic and social costs to industries and consumers, and incentives and/or regulatory initiatives likely to be effective in achieving

reduction. This would be similar to EPA’s current

efforts on lead and cadmium (16,57).

Option 1C: Assure High Priority for

MSW Prevention in Federal Agencies

Federal efforts to promote prevention are most

likely to succeed if they have high visibility and

support, particularly at EPA. Congress could direct

EPA to give high priority to MSW prevention

efforts. For example, Congress already is considering establishing a high-level EPA office for waste

minimization. 28 This office could devote some

resources to MSW prevention efforts (e.g., providing grants and awards, establishing an information

clearinghouse, analyzing effects of new regulations

on the potential for prevention). These efforts are

unlikely to entail major costs to the Federal Government. Furthermore, authorizing such spending by

EPA would send a signal about the seriousness of

Federal efforts.

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Some products can be redesigned to contain fewer or none

of the substances that pose risks when the products are

discarded as MSW. Manufacturers have reduced the level

of mercury in these household batteries by using other

substances, but evaluating how much toxicity reduction

has been achieved is difficult because information about

the substitutes is proprietary.

Congress also could require all Federal agencies

to establish an ‘MSW prevention officer” position.

The responsibilities of this position could include

promoting prevention, reviewing agency activities

with respect to impacts on MSW generation, and

coordinating efforts with EPA. The position could

also be given similar responsibilities with respect to

procurement and recycling, although this might

draw some attention and resources away from

prevention efforts.

Option 2: Provide Economic and

Other Incentives

Option 2A: Grant Fund

Congress could provide direct economic assistance to projects designed to promote MSW prevention. For example, it could establish a grant fund,

financed by one of the finding mechanisms dis26W~te ~udits, ~onduct~ dufig WC design of a product, identify potenti~ byproduc~ and impacts Of ~OdUCtlOn ~d U% Of tk prOdUCt on the waste

stream and the environment.

271t hm proven difficult fm EPA t. i~ntlfy toxic sub~ances in a systematic way for regulation. Alternative approaches that would shift the burden

of proof 10 manufacturers could be conside~d. For example, mnufactwers Could & quirti to conduct Wse audits and evaluate the effect of using

a given substance on human health and the environment.

2REpA establlsh~ ~ Office of pollution ~eventlon, ~t tie Pfiq f~us of tie office has&n on haz~dous w~es; in addition, it d~s not have

agency-wide visibility.
24 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

cussed above. A grant program could be administered by EPA, an interagency task force, or a national

commission. Whatever group administers such a

program, it could select projects, review project

performance, provide public accountability of the

results, disseminate results, and prepare an annual

report to Congress.

Activities that might be eligible for grants could

include: 1) industrial research and development

projects; 2) capital investments to modify manufacturing plants to produce products that create less

MSW or have fewer toxic substances; 3) outreach

programs to educate consumers about their role in

MSW generation and prevention; 4) research projects on removing institutional and social obstacles to

prevention; and 5) innovative ideas for use by

nonmanufacturing businesses (e.g., retailers, service

providers, advertising or marketing companies).

Option 2B: High-Visibility Awards

To focus national attention on MSW prevention

and provide incentives for its practice, Congress

could authorize annual awards for noteworthy prevention accomplishments. These could be Presidential awards, similar to the Malcolm Baldridge

National Quality Awards (Public Law 100-107)

established by Congress to motivate American

industries to increase their competitiveness through

improved product quality. Alternatively, an awards

program could be developed and administered by

EPA, the Department of Commerce, or a national

commission. The range of possible recipients is

broad: manufacturers, individual researchers, nonprofit and public interest groups, marketing companies, and government agencies.

Option 2C: Federal Procurement

Federal procurement programs exist to purchase

products made from some secondary materials,

allowing prices that are slightly higher than those for

products made from virgin materials (ch. 5). These

programs could be extended to products that generate less MSW or are less toxic, such as water-based

inks. Congress could explicitly require Federal

agencies not to discriminate against such products

(except where they are not available or do not meet

critical technical specifications) and authorize a

5-to-10 percent price preference for such products,

a level similar to those in State procurement

programs for recycled goods.

The major benefits of such a program would be to:

1) strengthen the leadership role of the Federal

Government; and 2) provide an initial market for

these products, which could help reduce financial

risks faced by manufacturers if they attempt to

change product design or composition, or risks faced

by service providers trying to change some aspect of

how they do business. As with any procurement

programs, two important drawbacks exist: defining

exactly what products qualify for preferential treatment, and inducing Federal agencies to actually

make such purchases.

Option 3: Improve Information Flow

Option 3A: Develop Labeling With Prevention

information

Labels often are used to convey key information

or ideas about products and influence purchase

decisions (e.g., “no cholesterol’ and ‘‘no caffeine’

labels on many food products). One option is to

authorize the use of a special logo on products that

are considered to benefit the environment or help

resolve waste management problems. In West Germany, for example, the Federal Environmental

Agency has given “Environmental Angel” awards

to companies for such products (figure 1-5). The

angel logo can then be used by the companies to

market the product. Canada is instituting a special

label for products that are recycled, recyclable,

biodegradable, energy conserving, or free of ozonedepleting substances (1 1), and similar systems are

being considered in Norway and Japan (62). Similarly, labeling on “reduced waste” products could

be used in the United States by manufacturers to gain

advantages in the marketplace, by retailers to

implement marketing efforts, by procurement offices to determine product preferences, and by

consumers to guide purchasing decisions.

Another idea is to use the ratio between the

amount of MSW ultimately generated and the

amount of useful product (53). Other ratios conceivable y could be developed to address toxicity, durability, repairability, and reuse. The information could

be coded by color, symbol, or numerical ranking, as

long as the system was easily understood. However,

the information needed to make these judgments
Chapter l—Findings and Policy Options ● 25

(e.g., volume, durability, toxicity, or repairability

and reusability) is complex and often unavailable.

Congress has several options to address the

labeling issue. One approach might be to mandate

establishment of design institutes or product review

boards, or direct Federal agencies (e.g., EPA,

Consumer Products Safety Commission, National

Institute of Standards and Technology) to begin

developing technically sound methods to rate products on MSW-related criteria,

Alternatively, a commission or advisory panel

could be appointed to study and make recommendations regarding labeling programs. To ensure that the

recommendations are turned into actions, Congress

could give the commission a blue-ribbon status and

require the EPA Administrator and Secretary of

Commerce to review and implement the recommendations, unless they could demonstrate sufficient

reason for not doing so. The commission could

assess standardized ways of defining and measuring

prevention, types of labels, criteria for labels,

categories of products to target, how to determine

success (in terms of actual toxicity or quantity

reduction), past labeling efforts, educational opportunities, social and economic costs of labeling and

prevention, and how to address imported products

(e.g., legal or trade agreement limitations to labeling

requirements on imports; whether data on toxicity

could be required).

Option 3B: Data on MSW Generation

Federal prevention efforts will need accurate and

up-to-date information on many aspects of MSW,

including the quantity or toxicity of specific products; the impacts of new products and social trends

on MSW generation; and the generation of MSW by

different sectors (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional). This type of information would be useful

for MSW management programs, as well. Congress

could direct EPA to establish an ongoing program to

conduct specific studies on MSW generation and

potential prevention targets; for example, these

studies could address:

. the quantity and toxicity of MSW generated by

residents and commercial and institutional

establishments, especially in terms of different

products;

Figure 1-5--The “Environmental Angel” Logo

●

●

●

“Verzeichnis der Produkte und Zeichenanwender sowie der

jeweiligen Produktanforderungen” (Bonn: June 1988).

the effects of educational efforts (e.g., measuring how consumers change their habits when

prevention goals are clearly articulated);

future changes in MSW generation patterns at

the community level to gain an understanding

of how prevention might help local MSW

management; and

targets for prevention efforts, in terms of both

quantity and toxicity, and the potential costs

and benefits of such efforts.

Industry also could provide important information, particularly about toxic substances. Industries

could be called on to perform waste audits or draw

up nonbinding plans that identify potentially toxic

substances in products, explore the feasibility of

reducing these substances, and estimate the costs

involved.

Option 4: Banning Specific Products

and Substances

A more prescriptive approach to MSW prevention

would be to ban products and substances that are

considered undesirable.29 Fast food packaging, some

z~he Ux of taxes or deposits tO help improve the management of such products and substances is discussed in “Recycling.’
26 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Photo credit Office of Technnolgy Assessment

Several communities and States have passed legislation

that would ban the use of some plastic materials, such as

the polystyrene used in these plates and cups, or require

the use of biodegradable materials.

plastic products (e.g., grocery bags, foam polystyrene cups), and packaging in general are lightning

rods for public attention and certain types have

already been banned in some communities. These

bans have strong symbolic value, and the threat of a

ban can motivate private sector action to change the

composition of particular products (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons in polystyrene foam containers).

Bans generally focus on a small portion of MSW.

One study found that paper and plastic fast food

packaging currently comprises about 0.3 percent by

volume of the material excavated at several landfills;

disposable diapers (which are part plastic and part

paper) comprise about 1.5 percent (37,38). Even so,

this still could be useful in achieving any incremental goal for quantity reduction. However, it often

is not clear whether the replacements for banned

products are better in terms of reducing quantity or

toxicity or of using fewer natural resources during

manufacturing (chs. 4 and 5).

Bans or regulations on using specific substances

in products that become MSW may have more merit

if substitutes can be found that reduce toxicity.

Congress could require EPA to identify additional

substances of concern and assess the effects of

banning or regulating these substances pursuant to

its existing authority under the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA).

Recycling

The current level of MSW recycling in the

United States is low, about 10 percent. Although

it is difficult to say how much recycling is

possible, most people agree that recycling can be

increased. Substituting recycled or “secondary”

materials for virgin materials conserves natural

resources. It sometimes results in varying amounts

of energy savings, depending on the product and

material involved (ch. 5).

From a national perspective, recycling is attractive and deserves precedence over incineration and

landfilling because it can contribute to national goals

such as energy and materials conservation. From a

local perspective, recycling is attractive because of

its potential to divert at least some materials from

landfills or incinerators, which helps conserve available capacity; it also can reduce waste management

costs and reduce risks to human health and the

environment in some cases.

The materials management aspect of the MSW

policy suggested in this report provides a framework

for considering these benefits and recognizing the

material resources contained in MSW. OTA has

identified certain constraints to the collection, processing, and manufacturing of secondary materials

that could be reduced by government intervention

(see, for example, box 1-E and ch. 5). Many State

and local governments and businesses already are

addressing some of these limitations. Many of these

efforts have been successful, particularly those

related to collection (chs. 5 and 9), but the actual rate

of increase in recycling at the national level has not

been determined.

EPA is promoting an initial national recycling and

prevention goal of 25 percent by the year 1992.

Some cities already appear to be recycling more than

this (ch. 8), and proponents suggest that much higher

rates are possible (5,23).30 It is safe to say that more

SOA raent rew~ identifi~ 15 communities, both large and small, that recycled more than 25 percent of their waste (23). However, while it is likely

that these communities are recycling large amounts of their MSW, the estimates in many C-ases include more than MSW (e.g., construction debris, wood

chips), as defined here. For exarnplc, Islip, New York (the city infamous for the Mobro garbage barge), is estimated to have a recovery rate of 32 percent.

When construction debris is deleted, the estimate drops to 25 percent. This points out, once again, the problems involved in defining MSW and in

calculating and comparing overatl recycling rates.
Chapter l—Findings and Policy Options ● 27

Box l-E-General Market Factors

Recycling---despite its promise as an important element in an MSW prevention and management

strategy-has two important caveats that policymakers should consider. First, policymakers should be aware of the

distinction between supply- and demand-limited materials. Second, they should be aware that market prices for

secondary materials can fluctuate dramatically.

In addressing the first issue, Federal activities should be flexible to distinguish between materials that are not

being recycled at a high level because they are either supply-limited (i.e., are not collected in sufficient amounts or

are too highly contaminated for current manufacturing processes) or demand-limited (i.e., buyers are relatively

scarce even though supplies may be available). This distinction matters from a Federal perspective because some

options may be ineffective if applied indiscriminately to all types of materials. The distinction generally is not as

important to the private sector because from that perspective the market sets the prices required to bring forth needed

supplies. The market does not assure that all sources of supply are being tapped, however. In this case, for example,

a valuable source of supply of raw materials exists in MSW, but the potential supplier (i.e., waste generator) is not

always aware of the value of those materials.

These distinctions also are time-dependent. Markets are constantly in flux, and a material now in short supply

could be in oversupply at a later date. Materials in MSW considered as supply-limited in 1989 include old corrugated

containers, office papers, single-resin plastics, glass, tin cans, and aluminum. Demand-limited materials include old

newspapers, mixed papers, mixed plastics, used oil, tires, compost, and ferrous scrap other than tin cans.

Second, the 1988-89 market environment has some materials priced at or near their peak levels. Given the

history of fluctuation in most materials markets (ch. 5), recycling decisions should not be made only on the basis

of current prices. Of course, markets will always exist for most materials. The question is: where will contractions

in the system occur when demand declines’? The existing private infrastructure has substantially increased collection

rates for many materials (e.g., aluminum, glass, and paper). However, increased municipal collection of MSW

provides a supply of materials that is not sensitive to demand. In some cases, these materials will be made available

even at negative prices because municipalities can afford to pay manufacturers to take collected materials as long

as the fee is less than disposal would cost. As a result, private sector suppliers are likely to be less competitive and

to constitute ‘marginal’ supply sources during times of declining demand to a wider extent than ever before. Efforts

to manipulate markets, therefore, must consider potential effects on employment and tax revenue generated by

private sector suppliers.

efforts are necessary to reach that goal nationally. qualitative basis, where market expansion appears

Although such a goal is a useful target, it does not

appear to be based on a quantitative evaluation of

market potential. The actual amount that recycling

can be increased on a national level is not easily

predicted, nor is such a prediction particularly

worthwhile given the dynamic nature of materials

markets.

Translating any specific national goal for recycling into action requires a close look at recycling

rates for each material component of MSW. Rather

than setting percentage targets for the amount of

material that should be recycled, it may be more

realistic to set targets for progress (e.g., surpassing

historical rates of increase in recycling of a given

material). Target rates of progress could be set for

each material based on economic conditions and

relevant technical factors; box 1-F indicates, on a

particularly promising.

Regardless of the manner in which targets are set,

it is important that flexibility be maintained to

allow recycling programs to be designed for local

conditions. In general, markets for secondary materials fluctuate considerably over time, often rapidly

(ch. 5). The ability to sustain marketing of

collected materials at high levels cannot always

be assured. The dynamic nature of markets is a

key factor affecting the reliability of recycling as

an MSW management alternative.

This conclusion has important implications. If

many communities around the country decide at

roughly the same time to collect secondary materials

and market them to reprocessors and manufacturers,

prices for those materials may drop and some
28 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box I-F-Markets for Recycled Materials

About 10 percent of MSW was recycled in 1986

(15). Although this figure may seem small, it masks

considerable activity in the recycling arena. In fact,

higher recycling rates have been reported for particular

materials (figure 1-6). For most materials, many

opportunities exist to increase materials recovery from

MSW, both in the short and longer terms. The state of

the economy, both nationally and globally, will play a

large role in determining whether these opportunities

will be realized.

Recycling is the management alternative that traditionally goes the farthest beyond the Federal Government’s purview. Carefully tailored policy options may

help stimulate these markets, but blanket policies that

address all materials equally may be ineffective and,

even worse, wasteful.

Aluminum constitutes only 1 percent of MSW, but

it has a recycling rate of at least 25 percent. Aluminum

cans are recycled at a 55 percent rate. The technology

and economic incentives exist to enable a significant

increase in this recovery rate. The major barrier is the

inadequacy of the collection process.

Paper and paperboard, comprising 41 percent of

total discards, are recovered from MSW at a rate of at

Plastics, which makeup about 7 percent by weight

of MSW, have the lowest recovery rate among MSW

components--only about 1 percent. Recycling of

post-consumer plastics is in its infancy, with most

efforts focused on two resins (PET and HDPE).

However, considerable market potential exists for

increased recycling of these and other resins. The

plastics industry also is making efforts to develop

recycling collection/processing systems.

Yard and food waste is an important part-about

one-fourth-of MSW, but only negligible amounts of

this material are recycled. However, comporting has

been receiving considerable attention over the past

year, and a number of localities are considering it as an

alternative to incineration or landfilling of these

materials. Marketability will be determined largely by

the quality of compost.

Figure 1-6--MSW Recycling Rates: Franklin v.

Industry Estimates

Iron and steel account for about 7 percent of MSW

nd are recovered at a rate of at least 4 percent. Some

otential exists for increased recycling of steel cans,

which account for about one-third of ferrous scrap.

Recent increases in detinning capacity will improve

he recycling rate for “tin” food cans, and major steel

mills are gearing up to increase consumption of

bimetal (steel and aluminum) beverage cans. Recovery

of other ferrous scrap is not likely to expand significantly, because supply from other sources is abundant

and growth in demand is limited.

NOTE: Industry estimate for paper includes pre-consumer scrap;

industry estimate for steel includes higher total for white goods

plus ferrous scrap recovered at incinerators.

SOURCE: American Paper Institute, 1987Annual StatitisticalSumrnaty,

Waste Paper Utilization (New York, NY: June 1988); K.

Copperthite, U.S. Department of Commerce, personal

communication, 1989; Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960

to 2000 (U[pdate 1988), final report, prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (Prairie Village, KS: March

1988); B. Meyer, Aluminum Association, personal communication, 1989; K. Smalberg, Steel Can Recycling Institute,

personal communication, 1989; Society of the Plastics

Industry, personal communication, 1988.
Chapter 1--Findings and Policy Options . 29

communities may be unable to market the materials

they collect. In these cases, communities may have

to pay an additional cost to landfill or incinerate the

materials, pay reprocessors or manufacturers to take

the materials, or store the materials temporarily.

Within this context, opportunities for government

intervention to stimulate recycling exist in the

following areas:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

information and education (e.g., clearinghouses,

technical assistance, advertising, awards);

research and development (e.g., grants, loans);

development of standardized definitions, testing procedures, and labeling systems;

development of health and environmental regulations for recycling facilities;

market development (e.g., procurement programs, direct subsidies to industries to use

secondary materials, local economic development, export markets);

fees and pricing policies (e.g., changing prices

and subsidies for other management methods;

product charges); and

regulatory actions (e.g., requiring secondary

materials recovery, banning materials from

landfills, national deposit legislation).

Although some of these actions may be most

appropriately addressed by a particular level of

government, many can be addressed at all levels—

Federal, State, and local. Specific options within

each of these areas are discussed below.

Option 1: Increase Information and Education

Information is critical to increase the ability of

consumers and businesses to make decisions regarding recycling and recycled products. Currently, the

Federal Government (through the Departments of

Commerce, Interior, and Agriculture) publishes

detailed information regarding production, consumption, and prices on many virgin materials,

including aluminum, steel, and wood products.

However, similar information for many secondary

materials is difficult to obtain, particularly historical

information.

Option 1A: Improve Collection and

Dissemination of Information

Congress could require Federal agencies (including the Department of Commerce, under existing

RCRA authorities) to increase the collection and

analysis of data on consumption, production, and

prices of materials recoverable from MSW. These

data are available from industries in most cases. This

option, then, would only entail expanding the

coverage of current data series and would not require

new programs, although it might require additional

funding. The information could be published in

monthly and annual reports, which could be disseminated through a clearinghouse. Interagency working groups could be formed to identify new information needs and delegate data collection responsibilities.

Option 1B: Increase Education

Educational programs can raise environmental

consciousness and help consumers identify materials that can be reclaimed from their trash cans, as

well as increase awareness of how materials are used

in society. Programs aimed at elementary schools

can provide long-term benefits by instilling the ideas

of materials and energy conservation in young

people. Education is primarily a local and State

function, but the Federal Government could assist in

several ways. For example, Congress could direct

EPA to renew public outreach programs or specify

that some portion of any grants to States be given to

communities for education programs. Education

also can be achieved through information provided

on product labels.

Option 1C: Awards for Product Design

and Labeling

Another information incentive would be to give

awards or grants for innovative product design (e.g.,

designing existing and new products to be recyclable, as advocated by some public interest and

environmental groups), new recycling technologies,

and labeling systems. EPA or the Department of

Commerce could develop guidelines on how to

evaluate products for awards and projects for grants.

Option 2: Research and Development

Many industries, including paper, glass, aluminum, steel, and, more recently, plastics, undertake

research to enhance reprocessing capabilities, yet

technologies still do not exist to adequately reprocess some materials, such as non-color-sorted glass

(ch. 5). Technological limits also inhibit some

secondary materials manufacturing processes (e.g.,
30 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

waste paper de-inking), and could benefit from

additional research. Although some improvements

are occurring (e.g., for recycling of polystyrene),

technical refinements and capacity expansion take

time and money. Furthermore, information developed by industry is often propriety, thereby

limiting the spread of innovation. Private industry

rarely researches product design with recycling as a

criterion, although this also is changing. For example, the Society of Packaging and Handling Engineers is preparing a list of simple criteria to help

packaging manufacturers consider environmental

effects when they make decisions about materials

and containers for products (43).

Government-sponsored research on improvements

in reprocessing and manufacturing, as well as design

for recycling, could help quicken the pace of

technological innovation in this area. In the past, the

Department of Commerce, the National Forest

Products Lab, and the Bureau of Mines have

conducted research on secondary materials. For

example, the National Forest Products Lab is testing

new methods to remove contaminants from waste

paper.

Congress could encourage new research and

development by providing incentives such as tax

exempt bonds, low-interest loans, loan guarantees,

research grants, and tax credits and exemptions.

Low-interest loans and loan guarantees have several

advantages: they do not require an immediate

Federal revenue source and they are relatively easy

to administer. Research grants require additional

expenditures, but they are a traditional means of

stimulating new research. Congress, for example,

could establish research grant programs at EPA or

the National Science Foundation. Some grants could

be given to public institutions, particularly where the

proprietary nature of industrial research limits expansion of recycling capacity. Or, perhaps, joint

ventures between national laboratories and industry

could be sponsored.

In contrast, tax credits and exemptions can result

in lost Federal revenues and, more important,

generally have not been proven to be effective (chs.

5 and 8). Most Federal tax credits employed in the

past have been too small (10 to 15 percent) and State

tax credits affect too small of a base (because State

tax rates are relatively low) to have a significant

financial impact on business decisionmaking.

Option 3: Standardized Definitions, Labeling,

and Avoided Cost Calculations

The absence of a standardized language for

recycling and recycled products hinders communication and understanding among consumers, reprocessors, manufacturers, and communities. The

Federal Government has opportunities to clarify

several of these hindrances by providing leadership

in the areas of definitions and testing procedures,

labeling, and avoided cost calculations.

Option 3A: Standardize Definitions and Testing

Procedures

Standardized definitions and reporting methods

for determining ‘‘recycled content’ and “recyclability,’ along with standardized procedures to test

the performance of secondary materials, would help

consumers and manufacturers make decisions about

secondary products and materials. Congress could

instruct EPA or the National Institute of Standards

and Technology to develop standardized definitions

and procedures, or to use industry standards such as

those being established by the American Society of

Testing Materials or the National Recycling Coalition (e.g., ref. 14). In either case, the information

could be disseminated through an information clearinghouse.

Option 3B: Standardize Guidelines for Labeling

Standardized labeling guidelines could be developed to provide information about recyclability and

materials content on product labels. Standardized

labeling could help transfer meaningful, consistent

information to consumers and, in conjunction with

education programs, enhance the recognition of

recycled and recyclable products. Currently, most

products are not labeled to denote secondary materials content or recyclability, although the Society of

the Plastics Industry has established a voluntary

labeling program to identify the specific resins from

which plastic containers are made. Some manufacturers are using the recyclability issue as a marketing

tool; standardization could help ensure that consumers receive accurate information. Labels also could

be used to denote non-recyclability.
Chapter I-Findings and Policy Options . 31

Congress could require EPA or other Federal

agencies to begin developing guidelines for standardized labeling of different products. Because the

development of any labeling program is likely to be

extremely complicated, as discussed above for

prevention, Congress could commission an in-depth

study of the entire labeling concept and consider

legislative initiatives after receiving the report. To

ensure that U.S. industries are not unfairly disadvantaged, Congress could extend labeling requirements

to imported products.

Option 3C: Standardize Avoided Cost

Calculations

The collection of secondary materials can be

encouraged by providing collectors with a portion of

the net savings (if any) that result from not incurring

the cost of incineration or landfilling. This savings

is known as avoided cost. ”31 When the collector is

a community, the community retains the savings

because its overall disposal costs are lowered, which

provides an incentive for recycling. The main

problem with implementing the avoided cost concept widely is the absence of an accepted calculation

procedure, which makes it hard to evaluate competing claims about the costs of different waste

management scenarios.

Several methods to calculate avoided costs have

been suggested (4,8,34). Congress could direct EPA

to develop a standardized procedure to ensure that

appropriate “avoided costs” were used by all. The

calculation could include parameters such as current

landfill costs, trash collection and transfer costs,

environmental costs of collection and disposal, the

opportunity cost associated with tying up land as a

landfill, and the discounted capital cost of developing a new landfill (i.e., when recycling occurs and

conserves landfill capacity, a savings arises as the

cash outlay required to construct a new landfill is

pushed further out into the future). The avoided cost

has to be compared with costs for collecting and

processing secondary materials, all of which will

change as market conditions vary.

Option 4: Regulations for Recycling Facilities

Manufacturing processes that use secondary materials generate various residuals such as air emissions, wastewater discharges, and solid waste sludges

(ch. 5). Many of these processes are regulated to

some extent. For some, however, such as facilities

that process commingled recyclable, specific regulations and acceptable practices have not been

developed. At the same time, other regulatory

activities, particularly those concerning certain hazardous wastes, have disrupted the recycling system.

Both of these issues are appropriate for consideration at the Federal level.

Option 4A: Ensure Adequate Regulation of

Recycling Facilities

Air emissions, solid wastes, and other residues

from recycling facilities (including ones for comporting) should be regulated to ensure that they do

not threaten human health and the environment, just

as other management facilities or manufacturing

processes are regulated. Congress could require EPA

to ensure that regulations (i.e., standards for design,

operation, and residuals management; permitting

and reporting procedures) extend to all recycling

facilities, including those that initially process

secondary materials. Such regulations would be an

important component of a comprehensive Federal

MSW policy, and OTA’s suggested management

approach is based on the assumption that all

management methods are designed to ensure adequate protection for human health and the environment. Failure to ensure adequate regulation for

recycling facilities could create expensive problems

in the future and increase the level of uncertainty

regarding the potential for recycling.

Option 4B: Resolve Conflicts With Hazardous

Waste Regulations

Regulations regarding the management of hazardous substances (e.g., lead in batteries and PCBs in

washing machines, refrigerators, and other appliances) have caused some recyclers to stop accepting

these products because of fears about liability and

because of increased costs of complying with the

regulations (ch. 5). In some cases, this leads to

improper disposal of the products. This illustrates

the need for careful consideration of the effects of

hazardous waste and other regulations on recycling.

Congress could direct EPA to clarify current regula3 I The ~= of ~ avoided ~m[ ~~cu]atlon invoives ~c explicl[ comp~ison of tie ~onomic va]ue of ma~eria]s ~d energy with the COS[ of l~d dispmd;

these cost comparisons will change over time.
32 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

tions regarding the recycling of products known to

contain hazardous materials, and to identify other

products that might cause similar problems in the

future (e.g., sodium azide in automobile air bags).

EPA could begin developing guidelines for the

proper handling of these kinds of products before

any regulations take effect, to avoid disruptions in

the recycling chain. EPA also could analyze the

effect of developing regulations to restrict the use of

certain materials in the manufacture of products

when they pose similar problems.

Option 5: Market Development

Obviously, it serves no purpose to collect materials for which there is little or no demand (e.g., mixed

plastics and mixed paper), Successful government

intervention in commodity markets is difficult

because of the many complex factors affecting

supply and demand. Nevertheless, Several options

are available to the Federal Government to help

directly develop markets: expanded procurement,

direct subsidies, economic development initiatives,

and building export markets. (Options 6 and 7

discuss additional ways that the Federal Government can affect markets.)

Option 5A: Procurement Programs

One of the most direct government approach to

create new and expanded markets is to buy recycled

products. This could be significant, because local,

State, and Federal Governments purchase about 20

percent of the goods and services produced in the

U.S. economy. In 1976, Congress directed EPA to

develop guidelines for procurement of recycled

materials (Sec. 6002 of RCRA). but EPA did not

issue any final guidelines until 1988. Guidelines

now exist for the procurement of some goods

produced with secondary materials (fly ash in

cement and concrete, paper products, retread tires,

re-refined oil, and building insulation that uses

secondary materials) (ch. 8). These products are

made from demand-limited materials, with the

exception of recycled printing and writing paper,

which is probably the most visible recycled product

purchased by the government.

Congress could direct Federal agencies to increase their procurement programs for recycled

products, particularly of additional demand-limited

materials (e.g., old newspaper, mixed waste paper,

compost). The difficulties in expanding such programs, however, include developing guidelines about

what constitutes recycled products, ensuring that

agencies purchase the products, and minimizing the

number of specifications for the same product that a

manufacturer has to meet. In addition, the extent to

which procurement can stimulate increased recycling is unclear (ch. 8), although its educational

effect usually is considered positive.

Additional provisions could allow private manufacturers to petition Federal agencies to purchase a

product made from secondary materials instead of

products made from virgin materials, and to require

such substitutions unless the recycled products do

not meet specifications (25).

Option 5B: Direct Subsidies

Congress also could provide direct subsidies to

manufacturers to increase their use of secondary

materials. For example, EPA or the Department of

Commerce (or a State using Federal grant money)

could provide a direct subsidy such as a loan

guarantee to a newspaper publisher to construct a

newsprint mill that uses old newspapers. This type

of subsidy has one major advantage—it can be

targeted at specific problem materials in specific

locales. It directly attacks the problem of insufficient

demand (in this example, by assuring the construction of a facility that will need old newspaper), while

at the same time guaranteeing a ready final market

(e.g., a newspaper printed on recycled newsprint).

However, competitors who made investments without the benefit of a Federal grant might consider

such a subsidy inequitable.

Option SC: Economic Development

Efforts to build markets for recycled materials can

provide economic development opportunities for

State and local governments. Although the Federal

Government has reduced its involvement in local

economic development activities, this option remains important from the perspective of many

communities. By coupling local economic development with secondary materials processing facilities,

the community retains more control over the market

than if the materials were consumed outside of the

area. In addition, the community benefits directly

because the increase in processing and manufacturing activity stimulates employment, tax revenues,
Chapter I-Findings and Policy Options . 33

and economic growth. Numerous mechanisms are

available to States to promote business development, including low interest loans, loan guarantees,

government equity partnerships, and direct grants

(20,22).

Option SD: Building Export Markets

Demand for secondary materials also could be

increased by developing foreign markets. Current

government programs that promote exports in general could be modified to address exports of secondary materials. For example, the Department of

Commerce manages the Export Trading Company

Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-290), which allows

companies to operate as joint ventures and market

larger quantities of products abroad without being

subject to antitrust restrictions. Congress could

direct the Department of Commerce to apply the

provisions of this act to assist exporters of secondary

materials. The Department also could be directed to

identify foreign markets for recycled materials as

part of its data-gathering responsibilities.

Although export markets are important outlets for

many secondary materials from the United States,

they are less stable than domestic markets. In

addition, foreign manufacturers gain the benefit of

U.S. citizens’ and communities’ efforts to separate

and upgrade the quality of these materials. They also

realize the value added when they manufacture new

products. Often, foreign products made from lowcost secondary materials present stiff competition

for U.S. producers.

Option 6: Fees and Pricing Policies

Fees or changes in current pricing policies could

be imposed on different parts of the MSW generation and management system to stimulate recycling.

These include fees to stimulate rates of progress in

increasing recycling, disposal fees to change the

costs of other management methods, and product

charges.

Option 6A: Rate of Progress Fees on

Manufacturers

If Congress were to set target goals to increase

recycling of individual materials, it could encourage

compliance by imposing a fee on those manufacturers or industries which fail to make adequate

progress (e.g., achieve a certain percentage of

recycled material in a product) by a specified date.

A similar fee mechanism has been employed by the

State of Florida in its new recycling legislation (ch.

8). Although cumbersome to administer, this approach would be likely to increase demand for

secondary materials.

Option 6B: Increasing the Cost of Alternatives

If Congress or the States required that a user fee

be assessed for using landfills and incinerators, the

increased costs to haulers (who probably would be

paying the fee) most likely would be passed on to

their customers (who generate the waste). If the fee

was large enough, it should make materials recovery

more attractive economically. Several States have

instituted successful disposal fees for waste delivered to landfills, including New Jersey and Illinois.

However, as mentioned earlier there are problems

with such a system. Briefly, it would be difficult to

determine the size of the fee to account for regional

variation and to administer the fee on a national

level. Another application of this option at the local

level might be to impose a higher pick-up fee if

consumers fail to participate in curbside separation

for recycling (ch. 5).

Another way to indirectly influence waste management is to remove existing subsidies that promote or require the use of virgin materials. Substantial Federal tax incentives encourage the use of

virgin materials, despite strenuous attempts to remove them from the tax code during the 1986 tax

revision. For example, one remaining incentive is

the mineral depletion allowance, which allows

mineral producers to deduct from 5 to 22 percent of

the value of minerals produced when they compute

their taxable income from a mineral property.

Whether this option would be effective is uncertain. Data from the 1970s, indicate that removing the

incentives may not significantly affect secondary

materials markets (ch. 5). It would be useful to

review the effects of virgin materials subsidies under

current economic conditions to determine whether

the conclusions of the earlier analyses still hold.

Thus, Congress could direct the Departments of

Commerce, Interior, Transportation, and Agriculture to analyze the effects of eliminating virgin

materials subsidies on the recovery of secondary

materials and on the virgin materials industries

themselves, including effects on international com-
34 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

petitiveness. From this, a more definitive conclusion

about the benefits and costs of such subsidies could

be drawn.

The effect of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) on the development of waste-toenergy facilities and on recycling also could be

considered. PURPA provides for the guaranteed

purchase of electricity generated by small, nonutility generators (including, but not limited to,

waste-to-energy facilities), at a rate equal to the cost

of a utility itself generating that electricity (47). That

rate, called avoided cost, is determined by each

State. Some people consider this to be a form of

subsidizing waste-to-energy facilities. Removing

this provision, however, will not necessarily result in

less incineration and a subsequent increase in

recycling. Waste-to-energy facilities could continue

to sell electricity at going rates, sell steam instead, or

raise tipping fees to cover losses in revenues.32

Removing the provision also could harm other

co-generators, which might pose problems if the

Nation’s energy picture changes for the worse. The

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is already

considering restricting the definition of avoided cost

to remove the difference between the going electricity rate and the rate paid to small generators, which

would render the issue moot (ch. 6).

Option 6C: Product Charges

Products can be designed to be more easily

recycled, a concept termed ‘‘design for recyclability . Congress could place a tax on difficult-torecycle products to provide an incentive for such

design. 33 Such a tax, which should be levied on the

manufacturer for optimal effect, would have to be

large enough to influence product design decisions.

The size of the tax required to induce a manufacturer

to redesign products will differ for different products. This concept also could be used to promote

“design for reduction. ”

Option 7: Require Secondary Materials

Recovery and Reprocessing

The Federal Government could more aggressively

promote secondary materials recovery and reprocessing by the following methods: 1 ) requiring

deposits on recyclable or problematic products; 2)

requiring that post-consumer secondary materials be

used to the extent technically feasible in place of

virgin materials; 3) requiring communities to establish separation programs; 4) banning products that

are difficult or impossible to recycle; 5) banning

certain materials from landfills or incinerators (also

see “Incineration” and “Landfills” below); and 6)

acting as a buyer of last resort and creating a national

stockpile of secondary materials.

These options could be used to increase recycling,

but all would likely entail costs to other sectors of the

economy. Thus, mandatory recycling approaches

such as these should be undertaken only with a clear

understanding of their social and economic costs.

For example, mandating that secondary materials be

used in manufacturing (e.g., of newsprint, as mandated in Connecticut and proposed in other States),

regardless of their costs relative to virgin materials,

would increase markets for secondary materials but

disrupt markets for virgin materials. The costs to the

virgin materials industries thus should be considered

before implementing such a policy. In addition, to

ensure that the competitiveness of U.S. industries is

not harmed, imported products would have to be

subject to similar provisions.

Of all these options, only deposit systems have

received much scrutiny. For this reason, deposit

legislation is discussed here to illustrate the complexities associated with adopting such options.

Deposit Legislation-proposals for a mandatory

deposit system for beverage containers appear before Congress annually, and they are designed to

address a variety of issues including litter control

and energy conservation (46).34 National deposit

legislation recently has been proposed in Congress

as a means to increase the recycling and reuse rates

32A tlpplng fw is tie pfice paid by a wasIc transporter to have the waste managed al a particular facility.

Sssome propo~s z-& would ban certain products. With respect to plastics, for example, one purpose of the bans is to encourage mmUfaCW’er$ to

use plastics that can be recycled or will degrade and to use other recyclable materials, or to use plastics that can be incinerated without forming hazardous

compounds. lt is not clear, however, that substitute materials necessarily will be more compatible with recycling.

sd~wsits could ~so ~ applied t. other tyPs of materia]s in MSW, for example, car batteries and tires (ch. 8). ~ese deposits could be inco~rat~

into the price of a new car, as well as into the cost 01” replacement batteries and tires. Furthermore, deposits could be used to develop recy
Chapter I--Findings and Policy Options ● 35

of beverage containers. The nine States which have

deposit legislation (figure 1-7), however, adopted it

primarily because of concerns over litter control (ch.

8). In general, beverage container deposit systems

capture between 70 and 90 percent of the targeted

containers and appear particularly effective in reducing litter (3,1 7). Data reported by several States with

deposit systems indicate that total roadside litter

decreased between 15 and 50 percent, and beverage

container litter decreased by as much as 80 percent

(18,41).

The impact on the MSW stream, however, is less

certain, and its calculation is problematic. Critics of

mandatory deposit legislation contend that it has a

relatively small impact on MSW disposal problems,

because beverage containers are a small, albeit

highly visible, portion of the MSW stream.35 New

York State estimates that since adoption of its

Returnable Beverage Container Law, 5 percent by

weight and 8 percent by volume of MSW has been

diverted toward recycling (18,32). Curbside programs to collect recyclable can cover a broader

portion of MSW and thus have the potential to

achieve greater diversion of materials from

landfills. 36 In the past, deposit legislation may have

stimulated the development of processing facilities

and recycling markets, but curbside and other types

of recycling programs also have this potential.

One major concern about deposit systems has

been the potential to increase costs to consumers,

retailers, the beverage industry, and the government.

The extent of such increases is disputed (27,36,40).

It appears overall, however, that both the benefits

and costs of deposit systems are considerable and

not out of proportion to each other (31 ,36,41).

Studies generally indicate a net gain of jobs and

some energy and resource savings, but the rate of

price increases for beverages in nonrefillable containers is above normal inflation. Costs for changing

over to a system for returnable/refillable containers

might be high for the beverage industry, but if the

necessary transportation and processing infrastrucFigure 1-7--States With Deposit or

Redemption Systems

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

ture were developed they could be at least partially

recovered within a few years (31,41). Deposit

systems also can internalize the disposal cost of

beverage products, as can curbside collection programs.

In some States with deposit legislation, such as

New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut,

curbside collection programs also are being adopted.

California and Florida have adopted modified versions of mandatory deposit or redemption legislation. In 1987, California enacted a redemption law

for beverage containers that mandates the establishment of ‘*convenience” buy-back centers for recycling (ch. 8). Yet the financial stability of the

convenience centers, administrative burdens associated with implementing the program, and other

difficulties are creating concern over the viability of

this approach.

In 1988, Florida adopted a deposit-fee system that

affects all types of containers, not just beverage

containers. As of October 1, 1992, a disposal fee of

1 cent will be levied on any container sold at retail

which is not recycled at a 50 percent rate in Florida.

MBeverage ~onl~nersover~l con~itute 6 to 11 percent of MSW on a national btis (ch. 3). Most deposit legislation covers a smaller portion of MSW,

approximately 5 percent, because some types of containers arc not included (e.g., for wine, liquor, and milk).

36Jt is not ~]ew w~~er existing recycling programs are negatively aff~ted in Stat- which adopt a deposit or redemption law (e.g., California), or

whether the adoption of mandatory recycling in States which already have deposit laws (e.g., New York) is detrimental to overall effectiveness of wasw

management. One recent study concluded, based on an analysis of Vermont and New York, that comprehensive municipal recycling programs are more

efficient and cost-effective if beverage containers are included in them and participation rates are high (17) (also see ch. 2). However, the distribution

of costs would shift from the private to the public .wxtor.
36 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

The fee will increase to 2 cents if the 50 percent

target is not met by October 1, 1995. The inclusive

scope of materials covered by the Florida law is

generally viewed positively, but it is too soon to

judge how easily this program will be implemented.

Proponents of mandatory deposit systems argue

that statewide or nationwide consistency is desirable, that the costs of disposal are internalized on the

industry and consumers (rather than to all taxpayers), and that deposits could be used for a variety of

purposes (e.g., particularly difficult-to-dispose-of

items). States are independently devising programs

to encourage recovery of materials from MSW,

including deposit, redemption, and/or mandatory

recycling programs, as appears most appropriate for

their particular circumstances. In this light and in the

interest of maintaining flexibility at the Federal level

with respect to recycling strategies, it is not clear

whether it is desirable at this time for Congress to

adopt national deposit legislation or any other single

approach to encourage materials recovery and recycling.

Incineration

The role of incineration is one of the most

contentious issues in MSW management. Public

opposition to incineration has grown dramatically in

many communities because of concerns about the

presence of undesired metals and organic chemicals

in emissions and in the ash residues. In addition,

incinerators often are expensive for municipalities,

and the potential for stricter regulations on air

emissions and ash disposal will increase both the

financial risk and cost of new incinerators. These

factors have caused some cities to postpone or

cancel plans for incinerators (chs. 2 and 6).

At the same time, however, incineration is attractive because it treats MSW (e.g., destroys pathogens), can be adapted to recover energy, and greatly

decreases the amount of material that must be

landfilled. Also, newer facilities that use up-to-date

operating procedures and pollution control technologies are capable of emitting much lower concentrations of pollutants into the atmosphere than are older

facilities (ch. 6). This abatement of air pollutants,

however, puts more pollutants in the remaining ash;

as a result, some environmental groups contend that

certain forms of ash should be managed as hazardous

wastes .37

A national policy based on prevention and materials management would promote opportunities to

reduce the concentrations of pollutants in emissions

and ash. If the strategies outlined in this report were

implemented, products in MSW would ideally be

composed of fewer toxic substances, and noncombustible materials such as glass or metals would

be separated for recycling and/or landfilling and

would not enter furnaces. Yard wastes would also be

separated for comporting, which would alleviate

problems with moisture control and nitrogen oxide

emissions at incinerators. Communities could then

use incineration and energy recovery to manage

some of the non-recyclable portions of MSW, and

possibly to manage combustible materials collected

for recycling when markets for those materials are

depressed.

The use of incineration may increase during the

next few decades, but to what extent is very unclear.

Over 160 MSW incinerators (including about 120

waste-to-energy facilities) now combust about 10 to

15 percent (by weight) of the MSW generated in the

United States (ch. 6); about one-fourth of this

remains as ash that must be managed in other ways

(primarily disposed of at landfills). About 45 facilities were under construction as of spring 1989, and

plans to build additional facilities have been negotiated in some communities. If all of these are actually

built, the portion of MS W that would be managed at

incinerators is estimated to increase to about 25

percent by the end of the century (including the

remaining ash) (ch. 6).

Nevertheless, it is not clear how much new

incinerator capacity will actually be developed.

There is some indication that the rate at which plans

for increased incineration capacity are being canceled is greater than the rate at which new capacity

is actually being developed (ch. 6). In addition, the

costs of future facilities will depend on what

pollution controls and operating procedures are

required by permitting authorities. Some States have

issued specific regulations for incinerator emissions

and ash, but these regulations vary widely (ch. 6). A

sT~~lc~ ~ce~~ntles about ash (e.g., whether it is worse than non-incinerated waste, how much it contributes to Ieachate problems) cannel be

resolved easily with current information, yet decisions can be made about managing ash that do not require final resolution of the uncertainties.
Chapter l-Findings and Policy Options ● 37

few Federal regulations apply to emissions (e.g., for

particulate matter; in addition, “New Source Review” and “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” evaluations are conducted by the States under

the provisions of the Clean Air Act), but MSW

incinerators generally are not subject to Federal

regulation. EPA is scheduled to propose regulations

concerning emissions in late 1989, but it will not

propose guidelines or regulations for ash management until Congress clarifies whether or not ash

should be managed as a hazardous waste.

Thus, considerable uncertainty exists about what

will be required in the future. There is a general

consensus that Federal regulations should be finalized as soon as possible to help reduce this uncertainty. This would provide: 1) a consistent national

guideline for the development of new facilities; 2)

greater assurance to the public that the risks associated with incinerators are being properly controlled;

and 3) a rationale for local and State officials to

require particular designs and pollution controls.

There is, however, debate about how emissions and

particularly ash should be regulated. Two additional

issues related to incineration are capacity and siting

(see “Ensuring Capacity” above) and the relationship between incineration and recycling (ch. 2).

Option 1: Clarify Ash Management

The first issue that needs to be resolved is whether

the “household waste exclusion” applies to ash.

This refers to a provision in the 1984 Hazardous and

Solid Waste Act amendments (Sec. 3001(i)), in

which waste-to-energy facilities that bum MSW

were exempted from regulation as hazardous waste

treatment facilities. However, Congress did not

clarify whether the ash from these facilities also was

exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste. As a

result, confusion exists over whether this ash should

be managed as a hazardous waste if it fails a standard

toxicity test known as the Extraction Procedure, or

EP, test. EPA has stated that it will not propose

guidelines for ash management until Congress

clarifies this issue (ch. 6).

A second issue to be addressed is the lack of

guidance on the design and operating standards that

Subtitle D facilities (i.e., facilities for managing

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

MSW incineration decreases the amount of material that

must be Iandfilled and inmost cases is coupled with energy

recovery. Although incineration capacity has increased

during the last decade, siting new incinerators is often

controversial because of public concerns about risks

associated with emissions and ash and the effects of

incineration on recycling.

nonhazardous wastes) should meet for managing ash

if and when ash is considered nonhazardous.

Option 1A: Clarify the Household Waste

Exclusion

Congress should clarify the “household waste

exclusion. ” If Congress decides that the exclusion

does apply, then managing ash of any type as a

hazardous waste under Subtitle C would be out of

the question.38 If the exclusion does not apply, then

38~e two b~ic typs of 4 me fly ash, which consists of the small particles that kCOI’iIt? entrained in gases leaving tie f~~et ~d ~ttom ~h$

which is the uncombusted or partly combusted residue that accumulates on the bottom of the furnace. When fly and bottom ash are mixed together, the

mixture is called combined ash. In this report, use of (he word ‘sash” without one of these three qualifying terms refers to any type of ash.
38 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

EPA or Congress needs to specify those conditions

under which ash should be managed as a hazardous

waste. Congress, for example, could decide whether

to list fly ash as hazardous, or to use toxicity testing

as the basis for deciding whether ash should be

managed as hazardous.

Listing--Congress could direct EPA to list fly ash

as a hazardous waste, because fly ash samples

generally fail the EP test. This would eliminate the

need for testing. The costs of managing fly ash as a

hazardous waste will be more than current costs,

although by how much is uncertain. Another uncertainty is whether there is any difference in potential

human health risks associated with managing fly ash

in a Subtitle C hazardous waste facility, as opposed

to a double-lined Subtitle D facility, or even as

opposed to managing combined ash in a single-lined

Subtitle D monofill.39

Testing--Altematively, periodic testing could be

required and any ash that fails the EP test (or an

equivalent) would then be managed as a hazardous

waste. This would raise several problems, however.

First, there is considerable controversy about the

utility of the EP test (ch. 6), and it is not clear

whether an acceptable alternative test can be developed. Second, EPA’s proposal to lower the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead in drinking

water (53 Federal Register 31516, Aug. 18, 1988)

could lower the corresponding limits for lead in EP

tests, which in turn means that more ash would test

as hazardous.

Option 1B: Decide How to Manage Ash Under

Subtitle D

Little guidance exists on the design and operating

standards that Subtitle D facilities should meet for

ash management. EPA’s proposed Subtitle D criteria

do not address ash management in detail, and EPA

has not indicated whether, and especially when, it

might develop specific regulations for ash. Most

States have not addressed this issue. As a result,

Congress could decide how ash should be managed,

in particular whether the standards to be met should

depend on the type of ash involved or on the results

of toxicity testing. Whether to allow co-disposal of

ash with MSW must also be decided.

Specify Facility Standards According to Ash

Type-One approach to ash management is to

specify different design and operating standards for

facilities that handle different types of ash. This

would avoid problems associated with managing ash

based on test results and provide an easy basis for

management decisions. There are many possible

design and operating specifications. For example,

fly ash might be managed in a monofill with

double-liners and double leachate detection/

collection systems. This would provide about the

same control over fly ash as would management in

hazardous waste facilities, but whether it would

lower costs in comparison with those at hazardous

waste facilities is unclear. Treated ash or combined

ash might be managed in a monofill with a single

liner and single leachate/collection system.40 In

addition, standards could be developed for situations

in which treated ash could be used (e.g., in construction materials). The primary drawback of this

approach is its lack of flexibility in cases where

characteristics of the ash (e.g., variability in leaching

potential) or the facility itself (e.g., great distance

from groundwater) might make the specified controls unnecessary.

Specify Facility Standards Based on Test Results—

Alternatively, toxicity test results could be used to

indicate the type of facility necessary to manage the

type of ash. For example, any ash that failed the test

might be managed at facilities with double liners and

double leachate detection/collection systems. Untreated ash that passed the test might be managed at

facilities with single liners and leachate systems.

Treated ash that passed the test might be co-disposed

with MSW. Conditions under which exclusions

were acceptable (e.g., certain site characteristics)

also could be determined. This approach would

manage ash on an environmental basis (i.e., its

potential to leach metals into groundwater). The

related problems are the same as those noted

above—unreliable tests, the effect of changes in

MCLs, and the extra expense of frequent testing. In

addition, facility operators will face the uncertainty

s~e= fXilitles differ in tie degree to which they provide control over Ieachate. Facilities with single hners, for example, generally are considered

to provide less control than facilities with double liners.

~Afier ~h is collWt~ from tie grate or from air pollution controls, it usually is left untreated (i.e., not subjected to any additional special treatment).

It can be treated, however, with chemical or thermal processes to make it safer to dispose of or reuse (ch. 6).
Chapter l—Findings and Policy Options ● 39

of not knowing what type of management will be

required, even though they often need or want to

know what will happen to the ash before a facility is

built.

Should Co-Disposal With MSW Be Allowed?—

EPA’s proposed Subtitle D regulations would not

prohibit co-disposal of untreated ash and MSW. The

chances of mobilizing metals from untreated ash

will almost always be greater in co-disposal situations than in monofill situations, although whether

this will always lead to levels of regulatory concern

is unknown (ch. 6). As a result, it makes sense to

keep untreated ash and MSW separate. Whether

co-disposal with treated ash should be allowed is

uncertain. Treatment technologies appear promising

(ch. 6), but additional research on long-term performance is required. Congress could require EPA to

sponsor more research regarding treatment and

address this issue in ash management regulations.

Option 2: Clarify the Regulation of Emissions

Although emissions are less controversial than

ash management, the only Federal regulations that

apply to emissions from MSW incinerators are those

that apply to all sources of emissions (e.g., for

particulate matter and mercury). Specific performance standards for new MSW incinerators and

guidelines for existing incinerators are scheduled to

be proposed by EPA in November 1989, but they

would not become effective until 1991. Congress

could give additional direction to EPA by specifying: 1) whether to base standards on the best

available control technologies or on risks; and 2)

when, and to what level, to require retrofitting of

older facilities.

Option 2A: Choose Standards Based on BACT

or on Risks

EPA is regulating new facilities on the basis of

guidelines that require the use of best available

control technologies (BACT) to control emissions in

the interim before it promulgates final emissions

regulations. Currently accepted BACT (e.g., scrubbers, particulate controls such as baghouses or

electrostatic precipitators, automatic combustion

controls) can enhance the performance of new

incinerators and provide much greater control than

did previous technologies (ch. 6). It also allows

some flexibility in deciding which combination of

technologies to use. Congress could allow EPA to

continue on this course, either by not addressing this

issue or by statutorily defining the use of BACT.

A recent recommendation by EPA Region 10

regarding a permit for a new incinerator in Spokane,

Washington, could have significant implications for

the definition of BACT (58). The recommendation,

made in response to opposition from several citizen

groups, would include pre-combustion requirements

for source separation and recycling as part of the

BACT provisions in the permit. This would mark the

first time such a linkage between recycling and

incineration was made in a permit. The local solid

waste agency opposed including these provisions in

the permit itself, contending that receipt of construction funding from the State already is linked to

development of a recycling program, and that the

agency already plans to develop a drop-off and

curbside recycling program with a 45 percent

recycling goal (12). This situation is a good example

of both the opportunities and difficulties of implementing the materials management concept at the

local level. Although the recommendation was

denied in this case, EPA has indicated that provisions for source separation and recycling are likely

to become a routine part of future permits for new

incinerators.

Whether BACT is sufficient to meet public

concerns about potential risks, however, probably

will vary from area to area. Some people would like

standards to be based on risk, to provide more

stringent protection than current BACT. Requiring

EPA to develop risk-based standards might be a

better way to help build public confidence and aid in

the siting process. On the other hand, a strictly

risk-based approach has several disadvantages, including: whether adequate technologies are available to achieve the desired protection, the additional

costs of using such technologies, and the uncertainties inherent in risk assessment methodologies and

results (ch. 2). The risk-based approach also could

lead to fewer controls, depending on circumstances.

Another alternative is to promulgate regulations

that require BACT, but that also allow additional,

risk-based controls in specific situations. This approach would be similar to that of the Federal water

pollution control program, which uses standards

based on best available technologies and, where
40 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

indicated by risk-based toxicity testing, additional

controls (51 ). It also implies that minimum, as

opposed to uniform, regulations would be needed.

No matter what form emissions regulations take,

they probably will bring higher prices to the

municipal users of such facilities. This can be

considered as one way of internalizing waste management costs.

A related issue is whether standards should be

minimum or uniform. Minimum standards allow

States to impose additional and possibly more

stringent limitations, which provides the States with

the flexibility to respond to specific conditions

within their jurisdictions. Uniform standards would

mean that the same standards and testing procedures

apply to all situations. This would simplify the

regulatory process and reduce the number of different tests that companies have to perform to satisfy

different State testing requirements. However, it

means that States would not have the power to

impose additional limitations if they felt Federal

standards were not sufficient to protect public

health. It is likely that EPA will use the minimum

standards approach in its regulatory proposals.

Congress also could require that EPA develop

guidelines for training incinerator operators to help

ensure greater efficiency and safety. EPA could base

these guidelines in part on the efforts of the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),

which is developing a certification program for some

incinerator operators. ASME is not developing a

training program, however (ch. 6). Congress also

could direct EPA to increase its research on the

technical and economic feasibility of new emissions

control systems and improved monitoring methods

(e.g., of continuous emissions).

Option 2B: Establish Policies Regarding Existing

Incinerators

With respect to retrofitting existing incinerators,

Congress could decide whether all old facilities

should be required to retrofit, no matter what the

cost, or whether some or all should be exempted

under certain conditions. If one objective is to reduce

potential risks to human health and the environment,

old facilities should be required to eventually meet

the same or similar standards as new facilities. In

some cases, improvements can be achieved with

relatively small changes in operating procedures

(e.g., computerizing controls, increasing operator

training) (ch. 6). In other cases, however, retrofitting

will involve adding pollution controls (e.g., scrubbers, baghouses). This can be expensive and could

lead to some facilities closing, which might reduce

risks but would also affect available waste management capacity. One of the many factors that could be

considered is the appropriate age of existing plants

for which to require retrofitting. Retrofitting may be

important, for example, for facilities that have been

operating for 5 or more years but that do not meet

current BACT standards and are scheduled to

continue operating for at least an additional 5 years.

For facilities nearing the end of their projected

lifetime, retrofitting may not be worthwhile. Another factor could be size, with larger facilities

located near larger population centers being evaluated first.

Congress could consider innovative means to

finance the retrofitting of existing facilities. For

example, the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act requires each facility operator to set aside 3 percent of

all tipping fee revenues into a dedicated fund that

will be used to meet future State pollution control

requirements (28). Congress could adopt this approach for existing, and perhaps new, incinerators by

requiring that a similar provision be included in

permit renewals and in new permits.

Landfills

Landfills will always be needed to manage the

residues from recycling and incineration, as well as

for the noncombustible, nonrecyclable portion of the

wastestream. Indeed, a continued high percentage of

all MSW could be landfilled if the Nation were

willing to site or expand more landfills, pay the costs

of transporting MSW to these landfills, pay for

pollution controls, and accept some unavoidable

risks. Some new landfills are being sited, and

permitted capacity at existing landfills has been

expanded in some cases (ch. 7).4* In some localities,

landfills will remain the primary management method,

especially where recycling and/or incineration capacities cannot be developed economically, or

41L~dfi]ls m~[ have ~rmjts to o~rate Iega]ly; some facilities may have additional space that is not permitted, but such space is nOt considered to

be available capacity.
Chapter l--Findings and Policy Options . 41

where landfills can be located away from aquifers

(e.g., in some arid areas).

Overall, the current decline in permitted landfill

capacity seems likely to continue. Increased

landfill capacity cannot be relied on as a nationwide solution to MSW problems, given current

attitudes about siting and desires to move toward

prevention and other forms of management.

Implementing a prevention and materials management policy could reduce some associated risks

and prolong the life of some landfills. For example,

much of the MSW in landfills consists of paper and

paper products, yard and food wastes, and plastics

(ch. 3).42 Thus, separating and comporting yard

waste could divert a large portion of MSW from

landfills and reduce some potential leachate problems (ch. 7). Moreover, new landfills that use BACT

(e.g., synthetic liners, leachate collection systems)

and proper siting procedures can be managed much

more safely than could past landfills.

The issues raised by landfilling thus are similar to

those for incineration. Two of these issues, the

Federal role in resolving siting problems and developing capacity, were discussed above. The primary

issue discussed here is how to ensure that new and

existing facilities provide adequate public health and

environmental protection. Most States have some

guidelines or standards for MSW landfills, in some

cases based on criteria developed by EPA in 1979,

and many older, substandard landfills have closed

instead of being upgraded to meet these standards.

EPA is revising recently proposed regulations for

the design, operation, and location of Subtitle D

landfills. Congress could provide additional direction to EPA, particularly guidance on whether the

regulations should use a risk-based or design-based

approach and whether they should apply to facilities

that close before the standards become effective.

Congress also could clarify the issue of municipal

liability for corrective action.

Option 1: Give Additional Direction to EPA’s

Regulatory Effort

Option 1A: Specify How Landfills Should

Be Regulated

The regulations currently proposed by EPA do not

require the use of BACT. Instead, they would allow

States to regulate each aquifer with a different

risk-based standard, so long as the associated cancer

risk fell below a specified range. Depending on the

risk level chosen for a given site, some new landfills

might be built without liners or leachate collection

systems. This flexibility may be desirable, but the

range of allowable risks is wide (between one

additional cancer death per 10,000 people and one

per 10 million people), and EPA provided little

guidance on which design features would meet

particular risk-based standards. These and other

problems with the proposed regulations are discussed in chapter 7.

Congress could endorse this risk-based approach,

or it could direct EPA to specify uniform design

criteria based on BACT, and thus provide clearer

direction to communities and States about how new

landfills should be built. The major problem with a

design-based approach is its lack of flexibility,

particularly for sites located in arid areas, far from an

aquifer, or in special geological areas. This problem

could be addressed, however. For instance, sitespecific variances from uniform criteria could be

allowed, assuming that the alternative provides a

similar level of protection. Alternatively, EPA could

specify different design features for use in different

situations, although this might prove to be a

formidable task given the variability in site characteristics. Whatever final form the regulations take,

the costs of developing and operating new landfills

will be higher in the future.

Option 1B: Extend Corrective Action and

Closure Requirements

Some MSW landfills have been associated with

environmental problems (e.g., groundwater contamination; ch. 7), and it is possible that more will cause

problems in the future. EPA’s proposed regulations

include corrective action, closure, post closure, and

financial assurance requirements to help remedy

4QT&W ma~~~s repre=n[ a~u[ two-~irds by weight of the waste in landfills. The average total volume cannot be determined kause data we

lacking on the composition by volume of MSW entering landfills.

99-420 0 - 89 - 2
42 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

future problems. Existing landfills that close within

18 months after the regulations are promulgated,

however, would not be subject to the corrective

action requirements unless State regulations require

otherwise (ch. 7). As a result, the rate at which

substandard facilities close is likely to increase

because they could avoid potentially expensive

closure and corrective action procedures. Congress

could address this issue by directing EPA to consider

making all existing landfills subject to the requirements at the time the regulations are promulgated.

While this would impose substantial costs on some

landfill operators, it would provide for the orderly

closing of substandard facilities and avoid some of

the problems discussed in Option 2 below.

Option 2: Clarify Municipal Liability Provisions

The Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund) currently can be used

for remedial actions at landfills, and indeed 20

percent of the sites on the National Priorities List

(NPL) are municipal landfills.43 Although local

governments do not relish the idea of having their

landfill on the NPL, Superfund does provide two

advantages to municipalities—a source of funding

for cleanup, and the sharing of liabilities for cleanup

and corrective action among industrial waste generators, transporters, and local owners and operators.

In proposed amendments to CERCLA, however,

EPA suggested deferring the listing of additional

municipal landfills on the NPL after corrective

action requirements under Subtitle D of RCRA are

issued (53 Federal Register 51394, Dec. 21, 1988).

This deferral policy would apply only to currently

active landfills, not to previously closed ones. It

would require that active landfills meet financial

responsibility requirements for cleanup to assure

some funding for remediation efforts that do not fall

under Superfund.

One important consequence of this proposed

policy, however, is that it would make local landfill

owners and operators liable for corrective action and

cleanup costs, instead of sharing liability with waste 44 This policy is supported by generators and haulers.

representatives of industrial waste generators, who

contend that MSW alone can generate toxic leachate

and that corrective action at municipal landfills

should be handled under a separate program (60).

The disadvantage to municipalities is that the

costs of identifying, ranking, and cleaning up

Superfund-type sites are high (49,55), and few

municipalities are likely to be able to bear such

costs. Moreover, most municipalities have either

expected to share liabilities with waste generators

and transporters or been unaware of their liabilities

under Superfund. The position of organizations

representing municipalities (e.g., National League

of Cities, Governmental Refuse Collection and

Disposal Association) is that Superfund should

continue to be used for corrective action and cleanup

of municipal landfills (45).

Congress could allow EPA to continue developing the deferred listing policy, in conjunction with

development of corrective action requirements under

proposed Subtitle D criteria. If Superfund is not used

for cleanup of additional municipal landfills, one

possibility for easing the financial burden on municipalities is for States to place a tax on tipping fees at

all landfills. Revenues could be placed into trust

funds to support corrective action programs. This

approach is being tried in some States (e.g., Massachusetts).

Alternatively, Congress could direct EPA to

revise the proposed amendments, specifically to

continue including municipal landfills in Superfund

and to develop procedures for allocating liability

among municipalities and industries. Another alternative is to allow States to petition EPA to defer

individual sites. In this approach, site-specific conditions would be considered and the deferred site

would be handled under other programs. The position of the municipal representatives on this approach is that, if it is adopted, States should be

required to obtain the concurrence of the local

government owner and operator when a municipal

site is considered for deferral.

A longer term approach to avoiding such problems is to keep certain materials out of landfills. For

q3The NpL is tie Ii.q of sites designat~ by EPA for cleanup action under the auspices Of the Superfund prOgUUII.

‘$4At lem~ initially, his would be true. In theory, however, the costs could later be recovered through legal action against waste generators, but Some

argue that in practice this would be unlikely (45).
Chapter l-Findings and Policy Options ● 43

example, localities could be encouraged to remove

and compost yard wastes, which would reduce the

probability that leachate will cause problems. Some

States have banned the disposal of such materials in

MSW landfills if comporting facilities are available.

The disposal of industrial wastes and small quantity

generator hazardous wastes at MSW landfills also

could be phased out as other management capacity

for these wastes is developed. In the interim, landfill

operators could be required to meet stricter standards

and provide better records if they accept such

wastes.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

One of the difficulties in developing a coherent

MSW policy is that trash touches virtually all the

threads of our social fabric. Products and packaging,

yard waste-all eventually become part of the MS W

stream. The system that produces MSW is so

complex and dynamic that no single option is

guaranteed in and of itself to solve MSW problems.

In fact, it is not clear that there is a single given

combination of options that is best.

What is clear, however, is that unless we develop

a more comprehensive approach, the Nation will

continue to have problems with capacity, siting, and

costs for MSW management. Many of the options

described in this report have been suggested before.

They have not been acted on, however, and problems

have worsened.

We can choose to continue facing piles of trash,

or we can turn in a new direction. By implementing a policy that considers MSW in the context of

materials use, a policy based on the concepts of

waste prevention and materials management, we

have a chance to solve the problems associated

with MSW.

CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3<

American Paper Institute, 1987 Annual Statistical

Summary, Waste Paper Utilization (New York, NY:

June 1988).

Ayers, R. U., and Kneese, A. V., “Production, Consumption, and Externalities, ’ American Economic

Review, June 1969 (available from Resources for the

Future, reprint #76).

Belasen, A.T., The New York State Returnable

Beverage Container La&conomic E#ects, Industry Adaptations, and Guidelines for Improved Envi4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11,

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

ronmental Policy, Rockefeller Institute Working

Paper No. 31 (Albany, NY: State University of New

York, spring 1988).

Berkman, M.P., and Dunbar, F. C., “The Underpricing of Landfills, ” paper presented at Third

Annual Conference on Solid Waste Management and

Materials Policy (New York, NY: Feb. 13, 1987).

Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Development and Pilot Test of an Intensive Municipal Solid

Waste Recycling System for the Town of Eust

Hampton, report submitted to New York State

Energy Research and Development Authority (Flushing, NY: 1988).

Clean Japan Center, ‘‘Waste Volume on the Rise and

Measures Against It,” Clean Japan 14:6-10, February 1989.

Copperthite, K., U.S. Department of Commerce,

personal communication, 1989.

Crew, M. A., and Kleindorfer, P. R., “Landfill Tipping Fees Should Be Much Higher, ” Waste Age, pp.

131-134, February 1988.

Deutsches Institut fur Gutesicherung und Kennzeichnung, “Verzeichnis der Produkte und Z~ichenanwender sowie der jeweiligen Produktanforderungen ”

(Bonn: June 1988).

Dunbar, F. C., and Berkman, M. P., ‘‘Sanitary

Landfills Are Too Cheap!” Waste Age, pp. 91-99,

May 1987.

Environment ‘Environmentally Friendly Products,

Environment 31(2):23, 1989.

Environment Reporter, “EPA Region X Calls for

Recycling as Possible Incinerator Permit Condition, Environment Reporter 19(49):2565-2566, Apr.

7, 1989.

Environmental Defense Fund, “National Advertising

Campaign on Recycling Launched by the Environmental Defense Fund & the Advertising Council, ’

news release (New York, NY: Sept. 15, 1988).

Ferrand, T, “Memorandum, Proposed NRC Standard Definitions” (Absecon, NJ: Ferrand Associates,

NOV. 16, 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Wute in the United States, 1960 to 2000

(Update 1988), final report, prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (Prairie Village,

KS: March 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in Municipal

Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000,

Executive Summary and Chapter 1, final report

prepared for U.S. EPA, Municipal So!id Waste

Program (Prairie Village, KS: January 1989).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., The Role of Beverage

Containers in Recycling and Solid Waste Manage-
44 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29,

30.

31.

32.

33.

ment, A Perspective for the 1990s, final report

prepared for Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (Prairie Village, KS: April 1989).

Golub, N. M., Strachan, J.R., Berle, P.A.A., et al.,

Final Report of the Temporaq State Commission on

Returnable Beverage Containers (Albany, NY: Mar.

27, 1985).

Greenblott, J., Technical Resources, Inc., personal

communication, September 1988.

Hemphill, T., “Financing Options: The Next Phase

of Market Development+’ Recycling Today 26(12):58-

66, December 1988.

Institute for Imcal Self-Reliance (ILSR), “National

Recycling Research Agenda Project, ” Final Report

to National Science Foundation (Washington, DC:

1980).

Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), Financing

Mechanisms to Promote Recycling at the State and

Local Level (Washington, DC: 1985).

Institute for Imcal Self-Reliance (ILSR), Beyond 25

Percent: Materials Recovery Comes of Age (Washington, DC: 1989).

KneeSe, A. V., and Bower, B. T., Environmental

Quality and Residuals Management ($altimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).

Kovacs, W. L., “The Coming Era of Conservation

and Industrial Utilization of Recyclable Materials, ”

Ecology Law Quarterly 15:537-625, 1988.

Kovacs, W. L., and Anderson, A. A., “States As

Market Participants in Solid Waste Disposal ServicesFair Competition or the Destruction of the Private

Sector?” Environmental Luw 18:779-816, 1988.

bsser, W., and Madhavan, A., “Economic Impacts

of a National Deposit Law: Cost Estimates and Policy

Questions,’ Journ. Consumer Aflairs 21(1): 122-

140, summer 1987.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality

Engineering, “Q&A, Questions & Answers on the

Solid Waste Act of 1987,” Division of Solid Waste

Management (Boston, MA: January 1988).

McCarthy, J., Congressional Research Service, personal communication, February 1989.

Meyer, B., Aluminum Association, personal communication, 1989.

Moore, W. K., and Scott, D. L., “Beverage Container

Deposit Laws: A Survey of the Issues and Results,”

Journ. Consumer Aflairs 17(1):57-80, summer 1983.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid Waste, New York State

Solid Waste Management Plan, 1987-88 Update

(Albany, NY: March 1988).

Oberrneier, T., Federal Republic of Germany, personal communication, March 1989

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, “An

Evaluation of the True Costs of Sanitary Landfills for

the Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste in the

Portland Metropolitan Area,” prepared by ECO

Northwest, April 1986.

Page, T., Conservation and Economic E#iciency, An

Approach to Materials Policy (Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1977).

Porter, R. C., “Michigan’s Experience With Mandatory Deposits on Beverage Containers, ” Land Economics 59(2):177-194, May 1983.

Rathje, W. L., Hughes, W. W., Archer, G., and

Wilson, D. C., “Source Reduction and Landfill

Myths,” paper presented at ASTSWMO National

Solid Waste Forum on Integrated Municipal Waste

Management (Lake Buena Vista, FL: July 17-20,

1988).

Rathje, W. L., University of Arizona, personal communication, Feb. 1989.

Riggle, D., “Only Pay For What You Throw Away, ”

BioCyc/e 30(2):39-41, February 1989.

Rose, D., “National Beverage Container Deposit

bgislation: A Cost-Benefit Analysis, ” J. Environmental Systems 12(1):71-84, 1982-83.

Rozett, J. M., “Resolving the “Bottle Bill” Controversy: The Role of Policy Analysis in Decision

Making,” Rockefeller Institute of Government, New

York Case Studies in Public Management No. 14

(Albany, NY: State University of New York, November 1984).

Smallburg, K., Steel Can Recycling Institute, personal communication, 1989.

Society of Packaging and Handling Engineers, ‘Memorandum Re: SPHE Recycling and Disposal Guidelines for Packaging Professionals” (Reston, VA:

hdy 11, 1988).

Society of the Plastics Industry, personal communication, 1988.

Steinzor, R. I., ‘‘Comments of the National bague of

Cities and the Governmental Refuse Collection and

Disposal Association on EPA’s Proposed Revisions

to the Superfund National Contingency Plan’ (Washington, DC: Spiegel & McDiarmid, Mar. 23, 1989).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Materials and Energy From Municipul Waste, OTAM-93 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, July 1979).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Industrial and Commercial Cogeneration, OTA-E192 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, February 1983).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, OTA-M-196 (Springfield,
Chapter l—Findings and Policy Options . 45

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

VA: National Technical Information Service, March

1983).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Superfund Strategy, OTA-lTE- 252 (Springfield,

VA: National Technical Information Service, April

1985).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste, OTA-H’E317 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, September 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April

1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

From Pollution to Prevention: A Progress Report on

Waste Reducfion, OTA-lTE-347 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Ofice, June 1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

‘‘Workshop on MSW Reduction’ (Washington, DC:

July 14-15, 1988).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

[ssues in Medical Waste A4anagemenbBackground

Paper, OTA-BP-O-49 (Washington, DC: October

1988).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Assessing Contractor USC in Superfund--Background

Paper, OTA-BP-lTE-51 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, January 1989).

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress, Solid Waste Disposal in the United States,

Volume //, OffIce of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response, EPA/530-SW-88-01 1 B (Washington, DC:

October 1988).

U.S. Environmental protection Agency, The Solid

Waste Dilemma, An Agenda for Action, Report of the

Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, Office of Solid

Waste (Washington, DC: February 1989).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Spokane

Regional Waste to Energy Project PSD Appeal No.

88-12 (Spokane, Washington), ’ Memorandum from

G. O’Neal, Air and Toxics Division, to R.L. McCallum, Chief Judicial Officer, EPA Region X (Seattle,

WA: 1989).

Water Pollution Control Federation, “Waste Minimization and Waste Reduction, ” Journ. Water Poll.

Control Fed. 61(2):184, 1989.

Webster, I., “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills:

Toxic Chemical Releases and the Role of Industrial

Wastes in Those Releases, ’ unpublished manuscript

(Los Angeles, CA: Unocal Corp., 1988).

World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 1987).

Worldwatch Institute, “Environmental Seal of Approval,” WorldWatch 2(3):6- 7, May/June 1989.
Chapter 2

The MSW System in Transition
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

MSW Generation and Management as Part of a “System’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Product Design and Manufacture: The Beginning of the MSW Lifecycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Changes in the public and Private Waste Management Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Risks Associated With MSW Management Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Costs of MSW Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Solid Waste Management Costs in Perspective.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Landfills: The Indispensable Option.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Incineration and Landfilling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Materials Recovery: The Moving Target... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Boxes

Box Page

2-A. Generations of MSW and Materials Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2-B. OTA Survey and Computer Model of MSW Management Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figures

Figure Page

2-I. Comparison of MSW Management Costs for Selected Model Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . 59

Tables

Table Page

2-l. List of Cities and Counties Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

2-2. Description of Model Scenarios for MSW Management Cost Comparisons. . . . . . . . 60
Chapter 2

The MSW System in Transition

INTRODUCTION

The United States is a land of abundant natural

resources. Although the limitations of this great

wealth are becoming apparent-declining energy

resources, polluted air and water, rising land costs,

signs of industrial decline—societal attitudes regarding the use of this wealth have not yet adjusted.

Our social and economic philosophies in many ways

still emphasize ‘‘consumerism, ’ tending to divert

attention away from the idea of resource conservation. We have a high per-capita waste generation

rate, and that rate seems to be increasing (ch. 3).

There is no easy answer to the question of why our

society has become such a prodigious waste producer, nor is there an easy way to reverse this trend.

Some elements that contribute to the overall trend

are obvious: for instance, factors such as a product’s

appearance and convenience are more important to

today’s consumers than where it came from and

what will happen when it is discarded. Other

elements are less visible, however. As our standard

of living has increased and a smaller share of the

population is engaged in the physical production of

goods, people have become less aware of how

materials are obtained and transformed into usable

products.

Whether the tendency toward increased waste is

an inherent characteristic of U.S. consumers or

whether it is the result of manufacturers’ advertising

is unclear. It is true, however, that in the past product

designers and manufacturers have not been burdened with the responsibility for the ultimate fate of

their products, that is, what happens to the products

after they are used. Neither have the majority of

consumers been concerned with the ultimate disposal of their waste.

Heightened concerns about our industrial prowess, our deteriorating environment, and what some

claim to be an apparent lack of concern for the future

are forcing us to reexamine our values. The problems

emerging with MSW reflect this convergence of

concerns: can U.S. industry respond adequately to

help us generate less MSW; can we devise better

materials use and waste management strategies; and

are we willing to work today to ensure that future

generations are not forced to pay a high price for our

carelessness?

This chapter briefly examines societal, institutional, and industrial influences that have shaped the

present MSW situation. Understanding the evolution of the problem and the dynamics of the

“system” that manages our MSW can help illuminate likely targets for change. The chapter begins

with a discussion of the interrelationships among

production decisions, consumption patterns, waste

generation, and MSW management. The evolution

of the public and private waste management infrastructure also is described. Two key issues affecting

the entire MSW system—the risks and the costs

associated with different management methods—

are also examined.

MSW GENERATION AND

MANAGEMENT AS PART OF A

“SYSTEM”

The nature and quantity of MS W that we generate,

and how we manage it, are determined by a

multitude of decisions made at all levels of the

socioeconomic system. Linkages among different

stages in the lifecycle of MSW—product design,

manufacture, distribution, use, and discard-often

are unclear and may even be invisible. Each of these

linkages represents a leverage point for changing

decisions and thus the MSW status quo. But

people’s awareness of the MSW system, and their

role in it, is growing, especially in parts of the

country where waste disposal costs have increased

and disposal capacity has declined. For example, the

intense public opposition to the siting of MSW

management facilities has prompted some citizens

-49–
50 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

to question their own consumption patterns and

waste disposal practices.

Product Design and Manufacture: The

Beginning of the MSW Lifecycle

The design of products has enormous influence on

MSW management. For example, products that

contain potentially toxic substances, for whatever

functional reasons, have led to concerns about

human health and environmental risks associated

with landfilling, incineration, and recycling (see

“Risks Associated With Management Methods”

below).

Product design is very dynamic. Manufacturers

continually change products for reasons that include

increased marketability and safety and decreased

costs of production and materials. This has led to

many changes that ultimately effect MSW management-e.g., the shift in packaging and containers to

using lighter materials such as plastics and paper in

place of glass and metal (chs. 3 and 4).

In general, however, the entire production end of

the MSW lifecycle has not received much attention

as a focus for solving MSW problems, at least until

recently. Design and production changes are rarely

undertaken in response to concerns about MSW

management. Although manufacturers have incentives to reduce the costs and liabilities associated

with their industrial wastes, they have little incentive

to worry about disposal costs for their final products

(ch. 1). This, in turn, means that changes in product

design can have unintentional, negative effects on

MSW management-e. g., the use of multi-material

packaging can make such packaging more difficult

to recycle.

Now, however, there is growing awareness of the

link between the design and production of consumer

products and MSW management problems. In a few

instances, issues related to MSW management have

manifested themselves at the product design stage

(e.g., degradable plastic bags, mercury-free household batteries). There is a growing movement

advocating “design for recycling,’ i.e., designing

products to be recyclable or to use more recycled

materials. This concept could be extended to include

‘‘design for reduction,’ a call for products designed

to be less toxic or more durable, or to use fewer

materials. These changes all could have positive

effects on MSW management (chs. 1 and 4).

The Federal Government, State governments,

industries, and consumer groups are all wrestling

with how to promote these types of changes. State

governments in the Northeast, for example, have

created a waste reduction task force to work with

industry on ways to reduce MSW toxicity and

quantity (ch. 8). Working with the Conservation

Foundation, EPA sponsored a dialog beginning in

1988 on MSW reduction, with representatives from

government, industry, academia, and public interest

groups (ch. 8). Continued and increased interest in

how to address product design will be a critical

factor in the future success of MSW reduction and

recycling efforts. OTA discusses policy options

related to these issues in chapter 1.

Changes in the Public and Private Waste

Management Infrastructure

The Evolution of Waste Management Practices

In the past, waste management meant simply

getting rid of the trash. Often, this was done for a low

cost by a local, privately owned waste disposal

company, the municipality, or sometimes by residents at a local dump. Government attention to waste

was minimal, even at the local level. Municipal

government involvement in waste management

consisted, at the most, of owning collection vehicles

and the landfill. No consideration was given to how

much waste was generated or to its characteristics.

No one really cared what ended up at the landfill or

where it came from. ’

Most recovery of materials for recycling occurred

at no cost to residents because it was done by local

private scrap collectors or by volunteer groups as a

fund-raising activity. The volume of materials collected was dependent on the price for the materials

in the marketplace. When prices fell, collection

declined and when prices increased, collection

increased. Waste collection and disposal costs were

generally not affected, however,

Some additional materials recovery occurred

outside the purview of the municipal budget at

drop-off or buy-back centers operated by charity

]ExWhencc~ of IW~ govements wi~ MSW mmagemcnt, including the myriad of problems that have faced local officials. are discussed in ch. ~.
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition ● 51

groups or environmental organizations.2 These centers became particularly popular during the 1970s,

when social awareness of resource conservation and

environmental protection was high. However, neither these centers nor the traditional scrap industry

were viewed as part of the waste management

system.

At the same time, litter reduction efforts also

increased, and several States passed beverage container deposit legislation (ch. 8). The costs of these

programs were borne principally by the beverage

industry, the consumer, and the retail sector. Studies

indicate that this type of legislation reduced beverage container litter by as much as 80 percent (9,12).

In general, however, the legislation was not oriented

toward waste management, and the reduction in the

amount of MSW sent to incinerators or landfills was

less than 5 percent.3

By the mid-1970s, the recovery of materials and

energy from MSW as a waste management alternative was entering its infancy, especially in terms of

government policy. Technologies for recovering

energy and materials from mixed waste were unproven, and many municipalities were wary of the

financial, social, and political risks involved. Many

private firms, however, viewed energy and materials

recovery as promising business opportunities and

rushed to offer related products and services. Firms

expanding into these activities included those involved in pollution control, petrochemicals and oil,

aerospace, solid waste collection and disposal,

containers and packaging, engineering and construction consulting, and machinery and equipment

manufacturers (2). In other words, there was no

shortage of willing entrants into the emerging, but

yet unknown, materials and energy recovery segments of the waste management field.

Since that time, energy recovery and, more

recently, materials recovery have proven to be a

boon to the waste management business. Numerous

technologies have been developed to recover materials from mixed MSW, to sort commingled recyclable, or to process recyclable separated by waste

generators (i.e., by households, offices, etc.). AlPhoto credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Consumers can often take separated materials such as

used aluminum beverage cans to a “buy-back” center that

pays for the materials and then further processes them for

market.

though these types of activities were once viewed as

being oriented toward commodities—designed to

profit strictly from the marketing of materials-they

are now also viewed as a waste management service.

In some instances, municipally owned materials

recovery facilities compete with private recyclers,

further spurring the private sector to view recovery

of materials from waste as a business opportunity.

Many of these changes in the structure of the

waste management industry occurred over several

generations. Box 2-A describes these types of

changes for one California community.

The Current Status of the

Waste Management Industry

By 1988, analysts were projecting waste management industry-wide revenues of$18 billion over the

years 1988 through 1995 from waste-to-energy

incinerators alone (19). The materials recovery

2A d~OP-Off ~~~t~r ~a & a ~maent Site Or a mobile mailer accc~ing One or more materials. These Centers are Often operated by nonprofit group>

or by communities. A buy-back center hm a similar arrangement, except that cash is exchanged for the material. Aluminum recycling centers, oficn

operated by aluminum companies, are the most prevalen[ form of buy-back operation.

qMet~, gl=s, ~d PIMUC &CragC containers covered under these programs nOmUdly m~e uP abut 5 Percent of the ‘aste ‘Were”
52 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 2-A-Generations of MSW and Materials Management

Adaptation and innovation—in collection, management methods, and financing-have proven to be key

ingredients in the evolution of MSW management in Marin County, California. One of the driving forces behind

the county’s ambitious recycling program is Joseph J. Garbarino. For Garbarino, MSW management is more than

a business, it’s a family tradition. Marin Sanitary Service, a waste collection and hauling company that is over 40

years old, is owned by Garbarino and three partners. Garbarino’s father, John, an Italian immigrant, was a

garbageman and his daughters, Susan and Patricia, work in the business. Garbarino notes that many people in the

Bay area garbage business had uncles, fathers, and grandfathers who hauled garbage there earlier in the century.

The latest advance in the business is a recycling processing facility, the Marin Resource Recovery Center in

San Rafael, that is generations removed from earlier methods of collection and management. Earlier in the century,

scavenging (an ‘old name for recycling,’ according to Garbarino) was a normal part of garbage collection and scrap

dealers played an integral role in managing discarded materials; in the early 1920s, garbagemen in the Bay area even

formed the Scavengers’ Protection Association to avoid competing too strenuously among themselves. A team of

men would set out collecting burlap garbage sacks, with one man sorting the discards on a horse-pulled wagon or

later on a flatbed truck. Anything that could not be reused was disposed of in San Francisco Bay, apparently helping

to build Treasure Island. As the consequences of this disposal method became better understood, techniques began

to change. ‘ ‘Sanitary landfills’ became the favored MSW management tool; the San Quentin Disposal Site operated

from 1958 to 1987$ and Marin Sanitary Service began disposing MSW in the Redwood Landfill in 1948.

At about this same time, compaction collection trucks were introduced in Marin County. The advent of these

“packer” trucks in the late 1950s was a significant reason that many garbage collectors stopped recovering

materials for several decades. In the late 1970s, after some of the initial recycling enthusiasm of the early 1970s

(which had spawned and seen the demise of numerous community recycling programs) had settled, Marin Sanitary

Service became re-involved in the business of recycling. Garbarino helped develop Marin Recycling, a pioneering

residential curbside collection program owned by three companies, with initial funding from the California Waste

Management Board. In 1980, Marin Recycling bought its first recycling collection trucks. Given recent trends,

Garbarino predicts that one day the county will have more recycling collection trucks than packer trucks.

For Garbarino, the orientation toward recycling is practical and wise business. He argued early for curbside

collection of recyclable because it would prolong the life of local landfills and give area trash haulers additional

business opportunities. Today, Garbarino stresses the importance of managing waste in ways that are

environmentally sound as well as profitable, and he supports increased waste reduction and recycling efforts.

Since 1980, the curbside program has collected cans, bottles, and paper-initially about 1,000 tons per year,

currently 22,500 tons per year. The facility also accepts a similar amount of source-separated materials from nearby

cities. An innovative recycling surcharge conceived by Garbarino was adopted by the 16 participating communities

to subsidize the program. It helped the program survive a recession shortly after it began and the surcharge is still

in place today, 8 years later. Marin Recycling now services about 168,000 of the 225,000 residents in the county.

In 1987, Marin Sanitary Service opened the Marin Resource Recovery Center, housed on an 18-acre site in San

Rafael, to process recyclable. The center receives about 5,000 to 6,000 tons of materials a month, mostly from the

commercial sector, and recovers about 1,500 tons a month (other residues and trash loads are sent to a landfill). The

$9.5 million center was financed for Marin Sanitary Service by a local bank. It receives materials from private

haulers who are charged a tipping fee and from the commercial collection program. The center also buys baled

cardboard from grocers and re-bales it for export. In addition, a collection of pigs, rabbits and other farm animals

consume some of the food waste from local restaurants and grocers.

Garbarino plans to expand the apartment complex component of the residential curbside program and may

build a refuse-derived fuel facility in an effort to meet Marin County’s 50 percent recycling goal. Today, Marin

Recycling and the Resource Recovery Center collect and divert between 20 to 30 percent of source-separated

materials from residences and businesses for recycling. Over the years, Garbarino has worked closely with the

communities and their local and State public officials. Undoubtedly, this cooperation will be important to the future

evolution of Marin County’s MSW and materials management approach.

SOURCE: J.J. Garbarino, personal cornmunicauon, March 1988; P Garbarino, personal comrn unication, August 1989.
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition . 53

segment of the industry also is likely to experience

substantial growth in the next few years. Such

projections for growth have prompted Wall Street

analysts to proclaim the waste management industry

‘‘recession proof.

The six largest public U.S. waste management

companies in fiscal 1987 reported annual revenues

of $5 billion from solid and hazardous waste

services. In many instances, these large companies

were formed by consolidation and vertical integration, and many are becoming international concerns.

For example:

●

●

●

Western Waste, the fifth largest waste management firm (in terms of 1987 revenues), purchased the routes and other assets of 10 waste

hauling companies in fiscal 1987;

Browning-Ferris Industries, the Nation’s second largest waste management firm, acquired

more than 100 solid waste-related businesses;

and

Attwoods PLC, a British company, acquired 12

small Florida waste hauling companies, a

medium-sized waste management company in

Maryland, and several other waste-related enterprises to make it the fourth largest waste

management firm in the United States.

A hint of future trends in waste management can

be gleaned from the pages of these companies’

annual reports. All plan continued acquisitions of

related businesses to increase capacity for waste

treatment and disposal. The industry also is responding to the growing desire in many municipalities to

reduce the quantities of waste going to incinerators

and landfills (20). For example, a number of

companies involved primarily in the waste-toenergy industry have become increasingly involved

in materials recovery, both as a means of improving

combustion and of keeping up with the changing

needs expressed by local governments.

Changing Roles for the Public

and the Private Sector

“Grassroots” recyclers have enjoyed revitalized

interest, as the public takes a more active role in

exploring solutions to MSW problems. Statewide

recycling associations formed in the late 1970s have

flourished and are helping to educate the citizenry

about the benefits of materials recovery. The NaPhoto credit: Office of Technology Assessment

In the late 1950s, most communities began using “packer”

trucks to collect and compact mixed MSW and then

transport it to landfills.

tional Recycling Coalition, with members representing local private recyclers as well as State government officials, has helped increase awareness and

facilitate information flow from the local level to the

national level. State officials have initiated regional

recycling associations, such as the North East

Recycling Coalition and the Great Lakes Recycling

Coalition, to pursue a variety of cooperative efforts

designed to enhance recycling in member States.

Such pursuits include cooperative purchasing of

products made from recycled materials and development of standards and definitions to become part of

a common recycling language. Along with these

efforts, many nonprofit recycling centers increased

their participation in the MSW system, undertaking

community outreach activities and expanding the

types of materials they handle.

The trend toward increasing materials recovery by

the public sector as a means of managing MSW has

caused some stress on parts of the existing private

infrastructure, however. Traditional scrap dealers,

who in the past worked primarily with industrial

customers, now must compete with increasing

supplies of materials from the residential waste

stream. These dealers were once able to act as a sort

of ‘‘safety valve, ’ turning the materials supply on

and off in response to demand, Their ability to

perform this function is changing, however, because

the recovery of materials by municipal governments
54 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid waste?

is increasing. Municipal materials recovery is motivated not by price but by avoidance of everincreasing disposal costs. Therefore, declining commodity prices, which would normally trigger a

reduction in supply, can be overshadowed by the

need to avoid disposal costs in municipal recycling

programs. The existence of a supplier that is not

sensitive to prices will put additional pressure on

those that are solely motivated by profit.4 The full

effects of these changing waste management trends

on the private recycling sector will only be fully

realized when recession occurs and materials markets, and prices, shrink.

Some municipalities have attempted to enlist the

private scrap sector into the MSW management

system. In some cities, existing buy-back and

drop-off centers have been included in the overall

MSW management plan, either alone or as supplements to curbside recycling programs. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an existing nonprofit buy-back

center was used in a pilot recycling program as a

materials recovery facility to sort commingled

recyclable.

The ownership of MSW management facilities is

another factor in transition. Although the trend is

toward increased activities to be included in MSW

management systems, the operation and sometimes

ownership of these activities is often private. As the

system becomes more complex and market oriented,

municipalities (especially the smaller ones) may be

reluctant to assume the primary responsibility for

operating a complex business. The large waste

management companies that have emerged are

sophisticated in the technical aspects of MSW

management and financially capable of accepting

some of the associated business risks. At the

municipal level, the prospect of contracting out

increasingly complicated waste management services has become particularly attractive. In some

larger metropolitan areas, however, governments

may view private scrap dealers as unnecessary

intermediaries robbing the public sector of needed

revenue.

The private financial sector also has become more

involved in MSW management activities. The proliferation of multi-million dollar municipal waste-toenergy facilities in municipalities with limited

budgets necessitated the creation of sophisticated

financing schemes, and Wall Street brokerage houses

have developed a substantial business in creating

financing packages for such facilities. In fact, the

involvement of large investment houses in the

waste-to-energy industry may even have helped

reduce the skepticism that many municipal officials

had toward this technology. Because the capital

requirements for materials recovery facilities are

much lower than for incinerators, making financing

easier, similar financial sector involvement in recycling may be limited.

As the MSW management infrastructure has

evolved, there has been an increasing awareness of

the risks associated with management activities and

concern over the increased costs associated with

improved management methods. The risks and costs

associated with MSW practices are two major

factors decisionmakers must weigh when devising

suitable MSW strategies for their communities.

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH MSW

MANAGEMENT METHODS

Public opposition to the siting of MSW management facilities in part stems from concerns about the

potential health and environmental risks associated

with these facilities. Potential risks are posed, for

example, by:

● emissions and ash from incinerators;

. emissions and leachate from landfills; and

. emissions, effluent, and sludge residues from

recycling (including processing and manufacturing facilities).

Some of these are created when the organic

portion of MSW (e.g., yard wastes, paper, and

plastics) is processed, burned, or decomposed.

Others stem from the metals and organic chemicals

contained in products discarded in MSW—in ‘housedAn tiogous sit~tion existed in the world copper market, which con.si.sts of industrial country suppliers, who upti%lY Profit-motivd, @

of developing country suppliers, who are motivated more by a desire to maintain employment and generate foreign exchange. As copper prices fell during

the 1982 recession, developing country suppliers refused to cut back on supply, and in some instances even increased supply to maintain earnings in

the face of lower prices. The result was that prices were pushed down even further, to the point where they had km during the Great Depression, a much

lower drop than that which occurred in the overall level of economic activity. The price depression experienced by the world copper industry was not

matched by that for other industries.
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition ● 55

hold hazardous wastes” (e.g., solvents, paints,

batteries, and cleansers) and other products (e.g.,

metal additives in plastics). Non-MSW (e.g., industrial non-hazardous solid waste) discarded at

landfills also contributes metals and organic chemicals (chs. 3 and 7). After being discarded, these

substances can pose potential risks in any MSW

management activity--landfilling, incineration, or

recycling (chs. 5,6, and 7).5 The extent to which any

of one of these products or substances contribute to

overall risks from MSW management is not clear.

Various public interest and private industry

groups have attempted to promote one management

method over the other on the basis of comparative

risk. However, little effort has been made, even at

the Federal level, to quantitatively assess the

comparative risks posed by different MSW management methods. It is beyond the capabilities of

current risk assessment efforts to compare risks

among management alternatives (e.g., of potential

risks associated with landfilling, incineration, or

recycling), although comparisons of options within

a type of management alternative are possible (e.g.,

a comparison of landfill designs). OTA has found no

quantitative evidence to support a definitive comparison of human health and environmental risks

associated with recycling, incineration, and landfilling.

Quantitative estimation and comparison of the

relative risks associated with different management

methods is difficult, in part because of problems

inherent in risk assessment methodologies and in

part because of data deficiencies. For example, it is

clear that some potential environmental risks are

associated with all MSW management methods

because all processing, treatment, or disposal methods result in some type of waste byproduct. Many

proponents of recycling contend that it poses fewer

risks than alternative MSW management methods.

However, given current data, it is not possible to

quantitatively determine whether recycling produces more or less pollutants, or poses greater or

fewer risks, per ton of material processed than do

incineration or landfilling.6 To compare the overall

potential risks quantitatively, an in-depth analysis

would have to assess the location of all facilities, all

waste products from manufacturing and management facilities, exposure pathways and dosages, and

potentially affected populations. Obviously, this

would be an extremely expensive and timeconsuming task.

Some qualitative comparisons can still be attempted, however. Many secondary materials can be

recycled several times before their ultimate disposal

(and some, such as glass and aluminum, can be

recycled indefinitely), thus decreasing the use of

virgin materials. Since recycling a product avoids

the production of pollutants from both manufacturing a new product and landfilling or incinerating the

old product, recycling materials several times would

seem to produce less pollutants on an overall basis

than would incineration or landfilling.

A second question that can be addressed concerns

the relative risks within a given method. Most risk

assessments have focused on the relative risks

within a single management method. Given these

risk assessment methodologies and available data, it

is possible to make comparisons within a particular

method and indicate which pollutants are of greatest

concern for those methods. The relative reductions

in risk that might be achieved by retrofitting older

facilities or designing new facilities with different

controls can also be estimated.

For example, pollutants of concern in incinerator

emissions include organic chemicals such as dioxins

and metals such as mercury. Human exposure to

these substances may be greater through food chain

pathways than through inhalation pathways (ch. 6).

However, there is considerable debate about the

extent of exposure and subsequent risks associated

with these pollutants and these pathways. Nevertheless, it is clear that the risks associated with new,

well-operated incinerators (e.g., with a scrubber/

fabric filter system and computerized combustion)

are substantially lower, in some cases orders of

magnitude lower, than those associated with old

facilities. Moreover, the risks associated with emiss~fii~g exwtly What is ~xic is an eno~ous task beyond the scope of this report. (YI’A discusses these issues h~ on the resumption that when

substances are identified as posing risks, then attempts should be made 10 get them out of the waste stream,

6A ~omp~m ~-. & m~e, ~ough, &twan mmufwtfig ~oce~s wing ~ond~ matefi~s (i.e., ~0~ recovered from the waste stream) ~d

those using virgin materials. In many instances, using secondary materials to produce a given product produces less pollutants and saves energy in

comparison with extracting virgin materials and subsequently manufacturing the same product (ch. 5).
56 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

sions from new incinerators appear to be within the

range of risks allowed under regulations for other

activities (e.g., drinking water standards). One

consequence of better emissions controls, however,

is that the resulting ash residues have higher

concentrations of some substances. In particular,

there is considerable controversy about the metals

contained in the ash and the extent to which they

might leach into groundwater (ch. 6).

Similar environmental problems can be associated with recycling, particularly the actual processing of collected secondary materials, and with

landfilling. But as was the case with incinerators,

newer recycling and landfill facilities offer greatly

improved performance over older facilities. Composite liners, groundwater monitoring, and gas

collection systems, for example, make today’s

landfills safer than in the past.

Many older facilities will continue to operate for

several decades, thus national-scale analyses of the

overall risks from MSW management cannot be

made on the basis of newer facilities alone. The

relative risks among available management options

for particular communities could vary greatly depending on local conditions, raising serious questions about whether a national-scale analysis would

be worth the cost. Most decisionmakers agree that

standards for different management methods should

be developed to ensure adequate protection for

human health and the environment. The prevention

and materials management approach to MSW suggested by OTA is predicated on the assumption that

all facilities comply with these standards.

COSTS OF MSW MANAGEMENT

Increased concern about risk coupled with the

increased complexity in MSW management combine to increase its overall cost. Although MSW

management in the past typically played a small part

in municipal budgets, costs are increasing more

rapidly than many other budget items. As a result,

municipal governments across the Nation are focusing more attention on the costs of managing MSW

and seeking ways to improve the efficiency of the

system.

As local officials plan for future MSW management, a key question they face is which management

method or combination of methods is most economical for their community. Varying social, economic,

and demographic conditions will make different

approaches best for different communities. This is

already evident in the multiplicity and variety of

MSW management systems now operating throughout the country. In communities where disposal

capacity problems have not surfaced, little attention

is generally paid to the costs of trash collection and

disposal. Often, these items are not broken out

separately in the municipal budget and may be

combined with items such as street cleaning. It is not

uncommon to find that the municipal government

official responsible for solid waste disposal knows

little about the costs and characteristics of solid

waste in the community.

To collect information on a variety of cities and

counties across the Nation, OTA conducted a limited

survey on the costs of MSW management. In

addition, a cost estimation model was constructed

for OTA by Energy Systems Research Group

(ESRG) of Boston to examine the sensitivity of

system costs to various relevant factors (box 2-B).

This information provides the basis for the discussion in this section.

Solid Waste Management Costs in Perspective

Although MSW management costs are increasing, they represent a relatively small portion of most

municipal budgets and an even smaller portion of the

average family’s budget. Among the 41 cities and

counties responding to OTA’s survey, the MSW

budget ranged from 0.1 to 19.2 percent of the total

municipal budget, but averaged only about 5 percent. Based on the data, annual MSW expenditures

per person ranged from $6to$130, averaging about

$60. Thus the average family covered in the survey

typically spends less than 1 percent of its income on

MSW management.7 Data from the Bureau of the

Census (16) also indicate that MSW has not been a

major budget item for cities and counties. For the

majority of communities for which information is

reported to the Bureau, the portion of the municipal
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition ● 57

Box 2-B--OTA Survey and Computer Model of MSW Management Costs

To gather information about the costs of waste management practices around the United States, OTA surveyed

44 cities and counties (see table 2-l). Each prospective respondent was contacted by phone and by mail, and 93

percent completed the survey. The survey was not designed to represent a statistically significant sample of

nationwide waste management practices. Rather, the survey was an attempt to increase awareness about the

variation among municipalities in the level of attention to MSW management, the distribution in costs, and the

problems encountered.

Those surveyed were chosen to provide geographic and demographic diversity and to encompass a range of

MSW management strategies, from landfill only, to waste-to-energy incineration and landfill, to intensive recycling.

Ownership of landfills and incinerators was relatively evenly divided between public and private, with counties

tending toward more public ownership of facilities than cities. Among the cities, 52 percent of the landfills and 33

percent of the incinerators were publicly owned. By comparison, counties owned 70 percent of the landfills and 80

percent of the incinerators that they used. Residential trash collection was undertaken by municipal crews in 31

communities, by contractors in 16, and solely by residents or private haulers in 5.

Of the 41 cities and counties responding to the survey, 11 reported having no residential recycling program

of any type. Of those with recycling programs, 19 reported curbside recycling programs (5 of which were

mandatory), 26 had dropoff programs, and 18 had buy-back programs. Only 5 communities reported having some

type of private curbside program, while 19 of the dropoff and all but one of the buy-back programs were privately

operated. Comporting programs were reported in 19 of the communities surveyed, and 13 of the communities had

household hazardous waste programs. Fourteen of the respondents used some type of avoided cost calculation to

justify their recycling program.

In addition to the survey, OTA contracted with Energy Systems Research Group, Inc., to develop a computer

model to help understand the costs of MSW management alternatives. Because accounting methods differ widely

and hundreds of factors have a bearing on system costs, cost data available from different public and private sources

are not easily comparable. The model calculates the costs of various management methods under a variety of

different demographic and economic situations. The model is not designed to determine the “optimal’ system

configuration. Its results thus depend on local or site-specific details. OTA, therefore, has not used the model to

provide generic comparisons of the costs of different management methods. Instead, the model is used to show the

effects of changing key parameters on system costs. All costs are reported in 1988 dollars unless otherwise noted.

The base case for all analyses with this model includes the following conditions:

. a municipality with a population of 500,000,

. 75 percent of the population lives in single-family housing,

. residential waste generation is 2.4 pounds/person,

c commercial waste generation is 1.2 pounds/person,

s commercial collection is paid for by the commercial generators, and

● al1 facilities are designed to accommodate commercial waste.

In the model, the landfill is assumed to be state-of-the-art, with leachate and methane collection

systems, liner systems, and monitoring wells. Land costs are relatively low, $1,500 per acre, and transport

distance from collection point to the landfill averages 15 miles. The cost includes closure and post closure

expenses.

The incinerator included in the model’s calculations uses advanced pollution controls (i.e., wet

scrubber and baghouse filter) and generates electricity, which is sold at a rate of $0.06 per kWh. Ash is

disposed of in a monofill with a double composite liner system and a leachate collection system. The

incinerator produces ash equal to 23 percent by weight of the waste burned. Residential wastes not sent to

the incinerator include major appliances, tree stumps, and tires; these wastes are sent to the MSW landfill.
58 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 2-1—List of Cities and Counties Surveyed

West:

Seattle, WA

King County, WA

Yakima, WA

Marion County, OR

Portland, OR

San Francisco, CA

Davis, CA

San Jose, CA

Los Angeles, CA

Rocky Mountain/Southwest

Denver, CO

Boulder, CO

Livingston (Park County), MT

Pocatello (Bannock County, ID

Albuquerque, NM

Phoenix, AZ

Prescott, AZ

Austin, TX

San Antonio, TX

Tulsa, OK

Midwest/Central

Minneapolis, MN

Chicago, IL

Carbondale, IL

Kalamazoo, Ml

Springfield, MO

Waukesha County, WI

Cincinnati, OH

Southeast

Tampa (Hillsborough County), FL

St. Petersburg (Pinellas County), FL

Fairfax County, VA

Shreveport, LA

Charlotte (Mecklinburg County), NC

Chattanooga, TN

Atlanta (Gwinnett County), GA

Northeast

Philadelphia, PA

Newark (Essex County), NJ

Cape May County, NJ

Boston, MA

Marblehead, MA

Somerville, MA

Hamburg, NY

New York, NY

Delaware Solid Waste Authority, DE

Montgomery County, MD

Peterborough, NH

budget allocated to MSW appears to be less than 10

percent of the total.8

It is not surprising, therefore, that this budget item

has received little attention in the past. In fact, only

about half of the communities responding to OTA’s

survey charged fees directly related to trash disposal

costs; the rest paid the collection and disposal bill

out of general revenues, bond funds, grants, or some

combination of these, somewhat obscuring MSW

costs within the budget. The level of detail in the

survey responses indicated that the various components of MSW costs generally are not well-defined

or accounted for. This was particularly true of

recycling programs. Of the 19 respondents who

reported having curbside residential recycling programs, only 8 had cost information on the program

and 11 had an estimate of the amount of materials

collected. Only six communities were able to report

a separate quantity of commercial waste recovered,

although it is likely that commercial materials

recovery occurs everywhere. Ten of the respondents

incinerated a portion of their waste, but only half of

those were able to report on the capital and operating

costs associated with that option. (All reported a

tipping fee, however.) Other analysts seeking detailed MSW cost information from local governments have noted similar difficulties (1,6,13,15).

Although it is not possible to draw broad conclusions from a small survey, the responses indicated

that definitions and calculation methods are a

problem, particularly for recycling. With few exceptions, most of the communities were not aware of the

s~e Bureau of tie Census reports data on State and local government expenditures in the “Government Finances” series (16). Solid waste

expenditures are reported as ‘sanitation other than sewerage, Average expenditures as reported in this source ( 1986, latest available) are actually less

than 3 percent of total expenditures.
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition . 59

amounts of materials being recovered from the

MSW stream or the costs associated with that

recovery. As recycling programs become more

elaborate, and more commonplace, it is likely that

communities will become more aware of their costs

and effectiveness. Such an awareness is essential for

the efficient operation of a recycling program as well

as a MS W management system.

Results from the ESRG model indicate that a

variety of factors can have a significant impact on

the overall costs of MSW management. For each

MSW management method, factors were chosen for

sensitivity tests based on the generally accepted

knowledge about the important cost factors. Although an exhaustive sensitivity analysis was not

performed for each MSW management method,

OTA attempted to analyze those factors that most

often come into question when discussing costs. For

example, OTA examined the sensitivity of landfill

costs to pollution controls and transportation distances and of recycling costs to the efficiency of the

collection process and the prices obtained for the

materials collected. Figure 2-1 shows the variation

in estimated costs for different MSW management

scenarios. Table 2-2 describes each major scenario

tested. As shown in the figure, if existing landfill

costs are relatively low (scenarios 1-1 b) then system

costs will increase when additional MSW management alternatives are added. Under the model’s

assumptions, waste-to-energy incineration (scenarios 2 and 2a) increases costs by a larger percentage

than recycling programs (scenarios 3-3d and 4-4c).

However, when landfill costs are extremely high

(scenario 6), the addition of alternative management

methods (in this case, recycling and comporting) can

reduce overall system costs by avoiding the costs of

landfilling (scenario 6a).

This model, while of course used here in hypothetical scenarios that are not applicable to any

particular community, highlights the importance of

close attention to every cost element of the MSW

management system. The more complex the system,

the more important it becomes to carefully monitor

each cost component, Increased complexity brings

increased costs. Improved cost accounting methods

Figure 2-1--Compariaon of MSW Management Costs

For Selected Model Scenarios

NOTE: The cost of scenario 1 is set equal to 100, and then the costs of all

other scenarios are compared with scenario 1. For example, the

cost of scenario 2 is approximately 45 percent greater than the cost

of scenario 1. See Table 2-1 for scenario descriptions.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

and practices can help all municipalities control the

expected further rise in MSW management costs.

Landfills: The Indispensable Option

Survey Results

Landfills were relied on exclusively by 13 of the

survey’s respondents.9 Per-capita solid waste management costs were relatively low for these respondents, ranging from $6 to $44 and averaging about

$25. On a per ton basis, solid waste management

costs were below $70 for these communities, and

landfill disposal costs accounted for 12 percent or

less of the total.

Fifteen communities provided capital or operating cost information on landfills. Operating costs

ranged from less than $3 to about $40 per ton, with

13 of the 15 respondents reporting costs of $12 or

less; capital costs were not reported on a comparable

basis. The highest operating costs were for a landfill

with state-of-the-art technology, including a triple

liner system, leachate collection systems, and monitoring wells.

Whis figure includes those respondents who reported that materials recovery occurred, but who did not know the exact amount. Some of these

communities have recycling programs, but it was assumed that because they are not aware of tie amounts recycled, then recycling k not considered a

part of their MSW management strategy and no costs are incurred.
60 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

N
3C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same as 3 except for deposit on glass, Al, and

plastic beverage containers that removes them

from waste stream

Waste generated is reduced

by 6%

3d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same as 3 except number Same as 3

of stops per hour for

collection of recyclables

is cut in half

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mixed waste same as 1

Recyclables collected in 20

cu. yd. closed body recycling vehicle

Residential diversion rate=

8.0%

4a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same= 4 except participation

and capture increase by

10 percentage points

Residential diversion rate.

10.9%

4b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same as 4 except for deposit on Al, glass, and

plastic beverage containers that removes them

from waste stream

Waste generated reduced

by 6%

4C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same as 4 except number

of stops per hour for

collection of recycleables

is cut in half

5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mixed waste same as 1

Yard waste collected separatly in same collection

vehicle

Residential diversion rate =

9.3%

6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same as 1

6a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mixed waste same as 1

Recyclables same as 4 except participation and

capture = 90%

Yard waste same as 5

Residential diversion rate =

same as 3

Comingled recyclable

placed in single 0.06

cu. yd. container at curb

Materials in single family

collection: ONP, glass,

Al, Fe. Multi-family: ONP,

glass, Al, Fe

Processing facility separates

cleans, densifies, and

bales materials for market

same as 4

same as 4

Same as 4

same as 4

Leaves and other yard

waste placed in paper

bags at curb 2 0

weeks per year

Comporting done at 2

10-acre sites

Compost sold for $3/cu.

yd.

Same as 5

same as 1c

Same as 1c

Same as l

Same as l

Samea s l

Same as l

Same as l

Same as 1

Same as l

Land cost = $5,000/acre

Double capital costs and

most operating costs

Same as 6

33.0 %

KEY: TPD = tons per day kWh = kilowatt hour; Residential diversion rate= percentage of residential waste diverted from landfill by recycling or composting; ONP = old newspaper; Al = aluminum;

Fe= iron and steel.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.
62 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Model Results

To understand how different factors affect landfill

costs, OTA used the ESRG model. Model results are

for a hypothetical scenario only and should not be

interpreted as applying to any particular community’s situation. Costs can vary considerably, depending on site-specific conditions. As noted above,

OTA’s intent is to indicate the types of factors that

are likely to have the greatest bearing on costs, not

to predict actual costs in real situations. For this

analysis, OTA examined the effects of collection

efficiency, transportation distances, and pollution

controls on landfilling costs.

For a landfill-only scenario (scenario 1), the

model calculated a total cost to the municipality for

MSW collection and disposal of $58 per ton, $18 of

which is accounted for by landfill disposal costs.l0

By comparison, if the landfill used by the municipality had no pollution controls, total cost would have

been $48 per ton, with only $8 attributed to landfill

disposal (scenario lb). In scenario 1, therefore,

pollution controls add about $10 to the cost per ton

of waste disposed. The $8 estimated for landfill

disposal with no pollution controls is consistent with

the landfill operating costs reported in OTA’s

survey, most of which were less than $12.

It is interesting to note that the addition of a

transfer station (where MSW is transferred from

packer trucks to larger trucks or rail cars for long

hauls) to the hypothetical municipality, with a

subsequent 50-mile transport distance to a landfill,

increased total MSW costs to $78 per ton, with $20

per ton added for the transfer and long haul (scenario

1c). Thus the model indicates that the need for

transfer and long haul adds more to the landfilling

cost than pollution controls. In the real world, these

transfer and transportation costs may even be greater

in some situations. For example, one community in

OTA’s survey reported an expected combined transfer and disposal cost of $44 per ton to support a new

transfer, transport, and landfill system (not including

collection) to be developed to dispose of waste 140

miles away (7).

Collection costs, the other main component of

OTA’s model scenario, are primarily dependent on

truck and operator efficiency. Ignoring problems

caused by congestion and one-way streets common

in high population density areas, the model indicates

that collection can take place more efficiently in

those areas. For example, by changing the hypothetical municipality from 75 to 50 percent singlefamily housing, overall residential collection costs

were reduced by about $3 per ton (scenario lb). By

comparison, a 50-percent increase in stops per hour,

which could be realized with higher density housing,

reduced average residential collection costs by $8

per ton. The model also estimated that a similar cost

saving ($7 per ton) will result if the amount of trash

picked up per stop is increased by 50 percent.

Incineration and Landfilling

Survey Results

Incinerators were used by 12 (30 percent) of the

survey respondents to dispose of anywhere from 6 to

90 percent of their waste; detailed information was

provided for only 10 of these sites. In communities

with operating incinerators, per-capita MSW management expenditures ranged from $21 to $82, and

averaged $46. Total MSW management costs per

ton, available for only 4 of the 12 municipalities,

ranged from $77 to $230 per ton. The share of these

total costs attributed to incinerator operation ranged

from 17 to 55 percent.

Capital and operating cost information on incinerators was available for 6 of the 12 communities.

Operating costs ranged from $18 to $50 per ton, and

capital costs ranged from $3 million for a 72-ton-perday (TPD) modular incinerator to $80 million for a

1,200-TPD mass bum incinerator. The average

tipping fee for the five operating incinerators for

which that information was reported was $31. Two

of the incinerators increased tipping fees by about

$10 per ton after the survey was completed. One

increase was in response to lower-than-expected

revenues from the sale of steam generated at the

plant.

In addition to these existing incinerators, four

respondents are in the process of building new

incinerators, all of which are expected to be operational by 1991. Two reported expected tipping fees

Ims estim~e is co~js~nt with otier recent landfill cost estimates. For example, one study (3) estimated total landfill cMs for a state-of-the-art

landfill at $11.25 per ton in 1986 dollars. ‘his study also estimated that landfill development cost $4.23 per ton in 1975 and will cost $18.30 per ton

in 1990,
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition . 63

in the $75 to $80 range in the first year; no

information was available for the other two.

In general, the capital costs reported in OTA’s

survey were within the range of published data. The

1986-87 Resource Recovery Yearbook (4) reported

adjusted capital costs (in 1986 dollars) of advancedplanned and existing incinerators ranging from

$250,000 to $429 million, and averaging $58

million. Capital costs of modular plants were

reported as below $10 million (1986 dollars).

Average operating and maintenance costs were

reported in the Yearbook as $22 per ton, which is

within the range of OTA’s survey results.

In OTA’s survey, only six of the communities

using incinerators reported on revenues from energy

generation; the two newest incinerators generated

electricity, and four others generated steam. Revenues from the sale of this energy averaged about $10

per ton of waste incinerated per day.

The amount of ash generated from these incineration facilities ranged from 11 to 31 percent by weight

of the MSW burned, and averaged 20 percent. Ash

disposal costs were reported for only three incinerators and varied widely (i.e., $4.50,$28, and $49 per

ton).

Of 12 communities using incinerators, 9 reported

materials recovery from some type of recycling

program (including 2 recovering metals from incinerator ash). Five recovered less than 5 percent from

the waste stream, three recovered between 10 and 20

percent, and one recovered 34 percent.

Model Results

The cost of building and operating an incinerator

are dependent on the same factors affecting the cost

of any large industrial facility—materials, engineering, labor, and financing. One of the most attractive

and different features of modem incinerators, however, is that they can recover and sell energy.

Although a multitude of factors can affect the costs

of incineration, the revenues from electricity sales

are often considered one of the most important

factors in the viability of an incinerator operation.

This analysis of incinerator costs therefore focuses

on changes in electricity revenues.

Using the assumptions described in box 2-B, the

model calculated the costs for a site-erected mass

bum incinerator, an ash monofill, and an MSW

landfill. In this hypothetical scenario (scenario 2),

13,000 tons of residential waste are sent to the MSW

landfill, compared with 214,000 tons in the landfill

only scenario. The use of the incinerator reduced the

amount of waste landfilled by 74 percent (even

accounting for the ash landfilled) and increased

system costs by 45 percent.

Given these assumptions, the model calculated a

total MSW system cost of $83 per ton of residential

waste collected. The capital cost of the incinerator

was $121.8 million (with a capacity of 1,100 TPD),

and net operating costs (including debt service, ash

disposal, and accounting for electricity revenues)

amounted to $45 per ton of waste burned. Electricity

revenues amounted to $10 million annually. 1 1 On a

percentage basis, collection costs accounted for 48

percent of total MSW system costs, incineration

accounted for 51 percent, and MSW landfilling

accounted for 1 percent.

To determine the sensitivity of system costs to

electricity revenues, the electricity rate received by

the incinerator in the model scenario was cut by half,

to $0.03 per kWh (scenario 2a). The model estimated

that electricity revenues were reduced to $5 million

annually, and net operating costs for the incinerator

increased from $45 to $61 per ton of waste burned.

The drop in electricity revenues caused a substantial

increase in the estimated cost of incineration per ton

of residential waste collected, which jumped from

$43 to $58 and thus accounted for 63 percent of total

system costs. Total system costs estimated for this

scenario increased to $92 per ton of residential waste

collected, compared with costs of $83 per ton under

the original incineration scenario.

As mentioned above, construction costs for new

waste-to-energy facilities have been reported to

reach $400 million or more for large facilities (3,000

TPD). Research undertaken for the model indicates

that significant economies of scale do not exist for

these facilities-the capital and operating cost per

ton is relatively constant over a range of capacities.

This has also been reported by other investigators

(5). However, running a plant below its operating

11~~ ~~uma~ revmue w= siwlficmt]yhigher lh~ he ener~ revenues repofled in tie s~ey on a per ton of wfite burned per day basis (i.e.,

$25 per ton per day compared with $10 per ton per day).
64 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid waste?

capacity could increase per ton costs substantiality

because the fixed costs that must be covered,

regardless of throughput, are a large proportion of

total costs. The costs presented here only represent

a reasonable hypothetical plant; financing mechanisms, as well as local economic conditions, might

produce significantly different costs.

Materials Recovery: The Moving Target

The characteristics of existing community recycling programs are as varied as the communities

themselves. Thus it is difficult to generalize about

the elements of a successful recycling program. The

success of a recycling program, more aptly called a

materials recovery program, can be as dependent on

geography and demographics as it is on choosing the

right collection equipment.

Early experience with intensive community recycling programs shows that the education and income

level of the population can be positively related to

participation rates (11). This finding is supported by

pilot programs in a low-income community in

Illinois (14) and in several areas in Rhode Island (8).

OTA’s survey did not collect demographic information, and it therefore has not verified these conclusions regarding the effects of education or income on

recycling programs.

Other factors also have an impact on the success

of recycling programs. Convenience and consistency are both crucial to maintain high citizen

participation; therefore, weekly curbside recyclable

pickup on the same day as trash pickup is likely to

result in higher materials recovery than monthly

pickup on a separate day or a drop-off program (10).

The number of separations required of the resident

can also affect recovery rates. Fewer separations

require less space at the residence for storage and can

reduce collection time for pick-up crews, a crucial

factor in the recycling cost equation. In addition,

how commercial establishments and high-density

apartment buildings are handled greatly affect a

program’s overall success.

The commitment of governments to recycling

also affects the recycling rate; mandatory recycling

programs achieve better recovery rates than voluntary, although exceptions do exist (10). Similarly,

municipally provided recycling bins and good public outreach programs both can have positive effects

on recovery rates (14).

Survey Results

Respondents to OTA’s survey reported a variety

of recycling programs; however, 6 of the 41 specifically reported that no materials were reclaimed from

their MSW and 11 reported having no formal

recycling program. Of the remaining 24 communities, 5 had mandatory curbside recycling and 15 had

voluntary curbside programs. Another 4 cities

planned to start voluntary programs in the near

future. Drop-off programs were reported in 26

communities, and buy-back programs were reported

in 18. In addition, 19 communities had white goods

recycling programs, 19 had comporting programs,

13 had household hazardous waste collection programs, 10 had tire collection programs, 13 had some

type of battery collection program, and 21 had waste

oil programs. At least one-third of these programs

were privately operated, which is no doubt one of the

major reasons that information is sparse on the

amounts of materials collected.

Only about 10 communities were able to report

information on materials collected and revenues

obtained from the sale of recyclable. The materials

collected and number of programs in which they are

included were as follows:

Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......10

Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Corrugated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Office paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Mixed paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Revenues for materials showed surprising variation. For example, 1988 aluminum revenues varied

from $12 per ton for aluminum commingled with

glass (paid by intermediate processor), to $1,075 per

ton for aluminum collected in a curbside separation

program, to $1,300 per ton for aluminum sold by a

drop-off center, to a projected $1,340 per ton for

aluminum collected in a commingled program and

processed in an intermediate processing facility.

Flint glass revenues for drop-off programs varied

from $20 to $60 per ton.
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition ● 65

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Consumers sometimes can leave separated materials at igloos or other containers placed in conspicuous areas by the community

or firm running a recycling program. These drop-off programs do not pay consumers for the materials, unlike buy-back programs.

For the curbside recycling programs, reported

operating costs minus materials revenues varied

from $26 to$110 per ton, and averaged $62 per ton.

Interestingly, both the least expensive and the most

expensive of these programs was a voluntary commingled collection program. Trash collection and

disposal costs for those communities with curbside

recycling programs ranged from $44 to $220 per ton,

and averaged $98 per ton. Per-capita MSW expenditures for these communities averaged $42.

Information on other types of recycling programs

was sparse. One drop-off center reported operating

costs, net of revenues, at $32 per ton for 1986. One

buy-back center reported operating costs after revenues of about $25 per ton. In many instances, the

costs reported were only rough calculations because

detailed statistics are often not kept. Sometimes the

processing of recyclable is contracted out, and the

contracting community does not require the processor to provide detailed reports on materials sold and

revenues generated. Also, definitions of what is to be

included in the recycling cost calculation vary by

community. As a result, these reported costs must be

viewed with caution. They are provided to indicate

the range of variation that can be encountered in

communities with different recycling scenarios.

Model Results

OTA’s model can provide some insight into the

specific cost components of a recycling program. In

terms of economics, the success of recycling programs depends primarily on the efficiency of the

collection process, the level of participation by

residents, and the prices obtained for the materials

collected. Using the ESRG model, each of these

elements can be examined separately to determine

its effects on recycling costs.

Collection efficiency depends on the number of

set-outs (i.e., MSW pick-up sites) that can be served

per hour and how often the collection truck must

return to the unloading area. Factors determining

set-outs served per hour include truck design,

number in crew, housing density, traffic congestion,

and road conditions. Factors affecting the frequency

of return trips include family size, waste generation

rate, recovery rate, and the mix of recyclable

materials.

Curbside Collection of Separated and Commingled Materials-The first general scenario for
46 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

recycling used in the model was a curbside separation program serving the community outlined in box

2-B. The materials included in the single-family

housing program were newspapers, glass containers,

and aluminum containers. Newspapers also were

collected in multi-family housing areas. The materials collected in the program were assumed to be

processed to a limited extent at a central facility

sized to process commercial recyclable as well.

However, the municipality in the scenario did not

pay for collection and processing of the commercial

recyclable. All MSW not recovered for recycling

was sent to a landfill for disposal.

The model calculated costs on a systems cost

basis-all per-ton costs were figured on total residential MSW collected. Because the community in

this example paid for collection, processing, and

landfilling, it is appropriate to spread all the costs

over the total amount of waste that must be managed.

In this example, the community collected 214,314

tons of MSW, of which 9,691 tons were recovered

for recycling (4.5 percent of residential waste

collected) (scenario 3). Using the accounting method

described above, the model estimated that the total

MSW management cost per ton of material collected

amounted to $68.81, of which trash collection

accounted for 58 percent, landfilling for 25 percent,

recyclable collection for 16 percent, and recyclable

processing for 1 percent. An additional scenario was

created in which participation and capture rates for

the materials collected were set to equal those

assumed for a curbside commingled program (i.e.,

they are somewhat higher). The amount of recyclable collected in this version was 14,638 tons

(scenario 3a). The model estimated that total system

costs in this scenario were reduced slightly to $68.69

per ton of material collected, with the major savings

resulting from the increased diversion of material

from the landfill and the lower total landfilling cost.

Another scenario was created to model a curbside

commingled recycling program (scenario 4). This

program was assumed to have higher participation

and capture rates than the original curbside separation scenario, because fewer separations are required; materials prices were assumed to be the

same. Materials collected from both single and

multi-family households included newspaper, glass,

aluminum, and ferrous containers, which were

assumed to be processed in a materials recovery

facility. In this scenario the community also collected a total of 214,314 tons of MSW, but 17,236

tons were recovered for recycling (8 percent of

residential waste collected). The total MSW management cost for this scenario was estimated by the

model to be $61.82 per ton, of which trash collection

accounted for 62 percent, landfilling for 28 percent,

recyclable collection for 9 percent, and recyclable

processing for 1 percent. The increased recycling

efficiencies in this scenario compared with the

curbside separation scenario are realized by more

productive collection of recyclables—more material

is collected per stop, with no decrease in pickups per

hour. Overall system costs for recyclable collection

in this scenario were estimated at about half those for

the model’s curbside separation recycling scenario.

One important component of the total cost of any

collection system, according to the model, is the

time required for a fully loaded vehicle to unload and

return to the collection route. For example, increasing the distance the commingled collection vehicle

traveled to drop off recyclable from 5 to 10 miles

increased recyclable collection costs by an estimated 2 percent. Much more important, however, is

the number of pickups that the collection vehicle is

able to make in a fixed time period (21). Reducing

recyclable pickups per hour by one half (while

holding the amount of recyclable picked up per

household) increased overall system recyclable

collection costs by an estimated 57 percent for the

hypothetical commingled program (scenario 4c) and

by 71 percent for the curbside separation program

(scenario 3d).

According to the model, participation and capture

rates also affect the efficiency of a recycling

program. Increasing participation and capture rates

by 10 percentage points resulted in a 21 percent

decrease in collection costs per ton of recyclable

collected for the curbside separation program (scenario 3b) and in a 25 percent decrease for the

commingled program (scenario 4a). Again, the

increased productivity of the collection vehicle was

responsible for the cost savings.

The revenues obtained from the sale of the

recyclable are also an important factor in recycling

program costs. Using the model’s basic scenarios,

revenues from residential recyclable amounted to

$591,000 for the curbside separation program and to
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition ● 67

$1,047,000 for the commingled program. When

materials prices in the model were cut in half,

revenues also declined by half. For the curbside

recycling processing facility, this caused an increase

in net processing costs from $14.67 per ton of

recyclable processed to $45.16 per ton. For the

commingled recycling materials recovery facility,

net processing costs increased from $8.10 per ton of

recyclable processed to $38.47 per ton. In terms of

total system costs, the effect was less, but still

significant. Total system costs per ton of waste

collected increased by 2 percent ($1.38) in the

curbside program and by 4 percent ($2.44) in the

commingled program. Total system costs were more

affected in the commingled program mainly because

larger amounts of materials were processed. In

general, the model indicates that the proportional

effect of decreased prices on system costs will

increase as the amount of material recycled increases.

Beverage Container Deposits and Residential

Recycling-One often-asked question is, how will

beverage container deposit systems affect the economics of municipal recycling programs? To analyze this question, a scenario was created to simulate

the effects of requiring a deposit on all glass,

aluminum, and plastic beverage containers, assuming that this resulted in the capture of 80 percent of

those containers. Given the waste composition

assumed in the model, an estimated 40 percent of all

the glass containers, 60 percent of all aluminum

containers, and 40 percent of all plastic containers

were recovered in the deposit system and were not

available for curbside recycling or trash collection.

The scenario changes the waste stream because

deposit items do not enter it and thus the waste

stream was only 94 percent as large as in the original

scenario. This change had effects on both curbside

and commingled recycling programs.

Because deposit systems reduce the amount of

materials collected for recycling, the cost efficiency

of municipal recycling programs is diminished. The

collection cost per ton of recyclable collected in the

model’s curbside separation program increased by

23 percent when a deposit system was operating

(scenario 3c). The net cost of materials processing

increased by more than 200 percent with the deposit

system as a result of both decreased efficiency of

equipment use and decreased revenues. For the

commingled recycling program, the collection cost

per ton of recyclable collected increased by 13

percent and the net cost per ton for materials

processing increased by more than 400 percent with

the deposit system (scenario 4b). On a system cost

basis the deposit system increased overall costs per

ton by 0.3 percent for the curbside separation

recycling scenario and by 3 percent for the commingled recycling scenario.

One of the most important factors affecting these

costs is aluminum revenues. Because aluminum

revenues are potentially the biggest profit earner for

most processing facilities because of their high value

per ton, including aluminum beverage containers in

the deposit system sharply reduces the revenues of

those facilities. In its beverage container redemption

system, California has dealt with this problem by

allowing the processing facilities to receive the

redemption value for the containers they collect to

augment their revenues. In addition, their system

includes a processing fee that must be paid by the

manufacturer of the product to ensure that recycling

can be carried out economically (ch. 8),

The overall effect of a deposit system on the costs

of MSW management is to reduce total costs (but not

necessarily per-ton costs) to the public sector

because less waste is generated that must be

managed by the municipality. The costs of managing

the used beverage container portion of the waste

stream is transferred to the consumer, the retailer,

and the beverage industry. (In the California example, the State government incurs some costs in

administering the program.) OTA did not attempt to

determine what those costs are and how they

compare with the costs to the municipality of

managing used beverage container wastes.

Separate Collection and Comporting of Yard

Waste-Comporting is another MSW management

method that has received increased attention and has

been included with many recycling programs. The

comporting scenario analyzed by the model included the collection of residential leaves, grass

clippings, and small brush (scenario 5). This scenario assumed that the waste was set out in paper

bags and picked up by trash collection vehicles on a

separate route; the compost facility was assumed to

be centrally located and to sell the compost for $3

per cubic yard; the participation rates for the

.
68 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

program were set at 70 percent for leaves and 50

percent for grass and brush; and capture rates were

80 percent for both. Using these assumptions, the

model estimated that the yard waste comporting

program collected 19,855 tons each year, about 9

percent of the residential waste stream.

The total cost per ton of residential waste collected for this configuration was $59.27, about 2

percent more than the total cost per ton for the

landfill only scenario. Collection was a major factor

in the costs of the comporting program. For the

paper bag comporting program, collection cost

about $40 per ton of yard waste collected and

processing cost only about $4.50 per ton of yard

waste collected. On a system cost basis, the comporting program amounted to only about 7 percent

of the total cost per ton of waste collected. According to the model, comporting programs will have a

similar effect on a system that includes a recycling

program.

Recycling and Comporting in a Community

With High Landfill Costs—Different scenarios

must be compared carefully because many assumptions must be made to run the model. Changing these

assumptions can result in very different cost configurations. OTA attempted to choose realistic assumptions but they were not necessarily representative of

the entire range of possibilities. Many communities,

of course, will differ from these assumptions. One

clear difference may be landfill costs because the

model used relatively low landfill costs in its base

scenarios.

To examine the effects of high landfill costs, OTA

created another scenario that increased land costs

from $1,500 to $5,000 per acre, substantially increased most capital and operating costs, and added

a transfer station with a 50-mile haul to the landfill

(scenario 6). This scenario increased total system

costs to $99 per ton of waste collected for a MSW

management system with a transfer station and

landfill only, compared with the original landfill

only scenario cost of $58 per ton. The landfill and

transfer costs amounted to about 60 percent of total

system costs in this high cost scenario.

In another run of the model, the high landfill cost

scenario was modified to add a commingled recycling program and yard waste comporting in addition to the transfer station and landfill (scenario 6a).

This scenario made very optimistic assumptions

about the success of the recycling and comporting

programs. Participation and capture rates equaled 90

percent for both, resulting in 33 percent of the waste

stream being diverted from the transfer station and

landfill. Avoiding this costly part of the MSW

management system for this large a portion of the

waste stream decreased total system costs to $90 per

ton

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

of waste collected.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

Bishop, R., Willard Bishop Consulting, Ltd., personal communication, 1989.

Ganotis, C. G., and Hopper, R. E., “The Resource

Recovery Industry,” Environmental Science and

Technology, 10(5):425-429, May 1976.

Glebs, R.T., “Landfill Costs Continue To Rise,”

Waste Age, pp. 84-93, March 1988.

Government Advisory Associates, Inc., 1986-87

Resource Recovery Yearbook (New York, NY: 1987).

Institute For Local Self Reliance, Garbage Disposal

Economics: A Statistical Snapshot (Washington, DC:

1987).

Institute For Local Self Reliance, Costs of Recycling

Programs (Washington, D. C.: April 1989).

Johnson, B., “Portland: First In the West To Send

Waste Long Distance, ” Wor/d Wastes 3 1(10):21-26,

October 1988.

Keller, J., “Curbside Recycling in RI Communities, ” Presentation at Rutgers University, Nov.

17,1988, revised Dec. 27, 1988.

New York State Commission on Returnable Containers, Final Report of the Temporary State Commission

on Returnable Beverage Containers (Albany, NY:

Mar. 27, 1985).

Peters, A., and Grogen, P., “Community Recycling:

What Is Working Best?” BioCyc/e 29(5):32-36,

May/June 1988.

Pieters, G. G. M., and Verhallen, T. M. M., “Participation in Source Separation Projects: Design Characteristics and Perceived Costs and Benefits, ’ Resources

and Conservation 12:95-1 11, 1986.

Rozett, J. M., “Resolving the “Bottle Bill” Controversy: The Role of Policy Analysis in Decision

Making,’ New York Case Studies in Public Management, no. 14, November 1984.

Schall, J., Energy Systems Research Group, Inc.,

personal communication, 1989,

Snow, D., and Johnson, C. A., “Trends in Collecting

Recyclable,” Waste Alternatives-Recycling, pp.

40-48, June 1988.
Chapter 2—The MSW System in Transition ● 69

15.

16.

17.

18.

Snow, D. “Trends In Collecting Recyclable,”

Waste Reduction and Recycling, pp. 58-65, Summer

1989. 19.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Government Finances in 1985-86, Government Finances GF-86, No. 5 (Washington, DC:

November 1987). 20.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States,

/988, 108th ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, December 1987). 21.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mu/timaterial Source Separation in Marblehead and

Somerville, Massachusetts, SW-822 (Washington,

DC: December 1979).

Waste-to-Energy Repo~ “Wall Street Sees Waste-ToEnergy Market Likely To Grow Even In Recession, ”

Wrote-To-Energy Report, pp. 1-2, Jan. 27, 1988.

Waste-to-Energy Report, “Project Growth Seen

Slowing, Operating Services Continuing to Expand,” Wrote-to-Energy Report, pp. 1-2, Mar. 9,

1988.

Willard Bishop Consulting, Ltd., Efficiency Guidelines For Curbside Recycling Programs (Barrington,

IL: February 1989).
Chapter 3

Generation and Composition of MSW
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

MSW Generation Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

National Estimates From the EPA/Franklin Model ........,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Per-Capita Generation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Material and Product Composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Estimated MSW Proportions by Weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Landfill Excavation Data by Volume and Weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Chemical Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Basic Chemical Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Toxic Substances and Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Boxes

Box Page

3-A. Defining MSW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3-B. The EPA/Franklin Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figures

Figure Page

3-1. Average Volume of Materials Excavated From Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3-2. Average Volume of Types of Paper Excavated From Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3-3. Relative Btu Values per Pound for Materials in MAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Tables

Table Page

3-1. Selected Examples of MSW Generation Rates in U.S. Cities and Counties . . . . . . . . . 77

3-2. Estimated MSW Generation Per Capita in Different Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3-3. A Comparison of Estimated Percentages of Different MSW

Components, by Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3-4. EPA/Franklin Model Estimates, by Percent by Weight,

of Materials and Products in MAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3-5. Examples of Hazardous Ingredients in Common Household Commodities.. . . . . . . . 88
Chapter 3

Generation and Composition of MSW

INTRODUCTION

The rate at which the Nation creates municipal

solid waste (MSW; see box 3-A) is increasing

because our total population is growing, as is the

average amount that each person throws away. It is

important to have adequate information about MSW

generation if we are to make wise decisions about

future waste management. In addition, knowing

what products and materials comprise MSW and

evaluating trends in their use can guide efforts to

reduce MSW generation and toxicity.

To help understand MSW generation and composition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

commissioned Franklin Associates to develop and

periodically update a model providing a general

picture of the quantities and composition of MSW

generated each year, and how different products

(including but not limited to packaging) contribute

to the waste stream. Although the EPA/Franklin

model is not without limitations, it is the only

available major source of national-scale MSW

information.

The national scale of the model presents some

problems, however. Community officials who must

make decisions about how to manage MSW need

data on local conditions and generation. Indeed,

recognizing that the generation and composition of

MSW varies greatly among communities, EPA and

Franklin Associates repeatedly caution against using

the model’s national estimates for State and local

planning.

This chapter discusses the EPA/Franklin model’s

estimates of national MSW generation rates. It then

examines estimates of the average amount of MSW

generated in different communities as a way to

illustrate variability among communities. The local

per-capita rates are compared with some State and

National estimates to indicate the problems that can

arise in estimating these rates at any level. Information on the relative weights and volumes of different

materials and products in MSW also is reviewed.

Finally, information on the types of chemical

substances in MSW is reviewed briefly.

MSW GENERATION ESTIMATES

National Estimates From the

EPA/Franklin Model

The best national estimates of MSW generation

are derived from the EPA/Franklin model. This

model was first developed in the early 1970s and it

is periodically updated (1 O). Box 3-B includes a

brief description of the model and some of its

limitations.

According to the model, 158 million tons of MSW

were generated in 1986; by the year 2000, MSW

generation will reach 193 million tons, an increase

of 22 percent in 14 years (10). For comparison, at

least 250 million tons of hazardous waste are

generated annually, and the amount of nonhazardous

industrial solid wastes is even greater. The model

may underestimate total MSW generation somewhat, however, because some local data suggests

that per-capita generation rates may be greater than

those estimated by the model (see ‘ ‘Per-Capita

Generation Rates” below).

The model% conclusion that MSW generation

has grown and will continue to grow is significant. There are two primary reasons for this

growth—increases in total population and increases in the average amount of MSW generated

IThese numkrs refer 10 the weight of ‘‘Woss’ discards, that is, the total amount generated. The model’s estimates of past and fumrc gcncratlon

have been revised periodically. For example, in 1979 the model estimated that MSW discards for 1977 were 136 million tons, while in 1986 the model

estimated that discards for 1977 were 122 mill ion tons (8). Adjustments are to be expeaed with any model as its resumptions and data inputs arc refined

over time. In this model, for example. adjustments have been made for food and yard wastes, based on additional flcld samplmg data, and to correct for

moisture loss in sampling these wastes (12). More recent estimates, however, are generally presented with fewer qualifiers (such as a range of

cstimales).

-73–
74 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

per person (the per-capita rate). Population

growth appears to be the more important factor.

From 1970 to 1986, the U.S. population increased by

18 percent while MSW as estimated by the model

increased by about 25 percent. This suggests that

about 70 percent of the growth in total generation is

attributable to population growth and about 30

percent is the result of increased per-capita generation.

Per-Capita Generation Rates

Any community planning to develop MSW

management capacity (whether for recycling,

landtilling, or incineration) must know what

types and quantities of MSW it is producing, both

currently and in the future. Projections to determine management capacity needs often are calculated on the basis of the average amount of MSW

generated by each person (i.e.. per-capita rates).

However, as the following discussion shows, standardized sampling methods need to be developed so that

communities can make reasonable estimates.

Estimates of Per-Capita Rates

OTA obtained sample information on MSW

generation rates from 28 cities and 9 counties (table

3-1 ).2 This table should not be used to rank cities and

counties in terms of MSW generation because of

problems with the comparability and consistency of

the data. For example, communities gather data on

different portions of MSW. Some communities

probably included items such as construction and

demolition debris, even though asked not to do so;

others were not sure what portions of MSW were

included in their data.

Furthermore, the estimates presented in any given

study can differ from other investigators’ estimates

for the same area. Some variability in per-capita

MSW estimates is to be expected. Some of the

variability stems from actual local and/or seasonal

differences in waste streams, or from demographic

and socioeconomic factors. However, variation also

can be attributed to different definitions and sampling methods (23, 29). One study in Brevard

County, Florida, attempted to evaluate definition

differences (21). According to county records, the

total per-capita generation rate for all waste materiBox 3-A—Defining MSW

MSW is defined here as post-consumer solid

wastes generated at residences (e.g., single-family

units and apartment buildings), commercial establishments (e.g., offices, retail shops, restaurants),

and institutions (e.g., hospitals, schools, government offices). These wastes may be categorized as

either materials or products:

● Materials

—paper, yard waste, food waste, glass,

ferrous and non-ferrous metals, plastics, textiles, rubber, wood, management

residues (e. g., incinerator ash, some

recycling residues).

● Products

-durable goods (e.g., appliances, furniture,

tires);

—nondurable goods (e.g., magazines, tissue

paper, clothing, motor oil, small plastic

products, batteries, household cleansers);

-containers (e.g., cans, bottles, boxes) and

packaging/wrapping (e.g., made of paper,

paperboard, plastic, glass, metals, ceramics,

wood).

Defining MSW is not always straightforward, as

different people will often include different materials and products. These “gray areas” can add

confusion to MSW debates. As defined here, for

example, MSW does not include automobile bodies, demolition and construction debris, municipal

wastewater or drinking water sludges, and ash from

industrial boilers, Some municipalities are responsible for managing these items, and some of the

materials are discarded into MSW landfills. As a

result, some observers may consider the first two

items in particular (i.e., auto bodies and construction debris) to be components of MSW. These

differences must be recognized when data from

different reports are compared, especially with

respect to waste generation and recycling rates.

In addition, industries generate nonhazardous

process waste and ‘‘small quantity generators’

produce hazardous wastes that often are discarded

in landfills along with MSW (ch. 7). Although OTA

does not consider these wastes to be MSW per se,

their management in this manner can pose potential

risks for human health and the environment (e.g.,

groundwater and surface water contamination) and

cause problems for MSW managers.

2Thj~ -Pie ;s no( r~dom, Cllles ad counties were selected 10 represcn( l~ge ~d small Communities from all regions of the country (s= chapter

2 for more details).
Chapter .%-Generation and Composition of MSW ● 75

Box 3-B: The EPA/Franklin Model

The EPA/Franklin model uses a “materials flow” methodology to estimate MSW generation-it traces the

flow of materials from production, through consumption, and on to disposal. The model begins with information

about the historical production and consumption of materials and products (e.g., using data from the Department

of Commerce and trade associations). These data are converted to waste generation estimates using assumptions

about losses of materials in manufacturing, lifetimes of materials and products, recycling rates, and effects of

imports and exports. Values are adjusted for products destroyed in use (e.g., cigarette paper) or diverted from the

waste stream for long periods (e.g., library books). For materials like food and yard waste, values are based on

sampling data from a range of sources.

Because the model relies on this “materials flow” approach, it generally does not use data measured at the

points of generation (i.e., households, offices, stores) or management (i.e., landfills, incinerators, recycling

facilities). Thus, the model does not predict how much the residential, commercial, and institutional sectors

contribute to MSW, nor whether the generated waste actually ends up in recycling facilities, incinerators, or

landfills.

What Does the Model Include and Exclude?

Some components of MSW are not included in the model, such as liquids, some packaging, and some

nondurable items. According to the model’s developers, these components might add 5 percent to the total estimates

(12).

Liquids-One missing category identified by EPA and Franklin is liquids, including things such as inks, motor

oil, paints, toiletries, and medicines. For the personal care products, the model only accounts for empty containers,

and assumes that all contents are consumed or vaporized or that residuals are deposited into sewer systems. Motor

oils are not included because about 60 percent of discarded motor oil is assumed to be recycled, leaving only about

660,000 tons ending up in landfills or incinerators (8, 9). For printing inks, about 825,000 tons were produced in

1987, of which perhaps 50 percent end up in MSW (26). * Including both inks and motor oil in the model would

increase MSW by about 1 percent. Taken separately, this number is small, but it does indicate that the combination

of several unaccounted-for waste categories could raise the estimated MSW rate by several percentage points, In

addition, these types of products are often considered to contribute potentially toxic substances to MSW.

Packaging—Most packaging on imported goods is not accounted for, although the model does account for

glass containers (e.g., for wine and liquor). One packaging company official estimates that the amount of imported

packaging (e.g., glass, corrugated boxes, and other materials) amounts to about 2.5 million tons per year (2).

Miscellaneous Nondurables-This category includes disposable products such as diapers, foam cups,

home-use bags and wrap, and trash bags. The amount discarded in 1986 was estimated to be about 2.8 million tons

per year (10). Recent data suggest this estimate may be low. For example, diapers alone make up about 1 percent

by weight of the material excavated from several landfills, equivalent to about 1.5 million tons per year.

Imported and Exported Products—This category needs additional study (13) because several imported and

exported products are not accounted for:

c major appliances-only the estimates for microwave ovens account for imports and exports, because only

this type of product had a relatively large portion of imports (i.e., net imports exceeding 5 percent of

domestic shipments before 1984) (13); increases in imports of other appliances will not be reflected in MSW

estimates for some time, since these products have lifetimes of up to 20 years;

s containers-only imports/exports of empty glass containers and glass bottles containing alcoholic beverages

are counted; no adjustments are made for steel containers or aluminum containers and packaging;

. miscellaneous durable and nondurable goods;

. subassembled items-imported items for which final assembly occurs in U.S. plants (e.g., in the electronics

industry), and exported parts for assembly abroad with the final product being reimported (e.g., the apparel

industry), are not included; and

● goods and packaging carried by international travelers—the net difference between goods and packaging

carried in by U.S. residents who travel abroad (12 million in 1986) (38) and goods carried out by visitors

from other countries is not included.

I Al~OU@ ~0~~ I* ~~ ~~ ~T~W~S ~OUld ~d Up as MSW, some ~~ighl loss &C KI evaporation Of sOlvenI.b@ inks is expx[ed. hl Sddiliori,

waste ink used by pmters would end up m cleaning solvents (mosl of which would be disposed of into sewer systems) or cleaning rags (whlCh would

be sent 10 commercial launches).
76 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

als delivered to landfills was estimated to be 8.5

pounds per day. However, only 3.9 pounds per day

was considered to be MSW as defined by the

EPA/Franklin model. In this case, then, potential

discrepancies among different estimates are caused

primarily by the use of different definitions.

Even given these problems, the data in table 3-1

still are useful to illustrate that per-capita MSW

generation varies widely among different cities and

communities, in this survey between about 2 and 9

pounds per day. The data also can be compared—

taking into account all the previously expressed

caveats—with national estimates of per-capita generation. For instance, the average per-capita residential MSW generation in table 3-1 is 2.6 pounds,

while the average per-capita generation for all MSW

(i.e., residential, commercial, and institutional waste)

is 4.5 pounds. In contrast, the EPA/Franklin model

estimates that each person in the United States

generated 3.6 pounds of MSW per day in 1986 and

will generate 3.9 pounds per day in 2000. After

accounting for recycling, the EPA/Franklin model

estimated that the per-capita rate for the remaining

discards was 3.2 pounds per day in 1986 and would

be about 3.5 pounds per day in 2000 (10).

Problems in defining and differentiating MSW

also appear in data collected at the State level. For

example, OTA compiled MSW estimates available

from 15 States that include over one-half of the U.S.

population and calculated a per-capita rate of over 6

pounds per day. However, the utility of these data is

questionable because State records generally do not

differentiate between MSW and other commonly

landfilled wastes (e.g., demolition and construction

waste) (12).

Thus, the definition of MSW is an important issue

to consider when evaluating estimates of local MS W

generation. If decisionmakers need information on

all the types of solid wastes that might need

management (e.g., including construction and demolition debris), then the more encompassing per-capita

estimates may be valid. On the other hand, if what is

needed is information specifically about MSW as

defined in this report, then these estimates are less

useful than information about the generation of

specific components of MSW (e.g., paper, plastics,

and yard wastes). Information about individual

components can be quite useful to communities

trying to implement a strategy based on materials

management (ch. 1). In either case, much more

information is needed about the amounts and ultimate deposition of MSW and of materials such as

construction and demolition debris.

The essential problem is that there is no

standardized definition of what constitutes MSW,

as well as no standardized methodology for

collecting data on its generation (19). Each State

and locality defines MSW differently and thus

collects different statistics. If the data include wastes

such as construction and demolition debris, they are

difficult for planners to use. Because there is no

standard way of classifying materials, many studies

include categories such as “not elsewhere classified” or “other.”

Another problem with available MSW data is that

few studies have estimated the relative portions of

MSW contributed by the residential, commercial,

and institutional sectors. Yet this information has

important implications for local MSW management.

For example, curbside separation programs may be

best suited for areas with a high proportion of

single-family dwellings. Some studies include only

residential wastes, while others include some or all

of an area’s commercial, institutional, and industrial

wastes (table 3-l). Based on data in table 3-1 (and

given the definitional problems), the residential

MSW in the sampled localities ranged between 26

percent and 76 percent of total MSW, with an

average of 48 percent.

In addition, some local studies have not fully

accounted for potential changes in the per-capita rate

and have made future projections solely on the basis

of expected population growth. In one study, for

example, the per-capita rate was held constant, and

recycling (including comporting) and modular incinerators were assumed to be flexible enough to

handle any growth in per-capita rates that might

occur (33). In another study, the per-capita rate was

estimated to grow by 0.34 percent per year to 2000

and then was held constant beyond 2000, with no

explanation as to why the rate should be constant

after that time (17).
Chapter 3--Generation and Composition of MSW ● 77

Table 3-l-Selected Examples of MSW Generation Rates in U.S. Cities and Countiesa

Amount of MSW Percentage Per-capita rate

City/county (x 1,000 tons) Typeb

residential (pounds per day)

Albuquerque, NM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Austin, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bannock County, ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boston, MA, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Charlotte, NC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chattanooga, TN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago, IL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati, OH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver, CO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fairfax County, VA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gwinnett County, GA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hamburg, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hillsborough County, FL. . . . . . . . . . . . .

King County, WA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Los Angeles, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marblehead, MA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marion County, OR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis, MN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Newark, NJ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Park County, MT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peterborough, NH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phoenix, AZ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pinellas County, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Portland, OR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prescott, AZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Antonio, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Jose, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle, VW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shreveport, LA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Somerville, MA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Springfield, MO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tulsa, OK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waukesha County, WI. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

310

178

65

550

225

286

2,200

213

275-500 d

1,039

386

535

1,300

1,432

19

216

160

325

7,500

12

3

1,700

1,200

1,160

335

52

880

967d

635

687

307

36

200

240

296

all

?

all

all

R,C

all

R

R

all

?

all

all

all

all

R

all

?

R

R,C

?

all

all

all

all

?

R

?

?

all

all

all

all

all

all

R,C

all

46 4.3

2.1

50 5.5

45 5.0

3.3

58 9.4

50 4.0

3.2

3.1-5.7

7.5

76 6.7

2.1

38 3.7

5.1

2.4

4.6

5.7

2.5

5.4

5.8

7.3

3.3

5.8

7.0

7.5

3.9

5.7

4.9

7.2

4.8

36 7.7

26 7.8

2.2

7.8

3.6

45 5.5

51

Yakima, WA... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 R 1.9

aThese data are from a survey of local solid waste management officials conducted by OTA from November 1988 to March 1989. Respondents were asked

not to include construction/demolition debris, but some were unable to provide differentiated data.

bR=residential; C=commercial; I= institutional

CFor localities collecting all types of MSW and differentiating among residential commercial, and institutional MSW.

dlncludes both city and county.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment 1989, after K. Cox, Background Data on Municipal Solid Waste: Generation, Comrposition, Costs, Management

Facilities, State Activities (Takoma Park, MD: 1989)

How Fast Is the Per-Capita Rate Changing? Factors Affecting Per-Capita Generation

Although the national per-capita estimates are

imperfect, they still provide useful approximations Reasons for the increasing per-capita rate are not

of how fast average per-capita generation rates are clear, because many factors can affect per-capita

changing. Thus, acknowledging that the EPA/ generation in a given area. These include socioecoFranklin model may somewhat underestimate total nomic status, household size, demands for convenMSW generation, it is estimated that for the years ience, and degree of urbanization. As the following

1970 to 1986 the per-capita MSW generation rate discussion indicates, this area clearly warrants

has increased 0.7 percent annually (10).3

additional research.

3comp~able data from earlier years are not available.
78 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Socioeconomic Status-The effect of socioeconomic status on MSW generation is uncertain. A

mid-1970s study in Texas found that income and

urbanization were correlated with per-capita generation rates (34). Another study based on data from the

1970s reported that lower income households produced more residential wastes per capita than higher

income households, although not for certain components such as newspapers and yard wastes (30).

One clear trend is that people in the United States

have become more affluent, on average. One indicator is that disposable personal income, expressed in

constant 1982 dollars, grew from $8,134 to $10,947

per person between 1970 and 1986 (38). This

implies that we are buying more products of all

types, which probably has at least some effect on

MSW generation.

Household Size—Based on some limited studies,

smaller households appear to produce more MSW

per household member (28), and smaller households

are becoming more common (38). From 1960 to

1986, the number of persons per household declined

from 3.3 to 2.7 persons. This is partly because the

portion of single people (i.e., never-married, widowed, or divorced adults) in the population increased from 28 percent in 1970 to 37 percent in

1986; during the same period, the number of single

parents increased from almost 9 million to almost 13

million. These trends, in turn, contributed to an

increase in the number of households from 63

million in 1970 to 88 million in 1986 (38).

Demand for Convenience—One common assumption is that demand for convenience has

increased as the number of single-person households

and the proportion of women in the work force have

increased, and that this has led to a proliferation in

packaging and single-use products. However, this

may not be true. The proportion of packaging in

MSW actually has been declining, at least by weight

(see ‘Product Categories’ below). Single-use products are very common, but whether they have a

significant impact on increasing per-capita rates is

unclear. However, convenience as a substitute for

time has certainly led to an increase in single-serving

food products, Packaging for this type of product

tends to be more wasteful than for goods with

multiple servings (ch. 4).

Degree of Urbanization-The majority of the

U.S. population lives in urban areas; the proportion

increased from 64 percent in 1950 to 74 percent in

1980 (38). However, rural areas may have lower

per-capita generation rates, at least for some MSW

component For example, one study of MSW

composition in a rural county concluded that the

paper fraction was lower than expected because

newspapers were published weekly instead of daily

and because used paper tended to be consumed as

fuel (27).

Comparison With Other Countries

In general, citizens in the United States often are

considered to be more wasteful than citizens in other

industrialized countries. However, the magnitude of

any real differences is uncertain, as are the reasons

for any such differences.

Most of the data on MSW generation in other

countries suffer from the same problems as U.S.

data, particularly differences in what types of wastes

are included in the estimates. In addition, in the

United States, post-consumer materials that are

recycled are generally included in the definition of

MSW. In contrast, Japan and many European

countries (e.g., Sweden, Germany, Switzerland,

Norway, and Spain) define MSW as including only

those materials sent to waste treatment or disposal

facilities (1 8). This definition excludes materials

recovered for reuse, under the premise that these

materials are resources and not wastes.

Data collection and record-keeping also vary

widely among countries. In Japan, for example,

almost all municipalities weigh MSW to the gram at

landfills and incinerators; furthermore, data on the

amounts of combustible and noncombustible materials are collected by each municipality and published annually by the national government (18).

This type of effort is rarely practiced in the United

States. National governmental agencies rarely aggregate the data that do exist. In most countries

(including the United States), information on recycling is generally collected only for specific materials, by the industries that rely on those materials.

Nevertheless, some data from countries that tend

to have better record-keeping are presented in table

3-2. Based on data from the early to mid- 1980s, for

example, citizens in Sweden generated an estimated
Chapter 3-Generation and Composition of MSW ● 79

Table 3-2—Estimated MSW Generation Per Capita

in Different Countries

(pounds per person per day)

Gross Net

Country discardsa discards a Year

United States . . . . . . . 3.6 3.2 1986

West Germany . . . . . . — 2.6 1984/85

Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2.4 early to

mid-1980s

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . — 2.2 —

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 3.0 1987

aGross discards refer to total MSW generation, net discards refer to MSW

remaining after recycling but prior to energy recovery,

SOURCES: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid

Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988),

report prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (Prairie Village, KS: 1988, G.

Goosmann, “Municipal Solid Waste Management in the

Federal Republic of Germany,” pp. 118-126 in A Se/act/on of

Recent Publications (Vol. 2), Federal Environmental Agency,

Federal Republic of Germany (Berlin 1988); A.J. Hershkowitz,

International Experiences in Solid Waste Management, contract prepared for U.S. Congress, OfficeofTwhnology Assessment

(Elmsford, NY. Muncipal Recycling Assoaates, Inc., 1988; Clean

Japan Center, “Waste Volume on the Rise and Measures Against

It,” C/can Japan 14:6-10, February 1989.

2.4 pounds of MSW per person per day after

recycling. Japan appears to have had a similar rate at

that time (18), but recent data indicate that the

per-capita rate after recycling rose to 3.0 pounds per

day in 1987 (5). This is close to the EPA/Franklin

estimate for the United States of 3.2 pounds per day

after recycling. Another study reported that several

nations (e.g., Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Hungary,

New Zealand, Republic of Korea) have generation

rates similar to the U.S. rate, at least based on data

from the United Nations, the Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development, and national sources (47); however, OTA considers comparisons based on these data to be tenuous because of

differences in definitions and data collection techniques. No studies have been conducted to critically

analyze the relationships between per-capita generation rates in different countries and per-capita

income, land availability, social attitudes, or other

factors.

MATERIAL AND PRODUCT

COMPOSITION

Most MSW data are collected in terms of weight

of materials (e.g., tons of glass), not in terms of

volume or toxicity. Weight data are useful for some

decisions; for example, prices for secondary materials are usually based on weight. On the other hand,

weight data do not necessarily provide the information needed to assess the feasibility of waste

reduction, particularly to help identify appropriate

targets for government action. The volume of

materials that enter the MSW stream often is a more

useful measure for decisionmakers, particularly

when assessing collection capabilities and landfill

capacity.

Estimated MSW Proportions By Weight

Materials

Studies around the country show similar trends in

the proportions of some materials in MSW. For

example, data compiled by OTA from nine studies

and another compilation of data from 40 studies

(table 3-3) indicate that the largest categories of

materials in MSW by weight are paper and yard

wastes. However, there is substantial variation

within the studies. In the nine studies, the proportion

(by weight) of yard waste ranged from O to 39

percent, while paper ranged from 30 to 46 percent.

Data from the 40 studies show similar trends,

although the ranges were somewhat higher for paper

(36 to 55 percent). These data also are similar to

estimates from the EPA/Franklin model.

Some of the wide variation in the estimates can be

attributed to differences in sampling and definitions.

Other possible causes of variability include location,

socioeconomic conditions, and seasonality. The

effects of seasonality, for example, are most visible

in the amount of yard waste produced, particularly in

the Northeast and other temperate zones. The

greatest amounts of yard waste in these areas are

generated in the fall or spring, and the least in winter

(ch. 5). Seasonal tourism and the presence of

nonresident university populations also influence

the seasonal composition of MSW.

The EPA/Franklin model estimates the weights of

different materials in MSW (table 3-4). These

estimates must be interpreted carefully (box 3-B),

but they do indicate that the proportions of materials

and products present in the MSW stream after

recycling have changed over time. Paper and plastics, in particular, have been increasing rapidly.

Even after recycling, paper and paperboard products comprise the largest category of materials in
80 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 3-3-A Comparison of Estimated Percentages of Different MSW Components, by Weight

9 studies 40 studies

Material Mean Range Mean Range

8.5 4.0-14.7

Total paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.8 29.9-45.9 46.7 36.5-54.7

Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 4.3-8.1

Corrugated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 4.7-13.1

Mixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9 19.6-25.2

Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.7

Total metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 1.5-9.4

Aluminum cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.8-1.0

Miscellaneous aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.2-1.6

Other non-ferrous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.0-3.4

Total glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 3.6-12.9 8.4 6.0-13.7

Glass containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 6.1-6.6

Total plastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 5.3-12.6 5.3’ 2.0-9.0’

Plastic film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.1

Plastic containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.7-1.0

Yard waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 0.0-39.7 9.5 0.4-25.0

Food waste.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7 1.3-28.8 7.8 0.9-18.2

Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.7-8.2 2.6 0.5-7.0

Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 1.1-6.2 3.3 0.7-5.0

Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.0-1.0 — c — c

Diapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1.5 0.5-2.9

“Note elsewhere classified” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 3.8-16.6 — 0.5-10.0

aCompiled from 9 local studies that did not have more than 10 percent (on average) of MSW in the ’’Not elsewhere classified’’category (6).

bCompiled from 40 local studies (20) whether these studies were selected on the basis of the same criteria (i.e. less than IO percent in the ’’Not elsewhere

classified’’ category) as the 9 local studies is unknown.

cPlastic, rubber, and leather were compiled together.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment 1989, after K.Cox, BackgroundDataon Municipal Solid Waste: Generation, Composition, Costs, Management

Facilities, State Activities (TakomaPark, MD: 1989); R.N. Kinman and D.K. Nutini, ’’Household Hazardous Waste in the Sanitary Landfill:’ Chemical

TIMES & TRENDS 11:23-29 and 39-40,1988.

Table 3-4-EPA/Franklin Model Estimates, by Percent by Weight, of Materials and Products in MSWa

After materials recovery Before materials recovery

1970 1986 2000 1986

Materials:

Paper and paperboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4

Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1

Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0

Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7

Rubber and leather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7

Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8

Mod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6

Food wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4

Yard wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6

Miscellaneous inorganic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7

Products:

Durable goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4

Nondurable goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.0

Containers and packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.9

Other wastes (food, yard,

miscellaneous inorganics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6

35.6

8.4

8.9

7.3

2.8

2.0

4.1

8.9

20.1

1.8

13.6

25.1

30.3

30.8

39.1

7.1

8.5

9.2

2.3

2.0

3.6

7.3

19.0

1.9

13.6

28.1

30.0

41.0

8.2

8.7

6.5

2.5

1.8

3.7

7.9

17.9

1.6

aln all cases, estimates are for percentages before energy recovery during incineration; materials recovery refers to recycling of secondary materials.

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municpal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960-2000, report prepared for U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Prairie Village, KS: 1988).
Chapter 3-Generation and Composition of MSW . 81

MSW (36 percent). The second largest category by

weight is yard and food wastes, which represent over

one-fourth of MSW, although this proportion has

declined steadily. Plastics comprise a small but

rapidly growing category, with an expected increase

to 9 percent by 2000. Glass, non-ferrous metals,

rubber, textiles, leather, and wood have changed

little over time, while ferrous metals have declined

somewhat, Among recycled materials, paper and

paperboard represented over 86 percent of the total

amount recycled in 1986; glass and metals represented 6.5 and 5.9 percent, respectively (10).4

Product Categories

The EPA/Franklin model also provides estimates

of the proportions of different product categories,

again after recycling (table 3-4). In 1986, durables

(e.g., furniture, tires, appliances) were estimated to

make up about 14 percent of MSW, nondurable

(e.g., newspapers, tissue paper, clothing) about 25

percent, and containers and packaging, the largest

category, about 30 percent (which represents a slight

decline from estimates for earlier years). According

to these data, the nondurable category has grown

the fastest, and it will continue to grow through

2000, although at a slower rate. The percentages of

durable products and of containers and packaging.

are expected to remain about the same through the

year 2000.

These major categories also are broken into

smaller subdivisions (9, 10). Among containers and

packaging, for example, beverage containers made

up between 6 and 11 percent of MSW by weight in

1986, with glass containers being the largest component. These data were analyzed to estimate the

percent change of a product in MSW for a given

period. Product categories expected to increase by

more than 10 percent through 2000 include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

furniture and furnishings,

books and magazines,

office papers and commercial printing papers,

beer and soft drink cans,

aluminum foil and closures,

corrugated boxes, and

plastic containers and other plastic packaging.

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

The second largest category by weight of materials in MSW

is yard waste (including leaves, grass clippings, weeds,

and prunings). Properly controlled comporting of the

wastes yields high-quality compost. Separating yard

wastes from other MSW helps reduce Ieachate generation

at landfills and nitrogen oxide formation at incinerators.

For example, beer and soft drink aluminum cans

are expected to increase by 14 percent from 1990 to

1995, while all aluminum is expected to increase by

18 percent. Additional information on product

trends, including containers and packaging, is discussed in chapter 4.

Technological changes have caused some change

in the nature of MSW. For example, the portion of

office and commercial printing papers (e.g., computer printouts, high-speed copier products, direct

mail advertising) in MSW increased from an estimated 3.4 percent in the 1970 to an estimated 6.1

percent in 1984 (9). Plastic containers and packaging

and disposable packaging associated with micro4(_Jther data tend t. ~onfim Ihcsc ~cnds, Gc Study rcpo~cd da[a based on over XKN sarnpks Of resideNtkl ifKW Cdlcctcd from ‘~ucson houscho~~s

between 1978 and 1988 (44). Plastics increased from 5 pcrccm to 10 percent by weight, presumably reflecting the increasing usc of plastics in Place

of glass and metal comainers. Paper mcrcascd from 30 percent to 35 per~enl, possibly rellccting incrcmcs in direct mad advertising and home computer

output.
82 Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste ?

Photo credit: W. Johnson

Corrugated cardboard comprises about 7 percent of MSW

by weight. About 40 percent of the waste paper exported

from the United States is old corrugated cardboard, in high

demand because of its strong softwood fibers.

wave frozen foods also have increased (43). In some

cases, these have replaced other previously used

materials, so the net change is difficult to assess.

Within the containers and packaging category, for

example, heavier materials such as glass and steel

have been declining, in part because they are being

replaced by lighter materials such as aluminum and

plastics. The use of multi-material packaging (e.g.,

multiple layers of plastics, foil, paper; metal caps;

and paper or foil labels) also appears to be increasing. This type of packaging tends to be lighter than

previous packaging, but it also is harder to recycle.

Landfill Excavation Data by

Volume and Weight

Information from landfill excavation studies being

conducted by ‘‘The Garbage Project” at the University of Arizona (29, 35) is significant because it

includes data on both the volume and weight of

materials, and some of the data illustrate changes in

the waste stream during the last 20 years. The data

must be interpreted carefully, however. The studies

have only been conducted at a few landfills to date.

Moreover, the data only refer to the volume and

Photo credit: Office of Technobgy Assessment

Newspapers comprise the largest single item excavated

from landfills. About 23 percent of the newsprint manufactured in the United States is made from waste paper,

almost all of which is old newspapers (ONP). Supplies of

ONP have increased because more communities now

collect it, but by late 1988 some communities were paying

waste paper dealers to take collected ONP.

weight of materials present when the landfills were

excavated, not to the amounts that originally entered

the landfill or that might have been recycled or

incinerated instead.

Figure 3-1 presents volume data for different

materials excavated from studied landfills. According to the investigators, the major variability in

these measurements is within different sections of

landfills, not between landfills, regardless of the

type of climate (28). This is because the major

source of moisture in the studied landfills has been

the garbage itself, not rainwater or groundwater.

Paper and paper products have increased steadily

and now comprise approximately 55 percent by
Chapter Generation and Composition of MSW ● 83

volume (and almost one-half by weight) of the

materials excavated (figure 3-1 ). While the volume

of plastics increased in the early 1970s, it has

remained essentially unchanged since the early

1970s, hovering around 12 to 13 percent. By weight,

plastics comprise about 7 percent of landfilled

MS W, thus indicating that they take up more volume

than weight measurements alone might suggest. Not

surprisingly, denser materials such as glass, rocks,

and ferrous metals comprised a smaller percentage

by volume than by weight.5 During the last 20 years,

the volume of glass has declined to less than 1

percent. The volume of metals has declined from 18

percent in the 1960s to about 3 percent today; the

decline is probably due to use of lighter metals,

increased recycling of aluminum beverage cans, and

replacement of some metals by plastics. Overall, the

weight of MSW may be increasing more slowly than

is its volume because of these types of changes (10).

Paper used for packaging has increased steadily to

comprise 19 percent of landfilled MSW, and paper

used in nonpackaging (e.g., computer paper, printing

and writing paper other than newsprint and glossy

magazines) has risen to 13 percent (figure 3-2).

Newsprint has risen recently to about 18 percent by

both volume and weight, and it comprises the largest

~The dcnslty of some MSW ~ornwncn[s ~]so is affc~[cd by m~y factors betw~n [hc poin~s of generation ~d disposal, including eXpOSIUe 1 0

weather and variation in levels of compaction during handling and transportation.
84 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

6 0

50

4 0

3 0

2 0

10

0

bAbout I ~ billion s~gle.u= dia~rs were pur~h~wd in tie United States in 1988 (22). About two-thirds of a disposable diaper is made of celluio=,

a component of wood (and paper) ~hat is degradable under proper conditions; the remainder is mostly plastic (e.g., polyester or polypropylene liners,

polyethylene backsheets or outer layers).
Chapter Generation and Composition of MSW ● 85

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Basic Chemical Composition

MSW consists mostly of water, various elements

(e.g., carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine, and nitrogen), and incombustible materials (e.g., glass, metals, ceramics, minerals, clay, and dirt) (16). In

addition, various trace metals and organic chemicals

can be present, but little aggregated information

exists on their concentrations in MSW prior to

recycling, incineration, or landfilling.

One chemical of particular concern is chlorine

because it can be involved in the formation of

dioxins and other chlorinated organics, as well as

hydrogen chloride, during incineration (ch. 6). The

major sources of chlorine in MSW appear to be

paper and plastics. In Baltimore County, Maryland,

for example, paper was estimated to contribute 56

percent of the total chlorine in the combustible

portion of MSW; in Brooklyn, New York, plastics

contributed an estimated 52 percent (4).

Chlorine is used directly to make certain products,

such as PVC plastics and insulation and textiles.

Chlorine is also used to bleach pulp for papermaking. In the pulping process, chemicals remove

roughly three-fourths of the lignin (which makes up

about half of wood), and bleaching removes the rest.

Elemental chlorine (as a gas) has been the preferred

bleaching chemical because it is cheaper, effective

in dissolving lignin while maintaining the strength

of the pulp, and can achieve higher-brightness paper

than alternative bleaches. The alternatives, which

include hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, peroxide,

and oxygen, generally are less efficient and more

expensive than chlorine gas.

Combustibility

Some components of MSW are combustible—

organic materials such as paper, plastics, textiles,

rubber, and wood. The organic fraction of MSW was

estimated to be about 81 percent by weight in 1986

(10). It appears to be growing slowly, primarily

because the portions of paper and plastics in MSW

also are growing.

One measure of MSW that is related to combustibility is “higher heating value” (HHV), or the

number of Btu of energy that could be produced per

unit of MSW. In general, MS W can generate from

4,5(K) to 6,000 Btu per pound. The average Btu value

of MSW may be increasing because both plastic and

especially paper, which have increased over the last

10 years, have high Btu values (figure 3-3). Paper

wastes comprise a large portion of MSW and thus

contribute much of its average total HHV. Food and

yard wastes both have low Btu values, while

inorganic materials such as metals and glass have no

Btu value.

However, MSW is not homogeneous, either in its

Btu values or its composition, between different

locations or even over short periods at the same

location. For example, combustibility can vary

drastically because the portion of yard wastes can

more than double during certain seasons. Yard

wastes have high moisture content and low Btu

values, so the overall HHV of the MSW decreases

during summer and fall, when large amounts of yard

waste are generated. Moisture content is also important because it affects the stability of the combustion

process (16) and combustion efficiency during

‘‘cold starts” of an incinerator (ch. 6). In addition,

evaporating moisture during the initial stages of

combustion requires the use of energy and thereby

affects operating costs.

Removing particular materials from MSW prior

to incineration (e.g., through source separation) can

affect combustibility.7 For example, removing yard

wastes and inorganic recyclable such as glass and

metals can reduce moisture and increase average

HHV. In contrast, removing paper and plastics

lowers HHV and increases moisture content. The net

effect will depend on exactly what is removed,

Degradation

Some of the materials (e.g., paper and yard

wastes) in MSW decompose or degrade, while

others do not. In general, the rate of decomposition

depends on local landfill conditions, such as temperature, moisture, oxygen levels, and pH (ch. 7). In

theory, a large portion of MSW should eventually

decompose because it tends to have a high level of

degradable carbon. For example, one study estimated that degradable carbon comprised 34 to 59

percent of MSW (24). Another study estimated that

7ne ~tentl~ ~ade-OffS ~twan recycling and incineration of different materials arc also discuwed in chapters I ~d 6.
86 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Figure 3-3--Relative Btu Values per Pound

for Materials in MSW

paper products and textiles were composed of about

40 percent degradable carbon, while yard and food

wastes were composed of less than 20 percent

carbon (3).

The landfill excavation study, however, has

revealed some interesting insights about decomposition. In these landfills, paper products in particular, but also food wastes, have not degraded rapidly;

in fact, it appears that degradation in general may be

slow (29). For example, newspapers that were still

readable after years of burial were found in all of the

studied landfills. Paper and food waste excavated

from part of one landfill were in the same condition

as similar materials buried 5 to 10 years earlier in

another part of the landfill.

Toxic Substances and Household

Hazardous Waste

When MSW is landfilled, incinerated, or recycled, some of the composite metals and organic

chemicals have the potential to harm public health

and the environment (chs. 5, 6, 7). These are often

called toxic or potentially harmful substances, although their potential effects on health and the

environment depend on rates of exposure and

dosage, sensitivity of exposed individuals, and other

factors.

Toxic Substances in MSW

Many potentially harmful metals and organic

chemicals are components of products and packaging that are used at residences and offices and then

discarded as MSW. Available data focus on three

metals-mercury, lead, and cadmium. For example,

mercury is a component of most household batteries,

as well as fluorescent light bulbs, thermometers, and

mirrors. Sources of lead include solder in steel cans

and electronic components, automobile batteries,

paint pigments, ceramic glazes and inks, and plastics. About two-thirds of all lead in MSW (after

recycling) is estimated to be from automobile

batteries (1 1). Cadmium is found in metal coatings

and platings; rechargeable household batteries; pigments in plastics, paints, and inks; and as a heat

stabilizer in plastics. Nickel/cadmium batteries are

the largest source, accounting for an estimated 52

percent after recycling, and plastics contribute about

28 percent.

The noncombustible portion of MSW is estimated to contain 98 percent of the lead and 64

percent of the cadmium (1 1). This suggests that

separating noncombustible materials from MSW

that is to be incinerated would be likely to reduce the

amounts of these metals in emissions and ash (see

ch. 6). Furthermore, because plastics account for an

estimated 71 percent of the lead and 88 percent of the

cadmium in the remaining combustible portion of

MSW, efforts to manufacture plastic products without these metals also might help reduce amounts of

these metals in emissions and ash. The toxicity issue

is discussed in more detail in chapter 4.

Household Hazardous Wastes

Household hazardous wastes (HHW) are discarded products that contain potentially toxic substances, but that tend to be stored at residences for

relatively long periods of time before being discarded. 8 Although there is no standardized definition

of what products and materials comprise HHW, they

generally include common household items such as

cleaning products, automobile products, home maintenance products (e.g., paint, paint thinner, stain,

8The tem *Chou~ho]d h~ardous wa~[es’ is not u~d here in tie Iega] sense of king a hti.ardous waste as defined in RCRA, although some of

the substances in such wastes maybe classified as hazardous in RCRA (see ch 8).
Chapter .3-Generation and Composition of MSW ● 87

varnish, glue), personal care products, and yard

maintenance products (e.g., pesticides, insecticides,

herbicides). In most cases these items are not

hazardous while in storage, or during use if properly

handled, but they may release potentially toxic

substances after they have been discarded.

More than 100 substances that are listed as RCRA

hazardous wastes are present in household products

(table 3-5). The substances include metals (e.g.,

mercury, lead, silver) and organic chemicals (e.g.,

trichloroethylene, benzene, toluene, parathion).

Several studies have looked at the amounts of

HHW generated. In two communities, Marin County,

California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, HHW from

single-family dwellings was sorted and weighed

(42). Between 0.35 and 0.40 percent of the total

MSW was considered hazardous, and each household threw away an average of 50 to 60 grams of

HHW each week.9 Other studies in Albuquerque,

New Mexico, and the Puget Sound area in Washington reached similar conclusions: in general HHW

comprises less than 1 percent of MSW (25, 41). Data

from Los Angeles County, California, Portland,

Oregon, and several localities in Michigan indicated

that the quantities of actual constituents of concern

were even lower, less than 0.2 percent (20). This has

led some analysts to conclude that placing HHW in

landfills is not a problem (20). However, the extent

to which HHW contributes to environmental problems at landfills is unclear. Given the total quantity

of MSW generated each year, even the apparently

low proportion of 0.2 percent would mean that about

300,000 tons of potentially toxic substances in

HHW are discarded each year.

10 Yet, when spread

among thousands of facilities, the potential impacts

should be lessened.

Data from residences in several areas (Tucson and

Phoenix, Arizona; Marin County, California and

New Orleans, Louisiana) have been compiled to

indicate which HHW products were most commonly

discarded; the data include containers but exclude

automobile batteries (45). The largest category was

household maintenance products, making up 37

percent by weight. Household batteries contributed

19 percent, cosmetics 12 percent, household cleaners 12 percent, automobile maintenance products 11

percent, and yard maintenance products 4 percent.

About 80 percent of the automobile products was

motor oil. Socioeconomic status appears to affect the

types of HHW generated. Households in higherincome neighborhoods discarded more pesticides

and yard products than did lower-income neighborhoods; cleaning materials were more common in

middle-income neighborhoods; and automobile maintenance products were more common in lowerincome neighborhoods (31, 45).

One study at a California landfill indicates similar

trends (20). Two thousand fifty-six containers of

HHW (whether empty or with residue) received at

the landfill were sorted and counted. Of the six

categories of containers, 40 percent had household

and cleaning products; 30 percent automotive products; 16 percent personal products; 8 percent paint

and related products; 3 percent insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides; and 4 percent were other

products considered hazardous.

The effects of a one-day collection program for

HHW in Marin County on subsequent generation of

HHW raise an intriguing dilemma (31). Two months

after the collection day was held, the amount of

HHW in the normal MSW pickup was twice as high

as it was before the collection day. This suggests that

the educational effect of the collection day was

short-lived or, as seems more likely, that people did

not want to keep HHW around after they learned

about it. If the latter proves true, regular collection

days would be needed to keep HHW out of the

normal MSW collection system. Chapter 8 discusses

HHW programs in more detail.

Other Sources of Toxic Substances

Household products and materials in landfills and

incinerators are not the only sources of potentially

harmful chemicals in MSW. Under RCRA, businesses that generate less than 100 kilograms of

hazardous wastes per month are allowed to deposit

them in solid waste landfills (including municipal

landfills) or have them burned in MSW incinerators

(36, 37). These businesses are known as “very small

-se data refer to the weight of that portion of the Waste that contains tic h~wdous ingredien~. not including contaminated containers or other

contaminated articles such as paint brushes and oil-soaked rags. Thus, they probably underestimate total amounts.

IOMmy hu~dous hou~hold products ~so we emptied into ~wer sy~ems (40).When household cleaners are used, for instance, th prOdUCt IS

washed down the drain and ends up in municipal sewage treatment plants.
88 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 3-5-Examples of Hazardous Ingredients in Common Household Commoditiesa

Ingredient Types of products found in

Acetic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acetone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acrotein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acrylic add . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aldicarb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aldrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aniline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arsenic (lll) oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arsenic (V) oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arsenic acid.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aziridine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Butyl alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carbon tetrachloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chloral (hydrate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chlordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chlorinated phenols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chloroform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Creosote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cresol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cresylic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cyclohexane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dibutyl phthalate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m-Dichlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

o-Dichlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p-Dichlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,2-Dichloroethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,2-Dichloroethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) . . . . . .

1,2-Dichloropropane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,3-Dichloropropylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dieldrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diethyl phthalate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dimethoate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dinoseb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,4-Dioxane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disulfoton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Endosulfan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Endrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethyl acetate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethyl ether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethylene dibromide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethylene dichloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethylene oxide (condensate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethylidene dichloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Formaldehyde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heptachlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hexachlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hexachloroethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hexachlorophene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

household cleaners (starch powder), adhesives (microfilm)

adhesives (film, microfilm, model, fishing rod, shoe, plastics, fabric, china solvent,

canvas), pet maintenance (soaps), cosmetics (nail polish)

pet maintenance

adhesives

pet maintenance

pet maintenance

cosmetics (perfume), stain (wood)

paint (non-latex anti-algae)

paint (non-latex anti-algae)

pet maintenance

pet maintenance

household cleaners (spotremover, degreaser, destainer, oven cleaner), stain, varnish,

adhesives, cosmetics (nail polish remover)

engine treatment (degreaser)

household batteries, paints, photographic chemicals

household cleaners (degreaser, destainer)

cosmetics (hair treatment)

pet maintenance (flea powders)

paint (latex)

household cleaners (degreaser, destained)

household cleaners (lipstick spot remover), pet maintenance (mange drug)

paint (wood preservative), photographic chemicals

pet maintenance (repellent)

household cleaners (disinfectant), engine treatment (degreaser)

engine treatment (degreaser)

adhesives

pet maintenance (dips)

pet maintenance

paint (non-latex plasticizer), adhesives (builder’s, model, vinyl wood glue,

thermoplastic, china water emulsion, china solvent), cosmetics (nail polish)

household cleaners (disinfectant)

household cleaners (disinfectant, toilet bowl cleaner)

household cleaners (disinfectant, toilet bowl cleaner, air sanitizer, air deodorant)

household cleaners (rugs, upholstery, tar remover)

household cleaners (rugs, upholstery), polish (shoe)

pet maintenance, insect repellants

household cleaners (tar remover, wax, wax remover

household cleaners (wax)

pet maintenance

paint (non-latex plasticizer) adhesives (fabric, metal), polish (metal)

pet maintenance

pet maintenance

adhesives (film)

pet maintenance

pet maintenance

pet maintenance

household cleaners (dish detergent disinfectant)

household cleaners (spot remove~degreaser/destained), paint (lacquer thinners),

adhesives (film, leather, fabric, china, model glue), cosmetics (nail enamel)

engine treatment (degreaser)

engine treatment (fuel additives)

household cleaners (carpet cleaner/deodorizer), engine treatment (degreaser, fuel

additives), adhesives (film)

household cleaners (disinfectant)

adhesives

household cleaners (starch, disinfectant, air sanitizer), polishes (shoe, plastic),

adhesives (gum arabic, Iibrary paste, waterproof glue)

pet maintenance

household cleaners (disinfectant)

insect repellents

cosmetics (cleansing creams, conditioning cream, face mask)

stain/varnish, automobile batteries, paint
Chapter 3-Generation and Composition of MSW . 89

Table 3-&Examples of Hazardous Ingredients in Common Household Commoditiesa--Continued

ingredient Types of products found in

Lead acetate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lindane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury fulminate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methanol (methyl alcohol) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methoxychlor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methylene chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methy ethyl ketone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methyl isobutyl acetone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methyl methacrylate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methyl parathion ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Naphthalene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Naphthalene, 2-chloro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,4-Naphthalenedione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,4-Naphthaquinone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1-Naphthylamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-Naphthylamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nitrobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parathion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pentachlorophenol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phenols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phenyl mercuric acetate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phthalates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Propane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resorcinol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Silvex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sodium o-phenylphenate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sulfuric acid.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sulfuric acid, thallium salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tetraethyl lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Toluene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Toxaphene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,1,1-Trichloroethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,1,2-Trichloroethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,1,2-Trichloroethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) . .

Trichloromonofluoromethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Warfarin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Xylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

cosmetics (haircoloring)

pet maintenance (seeps, sprays, dips)

household cleaners (disinfectant), paint (non-latex anti-algae, Iatex), household

batteries

household cleaners (disinfectant)

engine treatment (degreaser, antifreeze/coolant), adhesives (film), household cleaners(rust and ink remover), (degreaser), stain/varnish, cosmetics (nail polish)

household cleaners (air sanitizer), pet maintenance (powders, dips, soaps, sprays)

household cleaners (air sanitizer, oven cleaner, tar remover), engine treatment

(degreaser), paint (anti-corrosion non-latex), stain/varnish, adhesives (air filter,

film)

household cleaners (degreaser), adhesives (film, microfilm, fishing rod, china (butanone) solvent), cosmetics (nail polish)

adhesives (china solvent, microfilm)

cosmetics (nail polish), adhesives (dental plate)

pet maintenance

household cleaners (glass cleaner, carpet cleaner/deodorizer, air sanitizer, air

deodorant)

household cleaners (glass cleaner)

household cleaners (glass cleaner)

household cleaners (glass cleaner)

household cleaners (glass cleaner)

household cleaners (glass cleaner)

household cleaners (glass cleaner)

polish (shoe)

pet maintenance

household cleaners (starch), pet maintenance, adhesives (dental

plate), paint (wood preservative)

adhesives (gum arabic, dextrin, flexible glue), household cleaners

(pine oil, disinfectant), paint

polishes (shoe), household cleaners (starch, disinfectant)

pet maintenance

household cleaners (spot remover, glass cleaner, disinfectant,

degreaser), polish (auto)

adhesives (microfilm), polish (metal)

paint (latex)

cosmetics (hair coloring and tonics)

photographic chemicals

household batteries, photographic chemicals

pet maintenance

adhesives (library paste)

household cleaners (toilet bowl cleaner)

polishes (metal)

engine treatment (fuel additives)

household cleaners (spot remover, degreaser), lubricating oil (all-purpose, brake/clutch/

hydraulic fluid, motor oil), paint (latex, lacquer thinners), adhesives (microfilm,

plastic, leather, fabric, rubber), cosmetics (nail polish)

pet maintenance (dips), insect repellents

polishes (general, shoe), adhesives (contact cement), household

cleaner (oven cleaner, rugs, upholstery)

polishes (shoe)

engine treatment (fuel additive), household cleaners (degreaser/destainer, carpet

cleaner/deodorizer, rugs, upholstery)

pet maintenance

household cleaners (air sanitizer)

pet maintenance

transmission fluid, engine treatment (degreaser), paint (latex, non-latex, lacquer

thinners), adhesives (microfilm, fabric), cosmetics (nail polish)

aDetermination as hazardous based on 40 Code of Federal Regulations 261.

SOURCES: Based on U.S. Environmental ProtectIon Agency, Sources of Toxic Compounds in Household Wastewater, EPA 600/2-80-128 (Cincinnati, OH:

August 1980) (39); D.C. Wilson and W.L. Rathje, University of Arizona, The Garbage Project, personal communicatlon, March 1989 (compilation

of data from refs. 15, 32, and 35).

99-420 0 - 89 - 3
90 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

quantity generators” and include vehicle maintenance shops (which handle lead-acid car batteries

and used motor oil), drycleaners, pesticide application services, and others (10,37). One study estimated that there are about 450,000 very small

quantity generators in the country and that they

generate about 197,000 tons of hazardous waste

annually (l). How much of this waste is sent to

MSW landfills and incinerators is unknown. Even if

all of it is discarded at MSW landfills, it would

represent much less than 1 percent of all landfilled

waste; however, it does contain toxic substances,

and about one-fourth of all MSW landfills accept

such wastes (ch. 7).

In addition, some nonhazardous industrial wastes

are discarded in MSW landfills (ch. 7). Although

most nonhazardous wastes currently are managed

‘‘on-site,” pressure to send them to off-site landfills

may increase in the future if regulations guiding

on-site management become more stringent.

It also is important to note that some of the

materials in MSW are not always handled by MSW

management methods. For example, liquid cleansers

may be washed down the drain and into the

municipal sewage treatment system (40). Pesticides

(e.g., from spraying lawns) can be carried by rain

into storm drains, which generally discharge into

surface waters. Pesticides also can be dumped on the

ground or into sewers, or stored at home.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Although this chapter is filled with statistics, the

data base available about MSW is actually quite

limited and quite uncertain. There is general consensus that total MSW generation in the United States

is increasing. But translating this broad conclusion

into guidance for local decisionmakers is difficult.

Communities need better information about local

conditions and better ways to collect that information. The States and the Federal Government could

benefit, too, from better information as they work to

develop wise MSW policies.

Additional research is needed on many topics

related to MSW generation. The Federal Government, for example, could sponsor or conduct

research on many of these topics, including:

. standardized definitions of MSW;

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

standardized data collection and reporting

methods;

why and how MSW generation and composition vary among communities and in relation

to demographic and socioeconomic factors;

amounts and composition of MSW produced

by residential, commercial, and institutional

sectors;

amounts of other nonhazardous wastes sent to

MSW management facilities (including, but

not limited to, construction and demolition

debris);

the relationship between weight and volume;

degradation rates in landfills; and

compilations of existing generation and composition studies.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Abt Associates Inc., “National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey, Final Report, ”

prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Solid Waste (Cambridge, MA: February

1985).

Alexander, J., James River Corp., personal communication, February 1989.

Bingemer, H., and Crutzen, P., “The Production of

Methane from Solid Wastes, ” J. Geophysical Research 92 (D2): 2181-2187, February 1987.

Churney, K. L., I.Arod, A.E. Jr., Bruce, S. S., and

Domalski, E. S., The Chlorine Content of Municipal

Solid Waste from Baltimore County, MD and

Brooklyn, NY, National Bureau of Standards report

NBSIR 85-3213 (Gaithersburg, MD: October 1985).

Clean Japan Center, ‘‘Waste Volume on the Rise and

Measures Against It,” Clean Japan 14:6-10, February 1989.

Cox, K., Background Data on Municipal Solid

Waste: Generation, Composition, Costs, Management Facilities, State Activities, contract prepared for

U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(l%koma Park, MD: 1989).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Waste Paper, The Future

of a Resource 1980-2000, prepared for the Solid

Waste Council of the Paper Industry (prairie Village,

KS: December 1982).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960-2000,

Working Papers (Prairie Village, KS: July 11, 1986).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960-2000,

report prepared for U.S. EPA, NTIS No. PB87-

178323 (Prairie Village, KS: July 25, 1986).
Chapter 3-Generation and Composition of MSW ● 91

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to

2000 (Update 1988), report prepared for U.S. EPA,

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(Prairie Village, KS: Mar. 30, 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in Municipal

Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000,

Executive Summary and Chapter 1, final report

prepared for U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste

Program (Prairie Village, KS: January 1989).

Franklin, M., Franklin Associates, Ltd., personal

communication, Feb. 15, 1989.

Franklin, M., Franklin Associates, Ltd., personal

communication, Apr. 17, 1989.

Goosmann, G., “Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Federal Republic of Germany, pp.

118-126 in A Selection of Recent Publications (Vol.

2), Federal Environmental Agency, Federal Republic

of Germany (Berlin: 1988).

Gosselin, R. E., Smith, R. P., et al., Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins: 1984).

Hasselriis, F., “What’s in Our Garbage?” Waste

AlternativeslWaste-to-Energy ](2): 74-77, September 1988.

HDR Engineering, Inc., “Lake County Solid Waste

Management Plan,” prepared for Lake County Joint

Action Solid Waste Planning Agency, Lake County,

Illinois (Omaha, NB: February 1988).

Hershkowitz, A. J., international Experiences in Solid

Waste Management, contract prepared for U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(Elmsford, NY: Municipal Recycling Associates,

Inc., October 1988).

Kahn, Z. K., and Sable, E., “Planning a Program to

Determine Physical and Chemical Characteristics of

Municipal Solid Waste, ’ Resource Recovery/

Cogeneration World 1:15-18, 1988.

Kinman, R. N., and Nutini, D. L., “Household Hazardous Waste in the Sanitary Landfill, ” Chemical

TIMES & TRENDS 11 :23-29 and 39-40, July 1988.

Korzun, E. A., Stephens, N. T., and Heck, H. H., ‘‘The

Impact of Increased Recycle Rates on Markets for

Recycled Paper, Plastic, Metals, Glass, and Rubber in

Florida” (Melbourne, FL: Florida Institute of Technology, no date).

Lehrburger, C., Diapers in the Waste Stream, A

Review of Waste Manqement and Public Policy

Issues (Sheffield, MA: December 1988).

McCamic, F. W., “Waste Composition Studies: Literature Review and Protocol, ’ prepared for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Manage24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

menu Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal (Ferrand and

Scheinberg Associates, October 1985).

Miller, W. C., “Integrating Energy and Materials

Recovery in Solid Waste Management Plans: The

Importance of Waste Composition Studies,” pp.

1-12 in Proceedings of the 1987 Conference on Solid

Waste Management and Materials Policy, Session 4,

Vol. 4, Waste Composition Studies, Feb. 11-14, 1987

(Albany: 1987).

Morse, L., “Data,” pp. 104-107 in Summary of the

Third National Conference on Household Hazardous Wate Management, Nov. 2-4, 1988 (Boston,

MA: Dana Duxbury & Associates, Inc., February

1989).

National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers,

Inc., letter to OTA, Sept. 8, 1988.

Northwest Regional Planning Commission, Burnett

County Wate ReductionJRecycling Study (Wisconsin: 1987).

Rathje, W. L., University of Arizona, personal communication, February 1989.

Rathje, W. L., Hughes, W. W., Archer, G., and Wilson, D. C,, “Source Reduction and Landfill Myths,”

paper presented at ASTSWMO National Solid Waste

Forurn on Integrated Municipal Waste Management

(Lake Buena Vista, FL: July 17-20,1988).

Rathje, W. L., and Thompson, B., The Milwaukee

Garbage Project (Washington, DC: Solid Waste

Council of the Paper Industry, 1981).

Rathje, W. L., and Wilson, D. C., “Archaeological

Techniques Applied to Characterization of Household Discards and Their Potential for Contamination

of Ground Water, ” paper presented at Third International Symposium onlndustrial Resource Management (New York: Feb. 11-14, 1987).

SCS Engineers, A Survey of Household Hazardous

Wastes and Related Collection Programs, report to

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, Special Wastes Branch (Reston, VA:

1986).

Strand Associates, Inc., “Sauk County Solid Waste

Reduction and Recycling Study” (Madison, WI:

February 1988).

Texas Department of Health, Solid Waste Alanagement Plan for Texas, 1980-1986, Volume l—

Municipal Solid Waste (Austin, TX: 1981).

The Garbage Project, ‘‘The Mullins Dig, An Archaeological Excavation of Three Modem Landfills, ”

working outline (Tucson: University of Arizona,

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, 1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, OTA-M-196 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1983).
92 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

37. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April

1987).

38. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States,

1988, 108th edition (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1987).

39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sources of

Toxic Compounds in Household Wastewater, EPA

600/2-80-128 (Cincinnati, OH: August 1980).

40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress on the Discharge of Wastes to Publicly

Owned Treatment Works, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA 530/SW-86-004 (Washington, DC: February 1986).

41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Survey of

Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs, EPA/530-SW-86-038 (Washington,

DC: October 1986).

42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Household Hazardous Waste from Marin

County, Cahfornia, and New Orleans, Louisiana,

Environmental Systems Monitoring Laboratory (Las

Vegas, NV: August1987).

43. U.S. Environmental Rotection Agency, The Solid

WmteDilemma, An Agenda for Action, EPA/530-SW89-019 (Washington, DC: February 1989).

44. Wilson, D. C., “Ancient Trash, Modem Solid

Wastes: An Archaeologist’s Perspective on Reuse,

Recycling, Waste, and Landfill Degradation,” paper

presented at National Solid Waste Management

Symposium (Rescott, AZ: Apr. 10, 1989).

45. Wilson, D.C., and Rathje, W. L., “Quantities and

Composition of Household Hazardous Wastes: Report on a Multi-Community, Multi-Disciplinary Reject, ” paper presented at U.S. EPA Conference on

Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston,

MA: NOV. 2-4, 1988).

46. Wilson, D. C., and Rathje, W. L., University of

Arizona, The Garbage Project, personal communication, April 1989.

47. World Resources Institute, WorldResources 1988-89

(New York$ NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1988).
Chapter 4

MSW Prevention
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. $.. ... ......O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Toxicity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

What and Where Are Toxic Substances?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Examples of Toxicity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Consumer Purchasing Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Quantity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Deciding What Products and Materials to Target. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Product Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Examples of MSW Quantity Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Prevention Opportunities for Consumers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Individual Consumers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Offices, Institutions, and Retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Boxes

Box Page

4-A. Prevention, Recycling, and Degradability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

4-B. Does Shifting to Plastics Mean MSW Prevention?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4-C. Polaroid’s Mercury-Free Battery For Film Cassettes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

4-D. Safer, Inc., Alternatives to Petrochemically Based Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4-E. Foam Polystyrene Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

4-F. Procter & Gamble Concentrated Laundry Product. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Figures

Figure Page

4-l. Routes to MSW Prevention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4-2. Distribution of Lead and Cadmium in products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

4-3. Trends in Use of Mercury in Household Batteries in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4-4. Shifts in Personal Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

4-5. Advertising Used in West Germany for Procter & Gamble’s

Concentrated Fabric Softener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Tables

Table Page

4-l. U.S. Consumption and Demand for Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4-2. Electrode Systems of Common Household Batteries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4-3. Estimated Proportion of Products and Other Materials in MSW,

By Decade and Including 1986, After Materials Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

4-4. Estimated Percent Change in the Total Weight of Products and

Other Materials in MSW, By Decade.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4-5. Estimated Weights and Percentages of Different Containers and

Packaging in Gross Discards of MSW, by Material, in 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

4-6. Relationships Between Contents and Packaging of Selected Products. . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Chapter 4

MSW Prevention

OVERVIEW

The Nation’s current concerns about MSW arise

from the increased visibility of several related

problems: declining landfill capacity, overuse of

virgin materials, and the presence of toxic substances in discarded products. One strategy to cope

with these problems is to promote “MSW prevention. ” OTA defines MSW prevention as activities

that reduce the toxicity or quantity of discarded

products before the products are purchased, used,

and discarded.l Prevention should not be confused

with waste management, which occurs after MSW

is generated (ch. 1). Box 4-A discusses differences

between prevention, recycling, and degradability.

There are two basic routes to MSW prevention—

manufacturers can change the design of products and

the way they are packaged, and consumers can alter

purchasing decisions about existing products and the

way they use and discard products (figure 4-l).

Two distinct characteristics of MSW need to be

kept in sharp focus-toxicity and quantity (figure

4-l). To product manufacturers, reducing toxicity

means eliminating or finding benign substitutes for

substances that pose risks when they ultimately are

discarded as MSW. Reducing quantity means changing the design of a product so that less MSW is

generated when the product or its residuals are

discarded. 2 From a consumer’s perspective, both

toxicity and quantity reduction involve deciding to

buy products that reflect such changes. Quantity

reduction also includes backyard comporting of

yard wastes (i.e., within a household’s property

lines), since this eliminates materials that otherwise

would be managed by the commercial or public

sectors. Reduction also can include reusing an item

without changing its form, structure, or function.

The motivation for promoting MSW prevention is

strong and simple. The public is increasingly sensitive about potential human health and environmental

risks associated with all MSW management methods. Reducing toxicity would make all management

methods safer and help restore public confidence in

waste management policies and programs. For

example, reducing the amounts and types of organic

chemicals in materials sent to landfills would mean

less air pollution (e.g., from volatile organic chemicals) and less toxic leachate.

Reducing the quantity of discarded materials

would mean that the useful life of existing and future

waste management facilities could be extended and

new replacement capacity could be developed at a

slower rate. Currently, however, the amount of

MSW generated in the United States increases by

about 1 percent each year, a rate of increase that is

expected to continue through at least the year 2000

(ch. 3). Overall population growth accounts for

about two-thirds of the increase, but the average

amount that each person generates (i.e., the percapita rate) also has increased over the years. At the

same time, available capacity for properly managing

MSW is declining (chs. 1 and 7).

As reviewed in this chapter, some reductions in

MSW toxicity and quantity already have occurred,

and many more possibilities exist. With respect to

toxic substances, the link between management

problems and product design is clear, and manufacturers and EPA need to make stronger efforts to

identify and reduce such substances. Identifying

these substances and their major sources is not easy,

however, especially given difficulties in estimating

potential risks (chs. 5, 6, and 7), the thousands of

products that are currently in commerce, and the

functional purposes of the substances. Nevertheless,

when such substances and sources are identified,

then the feasibility and costs of developing products

IEpA uxs [hc lcrm ‘‘source reduction ( ] 2, 91).

2T~oughou~ this report, OTA’S use of the tc~ ‘‘prOdLICtS ‘‘ includes packaging as well. The term ‘‘packaging’ generally is used only when that

subset of products is the focus of discussion.

-97 -
98 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 4-A—Prevention, Recycling, and

Degradability

New products can be designed to make MSW

management easier. Just as toxicity and quantity

cart be considered when new products are designed,

so can properties such as recyclability and degradability. If products are recyclable or degradable,

less MSW might need to be sent to landfills or

incinerators. Yet neither reduces the toxicity or

quantity of MSW before it is generated. For this

reason, OTA does not include recyclability and

degradability as part of MSW prevention, a view

shared by some other observers (e.g., 38). Instead,

these two aspects of MSW are considered part of

waste management.

Recycling, for example, occurs when an item is

valued for its material content and the material is

used to manufacture new items. However, recycling

does not reduce MSW generation rates because it

involves the separation, collection, and processing

of materials after they are discarded. Although

recycling is not a preventive measure, the link

between the production/design portion of the MSW

‘‘system and the ability to increase recycling is

still important. As OTA pointed out in chapter 1,

one key aspect of a materials management policy is

to coordinate product manufacturing with the needs

of management methods, in this case by designing

products to be recyclable.

Similarly, degradable products do not decrease

generation rates, although they can help reduce the

visual problems and wildlife injuries associated

with plastic litter (ch. 5). Degradable products

generally are discarded into the MSW management

system, where they end up in landfills. They may or

may not degrade depending on the product and

conditions at the landfill (chs. 5 and 7). Degradable

products might even increase MSW generation

rates in some cases. For example, some degradable

plastic bags may require more polyethylene to have

the same strength as non-degradable bags.

without the substances can be evaluated. Additional

research is needed, however, to develop potential

MSW prevention strategies, For example, independent testing of the toxic content of materials and

development of non-toxic alternatives is needed

(12).

It is difficult to target products for quantity

reduction efforts. Many people assume that demands

for convenience have caused the proliferation of

packaging and single-use products, but this is only

partly true. In many cases, the relative proportion of

packaging in MSW actually has decreased, at least

by weight.3 Moreover, packaging performs critical

functions such as decreasing food spoilage and

preventing pilferage or tampering. Even the use of

plastics, which is criticized by many people, may

contribute to reduction in some cases (box 4-B). In

addition, measuring quantity reduction is difficult

because there are no standard methods for determining how much is generated (ch. 3).

Even so, there are some obvious opportunities to

reduce the quantity of MSW. These include reducing

some packaging (e.g., multi-material packaging,

which makes recycling difficult), some uses of paper

(e.g., in direct mail advertising, oversized newspapers), and single-use products (e.g., diapers). In

addition, yard wastes make up a large portion of

MSW in many areas (ch. 3) and efforts to increase

backyard comporting could be important.

The major problem associated with MSW prevention is that MSW generation itself is a social

phenomenon tied to social customs and personal

preferences and lifestyles. Reducing the quantity of

MSW generated will require changes in the attitudes

of most Americans. This can only occur if producers

and consumers assume joint responsibility for MSW

generation, and it will involve changes in manufacturing design practices and in consumer purchasing

decisions.

These changes would likely have positive and

negative economic and social effects. As noted

above, the potential benefits are attractive. Reducing

toxicity would make MSW management safer and

could have economic benefits associated with a

decrease in cleanup costs of future hazardous waste

sites. Reduced MSW quantity could lower the rate at

which landfills are reaching capacity and possibly

the rate at which costs for consumers and communisT~ es[fiat~ wei~t of all containers and packaging in MSW declined from 35 percent in 1970 to N percent in 1986; while more packaging may

be entering the MSW stream, lighter materials such as plastics and paper have been replacing heavier materials such as glass and metals (ch. 3). Little

information is available on the volume of packaging. Based on limited data from excavations at landfills (ch. 3), the volume of plastics stayed relatively

constant during the last 15 years, the volume of paper packaging increased slightly, and the volume of glass and metat decreased.
Chapter 4----MSW Prevention ● 99

Figure 4-l-Routes to MSW Prevention

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989

ties are rising. Negative effects are possible, however, and they are likely to be unevenly distributed

throughout society. For example, quantity reduction

could affect employment, tax revenues, and the

gross national product in unpredictable ways because about 70 percent of MSW consists of manufactured goods. Quantity reduction also could have

negative economic impacts on some recyclers,

although whether such effects would be enough to

significantly affect recycling operations is unknown.

For example, a change in battery components could

affect recycling systems whose intent is to collect

and sell specific metals.

Given these obstacles, it is uncertain just how

much MSW prevention, particularly in terms of

reducing quantity, will be achieved in the longrun. However, it is a certainty that little will be

accomplished if the Nation maintains its current

MSW practices. Although manufacturers have an

economic incentive to reduce production and materials costs, they have little incentive to consider the

ultimate costs for disposal of their products. Unless

products or materials are available that perform well

and have costs comparable to existing maw-ids,

manufacturers are unlikely to adopt alternatives in

the absence of incentives (12). Similarly, there is
100 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 4-B—Does Shifting to Plastics Mean MSW Prevention?

Many people are concerned about the growing use of plastic materials and their long-term effect on the

environment, public health, and supplies of nonrenewable resources. These concerns may be caused more by the

visibility of their use rather than the materials themselves. With respect to MSW, issues of concern about plastics

include non-recyclability, non-degradability, contributions to dioxin emissions from incinerators, and use of landfill

capacity.

Questions about plastics in MSW are not easily resolved. For example, virtually all types of plastics are

recyclable from a technical perspective, although the capacity for such processing and the markets for products may

be limited. Degradable plastics are appealing to many people and would provide benefits to certain sectors of society

(e.g., corn growers if the use of cornstarch in biodegradable plastics increases), but there are unanswered questions

about their effects on the environment and recycling (ch. 5). Similarly, issues concerning the contribution of plastics

to dioxin emissions cannot be answered unequivocally (ch. 6).

Even so, switching to plastic materials can result in MSW quantity reduction, at least in terms of weight,

because plastics generally are lighter than the materials they replace. For example, reduction could occur when thin

plastic “shrink-wrap” films replace thicker corrugated cardboard or when plastic beverage bottles replace metal

or glass bottles. Conversely, reduction would not occur when single-use plastic products replace reusable products,

or when plastic added to existing products increases the weight or volume per unit of a product.

Whether these types of changes would decrease the volume of MSW depends on the specific case. In addition,

if the plastic product is not easily recyclable, then the amount of MSW diverted from landfills or incinerators may

not decrease.

Plastics and MSW prevention also must be considered in the context of toxicity. Different additives (e.g.,

metals or organic chemicals) are incorporated into polymer matrices during the production of plastic resins and

others are added during the fabrication of plastic products (ch. 5). In fact, the variability of additives is what allows

these materials to be tailored to different applications. There are unanswered questions, however, about what

happens to additives when plastic materials are recycled, incinerated, and landfilled. To assess the potential for

toxicity reduction, it would be necessary to evaluate each individual plastic material, its additives, and its potential

health and environmental effects during MSW management.

On a broader scale, however, the use of plastics may not contribute to overall reductions in waste generation

by society, primarily because their manufacture is associated with the generation of large quantities of hazardous

waste (e.g., chlorinated benzenes, carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene).

little incentive for consumers to consider MSW TOXICITY REDUCTION

prevention.

The potential benefits of both toxicity and quantity reduction suggest that a concerted effort to

promote prevention is worth starting today. There is

a limit to what local and State governments can do

to provide such incentives (chs. 1 and 8). The

Federal Government, however, can provide strong

leadership, actions, and positive incentives for

MSW prevention efforts. Without Federal involvement, success is unlikely. This chapter discusses

issues associated with MSW toxicity and quantity

reduction, examples of successful changes, and

some of the opportunities that different consumers

can attempt. Current Federal and State activities

related to MSW prevention are discussed in chapter

8, and policy options are discussed in chapter 1.

Toxicity reduction refers to changing the design

of products prior to manufacturing so they contain

fewer or none of the substances that pose risks when

those products become part of the MSW management stream. Toxicity reduction also can occur when

products with toxic substances last longer. However,

lowering the toxicity of a product by half would not

be considered toxicity reduction if the change means

that the product’s lifetime is also cut in half.

Reducing the toxicity of MSW is an approach that

emerged out of policies regarding industrial hazardous waste reduction (75, 77). The dynamics for

MSW prevention efforts are different, however,

primarily because the generator of a product with a

toxic component is not responsible for its disposal,
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 101

which is the opposite of the case for most generators

of industrial hazardous waste. In principle, reducing

the toxicity of MSW can decrease MSW management costs and exposure problems at all points in the

lifecycle of a product, from point of manufacture to

point of ultimate disposal or management. If the

substances in MSW that pose the greatest risks to

humans could be identified and removed from or

substantially reduced in products, then those items

would be safer.

What and Where Are Toxic Substances?

To identify substances and product.. for toxicity

reduction efforts, information is needed about the

types and amounts of toxic substances in MSW,

which products contain significant quantities of

them, and potential for exposure and toxic dosage

during MSW management. With this information,

specific substances and products could be targeted

for initial reduction efforts.

Some toxic substances are known to pose human

health and environmental problems (e.g., lead and

benzene), and some can degrade machines and

equipment. However, the state of our knowledge

about potentially toxic substances in MSW is

uncertain. Little is known about the distribution of

toxic substances in various products. what exposures

during or after MSW management are sufficient to

cause problems, and what relative risks these substances pose when different MS W management

systems are used.

An initial way to screen the universe of substances

is to use existing regulatory lists. In addition, two

general sources of information can be used to link

particular toxic substances with products: 1) analyses of materials “flow,” usually done for other

purposes, that inventory substances from their origins to their end use; and 2) local household

hazardous waste collection programs around the

country, which collect discarded products containing hazardous substances.

Existing Regulatory Lists

Existing regulatory lists of toxic substances provide an initial basis of information about the extent

of toxic substances. Several lists exist in environmental laws or regulations. For example, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) defines hazardous substances; the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) defines hazardous wastes;

the Clean Water Act defines priority toxic pollutants; and the Clean Air Act defines hazardous air

pollutants. 4

This information has limitations. For example,

many suspect chemicals are likely to exist that are

not listed. In addition, hundreds of new chemicals

are introduced into production and commerce by

industry each year.

Obviously, it is impossible to analyze at one time

the potential harm of hundreds of chemicals, nor

could the Federal Government implement any toxicity reduction program that encompassed all substances at once. The lists simply provide a guide to

potential and sometimes actual toxicity. The Federal Government needs to determine where its

efforts in promoting the reduction of toxics in

MSW should be concentrated. EPA reached the

same conclusion (91).

Materials Flow Inventories

Complete studies of how a given substance is used

and flows through society are limited. With respect

to MSW, most of the available information deals

with metals.

Data on Metals--Three heavy metals that are

generally recognized as toxic to humans are cadmium, lead, and mercury. These are used in many

products (92):

●

●

●

cadmium-metal coatings and platings for

white goods; rechargeable household batteries;

electronics and fasteners; color pigments for

plastics, paints, printing inks; heat stabilizers in

plastics;

lead-rustproofing paints; wire and cable insulation, for electrical stability; bottle caps;

contact base of incandescent light bulbs; and

mercury-fluorescent lights, batteries, power

control switches for lights and thermostats,

mildew-proofing paints.

4T~ ~md~ ~oxlc ~dh~,~d~u~ we not ~~d here in their ]eg~ or re~latory t~hnical ~nse. Instead ~ey are Uxd to refer to materials that are harmful

when people are exposed to them in sufficient concentrations.
102 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Lead is used in many products, including lead-acid automobile batteries, consumer electronics, paints and inks,

some food packaging, and light bulbs. Most led-acid

batteries are recycled, but these batteries still account for

about 65 percent of the lead present in MSW after

recycling.

They also can be found in trace quantities in some

products. For example, printing inks classified as

non-lead-based can still contain lead in trace concentrations below 600 ppm.

The Bureau of Mines estimated how these metals

are distributed among all end uses (table 4-l). In

1983, most cadmium (34 percent) was used in

coating and plating; the second largest use was

batteries (27 percent in 1983), which are expected to

top the list in the year 2000. Cadmium use in plastics

as a pigment and sometimes as a stabilizer is

expected to grow to third place in 2000. Mercury end

uses in 1983 were primarily electrical (55 percent).

One materials flow analysis on lead and cadmium

specifically analyzes metals in MSW (29). Leadacid batteries (primarily from automobiles) accounted for 65 percent of the lead after recycling,

while consumer electronics (e.g., TVs, radios, and

VCRs) accounted for 27 percent (figure 4-2). Nickel/

cadmium household batteries are the largest source

of cadmium, accounting for an estimated 52 percent,

while plastics contribute 28 percent. Along with the

Bureau of Mines data, this information indicates that

automobile batteries are the major source of lead in

Table 4-1-U.S. Consumption and Demand for Lead,

Cadmium, and Mercury

End use Tons Percent

Mercury demand by end use, 1983:

Electrical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,024

Caustic soda and chlorine . . . . . 306

Paints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Dental supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Cadmium demand by end use, 1983

Coating and plating . . . . . . . . . . . 1,410

1,120

Pigments::: ::::::::: :: :::::: 660

Plastic stabilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Lead consumption by class of product, 1986:

Storage batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940,899

Metal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,949

Other oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,619

Gasoline additives . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,452

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,663

55

16

12

5

3

8

34

27

16

15

8

76

13

6

3

2

SOURCES; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral

Facts and Problems 1985 Edition, Bulletin 675 (Washington,

DC: 1985); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

Minerals Yearbook (Washington, DC: 1986).

MSW, while household batteries are major sources

of mercury and cadmium, and plastics are major

sources of lead and cadmium, as well. One European

study found that household batteries contributed the

highest fraction of mercury, cadmium, zinc, and

manganese in urban waste (55).

Little analysis of the contents of packaging has

been conducted, but most of the materials used in

packaging (i.e., paper, plastics, steel, glass) may be

sources of toxic substances, particularly metals (28).

Sources of lead in packaging include solder in steel

cans, paint pigments, ceramic glazes and inks, and

plastics. Sources of cadmium include the coating

and plating on metals and pigments in some plastics.

There also are many other additives in plastics (ch.

5).

Data on Organic Chemicals—Synthetic organic

chemicals are used intentionally in many common

consumer products-e. g., toluene in inks, formaldehyde in particle board and glues, chlorobenzene in

cleaners, and methylene chloride in spray propellants (92) (also see ch. 3). The production of these

chemicals has proliferated since the 1940s because

of technological changes in invention and mass

production. Relatively little information is available,
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 103

Village, KS. January 1989).

however, on the end uses of organic chemicals in

different products.

Determining which products are major sources of

particular organic chemicals will involve substantial

research. Other questions about organic chemicals

need to be considered. Should chemicals used as

‘‘active” and “inert” ingredients in pesticides be

counted? 5 How should the chemical form of the

substance, exposure. and dosage be accounted for?

In addition, obtaining information on particular

ingredients can sometimes be difficult because of

proprietary considerations. Still, existing regulatory

lists at least provide some insight into usage of these

chemicals.

Household Hazardous Waste Lists

EPA defines “household hazardous waste” as

products discarded from residences which contain

substances already regulated under RCRA as an

industrial hazardous waste (89).6 Over 100 substances classified as hazardous under RCRA are

found in common household products (ch. 3).

Although the list in chapter 3 is not comprehensive,

it indicates the wide range of products that contain

hazardous substances.7 EPA also has compiled

similar lists (89). One list covers household hazardous wastes; a second lists “household items that

may be hazardous. ” EPA cautioned that not every

commercial product of the general types listed

contains the specific component.

Lists of these products also have been compiled

by local or State organizations for use by consumers.

Their formats vary widely. Most lists include

categories such as automotive products (e.g., oils,

batteries); cleaners (e.g., detergents, drain and oven

cleaners); paints and polishes; pesticides and insecticides; and miscellaneous. One list gives each

category a toxicity rating (39). Its rating system may

be too simple because of the wide range of products

and product compositions in each category, but it

does provide consumers with some information

about relative toxicity. Another example is a‘ Household Hazardous Waste Wheel” (19). This educational tool lists 36 types of products in four

categories (house, auto, pesticides, and paint products) and identifies hazardous ingredients and their

properties, management methods, and alternative

products.

Slnen ~~lent~ ~~wtivc chernic~s that fml]ltate tie eff~tg of ~tive jn~~ients. They include solvents ~ch ss water, baits for attracting pests,

dust carriers such m clay or talc, tillers, wetting and spreading agents, propellants, and emulsifiers (10). EPA gmUPS them into four lists, the first of which,

for example, contains 57 of the most toxic inerts cumcntly used in products.

6HOwcver, no Fe(jer~ rc~lations exist for household h~~dou. wastes.

TThe list dms not ~c-ude mmy pe~lcides, and it is res~cted to h~ardous w&s~,$ as defined by RCRA.
104 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Some European lists of household hazardous

waste contain items rarely found on U.S. lists. In

West Germany, for instance, the product groups

defined as household hazardous waste include

fluorescent tubes and medicines (34).

Chapter 3 includes some data on the frequency at

which these products (excluding automobile batteries) appear in residential MSW. For example,

household maintenance and cleaner products are

estimated to make up almost half of the household

hazardous wastes discarded from residences.

Examples of Toxicity Reduction

Product reformulation is an ongoing process in

industry, occurring continually for safety and market

reasons. Various examples show that industry can

use its creativity to develop new alternatives and

reap spin-off rewards without loss of competitive

position or jobs. For example, the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as propellants in most

aerosols was banned by EPA and the Food and Drug

Administration in 1978 (22). Initially, the void was

filled by hydrocarbons, which already were used in

about half of the aerosol market and in pump sprays.

The change also resulted in expanded commercial

development of new products, new ways of applying

materials, and new technology. More recently,

plastics manufacturers are moving to eliminate the

use of CFCs in the foam polystyrene used in

fast-food packaging (ch. 5).

Investments in research and development on the

reformulation of products is expensive and timeconsuming, however. For example, according to the

vice president of research and development at one

company, approval of one pesticide for home use

can sometimes take 10 to 15 years and cost $10

million (22).

In addition, many manufacturers argue that their

products are unsafe only when they are mishandled

and improperly discarded. For example, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association argues

that chemical specialty products, which often are

included on household hazardous waste, are formulated to maximize their safety during use and

minimize potential environmental effects (9).8 To

promote proper use of these products, the Association is supporting a program called ‘Disposal: Do It

Right,” run by the Household Products Disposal

Council. This group distributes information about

the safety of chemical products and how to properly

use and dispose of them.

Some manufacturers have made changes in the

composition of products that ultimately become

MSW. Some cases involve substances whose toxicity, given sufficient exposure and dosage, is undisputed, such as lead, mercury, and cadmium. For

example, lead in exterior house paints has been

replaced with titanium and zinc pigments (85) and

the use of lead soldering in food cans has declined

from 90 percent of such cans in 1979 to about 20

percent in 1986 (84). Box 4-C highlights another

example, where Polaroid eliminated mercury in

camera batteries by redesigning the battery. 9 T w o

other examples--efforts to reduce the use of lead in

printing inks and the use of mercury in household

batteries in general—are discussed below.

Organic chemicals also can be the targets of

toxicity reduction efforts. For example, perchloroethane has been replaced with a water-based

solvent in Dow’s Spray ‘n Wash product (7).

Another example—Safer, Inc., which produces nontoxic garden insecticide products—is highlighted in

box 4-D.

Often these types of substances are the focus of

attention from environmental and public health

interest groups, or potential targets of government

regulations or bans. The household battery industry’s voluntary program to reduce mercury, for

example, is at least in part a response to questioning

and concerns expressed by environmentalists and

public health interest groups (60). In other cases,

changes have been made more quietly.

Lead-Based Inks

Printing inks traditionally have contained lead.

During the last 10 to 15 years, however, manufacturers and users of these inks have reduced the use of

lead in response to customer pressure, concerns

about employee health, technological changes, and

concerns about industrial wastes. For example,

gMem&rs of tie A~~ociation m~ufacture, for example, detergents, disinfectants, deodorants, hair spray, waxes and polishes, roach killers, garden

pesticides, and automotive products.

510TA*s highlighting of p~lcul~ brand-name products does not in any way imply endorsement of those products.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 1 0 5

Box 4-C—Polaroid’s Mercury-Free Battery For Film Cassette

Household batteries are one of the most common contributors of mercury in MSW, and the popularity of

cameras using small “button”’ batteries has increased the potential for MSW problems from this source. The

Polaroid Corp. has conducted extensive research to reduce the mercury content of its camera batteries. Special to

the Polaroid case, however, is the fact that the battery providing power to run the camera’s electronics, optics, and

film transport is built into the film cassette itself. Thus, each time an empty film cassette is discarded, a battery is

discarded as well. The system uses a carbon/zinc battery.

Part of Polaroid’s motivation in developing reduced-mercury batteries was market-generated. Polaroid already

had decided to reduce mercury in its products when, in 1986, the Swiss government issued regulatory requirements

on household batteries. The requirements set limits on allowable concentrations of metals in various household

batteries and required labels on batteries exceeding the limits to warn consumers to dispose of them separately

because of concerns about the emission of metals from MSW incinerators. Although Switzerland accounted for only

1 percent of the company’s market, the Swiss regulations are typical of guidelines being developed in other

countries.

In early 1987, Polaroid was producing some batteries with 50 percent less mercury and by fall of that year all

Polaroid batteries met this goal; mercury levels were reduced from 0.18 to 0.09 percent by weight. Other

adjustments were still necessary, however, to meet the Swiss standard (i.e., combined weight of cadmium and

mercury in carbon/zinc batteries not to exceed 0.025 percent). In April 1988, mercury was eliminated from all new

Polaroid batteries and in 1989 new Polaroid film cassettes sold throughout the world will contain mercury-free

batteries.

Polaroid’s complete conversion to mercury-flee batteries took about 2 years; the cost of the research,

development, and conversion reached several hundred thousand dollars. The relatively short time involved is

somewhat misleading, however. Years of previous research set the stage for the conversion. Some side benefits were

generated as well: for example, the new battery eliminated some of the costs previously needed to protect workers

from mercury, reduced some waste treatment costs, and enhanced the potential to recycle battery components. These

cost savings are expected to offset development costs in about 3 years.

SOURCE: H. Fatkin, Health, Safety & Environmental Affairs, Polaroid Corp., personal communication, August 1988 and February 1989.

printers of corrugated and kraft paper have reduced Lead is the dominant heavy metal used in chrome

the use of lead pigments and shifted to water-based

inks to eliminate the generation of hazardous wastes

from the cleaning of press equipment and to comply

with air emissions regulations for volatile organic

chemicals (12). Companies such as Procter &

Gamble have eliminated the use of metal-based inks

for printing on packaging.

According to the National Association of Printing

Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM), pigments with heavy

metals such as lead are not widely used in printing

ink today (47). In the mid-1970s, the American

Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA) prohibited the use of lead pigments in ANPA-approved

newspaper inks and developed a logo to identify

acceptable inks.10 According to ANPA, most newspapers in the United States request inks carrying this

logo (13, 47).

yellow and molybdate orange pigments; about 60

percent of the weight of these pigments is lead.

NAPIM estimated that these two pigments comprised only 0.4 percent (3,300 tons) of all the

printing ink produced in the United States in 1987.

According to NAPIM, cadmium-based pigments are

used only in inks where extreme chemical resistance

is required (e.g., labels on acid bottles). NAPIM also

contends that use of lead-based orange and yellow

inks can be further reduced by using organic pigment

substitutes, when exact color matches, opacity,

and/or light fastness are not required properties in

the printed product.

Household Batteries

Household batteries use several metals in their

electrode systems (table 4-2), of which mercury and

cadmium are of greatest concern. Data from the

10$ ‘Non-lead based” inks still can legally contain lead in concentrations below ~ppm, however.
106 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 4-D-Safer, Inc., Alternatives to Petrochemically Based Pesticides

In the mid- 1970s, two scientists in Canada began studying the use of naturally occurring fatty acids in killing

specific insect pests. In 1978, these scientists formed Safer, Inc., a privately held company that is a developer and

marketer of pesticides and plant-care products.

According to the company, its fatty-acid based pesticides products are specific to the targeted pest, degrade

rapidly, and are 8 to 93 times safer (in terms of toxicity) than some commonly used petrochemically based

pesticides. As such, they would be likely to have fewer of the disadvantages associated with the petrochemically

based pesticides—indiscriminate effects on pests as well as beneficial insects (e.g., pollinating honeybees), birds,

and pets; other environmental hazards such as water pollution; health hazards posed to persons applying the

chemicals; and the development of pest strains resistant to the chemicals. However, they may take longer to achieve

their desired effects than do the petrochemical pesticides. In addition, they are too expensive to be used

commercially; the homeowner market is the largest market for Safer’s products at this time.

Like the petrochemically based pesticides, Safer’s pesticides are subject to EPA regulations under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Because of the nature of the products, however, Safer’s pesticides

usually must undergo only the first of three levels of required testing; occasionally, a product will be reformulated

if it is found to cause unacceptable skin irritation.

In addition to its these pesticides, Safer is exploring microbiological and biotechnological approaches to pest

control. The company expects demand for these types of products to increase for at least three reasons: growing

consumer awareness of the hazards associated with the use of petrochemicals, increased regulation of the pesticides,

and initiatives such as California’s voter-approved Proposition 65, which requires manufacturers to prove that

substances used in products are not toxic. Safer is trying to develop markets with landscape companies, nurseries,

and other commercial outlets, as well as in agricultural operations.

SOURCE: M. Goldberg, Safer, Inc., personal communication, August 1988.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) then the total contribution of mercury could begin to

show that mercury use in household batteries is

declining (figure 4-3), despite an overall increase in

the number of batteries produced.’* In 1983, 753

tons of mercury were used in U.S. production of

household batteries, of which 49 tons were used in

mercuric oxide button cells. This represented about

40 percent of all end uses of mercury (table 4-1).12

NEMA estimates that in 1989, 168 tons of mercury

will be used, a decline of 78 percent from 1983, with

about 31 tons to be used in button cells.13

Thus, depending on the total amount of mercury

used in the United States in 1989, household

batteries might account for less than 20 percent of

total consumption, although they still could be the

major source of mercury in MSW. In addition, if the

concentration of mercury per battery reaches some

lower limit and overall battery sales continue to rise,

rise again. This might be tempered by a shift toward

rechargeable cadmium/nickel batteries and lithium

batteries, but cadmium and lithium pose problems of

their own (e.g., lithium is reactive with water).

Household batteries are changing in other ways.

The service life of alkaline batteries has increased by

up to 30 percent in recent years (48). Alkaline

batteries have longer service lifetimes than do

carbon/zinc batteries, and consequently their market

share continues to increase while that of carbon/zinc

batteries continues to decrease.

Changes in consumer electronic products also

have had a large effect because they require more

batteries and longer service lifetimes, as well as

batteries of reduced dimensions. This has increased

I IMer~~ hi.st~ri~~]~ hm ken ~ ~omwnent of batteries that us zinc as tie negative cl~~ode ma[eri~. It reduces the tendency of zinc 10 react with

other battery components. Information on recycling household batteries. including Japanese and EuropearI experiences, is discussed in ch. 5.

lzln ~omp~Wn, natWal ~urces Ofmercuv may be rater. The World Health Organization (96), for example, estimated in he mid- 1970s ~al about

30,000 metric tons of mercury were deposited annually in rain. Of course, those amounts were dispersed over the entire global surface.

IJMercuric oxide button batteries are being replaced slowly by newer systems such as ZhC/alr batteries.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 107

Table 4-2-Electrode Systems of Common

Household Batteries

Battery type Electrode system

Cation/zinc. . . . . . . . . Zinc, manganese dioxide, and either

zinc chloride or ammonium chloride

Alkaline/manganese . . Zinc, potassium hydroxide, and manganese dioxide

Mercuric oxide . . . . . . . Zinc, potassium hydroxide, and mercury oxide

Silver oxide . . . . . . . . . Silver oxide and either potassium hydroxide or sodium dioxide and zinc

Zinc/air . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zinc, potassium hydroxide, and oxygen

Nickel/cadmium . . . . . Cadmium hydroxide, potash lye, and

nickel hydroxide

Lithium . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lithium and one of manganese dioxide,

carbon monoflouride, bismuth trioxide, thionyl chloride, or sulfur dioxide

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Fate

of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste, Environmental Monographs No. 6 (Paris: August 1986).

batteries and longer service lifetimes, as well as

batteries of reduced dimensions. This has increased

the use of rechargeable batteries, which cost more

and require a recharger but which can be used

hundreds of times (44). Rechargeable batteries are

most often used as built-in components in appliances. Currently, most are nickel/cadmium batteries,

and NEMA estimates that 75 to 80 percent of the

nickel/cadmium batteries used by consumers are

built into and sealed inside of appliances. This

means, however, that when these products are

discarded, most of the cadmium in the batteries is

also discarded.14 Rechargeable lithium batteries are

not expected to begin displacing nickel/cadmium

batteries for several more years. Another development is the potential commercialization of plastic

casings on household batteries (44).

As batteries change, the evaluation of whether or

not toxicity reduction is occurring has to be assessed

on the basis of the toxicity of the substitute

materials. Lithium batteries do not contain cadmium, mercury, or lead, but lithium compounds are

reactive with water and they can affect the nervous

system. Zinc/air batteries contain mercury, but in

smaller amounts than the mercuric oxide ones they

replace. Information about substitute materials for

mercury is proprietary, however, and this makes

evaluations of toxicity reduction difficult.

Figure $3-Trends in Use of Mercury in Household

Batteries in the United States

Tons of mercury 1000---- .

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Year

SOURCE: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, personal communication, February 1989.

Consumer Purchasing Decisions

Consumers have the option to make purchasing

choices about products on the basis of toxicity. Not

surprisingly, public opinion favors the opportunity

to purchase products that pose fewer potential risks

when discarded. In a 1987 survey conducted in

Massachusetts, 95 percent of the respondents wanted

manufacturers to develop substitute nonhazardous

products (71). Over three-fourths (77 percent) preferred this to redesigning the original product to

have a lower concentration of the toxic substance in

question.

Making wise purchasing decisions, however, is

not easy. For instance, many household cleaners are

considered to be potential household hazardous

wastes, but a glance at cleaners in any store will

confuse even knowledgeable consumers. Some products contain no information about their contents.

Some have cautions about proper use of the product

and warn against direct contact, implying toxicity.

Other products contain a long list of chemicals that

to most consumers is “chemical mumbo jumbo. ”

Lists of household hazardous wastes are one

source of information about alternative products.

Consumers armed with these types of lists can make

better decisions about the products they bring into

their homes than they can by relying on current

14~MA ~.~m~t~~ th~( ~ol]ectlon progr~s for cadmium batteries that ~ not se~ed inside appliances would Wcoun[ for less than 5 percent of ail

cadmium consumed in the United States (48).
108 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

labeling information. Developing effective methods to convey toxicity information on product

labels would be of great use to consumers willing

to change their purchasing patterns.

Another example of a choice available to consumers, if they were given adequate information, concerns bleached (i.e., white) and unbleached paper

products. Small quantities of dioxin have been found

in wastewater from the bleaching of wood pulp

necessary to make white paper. Informed consumers

might opt to buy common products (e.g., paper

plates, coffee filters, tissue, and sanitary papers)

made from unbleached paper, regardless of their

brownish color, if they knew this fact. In Sweden,

gift wrapping paper, coffee filters, and other products made from unbleached paperboard are now

available. However, this trend is occurring at least in

part because unbleached board is stronger and

cheaper than bleached paper and often is not a

visible component of packaging.

QUANTITY REDUCTION

In essence, reducing the quantity of the Nation’s

MSW involves changing the nature of many common products, including packaging. It can occur, for

example, if the lifetime of a product is held constant

while its weight or volume is reduced, or if weight

or volume are held constant while the lifetime is

increased. 15 In addition to products, materials such

as yard wastes can also be the focus of prevention

efforts (i.e., through comporting in residential backyards).

Discussions about quantity reduction often focus

on packaging, which makes up about 30 percent of

all MSW by weight. OTA believes, however, that

attempts to reduce MSW should consider all components in the MSW stream, rather than only packaging. For example, paper and paperboard products

make up over one-third of MSW by weight, and

much of this is not packaging. Yard wastes comprise

another 20 percent or so on average, and more so in

certain areas or at certain times of the year (chs, 3 and

5). In fact, given the changes in social attitudes and

behavior that are required, it seems likely that

quantity reduction will best be achieved through

many small cumulative changes in product design

and consumer behavior. This approach is more

likely to have greater impact than focusing only on

packaging because no one product or industry group

is singled out for undue attention.

Measuring changes in MSW generation will be

difficult, given current definitions and methodologies (chs. 1 and 3). Small changes in generation rates

are likely to be masked by sampling errors and

natural fluctuations. In addition, it is not always

obvious what constitutes quantity reduction.

The information needed to make decisions about

which products to target for reduction efforts is

complex. Useful information would include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

types, composition, and amounts of products

being produced;

how consumption of products is changing over

time;

why certain products are purchased and who

buys them;

feasible alternatives to current products;

consumer behavior after products are purchased;

disposal costs relative to product durability and

toxicity; and

full costs of disposable and reusable products.

Obtaining such complex data is difficult. Cost

estimates must account for use of energy and

materials, labor, waste management, and equipment.

And these must be considered over the entire

lifecycle of a product, from virgin material extraction or secondary material recovery, through processing, manufacturing, and use for final products.

Deciding What Products

and Materials to Target

If the Federal Government develops policies to

emphasize MSW quantity reduction, it will have to

decide how to measure reduction and which products and materials to target. This section discusses:

1) difficulties in measuring quantity reduction; 2)

national estimates regarding products in MSW; and

3) factors influencing producer and consumer decisions.

Is[n ~dition, tie effect of such changes on the toxicity of the products ITNMt be consikti.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention . 109

Measuring Quantity Reduction

One critical question is how to measure a reduction in quantity. Small changes in MSW generation

are difficult to detect because of problems stemming

from the different definitions and sampling methodologies used in studies of MSW generation (ch. 3).

Any sampling methodology, no matter how standardized, also is subject to sampling error, and this

source of variability can sometimes overwhelm

detection of real changes.

A related problem concerns measuring MSW by

weight versus volume. Most MSW analyses, including the EPA/Franklin model (ch. 3), are based on

weight, yet MSW volumes may change independent

of weight. The use of lighter but higher volume

materials appears to be increasing, for example, in

the case of plastics replacing glass containers.

Volume data are more important than weight data for

some MSW management decisions (e.g., for estimating landfill capacity) and thus are important for

quantity reduction efforts. However, comprehensive

data on the volumes of products and materials

simply are not available.

The degree to which materials can be compacted

also complicates the interpretation of data about

MSW quantity. The volume of MSW depends at

least in part on its compactability and the degree to

which it is actually compacted. As noted in chapter

3, there is some evidence that plastic bottles are more

readily compacted in landfills than are glass bottles.

The design of collection vehicles also is usually

based on volume capacities, but vehicles using

public roadways can be limited by their total

tonnage.

Another factor to consider is whether reducing a

product’s residuals that become MSW causes any

change in the overall amount of waste generated in

its production. For instance, improvements in packaging have decreased food spoilage and thus decreased food wastes, but it is possible that the

production of the packaging itself causes an increase

in industrial waste generation.

No matter what type of strategy is pursued, there

obviously are many factors to consider. Some

criteria to help target products for quantity reduction

might include (94):

. the amount and scarcity of feedstock materials

and energy required for manufacture;

. the volume of a product and its manufacturing

byproducts that will have to be discarded;

. the difficulty and environmental impact of

disposing of a product and its manufacturing

byproducts;

. the useful life, reusability, or recyclability of a

product; and

. the availability of alternatives.

These are reasonable criteria, yet their very nature

indicates just how difficult it is to evaluate the

potential for quantity reduction,

National Estimates About Products in MSW

The EPA/Franklin model (ch. 3) estimates the

portions by weight of different categories of products in MSW. It indicates that the largest component

of MSW is, has been, and will continue to be

packaging and containers (table 4-3). By 1986

packaging and containers had leveled out at 30

percent of all MSW, where it is projected to remain

to 2000. The second largest category typically has

been nondurable, and this is the only major

category whose relative proportion is estimated to be

growing. The relative proportion of food wastes is

estimated to be declining.l6

In terms of absolute weight, all major categories

except food waste are expected to grow (table 4-4).

The model also includes information about various

subcategories of products. For example, subcategories of MSW that are expected to increase by

more than 10 percent by the year 2000 include

furniture and furnishings, books and magazines,

office papers and commercial printing papers, beer

and soft drink cans, aluminum foil and closures,

corrugated boxes, plastic containers, and other

plastic packaging (ch. 3). Beer and soft drink

aluminum cans are expected to increase 14 percent

from 1990 to 1995, while all aluminum was expected to increase 18 percent in the same period.

Several caveats must be noted, however. First,

because the data are in terms of weight, the

16F~ ~m[es ~~u~d ~ de~rea~ing ~ause of in~rc~~ed use of sink g~bage dlsp~~s, be[ter packaging, or increased consumption of pre-prepared

meals are resulting in less spoilage.
110 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 4-3-Estimated Proportion of Products and Other Materials in MSW, By

Decade and Including 1986, After Materials Recovery

Percentage (by weight)

Category 1960 1970 1980 1986 1990 2000

Durables a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 12.4 13.8 13.6 13.6 13.6

Nondurables b 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 19.0 22.1 25.1 25.8 28.1

Containers & packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 34.9 32.6 30.3 30.5 30.3

Food wastes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,9 11.4 9.2 8.9 8.4 8.9

Yard wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 20.6 20.5 20.1 19.8 20.1

Miscellaneous inorganics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8

aDurables include major appliances, furniture, tires, and m~~llaneous Items such as spotiing equipment, hobby supplies, toys, jewehy, COnSUrTWr eledrOnlCS,

and watches.

bNondurables include paper products such as newspapers, books and magzines, office paper and commercial printing, tissue, towels, plates and cups, plus

clothing and footwear.

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988), report prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Prairie Village, KS: Mar. 30, 1988).

proportions can be biased toward categories with

materials that tend to be heavier. This may give

greater emphasis to the durables and packaging

categories. For instance, paper comprises the largest

materials group within the nondurable category, but

it is lighter than materials such as glass and metals.

Also, the EPA/Franklin model has some acknowledged limitations that could affect these estimates

(ch. 3).

Another problem is that national estimates cannot

account for variations in the composition of products

in local MSW. Local studies show wide variations in

the portions of materials in MSW (ch. 3) because of

differences in both local conditions and sampling

methods. However, few studies examine products

at a local or State level.

Factors That Affect Consumer

and Producer Choices

Many factors can affect the decisions made by

producers and consumers, and often they can act as

constraints on MSW prevention. Several factors that

appear to influence MSW per-capita generation

rates—household size, degree of urbanization, socioeconomic status, and demand for convenience—

were discussed in chapter 3. Some additional factors

that influence MSW generation rates are discussed

here. Although these factors all can influence

per-capita generation to some degree, it is not clear

how they interact.

Information Availability-Consumers rarely are

provided with information that allows them to make

product purchasing decisions based on the idea of

reducing the toxicity or quantity of products discarded in MSW. Instead, and not unreasonably, they

make choices based on product quality, convenience, attractiveness, and price. Consumers could be

encouraged to include MSW prevention in their

decisionmaking in the same way that other changes

(e.g., in diet) are encouraged—primarily by education, information, and example. This is one rationale

for some of the options discussed in chapter 1, such

as an information clearinghouse and labeling programs. This assumes, however, that alternatives do

exist and that consumers have knowledge about

these alternatives.

Product Cost Factors—Several factors influence

product cost and also inhibit quantity reduction. For

example, products that last longer because of higher

quality manufacturing often have higher purchase

prices. However, these products may not always be

affordable to all consumers. Thus some consumers,

out of necessity, choose cheaper, less durable

products. Another example involves buying food

products in large containers or in bulk, which can

result in less packaging per product. Some consumers cannot afford to buy larger amounts due to low

cash flow, lack of storage space at home, or the need

to reach shopping areas by foot or bus.

Purchase price is not always a guide to longer

lifetimes, however, and consumers often lack the

information needed to compare lifecycle costs with

purchase costs. For instance, most battery manufacturers offer several grades of batteries, but they do

not give the consumer enough information to know
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 111

Table 4-4-Estimated Percent Change In the Total Weight of Products and

Other Materials in MSW, By Decade

Percent change in total weight, by decade

Category 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-2000

Durables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14 14

Nondurable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , , . . . . . . . . 27 19 35 25

Containers & packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5 13 15

Food wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -7 5 -2

Yard wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 11 9

Miscellaneous inorganics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 14 22 16

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988), report prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Prairie Village, KS: Mar. 30, 1988).

whether a $2 battery will last more than twice as long

as a $1 battery.

Another factor is the cost of repair versus replacement. Replacement costs today tend to be less than

repair costs. This may result from the difference

between lower foreign labor costs for production and

higher domestic labor costs for repairs, or the

difference between automated production costs and

manual repair costs. Whatever the reasons, it encourages consumers to throw items away and replace

them rather than get them repaired.

Advertising-Whether consumers make decisions about products because they are influenced by

advertising, or whether advertising is geared to

respond to consumer demands is arguable; both

occur to some extent. Some researchers studying

packaging characterize consumer demand for convenience as being very strong (69). At the same time,

however, consumers also demand products that are

safe, functional, and aesthetically appealing. Moreover, consumer boycotts demonstrate that moral

values can be attached to certain products regardless

of their marketing methods.

Of greater significance, however, is that advertising has rarely, if ever, used reduction of MSW

toxicity or quantity as a selling point, even though

over $50 billion are now spent on national advertising each year (82). Some producers told OTA that

industry does not promote its good actions because

the public regards such advertising as self-serving,

or that consumers do not care and thus such

advertising does not help to sell products (79).

However, some advertising of this sort has occurred,

for example, chemical manufacturers’ slogans for

better living based on better chemistry.

Overall Consumption Patterns-Disposable personal income in the United States grew from $716

billion in 1970 to $3.02 trillion in 1986, while

personal savings as a percent of this income declined

from 8 to 4 percent in 1986 (82). This means that we

now are spending more of our income on goods and

services.

One outcome of increased consumption is that

households today tend to have multiple sets of some

consumer products. Since 1975, for instance, the

average number of television sets has increased by

20 percent, to almost 2 per household (82). Increased

ownership of goods can increase MSW generation

when this kind of consumption encourages other

purchases (e.g., records and tapes) that generate

packaging waste. In addition, changing fads and

technological advances can increase MSW by encouraging the replacement of goods that are still

usable but “out of style. ” For example, the anticipated introduction of high-definition TV in the

1990s may render current TV sets obsolete or at least

more likely to be discarded.

Historical data also show that since the 1950s

personal consumption expenditures have shifted

among durables, nondurable, and services (figure

4-4). The shift toward services may be moving some

MSW generation from households to institutions

and also may be increasing certain kinds of wastes.

For instance, Americans spent 55 percent more for

meals and beverages purchased outside the home in

1986 than in 1980, and franchise restaurants grew

from 33,000 in 1970 to an estimated 86,000 in 1987

(82). This results not only in the shifting of some

food waste generation from households to restaurants, but also in the perception that packaging

wastes and litter have increased.
112 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Figure 44-Shifts In Personal Consumption

. - Percentage of expenditures

50‘

40

30

20

10

1950

-1

1986

Product Trends

Examining trends in the production and consumption of different categories of products can help

identify potential targets for efforts to reduce MSW

generation. This section discusses trends in the

following categories: packaging, ‘single-use’ products, reusable products, mail and telephone books,

and miscellaneous technological changes.

Packaging

Packaging refers to materials used to prepare

finished goods for shipment, distribution, storage,

merchandising, and end use (41). In 1986, an

estimated $55 billion was spent on packaging—

about 4 percent of the value of all finished goods

made in the United States (41). Slightly more than

half of these expenditures are on packaging for food

and beverages.

Functions of Packaging-Packaging consists of

all kinds of containers (e.g., boxes, jars, cans,

bottles, and bags) and packing materials made from

a variety of materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, and

metal) .*7 Packaging is used for multiple purposes

(12, 69), including:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

protection during shipping and shelf-life;

protection to prevent tampering;

prevention of food spoilage;

compliance with government regulations;

provision of information;

protection of consumers against toxic contents;

attractiveness and merchandisability; and

provision of convenience.

For example, one recent trend has been toward

self-service shopping, accompanied by an increase

in mass merchandising and a decrease in the number

of sales people (e.g., modern home centers have

replaced many traditional hardware stores). This has

contributed to increased pilferage in retail stores

and, consequently, to an increase in protective

packaging for thousands of products. Shoplifting,

for example, accounts for 27 percent of theft losses

in supermarkets (employee theft accounts for 53

percent) (26). Even a small amount of pilferage may

represent a large portion of a company’s profit

margin. l8 The functions of packaging are often

interrelated. For example, the use of plastic wrap and

bags helps decrease food spoilage, which reduces

the generation of food waste from households (12),

and these materials make it easier to display the

products and information about the contents.

Defining Excessive Packaging-One major cornplaint heard about packaging today is that it is

‘‘excessive. However, what one person views as

excessive may be considered necessary by another

person. Defining excessive is particularly difficult

because packaging serves so many functions simultaneously.

The “blister pack” (i.e., packaging made of

semi-rigid clear plastic that encases small products)

illustrates this difficulty. This form of packaging

offers several advantages: it allows small items to be

sold in self-service displays, thereby reducing the

need for employee service, and it helps avoid

pilferage. The package also provides space for

information about the product. Although most of the

marketing and convenience value accrues to the

ITThe p~k@ng irtd~~ characterizes packaging into three basic groups (54)-primiuy (i.e., a package such as a bottle. cam or box that is in dir~t

contact with the product), secondary (i.e., packaging such as a six-pack that unites several primary packages), and terliary (i.e., packaging that seines

to transport products from manufacturers to retailers).

IEOTA attempted to quantify totid retai] IOSW resulting from pilferage but was unable to do SO.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 113

retail store, cost savings from reduced pilferage can

be passed on to consumers. However, the common

perception is that this type of packaging is wasteful

because once removed it is discarded.

Indeed, how quickly packaging enters the MSW

stream is one criterion for evaluating packaging. For

example, packaging that serves only to transport a

product must be removed in order to use it. In some

cases, this packaging can be recycled; for example,

the recycling rate for corrugated cardboard used in

packaging is relatively high (ch. 5). In other cases, as

with the blister packs, the packaging ends up in

landfills or incinerators.

Industries generally respond to charges of excessive packaging by stating that profit factors already

drive them to design minimal packaging. It is true

that the amount of materials used in packaging has

been reduced in some instances. However, this

argument is not valid for all products. For example,

the higher profits obtained from cosmetics, fragrances, and luxury goods can justify packaging that

is more than minimal. As an example of an extreme,

one cosmetic product includes a cellophane wrap, a

cardboard box, a corrugated sheet to protect the

mirror, and a plastic container (62).

In the 1970s, EPA suggested that the communication and convenience functions of packaging could

be better targets for eliminating excessive packaging

than would be the protection function (87). Recent

analyses by academic researchers agree, but they

also note that reducing convenience could create

enormous consumer outcry (69).

This suggests that prevention efforts might be

served best not by having the Federal Government

define excessive packaging, but instead by having it

concentrate on getting MSW-related criteria incorporated into decisions about packaging design. For

example, the government could provide incentives

for manufacturers to consider packaging reduction

in their designs; the government also could periodically evaluate packaging from an MSW prevention

perspective. In addition, industry efforts to develop

such criteria could be encouraged. These and other

policy options are discussed in chapter 1.

Data on Packaging and Containers-Table 4-5

presents data from the EPA/Franklin model about

packaging and containers. Paper packaging is the

largest subcategory, comprising over one-half of all

packaging and almost 20 percent of all MSW by

weight. Together, corrugated boxes and glass containers make up almost 60 percent of all packaging.

Packaging made of plastics, a target of many

community bans, amounts to about 4 percent by

weight of all MSW, although its share may be

increasing. 19

Before targeting any of these subcategories for

reduction, various trade-offs need to be considered.

For example, eliminating all plastic packaging

apparently would reduce MSW generation by 4

percent by weight. However, in reality the replacement materials are likely to be heavier and thus

could actually increase MSW, at least in terms of

weight. The use of lighter-weight materials such as

plastics and paper has brought cost savings to

manufacturers and retailers, and it has decreased

concerns about breakage of glass bottles. Other

concerns (e.g., litter, recyclability), however, again

illustrate the trade-offs that need to be balanced.

Eliminating plastic packaging might even increase the volume of MSW. For example, corrugated

cardboard boxes, which make up 67 percent of paper

packaging and 12 percent of all MSW by weight, are

being replaced in part by shrink-wrap film in

combination with a cardboard or rigid plastic tray, in

consumer products such as baby food jars and

canned food (72, 73). The newer packaging makes it

easier to display products. It also takes up less

volume when discarded and thus can lower disposal

costs. One study estimated that the use of multimaterial flexible packages in place of metal cans and

glass bottles can bring savings in the costs of

transporting filled and empty containers, even

though the replacement material is more expensive

to produce (72). A West German study estimated

that replacing plastic with other materials would

increase the weight of packaging by a factor of 4,

volume by a factor of 2.5, and use of energy during

production by a factor of 2 (31).

One packaging change that can negatively affect

both MSW generation and recycling, however, is the

lgF~~ ~XmP]e, dlxad~ from households in ~cson, ~~ona, exhibit~ ~ incre~ in [he weight of p]~[lc from about s percent in 1978 tO 10 pt?rCent

in 1988 (95). The increase was attributed to the replacement of glass and metals in packaging by plastics.
114 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 4-5 Estimated Weights and Percentages of Different Containers and Packaging

in Gross Discards of MSW, by Material, in 1986

Amount in Percent of Percent of Percent of

thousands material containers and gross

of tons category packaging discards

Glass:

Beer & soft drink bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wine & liquor bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food & other bottles/jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Steel:

Beer & soft drink cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other nonfood cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barrels, drums, pails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other steel packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aluminium:

Beer & soft drink cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aluminum foil.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paper & paperboard:

Corrugated boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other paperboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paper packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Plastics:

Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Miscellaneous other:

wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rubber/leather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,543

2,135

4,128

11,806

118

1,777

747

91

101

2,834

1,317

50

302

3

1,672

19,444

5,440

4,163

29,047

2,871

2,798

73

5,742

2,101

13

103

2,217

53,318

47.0

18.1

35.0

22.1

62.7

26.4

3.2

3.6

5.3

78.8

3.0

18.1

0.2

66.9

18.7

14.3

50.0

48.7

1.3

3.1

54.5

3.5

1.4

2.6

7.5

0.1

1.1

0.5

0.1

0.1

1.8

0.8

0.0

0.2

0.0

1.1

12.3

3.4

2.6

18.4

1.8

1.8

0.0

10.8 3.6

1.3

0.0

0.1

4.2 1.4

33.8

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1968), report prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Prairie Village, KS: Mar. 30,1988)

trend toward wrapping products (by both manufacturers and retailers) in multiple layers of packaging

or making containers with multiple materials.

When this causes the size of the package or the

complexity of the design to increase, subsequent

MSW generation can increase (although by how

much is unknown) or, in the case of multi-material

products, recycling can become more difficult.

Beverage Containers.—The use of materials in

beverage containers has changed dramatically during the past 20 years. In particular, the use of plastic

in containers is increasing. This trend is difficult to

quantify on a national basis; the EPA/Franklin

model does not estimate the amounts of paper or

plastics used specifically for beverage containers,

although it does do so for glass, steel, and aluminum.

Based on data from the model (table 4-5),the total

weight of beverage containers is estimated to be

between 5.8 and 1l.0 percennt with an amount nearer

the lower figure more likely. Glass bottles for beer,

wine, and soft drinks account for 3.5 percent; steel

cans for beer and soft drinks account for 0. 1 percent;

and aluminum cans for beer and soft drinks account

for 0.8 percent. The amount of paper (e.g., for milk

cartons) could be as high as 3.4 percent but probably

is lower (because the category “other paperboard”

contains nonbeverage containers), while the amount

of plastic could be as high as 1.8 percent.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 115

In some cases, lighter-weight materials may not

be used because they do not impart the proper image.

For example, plastic is sometimes viewed as a low

value material, while glass is considered by some

customers to impart a quality or premium image

(83). Glass and ceramic jars dominate in the

imported and gourmet foods markets and for some

cosmetic products.

Food Packaging—It is difficult to estimate how

food packaging is changing overtime. Data from the

EPA/Franklin model suggest that food packaging

comprises 10 percent or more of MSW by weight.

According to the model, steel food cans and glass

food jars for nonliquid products make up another 3.7

percent (table 4-5). In addition, about 12 percent of

all MSW is corrugated cardboard, and one representative of the packaging industry estimated that up to

one-half of this-or 6 percent of MSW—might be

used for food packaging (1). The amount of other

paperboard and plastic used in food packaging

cannot be estimated.

Some visible changes in food packaging have

occurred. Consumers are buying more “ready to

eat” foods and “fast-food” meals.20 Changes in

packaging have made such foods convenient to

purchase, prepare, and eat, as well as last longer. The

use of plastic packaging is increasing, and many

consumers prefer plastic containers for a variety of

foods (20). These changes have increased the

amount of packaging entering the MSW stream, but

at the same time packaging manufacturers have

reduced the amount of material used in other

packages.

The phenomenal growth in the use of microwave

ovens is having a striking effect on food preparation

and packaging design. In 1986, almost 21 million

microwave ovens were imported or produced in the

United States, twice the amount than in 1983 (82).

One survey indicated that 83 percent of all respondents had microwave ovens (20). Microwaveable

products often tend to use “container cooking”

packaging: they include a cooking/serving dish and

several layers of plastic and paper wrapping to

preserve the contents, improve the effectiveness of

the microwave as a heat source, make the product

table-ready, and eliminate the need for dishwashing.

Reducing this type of packaging is a challenge, but

it would be possible. For example, MSW would be

reduced if a dish was not included with every

purchase or if the functions of the wrappers were

restricted to protection. Durable cooking ware also

could be designed so that microwaveable food could

be packaged in simple pouches, ready to be placed

in reusable ware for cooking.

Shipping Packaging-Packaging used in shipping is undergoing changes that reduce the weight of

the materials used. This reduction is related to the

development and use of new materials and designs

that decrease transportation and waste management

costs to manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers

(72). For example:

General Motors introduced reusable, collapsible or stackable boxes to replace expendable

corrugated boxes for parts delivery from its

suppliers;

Nordyne ships mobile home air-conditioner

and furnace units that are shrink-wrapped with

plastic onto pallets, with comers, tops, and

bottoms protected by corrugated cardboard;

and

2~1~ ~W could & shifting ~mc ~cneraljon of food w~te from residences to t~ indu~ria] ~d commerci~ facilities that prepare such foods.
116 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Infants wearing single-use, disposable diapers are a

common sight. Consumers like these diapers because of

their convenience and buy more than 18 billion every year.

The total cost of using a diaper service for the cotton

equivalent of disposable diapers appears to be less than

the cost of buying and disposing of the disposable diapers.

. Gerber has adopted a distribution package for

glass jars that includes shrink wrap and a

corrugated tray but does not require corrugated

partitions between the bottles.

Changes in the design of containers can eliminate

the need for some shipping packaging. For example,

interlocking plastic bottles have been introduced to

reduce packaging costs for the beverage industry.

This eliminates the need for cartons, overwraps, and

plastic straps, although trays may still be needed to

support the weight of multiple containers (25).

“Single-Use” Products

Products that are used once and discarded have

become ingrained in our society, replacing similar

products with longer lifetimes. They are often called

“disposable” or “throwaway’” products, but because all products and packages are ultimately

disposable, OTA generally calls these “single-use’

products. They include some diapers, plastic and

paper plates and cups, single-use razors, plastic

utensils, and many other products, even some

cameras and flashlights. One product that has

received particular attention is polystyrene foam

cups (ch. 8). (See box 4-E.)

One appeal of single-use products is convenience—

they help people save personal time and help

retailers save labor costs. For example, a paper or

plastic plate, cup, or utensil does not have to be

washed and stored; a single-use camera does not

require time to replace film. Another appeal is

purchase price. Often they can be purchased for a

fraction of the initial cost of the alternative reusable

product. For example, a new single-use baby bib

designed for newborn babies to 18-month-old babies

sells in packages of one dozen for less than $2 (52).

Single-use products make a substantial contribution to the U.S. economy. For example, sales of

single-use razors are around $100 million per year

(3), and sales of single-use diapers are around $4

billion (43).

The one single-use product that makes the largest

identifiable contribution to MSW generation is the

single-use (disposable) diaper. Consumers buy more

than 18 billion disposable diapers every year, and

these make up about 2 percent of all MSW and

perhaps 4 percent of all residential MSW (43) (ch.

3). The annual lifecycle cost of all single-use

diapers, including landfilling costs, have been estimated to be about $3.9 billion (43).

In contrast, a diaper service can reuse a cotton

diaper about 150 times, resulting in fewer diapers

being sent to landfills and in fecal material being

sent for treatment at municipal sewage treatment

plants. The costs of washing (including electricity,

labor, profit, and waste water processing) the cotton
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 117

Box 4-E—Foam Polystyrene Packaging

Public concern about foam polystyrene (PS) packaging (e.g., fast-food containers and meat trays) originated

over the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as blowing agents and the impacts of CFCs on ozone depletion and

global warming. New concerns about the volume of PS packaging in landfills have increased the visibility of this

issue. As a result, PS packaging has been the target of legislative bans in several States and localities (ch. 8).

The actual use of CFCs in foam products is relatively small and foam PS accounts for only 2 to 3 percent of

the use of CFCs. The use of CFC- 11 and CFC-12 ended voluntarily in 1988 for most foam PS packaging associated

with food products. Some foam PS products, such as most molded foam cups, do not use CFCs as the blowing agent;

these typically use other hydrocarbons such as pentane. More significant uses of CFCs are in refrigeration,

air-conditioning, and polyurethane production.

Similarly, PS comprises a small percentage of all plastics produced and those that are discarded in MSW. By

weight, plastics contribute a relatively small portion of MSW, around 7 percent. About 2 million tons of PS (both

rigid and foam) were consumed in the United States in 1987 (68)-about 10 percent of all plastics used and about

15 percent of the plastics used in packaging and in consumer and institutional markets (ch. 5). Half of this was used

in durable products including appliances, building and construction, toys, and housewares. Packaging and

single-use disposable products comprised the other half.

The foam PS portion in packaging and single-use products has attracted considerable recent attention. About

230,000 tons of foam PS are used in single-use products such as cups, plates, and clamshells. Almost 30 billion hot

drink foam cups are used and discarded each year, but their overall weight amounts to less than 100,000 tons (l).

About 220,000 tons of foam are used for packaging such as trays (for meats, poultry, and fish), molded cups, and

loose packaging fill. Given these low numbers, it is not surprising that data from landfill excavations show the total

amount of fast-food packaging (both paper and plastics) in landfills to be very small, about 0.25 percent by both

weight and volume (59).

Nevertheless, the actual and proposed bans on foam PS have demonstrated how industry can respond relatively

quickly to change to alternative production materials and begin establishing pilot recycling programs. For example,

industry has responded to the CFC concern by substituting other blowing agents. By the end of 1988, CFC- 12 was

no longer used in most foam PS food packaging, including foam cups, sandwich cartons, trays, and carry-out

containers; it was replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22, which has 5 percent of the ozone-depletion potential

of CFC- 12. Manufacturers of egg cartons and meat trays are working to phase out the use of CFC- 12 by the end

of 1989. However, some substitutes for CFC blowing agents create their own problems for recycling. At least one

company had to eliminate the recycling of foam PS industrial scrap because the new hydrocarbon blowing agents

(pentane, butane, and propane) were flammable and the recycler could not afford to modify its equipment with

appropriate safety features.

equivalent of 18 billion disposable diapers might be cotton diapers would be about the same. Even then,

about $2.3 billion.21

These estimates, however, do not account for

differences in external costs (i.e., pollution) from the

initial extraction, transportation, or manufacturing

of raw materials into either disposable or cotton

diapers. They also do not account for differences in

how a baby’s skin responds (e.g., fewer rashes occur

with the single-use diapers) or for the appeal of

convenience. In addition, newer highly absorbent

single-use diapers require fewer changes than older

versions; if this reduced the number of changes by

one-half, then the overall costs of single-use and

however, more single-use diapers would end up in

landfills, while washable diapers could still be

reused (and their fecal content sent into the sewer

system for appropriate treatment).

Longer-Lived and Repairable Products— Changes

in product durability or lifetime usually are caused

by intentional decisions about product design. For

example, single-use products usually are less durable and have shorter lifetimes. In addition, many

single-use products are designed with no intention of

repair because the cost of purchasing a replacement

is less than the cost of repair. Examples include

21~~bUrger (43) ~a]culat~ a COSI of $227.8 million, but OTA’S calculations indicate an emor by a factor of 10.
118 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

small consumer electronic products (e.g., hand

calculators), home and beauty care appliances, and

disposable cameras. Many of these products cost

less than $20. Another example is plastic throwaway

telephones; one company was reported to be selling

this item at the rate of 8,000 units per month in 1987

(35).

Manufacturers in the United States are attempting

to improve their competitiveness in international

markets. Two associated concepts have the potential

to reduce MSW generation, although waste prevention is not an intentional consequence. First, quality

manufacturing can result in products that last longer.

One U.S. company that promotes a strategy based on

increased product lifetimes and, consequently, less

MSW generation is the Maytag Corp., whose image

is based on making long-lived appliances. Second,

improved design can also bring less waste and

increased industrial competitiveness (6). For example, steel-belted tires last longer than their predecessors, so the generation of waste tires might be

lowered.

Increases in durability, however, do not always

reduce MSW generation. For example, longer-lived

tires are subject to more stress over their lifetime

simply because they are longer-lived. Tire manufacturers addressed this partly by increasing their use of

new synthetic and natural rubbers, which in turn led

to a decline in the recycling of rubber from old tires

(57). In addition, steel-belted tires are more difficult

to recycle than are rubber tires.

One way to encourage manufacturers to consider

MSW issues when they design products would be to

offer awards to stimulate higher quality manufacturing. This is done already in some areas. For example,

the Department of Commerce awarded the first

Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Awards in

1988. 22 Although reducing waste is not one of the

seven criteria for the award, increased quality can

bring increased product durability and reduced

waste. Motorola, Inc., a 1988 award winner, has a

quality goal of ‘zero defects in everything we do,”

including product performance.

Reusable Products

Systematic reuse of products such as refillable

beverage bottles could effect MSW generation, but

it is a practice that is disappearing as single-use

products gain in popularity. It is instructive to

consider the benefits and costs of returning to reuse

systems.

Beverage Bottles-Many people recall the days

when it was common practice to have residential

delivery of milk and when most soda and beer

bottles were refillable. Both systems required that

empty bottles be returned for washing and refilling,

which helped avoid replacement costs for discarded

bottles and also helped (even if unintentionally)

internalize the costs of waste management.

In the late 1940s, almost all beer and soft drinks

were sold in refillable bottles, but during the 1950s

the share of nonrefillable bottles and metal cans

increased (57). Data from the soft drink industry

show that by 1986 only 14 percent of the volume of

soft drinks was packaged in refillable glass bottles,

with the balance packaged in one-way glass, plastic,

and cans (49). On a volume basis, refillable glass

packaging declined by 8 percent between 1985 and

1986; on a unit basis, it declined by 6 percent.

These changes affect the overall weight of bottles

that enter the MSW stream because while refillable

bottles tend to be heavier than single-use bottles,

they also last much longer. By 1966, for example,

even though the total weights of shipments of

refillable and single-use soft drink bottles were

about the same, the number of shorter-lived,

nonrefillable bottles was greater than refillables.

Most refillable beverage systems in the United

States have disappeared, including those in States

with beverage container deposits, which are designed to stimulate recycling. 23 The remaining

systems are concentrated in the Midwest, where

about 25 percent of the volume of soft drinks sold is

packaged in refillable bottles, and in the South,

where refillables are almost 12 percent of the market

(49). This compares with 2 to 6 percent in other areas

of the United States. Refillable bottling systems

have declined primarily because of changes in the

beverage industry infrastructure and the cost of

zz~ aw~ds me the resuit of an 1987 amendment to the Stevenson-Wydler llzhnology Imovation Act of 1980.

Zqs= Ch. g for diwussion of mandato~ beverage deposit and recycting SyStemS.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 119

refillable systems. Returned bottles have to be

cleaned and the resulting wastewater has to be

disposed of properly. In addition, glass bottles are

heavy and costly to transport back to the bottling

facilities.

Whether a return to refillable systems is economically feasible is unclear. The cost factors mentioned

above suggest that switching to refillables might

increase the cost of beverages. A return to such a

system also would be difficult because the infrastructure for it no longer exists, and the capital

investments required for refillable systems are

greater than those required for new one-way systems

(l). In addition, curbside collection, which is being

used in many communities to collect recyclable

containers, probably would not work as a return

mechanism for refillable glass or plastic bottles

given the rough handling they are likely to receive;

refillable glass cannot be chipped and plastic cannot

be punctured.

On the other hand, the use of refillable bottles

could lower the costs that the public sector must pay

to manage increasing numbers of soft drink and beer

containers, particularly if energy savings are realized by such systems or if refillable bottles decrease

MSW generation. For example, some reduction by

weight in MSW generation would occur if bottles

were reused instead of discarded. However, current

refillable bottles are usually glare, which weighs

more than single-use containers made of aluminum

or plastic. Thus, the refillable bottles would have to

be refilled several times to obtain an equivalent

savings of weight. With respect to the total energy

requirements associated with using different bottles,

the breakeven point between aluminum cans and

refillable glass bottles has been estimated to range

from 4 to 26 trips (1,46).

The importance of transportation costs in MSW

management (ch. 2) suggests that one way to reduce

costs would be to develop a lightweight refillable

plastic beverage bottle. Refillable plastic bottles are

being tested by Coca-Cola in West Germany.

Preliminary testing shows many technical obstacles

that must be overcome, including the fact that the

bottles become brittle and shrink slightly after

repeated washing. Coca-Cola expects to overcome

these problems, however (16). In addition, sophisticated chemical detection equipment is used to test

the bottles after they are washed to avoid the threat

of contamination.

Rebillable Bottle Systems in Europe—Refillable

bottle beverage systems are still common in some

European countries. In Denmark, for example, one

directive requires that beer and carbonated soft

drinks be sold in refillable bottles (4, 37). A deposit

is collected on the sale of beverages to encourage

returns, and the number of different bottles has been

limited to simplify the return systems. An estimated

99 percent of the bottles are returned (4). This law

has been viewed as an anti-free trade action within

the European Community. In September 1988,

however, the European Community court ruled that

the law was justified because it was based on

environmental concerns.

In West Germany, the government has been trying

for years to reverse the decline of refillable beverage

bottles. The government enacted the Waste Avoidance and Waste Management Act of 1986, which

requires the environment minister to negotiate with

industries to set voluntary measures regarding products (ch. 8). Negotiations between the government

and the beverage industry led to the development of

a deposit system, and the market for single-use

bottles is expected to decline as a result.

Conditions favoring refillable bottle systems in

Denmark and West Germany, however, are not

necessarily present in United States. For example,

transportation of refillable bottles probably is less

costly in Europe. Denmark has only 2 breweries, but

it is small and has a dense population. West

Germany has hundreds of local breweries and

extensive local distribution. In the United States, in

contrast, the largest brewer has only 11 breweries for

the entire country.

Other Reuse Systems—In the United States,

vestiges of reuse systems remain for products other

than beverage bottles. Diaper services and nonprofit

organizations that recycle used goods and clothes

(e.g., Goodwill and shops that sell worn garments on

consignment) are examples. Another example is

bottled water delivery services that use refillable

bottles. In the past bottled water services were

associated mainly with offices, but residential use in

the United States has doubled since 1980 (1 S).

Growth in bottled water use in homes is mainly

because of public concerns about the quality of
120 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Over 10 billion mail-order catalogs were mailed to consumers in 1987, most of which are discarded in MSW, Products

purchased through the mail tend to arrive with more

packaging than products purchased at retail stores.

public, piped water supplies. In contrast to buying

small single-use bottles of water at retail stores, a

home delivery system does not generate MSW

because the bottles are refillable, can save money,

and can be more convenient, although it does require

storage space.

Mail and Telephone Books

Direct mail advertising includes items such as

solicitations for contributions, mail order catalogs,

and offerings of sweepstake contests. This is a

category of paper products that tend to have short

lifetimes. Commonly referred to as “junk mail,”

much of it is third class mail. The total weight of

third class mail in 1986 was 3.3 million tons; it is the

fastest growing segment of mail, having doubled on

a pounds-per-capita basis between 1980 and 1986

(82). Assuming that most third class mail is discarded, it would represent about 1.5 percent of

MSW.

Increased use of catalogs is one factor contributing to the growth in third class mail. The number of

catalogs mailed doubled between 1980 and 1987;

over 10 billion catalogs were mailed in 1987 (17).

This can affect MSW in two ways: 1) unwanted and

out-of-date catalogs are discarded, and 2) merchandise ordered through catalogs tends to arrive with

more packaging than does merchandise purchased

from retail stores, although some packaging is

reused by consumers. The 10 billion catalogs could

weigh between 1 and 2.5 million tons, which would

make up about 1 percent of MSW.24

Mailing lists are at the heart of direct mail

advertising and marketing. These lists are generated

by postal zip codes and are based on assumptions

about numbers of residences per building. Thus

single households often receive multiple versions of

the same mailing. In many cases, lists are rented to

other companies, although one survey reported that

55 percent of all adults disapproved of this practice

(70).

Another change in the mail is that some magazines now arrive wrapped in polyethylene film, or

polybags. 25 In some instances, the film has replaced

heavier paper wrappers, and this results in less MSW

generation by weight. However, when it replaces

only a mailing label adhered to the magazine itself,

then MSW generation will increase, although the

increase may only be on the order of 0.01 percent.26

Polybags also could affect MSW generation because

they allow loose sheets of advertising to be enclosed.

The increased use of polybags has been enhanced by

changes in costs. Cost savings include faster stuffing

of magazines and loose advertising sheets by machine and lower costs for materials, as well as

savings in postage costs for periodicals that switch

from paper to plastic wrap.

Telephone books are another growing source of

MSW. Many residences now get several telephone

books from different companies competing for

customers. Out-of-date books tend to be discarded

when a new book arrives, and most probably end up

in landfills (59). About 83 million households have

telephone service (82). If each household discards

one 3-pound telephone book per year, then 120,000

tons, or 0.1 percent of MSW, would be generated

annually. This is a conservative estimate because

ZqThe wel@t calculation is b~ed on an ~S~ptiOn that C@Ogs weigh 4 to 8 ounces each, which is conservative for some CiWdOgS. The 1 perCent

figure would be included in the 1.5 percent figure for third-class mail cited above.

Zspo]ybags ~so ~~~ t. protect and extend the shelf life of other products, such * breti ~d toilet Paw.

~One mmufwtmr of P]=ic ~mting for pdybags estimates that 6,000 to 24,(KI0 tons of plastic per year we UA in m~uf~t~ing polybags (61 ).

This is about 0.004 to 0.015 percent of MSW, but not all is used for magazines.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 121

some households discard more than one book and

because it does not include telephone books from

commercial establishments.

Miscellaneous Technological Changes

Technological changes can influence MSW generation rates, sometimes inadvertently. In addition to

the microwave oven (see “Food Packaging”), one

recent example is the computer, which has increased

the use of paper. It originally was thought that the

widespread adoption of computers would create a

‘‘paperless’ society. However, OTA reported in

1983 that office copiers and computers have provided high-volume markets for paper use (74), and

at least one other report has attributed increases in

MSW generation to increased use of paper for

computers and similar products (95).

Some technological changes that appear to reduce

MSW generation in fact simply divert wastes to a

different waste stream. For example, the use of

household garbage disposals has increased during

the past few decades, so less food waste may be

entering MSW. However, this does not change food

waste generation; it instead diverts food wastes into

the sewer system.

Examples of MSW Quantity Reduction

Some firms have made product and packaging

changes that happen to result in MSW quantity

reduction. In general, these changes have not occurred because of MSW disposal problems, but

rather in response to traditional economic forces

such as improving product quality, reducing production costs, reducing costs of compliance with

environmental and safety regulations, and appealing

to consumer preferences. Industries have responded

to public concern over MSW issues by funding

recycling projects and research (ch. 5), but not by

directing funding toward MSW prevention efforts.

MSW quantity reduction should be an opportunity for innovative thinking by industries, however.

For example, it could lead to the development of new

materials, new products, and new concepts in

packaging. This, in turn, could bring millions of

dollars of savings to industry (72, 73).

Changes that can decrease MSW generation can

take many guises—reducing the size of products

(i.e., “downsizing”), increasing product lifetimes,

putting more product into the same kind of package,

putting the same amount of product into less

packaging (i.e., “lightweighting”), and using both

less product and less packaging. Various examples

show that quantity reduction is technically and

economically possible, regardless of the motivation

behind the change:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Some manufacturers offer concentrated versions of products (e.g., frozen juices, concentrated pesticides, and concentrated soaps). Box

4-F describes one such product successfully

marketed by Procter & Gamble in West Germany but not in the United States (figure 4-5).

Packaging changes initiated by Procter &

Gamble (27) include:

—Pampers and Luvs diapers and diaper packages changed so that net total amount of

materials in product and package was 50

percent less than preceding design;

—Jif peanut butter and Scope mouthwash

packages changed from glass to PET, reducing weight of packaging by 80 and 90

percent, respectively;

—Tide with Bleach eliminates need for separate purchase of bleach.

Half-gallon ice cream cartons hold the same

quantity, but their weight has been reduced by

about 30 percent by changing the materials

used (l).

Shrink and stretch wrap plastic materials are

replacing higher volume corrugated paper in

many applications.

General Electric changed the tub of a dishwasher from enameled steel to engineered

plastic, which enable the warranty on the

dishwater to be increased because the tub was

more durable.

A new blow-molding tool for plastic (HDPE)

milk bottles reduces their weight 10 percent

while increasing strength (58).

A heat-set technology makes it possible to use

PET containers for liquids that must be hotfilled. The new technology allowed a juice

company to switch from glass to plastic bottles,

resulting in a 25 percent reduction in weight.

The change was made to appeal to consumers’

desire for lighter weight and safer bottles and to

affect long-term cost savings in bottling and

shipping.
122 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 4-F—Procter & Gamble Concentrated Laundry Product

In the Federal Republic of Germany, Procter & Gamble introduced a concentrated form of a fabric softener.

This was marketed in addition to its existing, ready-to-use product, which was packaged in a 4-liter reusable plastic

bottle, The concentrated product, sold in a flexible pouch, is used by cutting open the pouch, pouring the contents

into the empty 4-liter bottle, and filling the bottle with water. The concentrated form requires about 85 percent less

packaging.

The company promoted the product by emphasizing it as an initiative to reduce packaging material and waste.

In addition, promotional materials pointed out that lower storage and transport costs meant that retail stores would

benefit from the lower cost of the concentrate (about 60 percent less). The information also pointed out that stores

could display more product in the same amount of shelf space (10 pouches in the same space as three bottles).

The company targeted its products to consumers by promoting the trouble-saving aspects of the concentrate,

whose package takes up much less space and is therefore more easily discarded than the ready-to-use product. TV

commercials dramatically illustrated the differences in volume of waste between the bulky plastic bottle and a

rolled-up flexible pouch. The consumer campaign also had a logo-a person pouring the concentrate into the

bottle-and an accompanying slogan encouraging the consumer to ‘‘take part, to refill instead of throw away. ”

The reductions in waste generation associated with the flexible pouches might, however, be offset by increases

in the amount of packaging needed to protect the product during shipping. In fact, however, the pouches have not

required any additional protection and they are shipped in corrugated boxes just as the plastic bottles.

Procter & Gamble tested and marketed a similar product in the United States. Unlike the German product, this

product was a concentrate sold in a plastic bottle; it was formulated to be used in smaller quantities than the undiluted

product rather than being poured into another container and diluted.

This concentrated product was not as successful as was hoped, although is still being sold in the United States

today. The product was called a ‘‘triple concentrate, ’ and some people in the company speculate that consumers

did not understand the term. Some also speculate that the failure of one concentrate in the United States and the

success of another in West Germany may be in part attributed to a greater awareness of waste disposal problems

among German consumers.

SOURCE: E. Fox, Procter& Gamble, personal communication, February 1989.

. A West German technology for making nar- plastic bags that tapes are carried in and to ask

rowneck beer and soft drink bottles is reported

to reduce their weight by 12 to 17 percent,

which would reduce materials costs; however,

use of the technology would require major

capital expenditures for new machinery (67).

● Neutrogena has made a single-bar shampoo

soap since about 1960; while this product

requires some packaging, it avoids the use of

larger containers. It differs from liquid shampoos in that it is made from soaps rather than

detergents, leaves a residue when used in hard

water, and is marketed primarily for men (50).

. Plastic bags bought by McDonald’s to ship

products to its stores are designed to be reused

as garbage bags.

. Erol’s, a large video rental and sales chain,

trains its sales people to reuse the distinctive

customers to return tapes in the bags, in the

process saving about $1 million and over 25

million bags annually (21).

PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES

FOR CONSUMERS

Consumers can play a powerful role in MSW

prevention through their purchasing decisions, which

can ultimately shape demand for products and

influence product design. However, little information exists to guide consumers or offer incentives to

exercise that power—even motivated consumers are

limited in such circumstances. Even so, consumers

have some opportunities to reduce waste by making

different purchasing choices and by reusing products

and packaging in their homes and places of business.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 123

Figure 4-5-Advertising Used in West Germany for Procter & Gamble’s Concentrated Fabric Softener
124 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Individual Consumers

Some States and public interest groups issue

bulletins or brochures listing possible actions that

individual consumers can take to be more responsible in their MSW generation (e.g., 56, 65). Household hazardous waste programs also provide such

information.

Some of the ways in which individual consumers

can

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

influence MSW generation include:

buying items that are reusable instead of

disposable,

selecting product brands that are durable or

repairable,

buying in bulk or large sizes,

buying lighter versions of products,

avoiding containers made of mixed materials,

comporting yard and food wastes in residential

backyards,

buying fresh rather than pre-packaged fruits

and vegetables,

donating usable but unwanted materials to

fiends or charities,

buying products that contain fewer potentially

toxic substances,

reusing product containers and purchasing beverages in refillable bottles, and

using home delivery of water instead of purchasing bottled water.

Some of these topics have been discussed in this

chapter. This section discusses one idea for providing information to consumers (the ratio of product

content to packaging) and several activities that

consumers can undertake to reduce MS W generation

(buying in bulk, reusing product containers, comporting in backyards, and reducing waste from

telephone books and mail).

Ratio of Product Content to Packaging

One type of information that can help guide

consumers is the ratio of product content to packaging. OTA has calculated, for illustrative purposes,

the ratio of product content to packaging for a

number of consumer products (table 4-6). Because

products usually have information about net weight

(i.e., weight of the contents), the contribution of

packaging can only be obtained by weighing the

total item and subtracting the net weight.27 As the

numerical value of the Content/Packaging (C/P)

ratio increases, more content is purchased. As the

C/P ratio approaches 1, the consumer is buying as

much content as package. A C/P ratio of less than

one means that more packaging than product content

is bought.

However, this evaluation method does not always

work. A package of 10 Twinnings teabags, for

instance, is less wasteful than a box of 25 bags. The

small set of bags has only a polypropylene wrapper,

while the larger version also has a box. In addition,

the functions of the contents also need to be

considered; with laundry detergents, for example,

the number of washing loads that can be accomplished with a given ratio may be more important

than actual weight.

One way to extend this idea is to include the unit

price (cost per ounce) in the calculations. Based on

the data in table 4-6, the unit cost of many items

decreases as less packaging is used. Thus, stores that

make unit costs available may also be providing a

guide for less wasteful buying. However, there is a

critical limitation to this pricing concept. Unit prices

are often related to product quality and brand name

(e.g., over-the-counter medicines), so that products

with the same C/P ratio could have very different

unit prices.

The trend toward single-serving packages offers

two important benefits, reduced food spoilage for

individuals who do not consume multiple servings,

and convenience. However, food packaged in single

servings not only has less product per package, but

the packages often are wrapped twice or are combined into packs of three or four (similar to beer

six-packs) to encourage multiple purchases. For

example, one package of three single cartons of

orange juice with straws is wrapped in polypropylene or plastic wrap. It has 18 ounces of product

per ounce of packaging (table 4-6); in contrast,

frozen concentrate has a ratio of 53 to 1, and a single

multiple-serving carton has a ratio of 28 to 1. Buying

concentrated products thus can result in less packaging per unit of product.

27~s Slmp]e ~~Cu]atiOn iSO~y ~ssib]e for solid weights. For fluid ounces, the tot~ item must be weighed and the empty packaging weighed because

the conversion tlom fluid ounces to ounces can vary depending on the density of the liquid.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 125
126 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

However, this example points out another limitation of the C/P ratio. In particular, it does not account

for shifting the production of waste to elsewhere. For

example, rinds and pulp are discarded during production of orange juice. More oranges are used in

making one ounce of frozen concentrate than one

ounce of normal-strength juice. Thus, the amount of

food waste discarded during production of the

concentrate might be greater than the amount of

packaging associated with the normal-strength juice.

Buying in Bulk

Buying dry, unwrapped products in bulk instead

of buying prepackaged items is another way to

reduce packaging, especially if consumers use their

own reusable containers. This approach has been

popular at food cooperatives, which represent a very

small percentage of total food purchases, but the

availability of bulk products in regular supermarkets

has increased in recent years. For wet foods,

however, buying in bulk is less practical because of

concerns about spoilage.

Reusing Product Containers

Consumers can control packaging that is added at

the cashier or check-out stand. For example, consumers can request that their groceries not be

double-bagged and that frozen foods not be placed

in individual plastic bags. They can consolidate

purchases in department stores into one large bag

rather than several smaller ones. Consumers also can

find second uses for bags (e.g., using grocery bags as

garbage liner bags, or carrying empty bags with

them when they go shopping).

Backyard Comporting

In some areas of the country, the largest fraction

of MSW is yard wastes (chs. 3 and 5). Reduction of

yard wastes only can occur by household action—

i.e., backyard comporting and mulching—as opposed to recycling in municipal and private comporting operations. Industry has no operational role

in backyard comporting, but it does market compost

products that facilitate home yard waste reduction,

such as small shredders and chippers, lawnmower

attachments, materials for compost bins, and pitchforks.

Backyard comporting does not necessarily add

major chores to standard yard and garden upkeep

because the materials have to be dealt with in some

way; however, it does require space and proper

maintenance. Many brochures and periodicals from

State and local organizations provide details on how

backyard comporting can be done cheaply and

effectively (e.g., 45, 66). In the State of Washington,

a nonprofit organization trains ‘‘master composters” and promotes home comporting, and Seattle

has a grant to distribute home comporting bins and

educate citizens about how to compost in their

backyards (8). Given the amount of yard wastes in

MSW, backyard comporting maybe one of the most

effective ways for consumers to change their MSW

generation rates.

Mail and Telephone Books

One way to reduce the growth in mail order

catalogs is for individual consumers to remove their

names from mailing lists (e.g., by contacting the

Direct Marketing Association). In West Germany, it

is illegal to deliver anonymous (i.e., not individually

addressed) advertising mail if a household places a

sticker on its mailbox or door saying that such mail

is not wanted (34). Another way is to replace

catalogs with electronic systems, such as TV shopping (24) and computerized telephone solicitors that

are already in place but have not yet captured a large

share of direct mail markets.

Electronic systems offer a way to reduce the use

of telephone books. The French telephone company

offers subscribers free use of a mini-computer

terminal, the “Minitel,” as an alternative to a

printed telephone book, as well as to provide other

electronic services. Use of the Minitel for the latter

purposes incurs a charge, while the telephone

listings do not. The decrease in telephone books,

however, might be offset initially by packaging

waste from computers and from cable hook-ups.

Offices, Institutions, and Retailers

Changes in technology and in office practices

have changed the nature of MSW generated at

offices, institutions, and retail stores.28 Photocopying machines largely have replaced carbon paper and . -

280TA’SSep~a~e background paper on medical wastes concluded that the amount of hospital waste generated per bed may have increased SignifiCiUN]y

within the last decade (80). Part of this suspected increase is caused by an observed-but unquantified-increase in the single-use items used in hospitals

and other medical fxilities.
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention ● 127

their use of paper represents a growth area for paper

manufacturers. Inked fabric typewriter ribbons have

been replaced by plastic ribbons that only cycle

once. Computer and typewriter printer ribbons,

however, are being replaced by chemical toners,

which may help reduce office waste, especially

because some can be recharged. Some toners,

however, may contain toxic substances.

Waste prevention efforts undertaken by offices,

commercial establishments, and other institutions

have a potentially wider effect than simply reducing

their own waste generation (and, in some cases, the

costs of waste disposal). In particular, prevention

efforts in these establishments can help to educate

employees so they practice waste prevention in their

own homes. State and public interest groups are

beginning to seek ways to help offices and institutions practice MSW prevention (42, 62). For example, offices and institutions could evaluate actions

such as:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

more precise inventorying and ordering of

materials;

reusing materials (e.g., file folders, paper clips)

within an office or business;

adopting new technologies that use raw materials more efficiently;

negotiating with suppliers to provide goods in

more practical packaging;

evaluating waste generation to determine where

changes might be made;

using more durable and repairable equipment;

negotiating good service contracts;

dual-sided copying;

converting the blank side of paper to scratch

paper;

using electronic mail instead of paper memos;

reduced mailing and distribution lists; and

using reusable items for food service.

The use of electronic mail, for example, is now

extending beyond internal office use. The Electronic

Data Interchange Association has estimated that

about 3,500 companies use electronic interchanges

for external communication to some extent and that

10,500 will do so by 1991 (5). The driving force is

to cut costs, but paper reduction and the loss of

clerical jobs may be additional results.

Many possibilities also are applicable to retailers.

The Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp.

(62) cites several MSW reduction actions that have

already been taken, for example, by some restaurants. In one, a pub converted some of its beer sales

from single-use bottles to draft or to returnable

bottles. Waste disposal savings were estimated to

pay for the system in 4 years.

Public restaurants also could evaluate the possibility of converting paper and plastic single-service

items to reusable ones. Restaurants benefit from

single-service ware when they save on labor costs,

water use, detergents, space, and investments in

dishwashing equipment. However, at least part of

the internal saving is converted into a cost for

society, which must pay the burden of mounting

waste problems. Fast-food restaurants, especially

ones with take-out foods, might suffer some loss of

consumer satisfaction, however, as well as an

increase in operating costs. Thus, the benefits of a

change to reduced MSW generation will depend not

only on cost trade-offs but also on the willingness of

consumers to change their eating habits.

Retail shops also generate waste in the form of the

paper and plastics used to protect goods in transport.

Once the products are received, this material becomes waste unless it offers some potential for reuse

onsite. Reuse and recycling is common for corrugated cardboard. That opportunity, however, may

not be available for other materials unless the

shipping material has been designed with reuse in

mind, and small retailers do not have the ability to

affect that design. Large retailers, however, can

pressure design changes in some cases.

Retail shops can control some of the packaging

materials (e.g., wrapping papers, boxes, and shopping bags) that are added to consumer purchases.

Often two or three layers of packaging are added,

sometimes only so that an advertising logo can be

displayed, even when the product is already wellprotected and easily carried.

U.S. grocery stores typically include the cost of

bags with the cost of groceries. According to

Safeway, its 166 stores in the Baltimore-toRichmond corridor use almost 4 million bags per

week (three times as many plastic as paper), for a

cost of about $110,000 (11 ). The use of plastic bags

results in waste prevention (because they occupy

about 1/6 the space, especially during storage, that

paper bags occupy) and cost savings to the corpora-
128 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

tion (because paper bags cost about 4 cents each,

compared with 2 cents each for plastic bags).

However, plastic bags may bring other MSW

problems related to their durability (chs. 3 and 5).

One way to encourage a reduction in the number of

bags used would be to charge customers for the bags.

Some European stores charge customers extra for

shopping bags; in Denmark, the cost varies depending on whether the bag is plastic (about 10 cents) or

paper (about 20 cents). One store in Massachusetts

charges its customers 3 cents per bag and encourages

customers to bring their own bags. This has resulted

in a 40-percent reduction in bag consumption (64).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

Alexander, J. H., James River Corp., personal communication, Feb. 15, 1989.

Allen, D., Preventive Environmental Protection Project, National Toxics Prevention Fund, personal

communication, Feb. 21, 1989.

BIC Corp., Annual Report, 1987, Mar. 30, 1988.

Biles, S., “A Review of Municipal and Hazardous

Waste Management Practices and Facilities in Seven

European Countries,” working paper prepared for

German Marshall Fund of the United States (Portland, OR: February 1987).

Brown, W., “Electronic pulses Replacing Paper in

Workplace,” The Washington Post, p. Fl, Sept. 2,

1988.

Business Week, “Smart Design, Quality is the New

Style,*’ Business Week, pp. 102-113, Apr. 11, 1988.

Catlett, R., Dow Consumer Products, Inc., personal

communication at Office of Technology Assessment

Workshop on MSW Reduction (Washington, DC:

July 14-15, 1988).

Chapman, C., Washington Department of Ecology,

personal communication, Feb. 16, 1989.

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association,

“Letter from R. Engel, President, to Office of

Technology Assessment, ” May 26, 1988.

Chemical Times and Trends, “Going Places With

Inerts,” Chemical TIMES & TRENDS 11(2):42-44,

Apri] 1988.

Cockrell, A., Safeway, personal communication,

Aug. 3, 1988.

Conservation Foundation, “EPA Municipal Solid

Waste Source Reduction: Design for Disposal Policy

Dialogue, Meeting Summary” (Washington, DC:

Aug. 31, 1988).

Cunningham, W., American Newspaper Publishers

Association, personal communication, Sept. 9, 1988.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

)9.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Dawson, C., ‘‘Safe Products Through Cooperation,’

Chemical TIMES & TRENDS 11(1):35-37, January

1988.

Deer Park Spring Water, Inc., “The Bottled Water

Explosion: A Source Book and Guide” (Imdi, NJ:

undated).

Dichting, D., Coca-Cola Co., personal communication, Feb. 8, 1989.

Direct Marketing Association, “News & Information,” press release (New York, NY: undated).

Environmental Council of Rhode Island, “Solid

Waste Management Policy” (Providence, RI: September 1986).

Environmental Hazards Management Institute, ‘Household Hazardous Waste Wheel” (Durham, NH: undated).

Erickson, G., “Gonsumers Get in Touch With

Packaging, ” Packaging, pp. 42-51, June 1988.

Erol’s, persomd communication, Dec. 15-16, 1988.

Etter, R. M., “Reformulating Products and Proper

Waste Disposal, ” Chemical TIMES & TRENDS

11(1):32-34,42, January 1988.

Fatkin, H., Health, Safety & Environmental Affairs,

Polaroid Corp., personal communication, August

1988 and February 1989.

Fishman, A., “The 1986 Mail Order Guide,” Direer

Marke/ing 50(3):40-53,124-125, July 1987.

Food Engineering, “Interlocking Plastic Bottles

Might Cut 6-pack Costs,” Food Engineering, p. 37,

March 1988.

Food Marketing Institute, “Preliminary Results of

Imss Prevention Issues, ” Loss Prevention Letter

6(6):1-2, June 1989.

Fox, E., Corporate Packaging Development, Procter

& Gamble, personal communication, February 1989.

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to

2000 (Update 1988), report prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, OffIce of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (Prairie Village,

KS: Mar. 30, 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in Municipal

Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000,

Executive Summary and Chapter I, final report

prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Municipal Solid Waste Program (Prairie Village, KS:

January 1989).

Franklin, M. A., “The Potential Toxicity of Municipal Solid Waste, ’ paper presented at Municipal Solid

Waste Source Reduction and Recycling Conference

(Hot Springs, VA: Mar. 23-25, 1988).

Gesellschaftfiir Verpackungsmarktforschung, ‘Packaging Without Plastic—Ecological and Economic
Chapter 4--MSW Prevention . 129

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Consequences of a Packaging Market Free From

Plastic (in FRG)” (Wiesbaden: Gesellschaft fur

Verpackungsmarktforschung mbH, 1987).

Gewiese, A., Bilitewski, B., and Okeke, M,, “Abfallvermeidung-ein Modellversuch in Hamburg-Harburg

im Jahre 1987, ’ Mull und Abfall, pp. 104-120

(Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, March 1989).

Goldberg, M., Safer, Inc., personal communication,

August 1988.

Goosmann, G., Director, Federal Environment Agency,

Federal Republic of Germany, personal communication, Apr. 14, 1989.

Greer, W. R., “Throw-aways: America’s Lingering

Fascination, ’ The Providence Journal, May 11,

1987.

Guttman, E., Rhode Island Solid Waste Management

Corp., personal communication, Feb. 20, 1989.

Hansen, T., “Today’s Wastes Are Tomorrow’s

Resources, ” Resources and Conservation 12:193-

201, 1986.

Hurst, K., and Relis, P., The Next Frontier: Solid

Wwte Source Reduction (Santa Barbara, CA: Community Environmental Council, Inc., 1988).

Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information

Center, “Chemical Hazards in the Home” (Savoy,

IL: undated).

Kinman, R. N., and Nutini, D. L., “Household Hazardous Waste in the Sanitary Landfill, ” Chemical

TIMES & TRENDS 11(3):23-29 and 39-40, July

1988.

Lai, C. C., Selke, S. E., and Johnson, D. I., “Impact of

Plastic Packaging on Solid Waste, ” paper presented

at Conference on Solid Waste Management and

Materials Policy (New York, NY: Feb. 11-14, 1987).

~ague of Women Voters of Washington, “Solid

Waste Reduction and Recycling, A Handbook of

Strategies Employed by Businesses in Washington

State, ” prepared for Washington State Department of

Ecology, OffIce of Waste Reduction (June 1988).

IArburger, C., Diapers in the Waste Stream, A

Review of Waste Management and Public Policy

Issues (Sheffield, MA: December 1988).

Imrd, D., “Burnt Out Batteries, ” Environmental

Action 20(2):16-19, September/October 1988.

Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension

Service, “Backyard Composting,” Extension Bulletin WM02 (New) (Lansing, MI: March 1987).

Moore, W. K., and Scott, D. L., “Beverage Container

Deposit Laws: A Survey of the Issues and Results,”

Journal of Consumer Aflairs 17(1):57-80, 1983.

National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers,

Inc., “htter from J.E, Renson, Executive Director,

to Ofilce of Technology Assessment, ’ Sept. 8, 1988.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, personal communication, Feb. 16, 1989.

National Soft Drink Association, Sales Survey of the

Soft Drink Industry (Washington, DC: 1986).

Neutragena, Public Affairs Office, personal conversation, July 27, 1988.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Solid Waste Management

Plan, 1987-88 Update (Albany, NY: March 1988).

Nonwovens Industry, “End Use Markets for Nonwovens,” Nonwovens Industry, p. 19, August 1988.

Obermeier, T., Ingenieurgemeinschaft Technischer

Umweltschutz, Federal Republic of Germany, personal communication, Apr. 3, 1989.

Ontario Waste Management Advisory Board, “Environmental Aspects of Consumer Packaging, Phase 1:

An Overview” (Ontario: March 1978).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Fate of Small Quantities of Hazardous

Waste, Environment Monographs No. 6 (Paris:

August 1986).

Pennsylvania Resources Council, ‘‘What We Can Do

To Promote Waste Reduction and Recycling” (Media,

PA: undated).

Peterson, C., “A Waste Reduction Boom. . .In the

Seventies!” Wasre Age, pp. 100-106, February 1989.

Plastic Bottle Information Bureau, ‘‘LightWeighting Plastic Milk Bottles,” The Plastic Bottle

Reporter 4(4):1-2, Fall 1986.

Rathje, W. L., Hughes, W. W., Archer, G., and

Wilson, D. C., “Source Reduction and Landfill

Myths,” paper presented at ASTSWMO National

Solid Wate Forum on Integrated Municipal Waste

Management (Lake Buena Vista, FL: July 17-20,

1988).

Rayovac Corp., “Mter from R.L. Balfour, Vice

President, to Office of Technology Assessment,”

Aug. 2, 1988.

Remes, B., American Western Corp., personal communication, July 1988.

Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp., Annual Report 1986 (Providence, RI: 1986).

Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp.,

“Source Reduction Task Force Report” (Providence, RI: November 1987).

Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp., Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, draft

report (Providence, RI: December 1988).

Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp.,

“Source Reduction Ideas for Businesses, Source

Reduction Tips” (Providence. RI: undated).

Rosen, C. J,, Schumacher, N., Mugaas, R., and

Proudfoot, S., ‘‘Comporting and Mulching: A Guide

to Managing Organic Yard Wastes, ” Minnesota
130 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

Extension Service, Department of Soil Science,

University of Minnesota, AG-FO-3296 (St. Paul,

MN: 1988).

Rosenberg, A., “Narrowneck Containers Take On

the Heavy weights,” Recycling Today, pp. 72-77,

December 1988.

Schreiber, P., “Recycling of Polystyrene Packaging

and Disposable in the USA: the Perceptions, Reality, and Possible Solutions, ’ paper presented at

Recycle ’88, International Management Forum (Zurich, Switzerland: MAACK Business Services, 1988).

Selke, S. E., and Lai, C. C., “Considerations in

Packaging Design-Recyclability Aspects, ” paper

presented at Fourth Annual Conference on Solid

Wate Management (New York, NY: Jan. 27-30,

1988).

Target Marketing, “Don’t Rent My Name!” Target

Marketing 10(9):16, September 1987.

l’bthill, R. W., Stanek, E. J., et al., “Degree of Public

Support for Household Hazardous Waste Control

Alternatives,” American J. of Public Health 77(3):304-

306, March 1987.

Twede, D., “Factors Influencing the Reduction of

Distribution Packaging Waste,” paper pmented at

1988 Solid W~te Management and A4ateriais Policy

Conference (Albany, NY: Ugislative Commission

on Solid Waste Management, Jan. 29, 1988),

Twede, D., “Opportunities for Public/Private Sector

Cooperation to Minimize Packaging Waste,” paper

presented at Rhode Island Solid Waste Management

Conference (Rhode Island: June 16, 1988).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Wood Use: U.S. Competitiveness and Technology,

OTA-ITE-21O (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, August 1983).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste, OTA-lTE317 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Semice, September 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April

1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

From Pollution to Prevention: A Progress Report on

Waste Reductio&pecial Report, OTA-lTE-347

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

June 1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

ldenttfiingandRegulating Carcinogens, Background

Paper, OTA-BP-H-42 (Springfield, VA: National

Technical Information Service, November 1987).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

“Workshop on MSW Reduction, ” July 14-15, 1988.

80,

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Issues in Medical W~te Management, Background

Paper, OTA-BP-O-49 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1988).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States,

1978, 99th annual edition (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing ~lce, September 1978).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States,

1988, 108th edition (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1987).

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade

Administration, 1988 U.S. Industrial Outlook (Washington, DC: January 1988).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The

Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in

the United States: A Report to Congress (Atlanta,

GA: Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registzy, July 1988).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

Mineral Facts and Problems, 1985 Edition, Bulletin

675 (Washington, DC: 1985).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

Minera/s Yearbook (Washington, DC: 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource

Recovery and Waste Reduction, Fourth Report to

Congress (Washington, DC: 1977).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to

Publicly Owned Treatment Works, OffIce of Water

Regulations and Standards, EPA/530-SW-86-O04

(Washington, DC: February 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Survey of

Household Hazardous Wtz.rtes and Related Collection Programs, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-86-038 (Washington, DC: October 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Subtitle D

Study, Phase I Report, EPA/530-SW-86-054 (Washington, DC: Oct. 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The So/id

Waste Dilemma, An Agenda For Action, Report of

the Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, Office of

Solid Waste (Washington, DC: February 1989).

Visalli, J., “The Similarity of Environmental Impacts

From All Methods of Managing Solid Waste, ” paper

presented at Conference on Hazardous and Municipal Solid Waste Minimization (Providence, RI: New

England Section of Air Pollution Control Association, Feb. 7-8, 1989).

Washington State Department of Ecology, “Best

Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste,

Eight Waste Generation Areas Findings, Volume
Chapter 4-MSW Prevention ● 131

94.

95.

II,’ Of13ce of Waste Reduction and Recycling, Publ.

No. 88-33B (Olympia, WA: 1988).

Wirka, J., “Design for a National Source Reduction

Policy” (Washington, DC: Environmental Action

Foundation, January 1989). 96.

Wilson, D. C., “Ancient Trash, Modem Solid

Wastes: An Archaeologist’s Perspective on Reuse,

Recycling, Waste, and Landfill Degradation, ” paper

presented at National Solid Waste Management

Symposium (Prescot~ AZ: Apr. 10, 1989).

World Health Organization, Environmental Health

Criteria 1, Mercury (Geneva: 1976).
Chapter 5

Recycling
CONTENTS Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

How Much Do We Recycle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Preparing Materials for Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Recycling: Technologies, Markets, Risks.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Paper and Paperboard Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....0... 140

The Glass Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 150

The Aluminum Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... .......+ . . . . . . . 156

Iron and Steel Scrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....”” 161

Tires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... ..... 166

Used Gil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ... 167

Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............+.. ...............+.. .“ 168

Comporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ........ ........ . . . . . . . . . 184

Pollution From Primary and Secondary Manufacturing Process, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Barriers to Increased Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Appendix 5A: Calculating the Rate of Recycling in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Chapter 5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...+.... 204

Boxes

Box Page

5-A. Recycling in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5-B. Examples of Materials Recovery Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

S-C. Household Battery Management in Europe and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

S-D. Introduction to Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ..+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

5-E. Degradable Plastics and MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

5-F. Anaerobic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

5-G. Pollutants Generated in Secondary Manufacturing Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Figure

Figures Page

5-1. MSW Recycling Rates: Estimates by Franklin Associates and lndustry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

5-2. Producer Price Indexes: Waste Paper, Woodpulp, and Pulpwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5-3. Wastepaper Utilization Rate, By Paper product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

5-4. Wastepaper Utilization Rate, By Paperboard Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

5-5. Waste Paper Use in Recycled Paperboard By Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

5-6. U.S. Exports of Waste Paper By Grade.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5-7. Battery Recycling Rates and bad prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

5-8. Plastics Markets, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Table Table Page

5-1. Estimated Energy Used To Produce Paper and Paperboard Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

5-2. Specifications for Furnace-Ready Culled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

5-3. Energy Consumption Associated With Manufacturing Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

5-4. Major U.S. Resin Market& 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

5-5. Energy Requirements To Produce Selected Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

5-6. Operational Mixed MSW Comporting Facilities in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

5-7. Selected State Standards for Compost Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

5-8. Overview of the Recycling System for Various Materials:

Limiting Factors and Incentive Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

5-9. Estimated Costs for Special Tax Treatment for

Virgin Materials Production, Fiscal Years 1980 to 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

5-10. Estimated Effects of Tax Subsidies on Virgin Materials Prices and

Of Eliminating Virgin Materials Subsidies on Recycling of Secondary Materials . . . . . . . . 202

A-1. Estimated Rates of Recycling in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Chapter 5

Recycling

INTRODUCTION

Recycling is not a new phenomenon, at least not

in concept. America’s early settlers recycled as a

matter of survival, turning corn husks into mattresses and old clothes into quilts. The materials

conservation efforts so critical during World War 11

are not so distant that we have forgotten a time when

used aluminum foil was carefully saved. In fact,

most of us have recycled materials at some point in

our lives—typically paper, aluminum, or glass.

But recycling is receiving increasing attention

today as the Nation begins to grapple with the

problems caused by MSW. Increased recycling is a

goal for many State and local governments, private

companies, and public interest groups. The topic of

recycling is extremely complicated, and OTA believes it would be a disservice to oversimplify the

facts. As a result, this chapter is long and detailed,

but such detail is needed to understand the likely

effectiveness of different recycling policy options.

Recycling actually consists of three different

activities: collecting secondary materials, preparing

those materials for market, and the actual recycling

of the materials by manufacturing new products. The

first section of this chapter briefly overviews recycling rates for different materials and presents

information on collection and preparation. The

second section discusses technologies and markets

for individual secondary materials. The third section

discusses pollutants associated with manufacturing

processes that use virgin or secondary materials. The

final section discusses general characteristics of

commodity markets and barriers inhibiting the use

of secondary materials.

How Much Do We Recycle?

It is difficult to provide accurate estimates of the

amount of materials recycled in the United States

because existing data for most materials are unreliable, especially in the MSW category. The lack of a

consistent definition for MSW is a problem. Most

observers agree that waste from residential, commercial, and industrial sectors should be counted,

but what about junked automobiles, construction

and demolition waste, and that portion of industrial

waste that is disposed along with what is more

commonly thought of as MSW?

Experts also disagree about how to account for

waste from manufacturing processes, such as aluminum scrap from can-making and paper scrap from

box-making. The manufacturing sector typically

considers this waste as post-consumer. However,

these portions of the scrap stream are not included in

most accountings of MSW recycling—--most observers consider them to be pre-consumer. Actually,

manufacturing wastes are more appropriately divided into three categories:

. “home scrap” produced and reused inside a

production facility,

. “prompt industrial scrap*’ produced in an

intermediate stage of processing and returned

to the basic production facility for reuse, and

● ‘‘old scrap” (post-consumer) generated by the

product’s final consumer,

This assessment considers the first two categories

of scrap to be pre-consumer waste; almost all of this

waste is recycled as common practice in manufacturing as a way to reduce materials procurement and

disposal costs. The significant issue from an MSW

perspective, then, is old scrap. Unfortunate y, available statistics on recycled materials do not always

provide information on all three categories of scrap.

These problems are not confined to the United States

(See box 5-A).

The most frequently reported estimate for a

national MSW recycling rate is 10 percent (81). This

does not include home and prompt industrial scrap.

material recycled at the industrial and manufacturing level. This figure also does not include what

modest recycling may take place at home, such as

reuse of plastic containers or yard and food waste

–135-
136 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 5-A—Recycling in Japan

Japan is known as a nation that recycles. Indeed,

recycling has been practiced within the private

sector for hundreds of years. However, the amount

of MSW in Japan that is recycled is difficult to

estimate for several reasons. First, neither the

national government nor the private sector maintain

aggregate recycling data or estimate an overall

recycling rate. Second, the Japanese do not include

materials that are recovered and recycled in their

definition of MSW; instead they only include waste

materials sent to landfills and incinerators ( 108,2 13). 1

This differs significantly from the definitions of

MSW commonly used in the United States.

Some experts estimate that the recycling rate in

Japan is around 50 percent (108,213). In contrast,

OTA estimates that the rate may be as low as 26 to

39 percent, at least for materials for which data are

available. Japanese officials also express varied

estimates of the rate (108,180). Appendix A explains OTA’s calculations and why its estimates

differ from the estimate of 50 percent. The calculations indicate the great difficulties involved in

estimating recycling rates.

Whether Japan recycles at a rate of 30 or 50

percent, it still sends a clear message that the United

States could improve its current recycling rate of 10

percent dramatically. However, if the lower estimate proves correct it would indicate that high

national recycling rates can be difficult to achieve,

even in a country noted for its dependence on

imports of raw materials, its homogeneous culture,

and its propensity for citizen cooperation in community activities.

IMOSt Jap~ese municipalities require citizens to SOrt MSW itl10 two

categones-<ombustibles for incineration (e.g., paper. food waste, and

sometimes plasucs) and non+ombwmbles for Iandfilling (e.g., metals,

glass, and sometimes plastics). Few recycling progriuns are conducted by

municipal, prefectural, or national governments.

comporting. In fact, no attempt has ever been made

to estimate actual yard and food waste comporting.

Glass recycling has increased considerably during

the 1980s because of the efforts of glass manufacturers to increase the use of cullet, or waste glass; the

recovery rate for glass in 1987 was estimated to be

15 percent (223) (figure 5-l). Paper and paperboard

recycling have also increased; the American Paper

Institute reports a recovery rate of 28.5 percent for all

waste paper (this is higher than the Franklin estimate

of 22.6 percent because it includes pre-consumer

waste). Aluminum recycling has also increased;

according to the Aluminum Association, recovery of

aluminum from MSW is now around 43 percent.

Increases in recovery of ferrous metals, plastics,

and yard waste also have been occurring as more

communities and businesses implement recycling

programs and build processing facilities. Changes

are occurring so quickly that information may be

outdated even as it is reported.

Preparing Materials for Recycling

MSW can be collected in a variety of ways: as

mixed wastes, with commingled recyclable, or with

separated recyclable. How materials are collected

affects the kind of preparation needed before recovered materials can be manufactured into new recycled products. A variety of technologies and methods are used to sort recyclable materials, remove

contaminants, and prepare materials for marketing.

Sometimes, this preparation takes place at centralized facilities, commonly referred to as Materials

Recovery Facilities (MRFs). A MRF can help

reduce separation demands on waste generators and

can respond relatively quickly to changing demands

of materials markets. About 12 MRFs were in

operation in the United States in mid-1989, and more

are planned (100).

The choices of equipment and design for a MRF

depend on the types of materials being recovered,

the type and degree of contamination of incoming

material, the requirements of the buyers, and the

disposal method for waste that is not recycled. The

major influence is the type of MSW handled—

mixed v. commingled v. separated. Box 5-B describes examples of materials recovery facilities.

It is difficult to compare the quality and cost of

different materials recovery systems without considering a broad array of variables such as the entire

MSW management system for the area served,

materials recovered, and market availability. Standard methods for evaluating performance are not

available. Operational experience with the more

automated processes used in U.S. MRFs is also

limited.
Chapter Recycling ● 1 3 7

Mixed MSW

The first step in preparing mixed MSW for

processing is “previewing,” where oversized materials, explosive materials, and materials that could

damage the equipment are removed. Various unit

processes can be used to recover recyclable from

unsorted raw waste. Size reduction (or shredding)

reduces the volume of the waste and prepares it for

the segregation step, where components of the waste

stream are separated from each other. ] Following

segregation the material is sent to market using

many of the same techniques used for commingled

or separated recyclable. After recovering recyclable and/or compostables from raw waste, residual

material is either landfilled or incinerated. In some

systems the residue is processed as refuse-derived

fuel (RDF) prior to incineration. Some systems only

recover metals and glass for recycling (in addition to

preparing compost); other systems recover plastics,

different paper fractions, and batteries (box 5-B)

(also see ref. 1).

Facilities that handle mixed MSW have the

advantage that no change in the collection system is

required. The plant manager can determine which

materials to recover, depending on market conditions. Mixed waste systems have the potential to

remove a high percentage of metals and other

recyclable and/or noncombustible materials from

the waste stream. Separation can also improve the

combustion efficiency of incineration and the quality of resulting ash.

The biggest disadvantages of mixed waste facilities are the relatively high energy requirements and

high maintenance costs. The use of multiple mechanical processes may also require more time to

adjust equipment to the incoming waste stream.

Explosion hazards can be associated with the

shredding and grinding steps, but these risks can be

minimized with proper design and operation. A

history of poor performance at mixed waste processing plants in the 1970s has made this type of

technology fairly unpopular in the United States.

Figure 5-1-MSW Recycling Rates: Estimates by

Franklin Associates and Industry

SOURCES: American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, 1987

Annual Statistical Summary Waste Paper Utilization, 2d ad.

(New York, NY: July 1988); K. Copperthite, U.S. Department

of Commerce, personal communication, 1988; Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the

United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988), final report,

prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Prairie

Village, KS: March 19SS); B. Meyer, Aluminum Association,

personal communication, 1988; K. Smalberg, Steel Can

Recycling Institute, personal communication, 1989; Society of

the Plastics Industry, Facts and Figures of the U.S. Plastics

Industry (Washington, DC: 1987); Society of the Plastics

Industry, Plastics A.D. 2000, Production and Use Through the

Turn of the Century (Washington, DC: 1987).

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF)-At many centralized facilities, the portion of the waste that is not

recovered for recycling is converted into RDF. The

RDF is then burned in a waste-to-energy incinerator

to recover energy in the form of electricity or steam.

Several kinds of RDF can be produced (including

fluff, densified, and pelletized RDF), depending on

the configuration of processes at a particular facility

and on the specifications of RDF users.

An advantage of using RDF as a fuel, as opposed

to mixed MSW, is that the properties of RDF are

relatively consistent regardless of variation in MSW

feedstock. Thus the incineration process can achieve

Ifjim redu~ion rqu~es arelativeiy high amount of energy and maintenance, thus Costs We a maJOr fSCtOrin determining the amount of size reduction.

It is also a process that is difficult to do manually. Removal and sqqation pmcesaes may be eombirwd in several ways, depending on the composition

of the incoming wastes and the types of materi~s king r~ove~. sev~~ tYVS Of tY~oIo@es may be U* i~l~ing: W ckssification to separate

]ight from heavy fractions, magnetic separation to remove ferrous metals, mcf scmn~g to SCPM* rnatcnals on the basis of particle size. Automated

facilities to separate components of mixed waste are relatively new at the cornmereisl level in the United States and have not as yet been proven as

economical waste management methods. However, manual sorting can often substitute for automated methods, and source separation or manual methods

are more effective for at least some materials (e.g., newspaper and glass).

99-&20 O - 89 - 4
138 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Box 5-B—Examples of Materials Recovery Facilities

Mixed Waste Facilities

The Delaware Reclamation Plant, completed in 1983, processes solid waste and municipal sewage sludge from

New Castle County, Delaware. The facility recovers ferrous metals, glass, and nonferrous metals, produces compost

mixed with sewage sludge, and produces refuse-derived fuel (RDF). From the 500,000 tons of solid wastes and

60,000 tons of sewage sludge (20 percent solids) generated in the county each year, the facility produces about

130,000 tons of RDF and 250,000 tons of solid wastes. These solid wastes, which are landfilled, include ash from

the RDF facility (which also accepts up to 60,000 tons of commercial waste), excess sludge, and solid wastes that

have neither combustion capability nor materials recovery value (258). The facility markets the light ferrous

fraction, aluminum, and a small portion of glass. Although high purity glass recovery is technically feasible, the

cost of production far exceeds the current market value unless there is a nearby glass factory. The heavier ferrous

fraction has no current market. The compost is used as landfill cover. Additional materials recovery prior to

combustion could increase recycling and reduce the metals content of the ash.

MSW first passes through hammermills designed to shred up to 70 tons of waste per hour and equipped with

explosion venting and suppression systems. After the hammermills shred the waste into 4-inch pieces, it is sent to

air classifiers to separate the light from the heavy fractions. Magnets remove the ferrous material from the heavy

fraction and a trommel screen separates glass. The organic matter removed in the trommel screens will eventually

be sent to the humus processing section. The remaining, smaller fraction is further processed to separate the glass

from the organics, paper, and plastics; the latter three also will be sent to the humus processing section. The glass

fraction is crushed, screened, and reground. Then it is mixed with an amine acetate and removed through foam

flotation; a magnetic separator removes fine ferrous contaminants from the glass once it has been dried. The

remaining waste is sent to a secondary air classifier, where primarily nonferrous fraction is separated and sent to

a trommel screen. The nonferrous material in this fraction (consisting of 60 percent aluminum) is recovered through

eddy current separation (259).

The ORFA Corporation of America operates a facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania% that is designed to process

about 90,000 tons of mixed MSW each year from the surrounding areas (182). The fully automated facility,

completed in 1989, produces three products: ORFA Fiber, primarily composed of cellulose; granulate, consisting

of glass, plastics, mixed sand, dust, grit, nonferrous metals and other dense substances; and ferrous metals. About

50 to 60 percent of the incoming waste becomes ORFA Fiber, about 18 percent becomes granulate, about 8 percent

is ferrous metal, and the remainder is moisture and bulky waste. Uses for the Fiber include recycled paperboard,

building board, kitty litter, and growing medium. Granulate is used as fill for strip mines, and ferrous metal is sold

to local scrap dealers. Other ORFA facilities are planned, with expected capital costs of about $30 to $35 million

for 132,000 tons per year of processing capacity. Tipping fees are expected to be about $85 per ton.

In the ORFA process, MSW is received in an enclosed tipping floor, where it is inspected for unacceptable

materials such as bulky items or hazardous wastes, The MSW is then shredded and passed over a magnetic separator

to remove ferrous metals. The shredded material is then screened to separate the light fraction and heavy fraction.

The heavy fraction is sent to a hammer mill and the light fraction is sent to a high-speed cutting mill for further size

reduction. The two fractions are then recombined. The combined fractions are dried in a natural-gas-fueled rotating

drum dryer to approximately 5 percent moisture content. To reduce odor and stabilize complex organic compounds,

the dried material is treated with ozone. The dry, sanitized, and stabilized material is screened and separated into

coarse, medium, and fine grades before being sifted to separate the granulate from the ORFA Fiber. Coarse and

medium fibers are baled and the fine fiber and granulate are stored in bins for shipment.

Commingled Recyclables Facility

The Monmouth Recycling Corporation operates a facility in Long Branch, New Jersey that handles 70 percent

of the containers recycled by the county, including glass, aluminum, and ferrous cans (216). The company has been

in the recycling business since 1978, first as a buy-back operation for non-ferrous metals. It gradually expanded into

glass in 1982 using manual separation of colors and contaminants, and in 1988 it began a commingled materials

processing line.
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 139

Trucks are weighed before they dump their loads into a receiving pit. Materials are then pushed with a loader

onto a conveyor where they are separated by several automated and manual steps. The conveyors pass over a magnet

to remove ferrous metals; aluminum cans are removed by hand and dropped through a chute where they are

automatically flattened and blown into a van for transport. Several people pick different colors of glass from the

remaining materials and drop them in different hoppers where they move by conveyors to a primary crusher, pass

under another magnet, through a secondary crusher and then through a vibrating screen. The system generates

color-separated glass cullet with minor paper contamination.

Separated Recyclables Facility

Recycle America, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., began operating a materials processing center in

San Jose, California, in 1986. Residents of the city separates metal cans, glass bottles, and newspaper into three bins.

The materials are loaded separately into different compartments of route trucks. Trucks arrive at a computerized

scale and successively dump the different materials, allowing compilation of data on the tonnages of different

materials collected on each route. Newspaper processing involves baling the materials. Glass is broken as it is

initially unloaded, then it is moved by conveyor to allow manual removal of contaminants. The glass is then dropped

again into containers for shipping. By this method the glass is compacted, without the use of a crusher, from 300

to 1,000 pounds per cubic yard. Metal cans are separated into ferrous metal and aluminum as the materials pass

through a series of magnets. About 20 percent of the steel cans are discarded because labels have not been removed.

The cans are then baled for shipment.

New England CRInc (NECRInc) operates a facility in Billerica Massachusetts, that collects plastic, glass, steel,

and aluminum beverage containers. The containers are separated, baled, and shipped to secondary aluminum

smelters, glass manufacturers, etc. The company also operates two other similar facilities, two curbside recycling

programs, and several drop-off programs around New England. It recently expanded its operations into Rhode

Island, where it operates a facility that handles separated and commingled materials from a curbside collection

program (newspaper is separated, while glass, plastic, and metal containers are commingled).

more thorough combustion and produce energy and is highly dependent on public participation

more efficiently. Among the disadvantages are the

large amount of processing and energy needed to

produce the fuel.

Commingled Recyclable

Technologies to separate commingled recyclable

depend on the particular materials that are included

in the mix. Some systems handle only glass and

metal containers (box 5-B), while other facilities

also sort paper and plastic. A combination of manual

and automatic systems are usually used. Many of

these same technologies are applicable to the segregation step for mixed waste.

The advantages of commingled collection are that

some separation is already done and thus the amount

of contamination that must be dealt with is reduced.

Items that could pose a health hazard to workers are

excluded (e.g., disposable diapers). One disadvantage of commingled collection is that it requires a

different collection system than for the rest of MSW

(ch. 2).

Separated Recyclable

Even when recyclable are separated at curbside,

some preparation of materials often is necessary to

meet the needs of buyers. Thus, prepared materials

often command a higher price than materials that

would be delivered directly to market. Technologies

to handle separated recyclable include automated

or manual methods to remove contaminants as well

as baling, shredding, or grinding equipment.

One advantage of processing separated recyclable is that much of the labor of sorting materials has

already been done, and the equipment required is

generally very simple. Equipment may include

scales, conveyors, and balers, as well as other unit

processes for separating materials such as magnets

for separating ferrous and nonferrous metals.

A disadvantage of separated collection is that it.

like commingled collection, requires a different

collection system and is highly dependent on public
140 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

participation. Specialized collection equipment (e.g.,

compartmentalized collection vehicles) is often

needed.

RECYCLING: TECHNOLOGIES,

MARKETS, RISKS

Recycling technologies vary considerably depending on the secondary material and the intended

end product. For example, technologies to recycle

used oil vary depending on whether the oil is

intended to be reprocessed for use as fuel or

re-refined and used again as a lubricant. This section

provides an overview of technologies and markets

for secondary materials-paper and paperboard

products, glass, aluminum, batteries, iron and steel,

tires, oil, plastics, and compost.

Paper and Paperboard Products

Paper and paperboard products account for a

larger fraction of MSW than any other single

category of material. An estimated 64.7 million

short tons of paper and paperboard were used and

discarded as MSW in the United States in 1986

(81).2 If this figure is correct, paper and paperboard

would account for 41 percent by weight of gross

discards (ch. 3).

According to Franklin Associates (81), 14.6

million tons of paper and paperboard were recovered

from MSW in 1986. By comparison, the American

Paper Institute reports waste paper recovery in 1986

at 22.1 million tons (9). The difference between the

two estimates is caused by how each accounts for

pre-consumer waste (i.e., prompt industrial scrap)

that is collected routinely by fabricators and shipped

to paper mills for use in the papermaking process.

In 1987, total waste paper recovery (including

pre-consumer waste) in the United States reached an

all-time high of 24 million tons, a recovery rate of

28.5 percent (9). For comparison, total recovery of

waste paper was only 12.6 million tons in 1970, a

recovery rate of 22.4 percent. Recovery, and subsequent use, has shown a similar increase worldwide.

Recovered waste paper, or secondary fiber, is

used to produce new paper products, construction

materials, and miscellaneous products such as animal bedding, insulation, and cushioning. Growth in

demand for these products worldwide has caused

heightened demand for secondary fiber. Consumption of secondary fiber in the United States increased

from 12.0 million tons in 1970 to 19.2 million tons

in 1987, and exports increased from 0.4 million tons

to 4.4 million tons over the same period.

In the United States, paper and paperboard mills

are the major consumers of secondary fiber, accounting for 94 percent of the total in 1987 (9). OTA’s

evaluation of opportunities for increased paper

recycling therefore begins with a description of

trends in the U.S. paper and paperboard industry.

Structure, Conduct, and Performance of the

Paper Industry

The paper industry is international and relatively

competitive. The United States, with its abundant

forest resources and low-cost production facilities,

plays a major role in the world paper industry. Of the

238 million tons of paper and paperboard produced

worldwide in 1987, the United States accounted for

74.4 million tons, or 31 percent (199).

Statistics alone, however, do not give a complete

picture of U.S. standing internationally because

many large U.S. paper companies own forest resources, pulp and paper mill capacity, and converting operations abroad (200).3 The United States is

headquarters for 26 of the world’s largest 100 pulp

and paper companies (in terms of 1987 sales from

pulp, paper, and converting operations only). Of the

10 largest, 8 are U.S. companies. Total 1987 sales for

the 100 largest companies amounted to $125.4

billion, of which U.S. companies accounted for 43.7

percent (200). Japanese companies accounted for the

second largest share-14.8 percent.

The paper and allied products industry is scattered

throughout the country, with establishments located

in every State. The largest concentration of production is in the South, which accounts for about 35

percent of total production, by value. The North

Central region and the Northeast account for about

25 percent each.

The regional distribution of the industry parallels

that of domestic forest resources-the paper indus2~sh~ ton ~~s z,~ pounds. In his report, all references to tons refer to shti tons unless otherwise noted.

3conve~ng~ratims ~fer t. pl~ts mat ~~fo~ pa~r md pa~r~d into products such ~ boxes or envelopes.
Chapter 5-Recycling ● 141

try locates its mills close to the major source of raw

materials. As a result, many paper mills are in remote

locations, where forestry and paper industries are the

major employers.

According to the 1982 Census of Manufactures

(242), the industry consists primarily of large

establishments. Nearly half of all the U.S. paper and

paperboard mills are directly associated with a pulp

mill. These integrated mills accounted for the bulk

of paper and paperboard shipments. In 1982, the

value of shipments from integrated mills amounted

to $23.0 billion, or 75 percent of total mill shipments.

The paper industry generally keeps pace with the

overall level of U.S. industrial production and

exhibits relative stability. During the last recession,

the industry’s overall rate of decline was equal to or

less than the average for all industries. Capacity

utilization for most segments of the paper industry

generally remains above 90 percent.

The annual average producer price indices for

various paper products closely follow the index for

all finished goods, but they are slightly more

volatile. With the exception of wood pulp, all

producer prices reported for paper products have

increased by more than 50 percent since 1977 (250).

The producer price index for wood pulp has fallen

somewhat below the others and has exhibited greater

volatility, particularly since 1981.

Data on monthly average paper product prices

may be more meaningful, however. Beginning in

July 1983, monthly data show that prices for waste

paper are considerably more volatile than those for

wood pulp (figure 5-2). This kind of relationship is

typical of secondary materials.

The increased prices of paper products have

benefited the industry. As recently as 1984, the

profitability of the paper industry lagged well behind

the rest of the economy. Over the last few years,

however, the profitability of the paper industry has

risen substantially, owing in part to cost-cutting

measures, higher capacity utilization rates, and

increased competitiveness associated with the decline in the value of the dollar (40,41) Despite this

improvement, the industry’s long-term returns-onq~e pa~rst~k ~tltute, a division of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., identifies49 standard grades md 31 specialty gmdes of waste

paper, but statistics are not collected on that basis ( 185).
142 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

used in conjunction, and sometimes competes directly, with wood pulp. In some instances, the paper

product is made from 100 percent waste paper.

Consumption of secondary fiber, or waste paper,

in the production of all grades of paper and

paperboard increased in the United States from 12.0

million tons in 1970 to 19.5 million tons in 1987. By

weight, about 25 percent of the fiber raw material

used to make paper and paperboard in the United

States consists of secondary fiber.

The regional distribution of paper mills that

consume waste paper differs somewhat from that of

virgin paper mills, reflecting the comparative economics of raw materials transportation. Secondary

fiber mills often are located to take advantage of the

largest sources of waste paper-converting plants

and large population centers. The five largest waste

paper consuming States in 1986 were Wisconsin,

California, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (243).

Technologies of Recycled and

Virgin Papermaking

Once it is received at a mill, waste paper is

normally prepared or repulped by mixing it with

water and beating it with a hydrapulper. This process

mechanically separates the fibers from foreign

materials and forms a fiber and water slurry. Plastics

and any remaining foreign materials are filtered out

of the slurry, which is then thickened. If de-inking is

required, the pulp is diluted and sent to a series of

flotation cells where the pulp is aerated so the ink

migrates to the surface as a foam. This foam is often

removed using a vacuum (70).5 In some processes,

de-inking is aided with the use of heat and chemical

ink dispersants, detergents, solvents, or defoamers.

Additional cleaning may be required to remove

contaminants. The de-inked stock, about 4 percent

fiber and 96 percent water, can then be used to form

paper sheets, although some fiber refining or blending may be required. In some instances, the pulp

must be bleached with chlorine gas, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, or other chemicals prior to papermaking (241 ).

The use of coated waste papers results in the

production of large amounts of sludge, which can

amount to as much as 30 percent of the input by

weight (3). This sludge then becomes industrial

waste.

Pulping wood can be accomplished by mechanical or chemical methods.6 Mechanical pulping

involves grinding logs or wood chips, adding water

to form a slurry, filtering, and cleaning. Sometimes

the wood is heated or soaked in a chemical liquor to

soften the fibers prior to grinding. In chemical

pulping, which is used to make pulp for higher

quality products, wood chips are cooked in chemical

solutions containing caustic soda and sodium sulfide

or sulfites of calcium, magnesium, ammonia, or

sodium. The cooking process dissolves the lignin,

which binds the fibers together. After cooking, the

pulp is washed, then diluted, screened, and cleaned.

The pulp can then be bleached. Often, pulps from a

variety of woods are blended to attain specific

qualities required for different products. The same

equipment can be used for making paper both from

wood pulp and from secondary fiber pulp.

The major difference between the costs of making

virgin and recycled paper is in the pulping and stock

preparation stages. Industry representatives generally agree that the capital cost of expanding papermaking capacity is estimated to average about

$150,000 per ton of daily capacity if waste paper is

used and about $500,000 to $1 million if wood is

used. The cost of building anew mill is considerably

greater than the cost of expanding an existing mill.

For example, building a new mill for recycled

paperboard can cost 50 percent more and take twice

as long than expanding an existing mill. The cost

differential for the fiber itself is much less important

in the comparative economics of virgin versus

secondary fiber than this capital cost differential.

Comparative Energy Consumption-Recycled

fiber can be used to make various paper and

paperboard products. Each product, however, has

unique limitations on the amount of recycled fiber

that can be used, and each one is produced by

manufacturing processes that can differ in the

amount of energy used.

For some paper products, using waste paper may

require less energy than producing paper fromvirgin

timber. These savings can result from reduced

WmtcpaWr is de-ti~ for most tissue and writing papers, but not for most paperboard products.

6&Cord~gt.ml,U.S. ~~ulp ~apW1ty is broken downm follows: 80 percent chemical, 10 percent semichemicaJ, 10 percent mechanical (8).
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 143

energy demands in the process of making paper from

waste paper and a reduced need to harvest and

transport timber. They can be offset, however, by the

energy needed to collect, transport, and de-ink the

waste paper.

Estimates of the energy saved using waste paper

vary greatly, however, and should be viewed with

caution. In virgin papermaking, many process byproducts (e.g., lignin, bark, wood waste) are used to

generate energy in the production process, thus

reducing the need for purchased fuel. These types of

byproducts are not produced in recycled papermaking. Many estimates of comparative energy consumption in papermaking do not account for this

aspect of fuel use. Recycled paper and board often

require more fossil fuel than virgin products.

Generalizations about relative energy consumption in virgin and recycled papermaking are difficult

to make given the conflicting conclusions made by

various studies of the subject. One study (99)

estimated that most paper products require less

energy to produce using recycled fiber than virgin

fiber, but that most paperboard products require

more energy if produced using recycled fiber (table

5-l). Data for tissue production from table 5-1

indicate a savings of 57 percent, while another study

estimated savings of 41 percent (195). In contrast,

Renard (206) reported a net energy loss of about 1

percent for the production of tissue from recycled

fiber.

Other studies also address the total direct energy

cost of using de-inked newspaper to produce new

newsprint; these direct costs included electricity,

heating water, and the introduction of inorganic

additives (NaOH and NaOCl), but excluded the

energy used to produce raw inputs (206). One study

estimated direct savings of about 23 percent, or

about 6.3 million Btu/ton. A more conservative

study, however, concluded that using de-inked stock

saved about 2.7 to 4.1 million Btu/ton, depending on

the type of virgin pulp used.

In contrast, an analysis of primary versus secondary fiber use in linerboard production showed a net

increase in energy cost when secondary fiber is used.

According to one study (113), “increased use of

secondary fiber as opposed to increased kraft pulping capacity leads to reduced steam and electrical

process-energy requirements per unit product but to

slightly increased energy costs per unit product, ”

based on using coal as an auxiliary fuel to replace

wood residue fuel generated in primary fiber pulping.

An alternative approach to recycling waste paper

is to recover the energy value in collected waste

paper by using it as a fuel supplement. However, one

analysis of wastepaper used as a coal supplement in

electric powerplants or to generate steam at paper

plants found that recycling (with an optimum

allocation of waste paper to efficient recycling

options) was more energy efficient (99). In fact, that

same analysis concludes that “the most energy

efficient strategy of making paper is to increase the

amount of source-separation and recycling (compared to the alternatives of burning or landfilling).

The next most energy efficient use of scrap is to bum

it for energy production and the least efficient is to

land-fill it” (99).

Markets for Waste Paper, by Product Category

Every paper product that uses waste paper exhibits unique market characteristics. The major categories of products described here include the paper

grades (fine printing and writing paper, newsprint,

tissue, and packaging and industrial paper), the

paperboard grades (unbleached kraft, semichemical,

bleached paperboard, and recycled paperboard), and

building paper and board.7

Fine Printing and Writing Papers—In 1987,

U.S. mills produced 20.7 million tons of printing,

writing, and related papers for use in publishing and

office products (e.g., books, brochures, magazines,

stationery, copy papers, accounting forms). Although most printing and writing paper is made from

virgin fiber, about 1,375,000 tons of wastepaper was

used, for a waste paper utilization rate of about 6.6

percent (see figure 5-3).8 About 74 percent of this

waste paper was pulp substitutes, or cuttings from

converting plants. The remainder consisted mainly

of post-consumer high grade de-inking paper (e.g.,

.

7The use ofW=E Pawr for non-paper products is not described because reliable data are not available; these products include CehdOSe lnsUlatJOn,

molded products (e.g., egg cartons and flower pots), cushioning material for packaging, animal bedding, and mulch.

~UtillzatJon rate refers t. tie ~rtion of waste paper used in total domestic production of the grade(s) under discussion.
144 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 5-l-Estimated Energy Used To Produce Paper and Paperboard Products

(In million Btu per ton produced)

From 100°/0

virgin wood From mixed recycled paper

Energy Minimum virgin Energy % change due

Product use fiber content use to recycling

Paper products

Newsprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.33 00/0 34.76 -21.6

Printing paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.72 16% 43.43 -35.9

Packaging paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.07 70% 43.48 -7.6

Tissue paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.52 00/0 29.46 -57.0

Paperboard products

Liner board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.46 75% 36.28 +1 50.9

Corrugated board . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.22 0% 36.28 -2.5

BOX board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.97 0% 36.25 +39.6

Food service board . . . . . . . . . . . 29.19 100% N/A

Other paper board . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

17.65 O% 36.32 +105.8

Construction board . . . . . . . . . . . 31.71 65% 32.24 +1 .7

SOURCE: T. Gunn and B. Hannon, “Energy Conservation and Recycling in the Paper Industry,” Resources and Energy 5:243-260, 1983.

computer printout, tabulating cards, white ledger

and forms).

Only a few printing and writing paper mills can

de-ink waste paper and/or produce new paper that

contains at least 50 percent waste paper. In 1983, 174

printing and writing paper mills with 18.6 million

tons of capacity were operating in the United States,

but only 12 mills had de-inking facilities (6). By

1988, mill capacity had increased to 22.7 million

tons, but only 9 mills had de-inking facilities (one of

which was not operating). A total of 18 mills,

however, had the ability to produce printing and

writing paper containing at least 50 percent waste

paper; these mills had the combined capacity to

produce about 1 million tons annually, or about 5

percent of the total (82).9

The majority of printing and writing paper mills

are large, integrated world-class mills that use

600-ton-per-day papermaking machines. However,

most mills that predominantly use waste paper as

furnish-’ secondary paper” mills—are smaller,

older, and less efficient, typically using 70-ton-perday machines. The secondary paper mills have been

successful in producing high-quality recycled printing and writing paper that is comparable to virgin

paper because they use very high-quality secondary

fiber. According to paper industry representatives,

however, they can compete with the large integrated

mills only because they can use lower cost secondary fiber.

Concerns have been expressed about the future

supply and price of high-quality secondary fiber.

Increased exports and increased competition from

other types of paper mills (especially tissue) have

driven up the price of some secondary fiber, making

many grades economically marginal for the secondary paper mills. Since most of the highest quality

waste paper appears to be collected already, a future

increase in supply will be limited to increases in the

rate of production of waste paper as a byproduct at

converting plants. As a result, secondary paper mill

representatives express reluctance to build new mills

to produce more recycled printing and writing paper.

One representative noted that just two new 600-tonper-day paper machines (i.e., state-of-the-art technology) could consume the available annual supply

of pulp substitutes.

This view is not held by all, however. During

1988, the Korean-owned Mi-Ho Paper Co. announced that it would build a new recycled printing

and writing paper mill in St. Josephs, Missouri, that

would use primarily secondary fiber. The business

plan for the mill identifies reliable sources for the

waste paper and also has most of the production

9The rem~der of the ] ,257,()()() tons of waste paper consumed at printing and WIitlng paper mlh was presumably consumed in miik producing

paper containing less than 50 percent waste paper.
Chapter S-Recycling ● 145

earmarked for export. The capacity of the mill has

not been reported, but it is expected to cost about $60

million to build, including land, insurance, and

financing costs. The success of this venture will not

be apparent for years to come, and many industry

sources in the United States are skeptical.

In addition, some expansion of current recycled

printing and writing paper capacity has occurred

recently. One mill announced a 25-ton-per-day

expansion at a cost of about $15 million (or about

$600,000 per ton of daily capacity).

Therefore, the major barriers to increased use

of secondary fiber in printing and writing paper

appear to be supply of high-quality secondary

fiber, technological constraints in the papermaking process, and high standards on the part of the

consumer. Improvements in de-inking technology

are required to allow the use of lower quality waste

paper, such as that collected in office paper recycling

programs. The industry is conducting some research

in this area, but prospects for success are unknown.

Additional research also is needed to improve the

removal of contaminants (e.g., sticky adhesives and

plastics), improve fiber treatment or refining, and

find commercially viable ways to reduce or handle

the low-solid sludge generated when recycling

printing paper that has a thin clay coat. Some

technology in use in Europe does allow the production of printing and writing paper from lower grade

waste paper, but its quality is allegedly lower than

U.S. standards for printing and writing paper. This

paper, which can be called “adequate for the

purpose” grade, is being produced in the Federal

Republic of Germany, for instance, at a rate of about

140,000 tons per year (235). OTA is not aware of any

imports of this type of paper into the United States.

Newsprint—Newsprint mills in the United States

produced 5.8 million tons of newsprint in 1987.

About 23 percent, or 1.4 million tons, was made

from waste paper, virtually all old newspapers

(ONP) (figure 5-3). Total U.S. production supplied

less than half of total U.S. demand for newsprint, and

8.9 million tons of newsprint were imported in 1987,

primarily from Canada.

In 1987, U.S. capacity to produce newsprint was

about 5.9 million tons (8). The seven recycled

newsprint mills in operation in 1987 had total annual

capacity of 1.5 million tons (84). Most of these mills

Figure 5-~Waste Paper Utilization Rate,

By Paper Product

SOURCE” American Paper Institute, “Waste Paper Utilization in Paper and

Paperboard Manufacture” (New York, NY: individual yearly

reports for 1970 through 1987); Paper Recycling Committee,

1987 Statistics of Paper, Paperboard & Wood Pulp (New York,

NY: August 1987).

are located very close to sources of secondary

fiber-major metropolitan areas-to minimize

transportation costs.

After 4 years of virtually no growth, the North

American newsprint industry has embarked on a

period of expansion. Within the next few years, 9

new newsprint machines, each with a capacity of

200,000 tons per year, will come on-line; 7 of these

machines are in Canada. Most of this new capacity

will use virgin fiber, mainly because the new

machines are additions to current plants rather than

developments at new sites. Most mills are located

close to sources of wood pulp, so it is unlikely that

it would be cost-effective to transport large amounts

of ONP a longer distance to be used as furnish

instead. This could change, however. For example,

a new facility being built at a mill in Quebec will use

ONP, magazines, and other forms of waste paper to

produce newsprint pulp (47).

The major barriers to increased use of waste

paper in newsprint appear to be lack of markets

and higher levels of contaminants found in new

supplies of ONP. Given current expansion plans,

further increases in capacity would likely result

in an overall reduction in the industry’s capacity

utilization rate. Of course, given the large volume

of U.S. imports of newsprint, some of that displace-
146 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

ment could occur in Canadian (or other foreign

source) mills. Unless restrictions were placed on

imports, however, there would be no assurance that

U.S. capacity utilization would not be affected.10

Sufficient additional supply of ONP does exist to

furnish new recycled newsprint capacity. It has been

estimated that at least 700,000 to 800,000 tons of

ONP would be available in the Northeast alone

(123). However, questions exist as to the quality of

the additional supply, particularly that generated by

mandatory source separation programs. Garden

State Paper, for example, has reported difficulty with

contamination in ONP recovered from New Jersey’s

mandatory recycling program (123).

Finally, market volatility is an additional barrier

to capacity expansion. Many analysts predict that

the world supply of newsprint will outpace demand

by 1990. With the possibility of recession increasing, the industry may see further investment in new

machines as too risky.

Tissue—Tissue grade paper includes toilet and

facial tissue, napkins, toweling, diapers, wipes, and

other sanitary papers. U.S. mills produced 5.3

million tons of tissue in 1987. Approximately 2.4

million tons of secondary fiber was used to produce

tissue, for a utilization rate of 44 percent. This is a

significant increase from just over 25 percent waste

paper utilization in 1970 (figure 5-3). All grades of

waste paper are used to make tissue products, with

high grade de-inking and pulp substitutes contributing the largest share-almost 75 percent. The lower

grades, mostly post-consumer waste, generally are

used to make industrial toweling and wipes for the

‘‘away-from-home’ market.

Tissue production capacity in the United States

has expanded steadily over the last decade, to about

5.8 million tons in 1988, and additional expansion is

expected. An estimated 20 to 40 tissue mills make

tissue products with about 25 percent recycled

content or more (84). Highly proprietary technology

has allowed some tissue mills to increase their

consumption of de-inking grades of waste paper.

Unfortunately, the potential to further increase

consumption of lower grades of waste paper cannot

be determined quantitatively. However, tissue producers do not appear concerned by the possibility of

reduced supplies of pulp substitutes, perhaps indicating a future tendency to rely less on these high

grade fibers. Because most tissue products made

with post-consumer waste paper are the coarser,

‘‘away-from-home’ variety, increased use of such

waste in tissue paper production depends to some

extent on consumer preference. In blind tests on

product quality and performance, consumers invariably pick the virgin product because it is whiter and

softer (3). Whether consumers can accept a coarser

product for home use is unknown.

Kraft andPacka@”ngPaper-in 1987, U.S. mills

produced 5.1 million tons of unbleached kraft and

bleached packaging and industrial papers, mostly for

making shipping bags and wrapping. *1 The waste

paper utilization rate in producing these papers has

averaged about 5 percent over the last decade (figure

5-3), with pulp substitutes and OCC being the major

grades of wastepaper used. Much of this waste paper

is pre-consumer waste. According to the API (7),

high grade secondary fibers from waste clippings at

bag-making plants were the primary source of waste

paper because packaging papers require high

strength. Lower grade fibers and fibers recycled

more than once do not exhibit the necessary strength

characteristics .12 Therefore, the use of waste paper in

these products is not expected to increase.

Production of kraft papers, the largest share of this

category, has declined over the last few years. The

major market for these papers is grocery and

merchandise bags, which have been losing about 5

percent of the market per year to plastics (197). Bans

on plastic shopping bags, which have been implemented in several localities, could lead to increased

domestic production of kraft papers.

Unbleached Kraft Paperboard—Production of

unbleached kraft paperboard in the United States in

1987 amounted to 18.5 million tons. About 1.9

million tons of secondary fibers, mainly OCC and

box plant clippings, were used to make products in

lo~cre~ pre5sWe is ~50 king placed on (3ir@ian newsprint mills to use more ONP. It appears likely that some displacement will occur there

as a result of Canada’s own recycling programs.

} 1 Kr~t ~aPr, pr~uCed by a m~lfi~ sulfate pulping pwess, is a ~latively cow pa~r with ~gh stren@.h Chmacteristics. Unbleached grades are

used primarily for packaging and wrapping; bleached kraft can be used to make many grades of paper including tissues and printing and line papers.

IZ1n tie Prwess of rwycling paper, the wood fibers are broken and shortened, thus reducing their s@en@.
Chapter 5--Recycling . 147

Photo credit: W. Johnson

Old corrugated cardboard typically is compacted and baled

before being shipped to paper mills for recycling.

this category, for a waste paper utilization rate of 10

percent (figure 5-4). Most unbleached kraft paperboard is produced in the form of linerboard, which

is used as the facing material in corrugated boxes

and solid fiber boxes. The remainder is used to make

folding cartons and other products. Demand for

these products has remained strong in recent years,

and linerboard in particular is expected to continue

in high demand stimulated by projected strong

growth in industrial production--corrugated containers are the most widely accepted shipping

container.

Expansion of the use of secondary fibers in these

mills is limited primarily by performance requiremerits. *3 Increased use of secondary fibers reduces

the strength of the final product, thus limiting the

amount of such fiber that can be used in linerboard

mills. Some research is underway to enhance the

strength of board made from OCC (e.g., using heat

and higher pressure in board production, press

drying in papermaking, separation of the linerboard

from the weaker medium, and enhancement with

chemical additives). However, additional research

and development is needed (1 14). Box-makers

continue to prefer virgin products because of their

strength and durability; they often are specifically

Figure 5-4--Waste Paper Utilization Rate,

lqcomgat~ ~xe~ me rqulr~ t. m~t cc~aln rquimments for bust smn@ nd sometimes stacking or compression strength ~~ determined by

standard indusuy tests.
148 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

make recycled paperboard for corrugated boxes).

Many Asian mills are reported to use much larger

proportions (if not 100 percent) of secondary fiber in

their corrugated boxes. However, these boxes are of

a much lower quality than those made in the United

States, and limitations exist as a result of U.S. legal

and technical shipping requirements. It is possible

that these requirements could be changed to accommodate the use of more recycled fiber if greater care

were used in shipping.

Semichemical paperboard production generally

follows the same trend as kraft linerboard, the other

major component of corrugated boxboard; demand

is closely tied to industrial production.

Bleached Paperboard--Bleached paperboard is

produced almost exclusively from virgin fiber. It is

used primarily in sanitary packaging, such as milk

cartons, and food service items, such as cups and

plates, where it must meet very strict requirements.

In 1987, 4.3 million tons of bleached paperboard

were produced in the United States. Increased use of

secondary fiber is unlikely in these products.

Recycled Paperboard-Almost half of all waste

paper used in the United States is consumed in

recycled paperboard. In 1987, 9.2 million tons of

waste paper were used to make 8.6 million tons of

recycled paperboard, a 100 percent recycled product

(figure 5-4).14 All grades of waste paper are used in

the production of recycled paperboard, with OCC

showing the largest increase (figure 5-5).

Recycled paperboard products include test liner,

corrugating medium, filler chipboard for solid fiber

boxes, folding cartons, rigid boxes, gypsum wallboard, paper tubes and drums, panelboard, set up

boxes, tablet backing, and miscellaneous other

products (8). Recycled paperboard has become more

popular as industries attempt to lower costs. However, only slight increases in production capacity are

expected to 1990.

Recycled paperboard continues to have strong

competition from plastics and virgin paperboard.

Major portions of the paperboard market were lost in

recent years when diaper manufacturers converted

packaging from folding cartons to plastic bags and

when liquid detergent in plastic bottles began to

replace cartoned granules. In higher priced conFigure 5-5-Waste Paper Use in Recycled Paperboard,

By Grade

SOURCE: American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, 1987

Annual Statistical Summary Waste Paper Utilization, 2d ed.

(New York, NY: July 1988).

sumer products, where packaging accounts for a

very small share of cost, manufacturers are reluctant

to use recycled paperboard because the consumer

may associate it with an inferior product. Strength

and printability are generally the same for recycled

and virgin paperboard, but recycled paperboard is

used where lower quality is acceptable (1 14,264).

Thus, consumer preference appears to play an

important limiting role in the increased use of

recycled paperboard. Some industry representatives, however, contend that sanitary and health

considerations are the primary factor, followed by

weight, economic, and performance considerations.

Construction Paper and Board-Production of

construction paper and board in the United States

declined from about 3 million tons in 1970 to 1.2

million tons in 1987. About 900,000 tons of waste

paper of all grades were used to make construction

paper and board in 1987 (figure 5-4). Products in this

category include roofing, siding, wallboard, and

insulation board. These markets have suffered competition from other materials, such as fiberglass,

which is expected to continue.

Waste Paper Exports

The United States is the world’s largest exporter

of wastepaper, and exports of U.S. waste paper have

increased tremendously (figure 5-6). Concurrently,

the importance of the export market for U.S. waste

14The pr~e~ Of repulping and cleaning the waste paper resuhs in Some $hJidW$.
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 149

paper dealers also has grown. In 1970, only 3 percent

of the waste paper recovered in the United States was

exported, By 1987, exports had grown to 18 percent

of recovery (9).

Major Markets—According to the Department of

Commerce, more than half of U.S. waste paper

exports in 1987 was destined for the industrializing

countries of the Far East, particularly the Republic

of Korea and Taiwan. Since 1970, U.S. exports to

that region have increased fifteen-fold, a growth

factor far greater than that exhibited by any other

region. Mexico is also a large importer of U.S. waste

paper, accounting for 18 percent of total U.S. exports

in 1987.

The three largest consumers (i.e., Taiwan, Korea,

and Mexico) accounted for 59 percent of total U.S.

exports in 1987 (225), These countries have expanded papermaking capacity significantly in the

last decade, based heavily on imported raw materials, particularly secondary fibers. Low labor costs

have allowed them to import lower grade waste

paper and sort it by hand for use in their paper mills.

Their mills are relatively new and efficient, using

technology imported from industrialized countries.

Most of the paper produced in Taiwan and Korea is

used internally, both for direct consumption and for

packaging consumer goods for export.

The Japanese paper industry also consumes a

large amount of secondary fiber, amounting to as

much as 50 percent of total furnish. Japan accounted

for 15 percent of U.S. waste paper exports in 1987.

The European market is expected to decrease in

importance for U.S. exporters. U.S. waste paper

exports to Europe declined from 402,800 tons in

1985 to 351,200 tons in 1986, as European recovery

rates increased to supply their demand. In fact, waste

paper markets in Europe experienced a glut in 1986,

despite very strong performance by the European

paper industry. This situation was particularly

marked in West Germany, where mandatory collection of waste paper resulted in an oversupply of

lower grades throughout the region and dampened

prices considerably (202). Paper stock prices for the

lower grades fell by 60 to 80 percent during the year

(86). Increased West German exports to Korea and

Taiwan have alleviated the European oversupply

situation somewhat, but some concerns have been

raised about the future ability of the Far East market

to absorb the increased supply of low grade waste.

Overall, the potential for future increases in U.S.

waste paper exports to Europe seems low.

Grades Exported--About 40 percent of U.S.

exports of waste paper is OCC, which is in high

demand because it is made from strong softwood

fibers. Mixed paper and ONP each account for about

20 percent, with the remaining 20 percent split

between pulp substitutes and high grade de-inking.

These proportions have remained relatively constant

over the last decade, with variations of about 5

percentage points (figure 5-6). For each grade,

exports are equivalent to 20 to 30 percent of

domestic consumption. Pulp substitutes, the highest

valued waste paper, are the exception to this, with

exports equivalent to only about 10 percent of

domestic consumption.

Export demand for most grades of waste paper is

expected to remain strong. Exports of most grades

increased from 1986 to 1987 by more than 10

percent. Only mixed waste showed a lower growth

rate, reportedly because of increased contamination

from materials such as plastics and metals (203).

Although export demand is strong, increased

supplies from States that recently have implemented

recycling programs is reported to have reduced

export prices. In the Northeast, where waste paper is

a major export, prices for OCC and ONP declined in

mid-1988 when New Jersey and other States increased their recycling. Although other factors may
150 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Photo credit: R. Guttman

The United States is the world’s largest exporter of waste paper. In 1987, 18 percent of the waste paper recovered in the United

States was exported, with over half going to the industrializing countries of the Far East.

have contributed to the downward pressure on

prices, by late 1988 some localities were having to

pay waste paper dealers to take ONP. Waste paper

export prices on the west coast also were affected to

some extent, particularly since transportation costs

there have risen (205).

The Glass Industry

About 11 million tons of glass containers are

produced each year in the United States (52).

According to industry sources, between 20 and 25

percent of each new glass container is produced from

cullet, or waste glass. Of this, 50 to 55 percent is

post-consumer cullet and the remainder is home

scrap.

15 On that basis, the amount of cullet used in

production would be 2.5 million tons, of which 1.3

million tons would be post-consumer cullet.

Glass discards were estimated to account for

about 8 percent of MSW in 1986, or about 12.9

million tons. An estimated 90 percent of the glass

was in the form of containers. With about 1.3 million

tons of cullet being recycled, this would represent a

post-consumer glass recycling rate of 10 percent in

1986; the rate for 1988 is somewhat higher, at about

15 percent.

It is difficult to compare glass recycling rates in

other countries. Most glass bottles in Europe and

Japan are refillable. In the Netherlands, for example,

over 90 percent of retail soft drink and beer sales are

in returnable bottles, as required by law (194). In

Japan, 66 percent of all bottles are collected and

reused an average of three times; beer and some sake

bottles are reused an average of 20 times (106).

The data on international glass recycling are

conflicting. One study indicated that glass recycling

rates for Europe, Japan, and the United States ranged

from 10 to 53 percent, with Japan having a rate of

only 17 percent (194). However, a 1983 survey in

Japan indicated that about 54 percent of empty

bottles and 52 percent of cullet were recovered

(106). In Switzerland, enough glass was recycled in

15This is ~ Cstlmatc for lg~b, used t. be consistent with the rest of the statistics in this chapter; for 1987-88,25 percent of each new container is Cullet,

60 percent of which is post-consumer.
Chapter S-Recycling ● 151

1986 to satisfy 75 percent of the raw material needs

of the glass packaging industry. About 30 percent of

West Germany’s waste glass is collected, mostly in

outdoor collection centers (1 15). In Sweden, glass

recovery is only about 15 percent, even though more

than 200 municipalities provide facilities

recycling (230).

Technologies of Virgin and Recycled

Glassmaking

fix glass

Glass can be manufactured entirely from virgin

materials-primarily from silica sand, and other

materials such as feldspar, limestone, and natural

soda ash. In addition to making containers, silica

sand is used to make flat glass, safety glass, pressed

and blown glass, fiberglass, optical glass, and

industrial glass. The largest end use for silica sand is

containers, which consumed 69 percent of the silica

sand produced in the United States in 1986 (246).

To improve melting efficiency in a glassmaking

furnace, it is desirable to have at least 8 to 10 percent

cullet in the furnace charge, with 25 percent cullet

the most common mix. Varying the mixture of cullet

and virgin material affects the chemical processes in

the furnace, and can require changing the furnace

temperature. Because of chemical differences, container cullet generally cannot be used to make most

types of glass other than new containers and

fiberglass.

Although cullet itself is 100 percent recyclable

(one pound of cullet makes one pound of new glass),

limitations exist on the amount of cullet that can be

used as furnace feed. In general, glass produced from

cullet must meet strict buyer specifications on

quality and color (table 5-2). Color separation

processes, however, usually are not 100 percent

efficient, so that strict color specifications can act as

a constraint to using large amounts of cullet.

It also is difficult to make glass entirely from

cullet because cullet lacks ‘‘fining” agents that are

needed to reduce bubbles in the glass. Little documentation is available on the amounts of cullet that

can be used at various U.S. glassmaking facilities.

One study of a European glassmaking facility

indicated that, under good conditions, a maximum of

about 70 percent cullet can be used in the glassmaking process to make flint glass (57). Higher mixes

are possible, especially for colored glass (206), and

Table 5-2--Specifications for Furnace-Ready Cullet

●

●

●

●

●

Only glass container glass is acceptable

Permissible color mix levelsFlint glass

95-1 00% flint; O-5% amber; O-1% green; O-5% other colors

Amber glass

90-100% amber; 0-10% flint; O-10% green; 0-5%

other colors

Green glass

80-100%. green; O-20% amber; O-1O% flint or Georgia green;

0-5% other colors

Glass must be free of any refractory materials. Grounds for

rejection include:

-presence of pottery, porcelain, china, dinnerware, brick, tile,

clay, and so forth, larger than 1 inch.

-presence of more than one paticle of any of above materials

larger than 1/8 inch, but less than 1 inch in a 200-pound

sample.

-presence of more than two grains of quartzite, sandstone, or

sand pebbles larger than U.S. 16 mesh per 10 pounds of

sample.

—any day particles larger than U.S. 20 mesh or more than 50

particles larger than U.S. 30 mesh per 10 pounds of sample.

-any alumina silicate refractory heavy minersls larger than

U.S. 30 mesh or more than 10 grains larger than U.S. 40

mesh per 10 pounds of sample.

-presence of zircon, cassiterite, chrome, or similar refractory

particles larger than U.S. 60 mesh.

Glass must be free of metallic fragments and objects, dirt,

gravel, limestone chips, asphalt, concrete, and excessive

amounts of paper, cardboard, wrap, plastics, etc.

Large amounts of excessively decorated glass must be kept

separate.

SOURCE: Brockway, Inc., "Specifications for Furnace-Ready Cullet,”

unpublished manuscript (undated).

industry representatives contend that mixes of 80

percent or more are common (160). One glass

manufacturer in Connecticut reportedly produced

new container glass using 100 percent cullet for an

extended period several years ago, but the highest

level attained recently at that facility was 68 percent

for making green glass. That same manufacturer

reported that the biggest constraint to using more

cullet was the difficulty in obtaining high-quality

cullet from local suppliers (89).

Energy Consumption-To manufcture glass,

four separate steps are used: melting, refining and

conditioning, forming, and annealing. Energy is

required to perform each step. In addition, energy is

consumed in mining and transporting sand and other

virgin materials. Mining and transporting can account for about 16 percent of total energy use when

making glass from a mix of 15 percent cullet and the

remainder virgin materials (table 5-3).
152 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 5-3-Energy Consumption Associated With

Manufacturing Glass (using 15% cullet)

Manufacturing Energy Percentage of

component (million Btu/ton) total energy

Materials energy

Glass sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50 3.2%

Feldspar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.11 0.70/0

Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02 0.1%

Natural soda ash . . . . . . . . . . 1.85 12.1%

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,48 16.4%

Process energy

Melting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 49.7%

Refining & conditioning . . . . . 1.5 9.80/o

Forming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 8.50/o

Post-forming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,3 8.5%

Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 7.1%

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8 83.60/0

Total energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 100.0?!0

SOURCE: ML. Renard, A Review of Comparative Energy Use in Materials

Potentially Recoverable From MSW, National Center for Resource Recovery, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Renewable Energy, DOE/CS/20167/12, March 1982.

The use of cullet produces energy savings because

the heat required to melt cullet is only about one-half

to two-thirds that required to melt virgin raw

materials (206). In addition, increased use of cullet

saves energy because fewer inorganic additives need

to be mined. For example, soda ash accounts for 75

percent of the energy used in providing virgin

materials and 12 percent of the total energy cost.

These energy savings are offset some by the energy

required to collect, beneficiate (i.e., remove contaminants such as aluminum), and transport the cullet. If

100 percent cullet is used, the total energy savings in

processing amounts to about 15 percent, and an

additional 16 percent is saved by avoiding mining

and transportation of virgin materials (table 5-3)

(206).

Markets for Glass Products

The production of glass items experienced a

severe downturn during the recession of the early

1980s. Shipments of glass containers declined 16

percent from 1980 to 1985, primarily as a result of

competition from aluminum and plastics. Although

glass shipments increased in 1986, they again

dropped in 1987. The industry has the potential to

increase shipments, however, over the long term.

Glass is competitive with other container materials

because of the high-quality image it imparts to a

product, its microwaveability, and its recyclability

(52).

Because the unit price of silica sand is relatively

low, cullet prices must remain low to compete.

Nevertheless, average prices for industrial sand have

increased over the past few years, reflecting higher

mining costs (245) and increased demand. Although

the potential supply of silica sand is large, land use

restrictions and zoning regulations may limit its

availability locally, especially in urban and industrialized areas. Restrictions on the availability of virgin

materials could bode well for increased use of cullet

in glass production in some areas. Current glassmaking technology would allow a substantial increase in

cullet use.

Several non-glass markets for cullet exist, including ceramics, abrasives, industrial compounds, fillers, and glassphalt.l6 Initial processing of the cullet

may be more important in some of these end uses

than it is for glassmaking (236).

Consistently high quality and assured supplies of

cullet are essential for all glass end-use products so

manufacturers can control the mixture of cullet and

virgin materials and produce new glass that consistently meets buyer specifications. Therefore, the

ability to increase the proportion of cullet in most

end uses will be determined by improvements in

the collection and beneficiation processes.

The need to produce a consistent color glass for

buyers limits the amount of color mixing that can be

tolerated. Since two-thirds of the glass made in the

United States is clear and only about one-tenth is

green, color separation is an extremely important

factor in increasing the use of cullet in glassmaking.

An adequate mechanical color separation technology has yet to be developed. Curbside collection of

color separated glass containers usually results in

higher quality cullet for glassmaking than that from

glass separated at centralized processing facilities,

where color separation is more difficult to control

because of breakage.

Beneficiation removes contaminants (e.g., pieces

of aluminum) from the cullet and crushes the cullet

to a size suitable for the furnace. By 1989, at least 27

l@l&SWh~t is a product made with asphah ~d glass!
Chapter .5-Recycling ● 153

beneficiation facilities, costing between $500,000

and $1 million each, will be on-line at U.S. glass

container manufacturing plants. Newer facilities are

significantly better at removing small pieces of

aluminum (from neck rings and caps) in the cullet,

thus allowing for larger proportions of cullet in the

furnace feed (89). With increases in community

collection of glass containers, glassmakers may

build additional beneficiation facilities to assure

consistent quality of the cullet supply.

Glass manufacturers in the United States have

indicated a commitment to increasing the use of

cullet in glass containers. In addition to those firms

building new beneficiation facilities, at least one

manufacturer has offered low interest loans to

communities to build multi-material buy-back centers and help increase cullet supplies (236). Glass

manufacturers feel that publicizing the image of

glass as a recyclable material is an important factor

in increasing consumption.

One end use where quality is less important is

asphalt. Crushed glass can replace as much as 30

percent of the stone and sand used in a conventional

asphalt mix (272). ’7 Within this range, the product

is of comparative strength and lower cost, taking into

account revenues obtained for accepting the waste

glass. Processing of glass to be used in asphalt

requires only removing metal, plastic, and labels.

The potential for cullet use in asphalt could be

tremendous: the Nation uses approximately 1 billion

tons of asphalt each year. The low cost of sand and

gravel, however, limits the revenue potential of this

market for cullet, especially compared with glassmaking. Therefore, cullet is usually used in asphalt

only when the quality is low or the distance to a glass

plant is great.18

Fiberglass manufacturers also have considered

the use of post-consumer cullet. The Mineral Insulation Manufacturers Association, however, reports

that tests of mixed post-consumer cullet in fiberglass

resulted in serious melting difficulties. These difficulties were caused by a variety of contaminants in

the cullet, including organic matter, plastics, metals,

and non-container glass (152). The manufacture of

fiberglass, like glass containers, is subject to strict

raw materials specifications. Although fiberglass

manufacturers could use glass cullet in their process,

it would need to meet standards at least as strict as

those for cullet use in glassmaking and additional

expenditures would be required for storage silos and

materials handling equipment. Therefore, the nearterm potential for post-consumer cullet use in

fiberglass manufacturing on a national basis is

relatively low.

The Aluminum Industry

Although aluminum comprises only about 1

percent by weight of MSW (about 1.8 million tons),

its relatively high economic value can make it an

important component of recycling programs. About

76 to 79 percent of the aluminum in MSW consists

of aluminum cans, or used beverage containers

(UBCs). The remainder consists of other aluminum

packaging, such as foil and semi-rigid containers,

discarded appliances, lawn furniture, and other

items.

Aluminum can recycling has increased during the

last two decades because of increased demand for

aluminum, concerns about litter, the effects of

deposit laws, and increases in energy prices (primary

aluminum production is very energy-intensive). The

aluminum that is diverted from MSW in the United

States is almost totally used beverage containers. In

1988, 77.9 billion aluminum beverage cans were

shipped and 42.5 billion cans weighing about

752,500 tons were recovered, representing an aluminum can recovery rate of about 55 percent (4). In

terms of all aluminum discarded in MSW, this

represents a 43 percent recovery rate—virtually all

achieved through private collection efforts.19

Estimates of recovery rates in Europe and Japan

for all aluminum in MSW (not just UBCs) range

from 18 to 40 percent, with the highest rates in the

Netherlands, Italy, West Germany, and Japan (194).

These rates are lower than the U.S. rate, in Dart

ITThe A~ph~f Institute ~lleves ~al 20 percent may be a more realistic maximum, because Of tie lo~r txmding properties of glass relative to StOne.

18 New yak City ~S Cullet bat cannot be sold for glassmaking in its asphalt pkmt to Substitute fOr Up to 20 perCent of the sand and gravel. It pays

$K?per con fm the sand and gravel. The quahly of the gfassphrdt is comparable to regular asphalt (28). In addition, a test glassphah road in Bahimom

has held up well in urban traffic for the last 5 years (10,210).

lgFr~in (81) rep~ a r~ovew rate of 25 ~rcent for ~uminum from MSW for 1986. The discrepancy between their estimate and that of the

Aluminum Association is at least partly because Franklin estimated that less than ‘/2 of the aluminum ht MSW is in the form of UBCS (81).
154 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

because the use of aluminum beverage cans is lower

in Europe and Japan. In Japan, estimates of recovery

are between 25 and 32 percent for all aluminum

(167,194) and about 40 percent for UBCs (49).

Sweden has a deposit system on aluminum cans (ch.

8) and has achieved over 70 percent recovery

(230,231).

In the United States, the recovered scrap metal is

either returned to the domestic aluminum industry to

be recycled into semifabricated products (e.g., can

sheet) or castings, used as an oxidizing agent in

steelmaking, or is exported. UBCs make up a

substantial portion of this scrap. Of the UBCs

diverted from MSW, 93 percent is used directly by

can sheet manufacturers in the production of new

can sheet. The Aluminum Association estimates that

in 1988 713,000 tons of UBCs were consumed in

domestic production of aluminum mill products and

other uses and about 35,500 tons were exported.20

The production of secondary aluminum from

post-consumer or old scrap by both primary and

secondary producers in 1988 was 1,152,000 short

tons (247). UBCs provided 60 percent of the raw

material for this production, with the remainder

coming from shredded auto parts and other old scrap

such as old aluminum siding. This scrap material

generally is bought and sold through a welldeveloped aluminum scrap dealers network.21 Aluminum recovered from old scrap accounted for 20

percent of apparent U.S. consumption of aluminum

in 1988, while net imports accounted for 7 percent

(248).

Aluminum is imported in ingot and mill product

forms primarily from Canada, with additional amounts

from Japan, Venezuela, Brazil, and many other

countries. Despite these imports, the United States

has long been and continues to be the largest

producer of primary aluminum in the world, as well

as the world’s largest market for aluminum products.

In 1989, 10 companies were making can sheet in

the United States, and they were the major consumers of aluminum UBC scrap diverted from MSW.

The majority of the UBC scrap is processed and

melted directly by the can stock producer. In some

cases, the material is shipped to another location,

usually a secondary smelter, where it is melted and

then returned to the can stock producer for final

processing into new can sheet. More than 50

secondary aluminum producers are in operation in

the United States.

The raw material for the primary aluminum

producers is alumina, a refined product of bauxite.

Only three sites in the United States refine bauxite

into alumina. Small amounts of bauxite are imported—

primarily from Guinea, Jamaica, and Australia-for

making alumina in the United States, but most U.S.

producers import alumina directly. Alumina is

imported primarily from Australia, Jamaica, and

Suriname. In many cases, U.S. aluminum companies

own shares of bauxite and alumina operations in

these exporting countries. Costs for transporting

bauxite and alumina to the United States range from

about $3/metric ton (Guinea to U.S. Gulf coast) to

almost $20/metric ton (Australia to U.S. east coast)

(249). One benefit of recycling aluminum is that it

helps reduce dependence on foreign sources for raw

materials.

Energy Consumption

Aluminum recycling has a natural economic

impetus because of the high electrical energy costs

associated with producing primary aluminum. The

soaring energy costs in the 1970s further enhanced

the energy conservation benefits. The recovery of

aluminum from scrap saves about 90 to 95 percent

of the energy required to produce the same product

from alumina (195,206).

In the United States, electricity can account for up

to 50 percent of the total cost of producing aluminum

from virgin raw materials (155). For 1988, estimates

of the U.S. Bureau of Mines show that the average

electricity cost for U.S. aluminum smelters is 19.5

cents per pound of aluminum, compared with the

total smelting cost of 59.1 cents. Energy also is

required to mine, beneficiate, and transport raw

materials such as alumina, aluminum fluoride,

cryolite, calcinated petroleum coke, and electrode

2~c Bwu of ~ne5* s~t15tic5 on alwlnum differ ~rnewhat from those reported by the Aluminum Association, txxause Of cllffermces in

accounting methods, definitions, and reporting procedures.

21~c ~minum indu~ry, like the pa~r industry, recycles a significant amount of scrap &neratd in the production of intermediate iduminum

products (prompt industrid scrap); this scrap is not included in the statistics repoxted here. In 1988, 1.21 million tons of new scrap was consumed by

the aluminum industry, according to the Bureau of Mines (247).
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 155

pitch. Smelting, however, is the most energyintensive step in the process. The cost of smelting

accounts for 85 percent of the total cost to produce

aluminum in the United States.

In contrast, when aluminum is recovered from

scrap the electrolysis step is eliminated, thus saving

energy. In addition, none of the mining and beneficiation steps are required. Energy is required, however, to collect and transport the scrap. Estimates of

energy consumption during secondary production

range from 8.7 to 11.3 million Btu/ton, including the

energy used for shredding and transportation (206).

Technologies of Aluminum Production

Bauxite, the ore from which alumina is made, is

refined by dissolving it in a strong alkali solution,

from which aluminum trihydrate is extracted to

produce alumina, an oxide of aluminum. Primary

aluminum production begins at the smelting stage,

in which the alumina is dissolved in a large pot

containing a molten bath of cryolite, and electrolysis

is used to recover 99.7 percent pure aluminum. The

aluminum is then alloyed with various elements to

produce the qualities desired for specific end uses.

This alloying stage is critical for most uses of

aluminum.

In secondary aluminum production, scrap aluminum is melted in a furnace, to which alloying

elements are added as needed, and subsequently cast

into ingots or other aluminum products. New scrap

is easy to recycle because the alloys are known and

the user can readily separate it by alloy. Aluminum

UBC scrap, a combination of similar alloys, is also

easily reused, usually by melting and reforming it

into new sheet stock. General] y, the only other

material added to the furnace during melting of UBC

scrap is primary aluminum, to provide the proper

alloy and specifications for the final end-use product.

The presence of mixed alloys that may be found

in different discarded aluminum products can pose

a problem in the secondary production process. It is

essential to control the alloy mix to meet strict

product specifications.

The primary aluminum industry, in addition to

being energy-intensive, is also capital-intensive.

The Bureau of Mines (249) estimates that the world

average cost to build a new aluminum smelter would

range from $3,000 to $4,000 per metric ton of

capacity. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.. however,

announced the construction of an aluminum recycling facility in the United States in September 1988.

The facility will have the annual capacity to produce

about 45,000 metric tons of aluminum for a capital

cost of $15 million, or about $330 per metric ton of

capacity (204).

Markets for Aluminum

The United States is not only the largest aluminum producer, it is also the world’s largest market

for aluminum, consuming about one-fourth of the

world’s primary production in 1988. Aluminum

industry shipments in the United States exceeded 8.2

million tons in 1988. By market, containers and

packaging accounted for the largest share (27

percent) of shipments. Following in importance

were transportation (21 percent), building and construction (18 percent), electrical (9 percent), consumer durables (8 percent), and other domestic uses

(6 percent) .22 Exports represented 11 percent of U.S.

industry shipments in 1988.

Most aluminum produced at secondary smelters is

consumed in foundries to produce castings, and a

smaller portion is used in steel mills as a deoxidizer.

Because of the alloys used to make can sheet, UBC

scrap is usually used by can-stock producers to make

new can sheet (although other alloys can be produced by additional processing).

Sheet for beverage and food cans constitutes the

largest share of the aluminum container and packaging sector, accounting for 82 percent of total

shipments in 1988. The remainder consists mainly of

foil for semi-rigid food containers, packaging, and

consumer foil use. Shipments of aluminum sheet for

cans increased from 925,500 tons in 1976 to

1,849,000 tons in 1988, mostly by displacing

competing steel and glass, primarily for beer and soft

drink cans. Aluminum cans now account for just

over half of the entire beverage container market, but

95 percent of the beverage can subset of the market,

compared with only about 5 percent of the food can

market. Glass retains about one-quarter of the

beverage container market, plastic nearly one-fifth,

ZzM~ket breakdo~s provided by the Aluminum Asscziation (4).
156 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Used beverage containers made from aluminum, shown

here just before being compacted and baled for shipping,

are recycled at a relatively high rate because of aluminum’s

high economic value.

and steel cans less than one-twentieth. Although the

number of aluminum beverage cans has increased,

cans now weigh less so total weight has dropped

from 0.69 ounces per can in 1976 to 0.57 ounces per

can in 1988.

Demand for aluminum beverage containers is

expected to remain strong, because beverage manufacturers and retailers find aluminum a costeffective packaging material. Growth in aluminum’s

container market share, however, is expected to slow

(168). Some increased competition may also come

from plastic, depending on the plastic industry’s

success in increasing the recycling and recyclability

of their products.

Because all new primary aluminum production

capacity is being constructed in countries with low

electricity costs compared to the United States, U.S.

aluminum producers will place increased emphasis

on aluminum recycling. This will be particularly

important if acid rain legislation is passed.23 As a

result, post-consumer scrap can be expected to

maintain its attraction for aluminum producers

in the United States into the foreseeable future. In

summary, the major barriers to increased recycling of aluminum from MSW are in the collection and transportation networks, the methods of

segregating different forms of aluminum scrap,

and the technologies for removing contaminants,

such as food and dirt, from the scrap prior to

melting.

Batteries

Two general types of batteries can be present in

MSW—household (or dry cell) batteries and leadacid automotive batteries. Recycling of these batteries is discussed here, while efforts to reduce the

amount of potentially toxic substances in them (e.g.,

mercury) are discussed in chapter 4.

Household Batteries

Over 2 billion household batteries of all shapes

and sizes are sold each year in the United States

(153). Batteries can be classified into seven types:

carbon/zinc (or LeClanche), alkaline or alkaline/

manganese, mercury or mercuric oxide, silver oxide,

zinc/air, nickel/cadmium, and lithium. Household

batteries are a concern in the MSW system because

many contain mercury or other potentially toxic

metals (e.g., cadmium, nickel, silver). Some contain

lithium, a metal that is reactive in the presence of

water (140,153). These metals serve various purposes in the batteries. Mercury (mercuric oxide), for

example, is used as a positive electrode in hearing

aid batteries. It also is used to coat zinc electrodes,

to prevent production of a gas that reduces battery

performance, and to reduce electrical impedance and

allow zinc to produce electricity more easily (16).

The amount of mercury in batteries has declined substantially in recent years (173) (ch. 4). The

industry is now using proprietary substitutes, at least

in part, for the mercury coating on zinc electrodes.

Mercuric oxide batteries also are slowly being

replaced by zinc/air batteries; between 1981 and

1987, the market share for mercuric oxide batteries

declined from 72 to 58 percent, while the market

share for zinc/air batteries increased from 14 to 40

percent. Zinc/air batteries, however, are sensitive to

humidity and to fluctuations in oxygen availability,

zJAbout one-h~f of U.S. ~urninurn p~wtion Capxity is supplied with power from utilities that would be affected by acid rtin legislation (~).

Depending on what legislative provisions are enacted, power rates to smelters could rise by 12 percent. AS a result, costs could rise by an estimated 2.5

to 4.0 cents per pound for most aluminum smelters and by as much as 7,7 cents per pound for those in Ohio and West Virginia (19).
Chapter 5--Recycling 157

two constraints that do not plague mercuric oxide

batteries.

Separate collection of household batteries occurs

to a limited extent in Japan, the United States, and

several European countries (box 5-C). Batteries can

be separated by hand (based on size, shape, weight)

at households, retail outlets, or drop-off centers, and

then sent to a refinery for processing. Batteries also

can be segregated to some extent from mixed MSW

at centralized processing facilities. Rechargeable

batteries that are built directly into appliances,

however, may be difficult to remove and collect.

Several collection programs exist in the United

States (226), including the New Hampshire/

Vermont Solid Waste Program; the Environmental

Action Coalition’s program in New York City; the

Household Hazardous Waste Project in Missouri;

and programs in Bellingham, Washington, and

Hennepin County, Minnesota. In general, batteries

are collected in retail stores where new batteries are

sold. The New Hampshire/Vermont program collected 9 tons of batteries from April 1987 through

November 1988. The American Watchmakers Institute also has been collecting button batteries and

using proceeds from their sale to fund scholarships

for teaching watchmaking.

At least two organizations-the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Capital

Poison Center--oppose legislative proposals to

encourage collecting button batteries because of

fears that children might ingest more batteries. They

also fear costs of hearing aid batteries would

increase (139,150). One suggestion is that States and

the battery industry need to jointly sponsor research

on the health and environmental risks associated

with different management options and on the

development of new processing technologies (1 34).

In theory, collected batteries can be processed to

recover the metals. To recover mercury, for example, batteries can be heated to about 1,200° F to open

them up and volatilize the mercury, which is then

cooled, condensed, and refined (234). The steel

casings of the batteries then can be removed and the

remaining silver and zinc can be dissolved with

hydrochloric acid. This precipitates salver chloride,

which is then reduced to silver powder (234). The

remaining portion can be ground up, and some of the

ferrous metals can be recovered with magnets.

In the United States, collected batteries are sent to

at least two commercial processing facilities. At the

Mercury Refining Co. (Mereco) in New York,

mercuric and silver oxide batteries are processed to

recover mercury and silver (153,1 54). Nickel/

cadmium batteries are marketed to facilities in

Europe. Lithium batteries are sent to a company in

Buffalo, New York, that treats the lithium to make

it less reactive and then sends the batteries to

hazardous waste landfills. Mereco also takes carbon/

zinc, zinc/air, and alkaline batteries; until technologies for processing these are economical, however,

it is cheaper to send them to a hazardous waste

landfill. The Environmental Pacific Corp. in Oregon

takes in all batteries (67,260). The company either

recovers metals itself or sells the batteries to

smelters for metals recovery. Residues from processing are sent to smelters or hazardous waste

facilities for further treatment.

Lead-Acid Automotive Batteries

About 75 million lead-acid automotive batteries

reach the end of their useful lives each year in the

United States; by 1990, this number is expected to

reach 80 million (133). These batteries are of

particular concern because all automotive batteries

contain lead and sulfuric acid, which pose potential

environmental and health risks when landfilled or

incinerated.

Historically, used auto batteries have been collected and recycled for their lead content, as well as

for the plastic casings. (About half of a battery’s

weight, 18 to 19 pounds on average, is lead.)

Recently, however, several factors reduced the

recycling rate for auto batteries and increased the

prospects that some may be ending up in MSW

landfills.

Recovery of auto batteries is not mandated in

most States, so the primary motivation for collection

is profit from the sale of the lead.24 The price for this

scrap lead depends on the price of unwrought lead

and the cost of processing scrap lead into usable

forms. After 1979, lead prices dropped precipitously

24~~e ISlmd plxed a $5 Chwge in ]ieu of trade on ~1 ve~cie battefies; M@sOta, pennsy]v~a, Florida, md Wyoming all have legislation

requiring that retailers who sell batteries accept spent batteries; and California has regulations governing the management of lead-acid storage batteries.
158 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Box S-C—Household Battery Management in Europe and Japan

Collection and Recycling in Europe

Battery collection programs have been initiated in at least 11 European countries. Some are run by industry

and/or trade associations, and some by municipalities (137,183). In the Netherlands, for example, mercuric oxide

batteries have been collected since 1978, and most communities now have depots for batteries (14,122).

The presence of collection systems, however, does not mean that batteries are recycled. In the Netherlands and

Denmark, batteries are stored temporarily, sent to a manufacturer for reprocessing, or exported to West or East

Germany, where they are put in salt mines or landfilled with industrial wastes (115,137). This is partly because

recycling plants designed for batteries have not demonstrated long-term economic success. Two plants in France

and one in Sweden were unable to operate profitably on the basis of recovering mercury alone. Several institutes

are conducting research on sorting and processing technologies (e.g., 256,257).

The European Community Commission

In 1987, the European Community Commission issued a proposal that called for labeling batteries, collection

of used batteries, and prohibitions on the marketing of certain batteries. The proposal also called for a 70 percent

reduction in mercury in batteries (85 percent for alkaline/manganese batteries), replacement of mercury batteries

by zinc air and lithium batteries, and deposit systems (69). The battery industry, which previously agreed to reduce

mercury in alkaline/manganese batteries by 85 percent, estimates that the mercury in batteries discarded in Europe

will decline by 86 percent between 1985 and 1992 (69).

Household Battery Management in Sweden

The Swedish Environmental Protection Board, concerned about consumption of mercury from fish by children

and pregnant women, estimated that up to one-third of background levels of mercury during the late 1970s and early

1980s came from incineration of batteries (106). Incineration of wastes in general was estimated to account for 55

percent of known mercury emissions in Sweden in 1985 (138,174). However, mercury also comes from

anthropogenic emissions from continental Europe and from natural emissions (e.g., geothermal areas) (138).

In 1983 the government began a voluntary collection program that encouraged the 27 cities with incinerators

to collect batteries (14,15,106,1 15,174). By 1987, the government’s goal of collecting 75 percent of mercury oxide,

alkaline, and nickel/cadmium batteries had not been met, so it expanded the effort into a nationwide voluntary

program, including extensive education and the placement of collection receptacles at offices and public areas. The

educational campaigns and management of collected batteries are funded with a surcharge on all mercury oxide,

alkaline, and nickel/cadmium batteries. The government is studying mandatory deposit systems, and in 1989 it

banned all alkaline batteries containing over 0.025 percent mercury, effective in 1990 (137).

Some collected carbon/zinc batteries are sent to ordinary landfills in Sweden (sometimes to separate areas at

the landfills) (137,173). All other batteries are sent to the SAKAB Mercury Distillation Demonstration Plant.

Almost 300 tons of batteries are now in storage at SAKAB. Nickel/cadmium batteries are sorted and sent to another

facility for recovery of the nickel and cadmium.

The SAKAB Demonstration Plant was built to test the feasibility of recovering mercury from batteries;

mercury oxide batteries were used because of their high concentrations of mercury (106). The plant handled 100

kilograms per day. It is not operating now because it was not commercially viable at that size; the parent company,

however, is still interested in developing the facility (137). Concerns were expressed that manual sorting would

increase health risks for workers (14,1 5).

The effect of collecting batteries on the levels of mercury in incinerator emissions is not clear. Three years after

the collection program began, the amount of mercury emitted from the Stockholm incinerator reportedly had

declined 80 percent, to a total of 150 kilograms in 1986 (106). The pollution controls at the facility also were

upgraded at this time, however, so it is impossible to determine how battery collection affected emissions.

West Germany: Voluntary Agreement

In 1987, the German government and a trade association representing the electrical industries reached a

voluntary agreement regarding batteries (87,93). Manufacturers and importers agreed to reduce mercury levels in

alkaline/manganese batteries from current levels of 0.5 percent by weight to 0.15 percent by 1990, with an option

to reduce the level to less than 0.10 percent by 1995. Manufacturers also agreed to accept returned button batteries

(e.g., from watch-makers and camera shops), although there is some confusion about whether other batteries must

also be collected.
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 159

If the number of returned batteries is deemed insufficient, the government could impose a mandatory deposit

on the sale of new household batteries (ch. 8). The Federal Environmental Agency is concerned that after the

minimum mercury concentration per alkaline/manganese battery is attained, the total level in all batteries will

increase again as the market share of these batteries increases.

If the European Community Commission proposal is adopted, then this more stringent German agreement

might be dropped because it would interfere with trade within the European Community.

Collection and Recycling in Japan

Past experience with Minamata disease, a debilitating human disease caused by mercury consumption, makes

mercury a major issue in Japan (106). In the early 1980s, the government reached an agreement with manufacturers

to reduce the amount of mercury in batteries by five-sixths between 1983 and 1986. TWO household battery

collection programs also were established. About three-fourths of Japanese municipalities collect cylinder-shaped

batteries, while battery manufacturers collect button-shaped batteries at retail stores. However, collection rates have

been low (9 percent by weight of cylinder-shaped batteries and 27 percent by number of button-shaped batteries)

and did not increase during 1987 and 1988 (179). AS of 1985, over 750 municipalities simply stored cylinder-shaped

batteries, 47 mixed them with concrete and landfilled the material, and about 550 sent them to a processing facility

located at Itomuka, on the northern island of Hokkaido. Button-shaped batteries also were shipped to Itomuka.

The Itomuka facility is a demonstration mercury recycling plant that began operating in October 1985. It is

a joint venture between the Clean Japan Center (CJC), Mitsui Metals Engineering Company, and Nomura Kosan

Company (50,109). Participating municipalities pay transportation costs and a tipping fee to cover operating costs.

The plant’s purpose is to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of recycling mercury-containing

wastes—mostly batteries, but also fluorescent lamps, thermometers, and mirrors (109). The plant can handle 20 tons

per day. Batteries are separated by size and shape, and then a proprietary process separates cylinder-shaped batteries

by weight. Thermal treatment and recovery techniques are used to separate metals (e.g., volatilization, distillation,

and condensation of mercury; magnetic recovery of ferrous materials). Gas emissions are treated with a wet scrubber

and electrostatic precipitator (109). Wastewater is evaporated until salts are crystallized out, then recirculated

instead of being discharged. OTA was unable to obtain data on air emissions.

The plant processed an estimated 7 percent of the household batteries used in Japan annually, recovering

mercury, zinc and manganese (in combination), and iron. Problems have occurred with the condition of incoming

batteries, fluctuations in supply, and the battery dismantling process (50). As of November 1988, the facility was

operating at a loss (179). In particular, the zinc residues (consisting of zinc, manganese, and other materials), which

make up 54 percent by weight of the incoming batteries, are not being marketed because the price of zinc had fallen

too low. The arrangement with the CJC is scheduled to end in August 1989.

Whether these collection efforts have had any effect on mercury levels in remaining MSW is unclear. A more

important factor may be the significant decline in mercury used in household batteries.

from more than 50 cents to about 18 cents per pound. refined lead produced (118).26 Also, as of January

As a result, many scrap dealers could not realize a 1985, EPA designated spent lead-acid batteries as a

profit from the collection and sale of discarded hazardous waste under RCRA. Costs associated

automotive batteries. with RCRA compliance can range from $100,000 to

$200,000 per processing facility. Many scrap collecIn addition to low prices, the costs of collecting tors and dealers refused to continue handling batterand processing batteries increased as a result of ies for fear of incurring liability under Superfund.

environmental regulations. For secondary smelters, The specter of increasing costs, ever-increasing 25 operating costs of full compliance with environmental regulations existing in 1988 were esti- regulation, and low lead prices caused a significant

mated at 6.8 cents (in 1987 dollars) per pound of reduction in the number of people willing to

25 SwondW lead melters are the facilities that reprocess the lead from spent batteries

26Envlronment~ re~atlons considered inc]ude ~o~ for p~iculates, water, ~dhealth and safety. The particu]ates st~dard of 1.5 micrograms per

cubic meter of lead in ambient air was used in the calculation.
160 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

participate in battery recycling. This caused a

reduction of U.S. secondary lead smelting capacity

from 1.4 million tons per year in 1980 to 882,000

tons per year in 1986.

On the other hand, in 1987 about 1.25 million tons

of lead were consumed in the United States.

Automotive batteries are the largest end-use, accounting for more than three-quarters of total

consumption. Most of the demand is supplied by

domestic smelters, and about two-thirds of this is

from secondary smelters, despite the reduction in

secondary smelting capacity. In 1987, 725,000 tons

of lead were produced at secondary smelters from

old scrap (about 90 percent from batteries), while

412,000 tons of lead were produced at primary

facilities. 27 Significant quantities of lead are also

imported, principally from Canada and Mexico,

amounting to about 15 to 20 percent of U.S.

consumption. The United States also imports some

batteries for the replacement market and as original

equipment in imported autos and exports about 2.5

to 3 million new batteries per year.

What happens to the unrecovered batteries has not

been documented. Between 1980 and 1986, an

estimated 98 million batteries containing 900,000

tons of lead went unrecovered (1 84). Some probably

are being discarded in MSW, some are being stored

in garages or elsewhere, and some may have been

exported as scrap and toll smelted in Mexico.28

Recycling rates for auto batteries are difficult to

calculate. In 1965, the recycling rate was estimated

to have reached a peak of 96.6 percent (201). In the

early 1980s, the estimated rate dropped sharply to a

low of about 57 to 66 percent. Recycling rates then

began to rise again, reaching an estimated 80 percent

or more between 1984 and 1986 (128,269).29

At a 1986 rate of 80 percent, a reported 556,200

tons of lead was recovered from discarded batteries,

representing 44 percent of total U.S. lead consumption. Obviously, auto batteries are a very important

source of lead, despite a relatively large lead reserve

base. 30

The amount of unrecovered batteries may have

decreased during 1987 and 1988, as a result of

increases in lead prices and high demand (figure

5-7). Average annual lead prices increased from 19

cents per pound in 1985 to 36 cents per pound in

1987, as demand increased by 90,000 tons (248).3

*

Corresponding lead recovery from batteries increased from 542,800 tons in 1985 and 556,200 tons

in 1986 to 648,900 tons in 1987. Some portion of this

increase is very likely to have come from ‘ ‘inventoried” batteries stored in garages and basements, so

recycling rates calculated using historical methods

could be misleading. The increase could also be

attributable to the enhanced efforts of secondary

smelters and battery manufacturers to collect and

recover discarded batteries to help reduce the

public’s concern about batteries entering landfills.

Recovery rates for 1987 are estimated at about 82 to

83 percent (133,184).

Continued increases in battery recycling may be

evidenced by a rise in the utilization of secondary

smelter capacity from 76 percent in 1986 to 83

percent in 1987. Concern exists about the adequacy

of secondary smelter capacity, however. Some

analysts worry about the allegedly poor financial

condition of some firms operating the smelters.

About 110,000 tons of existing secondary capacity

will probably be lost if more stringent water

protection regulations are enacted. However,

planned expansions will increase capacity to about

1 million tons by the early 1990s. Because battery

manufacturers view secondary smelters as an important component of the battery consumption chain,

they are interested in expanding U.S. capacity to

recover lead from discarded batteries.

To this end, certain battery manufacturers have

approached the two major primary lead producers,

Doe Run and Asarco, about refitting currently closed

primary smelters to process battery scrap. Prefeasi27~ ~ditim~ s~,~ tom or S. of lc~ were pr~uc~ from p~ch~ new ~rap, including &osses (this is in addition to home scrap).

ZgSome ~ond~ smelters have a~men~ wi~ ]~~111 o~rat~s to ~Cep( 1c@~id batteries that do reach the landfill, but the extent to which

this occurs is unknown ( 143).

29~ Study (201) estimated a rate of 69.5 ~rcent in 1985, but ~O~er ~~ys[ (269) ~culat~ hat his lower estimate ww based on data which have

since been revised.

30~cord1ng t. we B~eau of Mines, the Uni[d States ~coun~ for newly 20 percent of the world’s lead reseIve b-.

31A1@u@ ‘M ~en~ w=he~ted price in 1987, ~~ysts ~lieve hat producers were offering substantial dkCOWltS 10 COnSIUIlerS.
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 161

bility studies were conducted in 1988 on converting

the Buick smelter in Missouri, which has capacity to

process 140,000 tons per year of primary lead. The

decision has been made to retrofit Buick to accept

battery scrap, but the work is not expected to be

completed until mid-1990. Similar retrofits are

being considered for primary smelters in Glover,

Missouri; East Helena, Montana; Omaha, Nebraska;

and El Paso, Texas.

Another avenue for discarded batteries is the

export market. Despite EPA’s designation of spent

batteries as hazardous waste, the United States is

exporting this lead scrap to Brazil, Taiwan, and

Canada. 32 In 1986, about 65,000 tons of scrap

batteries were exported. Some of this scrap is used

to produce new batteries that compete with U.S.

producers.

The proliferation of discount battery outlets has

increased the incidence of home battery replacement. Because the home mechanic may not be aware

that spent batteries can be returned and recycled,

there is a greater chance that they will not enter the

collection chain. Unless the home mechanic is

educated or otherwise induced to return the spent

battery to the retailer or a collection center, batteries

will continue to elude the recycling process.

In all member counties of the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),

consumers can trade in old automotive batteries for

a discount off the purchase of a new battery (183).

The trade-in discount essentially amounts to a

deposit that is refunded when a new battery is

purchased. Statistics on recycling rates in all OECD

countries are not available. The Association of

European Accumulator Manufacturers estimated the

average European battery recycling rate at about 80

percent in 1986-87; the rate for the Federal Republic

of Germany was estimated at 75 percent in 1986

(85). In comparison, normal battery recycling rates

in Japan have been estimated as nearing 100 percent

(1 12). It is interesting to note, however, that when

lead prices declined in 1986, Japanese recovery rates

dropped to about 90 percent. It is likely that spent

batteries were stockpiled for later sale at higher

prices.

Figure 5-7-Battery Recycling Rates and Lead Prices

Percent Cents per pound

SOURCE: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., “The Impacts of Lead Industry

Economies and Hazardous Waste Regulations on Lead-Acid

Battery Recycling: Revision and Update,” prepared for Office of

Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, DC: September 1987).

Iron and Steel Scrap

The amount of ferrous (iron-based) scrap in MSW

was estimated to be 11.0 million tons in 1986, or 7.0

percent of total gross discards (81). About onefourth (2.8 million tons) of the ferrous scrap fraction

consisted of steel packaging such as food and

beverage cans. Another one-fourth (2.8 million tons)

consisted of major appliances (i.e., “white goods”),

and the remainder was products such as small

appliances, toys, tools, and furniture. Serious questions have been raised about the accuracy of these

estimates, particularly concerning the kinds of

products included in the definition of MSW (ch. 3).

Industry representatives contend that these estimates

seriously understate the amount of ferrous material

in MSW by excluding junked automobiles, office

equipment, and worn out fixtures from commercial

and institutional establishments.

According to the Franklin estimates, only about

400,000 tons Of ferrous scrap were recovered from

nspenl batteries that we shippd for r~yc]ing do not require a manifesl for domestic shipments (see ~ CFR 266.80). ~d *us tie not subject to the

RCRA requirement in Sec. 3017 for bilateral agreements for the export of hazardous waste.
162 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

MSW in 1986, a recovery rate of only 3.6 percent.

Most of this consisted of packaging (100,000 tons)

and white goods. A recovery rate of only 3.6 percent

for MSW ferrous scrap is deceptively low. Depending on what materials are included, the rate could be

higher than 20 percent.33 In addition, junked automobiles are an important source of ferrous scrap, and

large amounts are currently recycled in the United

States. The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

(ISRI) estimates that as much as 8 million tons of

ferrous scrap was generated from recycling old

automobiles in 1986. This material is not included in

Franklin’s definition of MSW, but if the current,

well-developed system for processing junked autos

deteriorated, some of them could become part of

MSW. Some analysts do include this source of scrap

in calculating MSW recycling rates for other countries (e.g., for Japan; see appendix).

Reported recovery rates for ferrous scrap from

MSW in other countries vary greatly, ranging from

9 percent in China to more than 40 percent in

Belgium and Luxembourg; countries with more iron

ore reserves tend to have lower rates (167). How

much of these amounts refer to industrial scrap,

however, is unknown.

The Franklin estimate of 400,000 tons of ferrous

scrap recovered from MSW in the United States is a

relatively insignificant portion of the total ferrous

scrap consumed in the United States. The total

amount of ferrous scrap recovered from all sources

in the United States amounted to about 66 million

tons in 1986. Almost three-quarters of that total was

consumed by the steel industry, one-quarter was

consumed by the ferrous castings industry, and a

small portion was consumed in uses such as copper

precipitation and ferroalloys production. In addition,

12 million tons of ferrous scrap were exported in

1986, principally to the Republic of Korea, Japan,

Turkey, Spain, and Taiwan (36).

Technologies for Using Ferrous Scrap

in Steelmaking

Some of the ferrous scrap recovered from MSW

is prepared for shipping by baling-the scrap is

flattened and packaged to produce bales that weigh

around 75 to 80 pounds per cubic foot. The density

and packaging of the scrap influence the transportation costs and consequently the economics of

recycling. Transportation cost is an extremely important factor in the recycling of ferrous scrap

because the scrap has a relatively low value per ton.

In the past, scrap was melted primarily at mills

owned by large integrated steel companies (i.e.,

those owning iron ore mines, ore pelletizing operations, coke ovens, blast furnaces, steelmaking furnaces, and steel fabricating plants). These mills melt

the scrap material in blast furnaces along with iron

ore and coke to produce hot metal. Scrap is also used

in basic oxygen or open-hearth steelmaking furnaces

along with hot metal to produce raw steel.

Electric arc furnaces (EAFs), developed around

the turn of the century, are seeing increased use as a

result of advances in the technology during the last

20 years. Modem EAFs reduced the time needed to

produce a ton of steel from 180 to 70 minutes and

reduced the electricity consumption from 630 kwh

per ton to 430 kWh per ton (63). The reduced

electricity consumption makes raw steel production

by melting scrap in EAFs considerably more economical (approximately 25 percent) than by the iron

ore-blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace route (124).

EAFs use virtually 100 percent scrap to make steel.

About 60 percent of all the ferrous scrap now

consumed in the United States is melted in EAFs.

The improvements in EAF technology have

nurtured the rise of “minimills.’ Minimills use

relatively small EAFs (100,000 tons per year capacity for a minimill operation v. 2 million tons per year

for an integrated producer) to produce certain steel

products. These mills are not integrated, and because

they are not dependent on iron ore supplies they can

be located away from traditional steelmaking locassFr~lin dws not estimate the rwovery of white goods separately. However, if all of the remaining 300,~ tons Of fefiOUS scrap recovered were

white goods, then the implied recovery rate for white goods would be only about 11 percent. However, the steel indusby estimates that 75 percent of

white goods are collected separately and routinely delivered to auto shredders for processing (219). This would mean that 2.1 million tons of white

goods were recovered, plus the 100,000 tons of packaging estimated by Franklin to have been recovered, as well as an additional 100,000 tons of

miscellaneous ferrous serap recovered from separation at waste-to-energy plants, as estimated by the steel industry. This total of 2.3 million tons of ferrous

scrap represents a 21 percent recovery rate.
Chapter 5--Recycling . 163

tions. This flexibility has helped improve productivity and lower costs; minimills can produce their

products for about 15 percent less than integrated

steel producers (158). The largest advantage enjoyed

by the minimills, however, is in the capital cost of

building a mill. The Bureau of Mines (37,245)

estimates the capital cost per annual ton of raw steel

capacity is less than $400 for EAF production from

scrap v. $1000 for the iron ore-blast furnace-basic

oxygen furnace route.

Detinning-The major source of post-consumer

scrap steel from MSW is “tin cans, ” which are

actually steel with a light tin coating intended to

prevent rusting. However, the tin is generally

considered an undesirable contaminant in steelmaking, so these cans must be detinned (as well as

cleaned of other contaminants such as glass and

aluminum). In the detinning process, the tin is

removed either chemically or electrolytically. Tin

residues typically cannot exceed 0.05 percent if the

can is to be remelted into steel.

Energy Savings—Estimating current energy savings associated with producing steel from scrap v.

iron ore is difficult because the relevant data are

mostly from studies performed in the 1970s. The

estimates presented here are averages of a mix of

steelmaking processes; the mix is based on data from

the 1970s and is not representative of present

industry conditions.

Energy savings associated with producing raw

steel from scrap v. ore were estimated to average

around 75 percent, based on the 1970s data for an

EAF using 100 percent scrap (206). However, the

savings for the production of finished steel were

estimated to be lower, about 45 percent. The energy

used to mine and process the ore was estimated to be

about 3 percent of the total energy cost to produce

finished steel. When the total amount of energy

required to mine, beneficiate, transport, and process

both ore and scrap was included, the savings from

using scrap were estimated to be between 47 and 59

percent (206).

More recent data indicate that energy requirements in the steel industry declined by about 16

percent from 1972 to 1981. At least some of this

decrease can be attributed to the increased use of

EAFs. Also, further energy efficiencies have been

gained. In 1983, the total energy required to produce

a ton of raw steel amounted to 21.7 million Btus,

down from 25.7 million Btu in 1973 (245). Energy

from coal amounts to about half of the total, and

EAFs use most of their energy in the form of

electricity and natural gas.

Overall Use of Scrap

Scrap is an important raw material to the steel

industry. In 1986, U.S. steel mills consumed 49.7

million tons of scrap and 44.3 million tons of new

pig iron (made from iron ore) to produce 81.6

million tons of raw steel. Franklin estimates that

only 0.4 million tons of the ferrous scrap consumed

to produce raw steel in 1986 was recovered from

MSW.

34 Almost all of the scrap consumed was

obtained from sources other than MSW—about 40

percent from home scrap; 40 percent from old scrap;

and 20 percent from prompt industrial scrap. The old

and prompt industrial scrap are purchased from

brokers, dealers, and company-owned plants.

Several trends have caused an increase in the

importance of purchased obsolete and prompt industrial scrap. The first is the growing use of EAFs by

minimills. EAF capacity in the United States has

grown from 23 percent of the total in 1978 to 36

percent in 1988. Over 200 EAFs are in operation in

the United States, and they produced 27 million tons

of carbon steel in 1987.

The second factor causing increased demand for

scrap is the use of continuous casting, which now

accounts for about 60 percent of raw steel production

(36). Continuous casting reduces the generation of

home scrap, compared with that of traditional ingot

casting, and increases the yield from about 75 to 88

percent. Because a certain amount of scrap is used in

basic oxygen steelmaking processes for temperature

control, the advent of this technology has increased

the demand for purchased scrap. These changes can

be seen by comparing the consumption of purchased

scrap and home scrap with the production of raw

steel, steel mill products, and steel castings. In 1982,

24 million tons of home scrap and 24 million tons of

purchased scrap were consumed to produce steel

mill products and castings. In 1987, despite an

increase in raw steel and castings production, use of

J’lThe steel indus~ estimates that 2.3 million tons of ferrous scrap were recovered from MSw (w% fOOtnOle 33).
164 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

home scrap declined to 20 million tons but use of

purchased scrap increased to 38 million tons (36).

Potential Markets for MSW Ferrous Scrap

Because much of the ferrous scrap in MSW (as

defined in this study) is in the form of tin-plated steel

cans, the detinning industry is an important potential

market. Detinners are primarily interested in recovering tin, but they also increase the value of the

remaining steel in the process. Detinners can sell the

clean ferrous scrap to steel mills at prices set for

relatively high-quality scrap. Small amounts also are

sold to copper producers in the southwest, who use

the scrap to precipitate copper from copper sulfate

solutions. This market may decline as new copper

recovery technologies are developed.

In 1986, about 550,000 tons of tin-plate scrap was

processed to recover about 1,250 tons of tin. Most of

this processed scrap was pre-consumer—tin plate

scrap from can manufacturers and rejected tin plate

from tin plate producers. Only a small amount

consisted of post-consumer can scrap from MSW.

Detinning capacity is limited and confined mainly

to the Midwest. Other plants are located in Maryland, Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, and Washington. The limited availability of detinning facilities is one reason why most MSW recycling

programs do not include tin cans. However, detinning capacity is expanding (186). The construction

of two new detinning plants was announced in

1988--one in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and one

in Houston, Texas (266). The detinning industry has

indicated an interest in processing increased amounts

of post-consumer can scrap.

Small amounts of tin can scrap can also be used

directly to produce lower grade steel products, such

as reinforcing bar.35 It is not known what portion of

recovered steel cans is used in this manner, however.

In 1988, 19 integrated steel mills announced that

they were willing to purchase post-consumer tin

cans for direct use in their furnaces (129). Because

the steel mills can accept bales of scrap that are more

dense than those that detinners can accept, the mills

could have a transportation cost advantage. However, as of early 1989, the prices the steel mills were

willing to pay for tin cans did not provide enough

incentive for recyclers to collect the material in large

quantities.

The steel industry has also indicated a willingness

to accept bimetal cans (steel body and aluminum

top). Until recently, the 150,000 tons of postconsumer bimetal beverage cans discarded each year

have had a relatively small market-in 1986 only

about 5 percent were recycled. However, evidence of

increased bimetal can recycling rates by steel mills

is not available, and some observers remain skeptical about the potential for this market (187).

Steel producers, primarily in the eastern United

States, have initiated a public relations campaign to

promote recycling of both tin-plated and bimetal

cans. Major steelmaker formed the Steel Can

Recycling Institute to promote this type of recycling.

The steel industry has placed less focus on other

ferrous components of MSW. Generally, these

materials can be shredded or baled and sold to steel

mills or exported through scrap processors or

brokers. The quality of the scrap is very important in

determining price and locating a purchaser. Scrap

from alloys formed by blending rare metals is

difficult to market, because few products are able to

tolerate such contamination. The United States has

never faced a severe shortage of ferrous scrap, and it

has been estimated that 800 million tons of ferrous

scrap (probably lower grade) have been stored in the

last 30 years because of lack of demand (36).

In 1986, domestic steel mills and ferrous foundries purchased 42 million tons of ferrous scrap,

while export markets purchased an additional 12

million tons. In 1987, total domestic purchases

increased to 48 million tons, while exports dropped

to 11 million tons. Ultimately, the potential market

for ferrous scrap depends on the worldwide demand

for steel, which was strong in 1987 and 1988. In the

United States alone, raw steel production is relatively high, responding to strong demand in the

home market (and voluntary restraint agreements on

imports). U.S. capacity utilization was 79 percent in

1987, compared with just 64 percent in 1986. As an

indirect result of this strong demand for steel, the

Bureau of Mines’ composite price for No. 1 heavy

melting scrap increased from $72 per metric ton in

35Tin Cauws embritdcment of the steel, which is intolerable in the higher grade steel products. in general, the quantity of non-detinned scrap that CtUl

be used depends on the overall tin content of scrap used and the specifications of the end product.
Chapter 5-Recycling 165

1986 to $84 per metric ton in 1987 and to $114 per

metric ton in July 1988. Planned capacity expansions abroad, however, will put downward pressure

on these prices, and the steel market in general, in the

long term.

Special Problem Materials

Steel Drums-Fifty-five gallon steel drums are

another source of ferrous scrap. However, mills have

refused to accept these drums based on fears about

the potential presence of hazardous wastes and

potential liabilities under Superfund (97). To counter

this, ISRI proposed that drum suppliers certify that

the drums are clean and indemnify the recyclers

against the possible liability associated with handling the drums. According to ISRI, this has worked

fairly well and has created an incentive for suppliers

to ensure that drums are clean before they are

delivered to the recyclers.

Some small supplier companies that cannot afford

to indemnify recyclers have chosen to contract with

drum reconditioning firms to clean the drums, either

for reuse or disposal. The reconditioners act as

intermediaries between the drum suppliers and the

recyclers. They accept the drums, which have been

certified to be free of RCRA-regulated hazardous

waste, clean the drums, and send them to scrap

processors. Steel mills apparently are willing to

accept drums from scrap processors that follow these

procedures.

White Goods—The term ‘‘white goods’ refers to

large appliances such as refrigerators, washers, and

dryers. They typically contain large amounts of steel

and are a traditional source of ferrous scrap. They are

discarded at an estimated rate of about 2.8 million

tons per year (81). Recovery rates were discussed

above.

Recycling of discarded appliances usually begins

with shredding, which helps separate metallic from

non-metallic materials (e.g., rubber, glass, plastic,

and dirt). Scrap dealers typically shred white goods

using the same equipment used for automobiles.

State-of-the-art shredders can separate the discards

into ferrous metals, nonferrous metals, and nonmetallic waste. Once shredded, the scrap is sent to

processors where stainless steel and nonferrous

metals are recovered, to steel mills where it is melted

into new steel or steel alloy products, or to foundries

where it is melted into new castings products.

The major environmental problem associated

with recycling white goods is that polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) are present in the electrical

capacitors of some appliances produced or repaired

prior to 1979. When these appliances are shredded,

the capacitors are crushed and leak PCBcontaminated oil over the shredder fluff (i.e., the

nonmetallic waste produced when the appliances are

shredded).

EPA clarified its policy on PCB-contaminated

fluff in a letter to ISRI on July 18, 1988. EPA stated

that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rules

that regulate waste contaminated with PCBs at

concentrations of 50 ppm or more (40 CFR 761 .60)

are applicable to shredder fluff. These regulations

require that PCB-contaminated waste be disposed at

a landfill, incinerator, or ‘alternative method which

can achieve. . .no unreasonable risk, ’ in compliance

with standards in the regulation.

This action immediately reduced the number of

scrap handlers willing to accept white goods and

caused others to accept them only under restrictive

conditions. ISRI, for example, recommended that its

members stop handling and processing appliances or

fluorescent lighting fixtures unless they were evaluated prior to processing to be sure that PCBs are not

present (116). In response to ISRI’s advisory, EPA

issued a press release indicating that it did not

believe that many pre-1979 appliances still exist in

the waste stream, and therefore they should not pose

a problem for scrap processors.

In Connecticut, the Department of Environmental

Protection formally notified landfill operators, scrap

dealers, and municipalities that shredding old appliances is illegal, unless the electrical capacitors that

contain PCBs are removed. This, in turn, has led

some scrap dealers to notify municipalities that they

will no longer accept appliances without some

means of guaranteeing that they do not contain

PCBs. Some Connecticut towns have developed

programs to remove electrical capacitors that contain PCBs from appliances prior to shredding and to

ship the capacitors out of state at a cost of about $500

to $700 per barrel, or about $2 per capacitor.
166 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

The presence of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in

refrigeration systems could pose similar regulatory

problems for scrap processors. CFCs contribute to

the depletion of stratospheric ozone, and recycling

of white goods containing CFCs may be regulated in

the future. According to ISRI, data are not available

indicating either the amount of CFCs that typically

remain in non-operational refrigerators or airconditioners when they are delivered for recycling or

the potential for release of CFCs during processing.

Tires

Between 200 and 250 million waste tires are

discarded annually in the United States. Once

discarded, they can provide breeding habitat for rats

and mosquitoes and present a serious fire threat (94).

In 1983, for example, a scrap tire fire in Winchester,

Virginia, smoldered for months and produced 250,000

gallons of an oil-like liquid that contaminated the

dump. Some alternatives to landfilling exist for

scrap tires, including physical recycling, chemical

recycling, and waste-to-energy.

Physical Recycling

Several methods are available to physically recycle the whole tire or some fraction of it. Whole tires

have been used for landscape borders, highway trash

barriers, artificial reefs, and erosion control (95).

Retreading of used tires also occurs, but the market

for retreaded tires has declined considerably in the

last 10 years and is expected to decline even more in

the future. In 1978, 31 million tires were retreaded

and sold, while in 1986 this figure declined to only

15 million. By 2005, only 6 million tires are

expected to be retreaded and sold (176).

Some used tires have been processed into specialized industrial products and household items such as

doormats. However, these processing techniques are

limited to fabric-belted tires, which have been losing

their market share to steel-belted models (95).

Mechanical or cryogenic processes have been

developed to break tires into fine particles, known as

crumb rubber. Crumb rubber can replace virgin

rubber in carpet backing, asphalt, and friction break

materials (95). An innovative crumb rubber plant

with a capacity to process 3 million tires a year has

been built in a remote part of Minnesota. The

facility, operated by Rubber Research Elastomeric

and capitalized with public funds, is attempting to

increase the marketability of the crumb rubber by

adding various polymers. During 1988, however, the

plant operated at less than one-third of its production

capacity, because there was limited demand for the

product. In the first 9 months of 1987, the plant

processed only 100,000 tires and lost $1.5 million.

It expects to process about 750,000 tires in 1990

(196). The remote location of the plant may act as a

deterrent to potential markets and the company

operating the plant is seeking to expand to other

locations in the United States.

Chemical Recycling

Scrap tires can be converted into gas, oil, and char

through a process known as pyrolysis (thermal

decomposition in the absence of oxygen) (ch. 6). The

tires are heated to 1,000° F to 1,800° F to volatilize

the oil and gas, separating them from the carbon

(char) and inorganic materials (e.g., steel). Condensation at various temperatures, along with filtration,

allows the recovery of oil and gas fractions.

Chemical reclamation has also been used in the

past to recover the rubber. However, since the

composition of tires has changed from primarily

rubber to synthetic elastomer blends, this process

has become less economical.

Waste-to-Energy

Scrap tires also can be incinerated to recover

energy. Different technologies can be used, including fluidized beds, rotary kilns, and cement kilns.

Depending on the facility, either whole tires or

tire-derived-fuel (TDF) can be used. Cement kilns

and facilities that use rotary kilns can bum both

whole and shredded tires. Facilities equipped with

fixed or traveling grates tend to bum TDF, since this

fuel bums more rapidly and evenly than whole tires.

However, the steel belts in tires can cause problems

in the combustion chamber when TDF is burned.

Consequently, many shredding operations that prepare TDF for incinerators, paper mills, or cement

kilns remove as much steel as possible.

During combustion, up to 15,000 Btu per pound

of scrap tires can be generated. In the past, the costs

of competing fuels, such as wood chips and coal,

have caused prices of TDF to drop and processors to

lose money. Between 1986 and 1987, for example,

the price of TDF dropped from $35 to $33 per ton.
Chapter 5--Recycling . 167

One company that produces TDF had to increase its

tipping fee for accepting waste tires by 63 percent

(tipping fees vary considerably, ranging from $8 to

$100 per ton) (196).

Only one cement manufacturer, in Redding,

California, is burning tires as the primary fuel.

Often, however, tires are used to supplement other

fuel sources in cement kilns. In German and

Japanese cement operations, up to 20 percent of the

coal typically used to fire the kilns has been replaced

by whole tires.

Similarly, two Firestone Tire plants, one in

Illinois and one in Iowa, use a pulsating floor

technology to bum tires along with other solid waste

(105). At these facilities, the fuel (tires and mixed

combustible solid waste) is forced into the primary

combustion chamber with a hydraulic ram and then

forced along the hearth with pulses of air. Gases

produced by this process are burned as they pass

through three subsequent combustion stages.

In fluidized bed incinerators, gasses are blown

through the bed containing the solid fuel; the fuel

can include MSW combined with shredded tires.

The velocity of the gas is such that it counteracts the

forces of gravity and places the fuel in suspension.

This provides a high rate of mixing of air and fuel.

A recently constructed powerplant in Modesto,

California, bums scrap tires to generate electricity.

This technology was developed and used for 12

years in West Germany prior to installation at the

Modesto facility. The plant cost $41 million to build,

bums 19,200 tires a day at 2,000° F, and generates 15

megawatts of electricity. Pollution control equipment includes a lime slurry scrubber, baghouse

filters, and a thermal DeNOx process (ch. 6). Air

emissions reportedly are below California’s permitted limits (232). A centralized computer system has

been installed to monitor emissions and to maintain

temperatures at 2,000” F in case of an upset. Steel

and zinc oxide are recovered from the ash residues;

the steel is sold to a scrap dealer, while zinc oxide is

sold to Zinc Corp. of America (148). Gypsum

recovered from the lime slurry is sold to cement and

fertilizer manufacturers.

The company that runs the Modesto plant is being

sued, however, by the California Attorney General

and a number of environmental groups, which claim

that the tire pile at the plant constitutes a nuisance.

Moreover, the company has encountered opposition

to the siting and construction of additional facilities

along the east coast. Despite local opposition, a

larger, 25-megawatt facility has been given siting

approval in Sterling, Connecticut. A tire incinerator

in New York also has been proposed, but it has not

yet been sited.

Used Oil

Approximately 700 million gallons of used vehicle oil are generated in the United States every year,

and an additional 500 million gallons of used

lubricants are generated by industrial operations

(144). Of the vehicle oil, more than 360 million

gallons is generated at households by individuals

who change their own oil (13). Much of this oil from

households is disposed in the trash, on the ground,

or down sewers.

Two-thirds of the total of 1.2 billion gallons of

used oil are recycled, mostly by burning it as fuel. To

reprocess used oil for burning, it usually undergoes

dewatering through distillation or evaporation, or

chemical treatment to produce a suitable fuel.

An alternative to burning used oil as fuel is to

re-refine it, which happens to about 100 million

gallons of used oil per year. Re-refining essentially

removes various additives and contaminants in used

oil--detergents, dilutants, combustion byproducts,

heavy metals, metal deactivators, lead scavengers,

anti-oxidants, and compounds designed to maintain

viscosity. Additives can comprise up to 25 percent

of lubricating oil. Although re-refining technologies

can cope with these additives, the contamination of

used oil with hazardous waste constituents can

hamper re-refining processes (34).

To re-refine used oil, it typically undergoes three

stages of distillation (34): water removal, hightemperature removal of light hydrocarbons (fuel

constituents), and high-temperature and vacuum

separation of the lubricant from contaminants. After

distillation, the oil is finished by a clay contact

process and filtered to remove coloring and odorcausing constituents. However, this step also creates

a clay-oil sludge that eventually must be disposed. A

finishing process that creates less sludge residual,

but that is more costly, is hydrofinishing. In this

process, the distilled oil is catalytically hydrogen-
168 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

ated at temperatures between 600 and 700” F; this

produces a higher quality lubricant with less loss of

oil than does the clay contact procedure.

EPA prohibits the burning of “off-spec” oil

without prior notification to the Agency. Off-spec

oil is used oil containing more than any of the

following: arsenic, 5 ppm; cadmium, 2 ppm; chromium, 10 ppm; lead, 100 ppm; and total halogens,

4,000 ppm. In addition, the used oil may not have a

flashpoint that is less than 100° F. EPA also

regulates the burning of used oil contaminated with

PCBs under TSCA, which places the burden of

proving that the oil does not contain PCBs on the

persons handling it.

Some contaminants separated from the lubricant

in the distillation process often are used as asphalt

extender. However, many of the contaminants removed during re-refining, such as detergents, combustion byproducts, and heavy metals, result in a

solid or hazardous waste. Moreover, the water

removed during the initial distillation phase is

contaminated with hydrocarbons and must be treated

and discharged.

An additional environmental hazard caused by

re-refining used oil is posed by operations that have

gone out of business. In the 1960s, numerous

operations went bankrupt because of the increased

use of additives in oil, which necessitated the use of

more sophisticated and costly re-refining technologies. The re-refining industry expanded in the 1970s,

in response to the oil ‘‘crisis, ’ but capacity has been

declining again for the last decade. Abandoned

operations can leave behind leaking surface impoundments, storage tanks, and other disposal units

that can pose substantial threats to surface water and

ground water (34).

Plastics

The presence of plastics in landfills, on streets,

and in marine waters has raised tremendous controversy. Plastics comprise an estimated 7.3 percent by

weight of MSW, or 10.3 million tons (81); this

percentage is similar in other industrialized countries, where plastics constitute between 5 and 10

percent of MSW. About half of the plastics discarded in the United States, or 5.6 million tons, was

equally divided between containers and packaging.

These nondurable goods are the target for almost all

of the current concern about plastics in MSW and

provide a useful starting point for discussing prospects for increasing the relatively low level of

plastics recycling. Box 5-D provides an introduction

to the properties and types of plastics.

Structure of the Primary Plastics

Manufacturing Industry

The plastics manufacturing industry is growing

and thriving. Between 1981 and 1986, it had one of

the highest compound growth rates of any industry

and maintained a positive balance of trade (along

with only one other commodity group, chemicals)

(220). In 1986, about 22 million tons of plastics were

sold in the United States in several market sectors

(figure 5-8, table 5-4). Production of many commodity plastics is currently operating at or near capacity.

After about 4 years of relatively stable prices, resin

prices rose by 50 to 100 percent from 1987 to 1988,

and small users had difficulty insuring a stable

supply of some resin types. Prices reflect world

supply and demand. Prices have flattened in recent

months and some analysts predict that prices may

soon drop (3).

The industry is categorized into two major groups

(in the Standard Industrial Classification codes), one

for plastics materials and resins and one for miscellaneous plastics products. In 1986, these two groups

were among the 15 largest manufacturing industries

in the United States (220). Fewer than 300 companies manufacture plastic resins in the United States,

and fewer than 25 companies manufacture each of

the commodity plastics. On the other hand, the

number of processors of plastics into finished

products is on the order of 10,000.

One trend in the use of plastics has significant

implications for MSW management—in particular,

the growing demand for single-service, convenience

products in response to changing demographics and

lifestyles. Plastics are expected to comprise an

increasing share of the packaging and consumer/

institutional markets, especially at the expense of

more traditional materials (paper, glass, and metal).

Thus, greater amounts and a larger proportional

share of plastics will be disposed of as MSW.

However, plastics are normally lighter than the

products they replace and in most cases they are also

less bulky (ch. 4).
Chapter 5-Recycling . 169

Figure 5-&Plastics Markets, 1986 (millions of tons)

NOTE. Total U.S. Market Sales = 22 million tons.

SOURCES” Office of Technology Assessment, after Society of the Plastics

Industry, Facts and Figures of the U.S. Plastics Industry

(Washington, DC, 1987); Modern Plastics, “Materials 87,”

Modern Plastics, pp. 55-65, January 1987.

Status of Post-Consumer Plastics Recycling

Most experts agree that recycling in the United

States is constrained by the lack of collection of

plastics. In 1986, less than 100,000 tons of postconsumer plastic discards-less than 1 percent of

the amount in MSW—were recycled. This increased

to about 125,000 tons in 1988.

Given the variety of plastics. however, it is

appropriate to consider sales and discards of specific

types. Current recycling of post-consumer plastic

wastes is focused almost entirely on containers made

of two resins, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and

high-density polyethylene (HDPE). These containers are relatively easy to identify and are not

degraded significantly by reprocessing. In 1986,

65,000 tons of PET from soft drink containers were

collected for recycling, up from 4,000 tons in 1979

(21). This comprises about 20 percent of the PET

used for soft-drink bottles and about 10 percent of

U.S. PET sales in 1986. PET collection increased to

75,000 tons in 1987.

Total estimated HDPE collection in 1986 was

about 30,000 tons, about 1 percent of U.S. HDPE

sales. Roughly half of the recycled HDPE came from

base cups for PET soft drink containers (22). An

estimated 17,000 tons of HDPE from milk jugs were

recycled in 1986 (157). This is only 5 percent of the

HDPE used in milk bottles. HDPE collection in

1987 is estimated to be 36,000 tons, again divided

equally between milk jugs and base cups from PET

soft drink containers (22).

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Current recycling of plastics from MSW focuses on containers made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and

high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which are relatively

easy to identify and are not degraded significantly by

reprocessing. Only about 1 percent of the plastic in MSW

is now recycled.

The recycling of other post-consumer plastics in

the United States is negligible. Efforts are focused

on nondurable goods, especially containers and

packaging: some small-scale recycling of mixed

plastics is occurring; polystyrene (PS) recycling

began in 1989 at two pilot-scale plants; and more

limited experiments are underway on post-consumer

polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Most PVC recycling

efforts are focused on contaminated pre-consumer

waste. Post-consumer recycling tends to focus on

finding ways to reuse PVC bottles (1 15,000 tons per

year in the United States). These bottles are more

difficult to identify than PET and HDPE bottles, and

are used mostly for products with a low turnover

rate, such as shampoo and vegetable oil (135). PET

is replacing PVC in some bottles. FDA is preparing

an environmental impact statement (EIS) for its

proposed action to establish the safe conditions for

use of PVC. The EIS will evaluate, among other

things, the potential effects of PVC on postconsumer recycling programs (53 Federal Register

47264, NOV. 22, 1988).

Recycling of post-consumer plastics from durable

goods, such as old appliances and furniture, is also
Table 5-4--Major U.S. Resin Markets, 1986 (millions of pounds)

Thermoplastics

Markets LDPE PVC HDPE PP PS E T Engineering Other Thermoses Total

Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,~;~ 497 3,560 1,128 1,360 747 15 5 97 13,014

Building/construction . . . . . . . . . . 4,711 522 34 418 0 84 154 4,541 10,677

Consumer/institutional . . . . . . . . . 507 277 783 732 1,296 608 31 31 233 4,498

Electrical/electronic . . . . . . . . . . . 421 478 147 277 360 0 236 332 307 2,558

Furniture/furnishings . . . . . . . . . . 71 380 16a 1,103 47 0 10 425 923 2,975

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 149 232 237 0 0 123 477 1,020 2,238

Adhesives/inks/coatings . . . . . . . 231 83 38 24 0 15 0 977 285 1,653

Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715 201 45 25 17 0 0 118 1,255

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760 467 821 1,162 814 0 132 216 714 5,086

Total b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,523 7,243 6,164 4,722 4,312 1,370 631 2,751 8,238 43,954

aPolyethylene transportation and furniture/furnishings markets assumed to bet+DPE.

bThese estimat= ~~culated by OTA differ from th~e of Spl (1 987) and wrn p~ti~ (~ 987) @IJ~ of nondi~losure of m~et Information and exciusion of Pcdyurethene data by Spl and

inclusion of Import data by OTA.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment; after Society of the Plastics Industry, Facts and Figures of the U.S. Plastics Industry (Washington, DC, 1987); Modern Plastics, “Materials 87,” A@ern

Plastics, p. 55-85, January 1987.

●
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 171

negligible. Some of these materials, such as old

appliances, are handled by scrap dealers but the

plastics components are usually discarded.36

An estimated 95 percent of clean, pre-consumer

industrial scrap from processing and from off-spec

virgin thermoplastic resins is recycled, comprising

as much as 10 percent of all production (56). The

amount of contaminated industrial scrap material, or

obsolete product inventories and overruns, that is

recycled is unknown, but significant.37 This off-spec

material is often used as an inner layer with virgin

material as the outer layers.

The number of companies involved in recycling

post-consumer plastic wastes is small, but growing.

Most are relatively small operations. A few large

companies are involved in recycling post-consumer

plastics, and several large resin producers are

announcing plans for new recycling plants. Also, the

number of traditional scrap dealers and brokers

dealing with post-consumer plastics appears to be

increasing.

Current Products and Markets—Post-consumer

plastic wastes, especially plastic bottles, can be

recycled into products that replace or supplement

virgin materials, or that replace other materials such

as lumber, concrete, or metal. HDPE, for instance, is

recycled into lumber substitutes, base cups for soft

drink bottles, flower pots, pipes, toys, pails and

drums, traffic barrier cones, golfbag liners, kitchen

drain boards, milk bottle crates, soft drink bottle

carriers, trash cans, and signs (222).

PET is recycled into dozens of products (222).

Some examples include strapping, scouring pads,

fence posts, parking space bumpers, industrial

paints, paint brushes, fiberfill for pillows, ski

jackets, sleeping bags, carpet fibers, rope, sails, and

tire cord. PET is also used to produce: polyol used

in making urethane foam and furniture; unsaturated

polyester used in making boat hulls, bath tubs,

swimming pools, automobile exterior panels; engineering plastics used for appliance parts and automotive components; and thermoformable sheets

used to Produce six-pack carriers for soft drink

bottles, nonfood containers, and audiocassette cases.

New uses are frequently introduced, such as transparent egg cartons.

One of the major products made from mixed

plastics is plastic “lumber.” Plastic lumber is being

used for posts, poles, marine pilings, dock surfaces

and piers, and also for nonstructural applications

such as decking, agricultural pens, fences, park

benches, and parking space bumpers.38 Based on

ongoing experiments, some of the properties of

plastic lumber appear to be superior to wood, while

others are not (21 ). Superior properties include its

resistance to rot, water, chemicals, and insects, as

well as its lack of splintering and its ability to hold

nails better and in any direction (unlike wood, which

only holds nails well across the grain). However,

plastic lumber loses strength when heated and does

not hold screws as well as wood; as a result,

carpentry joining may be a problem in hot weather

if the plastic softens slightly. This probably can be

overcome by using bolts to join pieces together.

Some post-consumer plastics are being exported

to Asia and Europe. There are currently no PET

reclaimers on the west coast so plastics collected

there are shipped to Asia, which is cheaper than

shipping to east coast reclaimers. Several east coast

companies also export some of their collected

post-consumer plastics. Data are not available on the

size of post-consumer plastic export markets.

Recycling in Japan and Europe—h Japan,

recycling of post-consumer plastics has always been

low and has declined recently because of: the

difficulties of separating pure plastics from MSW;

the poor quality of products from mixed plastics

using technologies available in the early 1980s; and

the high cost of collection, separation, and processing (170). As a result, the number of Japanese

municipalities with plastics recycling programs

declined from 25 in 1982 to 1 at the end of 1988.

PET, the most common resin recycled in the United

States, is used only in small quantities in Japanese

products. However, interest in post-consumer rhs36Llm1t~ ~ewwch on tahno]ogies to reuse plastic components recovered frOm automobile ~d appliance shredder residues is underway

(189,190,191). The problems faced me similti to recycling other post-consumer Plmtics but ~ mm difficult ~0 overcome because of the variety of

plastics mixed together. Suggested markets for these materials are similar to those proposed for other mixed plastics.

371ndustV is veV ~retlve a~u[ how much of ~is Scrap is r~ycled ~d ixI n~lng ~uces because of (he price wv~tage gained uSit’tg thk material.

3s@ ~Uk~g SPUC b~per, ~ cm Stw, consumes 400 PET beverage bottles including caps, labds, and base CUPS left on tie ~ttles 0 l),
172 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 5-D-Introduction to Plastics

Definition of Plastics

Plastics are chemicals—long-chain polymers—made from fossil fuels and chemical additives. Most polymers

have little practical value without a small percentage of additives that give the plastic materials useful properties.

Additives impart physical properties to meet specific applications and improve processing. Over 4,000

individual types of additives exist, including a variety of mineral and chemical derivatives. Additives can be

classified into four major types: reaction controls (e.g., catalysts, initiators, auxiliary processing materials);

processing additives (e.g., blowing agents and lubricants); stabilizers (e.g., antioxidants, heat stabilizers, light or

ultraviolet stabilizers, preservatives); and performance additives (e.g., fillers and reinforcements, plasticizers,

colorants, impact modifiers, flame retardants, antistatic agents, coupling agents) (96).

The majority of additives are inert fillers such as calcium carbonate; many (e.g., reaction controls and

processing additives) are used in manufacturing processes and do not remain with the finished polymer. Most

additives are used in very small quantities, usually less than 1 percent. Exceptions include ‘‘plasticizers’ (i.e.,

chemicals added to impart flexibility) that can account for 40 percent of some plastics products, including wire and

cable insulating material and artificial leather made from PVC. Colorants can represent 1 to 10 percent of some

plastics.

Concern about the disposal of plastics and their additives in MSW has focused primarily on the use of metal

additives, particularly lead and cadmium used as heat stabilizers in PVC and as colorants in other plastics. Heavy

metal stabilizers are used primarily in nonpackaging markets such as PVC wire and cable insulating material,

furniture film, floor tiles, and pressure pipes. Heavy metal colorants are applicable to a wide variety of

thermoplastics. Only a small percentage of PVC is used in packaging and containers (table 5-4).

In addition to questions about heavy metals, however, questions also exist about the environmental fate of other

additives when plastic wastes are discarded. Of particular concern is the use of organic and halogenated chemicals

[e.g., phthalate esters, which account for roughly 70 to 75 percent of plasticizers). Phthalate esters are considered

priority pollutants by EPA under the Clean Water Act. Because these additives do not become a permanent part of

the polymer molecule, they are more susceptible to migration than many other additive types.

Additives used in plastic food packaging are subject to premarket approval by the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA). FDA conducts safety evaluations of food additives and considers the amount of additive that

can migrate to food and the toxicity of the additive. Extraction tests are required for new food additives or new

applications to determine migration potential and this data is used to review the environmental effects of disposal.

Some additives may be automatically considered acceptable to FDA if they are included on the list of substances

“generally recognized as safe. ”

Properties of Plastics

The properties of plastics make them highly desirable to manufacturers and consumers, particularly for

packaging. Although plastics often cost more to produce than alternative materials, their properties may make

plastics more cost-effective and the preferred material for particular uses. As a result, plastics have been replacing

glass, aluminum, steel, and paper for many uses.

In general, plastics are light-weight and inert; they resist breakage and are not subject to environmental

deterioration (121). They also can be tailored to suit almost any specific need—rigid, flexible, stretchable,

insulating, sterilizable, breathable, impermeable, transparent, translucent, opaque, colored, etc. Compared to

alternatives, plastics also are relatively cheap to transport because of their light weight.

Plastic Types

Plastics can be classified into four groups: commodity thermoplastics, engineering thermoplastics, thermoses,

and multicomponent plastics. This classification is based on the uses of plastics that affect their presence in MSW,

their relative cost, sales volume, and properties that affect their potential for recycling.
Chapter 5---Recycling . 173

1. Commodity thermoplastics are produced at low cost, in high volumes. They include the five resins that account

for about two-thirds of all plastic sales (table 5-4): low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene

(HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene (PS). They also include polyethylene

terephthalate (PET), which has only recently been used in sizable quantities for packaging. Other commodity

thermoplastics include acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and nylon. In general, commodity thermoplastics

are candidates for recycling because they soften when heated and can be remolded. PET and HDPE are the

predominant post-consumer resins that have been recycled in the United States.

NO current data quantify the amounts of resins found in MSW in the United States. However, it can be assumed

that polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE), PP, and PS are major plastic components of MSW. PVC and PET are

probably present in lower quantities because of their more limited use in short-lived markets such as packaging

and consumer/institutional products. Limited information indicates that MSW in Europe is comprised of roughly

60 percent PP and polyethylene (i.e., polyolefins) (29).

2. Engineering thermoplastics are produced at high cost in low volumes. Examples include polycarbonate

(Lexan) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or Teflon). Engineering thermoplastics are used in the

construction, electric/electronic, and transportation markets (220,221). These plastics are not considered a

major component of MSW. In general, the higher the price of a thermoplastic, the greater the driving force to

recycle it. PTFE, a relatively high-priced resin. is one of the few plastics that has been recycled in significant

quantities (12). Engineering thermoplastics are targeted for increased recycling by at least one major

manufacturer. For example, in 1987 General Electric announced a campaign to recycle one of its engineering

thermoplastics, polycarbonate, into structural panels, building insulation, and other long-life construction

markets.

3. Thermoses, compared to thermoplastics, are low-volume materials. but they still comprise about 20 percent

of the U.S. plastics market. TWO resins, phenolic and polyurethane, are sold in sizable quantities (1.4 million

tons and 1.3 million tons, respectively), predominantly for long-lived products such as building insulation.

The major markets for thermoses are building and construction, transportation, and furniture and

furnishings (table 5-4). Unlike thermoplastics, thermosets generally are not considered recyclable because

they do not soften when heated and thus cannot be remolded. However, they can be recycled as a filler.

4. Multicomponent plastics and laminations are combinations of different plastics or of plastics and other

materials such as paper or metal foil. These materials are primarily used for packaging. In 1988 about 1.3

million tons of plastics were used in mukicomponent films and semi-rigid sheets and almost two-thirds

of this amount was used for food packaging (39). This type of packaging is expected to expand

significantly in the coming years because it offers increased shelf life, reduced need for refrigeration, and

the feasibility of using food processing methods that result in improved flavor and texture.

Multicomponent plastics provide an economical way of combining the needed properties of different

materials. For example, recently available plastic ketchup bottles are made from several plastics—

including an exterior plastic for appearance and strength, an adhesive to hold different plastics together

and attach the label, a special oxygen barrier plastic, and an interior plastic to resist fats and acids. This

combination of materials makes these plastics technically difficult to recycle except into mixed plastic

products,

tics recycling remains high, especially given recent Plastics Reclamation Technologies

technological advances.

Theoretically, any type of plastic-either as

The outlook may be more encouraging in Europe, single resins, separated from other plastic types, or

as mixed plastics, combining several different resins

although the current rate of plastics recycling is low.

In West Germany, over 20 sorting plants have been

or a few resins with similar properties-can be

recycled. Single resin recycling can only be done

built in the last decade (106). Many of the new mixed with thermoplastics (box 5-D), which can be replastics recycling technologies originated in Europe molded easily because they melt when heated.

and numerous @ants are now in operation and being Mixed plastics recycling can be done with thermoplanned. plastics, multicomponent plastics and laminations,

and thermoses. Technical limits on the quantities of
174 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

different resins that can be used in mixed plastics

depend on the specifications required for the final

product. Additives can be used to improve the

compatibility of different resins.

Numerous proprietary techniques are being used

to recycle plastics. Some techniques are available

commercially; except for initial preparation steps to

remove contaminants they do not differ substantially

from the equipment used to fabricate some products

from virgin resins.

Initial Preparation-Initial preparation of separated plastic containers may include washing and

separation to remove unwanted materials. Separation methods are based primarily on differences in

physical properties such as density. Automated

techniques are suitable for mixtures of relatively

pure polymers, but not complex mixtures of products containing many types of plastics or plastics

that are altered by fillers or coatings (42). The resin

recovered after separation is usually in the form of

flakes or pellets.

Separated HDPE milk jugs may require removal

of labels and closures. PET bottles, however, require

much more sophisticated washing and separation

steps. Most PET bottles have base cups made from

HDPE, caps made from aluminum or polypropylene,

and a paper or plastic label with adhesive. Thus, a

typical PET bottle is composed of 70 percent PET,

24 percent HDPE, 1 percent aluminum, and 5

percent label and adhesive (192). PET bottles

without HDPE base cups are also available.

Some separation technologies are available commercially. For example, the HDPE/PET reclamation

process developed by the Center for Plastics Recycling Research (CPRR) at Rutgers University is

available for licensing at a nominal cost. Investment

costs for the system are $2.0 million to produce

5,000 tons and $2.5 million to produce 10,000 tons

of 99.9 percent pure PET each year (48). Some

separation technology is proprietary, however. One

proprietary system uses a solvent (1,1,1 -

trichloroethane) to separate PET from aluminum in

a closed system that is claimed to minimize environmental releases (164).

Processing Into Usable Plastic Products-The

basic technologies used to make products from

virgin resins are also used to recycle large amounts

of clean, pre-consumer industrial scrap. They also

can be used to make products from clean, postconsumer single resins. They basically involve

melting and extruding it into objects or pellets (42).

Prior to extrusion, the recycled plastic maybe mixed

with additives to improve processing and enhance

properties and/or mixed with virgin resin. Additives

are discussed in box 5-D.

Two basic technologies for processing mixed

post-consumer plastics are also available from

Europe. A third technology has been patented by a

U.S. company. One of these technologies, the

Extruder Technology I (ET/I), is used in 12 European and 3 U.S. plants. ET/I has the advantages of

moderate price and modular design. The basic

extruder and molds costs $300,000 for a capacity of

175 to 400 pounds per hour. In general, the system

including preparation equipment (grinder, shredder,

densifier, blenders, and conveyors) costs $375,000

to $450,000 (29). A second technology, the Recy -

cloplast Technology, is used in three plants in

Germany; other European plants are being negotiated and the first U.S. plant began operations in

Atlanta, Georgia, in spring 1989. Recycloplast is

more costly than ET/1, and the German plants use

about 30 percent industrial scrap to improve quality

control and broaden the range of end products.

Equipment costs vary depending on the size of the

operation and the amount of preparation equipment

needed for preliminary cleaning. A typical plant has

a capacity of 5,000 tons per year on three shifts; plant

and installation costs are $5 to $6 million, with 15

percent of that cost earmarked for pollution control

(30). One company, Polymer Products, began commercial operations in Iowa in late 1986 after

patenting an upgraded version of another European

technology. Its process accommodates a wide variety of mixed plastics with varying degrees of

contamination and produces lumber substitutes,

metal substitutes, and concrete substitutes (31).

Another new technology can produce highquality polyolefin resin (i.e., all types of polyethylene and polypropylene) from mixed plastics. One

version of this technology was developed by the

German company AKW Equipment and Process

Design. The technology involves grinding, magnetic

separation to remove metals, granulating into flakes,

liquid separation to remove minerals, washing, air

separation to remove PS, PVC and others from the
Chapter Recycling ● 1 7 5

lighter PE and PP, drying, mixing, and then extruding into pellets. The end product is a pelletized

polyethylene raw material containing less than 5

percent polypropylene. According to tests on MSW

plastic waste samples from Massachusetts and

Rhode Island, the final product performs very

similar to virgin PE. It cannot be used for film or

plastic bags, but is suitable for making bottles (32).

The first industrial-scale AKW plant in West Germany produces 4,000 to 6,000 tons per year.

Polymer Resource Group, Inc., a joint venture

between AKW and ITC Inc., has announced plans to

open a plant in the Baltimore-Washington area.

Similar technology (Transplastek) is producing bottlegrade polyolefins in Quebec, Canada.

Chemical dissolution systems to recover specialized plastic resins are also being marketed. This

technology involves adding chemicals that cause the

plastic to dissolve in water. After dissolution, the

particles theoretically can be recovered and reused.

As of 1988, this technology had been developed to

be applicable to acrylics, styrenes, and other resins.

Current economics are not favorable for producing

polyethylene, and further technical development

would be required to do so, but these technical

problems do not appear insurmountable (27). Commercial products include coatings to protect new

automobiles that can be hosed off when they reach

the showroom and a bottle label that can be readily

removed by washing. Products being studied include

laundry bags that would dissolve when put through

a washing machine cycle with the laundry and

plastic backings for diapers that could be flushed

down toilets (27).

Technical Constraints-Several factors constrain

the use of recycled plastics in making new products.

Among the most important are the presence of

contaminants and the effects of natural degradation

processes.

Contaminants in collected plastics include paper,

metals, other plastics, residual products, adhesives,

pigments, and dirt. These substances can make a

plastic technically difficult to recycle. In addition,

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated

that it cannot authorize the safe use of recycled

plastics for use in contact with food unless additional

information is provided to resolve the uncertainties

about these contaminants (1 10). The FDA did not

object, however, to a request to use recycled plastics

as an outer layer in a multi-layer food package when

it was demonstrated that there was little likelihood

that contaminants in the recycled layer would

migrate through the food contact layers.

In general, the performance of recycled resins is

not as good as virgin resins. Reprocessing and

environmental exposure degrades some of the beneficial properties of some plastics, such as durability

and dimensional stability, so recycled plastics usually are used in products with less demanding

applications than the original products.

Degradation of some properties can be overcome

with the use of additives, by making the recycled

product thicker, or by coextrusion (making a product

with a recycled core and a virgin outer layer). For

example, garbage bags made from recycled plastic

(usually industrial scrap) are generally thicker than

garbage bags made from virgin resin. A pilot plant

in France is coextruding recycled PVC bottles with

virgin PVC to make pipe.

Infinite recycling is technically impossible, however, because degradation eventually occurs (55).

Thus, while recycling recovered plastics defers the

need to use other management techniques, it does

not eliminate the need for eventual disposal. Ideally

though, recycled products would have long-lived

utility, especially relative to the short-lived utility of

plastic packaging.

Energy Consumption-The production of virgin

plastics accounts for a relatively small percentage of

total energy consumption in the United States.

According to a recent EPA report, current domestic

production uses 5 percent of the oil and less than 1

percent of the gas consumed by the Nation (252).

Plastics production accounts for the dominant use of

three major feedstocks—in 1985, 72 percent of the

ethylene produced, 59 percent of the propylene, and

76 percent of the benzene (220).

Plastics production is not limited to the use of

petroleum and natural gas. Depending on the techniques used, different raw materials, such as coal,

can be used to produce feedstocks (130). However,

history and relative economics make oil and gas the

current materials of choice.

Making products from recycled plastics can result

in considerable energy savings compared to virgin
176 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

plastics production. Table 5-5 shows the production

energy used for the major commodity thermoplastics. It takes about 1,000 to 2,000 Btu per pound to

melt these plastics (11 ).39 Therefore, recycling these

resins would save 92 to 98 percent of the energy

needed to produce single virgin resins (excluding

energy used to collect and transport recycled resins).

The manufacture and use of plastics products may

require less energy than the manufacture and use of

nonplastic alternatives, based on data from 1978 in

a study conducted for a plastics industry association

(80). Based on 1978 production data, the study

estimated that using plastics instead of alternative

materials would result in energy savings of about 71

percent. The study concluded that plastics products

save nearly as much energy as they consume,

primarily because their light weight is beneficial in

terms of raw materials used and in subsequent

transportation costs. The use of some plastic products also can result in significant energy savings; for

example, automobiles with plastic parts are lighter

and have improved fuel efficiency.

Materials Cost Comparisons-A general rule of

thumb states that recycled resins must be priced 33

to 50 percent lower than virgin material before a

fabricator will find it worthwhile to use them (212).

However, supply-demand-price relationships are

not well established and decisions about using

recycled resins depend on the unique circumstances

of the individual fabricator. For many low-priced,

high-volume plastic products, small savings in raw

material costs may make a big difference in profits.

The price of post-consumer plastic bottles varies

by color, cleanliness, the way it is packaged (i.e.,

baled or ground), and geographic area. Once the

material is reprocessed, the price is also determined

by its quality and the geographic region, form (i.e.,

flakes or pellets), additive content, and color.

According to the CPRR and the Plastics Recycling

Foundation, post-consumer plastic bottles can be

sold for about 6 cents per pound (prices as of 1987),

and reclaimed PET can be sold profitably for 25

cents per pound in flake form or 30 cents per pound

in pellet form. For comparison, virgin PET pellets

sell for about 56 cents per pound (192).4 Recycled

HDPE from base cups can be sold for 17 cents per

pound, compared to virgin resin at about 40 cents per

pound.

Barriers to Increased Recycled Plastics Use

As stated earlier, lack of collection is the major

factor limiting plastics recycling. This opinion is

widely held by plastics manufacturers and recycling

businesses, based on their experience and on market

studies for PET, HDPE, and mixed plastics. The lack

of technologies to separate different plastic types

and product quality are also problems in some

instances.

Available markets have not yet been a problem for

recycled plastics, largely because of the limited

collection that has taken place. As discussed below,

market studies for HDPE, PET, and mixed plastics

show enormous potential, compared to current

levels of recycling, but it remains to be seen whether

these markets can be developed to use a significant

quantity of the plastics in MSW. Information is not

available on potential markets for other single resins.

Collection-The major methods now used to

collect plastic bottles for recycling are bottle deposit

systems for PET containers and curbside collection.

Drop-off programs are also used in some jurisdictions to collect HDPE milk jugs, but such programs

are very limited and are usually located near a

reprocessor to avoid transportation costs. A buyback system for plastics has been in operation in the

Bronx since 1983 (145).41

Bottle deposit systems have been the most successful method for collecting PET soda bottles. This

method is used by 9 States, and in 1986, 98 percent

of collected PET was from bottle bill States (159).

However, the plastics, beverage, and food store and

many other industries are generally opposed to

deposit systems (ch. 8) and have been effective at

WEnerH requirements for the pET/HDpE recl~ation process developed by CPRR are 820 Btdpound (48). The ET-1 Pr~ess r~uires 1 *91O

Btu/pottnd, including auxiliary equipment, according to manufacturer’s information.

Itms ~mslates into $~ ~r ton, m~ing recycled plmtics fm more v~uable ~~ m~y otier rwycled materials, such M newsprint at M per t~

and glass at $30 per ton,

dlThe ~espnsible Compay, RZBZ, will buy any separated, identifiable plastic brought to its door. Materials purcha for uP to $0.10 Fpound have

subsequently been sold at $0.015 to $0.31 per pound to domestic and expon markets. For a six month period in 1988, plastics sales totaled $50,000 and

revenues averaged $200/ton. More plastics were recovered than used beverage cans.
Chapter 5--Recycling 177

Table 5-5-Energy Requirements To Produce Selected Plastics

Oil and

Production energy Feedstock Electricity natural gas

Plastic (Btu/lb) (%) (%) (%)

LDPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. ,

38,500 73 17 10

HDPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,500 75 10 15

PS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,300 69 4.5 26.5

PET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,700 51 10 39

PVC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,600 49 26 25

SOURCE: Argonne National Laboratory, Energy and Materials Use in the Production and Recycling of Consumer Goods Packaging, ANL/CNSV-TM-58,

prepared for U.S. Department of Energy (Argonne, IL: February 1981).

preventing bottle bills from being adopted in other

areas.

One technology, the reverse vending machine, is

being used to collect PET bottles in some bottle

deposit States. These machines shred the bottles for

later shipment to reprocessors. The next generation

of machines, scheduled for distribution at the end of

1989, is expected to be able to separate clear from

colored PET, which can enhance the value of the

product. The new machines will also accept HDPE

milk jugs and all other plastic containers. Plans are

to sell clear PET and HDPE separately for reprocessing and make the other plastics that are collected into

a plastic lumber product (60).

Experts consider curbside collection of PET and

HDPE the simplest way to start a community

plastics recycling program (227). Limited curbside

collection of plastics now occurs, but it is the likely

future direction of plastics recycling, primarily

because of opposition to deposit legislation. Also,

curbside recycling is increasing for other materials

and the costs of including plastics are perceived not

to be excessive (ch. 2). More than 60 curbside

programs are known to include plastics (33).

Major Collection Problems--Concerns about plastics collection programs include the space used by

uncompacted plastic bottles, the variety of plastics

found in post-consumer waste, and the costs of

collection and processing.

The difficulty of collecting rigid containers that

have high-volume and low-weight has limited

curbside collection of post-consumer plastics. For

example, adding plastics to an existing collection

program can be a problem if the collection equipment is not designed to handle resilient materials

that are not easily crushed. The space required to

collect plastic bottles also can reduce the number of

households that a collection truck can stop at before

the truck is full; one estimate of the potential

reduction is 30 percent for uncompacted plastic

bottles and 17 percent for bottles compacted 50

percent before collection (227). Several companies

are working to develop on-truck densification equipment and at least six projects are underway or

pending to use on-truck densification of plastics in

curbside collection (33).42 One alternative being

studied by plastics processors and waste management companies is to attach densifiers or compactors

to existing collection trucks to allow subsequent

sorting of flattened whole plastic bottles. Although

transporting shredded or ground plastics would take

up less space, on-truck granulators pose several

problems including safety hazards to operating

personnel and poor marketability of reground mixed

resin (33).

The variety of plastics in MSW is a concern

because only PET and HDPE resins have much of a

market at present, and single resins have a much

higher value than mixtures of resins. Collection of

single resins is problematic because of the difficulty

in identifying and separating different resins. Limited information from curbside collection programs

that include separation of plastics shows a measurable amount of contamination with other wastes. For

example, a pilot study in Rhode Island found 6.5

percent contamination with other materials, with 18

percent of the contamination being other plastic

containers (125). Another pilot study in Westchester, New York, found 14 percent contamination

(107).

qzsites i~lude Nep~, Ontfio; Seattle, Washin@m; Rhode Island; Winom, Minnesota; and several Chicago, IIlinois suburbs.
178 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

To help resolve the identification problem, the

Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) is sponsoring

a voluntary coding system to get manufacturers to

label the resins on bottles and jars. One concern

about this labeling system is the difficulty of reading

codes after bottles have been flattened to facilitate

collection.

Separation Technologies-Most separation of

plastics is now done manually. New technologies

could be developed to improve the separation of

different plastic types. Research on new automated

approaches to separating plastic containers made

from different resins is now underway at CPRR. The

center is studying ways to identify resin types based

on bar codes using photoelectric beams, machine

vision, and near infrared technology (79). Other

innovative approaches may be applicable to a wider

variety of resins and plastic products. For example,

additive “tags” could be put into all types of virgin

resins to facilitate automatic identification and

sorting (163). Chemical separation techniques are

also under investigation, including a project at

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to use selective

solvent dissolution and flash devolatilization to

recover individual polymers. An automated approach to separating PET and PVC plastic bottles is

used in Europe, where many more PVC bottles are

used than in the United States. The technology uses

an electromagnetic scanning technique to detect the

chlorine in PVC (135).

The breakeven cost of collection and processing

is a major concern. Unless avoided costs of tipping

fees for other disposal options are included in an

analysis, recycling plastics does not appear to be

financially viable from a collector’s viewpoint (ch.

2). For example, according to one study handling

costs for deposit systems (including collecting,

crushing, baling, and shipping to reprocessors) can

range from $0.20 to $0.40 per pound of PET (42).

These costs are greater than the recent scrap value of

PET bottles, which ranges from $0.05 to $0.10 per

pound.

One market analysis for post-consumer HDPE

milk bottles estimated that processing and transportation costs ranged from $0.03 to $0.49 per pound for

transporting material 100 miles to market, depending on the type of processing equipment used

(granulators or balers) and the amounts processed

each year (157). Granulators produce a higher priced

product than balers, but this may change as purchasers discover that they can more easily determine

contamination levels with baled materials. In some

cases, the costs can be less than revenues for selling

collected HDPE; some sellers have noted a rise in

some areas from around $0.06 per pound in 1987 to

$0.15 per pound in 1988 (145).

Another study of plastics collection programs

concluded that even without specific cost estimates,

most operators believed that it was worthwhile to

collect plastics (145). This opinion was based on the

improving resale value of plastics and the willingness of the public to participate in collection

programs. Higher participation rates were found for

“user-friendly systems, ” especially those that included some combination of containers, minimal

preparation requirements, public education, frequent

pick-ups, and a broad range of targeted plastics.

Quality of Recycled Plastics-Quality control is

a major concern that affects the willingness of

manufacturers to use recycled materials. According

to studies sponsored by CPRR, many potential users

of recycled plastic resins are unaware of the progress

being made in recycling technologies for postconsumer plastics (20). CPRR has also found that

many recycling success stories are kept secret

because of the competitive nature of the business.

This leads to duplication of research efforts.

Standardized tests, such as those developed by the

American Society Testing and Materials (ASTM),

are used within the plastics industry to provide basic

information on the properties of plastic materials.

Test results on different generic virgin plastic types

are published. The tests, however, do not necessarily y

provide precise information on how a fabricated

product will perform under various conditions (59).

Given potential variations in the life-history of

plastics that are recycled, such as exposure to

sunlight, heat, and other environmental factors that

may degrade plastics properties, it may be difficult

to generalize about the performance of recycled

products without quality control testing. Standardized methods are needed to test performance, quality

assurance, and contaminants in recycled resins to

ensure the reliability of these materials. ASTM is

preparing a guidance document to address these

concerns (79).
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 179

The quality control programs used by recyclers,

for both finished products and source materials,

often are considered proprietary. For example,

Wellman, Inc. maintains its own laboratory and

testing facilities to determine the suitability of

recycled source materials, including their potential

for new products. The Coca-Cola Co. and Pepsico

consult with Wellman, Inc. and other PET recyclers

when they are planning potential changes in PET

bottles, such as labels, adhesives, or barriers, to note

any impacts on recyclability.

Another key issue is the impact of degradable

plastics on recycling efforts. Recyclers of plastic

bottles are concerned that the presence of degradable

plastics in post-consumer plastic wastes could cause

deterioration of recycled products and complicated

liability problems, hurting and potentially killing

current plastic recycling efforts. Producers of degradable plastics disagree, contending that degradable would not be a problem and that potential

adverse effects could be minimized by carefully

considering the properties of the recycled product

and/or by modifying reprocessing technologies to

accommodate the presence of degradable. OTA has

not found any data to demonstrate whether the

presence of degradable plastics would cause a

problem for recycling plastics. The issue of degradable plastics is explored further in box 5-E.

Potential for Increased Recycling

Several factors work in favor of an increase in the

recycling of post-consumer plastics. At present,

commodity plastics production is operating close to

capacity and prices of virgin resins have almost

doubled in the past year. As a result, demand for

plastic resins is very high and is expected to increase

over the next decade (221).

Political and institutional factors--especially the

threat of bans on particular plastics products, and

State and local initiatives to increase recycling—are

stimulating the plastics industry to expand recycling

opportunities. Various industry representatives have

formed lobbying coalitions to promote recycling

(and/or incineration) of plastics. New industry

programs are being announced frequently, making it

difficult to present an up-to-date picture in a

document like this. Some companies are working to

increase the availability of plastics for recycling by

helping communities study collection options. Some

companies are setting up programs with waste

haulers to collect plastics for reprocessing (e.g.,

Wellman/Browning-Ferris Industries and DuPont/

Waste Management, Inc.).

Industry has established two pilot programs for

recycling foam polystyrene. Amoco Foam Products

Co., McDonald’s, and wTe Corp. are collecting

unseparated post-consumer wastes from 20 McDonald’s restaurants in the New York City area for

recycling. The waste is separated and washed, and

PS is cut into fluff and then sent to be repelletized at

another location. Then it will be mixed with virgin

PS to produce building foundation protection board

for construction uses. In another pilot-scale program, Mobil Chemical Co. and Genpak Corp. will

recycle PS collected by New England Container

Recovery, Inc. (NECRInc) from schools and institutions and fast-food restaurants. The recycled PS can

be reused in products such as coat hangers, flower

pots, wall and building insulation, and protective

packaging.

Research and Development-Many industry and

government groups are sponsoring research on

recycling technologies and collection systems. Worldwide patent activity indicates that innovation is

occurring in reclamation technologies. For example,

450 patents covering equipment, processing, and

products (for polymers that include plastics, rubber,

and textiles) were issued from 7 industrialized

countries in 1986, 1987, and the first 2 months of

1988 (169). Almost half of this activity (212 patents)

focused on recycling products into alternative uses.

Twelve major resin suppliers of the Council for

Solid Waste Solutions, a division of SPI, have each

pledged $1 million a year for the next 3 years for

research, development, and lobbying on plastics

reuse. Research areas will include technology to

minimize the costs of collecting, sorting, and reprocessing post-consumer plastics packaging (165).

Producers and users of specific resins are also

joining together to sponsor research. For example,

the Vinyl Institute supports research on PVC recycling, and the Polystyrene Packaging Coalition is

coordinating research activities on PS. NECRInc,

Wellman, Inc., Eaglebrook Plastics, Inc., and Waste

Management, Inc., are sponsoring joint projects to

develop on-truck densification units to overcome
180 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 5-E—Degradable Plastics and MSW

Most plastics are inert and designed to resist attack by microorganisms. The relative impermeability of plastics

and high molecular weights tend to make plastics nondegradable (98). However, plastics can be designed to be

degradable, either by physical, chemical, and/or biological means.

Two factors are driving the sales and development of degradable plastics: legislative mandates and economics.

Legislative mandates can require degradable products to be used (e.g., connecting devices for containers-such as

6-pack rings-are required to be degradable in 17 States and EPA must establish similar regulations under Public

Law 100-556 by 1990). Many of these laws were passed as a result of concerns about plastic litter on land and later

over the entanglement of marine and land-based animals.

Alternatively, legislation can ban or threaten to ban the use of nondegradable (e.g., nondegradable fast-food

packaging) because of concerns about MSW management capacity (254). For example, legislation has passed to

require the use of biodegradable materials in at least two States and two localities to help with MSW management

or to increase the nonfood use of surplus agricultural commodities. 1 As of May 1989, at least 31 States had .

legislation introduced concerning mandates for degradable products, recycling, packaging, taxes on packaging, and

waste reduction (ch. 8).

Economic factors have stimulated the development of degradable products that may be more cost-effective to

use than their nondegradable alternatives. For example, the use of degradable plastic agricultural mulches can save

farmers the cost of removing a nondegradable mulch. However, degradable plastic products cost about 8 to 14

percent more than comparable nondegradable products (238). Degradable plastics may also provide a market for

surplus agricultural commodities.

It is not clear whether degradable plastics can actually help solve MSW disposal problems, or whether

degradable might actually aggravate existing problems and constrain emerging solutions like recycling. It is also

unclear whether they degrade into environmentally safe byproducts. Little information is available to shed light on

these issues, and this hinders the development of degradable materials. In addition, legislative bans or restrictions

may have little impact on actual MSW management, because the products usually subject to bans make up a very

small portion of MSW and substitutes for banned or restricted products may require more disposal capacity.

The expanded use of degradable plastics for solving MSW problems is questionable until the uncertainties

about what happens to them when they are landfilled, incinerated, or mixed with nondegradable materials for

recycling are answered. One role which appears promising is the use of degradable plastic bags for collecting yard

wastes as part of a comporting program. Other applications that may be appropriate include the use of degradable

for specialty products such as agricultural mulch (where some operational economies are associated with its use)

and possibly products that cause severe litter problems or become marine debris.2

Another concern is that some people may see degradable plastics as a “license to litter. ’ Other observers see

waste in allowing plastics to degrade into ‘‘nothing’ when they have such a high energy value for incineration.

Types of Degradable Plastics

Biodegradable Plastics-There is no formal definition of biodegradable plastic, but it generally indicates a

plastic that can be broken down by biological means (i.e., the metabolic activities of microorganisms such as

bacteria and fungi). As the term is used, it does not necessarily mean complete biodegradation, which would be

breakdown into carbon dioxide and water. Two related terms also are used. Biodisintegration is the biological

breakdown of plastic into smaller sized (but not molecular) particles. Biodisfiguration occurs when the surface of

the material becomes blemished or contaminated by the growth of microorganisms, but no structural changes in the

material occur.

IWWU;Iowa; Bakeley, California; Suffolk County, NCW yolk.

2~~er5wi~~ we of degra~b]e plastics, using different technologies than tiose discussed here, is for medical applications (e.g., sut- ~d time-rele=

capsules).
Chapter 5-Recycling ● 181

A number of technologies to make plastics biodegrade are being marketed or developed. One approach is to

add biodegradable materials such as starch to the resin. At least three starch-based/polyethylene technologies are

available for licensing or sale.3 These technologies vary in the amount of starch used, the types of additives used

to ensure degradation and shelf-life, and the need for special processing. They also vary in their claimed

effectiveness, whether the starch is metabolized and thus the remaining plastic loses strength and disintegrates, or

whether other chemical reactions occur that break down the plastic component into smaller particles (of lower

molecular weight) that can eventually be metabolized. One firm has combined photodegradable and biodegradable

technologies.

Another approach is to develop plastics entirely with biodegradable materials, referred to as “second

generation” biodegradable plastics. Materials of this type are claimed to degrade into products that are naturally

present in the environment. At least one technology of this type, bioengineered bacteria-synthesized resins, is being

produced on a pilot scale.4 Other products still under development include plastics made from lactic acid.

The rate of biodegradation depends on the presence of microorganisms, temperature and moisture conditions,

starch content, and additives used (27 1). For example, one firm predicts that one of its starch-based products, with

a shelf-life of 2 years, will biodegrade within another year into small particles (centimeter-sized or less) when the

product is placed in a bacteria-rich, moist environment, and that it will continue to biodegrade depending on its

composition (146). Biodegradable plastic bags are now being tested for applicability to yard waste comporting

operations and suitability for food contact use. Special attention is being given to degredation byproducts and

toxicity.

Photodegradable Plastics—Photodegradable refers to plastics that break down in the presence of ultraviolet

(UV) light. These plastics are made by including chemicals that make the polymer sensitive to UV light (e.g., carbon

monoxide, vinyl ketone, nickel, cobalt, iron) in the structure of the photodegradable plastic (98).5 Upon exposure

to sunlight, the plastic absorbs radiation and the sensitizing chemicals cause reactions that break the long plastic

chains into smaller segments of the polymer. However, other cross-linking reactions may occur and make some

portions of the material less susceptible to degradation (53). The subsequent biodegradation rate depends on the

chemical make-up of the original polymer, particle size, and molecular weight (98). Some plastics also use

‘‘photo-initiated oxidation, ‘‘ in which sensitizing chemicals continue the degradation process after initial exposure

to UV light, including after burial.

Sensitizing chemicals can be selected to cause a reaction only when exposed to particular wavelengths of light.

For example, plastics can be made to degrade when exposed to a sufficient amount of sunlight-i but not behind

window glass since glass blocks UV penetration.

The rate of photodegradation depends primarily on UV intensity (which varies seasonally, with latitude, and

time of day), length of exposure, and, to a minor extent, on thickness of the plastic (98). The time lag between

exposure to UV and degradation can be controlled in the manufacturing process or the fabrication process,

depending on the technology; different formulations show degredation to dust-sized particles in periods ranging

from 48 hours to 1 year.6

3~e= ~nclude: 1) ~~ Daniels Mi~and ~ilive that is used to make PE tht~tti 6 PeXetlt c~t~ch, ~ unsaturated polymer, and a v- small

quantity (ppm) of tranwtion metal camlysu 2) St. Lawrencc St=h m~t~batch additive wi~ 6 to 15 -t st~ch ~a fatty acid (an eulier patent from the

devebper of the ADM material); and 3) Agri-Twh Industies comPounds wlf.f’I 20 [O 80 PWCenl s~ch~ Plus @Ye~ylcnet polyetiylene co-acrylic acid, urea,

ammonia, and various additives depending on the application.

q~ly(hy&oxy~~Ya~e-v~era~), ~ pHBV, ig @uced by Imperial Chemical Industries (lCI). fhtrent @uction Is about 100 tons per year Of a resin with

properties simdar to polypropylene, at a cost of $15 per potud ICI’s goal is full-scale production of 10,000 tons per year, at a cost of $1.50 to $2.00 ~~Ude

5Cw~ mono~de is ~c~orat~ d~ing tie m~ufac[ue of the resin, while vinyl ketone or tWtSlhC SSkS ~ incorporated as additives during fabrication.

% 48-hour degradation resulted when 6-pack rings containing l? P=enl e~Yle:e c~~~ mon:fide w~ tested. Commmcial degradable 6-pack rings,

however, uw only I percent carbon monoxide to mtin~fin duct irWW ~d f~tion m dffenng cllmatologlcal conditions (1 z 1.142). AS another example,

‘‘Plasugone” agricultural mulch can be designed, usirtg metal additives, to last between 30 days and 1 year (104).

(continued on next page)
182 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

After photodegradation occurs, it is unclear whether subsequent biodegradation will be complete. Some

investigators have predicted complete biodegradation in 1 year for PP and 10 years for PS (made with vinyl ketone

comonomers), based on laboratory tests of biological oxygen demand (98), but other reviewers of the same tests

and data question whether the biodegradation would be complete (271).

Chemical Dissolution-Plastics also have been developed that will dissolve when a chemical is added with

water. After dissolution, plastic particles theoretically can be recovered and recycled back into plastics products.

The developers claim the particles are similar to detergent additives, flocculants used at wastewater treatment plants,

and soil conditioners, and that they are not harmful to the environment (18).

Problems With Degradable Plastics

Lack of Standard Definitions and Testing Methods-One fundamental question about degradable plastics is

what the term really means. ASTM is developing standard definitions for different degradable plastics and standard

tests to evaluate degradability. This work will likely result in de facto industry standard definitions within 2 years

(171). More research will likely be required to develop standard testing protocols.

Without standard definitions, it can be difficult to determine what is really meant when a product is called

photodegradable or biodegradable, and under what environmental conditions and timeframe the claim is valid. In

general, it can be assumed that a product marketed as photodegradable or biodegradable will become brittle and

break into fragments in the presence of ultraviolet light or microorganisms, respectively. It is not clear what size

the fragments will be and what will happen next—whether the material will ultimately degrade into inert dust-sized

particles, into organic intermediates, or eventually into biomass, carbon dioxide, and water. It is also not clear what

will happen to any additives such as colorants. The General Accounting Office (254) pointed out the need to develop

standard definitions and testing methods to assure consumers of satisfactory products and to facilitate

manufacturers’ compliance with legislation.

Uncertain Performance and Safety—Many important questions about the rate and timing of degradation in

different environments and about the environmental safety of degradation products have either not been addressed

or the research is only now underway. For example, FDA is concerned about the possibility of a shortened shelf-life

of degradable food-packaging material. In evaluating the safety of new additives in food-contact materials, FDA

must consider potential problems such as enhanced migration of food-packaging components as a consequence of

accelerated degradation of the polymer (1 11). As another example, little is known about what happens to plastics

when they biodegrade. It is not known how specific fungi and bacteria degrade particular plastics, if

nonbiodegradable materials affect the microbes in any way, how sunlight affects biodegradable plastics, and how

physicaI and chemical aging affect the properties of biodegradable plastics (270). Whether biodegradable plastics,

including their nondegradable components, cause any hazards to animals (e.g., invertebrates, fish, birds, mammals)

is unknown. Although much of the interest in degradable plastics has been stimulated by concerns about marine

litter, few tests have been conducted on the degradability of available plastic products in seawater (175). Limited

seawater testing of the deterioration of photodegradable material now used in 6-pack rings, as well as polyethylene

and polystyrene products common] y found as marine debris, has been completed by the Research Triangle Institute

for the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center. Scientists are now concerned that degradable plastics in marine

waters may serve only to substitute one hazard for another. That is, with the use of degradable plastics, the hazard

of ingesting plastic fragments may replace the hazard of entanglement in nondegradable plastics. Tests of

degradability of some products in landfills are also planned (147).
Chapter S-Recycling . 183

A few communities (e.g., Urbana, Illinois, and Lincoln, Nebraska) are testing biodegradable mulch/trash bags

for disposal of leaves and grass clippings. Results of the first year pilot study in Nebraska raised questions about

the rate of degradation of the bags and fate of color additives (102). A second year of testing is planned with more

rapidly degrading bags and alternative collection of yard waste in large trash containers. Preliminary tests of garbage

bags made of a photo-initiated oxidation material showed that only bags of leaves on top of a pile began to degrade

(46). It maybe difficult to ensure the adequate exposure to UV prior to burial so the bags will continue to degrade

once buried or landfilled.

Uncertain Impact on Recycling---One concern about degradable plastics is that expanding their use might

adversely affect plastics recycling. The plastics industry (i.e., those who produce nondegradable plastics) contends

that if degradable plastics get mixed into the post-consumer plastic waste stream destined for recycling, they might

threaten the physical integrity of products made from recycled plastics. In turn, this could cause complicated liability

problems for product manufacturers and potentially reverse current increases in the recycling of plastics.

Technical experts who work with degradable plastics disagree. They contend that potential adverse effects will

vary depending on the particular degradable plastic, but that the problems will be minimized by: 1) dilution of the

degradable material in the overall volume of MSW; 2) addition of appropriate steps to the recycling process (e.g.,

separation of degradable, chemical treatment, use of additives) to negate any effects of degradable materials; or

3) careful consideration of the intended uses and properties of the recycled products. They consider quality control

of the incoming resin, processing, and the final product as the key to avoiding adverse impacts of degradable plastics

on recycling.

Markets for Degradable Plastics--Commercial products made with degradable plastics include 6-pack ring

carriers, agricultural mulches, and trash bags. Sales of these products are approximately $100 million per year, less

than 0.1 percent of the overall $150 billion plastics market in the United States (104).

Over half of all degradable plastic sales are of polyethylene beverage packaging rings. About 30 percent of

these 6-pack rings are photodegradable, as required now by various State laws (104). This market share is expected

to rise as Public Law 100-556 is implemented; this law requires EPA to regulate the use of certain degradable

ring-type devices by 1990, and it asks for a report on the feasibility of expanding the requirements to other packaging

systems.

The market shares for other degradable plastic products are very limited to date, but some may be growing.

For example, degradable garbage bags have captured 10 percent of the market in New York City, Boston, and

Hartford (104). Several communities are distributing degradable bags for yard waste collection. Many additional

potential products are being investigated for degradable plastics, including films, bottles, and other containers.

some of the problems associated with collecting ProjectedMarkets for Single and Mixed Resins—

high-volume plastic containers.

The Plastic Recycling Foundation, another industry group, had a budget for 1988 of $1.2 million.

Much of this funding (along with funds from the

New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology, Rutgers University, other States and universities, and the National Science Foundation) has been

awarded to the CPRR. The Center’s total 1988-89

research budget was $2.3 million. Over half of the

funds will support research on reclamation, end use

markets, sorting, and collection. The remaining

funds were used for pilot plant experiments and

information services (193).

An estimated 6.2 million tons of plastic containers

and packaging are projected to be discarded in 1990

and this is expected to increase to 8.2 million tons by

20(K) (81). If market projections are realized for

recycled PET and HDPE, by the mid-1990s the

Nation could achieve a 10 percent recycling rate for

plastic containers and packaging. If recycled plastic

products could capture a significant share of the

treated lumber market, plastics could achieve a 25 to

40 percent recycling rate for packaging over the next

decade. However, if recycling rates are calculated by

comparing the amount recycled with all plastics

discarded, rather than with containers and packaging

discards, then plastic recycling rates will more likely

be around 5 percent by the mid-1990s, if only the
184 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

projected HDPE and PET recycling is realized, or

between 15 and 20 percent if the treated lumber

market is captured.

Additional market development will be necessary

to accommodate expanded collection of postconsumer plastics. Expanding the use of recycled

plastics to replace some virgin resin markets, tap

nonplastics markets, and attract the interest of

particular industries (e.g., automotive and construction) will require some effort.

PET—Projections of the amount of PET that

might be recycled by 1993 range from about 300,000

to 350,000 tons, or at least 50 percent of all PET

beverage bottles (22,172). This would replace up to

4 percent of virgin PET sales. These increased

amounts could be sold easily in established and

newly developing markets. For example, Wellman,

Inc., the company that now recycles about 75 percent

of all recycled PET beverage bottles, claims it could

use two to three times the number of available

bottles, and it plans to more than double the size of

its operation by 1990 (21 1). Wellman, Inc. has also

recently announced plans to work with BrowningFerris Industries, a major waste hauler, to collect

PET bottles. Dow Chemical Co. has announced

plans for a joint venture to reprocess 25,000 tons of

PET and HDPE per year into high-value building

materials like roofing shingles by 1990. Dow is one

of the first producers of commodity thermoplastics

to move into the recycling business (165).

HDPE—in 1987, approximately 36,000 tons of

HDPE were collected for recycling, up from about

30,000 tons in 1986 (22). The current potential

market for recycled HDPE is estimated to be about

200,000 tons (54) and is projected to be as much as

330,000 tons by 1993; if the latter level were

achieved, almost 6 percent of virgin HDPE sales

would be displaced. The use of recycled HDPE is

expected to increase and expand into new markets

including nonfood bottles (193). The Proctor &

Gamble Co. plans to include 20 to 30 percent

recycled HDPE in non-food bottles (166).

Mixed Resins—Products from mixed plastics are

technically capable of replacing a portion of the

treated lumber market, especially decorative landscape ties and erosion control applications (21 ). This

market was estimated at 1.8 million tons per year.

However, it is questionable how much and how

rapidly mixed plastics markets can be developed.

Investment in technologies for mixed plastics recycling is very limited in the United States. OTA could

only identify four U.S. businesses using postconsumer waste to produce mixed plastics products

(Polymer Products in Iowa; Processed Plastics,

formerly Summit Steel Processing Corp., in Michigan; NECRInc in Massachusetts; and CPRR in New

Jersey). Both NECRInc and CPRR began operations

in early 1988 and the CPRR facility is a research/pilotscale operation.

Plastic lumber from mixed resins may also have

to compete with plastic lumber products made from

single resins, both recycled and virgin. The appearance and properties of these single resin products can

be controlled more easily than similar products

made from mixed plastic wastes, and thus may be

able to tap more specialized markets.

Comporting

Comporting refers to the process of biological

decomposition of solid organic materials by microorganisms (mainly bacteria and fungi). “Compost”

is the stabilized, humus- or soil-like product.43

Comporting has been popular for years because

compost products help improve soil structure. Now

it is gaining favor as an MSW management method

because, in addition to stabilizing organic materials,

it can divert them from landfills and reduce some of

the risks associated with landfilling and incineration

(chs. 6 and 7). (Another way of handling organic

materials involves anaerobic bacteria, but this process does not produce compost; see box 5-F).

Comporting involves manufacturing a product,

just like other industrial practices, and its effectiveness depends on how well the decomposition

process is designed and controlled. To maximize the

rate of microbial activity within a mass of organic

materials, factors such as temperature and moisture

must be controlled. With proper controls, comporting can occur rapidly, yield a product that meets

end-use quality specifications, and reduce the original volume of the materials by more than 50 percent.

qs’’Stabilized’ refers to the point at which microbial activity reaehes a low and relatively constant level.
Chapter S-Recycling ● 185

The biodegradable organic materials in MSW

include yard wastes (i.e., leaves, grass clippings,

weeds, prunings), food wastes, and paper from

residential, commercial, and institutional uses. Yard

wastes make up 10 to 30 percent of MSW, although

this portion varies greatly geographically and seasonally; food waste constitutes another 5 to 10

percent (ch. 3).

A critical decision has to be made prior to

comporting-whether to keep the organic materials,

particularly yard wastes, separate from other components of MSW, or to begin with mixed MSW and

extract the organic materials later for subsequent

comporting. 44 Yard wastes that are kept separate

from the rest of MSW can be handled and composted

easily-they require fewer controls on the comporting process itself and yield products that tend to

have low levels of contaminants. This is especially

true for leaves, and many facilities have been

dedicated solely to leaf comporting. However, the

disadvantage is that separate collection of yard

wastes is necessary. In contrast, mixed MSW must

be mechanically sorted into different portions prior

to comporting (43).45 The disadvantages of mixed

MSW systems are that mechanical separation involves more equipment and higher capital and

operating costs, subsequent comporting requires

greater control, and the resulting product tends to

have higher levels of metals. Mixed MSW systems

can be desirable, however, because they handle the

entire waste stream and do not require special

collection efforts.

Biological Decomposition

Microorganisms, or microbes, are the essential

agents of decomposition. To maximize the rate of

microbial activity, the comporting process must be

designed to properly control factors such as temperature, oxygen and nutrient availability, physical

substrate, moisture, and pH (43,71-76,90,178,229).

Temperature is a key factor controlling the

comporting process because the microbes that

decompose organic material can survive and function efficiently only at certain temperatures. As

microbes decompose organic material, they generate

Box 5-F—Anaerobic Systems

Anaerobic systems use bacteria that do not need

oxygen (i.e., anaerobic bacteria) to convert organic

materials into saleable methane gas and carbon

dioxide. Anaerobic systems do not produce compost. They can be attractive, however, because

methane gas can be an alternative to natural gas

(38). Several methane recovery systems are operating in Europe and Japan, and laboratory-scale

research has been conducted in the United States

(62).

One demonstration plant in Florida was built

specifically to test methane production from MSW

(38,188,263). The plant processed up to 100 tons of

MSW per day and was operated for research

purposes between 1978 and 1988. The plant had

‘‘digestor’ reactors that used fermentation and

other anaerobic reactions to yield methane and

carbon dioxide; these reactions required careful

control of parameters such as temperature and pH

(188). The methane gas was purified to remove acid

gases, water vapor, and other impurities.

In France, the Valorga Company opened its first

plant in 1981, with a 60-ton-per-day capacity (1 15).

This plant mechanically separates glass and metals,

then the organic wastes (i.e., food and paper)

undergo anaerobic fermentation in the digesters.

The resulting methane gas is captured. About 30

percent of the MSW remains after processing and is

incinerated. A new plant designed to handle about

300 tons per day (including sewage and industrial

sludge) cost about $19 million (1 15). The plant was

not fully operational as of October 1988, and only

the sale of gas (to Gas France, which is a 20 percent

owner) and scrap ferrous metals had been arranged;

no buyers had been found for cullet or the compostlike product (“digestate”). The plant appears to

have some problems with materials becoming

contaminated during the mechanical separation

heat as a metabolic byproduct. The organic material

loses its original identity and eventually becomes

stabilized, at which point microbial activity ceases

and heat generation subsides. However, the material

can retain excessive heat, and if temperatures rise

above 60° C before the material is stabilized the

44YUd and fm~ ~Mte~ ~W cm ~ comwst~ or mulch~ in backyards OTA Con5iders his tO be a form of waste prevention (ch. 4).

45Mo~t ~lx~ MSW comP5tlng oPra110n5 “5e mechanic~ prWes5es (e.g., screens, magnets, air C]a.ssifiers, trornrnds, hammerrnills, and shredders)

and/or handsorting to remove materials such as tires and bricks, recover recyclable materials such as glass and femous metats, reduce particle size, and

mix the waste,

99-420 0 - 89 - 5
186 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

microbes begin to die and further microbial activity

is severely limited. In practical terms, then, temperatures sufficient for microbial activity must be

maintained, but excessive temperatures must be

prevented. Deliberate removal of heat from the

material often is essential, although low-level leaf

comporting appears to be an exception. According

to some researchers, current EPA guidance on

comporting leads to inhibitively high temperatures

and improper functioning (73,74,75,76).

Because comporting relies on aerobic bacteria

(i.e., bacteria that require oxygen), sufficient oxygen

must be available, either from air in the spaces

between particles or from air immediately outside

the waste mass. Sufficient aeration results in greater

microbial activity, faster and more complete decomposition, and more control over odors and pathogens

(43,71 ,72). Excessive aeration can reduce temperatures below those best for maximum microbial

activity; insufficient aeration leads to overheating,

minimal activity, and foul odors.

In general, if temperatures are maintained properly and the mass of materials is ventilated, then

oxygen availability is assured. Ventilation can be

accomplished effectively by blowing air through the

mass (i.e., forced aeration) and to some extent by

mechanically agitating the mass (i.e., turning, stirring, or tumbling). In some cases, ventilation is

conducted in conjunction with temperature controls

(71-76). Agitation also helps control temperature

and moisture, reduce particle size, and increase

bacterial access to nutrients by replacing “used”

substrate with “fresh” material.

Curing and Finishing-once initial comporting

is complete, composted materials must still be

‘‘cured’ to ensure that the product is stabilized (i.e.,

biological activity is low enough so few odors are

present). Depending on the system, this can take

several months or more. After curing, compost can

be ‘finished’ or upgraded to meet market specifications by using methods such as screening, pulverization, destoning, pelletization, and crumbling (207).

Compost also can be enhanced by adding nitrogen,

mixing with peat or other products for use by

nurseries, or blending with other soils for landscaping (43).

System Configuration

The configuration of a comporting system refers

to the layout of equipment and machinery used for

handling materials and for ventilation, along with

any enclosing structures or special features (71,72).

These features can be combined in numerous ways.

General Terminology—The language of comporting configurations typically uses terms such as

windrow, static pile, and in-vessel or reactor systems. However, this terminology has been criticized

for overemphasizing the physical design of a comporting facility and underemphasizing the biological

decomposition process (71 ,72). According to critics,

any of these configurations might be compatible

with effective, ventilation-based control of the

process, so the terms do not indicate the key factors

affecting the biological process. OTA agrees that the

process is more important than design; the design of

a particular facility will depend more on the needs of

a particular community (e.g., location, costs). The

terminology is still widely used, however, so the

terms are described briefly.

Windrow and Static Pile Systems-Windrow and

static pile systems typically process material in an

unconfined area, and the product is stored in piles to

undergo further stabilization. The size and depth of
Chapter 5-Recycling ● 187

windrows and piles are limited by several factors,

particularly compaction, ability to ventilate and

agitate, moisture, and temperature (43,71 -76). In

windrow systems, compostable material is placed in

elongated piles or “windrows” and then is agitated

to increase aeration. In static pile systems, large piles

are formed over a network of perforated pipes that

pull (i.e., vacuum) or force (i.e., inject) air through

the material (207).

In-Vessel Systems—’’In-vessel” or “reactor”

systems process material in confined structures. A

few of these systems have operated for over 30 years

(43,68,178,224). Most systems co-compost sewage

sludge with the organic portion of MSW (24,90,21 5).

Sewage sludge increases the moisture content and

adds nitrogen, which helps the growth of microbes,

but it also can increase odor problems and potential

contamination with metals. Additional research is

needed on the quality of compost products obtained

from co-comporting operations.

Configurations for Leaf Composting-Leaf composting can be accomplished with relatively simple

system configurations. For example, most leaf

comporting systems do not require deliberate ventilation (71,72), although they can be designed with

this feature. This simplicity is attractive because

leaves are a significant waste management problem

in some communities. In some areas, for example,

leaves and grass clippings can comprise over 60

percent of the MSW generated at residences during

summer and fall (88,207,229).

Although leaf comporting systems are generally

simple, a range of configurations still can be used

depending on the needs of a particular community

(228,229). In minimal technology systems, the only

activity is turning large piles of leaves once a year;

compost is produced in 2 to 3 years. A large buffer

area is needed, however, because the piles become

anaerobic and odorous. In low-level systems, frontend loaders turn smaller piles several times a year so

the piles do not become anaerobic as readily;

compost is produced in 1 to 2 years. In intermediate

systems, piles are watered periodically and turned by

specially designed machines; compost is produced

in 6 to 12 months. High-level systems produce

compost in less than 6 months by grinding leaves

before comporting, providing more aeration and

turning, and controlling temperature and moisture.

Minimal and low-level systems thus require less

management and expense, but more time and space.

Intermediate and high-level systems require more

control over the biological processes, but more

capital investment.

Operational Problems

Odors-Odors usually indicate that the process of

biological decomposition is not proceeding properly. Odor generation can be controlled, however,

through proper temperature controls and agitation.

Grass clippings often cause odor problems because

their high moisture, nitrogen. and organic content

makes them decompose rapidly, which can lead to

anaerobic conditions (229). As an alternative, homeowners can leave clippings on lawns after mowing,

as long as they are not too thick (208).

Leachate-Leachate formation can occur when

the moisture content of the comporting material is

too high. Source-separated organic materials, for

example, tend to have a higher moisture content than

does mixed MSW (77,1 15). Leachate can be collected several ways, including conducting operations on a paved surfaced designed to collect

leachate or by collecting runoff in sedimentation

ponds (43,233). Important questions are whether

heavy metals are leached from compost and whether

organic chemicals (e.g., pesticides) are present and

leachable (see “Pollution From Primary and Secondary Manufacturing Processes” below).

Pathogens, Plants, and Fungi—Various pathogens (e.g., bacteria such as Salmonella, parasites

such as Ascaris) can be present if comporting is not

well controlled. The existence of pathogens varies

with the type of waste, but potential contamination

is higher when co-comporting with sewage sludge

occurs. Some microbes also can be released into the

air on dust particles and aerosols generated during

composting (43); health effects related to inhalation

of Aspergillus fumigatus, for example, have been of

concern, although none have been documented

(228). Weed seeds and fungi also can be present in

yard waste and sewage sludge and thus can reduce

final product quality. In general, temperatures over

50” C, maintained throughout the entire comporting

pile for a sufficient time, are needed to destroy

pathogens and weed seeds (71,72,91,178); comporting cannot continue above 60° C, however, or

the microbes needed for decomposition begin to die.
188 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Operational Facilities

Mixed MSW Facilities-At least six mixed

MSW comporting facilities currently operate in the

United States (table 5-6), and one additional facility

is being built in Minnesota. Most of the composting

facilities that operated in the 1950s and 1960s closed

because of economic or technical problems (90,207,252).

About three dozen additional projects are in the

planning, design, and bid stages (207). Portland,

Oregon, for example, began negotiations in July

1988 to build a $23 million comporting facility

(120,265); the facility would process 180,000 tons

of waste and produce about 100,000 tons of compost

annually.

Five of the existing facilities are publicly owned,

and at least three co-compost with sewage sludge.

The Delaware facility is designed to process 1,000

tons of MSW and 350 tons of sewage sludge per day;

the planned Minnesota facility also will be large,

with a capacity of over 1,000 tons per day. The other

facilities are relatively small and began operating

only recently (43). The Delaware facility and the

facility under construction in Minnesota are designed with front-end mechanical separation. Besides separating various materials for recycling (e.g.,

metals, glass) and producing RDF (from plastics and

paper), the Delaware facility can produce about 180

tons of finished compost per day (24); the operators

expect to market about half of the output to the

fertilizer industry.

Limited information is available about the costs of

mixed MSW comporting. Total capital costs for

existing facilities range from $700,000 (1987 dollars) for the Minnesota facility to $73 million (1983

dollars) for the Delaware facility (161,252); this

corresponds to about $13,000 to $54,000 per ton of

design capacity. Aside from size, differences in

capital costs are related to equipment specifications,

construction and insurance costs (43), and storage

space requirements (237). Operation and maintenance costs have been estimated to range from about

$17 to $33 per ton (43).

Mixed MSW comporting has been more common

in Europe than in the United States, and a few

facilities have proven successful over long periods

of time (23,68,106,141).46 However, many facilities

(e.g., in Belgium, Switzerland, West Germany, the

Netherlands, and Sweden) have had difficulties

marketing their products (23,106,1 15). Mixed MSW

comporting has declined in Sweden, which had a

high rate, because of problems with heavy metals

and marketing (23). Even before this, many Swedish

facilities simply transported much (between 61 and

80 percent) of their compost to landfills (23,115).

Yard Waste Programs—Many communities in

the United States compost yard wastes, especially

leaves. Yard wastes are collected several ways,

including using front-end loaders to pick up bags,

vacuuming from curbsides, and using packer trucks

to empty waste bins. No estimate of the total number

of yard waste facilities exists, but hundreds are

known, for example, in New Jersey, Michigan,

Wisconsin, and Minnesota (88,151,161). As of

December 1988, New Jersey alone had 180 permitted facilities, most for leaf comporting; the State

uses a manual on leaf comporting as its guidance

document for such facilities (229). In Massachusetts,

about 25 percent of all municipalities participate in

yard waste comporting programs (209). However,

these States have not estimated the amount of yard

waste handled, and most do not have specifications

regarding the quality of final products from such

programs. Numerous reports describe local programs (e.g., 25,217,233).

Few data are available on the costs of yard waste

comporting. In one study of eight municipal operations, collection and transportation costs to the

municipality ranged from $0 (where residents or

landscapers dropped wastes off at a facility) to over

$80 per ton, and processing costs ranged from $4 to

$23 per ton (233). In general, collection and

transportation costs were 1 to 11 times greater than

processing costs. For leaf comporting, operating

costs for low-level systems are estimated to range

from $2 to $4 per cubic yard (228).

Comporting of yard and food wastes that have

been separated from other MSW is increasing in

Europe (77,1 15,103,156). In West Germany, for

example, in 1988 at least 71 source separation

projects existed for organic wastes (93,218). These

projects served an estimated 430,000 households,

*study indicated that France had over 100 comporting facilities in operation ( 194). However, most of these plants probably arc sludge comporting

or co-comporting plants (136).
Chapter 5-Recycling ● 189

Table 5-6-Operational Mixed MSW Composting Facilities in the United States

Processing Type of

Year capacity composting Co-compost

Location opened (tpdof MSW) system with sludge

Wilmington, DE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984 1350 In-vessel Yes

Sumpter County, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1988 65-100 Windrow NAb

Dodge City, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1987a 30 Windrow NA

St. Cloud, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1988 50 In-vessel Yes

Fillmore County, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1987 25 Windrow No

Portage, Wl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986 30 In-vessel Yes

aNot commercially operating; run for research and demonstration by

vendor.

bInformation not available.

SOURCES: Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., “Composting Technologies, Costs, Programs, and Markets,” contract report prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment (Richmond, CA: January 1989); Ron Albrecht Associates, Inc., Composting Technologies, Costs, Programs and

Markets,” contract report prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Annapolis, MD: December 1988).

and they composted an estimated 200 pounds per

person of organic wastes each year. Heidelberg’s

program is one of the largest, serving over 100,000

people (78,1 15).

Food Wastes—No MSW facilities in the United

States are used solely for comporting food waste

(252). Some U.S. companies, however, collect and

process certain food wastes. For example, one

operation in Virginia collects waste grease, bones,

fat, and offal from slaughterhouses, restaurants, and

supermarkets and processes it into an animal feed

additive (126). In New Jersey, some farmers are

licensed to collect food wastes and feed them to

swine (58).

Products, Markets, and Standards

The main value of finished compost is its humuslike characteristic, which can help improve soil by

adding organic matter and increasing water-holding

capacity. The positive effects of compost on plant

growth and yield are well documented (178,194).

The nutrient content of compost is low relative to

chemical fertilizers, however, so compost usually is

not used as a fertilizer unless it has been chemically

enhanced (43,178,267). Compost products are used

by many businesses (e.g., private landscapers and

contractors, vineyard operators, farmers, golf course

operators, topsoil and nursery industries), public

institutions (e.g., public works and parks departments), and some individual homeowners (207).

In general, municipalities should not expect

composting to be profitable; revenues from the sale

of compost products can only partially offset operating costs (71 ,72,267) (see ch. 2). Gross wholesale

revenues for yard waste compost products exhibit a

wide range, from $0 (when given away for free) to

$25 per ton (233). Products that cannot be sold or

distributed usually have to be used as cover material

at landfills.

General Market Demand-Each end use of

compost requires that the product meet certain

specifications. As a result, consistent quality, as well

as consistent availability, are critical in determining

marketability (43). Mixed MSW, or organic waste

from previously mixed MSW, usually contains

small pieces of glass and plastics, stones, and other

objects. Mechanical screening processes can remove

much, but not all, of these materials. Whether these

contaminants are a problem depends on the end use

of the product.

In general, products with consistently high quality

are required for food production and horticultural

uses, while products with lower quality can be used

for revegetation and landfill cover (71 ,72). A topgrade product generally has dark color and earthy

smell, minimal pathogens and toxic substances,

uniformly small particle size, and proper nutrient

and moisture content (43).

The potential market for compost products is

impossible to quantify, but proponents contend that

existing markets are small relative to their potential

(24,43,61). However, compost must compete with

sewage sludge compost and other products (e.g.,

sawdust, fish processing wastes, peat products,

manure, bark, natural topsoils). Almost 200 sludge

comporting facilities are operating or are being

planned, and competition is likely to increase in the
190 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions (2). Many compost products are only marketed locally because

their weight and bulkiness (e.g., 700 to 1,000 pounds

per cubic yard) makes transport expensive and

energy-intensive.

The market for compost in large-scale agriculture

is small, because compost is not intended to be used

primarily as a fertilizer and because of its bulkiness.

Given increasing concerns about depletion of organic matter in soil, however, some analysts consider farmers to be a strong potential market for

using compost as a soil conditioner (43,237). Overall energy use in agriculture also might decrease if

compost could help reduce dependence on energyintensive chemical fertilizers and lower the energy

needed for soil preparation (61).

The potential market for compost in landscaping

(horticulture) and smaller scale agriculture (e.g., row

crops and orchards) may be large (43). Market

evaluations indicate that landscape contractors and

suppliers, sod services, nurseries, and retailers of

soil conditioners are likely to show increased

interest in bulk compost (237). Homeowners represent another potentially large market for bagged

products. Marketing surveys, however, indicate that

many individuals are reluctant to use composts made

from MSW and sewage sludge (43).

Standards-Many States require comporting facilities to obtain permits from the relevant environmental or health agencies (161,207). For mixed

MSW facilities, permits can require hydrogeological

site investigations, studies of odor dispersal, and

monitoring plans. Some States (e.g., Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York) require water

pollution controls. Local regulatory agencies also

may issue permits to address storm water and

sediment control.

Yard waste facilities tend to be regulated less

stringently than mixed MSW facilities. For example,

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin do not require community operations to

obtain a permit, and New Jersey recently made it

easier for small operations to obtain permits. Some

proponents suggest that these facilities continue to

be less stringently regulated (88). Although this

approach would provide incentives for yard waste

comporting, it would not necessarily ensure protection of human health and the environment or the

production of compost products that meet specifications.

State policies regarding the use of compost

products vary widely (43). Regulations for products

from mixed MSW are based on EPA guidelines (40

CFR 257) and Department of Agriculture standards

(e.g., for chemical quality) originally developed to

address the application of sewage sludge to land

(177,207). The guidelines set the maximum rates at

which metals can be added to soil, based on the fate

of metals and their impact on the food chain, soil

properties, and crop types. More research is needed

on the extent to which leaching of metals and uptake

by plants occurs.

Few States have developed standards for different

classes or uses of compost. Similarly, few standards

exist to regulate organic chemicals (e.g., pesticides)

in compost products. Some States, however, are

beginning to regulate these products (table 5-7). For

example, Minnesota has proposed standards to

control the levels of contaminants in compost

products. Under these rules, Class I compost, made

without sewage sludge and containing metal and

PCB levels below specified limits, would be safe for

unrestricted use. Class II compost, either made with

sewage sludge or containing levels of metals and

PCBs above the limits, would be restricted according to soil properties and land use.

Future comporting regulations could be designed

in several ways. For example, they could require

testing of compost products (e.g., for toxicity) or

they could specify performance standards to be met

by comporting processes and facilities.

Another problem is the lack of guidelines or

standards to help municipal buyers of comporting

technologies evaluate claims about decomposition

rates and product quality (43,72). Some vendors of

mixed MSW systems claim, for example, that they

can produce a stable compost product in a relatively

short time (less than 2 weeks in some cases).

Pollution From Primary and Secondary

Manufacturing Process

Proponents of recycling have made many claims

about the relative levels of pollution generated by

primary and secondary manufacturing processes,

often arguing that recycling reduces pollution. In
Chapter 5-Recycling ● 191

Table 5-7-Selected State Standards for Compost Products

(parts per million dry weight)

Minnesotaa New Yorkb MassachusettsC

Substance Class I Class Id Class Ild Class Id Class Ild

Boron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Molybdenum . . . . . . . . . . .

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PCBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

1000

500

500

5

100

1000

1

10

1000

1000

250

10

200

2500

1

25

1000

1000

1000

10

200

2500

10

300

2

1000

1000

300

10

10

200

2500

300

25

1000

1000

1000

10

10

200

2500

aFor any compost made without sewage sludge; if levels are met, unrestricted use is permitted.

bFor sewage sludge and mixed MSW compost,

CFor sewage sludge, mixed MSW, and yard compost.

dClass I refers to food crops; Class II refers to non-food crops.

SOURCES: Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., “Comporting Technologies, Costs, Programs, and Markets,” contract report

prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Richmond, CA: January 1989); M. Mayer,

H. Hofer, and U. Maire, “Trends in Yard Waste Comporting,” BioCycle 29(6): 60-63, July 1988; Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency, “State Solid Waste Policy Reportl, A Focus on Greater Minnesota, Background

Paper XII: Composting,” Office of Waste Management Grants and Assistance, draft report (St. Paul, MN:

December 1988); C.J. Rosen, N. Schumacher, R. Mugaas, and S. Proudfoot, Comporting and Mulching:

A Guide to Managing Oganic Wastes, Minnesota Extension Service Report AG-FO-3296 (St. Paul, MN:

1988).

general, recycling may result in fewer pollutants

when the entire MSW system is considered, In

particular, if recycled products replace products

made from virgin materials, potential pollution

savings may result from the dual avoidance of

pollution from manufacturing and from subsequent

disposal of replacement products made from virgin

materials.

However, it is usually not clear whether secondary manufacturing produces less pollution per ton

of material processed than primary manufacturing.

Such an analysis, which is beyond the scope of this

report, would have to examine all the pollutants

produced during each step in production, as well as

pollution generated while providing energy to the

process itself and for transporting materials. It would

also be necessary to account for the effects of water

and raw materials use on ecological systems. Definitive research has not been conducted, however, on

all the relevant primary and secondary materials

processes. To provide a starting point, this section

reviews some comparisons of manufacturing using

recycled versus virgin materials. Box 5-G briefly

illustrates some of the pollutants generated in

secondary manufacturing processes,

Numerous publications have documented pollutants emitted from manufacturing processes that use

virgin materials (e.g., 131). In the mid-1970s, EPA

concluded that recycling of waste materials generally resulted in less pollution than did manufacturing

from virgin materials (251).

This generalization does not necessarily hold true

in all cases. Using EPA data on paper production

processes, for example, one researcher found no

clear difference in measurements of chemical and

biological oxygen demand and of total suspended

solids in water effluents from recycling and virgin

materials processes (262). The EPA data also

indicated that 5 toxic substances ‘‘of concern” were

found only in virgin processes and 8 were found only

in recycling processes; of 12 pollutants found in both

processes, 11 were present in higher levels in the

recycling processes.

This researcher also noted that EPA’s analyses of

pollutants from virgin materials processing did not

account for pollution from mining, timbering, and

transportation (262). He concluded that “there are

clear materials and energy conservation benefits to

recycling, [but] the picture regarding environmental

benefits and risks is complex, especially when
192 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 5-G-Pollutants Generated in Secondary Manufacturing Processes

Heavy Metals

Iron and Steel Recycling—Solid wastes produced by iron and steel foundries that primarily use ferrous scrap

can contain lead, cadmium, and chromium; these wastes may be classified as hazardous (181). Sludges from

core-making processes and baghouse dusts also are hazardous in some cases, depending on emission controls and

the quality of incoming metal. Oman (181) cited one study indicating that”9 out of 21 foundries generated emission

control residuals which would be considered as a hazardous waste on the basis of EP toxicity for lead. Air

emissions also are common. Electric arc furnaces, which normally operate on 100 percent scrap, avoid some air

emission problems because they do not use coke oven gases as a heat source; however, they can emit high levels

of particulate if they use scrap with high concentrations of dirt, organic matter, and alloys (131).

Aluminum Recycling—When aluminum scrap is melted, associated substances (e.g., painted labels, plastic, and

oil and grease) are burned off. The resulting air emissions can contain particulate matter in the form of metallic

chlorides and oxides, as well as acid gases and chlorine gas (261). Similar types of emissions are likely from plants

that smelt other scrap metals.

Paper Recycling—Printing inks often contain pigments that contain heavy metals such as lead and cadmium

(261 ). These and other metals can be present in wastewater and de-inking sludge from paper recycling; for example,

de-inking sludges have been reported with lead concentrations ranging from 3 to 294 ppm (dry weight) (64).

Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs)—Very little testing has been conducted at MRFs to determine levels

of pollutants. Even the results of testing that has been done at one facility that handles sorted paper, glass, and metals

are ambiguous. At that facility, air withdrawn from within the building (i.e., prior to emissions controls) exhibited

relatively low emission rates (in terms of pounds per hour) for cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel

(117,262). However, actual concentrations of the metals in the emissions were high. No data were available about

emissions after air pollution controls or on heavy metal concentrations in dust that settled in or around the plant.

Comporting—Concentrations of heavy metals tend to be higher in compost from mixed MSW comporting

facilities than from compost made from separately collected organic wastes, primarily because mechanical

separation cannot remove all metals. Compost from MSW that is co-composted with sewage sludge also tends to

have high metal concentrations. Sewage treatment processes remove metals from effluent and concentrate them in

sludge, and this emphasizes the role industrial pretreatment programs can play in reducing the metals entering

treatment plants (240). The concentrations of metals in mixed MSW compost and co-compost samples vary from

site to site (161). In some cases, zinc and lead exceeded State limits (26), while in other cases lead levels were lower

than the limits. Problems also have been noted with heavy metals in mixed MSW compost in Europe

(23,92,101,1 15,132,149,156). In one West German study, average concentrations of seven heavy metals were

almost always lower in compost made from source-separated organic waste; in some cases they were essentially

the same as soil concentrations (77,78). More research is needed on the composition of leachate from compost

products under different conditions.

Dioxins

Dioxins can be produced at paper mills, as a byproduct of pulp bleaching, and can be present in the effluent

or sludge (241). Limited testing by EPA has shown that concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sludges from two mills

that use waste paper are relatively low, ranging from 2 to 37 parts per trillion (17).

Dioxins also have been detected in post-pollution control emissions from certain secondary metals smelting

facilities. For example, dioxins have been reported in post-control emissions from (127):

c steel drum reclamation;

. scrap wire reclamation (combustion to remove wire insulation, with afterburner); l and

. metals recovery from electronic scrap such as telephones and circuit boards (combustion, with afterburner

and baghouse).
Chapter 5-Recycling ● 193

Other Organic Chemicals

Paper—Inks that need to be removed during recycling also contain acrylics, plastics, resins, varnishes,

defoamers, and alcohols, some of which are discharged in wastewater. Paper recycling processes, particularly those

with a bleaching step involving chlorine, also are known to discharge effluents that contain various chlorine-based

compounds, including carbon tetrachloride, dichloroethane, methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene (261 ). In

addition, the dispersing agents used in the de-inking processes (e.g., detergents and emulsifiers) end up in the sludge.

Plastics-Residues from the recycling of plastics are difficult to assess without knowing the specific details

of proprietary systems used to wash materials and remove contaminants. Wash water and air emissions may be

contaminated by residues from other products associated with recycled plastic, such as food or pesticides. At least

one PET reclamation system planned to operate at a scale of 25,000 tons per year by 1990 will use

1,1,1-trichloroethane to remove residues. This toxic solvent is a well-known groundwater contaminant (239).

However, according to Dow, the developer of the technology, the solvent is used in a closed system that will not

result in release to the environment (165).

Compost—Few data are available on organic chemicals in compost. Compost from the Delaware facility has

been found to contain PCBs in concentrations up to 5 parts per million (42), which is below the allowable limit of

10 parts per million set in Delaware’s regulations. Questions have been raised about chemicals in grass clippings,

particularly nitrogen from fertilizers and organic chemicals from pesticides (228). Many of these chemicals are

insoluble and may bind to particles instead of being leached into groundwater, but there is little data to evaluate this.

It also is unclear whether they could be taken up in food crops grown on compost containing the chemicals (228).

Chlorine and Sulfur

Chlorine and sulfur are common components in many products and chlorine is used in some recycling

processes, so it is not surprising that both elements are found in residues at recycling facilities. For example, Visalli

(262) calculated that uncontrolled emissions from one secondary aluminum smelter contained 1.7 pounds of

hydrogen chloride and 1.8 pounds of S02 per hour.

llt is llkely ~[ dloxfi ~furm are produced from burning plastic wire coating. Wire scrap IIMkeS Up a small pCrCCIItagC Of told metal scrap proaxsed.

specific hazardous pollutants are taken into ac- lead in these sludges appears to be in the same range

count. ’

Paper

Virgin pulp processes generate various liquid and

gas residues, depending on the type of paper, type of

pulping process, and extent of bleaching (131). In

general, large amounts of mill effluent are generated

and this contains suspended solids, dissolved organic solids, various chemicals, and high BOD.

Wastewater generated in the bleaching stage can

contain dioxins, chlorine dioxide, hypochlorite, and

other bleaching chemicals and byproducts. Spent

liquor generated in the pulping process can contain

a wide variety of chemicals; the liquors often are

burned in a recovery furnace or fluidized bed. Other

byproducts from the virgin paper process also can be

used to generate energy. Gas emissions include

chlorine, chlorine dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate, and hydrogen sulfide. Metals from de-inking

are present in sludge residues; the concentration of

as in sludges fro-m mills that use secondary fibers

(64).

Aluminum

At primary aluminum smelters, one major concern is with the ‘potliners’ ‘—pots lined with carbon

that serves as the cathode and that contain compounds of aluminum, fluorine, and sodium. The

potliners are replaced every 4 or 5 years, and

disagreement has arisen over whether used potliners

should be listed as a hazardous waste under RCRA.

As of August 1988, EPA has been required to list

potliners as hazardous waste. The aluminum industry claims, however, that potliners can be used to fire

cement kilns, among other things, and therefore

should not be considered a “waste. The designation of potliners as hazardous waste discourages this

recycling. Most aluminum smelters in 1989 are

disposing of spent potliners in hazardous waste

landfills.
194l Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Steel

Various residues are generated during the steps

necessary to produce steel (e.g., coking, sintering,

ironmaking, steelmaking, rolling, and finishing steps)

(131). Air emissions from coke ovens, for example,

contain particulate and sulfur dioxide. Wastewater

from steelmaking contains suspended and dissolved

solids, oxygen-demanding substances, oil, phenols,

and ammonia. Solid waste residues also are common, particularly from open hearth and oxygen

furnaces. One study (131) modeled production

processes and estimated that using less scrap and

more ore would result in increased generation of

phenols, ammonia, oxygen-demanding substances,

sulfur dioxide, and particulate, and decreased

generation of suspended solids.

Plastics

Once a resin is produced, the environmental risks

associated with fabricating products from the resins

are the same whether the resin is produced from

virgin or secondary materials. However, primary

production processes generate air emissions, wastewater, and solid waste. The types and amounts of

these wastes vary with different processes and types

of plastics, and some are managed as hazardous

waste. According to one analysis, five of the six

chemicals whose production generates the most

hazardous waste in the United States are chemicals

commonly used by the plastics industry (268).

In general, air emissions are highest during the

initial processing and recovery steps for monomers,

solvents, catalysts, and additives. Wastewater associated with the primary production process can

contain suspended monomers, co-monomers, polymers, additives, filler particulate, soluble constituents, and solvents that are washed or leached from

the plastic. Solid waste is produced at various points,

mostly from spillage, routine cleaning, particulate

collection (from feeding, handling, grinding, and

trimming processes), but also from production errors

and a few production process byproducts. It can

contain mostly polymers and small quantities of

plasticizers, fillers, and other additives.

Some emissions are associated with the reprocessing of secondary plastic materials. For example,

volatile air emissions can be generated during the

heating of plastics, and residues can be contained in

the rinse water used to cool the remelted resins.

Barriers to Increased Recycling

Nature of Commodities Markets

One important factor in any commodity-based

industry is the volatility of markets. This volatility

creates heightened uncertainty in evaluating the

financial viability of a business venture, discouraging growth to some extent. Markets for both primary

(or virgin) and secondary (or recovered) materials

are subject to this volatility to varying degrees.

Therefore, the nature of commodity markets, and the

causes of their volatility, should be considered when

barriers to increased recycling are evaluated.

Both primary and secondary materials are used as

inputs in one or more “downstream” production

processes. As such, the demand for most raw

materials is based on factors far removed from the

immediate use of the materials as an input for

another product. For instance, demand for packaging

materials depends on the demand for the multitude

of products for which packaging is used. This means

that demand for a raw material is not very sensitive

to its own price, especially in the short run. Rather,

the demand for raw materials is more strongly

dependent on current technology and the availability

of substitute and other inputs in an intermediate

product, as well as final consumer preference factors

(45).

When considering market manipulation in an

attempt to stimulate recycling, it is essential to

consider these demand factors for basic raw materials. Because demand factors can be in a constant

state of flux, with a market having many actors

and an increasingly global nature, it is very

difficult to externally control or balance the

markets for these raw materials, whether primary or secondary.

The demand for raw materials often is volatile

because of the “distance” between the production

of the raw material and final consumption. This

volatility is sometimes more marked for secondary

than for primary materials, resulting in even greater

price fluctuations. This is particularly true when the

secondary material is a marginal supply (i.e., the

least desirable and first to be cut during business
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 195

downturns). In those markets, secondary materials

prices are always more volatile than those for

primary inputs, although they generally exhibit

similar longer term trends. This situation applies

most to iron and steel scrap, lead scrap, and lower

grades of waste paper, and is dependent on the

industrial infrastructure and the regulatory regime.

In any waste management program, the ultimate

fate of waste, including materials that can be

recovered, largely depends on the costs of different

management options. Recycling, of course, competes with landfilling and incineration. Moreover,

markets for materials recovered from MSW depend

on demand for recycled products. Where primary

manufacturing produces less costly goods, demand

for recycled goods will tend to be lower, creating an

economic environment that favors disposal. Consequently, recycling must compete simultaneously

with primary manufacturing and traditional waste

disposal methods.

Types of Constraints to Increased Use of

Secondary Materials

Materials recovered from MSW can be used to

produce a variety of new products. In some of these

products, secondary or recovered materials compete

as inputs only with their primary or virgin counterparts, while in others they compete with different

virgin or secondary materials. The relationship

between similar primary and secondary materials

must be understood to assess the potential for

increased consumption of materials recovered from

MSW.

Markets for secondary materials are, for the most

part, competitive, and they operate under a complex

set of dynamics. Any attempt to provide specific

incentives to increase the use of secondary materials should recognize that the dynamics of these

markets, and the barriers impeding them, are

different for each material. The nature of the

barriers determines the types of policy options likely

to be most effective.

Both economic and noneconomic barriers exist to

increased recycling (83). Economic barriers are

factors that limit markets through economic forces,

such as:

. the costs of raw materials, capital, and labor;

● the costs of transportation;

. new business or capacity expansion decisions;

and

. end-product prices.

These economic factors can be broadly classified

as supply-side or demand-side factors. Supply-side

factors affect the procurement and processing of raw

materials prior to manufacturing. Demand-side factors affect the end users of goods in the commercial,

institutional, and household sectors. Mills and other

recycled materials manufacturing establishments are

at the pivot point of the system, being direct

participants in both supply-side and demand-side

factors.

The degree to which each secondary material is

used is determined by a unique set of market factors.

For example, old newspapers are relatively easy to

collect, and little doubt exists that current rates of

collection could be increased. However, the two

primary end products for ONP—recycled paperboard and newsprint-are sold to limited markets.

Competitive products made of virgin materials serve

most of those markets, and the market share for

recycled products has declined in the last decade.

Thus, ONP is demand-side limited, and this limit

must be removed if more ONP is to be recycled.

An evaluation of demand-side or supply-side

limiting factors for secondary materials is presented

in table 5-8. The most opportune incentive points in

the system that might help increase recycling also

are presented. In the example of ONP, incentives to

end users would be most effective. In contrast, old

corrugated containers present a different situation.

Products made from recycled OCC compete well

against products made of virgin materials in many

markets. In this instance, incentives to collectors and

processors of OCC and to primary manufacturers to

use OCC would likely result in increased recycling.

One group of materials-plastics-is listed as being

both supply-side and demand-side limited. Postconsumer plastics recycling is in its infancy, and

many problems need to be worked out at all points

in the system.

Economic barriers can be related to technical

issues, on both supply and demand sides. Technical

barriers are often related to material quality, which

can limit the substitutability of secondary materials

for virgin materials. One example can be found in

recycled printing and writing paper. These papers
196 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 54-Overview of the Recycling System for Various Materials:

Limiting Factors and Incentive Points

Appropriate incentive points

Limiting factors Collection/

Industrial/

commercial

Materials supply Demand processing Mills consumers

Old newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Old corrugated containers . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Office papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Mixed papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x x x

Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Tin cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Used oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Tires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., ’’Economic lncentives and Disincentives for Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste;’ contract prepared for U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village, KS:1988)

are generally about 50 percent secondary fiber,

consisting mostly of pulp substitutes (pre-consumer

waste). Greater quantities of post-consumer waste

cannot be used, however, because of the inability of

the current process to sufficiently remove contaminants in the waste paper.

Similar technical constraints exist for the use of

scrap in steelmaking. Currently unremovable contaminants in some iron and steel scrap (particularly

post-consumer) compromise the strength of the final

steel product, thereby limiting the amount of scrap

that can be used and the types of products in which

it can be used. Post-consumer plastics, too, face

similar constraints concerning contaminant removal.

Relative cost also can act as an economic barrier.

Whether a cost differential results from higher

transport costs, subsidies to the virgin material, or

higher processing and handling costs, the outcome is

that the manufacturer will minimize costs in the

production process by choosing the lowest cost

material. In some cases, this turns out to be the virgin

material.

Finally, the manufacturer may be unable to obtain

secondary materials because they have not been

removed from the waste stream in large enough

quantities. The glass industry claims that this factor

alone inhibits greater recycling of glass cullet.

Collection is a serious problem for plastics.

Noneconomic barriers to increased recycling can

be caused by value judgments in the decisionmaking

process. These factors include the attitudes of

manufacturing personnel or consumers, attitudes

about quality control, and long-standing corporate

policies and procedures.

Some noneconomic factors are demand-related.

Some consumers are unwilling, either for real or

perceived quality deficiencies, to buy products made

from secondary materials. The preference for a

virgin content product is based not on an inability of

the secondary material to perform, but on the desire

of the consumer to have a ‘‘more attractive’

product. In other cases, the consumer is not even

aware of the existence of secondary materials in the

product, and is therefore unable to make a decision

on that basis. For example, it is impossible to

distinguish between primary and secondary aluminum.

Another example of the importance of noneconomic factors is illustrated with writing paper.

Consumers prefer bright white paper, which is more

difficult to produce if the paper has a high postconsumer waste content (above about 10 to 15

percent). It is likely that lower brightness paper

would be sufficient for many uses, but people view

this as a sign of inferior quality.

Supply-related noneconomic barriers exist where

the manufacturer is unwilling to obtain secondary

materials to use as inputs in the production process.

Such unwillingness is more common in vertically

structured industries, where the source of the virgin
Chapter S--Recycling 197

raw material is owned by the manufacturer. This

barrier is difficult to overcome because the industrial

infrastructure is built around this long-held economic relationship. Unwillingness may also be a

result of the manufacturer being unaware of technical advances in reprocessing technologies. This

problem has been noted for plastics.

Concerns about liability under Superfund legislation also act as an additional barrier to increased

recycling. Scrap handlers and processors increasingly are unwilling to handle scrap materials contaminated with known hazardous substances. This

has long been a concern for lead-acid battery

recyclers, and it is becoming one for auto scrap

processors as air bags containing sodium azide and

other nonmetallic materials are used more widely.

Tilts in the Playing Field

Recycling must compete simultaneously with

primary manufacturing and traditional disposal options, yet various government actions have given

economic advantages to these alternatives that in the

end make recycling less appealing. These actions

have resulted in market choices that, when all the

costs are accounted, are inefficient in the economic

sense.

In the competition between primary and secondary materials manufacturing, the costs of raw

materials are not always accurately reflected in the

price paid by the manufacturer. For example, the

government sometimes uses subsidies to supplement the cost of producing some raw materials, such

as timber. In these cases, the total costs of producing

finished goods are not all internalized to the

manufacturer. In addition, the cost of managing

waste residuals produced during the manufacturing

process is not always internalized, contributing to

inefficient market decisionmaking. For example, if

an industry emits chemicals to the environment,

there may be human health and environmental costs,

but these costs are unlikely to be reflected in the

price of the manufactured good.

External Costs of Manufacturing-When industrial facilities fail to control the release of pollutants

to the environment, an external cost is incurred

because the detrimental effects of that pollution on

human health and the environment are not accounted

for in the cost of production. The failure to internalize these costs can affect the relationship between

primary and secondary materials. Because the relative level of pollution from primary and secondary

production processes is not always clear, it is not

possible to determine how these external costs affect

the choice between primary and secondary materials. Those facilities generating more pollution will

have an advantage because they are avoiding more

external costs. Where primary facilities produce

higher levels of pollution than secondary facilities,

the primary facilities thus will have an unfair

advantage.

In addition, the reduced energy consumption

associated with recycling certain materials, such as

aluminum and some types of paper, could have

indirect pollutant savings by reducing overall fossil

fuel consumption. The burning of fossil fuels has

been linked to problems such as acid rain and global

warming. Although these externalities have not been

quantified, they can be important considerations in

the choice between virgin and secondary materials.

Federal Subsidies for Virgin Materials-The

history in the United States of preference programs

or subsidies for natural resources dates back to earl y

in this century, when the development of natural

resources was encouraged to fuel economic growth.

Preferences granted within the Federal tax system

are among the most visible—programs such as

depletion allowances for mineral mining and petroleum production, and special tax treatment of capital

gains from the sale of timber. These programs have

been used for decades to stimulate, and sometimes

help maintain, these sectors of the economy. As a

result, the programs have become embedded in the

economic system and are now an integral part of the

industrial infrastructure and economics of natural

resource development and production.

Federal expenditures for natural resources tax

programs are summarized in table 5-9. The tax

preferences most relevant to recycling are the

percentage depletion allowances for minerals, oil,

and gas and the special treatment of income for the

timber industry. Studies conducted in the 1970s on

the effects of these preferences indicated that they

have not significantly discouraged the use of secondary materials; recent studies on the issue have not

been conducted (83).
198 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

I

0
Chapter 5--Recycling . 199

Depletion Allowance-Historically, percentage

depletion allowances date back to the Internal

Revenue Act of 1913 and to World War I, which

placed heavy demands on the minerals industry. In

1932, depletion allowances were extended to all

primary metals industries to help them recover from

the depression. During World War II, depletion

allowances were extended to nonmetallic minerals.

In each case, it was understood that the tax preferences would likely be repealed after the difficult

period ended, But when it came time to give up the

subsidies, the industries fought to keep them and

they have succeeded to this day.

The percentage depletion allowance enables minerals producers to deduct a percentage, between 5

and 22 percent depending on the mineral, of the

value of mineral production in computing taxable

income from a mineral property (subject to a limit of

50 percent of taxable income). The significance of

percentage depletion allowance is that the deduction

is based on production, not on the amount of capital

invested in developing the property.

The basic premise for depletion allowances is that

the natural resource base depletes over time, just as

a production facility depreciates. In effect, a depletable resource is capital. The Federal Government

provides the depletion allowance to encourage

industry to undertake the risky endeavor of exploring for resources that are ever more difficult to find.

Higher allowances allegedly reflect the higher costs

and difficulty of replacement. These allowances

help ensure an adequate supply of mineral resources

to domestic industry, a factor some people consider

important to national security .47

It should be noted that the minerals industries pay

special taxes, in effect reducing the benefits of

Federal incentive programs. State severance taxes

are the most widely known special taxes on minerals. A severance tax is an excise tax levied on the

quantity 01 value of production. The amount of the

tax varies by State, but it can amount to a significant

financial burden for a mining enterprise.48

Special Treatment of Income for the Timber

Industry-Income from timber can be broken down

into two components: 1) real income from the

production of timber, and 2) income from increases

in the price of standing timber. Both types of income

qualify under capital gains. It has been argued that

annual increases in the value of timber are no

different than other agricultural production except

for the longer growth period and thus should be

taxed as ordinary income. The timber industry

argues, however, that this longer growing period

entails unusual risks and thus the increase in the

value of standing timber should receive preferential

tax treatment.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the Nation’s

overall tax rates. It also eliminated the preferential

rate structure from capital gains treatment for

corporations and individuals. Even though the differential tax rate between ordinary income and net

capital gains was eliminated beginning in 1988,

capital gains remains as a concept in the tax law.

Thus, for other tax reasons timber owners often

continue to distinguish between ordinary income

and capital gains.

The tax costs listed in table 5-9 seem to show that

as costs for capital gains treatment of certain timber

income decrease, costs for other programs, such as

expensing of multi-period timber growing costs,

increase. Why these increases appear is unclear. (It

should be noted that the budget estimates published

from year to year vary for a given year of a program,

so the latest year was used. Although these data may

be inaccurate, they are the only data available on the

costs of these tax programs.)

The first example of a program that appeared to

increase tax costs for the government was the

expensing of multi-period timber growing costs. For

all industries except timber, the Tax Reform Act

requires that if production extends for 2 or more

years, the producer must capitalize interest. This

exemption allows the timber industry to distribute

interest for capital costs over the entire production

period. This multi-period expensing for the timber

industry is not a new program. Therefore, it is

surprising that the budget reports such tax cost

increases in 1987.
200 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Photo credit: J.E. Robison

The Federal Government historically has given preferences or subsidies for the extraction and use of virgin materials.

Tax preferences are among the most visible--depletion allowances for mineral mining and petroleum production and

special treatment of capital gains from timber sales.

The second program that appears to increase tax

costs is investment credit and reforestation expenditures. Under this program, the direct costs incurred

by a company to reforest a site for commercial

production can be amortized over a 7-year period

rather than capitalized and recovered when the

timber is cut in 20 or 30 years. These direct costs are

also eligible for a special 10 percent tax credit as

long as the investments in timber stands are not

depreciable. The overall cost of this program jumped

from $57 million in 1986 to $210 million in 1987.

The Tax Reform Act did not change the provisions

governing reforestation amortization and credit.

These incentives have been available to taxpayers

since January 1, 1980, up to a limit of $10,000 per

year, and primarily benefit small- and medium-sized

landowners.

Two additional programs, not included in table

5-9, also benefit the timber industry: below-cost

government timber sales and technical support from

the Department of Agriculture. The sale of timber by

the Federal Government has been under fire for

several years. These sales can be seen as a form of

subsidy because the Federal Government sells

timber on Federal land at less than market value. The

timber industry argues that the reason for the

reduced pricing is the additional expense incurred by

the purchaser to build roads to access the timber,

roads which can then be used by everyone.

The Forest Service, a part of the Department of

Agriculture, carries out a number of technical

assistance programs designed to improve timber

management. These programs include fire protection, insect and disease control, and forest management. The costs of these programs have not been

quantified.

Effects of Virgin Materials Subsidies on Recycling--

Several studies carried out in the mid- to late- 1970s

analyzed the effects of subsidies for virgin materials

on recycling of secondary materials (83). These

studies are dated, however, so current conditions and

differences in the tax codes must be taken into
Chapter 5--Recycling . 201

account when examining their conclusions. In addition, these studies did not address glass and plastics.

In general, the studies concluded that while tax

benefits for mining and timber growing did exist,

they did not significantly discourage or reduce the

use of secondary materials. Some studies evaluated

the potential effects of tax benefits on virgin

materials supply (table 5-10). The tax benefits were

estimated to have affected the price of virgin

materials by varying degrees. Under the most likely

scenario, subsidies were estimated to affect the price

of virgin paper by 1 percent, copper by 5 percent, and

steel by 2 percent.

The effect of subsidies on secondary materials is

more difficult to describe. Two studies on the effects

of eliminating virgin materials subsidies estimated

that increases in the recycling of secondary materials

would be relatively small (table 5-10). In recent

years, in fact, the real increase in recycling has been

significantly higher than these estimated increases,

independent of the tax differences.

From these analyses, conducted prior to tax

reform, it appears that tax preferences for virgin

materials did not significantly inhibit increases in

recycling. Furthermore, the tax preferences address

national needs well beyond the issues of recycling

and MSW management. Any consideration of removing the tax preferences must carefully examine

the costs as well as the benefits associated with such

an action. Nevertheless, it is apparent that virgin

materials producers enjoy tax benefits not available

to secondary materials, thus creating some inefficiency in the market.

Recycling v. Other Management Methods—

Several factors distort the economic environment

and thus affect decisionmaking among MSW management alternatives. For instance, through the

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and

Federal tax laws the Federal Government has

promoted the use of waste-to-energy facilities as a

method to manage MSW; no comparable incentives

are available for recycling. Another factor that

distorts economic decisionmaking is the failure to

internalize external costs of recycling, incineration,

and landfilling.

Public Utility Regulator-y Policies Act and the

Promotion of Incineration Facilities-PURPA was

enacted to encourage the generation of electricity by

non-utility producers (ch. 8). Under PURPA, the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

established rules requiring utility companies to

purchase electrical energy generated by qualifying

independent generators at guaranteed rates. The

rates are determined by the States and are based on

‘‘avoided costs,’ the price the utility would have to

pay if it were to generate the power itself or buy it

from another supplier. In some states, these rates are

calculated based on the cost of building new

generating facilities.

The intended effect is to provide a guaranteed

market at a “fair” price for power generated by

MSW incinerators. Although these provisions provided strong incentive to build waste-to-energy

facilities in the past, they are currently under review.

If FERC restricts electricity purchases at rates above

current costs, MSW incineration and recycling will

compete on a more equal basis.

Federal Tax Laws Favoring Incineration—h

addition to PURPA, certain Federal tax laws provide

incentives for private ownership of MSW incinerators that recover energy, including an investment

tax credit, an energy tax credit, and a rapid depreciation schedule. Along with these incentives, the

availability of tax-exempt industrial development

bonds also encouraged the building of such facilities

by private parties. Most MSW incinerators built

during the last decade or so enjoyed the advantages

of these incentives.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 substantially reduced the financial incentives (other than those

accruing through PURPA) favoring private ownership of MSW incinerators. As a result, it now maybe

more cost-effective for such facilities to be municipally owned, since tax-exempt financing is still

available for municipalities. (Despite this change,

waste-to-energy companies appear willing to finance new facilities.) By comparison, it is not clear

that municipal tax-exempt financing is available for

materials recycling operations. If a facility recovers

materials from mixed waste, it is a waste treatment

facility and therefore eligible for tax-exempt financing. However, if the facility processes sourceseparated waste materials having value, the equipment and facilities used to handle these materials

generally may not be financed with tax-exempt
202 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Table 5-10-Estimated Effects of Tax Subsidies on Virgin Materials Prices

and of Eliminating Virgin Materiail Subsidies on Recycling of Secondary Materials

Increase in virgin material price

as a result of tax subsidies

Maximum Most likely Increase in use of secondary

Material possible impact impact materials with subsidy elimination

Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +4.2% +1 .0% 0.04-0.6%

Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +3.0% +2.O% 0.4-2.0%

Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +6.0% +5.0?/0 0.4%

Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +2.2% — 1.0%

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +3.0% — 0.80/0

SOURCE: Environmental Law Institute, Impact of the Federal Tax Code on Resource Recovery (Washington, DC: 1976): Environmental Law Institute,

Evaluation of Economic Benefits of Resowce Conservation (Washington, DC: 197S); JACA Corp., Barriers to the Use of Secondary Materials, report

prepared for U.S. Bureau of Mines (Fort Washington, PA: 1977); Franklin Associates, Ltd., “Economic Incentives and Disincentives for Recycling

of Municipal Solid Waste,” contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village, KS: 1968).

bonds (83). This disallowance of tax-exempt financing for recycling facilities is discriminatory and

favors incineration with energy recovery over recycling. Of course, recent efforts to reduce the

incentives for incinerators will also reduce the

importance of this point.

External Costs of Waste Management—Failure

to internalize health and environmental costs can

distort the market with respect to choosing between

recycling and other management methods. If recycling, landfilling, and incineration are not adequately regulated, then their health and environmental risks and costs may not be fully accounted

for. As a result, management decisions could be

made on the basis of information that does not

explicitly encompass all of these costs. In such

cases, the costs of managing and cleaning up

pollutants could be spread indiscriminately to those

individuals and ecosystems exposed to pollutants,

irrespective of how the benefits are distributed.

Because quantifying extemal costs is difficult,

however, it is unclear whether any one management

method is currently favored over other methods

because of a failure to internalize these costs. In a

practical sense, then, the most that can be done is to

ensure that each management method is protective

of human health and the environment and that

environmental regulations are designed to explicitly

address all management methods.
Chapter 5--Recycling . 203

APPENDIX 5-A: CALCULATING THE

RATE OF RECYCLING IN JAPAN

As noted in the text, some experts estimate that the

recycling rate in Japan is around 50 percent, while OTA

estimates that the rate could be as low as 26 to 39 percent,

at least for materials for which data are available. These

estimates all are based on data published by the Clean

Japan Center, a quasi-governmental agency that runs

recycling education and demonstration projects, about the

generation of MSW and the recycling of individual

materials. This appendix explains OTA’s calculations and

why its estimates differ from the estimate of 50 percent.

If nothing else, the calculations indicate the great

difficulties involved in estimating recycling rates.

Recycling rates cannot be calculated unless the total

amounts of recycled, incinerated, and landfilled materials

are known. No aggregate data on total recycling in Japan

are gathered, and calculations of the amount of material

that is recycled require making assumptions about some

materials, particularly steel, These calculations then must

be linked with estimates about MSW sent to landfills and

incinerators. As shown below, the calculations can

become somewhat tortuous.

Estimates of the amount of MSW sent to landfills and

incinerators in Japan range between 40 and 60 million

metric tons each year. The lower figure is based on an

estimate that about 110,000 metric tons of MSW are

generated per day (49). The higher figure is based on a

recent estimate that the per-capita generation rate may

have risen to as high as 3.0 pounds per day (51).

Information on recycling indicates that in 1984 about

9.7 million metric tons of waste paper (a recovery rate of

about 50 percent), 8.7 million metric tons of bottles, and

24,000 tons of aluminum cans (41 percent recovery) were

recovered (49). In addition, about 75,000 metric tons of

compost were produced and 220,000 metric tons of

plastics were collected in 1984. The Plastic Waste

Management Institute indicates that there is little recovery

of plastics from post-consumer materials (170), so this

plastic may have been industrial scrap. Although data are

not available for textiles for 1984, we do know that

724,000 metric tons of textiles were collected in 1981

(49). Data are not available for other commodities such as

non-can aluminum, household batteries, rubber, and

leather. Based on the above figures, one estimate of the

amount of materials collected for recycling, excluding

steel and materials for which data are unavailable, is 19.4

million metric tons.

The primary reason for the discrepancy in the estimates

of Japanese recycling rates is the way in which steel

recycling is treated, The 50 percent figure includes steel

from the residential and commercial sectors and from

industry. OTA’s estimate of 26 to 39 percent includes

steel only from the residential and commercial sectors

(even this has problems, however, such as what to do

about junked autos). In particular, Hershkowitz and

Salemi (108) indicated that 27.7 million metric tons of

steel were recovered in 1983, but their analysis did not

indicate how much was industrial scrap v. post-consumer

material. The analysis considered 12.2 million metric tons

as industrial scrap, leaving 15.5 million metric tons

recovered from post-consumer material (214).

However, if the 15.5-million-ton figure is added to the

amounts of other recovered materials (paper, glass,

aluminum, etc.) and to the estimates for MS W generation,

then the total amount of post-consumer material would be

between 75 and 95 million metric tons. The steel portion

alone then would comprise 16 to 21 percent of this total.

Most industrialized counties, however, have a total metal

content in post-consumer material of 10 percent or less,

and generally about half of the metal is not steel. On this

Table A-1—Estimated Rates of Recycling In Japan

Calculations under different scenarios

Estimated Total Total

Scenarios: estimates of total MSW steel materials post-consumer Estimated

generation and assumptions recovery b

recoveryc material d

recycling

of steel recovery (mmt) (mmt) (mmt) rate

40 mmt MSWa

5°/0 steel, 50°/0 recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 20.9 60.9 34.30/0

10%0 steel, 100% recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 25.7 65.7 39.1%

60 mmt MSW

5% steel, 50% recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 21.5 81.5 26.4%

10%0 steel, 100% recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 27.8 87.8 31.7%

ammt = million metric tons

bBased on solving equation discussed in text

cBased on adding the estimated amount of steel (column 2) and the amount of other recovered materials (19.4 mmt),

dtotal materials recovery, plus MSW generation

eBased on (column 3/column 4) X 100

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.
204 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

basis, the 15.5 million-ton-figure poses problems. In

addition, it is unclear whether the figure includes construction scrap or obsolete scrap (e.g., railroad cars) that

is not considered as MSW. This indicates the great effect

that different definitions can have on estimates of MSW

recycling rates.

OTA re-estimated the amount of steel on the basis of

the following assumptions: 1) post-consumer materials

contain 5 percent metal; 2) all of that metal is steel; and

3) about half of the steel is recycled (based on an estimate

that less than 50 percent of steel cans in post-consumer

materials are recycled) (49). Estimates of the amount of

steel in post-consumer materials can then be calculated by

solving the equation:

X = 0.05 [0.5 X + 19.4 + Y] million metric tons, where:

X is the steel (in million metric tons) in all post-consumer

material;

0.05 represents the 5 percent assumption;

the figures in [] represent total post-consumer material;

0.5 X represents the 50 percent recovery of steel;

19.4 represents recovery of other materials; and

Y represents MSW generation.

Using this equation, estimates of the amount of steel in

post-consumer material are between 3.0 million metric

tons (using Y=40 million metric tons) and 4.1 million

metric tons (using Y=60 million metric tons), and the

amount of recovered steel would be 1.5 to 2.1 million

metric tons, respectively (table A-1 ). No data are available

to confirm or refute the underlying assumptions, however.

One measure of how sensitive the analysis is to error is to

assume that the amount of steel in post-consumer

materials is actually 10 percent and, furthermore, that all

steel is recovered for recycling. Using the same procedures, the relevant figures for total and recycled steel

would range between 6.3 million and 8.4 million metric

tons of steel. A potentially important source of error in the

estimates is that the higher generation data are from 1988,

while most of the material recovery data are from 1984.

If the amounts of materials recovered rose between 1984

and 1988, then OTA’s estimated recycling rates would

underestimate the actual recycling rate.

Using these data, estimates of the percentage of

post-consumer materials (i.e., MSW generation plus total

materials recovery) that is recycled range from 26 to 39

percent (table A-l). The figures could be somewhat

higher if other materials were included or if material

recovery rates were higher in 1988 than in 1984.

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

Abert, J. G., Municipal Waste Processing in Europe:

A Status Report on Selected Materials and Energy

Recovery Projecls, World Bank Technical Paper

No. 37 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1985).

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Albrecht, R., “How To Succeed in Compost

Marketing,” BioCycle 28:26-27, September 1987.

Alexander, J., James River Co., personal communication, February 1989.

Aluminum Association, Aluminum Statistical Review (Washington, DC: 1989).

American Paper Institute, “Waste Paper Utilization

in Paper and Paperboard Manufacture’ (New York,

NY: individual yearly reports for 1970-87).

American Paper Institute, “Attachment B to Letter

Submitted By the American Paper Institute to the

EPA Concerning ‘Guidelines for Federal Procurement of Recycled Paper’” 4-5-83 (New York: June

1983).

American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, “Paper Recycling and Its Role in Solid Waste

Management” (New York, NY: 1987).

American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, 1987 Statistics of Paper, Paperboard & Wood

Pulp (New York, NY: August 1987).

American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, 1987 Annual Statistical Summaq~ Waste Paper

Utilization, 2d ed. (New York, NY: July 1988).

Anderson, A. B., Asphalt Institute, personal communication, 1989.

Argonne National Laboratory, Energy and Materials Use in the Production and Recycling of ConsumerGoods Packaging, ANLICNSV-TM-58, prepared

for U.S. Department of Energy (Argonne, IL:

February 1981).

Arkles, B., “Recycling Polytetrafluoroethy lene,”

in Symposium on Polymers and Ecological Problems, J.E. Guillet (cd.) (New York, NY: Plenum

Press, 1972), pp. 121-138.

Amer. R., “Used Oil Recycling: State and Local

Collection Programs,” Resource Recycling, pp.

22-23+, May/June 1989.

Backman, M., and Lindhqvist, T., “Pantsystem for

Batterer,’ Lunds University, TEM Naturvardsverket

Report No. 3489 (Sweden: 1988).

Backman, M., and Lindhqvist, T., “The Question of

Battery Deposit Systems in Sweden, ” unpublished

manuscript, March 1988.

Balfour, R. L., Rayovac Corp., personal communication, July 1988.

Barney, J., “Summary of Dioxin Data for Paper

Mill Sludges,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Water Quality Branch (Chicago, IL: Sept.

25, 1987).

Belland Plastics, We Develop Plastics That Dissolve, If and When You Want Them Tb (Solothum,

Switzerland: June 1988).

Bennett, J., The Potential Impact of Acid Rain

hgislation on the Domestic Aluminum Smelting
Chapter 5--Recycling ● 205

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

industry, Bureau of Mines Open File Report 58-88

(Washington, DC: 1988).

Bennett, R. A., “Market Research on the Plastics

Recycling Industry, ” Center for Plastics Recycling

Research Technical Report #17 (Piscataway, NJ:

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 1988).

Bennett, R. A., ‘‘New Applications and Markets for

Recycled Plastics,” paper presented at Recyclingplas 111, Plastics Recycling as a Future Business

Opportunity (Washington, DC: Plastics Institute of

America, Inc., May 25-26, 1988).

Bennett, R. A., University of Toledo, personal communication, April 1989.

Biles, S., “A Review of Municipal and Hazardous

Waste Management Practices and Facilities in

Seven European Countries,” working paper prepared for German Marshall Fund of the United

States (Washington, DC: February 1987).

BioCycle, The BioCycle Guide to In-Vessel Comporting (Emmaus, PA: The JG Press, Inc., March

1986).

BioCycle, “Comporting Projects for Grass Clippings,” BioCycle 29(5):47, May/June 1988.

BioCycle, Comporting Municipal and Industrial

Wastes, draft manuscrip~ 1988.

Bouzianis, M., Belland, personal communication,

August 1988.

Braun, I., New York City Division of Resource

Recovery, personal communication, 1988.

Brewer, G,, ‘‘European Plastics Recycling, Part 1,’

Resource Recycling 6(2):14-17, May-June 1987.

Brewer, G., ‘‘European Plastics Recycling, Part 2,”

Resource Recycling 6(3):16-19, July 1987.

Brewer, G., “Mixed Plastics Recycling: Not a Pipe

Dream,” Waste Age, pp. 153-160, November 1987.

Brewer, G., ‘‘European Plastics Recycling, Part 4,’

Resource Recycling 6(6):18-19,41, November/

December 1987.

Brewer, G., Earth Circle, personal communication,

February 1989.

Brinkman, D. W., “Used Oil: Resource or Pollutant?” Technology Review, pp. 47-51,70, July 1985.

Brockway, Inc., ‘‘Specifications for Furnace-Ready

Culled, ” unpublished manuscript (undated).

Brown, R., “Iron and Steel Scrap,” in J987

Minerals Yearbook (Washington, DC: Bureau of

Mines, 1988).

Brown, R., Bureau of Mines, personal communication, 1989.

Burnett, W. M., “Methane From Wastes---Gas Research Institute Perspective, ’ Bioconversion: A

New Technology for Waste and Sludge Disposal—

Worhxhop Proceedings, ANL/CNSV-TM- 174 (Chi39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

cage, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, February

1986), pp. 65-70.

Business Communications Co., Inc., “Multicomponent Films and Sheet: Changing Markets, Technologies and Materials, PROSPECTUS” (Norwalk, CT:

December 1988),

Business Week, “Business Week Scoreboard Special, ” Buriness Week, entire issue, Mar. 22, 1985.

Business Week, “Business Week Top 1000, ”

Business Week, Apr. 15, 1988.

Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., ‘‘Evaluation of Plastics

Recycling Systems” (Richmond, CA: July 1988).

Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., Comporting Technologies, Costs, Programs, and Markets, contract report

prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment (Richmond, CA: January 1989).

Cammarota, D., U.S. Department of Commerce,

personal communication, 1988.

Campbell, G. A., “Theory of Mineral Demand, ”

Economics of the Mineral Industries, 4th ed. (New

York, NY: American Institute of Mining, Meti-dlurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., 1985).

Carlson, A. W., and Mimeault, V. J., “Degradable

Concentrates for polyolefins,” paper presented at

Symposium on Degradable Plastics (Washington,

DC: Society of the Plastics Industry, June 10, 1987).

Carter, M.G., “Newsprint,’ Presstime, pp. 33-41,

May 1988.

Center for Plastics Recycling Research, “Technology Transfer Manual: Plastics Beverage Bottle

Reclamation Process” (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers,

The State University of New Jersey, September

1987).

Clean Japan Center, Recycling ’87, Turning Waste

into Resources (Tokyo: 1987).

Clean Japan Center, ‘‘Test Report of Demonstration

Plant for Recycling Mercury Containing Wastes”

(Tokyo: August, 1988).

Clean Japan Center, “Waste Volume on the Rise

artd Measu~s Against It, ” Clean Japan 14:6-10,

February 1989.

Copperthite, K., U.S. Department of Commerce,

personal communication, 1988.

Cornell, J. H., Kaplan, A. M., Rogers, M. R., ‘ ‘Biodegradability of Photooxidized Polyalkylenes,’ Journul of Applied Polymer Science 29;2581-2597,

1984.

Crawford, M., “There’s (Plastic) Gold in Them

Thar Landfills,” Science 241:41 1-412, 1988.

Curlee, T. R., The Economic Feasibility of Recycling, a Case Study of Plastic Wastes (New York,

NY: Praeger, 1986).

Curry, M., Plastics Institute of America, personal

communication, May 1988.
206 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70,

71.

72.

73.

Dalmijn, W. L., “Glass Recycling Prospects and

Limitations,” Resources and Conservation 14: 195-

204, 1987.

Derr, D. A., Price, A.T., Suhr, J. L., and Higgins,

A.J., “Statewide System for Recycling Food Waste,”

f?ioCyc/e 29(5):58-63, May/June 1988.

Desk-top Data Bank, ‘‘Plastics, Edition 8, Thermoplastics and Thermoses” (San Diego, CA: D.A.TA.,

Inc., 1986).

DeWoolfson, B., ENVIPCO, personal communication, January 1988.

Diaz, L.F., Golueke, C. G., and Savage, G. M.,

“Energetic of Compost Production and Utilization,” BioCycle 27(8):49-54, September 1986.

Diaz, L. F., Savage, G. M., Trezek, G. J., and Golueke, C. G., “Biogasification of Municipal Solid

Waste,” J. Energy Resources Technology 103:180-

185, June 1981.

Douglas, J., “The Rise of Electric Steelmaking,”

EPRIJourna/, pp. 15-21, April/May 1988.

E.C. Jordan Co., “Pulp and Papermill Sludges in

Maine: A Characterization Study” (Portland, ME:

September 1984).

Environmental Law Institute, Impact of the Federal

Tax Code on Resource Recovery (Washington, DC:

1976).

Environmental Law Institute, Evaluation of Economic Benefits of Resource Conservation (Washington, DC: 1978).

Environmental Pacific Corp., “Mter from D.L.

White, Recycling Program Coordinator, to M.

Steinwachs, Household Hazardous Waste Project,”

Feb. 1, 1989.

Ernst, A. A., “30 Years of Refuse/Sludge Comporting,” BioCyc/e 29(6):34-35, July 1988.

Europile, “EC Commission proposal for a Council

Directive Concerning Batteries and Accumulators

Containing Dangerous Substances, ” position paper

(Bern: no date).

Evans, J., “Cascades’ Deinking Plant Producing

High Grade Market Pulp From Waste,” Pulp and

Paper, pp. 55-57, April 1988.

Finstein, M. S., Miller, F. C., and Strom, P. F.,

“Waste Treatment Comporting as a Controlled

System, ” in Biotechnology, Vol. 8, H.-J. Rehm and

G. Reed (eds.) (Weinheim, FRG.: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986), pp. 363-398.

Finstein, M. S., Miller, F. C., and Strom, P. F.,

“Monitoring and Evaluating Comporting Process

Performance,” J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 58:272-

278, 1986.

Finstein, M. S., Miller, F. C., Hogan, J. A., and Strom,

P. F., “Analysis of EPA Guidance on Comporting

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

Sludge, I. Biological Heat Generation and Temperature,” BioCycle 28(1):20-25, Jan. 1987.

Finstein, M. S., Miller, F.C., Hogan, J. A., and Strom,

P. F., “Analysis of EPA Guidance on Comporting

Sludge, II. Biological Process Control,” BioCycle

28(2):42-47, Feb. 1987.

Finstein, M. S., Miller, F. C., Hogan, J. A., and Strom,

P. F., “Analysis of EPA Guidance on Comporting

Sludge, 111. Oxygen, Moisture, Odor, Pathogens,”

BioCyc/e 28(3):38-44, March 1987.

Finstein, M. S., Miller, F. C., Hogan, J. A., and Strom,

P. F., “Analysis of EPA Guidance on Comporting

Sludge, IV. Facility Design and Operation,” BioCy -

cle 28(4):56-61, April 1987.

Franke, B., “Comporting Source Separated Organics, BioCyc/e 28(6):40-42, July 1987.

Franke, B., Institut fur Energie und Umweltforschung, Federal Republic of Germany, personal

communication, Nov. 1988.

Frankel, H., Center for Plastics Recycling Research,

personal communication, April 1989.

Franklin Associates, Ltd., “Total Energy Impacts of

the Use of Plastics Products in the U.S., ” prepared

for Society of the Plastics Industry (Prairie Village,

KS: Jan. 15, 1981).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization ofMunicipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000

(Update 1988), Final Report, prepared for U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (Prairie Village,

KS: March 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., “Paper Mills With the

Potential To Produce Products Meeting the EPA

Minimum Content %andads: Printing-Writing Paper,

Tissue Papers, Cotton Fiber content Papers” (Prairie VilIage, KS: July 29, 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Economic Incentives and

Disincentives for Recycling of Municipal Solid

Waste, contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office

of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village, KS:

December 1988).

Franklin, W., and HunL R., ‘Background Documentation For Minimum Content Standards, ” Final

Report under Subcontract to Midwest Research

Institute for U.S. Environmental protection Agency

(Prairie Village, KS: March 6, 1987).

Gabrisch, R., ‘‘Factors Affecting the Economics of

Battery Recycling in the Federal Republic of

Germany,” special meeting of the Recycling Subcommittee of the International kad and Zinc Study

Group, Sept. 9-11 (Washington, DC: March 1988).

Garcia, D.A., “U.S. Wastepaper Consumption and

Export Shipments Continue To Rise,” Pulp and

Paper, pp. 114-117, February 1987.
Chapter 5--Recycling 207

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

Genest, W., ‘Used Batteries in the Federal Republic

of Germany-Status and Trends, ” unpublished

paper from Federal Environmental Agency (Berlin:

March 1988).

Glenn, J., “Encouraging Yard Waste Utilization, ”

BioCyc/e 29(7):49-50, August 1988.

Gloxin, A., Diarnond-Bathurs~ personal communication, 1988.

Golueke, C. G., “Cycles of Community Waste

Comporting, ’ in The BioCycle Guide to In-Vessel

Comporting (Emmaus, PA: The JG Press, inc.,

March 1986), pp. 57-62.

Golueke, C.G. and Diaz, L. F., ‘‘Comporting and the

Limiting Factor Principle,” BioCycle 28(4):22-25,

April 1987.

Goosmann, G., “Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Federal Republic of Germany, Federal

Environment Agency, Federal Republic of Germany, A Selection of Recent Publications (Vol. 2)

(Berlin: Federal Environment Agency, 1988), pp.

118-126.

Goosmann, G., Federal Environment Agency, Federal Republic of Germany, personal communication, Oct. 1988 and April 1989.

Grady, J. C., “Tire Disposal Problem May Be

Short-Lived,” Waste Age, pp. 34-44, January 1987.

Gray, TA., “The Evolution of Scrap Tire Disposal,” Resource RecoverylCogeneration World,

No. 1, pp. 33-36, 1988.

Greek, B. F., “Plastics Additives: hss Performing

Better, ” Chemical and Engineering News 66:35-

37, June 13, 1988.

Griswold, P., ‘‘Drums Back Up As Industry Avoids

Risks,’ Recycling Today, pp. 60-61+, December

1987.

Guillet, J. E., “Polymers With Controlled Lifetimes, ” Symposium on Polymers and Ecological

Problems, J.E. Guillet (cd.) (New York, NY:

Plenum Press, 1972), pp. 1-26.

Gunn, T. L., and Hannon, B., “Energy Conservation

and Recycling in the Paper Industry, ’ Resources

and Energy, pp. 243-260, May 1983.

Guttentag, R., and Arnold, H., “What is a MRF?”

Waste Alternatives Waste Reduction and Recycling,

Summer 1989, pp. 37-46.

Haggin, J., “More Awareness Sought Concerning

Role of Metals in Pollution, Chemical& Engineering News 64(36):37-42, Sept. 8, 1986.

HanIon, G., Lincoln, NE, personal communication,

April 1989.

Hansen, T. and Hirsbak, S., “Co-comporting and

Source Separation in Denmark, ’ BioCycle 28(6):60-

61, June 1987.

104.

105.

106,

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

Heppenheimer, T. A., “Plastics Makers Clean Up

From Litter,” High Technology Business, pp. 30-

32, August 1988.

Hershey, R. L., “Energy From Waste Tires, ” paper

presented at Wwtes-To-Energy ’87: Exploring the

Total Market, 1987.

Hershkowitz, A., International Experiences in Solid

Waste Management, contract prepared for U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(Elmsford, NY: Municipal Recycling Associates,

October 1988).

Hershkowitz, A., Municipal Recycling Associates,

personal communication, December 1988.

Hershkowitz, A., and Salemi, G., Garbage Management in Japan, Leading the Way (New York, NY:

INFORM, 1987).

Hirayama, N., Gotoh, S., and Yajima, T., “Recovery of Mercury and Other Metals From Used Dry

Battery Cells—the CJC Demonstration Plant in

Hokkakio,J~’’Conservation &Recycling lM4):237-

241, 1987.

Hoffmann, B., U.S. Food and Drug Administration,

personal communication, September 1988.

Hoffmann, B., U.S. Food and Drug Administration,

personal communication, February 1989.

Ideta, S., “Recovery of Old Batteries in Japan,”

Special Meeting of the Recycling Subcommittee of

the International bad and Zinc Study Group,

Washington, DC: Sept. 9-11, 1987, March 1988

Ince, P., and Klungness, J., “Economics of Increasing the Use of Recycled Fiber in Linerboard, ”

Tappi Journal 67(8):62-65, August 1984.

Ince, P., and Klungness, J., U.S. Forest Products

Lab, Madison, WI, personal communication, 1989.

Institute for Imcal Self-Reliance, Garbage in Europe: Technologies, Economics, and Trends (Washington, DC: May 1988).

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, “ISRI

Board Recommends That Industry Stop Processing,

By Any Method, White Goods Containing Capacitors, press release (Washington, DC: July 26,

1988).

InterPoll Laboratones, Inc., “Results of the Dewmber 9 and 10, 1987 Air Emission Characterization

Test at the Resource Recovery System Facility in

Groten, Connecticut, ” Report No. 7-2468 (Circie

Pines, MN: Feb. 10, 1988).

Isherwood, R. J., et al., The Impact of Existing and

Proposed Regulations Upon the Domestic Lead

Industry, BOM OFR 55-88 (Denver, CO: August

1988).

JACA Corp., Barriers to the Use of Secondary

Materials, Report Prepared for U.S. Bureau of

Mines (Fort Washington, PA: 1977),
208 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134,

135,

Johnson, B., “Portland: First in the West to Send

waste bng Distame, “ worki wastes 31(10) :21xMS2,

October 1988.

Johnson, R., “An SPI Overview of Degradable

Plastics, ’ in Proceedings of Symposium on Degradable P/astics (Washington, DC: The Society of

the Plastics Industry, Inc., June 10, 1987), pp. 6-13.

Joosten, J. M., “Memorandum on the Prevention

and Recycling of Waste Products, ’ The Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and

Environmental Protection (Bilthoven, The Netherlands: Sept. 27, 1988).

Josephs, J., Garden State Paper Cot, personal

communication, June 1988.

Katzman, M. T,, “From Horse CarW to Minimills,”

Public Interesl 92:121-135 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak

Ridge National Laboratory, 1988).

Keller, J., “Recovery of Post Consumer Plastics

Through Curbside Collection, Two Rhode Island

Case Histories,” paper presented at New England

Recourse Recovery Conference, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (Providence: June 9, 1988).

Kelly, J., ‘‘A Guy Who Just Won’t Spill His Guts,”

The Washington Post Magazine, pp. 20, 22, Nov.

27, 1988.

Kelly, W. E., ‘‘Measurement of Dioxins and Furans

in Combustion Flue Gases: Results and Problems, ’

paper presented at International Municipal Waste

incineration Workshop (Montreal: Oct. 1-2, 1987).

Kettle, P., and Stuart, C. “Recycling had: The

Challenge Ahead,” Secondaq Reeoveq of tiad

and Zinc, special meeting of the Recycling Subcommittee of the International bad and Zinc Study

Group, Washington, DC: Sept. 9-11, 1987.

Kieb, R. E., U.S. Steel, personal communication,

1989.

Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology: Concise Version (New York, NY: John Wiley

& Sons, 1985).

Kneese, A. V., and Bower, B. T., Environmental

Quality and Residuals Management (Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).

Koser, W, S., “European Comporting Study Tour, ”

BioCyc/e 29(6):26-28, July 1988.

Larrabee, D., U.S. Department of Commerce, personal communication, 1988.

hach, C., Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation, personal communication, Feb. 10,

1988.

baversuch, R. D., “PVC Recycling, Landfill Fodder? It Doesn’t Have To Be, ” Modern Plastics, pp.

69-73, March 1989.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

Imasseur, J. P., and P. Mousty, “Accelerated Cocomposting of Refuse and Sludge,’ in The BioCy -

cle Guide to In-Vessel Comporting (Emmaus, PA:

The JG Press, Inc., March 1986), pp. 129-131.

Lindhqvist, T., TEM, University of Lund, Sweden,

personal communication, February 1989 and March

1989.

Lindqvist, O., “Occurrence and Turnover of MerCI.UY in the Environment—A Swedish Research

Project,” paper presented at Elmia-Waste 88 Conference (Jonkoping, Sweden: June 13-17, 1988).

Litovitz, T., “btter from T. Litovitz, Director,

National Capital Poison Center, Washington, DC,

to Senator M.J. Tully, New York State Senate, ”

March 30, 1988.

Imrd, D., “Burnt Out Batteries,” Environmental

Action 20(2):16-19, September/October 1988.

Lutz, W., “International Perspective on Composting,” BioCyc/e 25(2):22-25, March 1984.

Lynch, M., Illinois Tool Works, personal communication, Feb. 1989.

Magdits, L., Exide Corp., personal communication,

1988.

Males, E., “A Slippery Beast: EPA’s Evolving

Used Oil Regulations,” Lubrication Engineering,

pp. 162-166, March 1987.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, “Plastics Recycling Action Plan

for Massachusetts” (Boston, MA: July 1988).

Matlock, M., Archer Daniels Midland, personal

communication, December 1988.

Matlock, M., Archer Daniels Midland, personal

communication, March 1989.

Mattheis, A. H., “How To Make 40 Million Tires

Disappear, ” Waste Age, pp. 46-52, January 1988.

Mayer, M., Hofer, H., and Maire, U., “Trends in

Yard Waste Comporting, ’ BioCycle 29(6): 60-63,

July 1988.

McHugh, J. R., “btter from J.R. McHugh, American Association of Retired Persons Pharmacy

Service, to Assemblyman M.D. Hinchey, Assembly

of New York, ” May 4, 1987.

McShane, E., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication, Dec.

1988.

Mentzer, K., Mineral Insulation Manufacturers

Association, personal communication, March 1989.

Mereco, “Household Battery Information Package” (Latham, NY: Mercury Refining Co., Inc.,

undated).

Mereco, “Iztter from the Mercury Refining Co.,

Inc. to Office of Technology Assessment,’ Dec. 21,

1988.
Chapter 5--Recycling . 209

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

Meyer, B., Aluminum Association, personal communication, 1988.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, European Study Tour, Comporting and Recycling, report

on trip conducted Oct. 10-24, 1987 (Lansing, MI:

1987).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Market

Study for Recyclable Plasticdackground Report,

prepared by Resource Integration Systems Ltd.

(Toronto, Ontario: February 1987).

Miles, G., “U.S. Minimills Launch a Full-Scale

Attack,’ ‘ Business Week, pp. 100-102, June 13,

1988.

Milgrom, J., “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

Bottles Status Report,” paper presented at Recy -

clingplas 11, Plastics Recycling as a Future Business Oppor~unity (Washington, DC: June 18-19,

1987), Pp. 97-108.

Miller, C., Glass Packaging Institute, personal

communication, 1988.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “State Solid

Waste Policy Report, A Focus on Greater Minnesota, Background Paper XII: Comporting, ” Office

of Waste Management Grants and Assistance, draft

report (St. Paul, MN: December 1988).

Modem Plastics, “Materials ‘87,” Modern Plastics, pp. 55-65, January 1987.

Modem Plastics, “Key Role for Additives, Upgrade

Polymer Recycle,” Modern Plastics, pp. 85-90,

October 1988.

Modem Plastics, “Resin Supplier, in Joint Reuse

Venture, Plans 50-million-lb./yr. Recycling Operation, ’ Modern Plastics, pp. 22-24, November,

1988.

Modem Plastics, “Solid Waste Disposal program

Approved,” Modern Plastics, pp. 116-118, November 1988.

Modem Plastics, “As Recycling Gains Momentum,

More Resins Suppliers Get In On the Action,”

Modern flas~ics, pp. 170-171, June 1989.

Mulvey, F. P., “A Look at Recycling Programs Here

and There, ’ 1987 W-T-E- Recycling Annual, pp.

29-39, 1987.

Munts, S., “Beverage Container and Life Cycle

Trends, ” draft manuscript (Washington, DC: U.S.

Bureau of Mines, 1989).

Naar, R. Z., “Worldwide Recycling Technology: a

Patent Perspective, ” Recyclingplas III-Conference, Plastics Recycling as a Future Business

Opportunity (Washington, DC: Plastics Institute of

America, Inc., May 25-26, 1988), pp. 3-8.

Nakane, K., Iijima, R., and Motonaga, H., Plastic

Waste Management Institute, Tokyo, personaI communication, April 1988.

171.

172.

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

187,

Narayan, R., Purdue University, personal communication, April 1989.

National Association for Plastic Container Recovery, “Recycling Plastic Containers” (Charlotte,

NC: undated).

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, personal communication, February 1989.

National Energy Administration and National Swedish Environment Protection Board, “Energy From

Waste, ’ Summary of a Study by the National

Energy Administration and National Swedish Environment Protection Board (Stockholm, 1987).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Report of the interagency Task Force on Persistent

Marine Debris (Washington, DC: May 1988).

National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association,

personal communication, 1989.

Naylor, L. M., and Kuter, G. A., “Metals in organic

wastes: Problems or Benefits?” (kbanon, CT:

International Process Systems, Inc., Compost Facts,

May 1988).

Obeng, L. A., ad Wright, F. W., The Co-comporting

of Domestic Solid and Human Wastes, World Bank

Technical Paper Number 57, Integrated Resource

Recovery Series (Washington, D. C.: The World

Bank, March 1987).

Ogasawara, H., Clean Japan Center, personal communication, April 1988 and November 1988.

Ogasawara, H., Clean Japan Center, “Mter to the

OffIce of Technology Assessment, ” March 23,

1989.

Oman, D. E., “Waste Minimization in the Foundry

Industry, Journal of Air Pollution Control Association 38(7):932-940.

ORFA Corp., “Introduction to the ORFA Process

and ORFA Corporation of America’ (Philadelphia,

PA: January 1988).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Fate of Small Quantities of Hazardous

Waste, Environment Monographs No. 6 (Paris:

August 1986).

Palmer, J., A Cleaner Environment: Removing the

Barriers to Lead-Acid Battery Recycling (St. Paul,

MN: GNB Inc., October 1988).

Paper Stock Institute of America, “Paper Stock

Standards and Practices,” Circular PS-86 (New

York, NY: National Association of Recycling

Industries, Inc., April 1986).

Pederson, A., AMG Resources, personal communication, 1988.

Pedigo, B., “The Resurgence of the Bi-Metal

Beverage Can, “ Resource Recycling 8(1 );22-23,74,

March/April 1989.
210 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

188. Pfeffer, J.T., “R&DD ata Base for System Developmerit, ’ in Bioconversion: A New Technology for

Waste and Sludge Disposal-Workshop Proceedings, ANLJCNSV-TM-174 (Chicago, IL: Argonne

National Laboratory, February 1986), pp. 71-79.

189. Plastics Institute of America, Inc., Plastics Recycling as a Future Business Opportunity (Washington, DC: June 20, 1986).

190. Plastics Institute of America, Inc., Recyc/ingplas 11,

Plastics Recycling as a Future Business Opportunity (Washington, DC: June 18-19, 1987).

191. Plastics Institute of America, inc., Recyc/ingpkzs/l/,

Plastics Recycling as a Future Business Opportunity (Washington, DC: May 25-26, 1988).

192. Plastics Recycling Foundation and Center for Plastics RecycIing Research, Plastics Recycling: A

Strategic Vision (Washington, DC: undated).

193. PlasticsRecyclingFoundation,Annua/Report(Washington, DC: 1988).

194. Pollock, C., Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential

for Recycling, Worldwatch Paper 76 (Washington,

DC: April 1987).

195. Porter, R., and Roberts, T. (eds.), Energy Savings By

Wastes Recycling (Imndon: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1985).

196. Powell, J., “Tire Recycling Bounces Along,”

Resource Recycling, pp. 22-23,70, July 1988.

197. Pulp and Paper, “Outlook ’88: U.S. Paper Industry

Should Perform Fairly Well Even If Economy

Slows Down,’ Pulp and Paper, pp. 52-69, January

1988.

198. Pulp and Paper, “High Consistency Pulping of

Broke, Wastepaper Cuts Cycle Time, Costs, ” Pu/p

and Paper, p. 24, April 1988.

199. Pulp and Paper International, “Annual Review,”

Pulp and Paper International, pp. 48-56, August

1988.

200. Pulp and Paper International, “Listing of the Top

100 Paper Producers Worldwide,’ Pulp and Paper

International, pp. 54-59, September 1988.

201. Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett Inc., “The Impacts of

bad Industry Economics and Hazardous Waste

Regulations on had-Acid Battery Recycling: Revision and Update, ” prepared for OffIce of Policy

Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Washington, DC: September 1987).

202. Recycling T&y, “Distortion in Competition in the

Waste Paper Market as a Result of Government

Intervention, ” Recycling Today, p. 46, September

1986.

203. Recycling T@y, “Straight Talk About Strong

Markets,” Recycling Today, pp. 56-58,103, April

1988.

204. Regan, B., “Aluminum Recycling Unit Planned,”

American Metal Market, p. 2, Sept. 14, 1988.

205. Relis, P., Gildea Resource Center, personal communication, December 1988.

206. Renard, M. L., AReviewofComparative Energy Use

in Materials Potentially Recoverable From Municipal So/id Waste, prepared for U.S. Department of

Energy (Washington, DC: National Center for

Resource Recovery, Inc., March 1982).

207, Ron Albrecht Associates, Inc., Comporting Technologies, Costs, Programs and Markets, contract

report prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Annapolis, MD: December

1988).

208. Rosen, C. J., Schumacher, N., Mugaas, R., and

Proud foot, S,, Comporting and Mulching: A Guide

to Managing Organic Wastes, Minnesota Extension

Service Report AG-FO-3296 (St. Paul, MN: 1988).

209. Roy, N., Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, personal communication, November 1988.

210. Rural and Urban Roads, “Crushed Glass ‘Aggregate’ Used in Baltimore 3R Job,” Rural and Urban

Roads, pp. 36-37, March 1983.

211. Sabourin, D., “ Wellman Plastics Recycling Operation, paper presented at Recyclingp/us 11/, Piastics

Recycling as a Future Business Opportunity (Washington, DC: May 25-26, 1988).

212. Sabourin, D., Wellman, Inc., personal communication, May 1988.

213. Salemi, E., “Solid Waste Management in Japan:

bssons for New York,” staff report to the New

York State Ugislative Commission on Solid Waste

Management (Albany, NY: 1987).

214. Salemi, E., Schillinger, Salemi, & Boyd, Inc.,

‘‘Letters to the Office of Technology Assessment, ”

June 15, 1988 and Feb. 25, 1989.

215. Savage, G. M., and Golueke, C. G., “Major Cost

Elements in Co-comporting, ” The BioCyc/e Guide

to In-Vessel Comporting (Emmaus, PA: The JG

Press, Inc., March 1986), pp. 133-137.

216. Scheinberg, A,, “Commingled Materials: Efficiency on the Processing Line, ’ Biocycle 29(3):36-

37, March 1988.

217. Seattle Engineering Department, Solid Waste Utility, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Waste

Reduction, Recycling and Disposal Alternatives

(Seattle, WA: May 1988).

218. Selle, M., Kron, D., and Hangen, H.O., “Die

Biomullsammlung und-kompostierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Situationsanalyse 1988,”

translation provided by G. Goosmann, Federal

Environment Agency (West Germany: 1988).
Chapter 5-Recycling ● 211

219.

220.

221.

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

227.

228,

229.

230.

231.

232.

233.

Smalberg, K., Steel Can Recycling Institute, personal communication, 1989.

Society of the Plastics Industry, Facts and Figures

of the U.S. Plastics Industry (Washington, DC:

1987).

Society of the Plastics Industry, Pluxtics A.D. 2000,

Production and Use Through the Turn of the

Century (Washington, DC: 1987).

Society of the Plastics Industry, Plastic Bottle

Recycling Directory and Reference Guide (Washington, DC: 1988).

Stack, E. G., “Statement of E. Gifford Stack, Vice

President, Solid Waste programs, National Soft

Drink Association, Before the Subcommittee on

Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the

House Committee on Energy&Commerce” (Washington, DC: National Soft Drink Association, July

12, 1989).

Stahlschmidt, V., “Can Comporting Compete With

Controlled Tipping?” BioCycle 25:34-38, March

1984.

Stanley, G., U.S. Department of Commerce, personal communication, November 1988.

Steinwachs, M., “Battery Collection Programs,”

paper presented at Third National Conference on

Household Hazardow Waste Management (Boston, MA: Nov. 3, 1988).

Stephensen, D., “Impact of Plastics on Curbside

Recycling,” paper presented at Recyclingplas 1//,

Plastics Recycling as a Future Business Opportunity (Washington, DC: May 25-26, 1988).

Strom, P. F., “A Discussion of the Basics of

Comporting, Yard Waste Comporting, Equipment

Options and Problem Solving,” presentation at

Yard Waste Comporting Workshop, 7th National

Recycling Congress (St. Paul, MN: Sept. 27, 1988).

Strom, P. F., and Finstein, M. S., Leaf Comporting

Manual for New Jersey Municipalities (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, revised edition,

October 1986).

Swedish Association of Public Cleansing and Solid

Waste Management, Solid Waste Management in

Sweden (Sweden: Malmo, February 1988).

Swedish Ministry of the Environment, “Of%cal

Government Paper 1986/87:157 on Waste Management, Etc.” (Sweden: May 7, 1987).

Synk, R., “Tire Waste-to-Energy Technology in the

USA and Wast Germany,” unpublished manuscript

(Atlanta, GA: Fichner, USA, Inc., 1988).

Taylor, A. C., and Kashmanian, R. M., “Study and

Assessment of Eight Yard Waste Comporting

programs Across the United States,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/530-SW-89-038

(Washington, DC: April 1989).

234,

235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

240.

241.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

247.

248.

249.

250.

Taylor, K., Hurd, D.J., and Rohan, B., “Recycling

in the 1980s: Batteries Not Included, ’ Resource

Recycling 7(2):26-27,58-60, May/June 1988.

Tron, A.R., “Recycling of Wastepaper in the

UK—An Overview” (United Kingdom: Department of Trade and Industry, Recycling Advisory

Unit, July 1987).

Trunick, P., “Imw Public Awareness Limits Supplies of Recycled Glass,” Recycling Today, pp.

46-48, April 1988.

Tuttle, R., Earthlife Sales Co., personal communication, December 1988.

U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service,

“Degradable Plastics,” Issue Brief IB88067 (Washington, DC: June 8, 1988).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination, OTA-O-233 (Washington, DC: October

1984).

U.S. Congress, Offke of Technology Assessment,

Wates in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April

1987).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

Technologies for Reducing Dioxin in the il4anufacture of Bleached Wood Pulp, OTA-BP-O-54 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1989).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, 1982 Census of Manufactures (Washington, DC: 1984).

U.S. Deparhnent of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, “Pulp, Paper, and Board,” Current Industrial Reports, MA26A(86) (Washington, DC: 1986).

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988 U.S. industrial Outlook (Washington, DC: 1988).

U.S. Departznent of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

Mineral Facts and Problems (Washington, DC:

1985).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

“Sand and Gravel,” 1986 Minerals Yearbook

(Washington, DC: 1986),

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

“Mineral Industry Survey, Aluminum” (Washington, DC: 1988).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

Mineral Industry Yearbook, preprint (Washington,

DC: 1988).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,

“Memorandum from H. Bennett to D. Rogich, ”

November 1988.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Producer Price Indexes” (Washington, DC:

January 1983-August 1988).
212 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

251.

252.

253.

254.

255..

256.

257.

258.

259.

260.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste Management Programs, Firs~ Report to

Congress, Resource Recovery and Source Reduction, Report SW-1 18, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC:

1974).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OffIce of

Solid Waste, Municipal Solid Waste Task Force,

The Solid Wwte Dilemma: An Agenda for Action,

Appendix A, draft report (Washington, DC: September 1988).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Assessing the

Impact of Federal and State Tues on the Domestic

Minerals Industry (Washington, DC: June 1981).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Degradable Plastics, Standards, Research and Development, Report

to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental

AfTairs, U.S. Senate (Washington, DC: September

1988).

U.S Office of Management and Budget, Budget of

the United States Government (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Oftlce, individual budgets for fiscal years 1982 through 1989).

University of Lund, “How Will the Used Battery

Problem Be Solved?” seminar arranged by TEM

(University of Lund, Sweden) and Center of Cleaner

Technologies (Technological Institute, Denmark)

(Sjobo, Sweden: Dec. 12, 1988).

van Gemert, W, J. T,, and Kolster, B, H., ‘‘Treatment

of Spent Batteries, ‘‘ translation of paper 85-014786/

GJ-55 (Apeldoom, The Netherlands: Organisatie

voor Twgepast-Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek,

February 1986).

Vasuki, N., and Canzano, P., “State of the Art

Materials Recovery Systems: Options and Economics, ” Energy Progress 8(4):209-219, December

1988.

Wsuki, N., Canzano, P., and Pase, J., “Delaware

Reclamation Project,” Journal Resource Management and Technology 12( 1):3- 10, January 1983.

Villendre, J., Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality, personal communication, Mar. 30, 1989.

261.

262.

263.

264.

265.

266.

267.

268.

269.

270.

271.

272.

Visa.lli, J., “Environmental Impact Considerations

in Recycling Solid Wastes, ’ Journal of Resource

Management and Technology 14(4):241-245, December 1985.

Visalli, J., “The Similarity of Environmental Impacts From All Methods of Managing Solid Waste,”

paper presented at Conference on Hazardous and

Municipal Solid Waste Minimization (Providence,

RI: New England Section of Air Pollution Control

Association, Feb. 7-8, 1989).

Walter, D. K., “Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal

Solid Waste To Produce Methane, ’ Bioconversion:

A New Technology for Waste and Sludge Disposal—

Workshop Proceedings, ANL/CNSV-TM-174 (Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laborato~, February

1986), pp. 1-63.

Ward, D., Hershman Recycling, personal communication, June 1988.

Watson, T., “Yard Waste Comporting, ” Resource

Recycling 7(2):18-19,52, May/June 1988.

Watson, T., “A Force in Detinning, ” Resource

Recycling 7(7):18-19,51-54, January/February 1989.

Williams, T. O., and Epstein, E., “Creating Markets

for Solid Waste Compost,” Resource Recycling

7(2):20-21,56-57, May/June 1988.

Wirka, J., Wrapped in Plastics: the Environmental

Case for Reducing Plastics Packaging (Washington, DC: Environmental Action Foundation, August

1988).

Woodbury, W., Bureau of Mines, personal communication, 1988.

Wool, R. P., “Center for Biodegradable Plastics,”

proposal submitted to National Science Foundation

(Urbana, IL: January 1988).

Wool, R. P., and Cole, M. A., “Microbial Degradation of Polymers, ” draft manuscript (Urbana, IL:

July 1988).

World Wastes, “Economics Paves Path For Imng

Island Glass Recycler,” World Wastes, p. 48,

March 1988.
Chapter 6

Incineration
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 217

Types, Numbers, and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Types of Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 217

Current and Projected Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Factors Affecting Future Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Pollutants in Air emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

The Combustion Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

General Characteristics of Air Emissions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Fate of Substances Before Pollution Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Controlling Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Risks From Air Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Regulatory Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Ash Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

General Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Concentrations of Pollutants in Leachate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Risks From Ash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Ash Reuse and Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Regulatory Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Boxes

Box Page

6-A. Incineration in Europe and Japan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

6-B. Pyrolysis in West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

6-C. Selective Catalytic Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

6-D. BACT, Incineration, and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

6-E. Ash Management in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Figures

Figure Page

6-1. Diagram of a Modem Mass Bum Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

6-2. Relationship Between Heat Input and MSW Throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

6-3. Dioxin Emissions From Mass Bum Incinerators Equipped With

Different Pollution Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

6-4. Dioxin Emissions at Quebec City Facility, Before and After Retrofitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Tables

Table Page

6-l. Estimates of the Percentage of Post-Recycling MSW Incinerated in

the United States, Japan, and Europe, by Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

6-2. Concentrations of Substances in Emissions, as Reported in

EPA Municipal Waste Combustion Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

6-3. Pollutant Concentrations During Emission Tests at Individual

MSW Incinerators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

6-4. Contribution of Pollutants in MSW Incinerator Emissions to Estimates of Total

Annual Cancer Incidence and Maximum Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

6-5. Selected Emission Standards for MSW Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

6-6. Concentrations of Substances in MSW Bottom and Fly Ash.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

6-7. Range of Concentrations in leachate at Ash Monofills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

6-8. Summary of Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test Data for Lead

and Cadmium from Ash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Chapter 6

Incineration

INTRODUCTION

Garbage has been burned for centuries. Until the

last few decades, the burning typically was uncontrolled (i.e., in a dump, field, or backyard drum or

pit) or only marginality controlled (i.e., in very

simple incinerators). The Clean Air Act of 1970 in

essence banned uncontrolled burning, however, and

so a new generation of incinerators came into use.

The goals of MSW combustion are to bum fuel

and chemically convert carbon to carbon dioxide and

hydrogen to water. It also helps destroy pathogens

and toxic chemicals (178). Solid waste managers

find incinerators attractive because of this and

because they can reduce the volume of MSW, so that

less landfill capacity is used.1 Other advantages are

that incineration does not require changes in existing

collection systems and it can be linked with energy

recovery processes. Newer incinerators are more

efficient and they emit less air pollution than their

predecessors because they have better control of

combustion and better pollution control equipment.

Despite these improvements, which are acknowledged by proponents and opponents alike, public

opposition to incineration has increased. People are

concerned about the mobilization of metals in MSW

and the creation of new chemical compounds that

might affect human health and the environment.

Rising costs, the reliability of facilities, and the

effects of incineration on the feasibility of recycling

are also concerns.

TYPES, NUMBERS, AND

CAPACITY

Types of Incinerators

Three basic types of incinerators are used to bum

most MSW (152). Mass bum systems are large

facilities (usually over 200 tons per day) that bum

mixed MSW. Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) systems

generally are large facilities that process MSW into

a more homogeneous fuel that is then burned.

Together, mass bum and RDF systems account for

about 90 percent of current and planned incineration

capacity (32). Some smaller, modular systems also

bum unprocessed MSW; they usually consist of

modules manufactured at a factory and assembled

onsite. Other processes (e.g., pyrolysis, fluidized

bed combustion) are used only to a small extent. In

addition, several companies have proposed incinerating MSW at sea.

Mass Burn Systems

Mass bum systems bum unprocessed, mixed

MSW in a single combustion chamber under conditions of excess air (i.e., more than is needed to

complete combustion if the fuel could be uniformly

burned) (figure 6-l). Most systems store MSW in a

pit and move it about with an overhead crane, which

also can remove oversized items (152). Many mass

bum incinerators, including most new ones, are

designed to recover energy (see “Energy Recovery’ ‘).

Mass bum systems are designed specifically to

handle unprocessed MSW, which is extremely

heterogeneous. Most bum the MSW on a sloping,

moving grate (175). The movement (e.g., vibrating,

reciprocating, or pulsing) helps agitate the MSW and

mix it with air, and causes it to tumble down the

slope; many proprietary grates have been designed.

Some systems use a rotating (or rotary) kiln rather

than grates to agitate the waste and mix it with air.

Many new mass bum incinerators use computer

I The ~rcentage ~f’ MSW hat is dlvcfled frOm landfi]l~ by ~ given incineration facility is probab]y on me order of @ to 70 Pcrcenl. some MSW (c.g.,

bulky appliances) is not burned and maybe land tilled. In addition, about one-fouxth by weight of the MSW that is sent to a furnace still remains behind

m the form of a..h, which usually is Iandfilled.

–217–
218 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Combustion Study, Report to Congress, EPA/530-SW-87-021a (Washington, DC: June

1987).

systems to precisely control grate movement, underfire air, and overfire air.2

RDF Systems

Some facilities process MSW by mechanical

means to produce a more homogeneous fuel. This

fuel is known as refuse-derived fuel or RDF (152).

Several types of RDF can be made-coarse, fluff,

powder, and densified. These differ in the size of the

particles and whether or not the material is compacted under pressure (densified) into uniform

pellets, briquettes, or similar forms.

RDF can be burned in two types of boilers (152).

It can be used as the sole or primary fuel in

“dedicated” boilers, or it can be “co-fired” with

conventional fossil fuels (e.g., coal and oil) or even

wood in existing industrial or utility boilers. This

can be an advantage because it avoids the need for

a new boiler. The densified form is easier to handle

and bums more evenly; it can even replace coal in

some furnaces (152,178). RDF can be produced at

one location for use at an offsite boiler. which allows

for flexibility in locating processing facilities,

Boilers using RDF can recover energy (see

‘‘Energy Recovery”). In addition, materials such as

steel and glass recovered during the initial processing can be sold (ch. 5). However, the quality of these

recycled materials generally is lower than that of

materials recovered from source separation systems.

Modular Systems

Modular systems are small, factory-fabricated

plants, generally custom-designed to fit a particular

application. They generally can process up to several

hundred tons of MSW per day. Because they are

small and can be modified relatively easily to handle

particular waste streams, they often are used for

on-site industrial and medical waste combustion, as

well as off-site medical waste combustion (172).

Modular systems are similar to mass bum systems in

that they use unprocessed MSW, but they feature

two combustion chambers and initially move MSW

through the system with a hydraulic ram (152),

Modular systems have attracted growing interest in

less populated areas of the country.

The primary chamber of a modular system is

operated in a slightly oxygen deficient (“starved”

air) environment. The wastes are vaporized in this

chamber and the resulting gases are sent to the

secondary chamber. In modem facilities, the secondary chamber operates in an “excess” air condition

to cause ignition and combustion of the gases. The

rate at which the gases are inducted through the

2Underf~e ~r is supp]i~ from below tie grates and initiates combustion. Overfwe air is supplied from above the grates and mixes with gmes givm

off during volatilization and helps continue their combustion.
Chapter Incineration ● 2 1 9

chambers can be controlled to improve destruction

efficiency. One disadvantage of the two-chamber

system is that waste burnout is not always complete,

which increases ash quantities and reduces the

efficiency of energy recovery (175).

Energy Recovery

Many mass bum and RDF systems are designed

to recover energy and are known as waste-to-energy

facilities. Most operate by transferring the thermal

energy from the hot gases to water in a boiler (152).

The steam that results can be used to turn a turbine

and generate electricity, or it can be used in district

heating/cooling systems (i.e., networks of underground pipes that distribute steam or hot water to

buildings and industries).

Recovery efficiency usually is based on the total

amount of steam or electricity produced or the

amount of energy in MSW that is converted into

electricity. However, an evaluation of total net

energy balance should also include the energy used

for construction and operation, transportation and

processing, and pollution controls.

The financing of waste-to-energy facilities has

been aided by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies

Act, or PURPA (see “Factors Affecting Future

Growth” and ch. 8). One question, however, is how

much energy ultimately stands to be recovered from

these processes. Given three assumptions (that 25

percent of the Nation’s MSW is incinerated, that the

average heat value is 5,000 Btu per pound, and that

50 percent of heat value can be recovered and

converted into electricity), a rough estimate is that

waste-to-energy facilities could ultimately generate

about 0.1 quadrillion Btu, or only about 0.2 percent

of total U.S. energy production. The assumed 50

percent recovery probably is high for electricity, but

low for steam.

Reliability

Reliability refers to the average percentage of

operating capacity that is used. Vendors claim that

mass bum systems have a reliability of about 85

percent, and in practice some have achieved 90 to 95

percent. (Reliability cannot approach 100 percent,

because standard maintenance requires periodic

shutdowns.) The newest mass bum facilities seem

capable of achieving high reliability rates, based on

their performance so far in Europe, Japan, and the

United States. This may be one reason for the

widespread use of incineration in Europe and Japan

(table 6-1; box 6-A).

Combustion ‘‘upsets’ can cause temporary increases in emissions. These problems can be caused

by changes in MSW composition (e.g., in moisture)

that affect combustion efficiency, or by failures of

plant power, instrumentation, and emissions controls. For example, a failure of one portion of the

pollution controls at a California facility caused a

short-term, 100-fold increase in concentrations of

metals emissions (66). Combustion upsets occasionally lead to the temporary closure of facilities (124).

Data are not available on the relative frequency of

upsets, however. Combustion problems do not

necessarily require shut-down; instead, they often

can be controlled relatively quickly by adjusting air

supply and changing the rate at which the MSW

advances down the grate. Such adjustments are

easier with computerized control systems (65).

RDF systems generally have not been as reliable

as mass bum systems because of the greater complexity of their processing systems. Many systems

developed in the 1970s had frequent and substantial

technical problems and needed significant modification; some have been closed down altogether.

Nonetheless, some RDF systems have operated

reliably once start-up problems were overcome (1).

New RDF facilities have performed well, but it

remains to be seen how reliable and economical they

will be over time.

Other Combustion Technologies

Several other technologies have been used to a

small extent to burn MSW, and others have been

proposed. Their use in the future depends on

numerous factors, not least of which is relative cost.

Fluidized Bed Combustion-Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) differs from mass bum and RDF

combustion in that the fuel is burned in ‘‘fluid

suspension’ ‘-entrained along with intensely hot

particles of sand in an upward flow of turbulent air

(122). To date, it has been used primarily to bum

sewage sludge, industrial waste, and coal (108).

‘‘Bubbling’ FBC designs retain the material near

the bottom of the furnace, while ‘circulating’

designs allow material to move upward and then be

returned near the bed for further combustion. These
220 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 6-l—Estimates of the Percentage of PostRecycling MSW Incinerated in the United States,

Japan, and Europe, by Weights

Percent

Country incinerated Year

Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . .

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

37

11

67

38-42

51-55

75

9

15

22-34

1985

1983

1983

1987

1985

1985, 1987

198S

1983

1986

1985, 1986

aThese figures refer to incineration after recycling (e.g., of sourceseparated glass, paper, metals) has occurred.

SOURCES: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid

Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988), final

report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Prairie Village, KS: March 1988); A. Hershkowitz, International Experiences in Solid Waste Management, contract

prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Elmsford, NY: Municipal Recycling Associates, October

1988); Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Garbage in Europe:

Technologies, Economics, and Trends (Washington, DC:

1988); C. Pollock, Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential For

Recycling, Worldwatch Paper 76 (Washington, DC:

Worldwatch Institute, April 1987); Swedish Association of

Public Cleansing and Solid Waste Management, Solid Waste

Management in Sweden (Malmo, Sweden. February 1988).

designs are reported to provide more consistent

combustion because of the extreme turbulence and

to require lower combustion temperatures than do

mass bum and RDF systems (122).

Pyrolysis—Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of a substance by heat in the absence of oxygen;

it generally occurs at relatively low temperatures

(900 to 1,100 “F, compared with around 1,800“F for

mass bum). The heterogeneous nature of MSW

makes pyrolysis reactions complex. Besides producing a solid residue that must be managed, pyrolysis

also produces liquid tar and gas that are potentially

marketable energy forms. The quality of the fuel

products depends on the material fed into the reactor

(e.g., moisture, ash, cellulose content) and operating

conditions (e.g., temperature and particle size).

The term “pyrolysis” is sometimes applied to

certain MSW facilities built in the 1970s with grants

from EPA. These facilities generally were unable to

produce quality fuels in high quantities (7). They

were not true pyrolysis plants, however, because

they used a starved-air design, somewhat like

current modular plants. True pyrolysis for MSW

management still attracts attention in other countries

(box 6-B). One 50 ton-per-day pilot plant also has

been tested in California (197). It uses a patented dry

distillation process, with high temperatures in the

absence of oxygen, to generate volatile gases that

can be burned in a boiler.

At-Sea Incineration-Another concept, first proposed in the 1960s (59), involves burning MSW

onboard a ship at a specified ocean site. One

proposed system includes: 1) an incineration ship

stationed more than 100 miles off-shore; 2) transfer

of MSW in enclosed barges, with waste exchanges

via conveyor and vacuum systems to avoid spillage;

3) rotary kilns designed to account for ship rolling;

4) dry scrubber and fabric filter emission controls; 5)

on-ship solidification of ash into blocks for reuse on

land, or barging of unprocessed ash to land for

landfilling; and 6) energy recovery to provide power

for operations (102).

Proponents contend this could be used when

land-based incinerators cannot be sited and that its

costs might be competitive, particularly in the

Northeast (103). Potential human health risks should

be less than those associated with land-based incinerators because of the at-sea location. However,

potential risks to the marine environment would

increase incrementally (17 1). No at-sea-incineration

can occur without a permit under relevant regulations, and it does not appear that such regulations

will be developed in the near future (85,171).

Current and Projected Capacity

Based on an estimated MSW generation rate of

160 million tons a year (ch. 3) and current incineration capacity, OTA estimates that incineration

accounts for about 15 percent of current MSW

management in the United States; this estimate is

slightly higher than EPA’s estimate of 10 percent. In

some other industrialized countries, incineration is

much more prevalent (table 6-1 ).

Existing Facilities

Estimates of the number of MSW incinerators in

the United States vary because surveys use different

definitions (e.g., some include only waste-to-energy

facilities) and because the operational status of some

facilities changes over time. Two databases indicate
Chapter 6-incineration ● 221

Box 6-A—Incineration in Europe and Japan

Some European countries and Japan use incineration to manage much more of their MSW than does the United

States (table 6-1) (also see boxes 6-B, 6-C, and 6-E). In Japan, over 1,900 municipalities (almost two-thirds of all

municipalities) have incinerators of some sort. The majority of European facilities and about one-fifth of all

Japanese facilities are mass bum, waste-to-energy facilities, and almost all are publicly owned. They typically

handle from 250 to 1,200 tons per day (95), which is smaller than many planned U.S. facilities. However, some

facilities are larger—for example, one in Rotterdam has a 3,100-tons-per-day capacity (98). Old incinerators in

many countries are being closed or retrofitted with modem pollution controls.

Regulations on emissions are perhaps most stringent in West Germany (95,98), where multi-field ESPs are

common and fabric filters and scrubbers are increasingly used. Sweden has the most stringent dioxin emission goal

in the world and the government has noted that many questions about dioxin pathways and effects remain (98).

National regulations in Japan are less comprehensive, but advanced technologies and well-disciplined workers have

achieved results at new facilities that appear acceptable to the general public.

Some European (e.g., in West Germany and Austria) and Japanese facilities conduct continuous monitoring

(1 1,95). At these facilities, information about different parameters is relayed via telephone to a centralized computer

at the regulatory agency. When emissions violate a permit level or air standard, the regulatory staff can undertake

more detailed monitoring to verify and pinpoint the problem.

Some operators in West Germany and Switzerland are required to undergo substantial training at schools run

by the Boiler Manufacturers Association (94,95), However, the U.S. licensee of a West German company maintains

that this is not the norm in West Germany and that certification is not required (76). Instead, operators learn on-site

under the direction of engineers with extensive knowledge of the systems. Similarly, worker training programs in

Japan are variable and are not formally required.

The increasing proportion of plastics in MSW is a concern to many countries. More plastic increases the caloric

value of MSW, possibly beyond the capabilities of older incinerators (95); some German and Japanese incinerators

built before the 1970s were designed to bum MSW with caloric values lower than today’s typical values.

Chlorinated plastics also can contribute to HC1 emissions. Japanese officials feel these problems can be controlled,

either through source separation of plastics or use of pollution controls. In 1982, over 1,600 Japanese municipalities

separated plastics from combustible waste. However, new incinerators have been equipped with scrubbers to control

HC1 emissions, and the number of cities separating plastics from combustibles had declined to just over 1,000 in

1988, a trend that is expected to continue (164).

that over 160 operating MSW incinerators existed in in New England and the mid-Atlantic region; less

1988, with a total design capacity of about 70,000

tons per day (194,196).

Of the 166 operating facilities listed in one

database, 123 were waste-to-energy plants (39 mass

bum, 24 RDF, 52 modular, 1 FBC, and 7 unknown)

with a capacity of 58,000 tons per day (194),3 The

remaining 43 incinerators (22 mass bum, 17 RDF,

and 4 unknown) had a capacity of 14,000 tons per

day. Mass bum systems accounted for 56 percent of

capacity, RDF and FBC systems accounted for 34

percent, and modular systems accounted for 10

percent. The FBC facility uses both MSW and

sewage sludge as fuel (122). Over 40 percent of the

Nation’s MSW incineration facilities were located

than one-tenth were located in the Rockies-or farther

west. The States with greatest incineration capacity

were, in order, Florida, New York, Massachusetts,

Ohio, and Virginia.

Future Facilities

It is also estimated that some 45 facilities were

being built as of 1988 (24 mass bum, 9 RDF, 8

modular, 1 FBC, 1 gasifier, and 2 unknown), with a

total capacity to bum 42,000 tons of MSW per day.

Almost half were located in the mid-Atlantic and

Northeast regions. Mass bum accounted for 61

percent of the design capacity being built, RDF 32

percent, and modular 4 percent (1 94).

sTheW ~Wbcr$ Me *eater tha ~ cm]ier EpA estimate of 1 ] 1 total in~ineration facilities (73 of which r~overed energy) ~d a U.S. Conference

of Mayors estimate of 76 waste-to-energy facilities ( 168,175,177).
222 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 6-B—Pyrolysis in West Germany

Three MSW pyrolysis plants operate in West Germany. One is a commercial plant in Burgau, located in the

state of Bavaria, northwest of Munich. It processes about 35,000 metric tons of MSW per year, after some paper,

glass, cans, and batteries are removed. The Bavarian and federal governments provided capital costs, as well as

operating costs for the first 2 years. The county now owns and operates the plant, and citizens pay operating fees

based on the volume of MSW they generate.

Daily operations at the Burgau facility began in 1985. MSW is shredded and fed into a rotary drum kiln, where

it is indirectly heated and pyrolyzed. The resulting gases are burned with oxygen in a secondary chamber to heat

the kiln or put through a heat exchanger to produce steam and electricity. Pollution controls consist only of a filter.

According to the plant manager, emissions detected during tests (for particulate, S02, HCl HF, carbon monoxide,

total dioxins) in 1987 were all below applicable national standards (1 13). Ash amounts to about 16 to 27 percent

by volume (40 to 45 percent by weight) and is landfilled separately from other MSW.

A small pilot plant also is located northwest of Munich, in the town of Aalen. Privately owned and operated,

it only processes one metric ton per day. It differs from the Burgau facility because it mechanically processes MSW

with a crusher, magnet, air classifier, and hammermill before pyrolysis. The wet organic material is diverted to an

anaerobic decomposition process. The remaining dry “fluff’ is pyrolyzed in a rotary drum kiln. Because the kiln

is operated at about 1,100 ‘F, the operators expect few metals or metal oxides to be emitted. The ash is vitrified and

then landfilled by itself. However, a tar byproduct might be considered hazardous under U.S. regulations (120).

Another unique feature is that the gases from pyrolysis gas are sent to a gas cracking column, which breaks

down long-chain hydrocarbons (including, theoretically, dioxins and furans) into smaller fractions, and then to a

wet scrubber for cooling and neutralization.

The front-end mechanical processing and the gas cracking make this system complex. The costs of front-end

processing are considerable, and the quality of separation can be problematic. However, the system has several

advantages, for example, relatively high heating value of the processed fuel, potential recovery of some metals, and

potentially low emissions. The operators also report that it produces a low volume of ash (4 to 8 percent), but this

figure does not reflect the material removed during the initial processing of the MSW.

If these 45 facilities are completed, then about 210 Factors Affecting Future Growth

facilities will be operating in the next few years,

About 80 other facilities are under contract, and Estimating the number of incinerators that may

perhaps 100 more are in early planning stages exist in the future is difficult, particularly for

(168,194,195). About 23,000 tons per day of new facilities that are planned but not yet being built

capacity is expected to become operational during (11 6). Public opposition and uncertainties regarding

the years 1990 through 1992 (33). emissions and ash management have slowed projects and probably will continue to cause some

At the same time, however, at least 30 planned or

proposed facilities have been canceled or postponed

in recent years, representing a total potential investment of over $3 billion—including facilities in

Austin, Gainesville, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San

Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle (15,99,141). In

California, where at least 30 projects were once

considered, only three are now operating (in Commerce, Long Beach, and Stanislaus). One survey

concluded that in 1987, the capacity of previously

ordered units that was canceled was larger than the

amount of capacity added through openings of new

facilities (116).

cancellations or delays (101). In addition, the nature

of financing (including bond status, tax changes, and

PURPA) is changing and could affect future use of

this MSW management method.

Public Opposition

Although some facilities are being sited, usually

in or near populated areas to reduce transportation

costs, intense public opposition to the development

of new incineration facilities is common throughout

the country. This opposition is based on several

concerns:
Chapter ($----Incineration ● 223

●

●

●

●

●

●

potential human health and environmental risks

from emissions and ash;

whether recycling is being supported to the

maximum extent possible;

lack of early public involvement in decisionmaking (63) (see ch. 8);

facility reliability and the quality of operator

training;

impacts on property values and traffic patterns;

and

contentions that sites are sometimes selected to

avoid middle- and higher-income neighborhoods that have sufficient resources to fight

such development (92).

Financing Mechanisms

MSW incinerators currently operating or being

built represent an estimated capital investment of

about $14 billion (124). They are capital-intensive,

and the largest facilities can cost over $500 million.

Major factors affecting total costs include size,

pollution controls, differences in vendor designs,

land prices, and labor costs.

Most projects are financed with bond issues, and

financing arrangements typically account for tax

incentives and revenues from sales of steam or

electricity under the provisions of PURPA (ch. 8).

The following sections discuss how financing decisions might be influenced by the status of bond

issues and changes in tax laws and (potentially)

PURPA.

Status of Bond Issues—According to some

analysts, some major investment firms are limiting

the types and availability of bonds they issue to

support MSW incineration because of concerns

about financial risks and liabilities (3). Other analysts, however, conclude that bond availability is not

declining (71). Typically, about two-thirds of the

bonds issued for an MSW incinerator are used to

build the facility; the other one-third is used to cover

other costs, including bonds on contractor performance. Some investment firms, however, are now less

willing to bond contractor performance (10). In

some cases, other contractor firms have been willing

to manage this share of the bond.

The nature of financing may affect the size of

incineration facilities. The 1986 Tax Reform Act

lowered the amount of bonds that can be issued for

privately owned incinerators and decreased tax

benefits (17). As a result, some analysts expected

fewer bonds to be issued. Instead, the number of

bond issues increased in 1986 and remained steady

in 1987 (10,196), possibly because some planned

projects were grandfathered by the act. However, the

dollar volume of these bonds decreased significantly, especially in 1987, perhaps indicating a trend

toward smaller facilities. It may be several years

before actual effects can be ascertained.

Changes in Tax Policies—From the late 1970s

through 1986, private investors could regain part of

their investment in MSW incinerators by depreciating investments over 5 years and taking a 10 percent

investment tax credit (18,55). Tax-exempt industrial

development bonds and pollution control bonds also

were allowed. As a result, privately owned facilities

often could afford to charge users lower tipping fees

than if a city or county owned the facilities (9).

The 1986 Tax Reform Act reduced the investment

tax credit, placed limits on tax-exempt bonds issued

for private activities, and created a minimum tax on

the interest earned on some otherwise tax-exempt

bonds (17). This changed the nature of financing,

which in turn could affect the ownership status of

some new facilities. In particular, other sources of

financing are now needed to fund equipment that

cannot be covered by tax-exempt bonds, such as

electricity generating equipment. As the costs of

such equipment increase, financing them with taxable bond issues will require increased tipping fees to

cover bond repayment. There is no consensus on

whether municipally owned projects will be more

cost-effective than privately owned ones.

Effect of PURPA-Before PURPA was enacted

in 1978, owners of small non-utility power generators (including MSW waste-to-energy facilities,

windmills, and other generators) did not have

guaranteed markets for their power. PURPA

changed this by requiring utilities to buy electricity

from these generators at rates equal to the estimated

cost the utility would incur to generate the electricity

itself—the ‘avoided cost” (124,141,1 70). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) let the

States establish actual avoided cost rates, but it

permitted them to set rates higher than full avoided

costs if they wished to encourage cogeneration and

small power production (170).
224 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

In designing incineration facilities, planners assume that the revenues from energy sales will

partially offset the cost of operating the facility. The

PURPA guarantee may have been an important

factor in the development of MSW waste-to-energy

facilities, especially before the 1986 tax changes, but

there is no evidence that such facilities would not

have been built anyway, since they still could have

sold electricity or steam on the open market.

PURPA has not been popular among electric

utilities and has caused some problems for municipalities. Utilities feel that the law forces them to buy

power inefficiently, often at higher cost, and some

have argued for changes in PURPA regulations

(124).4 Some municipalities have suffered financial

losses as a result of long-term avoided-cost contracts

with utilities, which allow a utility to buy electricity

from the city or county at a rate adjusted for the price

of oil. In some cases, when oil prices have dropped,

so did revenues to municipalities; because these

revenues were used to offset operating costs, tipping

fees sometimes had to be increased to make up the

difference (165).

In April 1988, FERC reversed its position and

ruled, in a case involving the New York Public

Service Commission, that States can no longer

impose rates exceeding avoided costs on wholesale

electricity purchases in interstate commerce. The

rationale given was that exceeding avoided cost

could adversely affect costs to utilities and consumers (ch. 8). FERC also argued that waste-to-energy

vendors no longer needed the competitive advantages associated with rates that exceed avoided cost,

even though it acknowledged that this ruling might

delay the development of many new projects. The

ruling is being contested by the Public Service

Commission.

Uncertainty in Standards

MSW incinerators are subject to some Federal

regulation under the Clean Air Act (see ‘Regulatory

Status”) and EPA has issued guidance on pollution

controls considered to be “Best Available Control

Technology” (BACT). However, EPA is not scheduled to propose regulations concerning emissions

until late 1989 and it will not propose regulations

concerning ash until Congress clarifies whether or

not ash is to be managed as a hazardous waste.

In the absence of national standards for MSW

incinerators, some States have issued varying emissions and ash management guidelines and standards.

These guidelines change, causing uncertainty in the

incinerator industry and the financing community

and making it difficult to design and finance new

facilities.

The regulatory status of ash is particularly uncertain. For example, if ash is regulated as a hazardous

waste, disposal costs are likely to be higher.

Potential liabilities from improper disposal also

could be high: if it turns out later that ash was

hazardous and disposed of improperly, an incinerator owner or operator might be penalized under

CERCLA—regardless of whether the owner or

operator thought the waste was not hazardous

(161)—and might be asked to pay for cleaning up

such sites.

Possible Trends

How an improved, more certain regulatory climate would affect the development of MSW incinerators is unclear. Some analysts think it would

decrease public opposition and thus cause an increase in new construction(116, 136,200), especially

as MSW generation increases and landfill capacity

decreases. Others expect siting and permitting difficulties to continue and that the growth rate of new

construction will be slower (199).

There also is no consensus about trends in

ownership. Most waste-to-energy incineration facilities now are publicly owned but privately operated

(31). Most new plants may continue to be publicly

owned, but some analysts note that tax-exempt

bonds still can be used to finance facilities (even

when operated by private firms) and contend that

both public and private ownership are viable options

(72). In most cases, publicly owned plants still

would be designed, built, and operated by private

firms under long-term contracts ( 18).

Trends in the size of new facilities are difficult to

predict. Small modular facilities (e.g., less than 500

tons per day capacity) might fit the majority of local

management needs because most communities gen4FOr ~xmple, “t11it1e5 in Cdifomia tend to oppose the purchasing of ektrkity frOm Small generators (141).
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 225

crate less than this amount and because political

factors may deter development of larger facilities

(126,196). In addition, when new incinerators are

planned in conjunction with future recycling capabilities, smaller facilities may be sufficient. In

contrast, however, cost factors could motivate small

communities to develop larger regional facilities

that service multiple communities.

POLLUTANTS IN AIR EMISSIONS

The Combustion Process

MSW combustion involves several stages (152).

First, the heat in the furnace evaporates the moisture

in the MSW and volatilizes many components. In

most systems, the volatile gases are ignited in the

presence of oxygen to begin actual combustion.

When combustion of the volatile gases is complete,

ideally the carbon content of the MSW has been

oxidized to carbon dioxide.

Achieving good combustion depends on thorough

mixing of the waste to make it more homogeneous

and to distribute air, good grate and furnace design

to aid in mixing and combustion, and proper

operating conditions (65, 140). Three important operating variables are oxygen, residence time, and

temperature. Moreover, the overall way that the

system responds to changes in incoming fuel and

these variables is critical.

Oxygen Levels and Distribution

In mass bum and RDF systems, oxygen for initial

combustion is introduced from below or near the

grate (i.e., underfire air) and then additional overfire air is mixed into the rising gases to achieve more

complete combustion. Too much air can lower

temperatures and decrease combustion. Without

enough overfire air, however, pockets of gas that

were not burned near the grate may escape the

furnace without being combusted, even if temperatures are high (189). Thus efficient combustion

requires properly distributed underfire and overfire

air. In modular systems, the primary chamber is

operated in a slightly oxygen-deficient condition,

and oxygen is added in the secondary chamber.

Residence Time

In general, flue gases should remain in the

combustion zone (i.e., residence time) for at least 1

to 2 seconds (20,65). However, residence time may

be less important than adequate mixing because

combustion is virtually instantaneous once fuel and

oxygen are well-mixed at sufficient temperatures.

Temperature

A minimum temperature is needed to completely

bum MSW. For mass bum and RDF systems, a mean

temperature of 1,800 “Fat the ‘‘fully mixed height’

is considered adequate (20,65,178). This is an area

above the overfire air injection zone where mixing

of the waste theoretically is complete. However,

these high temperatures may increase the volatility

of metals and cause greater emissions of nitrogen

oxides (NOX

) (178). In addition, even if high

temperatures destroy organic compounds such as

dioxins, these compounds can be formed during

post-combustion processes (see ‘Fate of Substances

Before Pollution Controls’ ‘).

The operating temperature in the primary chamber of modular systems typically is lower, between

1,000 to 1,400 “F, depending on the waste being

handled and how the MSW is fed into the system

(i.e., in batches or on a continuous basis). To destroy

organic compounds efficiently, temperatures in the

secondary chamber need to be higher. around 1,800

‘F (126).

Overall System Response

Most waste-to-energy facilities are designed to

produce a relatively constant output of steam heat

for electricity production (e.g., point Bin figure 6-2).

These systems respond to variations in fuel moisture

and heat value (133). However, these responses only

occur within a certain range. For example, a facility

can only produce higher outputs of steam heat for

short periods before harming the equipment; therefore, if the heat input is too high, fuel must be

introduced at a lower rate (point A). If the MSW is

too wet, some energy in the fuel will be used to

evaporate moisture, so the system must bum more

fuel to produce the same amount of heat for energy

recovery (point C). The maximum amount of fuel is

limited by the design of the grate and the minimum

heat content of the fuel; beyond a certain point (point

D), much less heat will be released (i.e., the boiler
226 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Figure 6-2-Relationship Between Heat input and

MSW Throughput

66 75 100 1 1 0

MSW throughput (percent of design)

SOURCE: Ogden Projects, Inc., “Ogden Haverhill Associates’ Responses

to Information Requests by the Haverhill Board of Health, Set V“

(Emeryville, CA: Nov. 10, 1987).

will not operate efficiently). New facilities use

automatic computer control systems to help achieve

greater consistency in this process. For example, one

system has two independent, automatic control

loops that respond to the amount of steam being

produced (133). The first loop adds more combustion air in appropriate locations; the second loop

senses the air/fuel ratio and adjusts the feed rate of

the fuel.

General Characteristics of Air Emissions

If MSW consisted only of carbon and hydrogen,

then complete combustion would yield only CO2

and water. However, other substances are present in

MSW. In addition, combustion is never totally

complete and new substances can be formed during

the burning process. As a result, flue gas typically

contains many substances, including carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOX

),

chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., dioxins), other hydrocarbons (e.g., volatile organic chemicals such as

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), acid gases (e.g.,

hydrogen chloride or HCl), and metals (e.g., mercury and lead).

The ranges of concentrations of these substances

in emissions have been studied extensively. EPA

reported a wide range of pollutant concentrations for

different systems (table 6-2). However, it is difficult

to establish which data come from facilities without

specific pollution controls or from older facilities.

Thus the data overall should not be viewed as

representative of modem facilities.

There is no question among various observers,

however, that older facilities, especially ones without computerized combustion controls or new pollution controls, tend to have relatively high emissions.

This is confirmed by data compiled from emissions

tests at individual facilities (table 6-3). Among mass

bum systems, for example, the data clearly show that

newer facilities with advanced pollutant controls

emit fewer pollutants than do older facilities.

Among newer facilities, it is not clear whether

mass bum and RDF systems differ. In theory, RDF

facilities might exhibit lower levels of metals, since

some noncombustibles are removed during preprocessing. However, insufficient data are available

on metals emissions from both systems to discern

any differences.5 The limited test data available also

do not indicate any significant differences in dioxin

emissions between new RDF facilities and new mass

bum facilities.

Fate of Substances Before Pollution Controls

Dioxins, Furans, Other Organic Chemicals

Many organic chemicals can be present in the flue

gases, mostly in trace amounts. Public attention has

focused on two large groups of compounds known

as chlorinated dioxins (dibenzo-p-dioxins, or PCDDs)

and chlorinated furans (dibenzofurans, or PCDFs).

Some of these compounds are highly toxic to

laboratory animals under certain conditions, and

EPA considers one form, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-pdibenzodioxin or TCDD, a probable human carcinogen (173).

Dioxins and Furans—Dioxins and furans are

present in emissions for two reasons. First, trace

amounts usually are present in incoming MSW.

Dioxins are present as contaminants in bleached

paper products such as coffee filters, sanitary

Ssome exv~ents Aow hat pRprWessing or cubsi~ separation may lead to fewer metals emissions at RDF facilities (see “Separation Prior to

Collection or Combustion”), but not whether these emisskms are less than at mass bum facilities.
Chapter Incineration . 227

Table 6-2-Concentrations of Substances in Emissions,

as Repotted in EPA Municipal Waste Combustion Studya

Type of Facility

Substance Mass burn Modular RDF

Metals (ug/Nm3)

Arsenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Berylliumb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chromium (total) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Leadc 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury b

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . .

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dioxins/furans (ng/Nm3)

2,3,7,8-TCDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TCDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PCDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,3,7,8-TCDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TCDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PCDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acid gases(ppm)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SO3” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Criteria pollutantsc (ppm)

Particulate matter (mg/Nm3

) . . . . . . . . . .

S02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carbon monoxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.452-233

0.0005-0.327

6.22-500

21.3-1020

25.1-15400

8.69-2210

227-476

0.018-62.5

0.195-1160

1.13-10700

0.168-448

0.322-4560

0.423-14800

7.5-477

0.620-7.21

3.96-44.5

5.49-1530

0.040-401

39-376

18.5-1350

6.09-119

0.0961-0.11

20.9-942

3.57-394

237-15500

130-705

1.92-553

0.278-1.54

1.02-43.7

63.1-1540

58.5d

12.2-345

96.6-1810

159-1270

1.10-15.6

—

22.9-303

61-124

255-309

3.24-67

19.1-160

20.6d

33.7-373

493-6660

973-9600

170-441

128-3590

0.522-14.6

3.47-258

53.7-2840

2.69d

31.7-679

135-9110

95.9-776

2.12d

—

220-533

54,7-188

263b

217-430

sConcentrations normalized to 12 percent CO2; note that subsequent measurements (see table 6-3) are not included.

bNational Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) promulgated.

cNational Ambient Air Quallty Standard (NAAQS) promulgated.

dData available for only one test.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Combustion Study, Emission Data Base for

Municipal Waste Combustors, EPA/530-SW-87-021b (Washington, DC: June 1987).

napkins, and milk containers and in chlorophenols

and chlorobenzenes used to make pesticides and

wood preservatives (173). One study found levels of

dioxins in MSW ranging between 3 and 5 parts per

billion (189). These incoming amounts might not be

burned and instead could pass into the flue gas. This

probably is not common, however, because modem

facilities are capable of extremely high destruction

efficiencies for dioxins and furans during combustion, making it highly unlikely that they would pass

through the furnace undestroyed (178).

Second, dioxins and furans can be formed from

other compounds in MSW. Three possible pathways

have been suggested: 1) direct conversion of precursors during combustion; 2) synthesis during combustion from other, nonprecursor organic compounds and a chlorine donor; and 3) catalysis, after

combustion and in the presence of fly ash particles,

of undestroyed precursors into dioxins/furans.6 The

first pathway does not seem important during

normal operating conditions (155). More research

has been conducted on the second and third pathways because of concerns that chlorinated plastics

such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are major contributors of chlorine and that catalyzed reactions may be

the major mechanism for dioxin formation.

Formation During Combustion—Plastics do not

appear to play a major role in the formation of

dioxins and furans within the combustion chamber.

This issue was studied, for example, at a small

modular facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts (1 29,1 89),

Test results indicated that:

6~=WWrs we ch]orina~, ~omatlc comWunds with structures similar to dioxins or fursns (e.g., phenols, benzenes) (la). Nonp~ursor

compounds include chlorinated aliphatic and nonchlorinated aromatic compounds.
228 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

I
Chapter 6--4ncineration ● 229

●

●

●

●

PVC levels were not correlated with the formation or concentrations of dioxins or furans at

any measurement location;

highest dioxin/furan concentrations in the chamber occurred at low operating temperatures

(1,350 to 1,400 ‘F), and high concentrations

also occurred at high operating temperatures

(over 1,750 “F);

dioxin concentrations increased as excess oxygen levels increased; and

varying moisture levels had no significant

effect on dioxin concentrations.

These data suggest that, at least within the

combustion chamber, low operating temperatures

were more important than PVC concentrations in

contributing to dioxin and furan formation. Whether

high operating temperatures play a role is unclear,

however. The importance of low temperatures is

further indicated by data from Westchester, New

York, where dioxin and furan concentrations during

‘‘cold start’ conditions (i.e., when the furnace was

not preheated with auxiliary fuels before combustion of MSW) were at least 20 times greater than

during normal operations (104). However, at the

facility in Marion County. Oregon, dioxin and furan

concentrations during startup were greater in the

boiler but not in the stack (183,185), indicating that

small perturbations in the furnace or boiler may not

affect subsequent stack emissions.

One review of laboratory- and full-scale tests

concluded that laboratory tests are not representative

of actual conditions in large incinerators and tend to

yield contradictory results (1 14). The same review

criticized the relative lack of test data from full-scale

tests, especially a lack of duplicate runs. For

example, the tests from Pittsfield, Massachusetts,

did not sample a wide range of PVC concentrations

nor provide large sample sizes. More research needs

to be conducted in field situations to see what

typically happens at high temperatures and different

oxygen and chlorine concentrations, at various

incinerators (e.g., large mass burn and RDF facilities), and under atypical operating conditions.

Even if PVC was correlated with dioxin and furan

formation, there are many other sources of chlorine

in MSW—wood, bleached paper, treated textiles,

chlorinated solvents, and common metallic chlorides (e.g., sodium or calcium chloride) (19,65,1 12)

(ch. 3). High levels of hydrogen chloride emissions,

which indicate the presence of chlorine, were typical

of MSW incinerators even before the proportion of

plastics in MSW started growing.

Catalysis on Fly Ash Particles—Several tests (at

Pittsfield and a modular starved-air facility on

Prince Edward Island, Canada) indicate that dioxin/

furan concentrations leaving the boiler are greater

than those leaving the combustion chamber, which

is located before the boiler (50,51,129). Because the

flue gases begin cooling after they leave the combustion chamber, this indicates that dioxin and furan

formation occurs after combustion in cooler parts of

the system.

Post-combustion formation, which was postulated in 1981 (154), occurs when precursors not

destroyed during combustion react at lower flue gas

temperatures and in the presence of fly ash particles

to form dioxins and furans (68,178). The fly ash acts

as a catalyst, with the precursors condensing onto the

particles. Condensation appears to be more frequent

on smaller particles (i.e., less than 10 microns),

perhaps because of differences in carbon content,

reactive sites, or surface area (189). Additional

research is needed on the relationship between

dioxin concentrations and particle size because

smaller particles may be more difficult to capture in

pollution controls (see “Controlling Air Emissions”) (27,201).

Laboratory experiments have begun to pinpoint

actual mechanisms of post-combustion dioxin and

furan formation. They show, for example, that

dioxins and furans can be catalyzed from chlorophenols at 550 to 840 “F and from chlorobenzenes and

PCBs at 1,000 to 1,200 “F (74,75). However, they

also show that oxygen concentrations affect the

outcome: fly ash catalyzed formation when oxygen

was in surplus, but it catalyzed decomposition of

dioxins and furans (particularly more highly chlorinated ones) when oxygen was deficient.

Other Organic Chemicals—Limited information

is available on the formation and destruction of

organic chemicals beyond dioxins and furans. Several laboratory studies show that numerous organic

chemicals are emitted during the combustion of

polystyrene, polyethylene, and PVC (89,90,91) and

during pyrolysis of vinylidene chloride, used to

make plastic wrapping film (206). Field tests con-
230 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

ducted at two facilities in Canada—a pilot-scale

mass bum facility in Quebec City and a modular

facility on Prince Edward Island-show that chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, PCBs, and polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were present in

emissions (50,52).

Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides (NOX

), which are precursors to

ozone, can be formed during incineration in two

ways (178). Nitrogen in the MSW itself (i.e., ‘fuel”

nitrogen) can be converted into NOX via oxidation,

depending on the peak operating temperature of the

flame, chemical structure and amount of the nitrogen, and the presence and distribution of oxygen

(24,189). This is known as conversion. In addition,

nitrogen in the flue gases can react at high temperatures with oxygen to produce NOX (178). This is

known as thermal fixation.

The relative importance of conversion and fixation depends on the design and operation of the

incinerator and the nitrogen content of the fuel. Yard

and food wastes, for example, are major contributors

of fuel nitrogen. At the typical operating temperature

in MSW incinerators of around 1,800 “F, NOX formation appears to occur primarily by conversion (24).

Acid Gases

Acid gases emitted from MSW incinerators include sulfur dioxide (S02

), hydrogen chloride (HC1),

and minor gases such as sulfuric acid, hydrogen

bromide, and hydrogen fluoride. In general, concentrations in uncontrolled emissions are related to

concentrations of elemental chlorine, sulfur, bromine, and fluorine in the original MSW (29,178).

These elements are present in many components of

MSW (e.g., sulfur from wallboard and tires). MSW

tends to be low in sulfur and to produce less S02 than

does combustion of oil or coal (152).

Hydrogen chloride emissions have been of concern because of potential effects on: 1 ) humans (i.e.,

through respiration); 2) the environment (i.e., as an

acid gas); and 3) incinerators and nearby structures

(e.g., through corrosion). Although the role of PVC

in dioxin and furan formation has generated much

attention, combustion of PVC and other chlorinecontaining materials appears to be more important in

HC1 production. For example, up to 99 percent of the

chlorine in PVC can be released during combustion

and used to form HC1. At the Pittsfield facility,

higher amounts of PVC were correlated with increased levels of HC1 (i.e., over 1,200 ppm) in the

combustion gases (129).

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter is generated in two ways (20).

Solid particles consist of noncombustible or uncombusted materials from the original MSW (e.g.,

metals, components of glass such as silicates, and

inorganic oxides). Condensable particles are substances that are vaporized or formed into gases

during combustion but that later cool and condense

into or onto particles (20). Most metals in particulate

matter are common, nontrace metals; for example,

about 90 percent of the particulate metals measured

at one facility were calcium, iron, aluminum, and

silica (81 ).

Particulate are emitted if they are entrained into

the flue gases leaving the furnace (i.e., they become

fly ash) and are not captured by pollution control

equipment. Aside from their effects on visibility and

general air quality, particles are important because

the small ones typically emitted by MSW incinerators (i.e., less than 10 microns) can be inhaled by

humans and deposited in the respiratory system

(128) Moreover, organic compounds (e.g., dioxins .

and furans) and trace heavy metals can adsorb onto

them.

Trace Metals

Metals are not destroyed by combustion, but they

can be altered into different forms depending on the

metal (e.g., its possible speciation forms, boiling

point, and vapor pressure) (1 18). Metals that have a

high boiling point and do not volatilize easily are

likely to become incorporated into bottom ash; iron,

for example, tends to be mostly in bottom ash,

although it is also found in fly ash.

Metals with lower boiling points are more likely

to become entrained in the flue gas and, depending

on temperatures and pollution controls, to be emitted

from the stack or be present in captured fly ash. The

higher operating temperatures needed to destroy

organic chemicals can increase metal volatilization

rates and the potential for emissions.

Some metals (e.g., aluminum and calcium) are

volatilized in the form of metallic oxides, sulfates, or
Chapter 6--4ncineration . 231

chlorides. Most “heavy’ metals (e.g., zinc, lead,

cadmium, mercury, and arsenic), however, are

volatilized in elemental form (20,65). Volatilized

metals are entrained in the flue gases, but as the

gases cool the metals condense either onto fly ash

particles or by themselves into a homogeneous

material known as fume. Mercury is an exception

among the heavy metals, however; it is often present

in flue gases in the form of mercury chloride.

Mercury chloride has a lower condensation point

than elemental mercury and other metals, so the

gases have to be cooled to a greater extent before

mercury chloride will condense onto fly ash particles (see “Controlling Air Emissions”).

The distribution of metals in relation to the size of

fly ash particles varies by metal. For example, one

study showed that 75 to 90 percent of lead,

cadmium, and arsenic was found on particles smaller

than 8.3 microns (81). Particles smaller than 1.3

microns accounted for 76 percent of the arsenic, but

only 18 percent of the cadmium and 29 percent of the

lead. Particles smaller than about 1 micron can be

respired into human lungs (particularly the alveolar

region), and particles less than 10 microns in size can

be deposited in other parts of the respiratory system

(128). Larger particles also can pose potential risks

through food chain pathways and through direct

ingestion following inhalation (see Risks From Air

Emissions”).

Controlling Air Emissions

Pollutants present in flue gases can be controlled

in several ways: 1) separation of materials from

MSW prior to combustion; 2) destruction during

combustion; and 3) removal from flue gases by using

pollution control equipment. This section describes

the effects of separation prior to combustion, emissions controls for individual pollutants, and the

relationships among different operating conditions,

pollutant controls, and removal efficiencies.

Separation Prior to Collection or Combustion

The effects of presorting MSW on incineration

depend on what is separated and what incineration

parameters are measured. Only limited information

on these effects is available, mostly from theoretical

calculations and a few small-scale experiments.

Effect on Organic Chemical Emissions—Given

current information and the importance of postcombustion catalysis, it is difficult to identify

specific precursors or chlorine donors that could be

removed to lower concentrations of dioxins and

furans. The relative importance of different chlorine

donors or precursors of dioxins and furans is

unknown, and the data available do not indicate a

significant relationship between the amount of PVC

in MSW and subsequent levels of dioxins and

furans.

One experiment at some relatively old U.S.

facilities showed that presorting certain materials

(e.g., aluminum, iron, glass/grit, and auto batteries)

from MSW reduced total, but unabated, hydrocarbon concentrations in the flue gases at these facilities

by a factor of 1 to 4. This probably occurred because

the more homogeneous sorted MSW allowed more

complete combustion (159). However, no data are

available to determine whether similar reductions

would have occurred had the facilities been equipped

with advanced pollution controls. The idea that

presorting helps seems logical, but research is

needed on the effects of removing various products

on emissions and ash (22) and to see if these results

can be generalized to other facilities, especially new

ones with advanced air pollution controls.

Effect on Metal Emissions-Metals in flue gases,

as well as in fly and bottom ash, potentially can be

reduced by removing certain MSW components

prior to collection. In Sweden and Japan, for

example, household batteries are collected because

of concerns about mercury emissions (ch. 5) (143).

After battery collection was initiated in Sweden, air

emissions of mercury from the Hogdalen facility

dropped 60 percent (203); however, the facility also

was retrofitted with pollution control equipment

during this period, so it is unclear how much of the

reduction can be attributed to the removal of

batteries. Household batteries are a major source of

mercury in MSW in the United States (ch. 4);

programs to collect these batteries are increasing,

although reprocessing of the batteries is not common

(ch. 5).

Actual metal concentrations in the flue gases

tended to decline after presorting at some older U.S.

facilities (159). For seven metals, the average

decrease was more than 30 percent, including 70
232 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

percent for mercury and 90 percent for beryllium.

Results were variable, however, and chromium

increased at one facility. Again, however, it is

unclear what effect presorting would have at facilities equipped with advanced pollution controls. One

researcher suggests that presorting may prove to be

more effective at older facilities than at modem

facilities (77); however, research at modem facilities

is still needed.

Effects on Other Parameters—Presorting was

estimated to increase the heat value of MSW at the

affected facilities by about 25 percent, lower ash

content by about half, and decrease carbon monoxide emissions by a factor of 2 to 3 (159,160). In

addition, removing corrugated paper (which has a

relatively high sulfur content) might reduce S02

emissions. The effects of presorting may not always

be dramatic, however, depending on what is removed. For example, calculations regarding a hypothetical facility indicated that recycling all yard

waste and 50 percent of plastics and paper would

reduce heat value by only 4 percent (88).

Dioxins

Because dioxins and furans in flue gases condense

onto fly ash particles if the gases are cooled

sufficiently, they can be controlled by the air

pollution controls that remove particulate matter.

These controls-scrubbers, fabric filters, and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)-are described below

(see “Particulate Matter”).

In general, newer MSW facilities equipped with

scrubbers and fabric filters or with new ESPs have

low dioxin emissions, as much as two orders of

magnitude lower than older facilities (table 6-3;

figure 6-3). The combination of a scrubber and fabric

filter can remove 97 to 99 percent of the total dioxins

present in post-combustion flue gases (65,87,1 12,127).7

Some mass bum, RDF, and FBC facilities have

achieved levels that are lower than the Swedish goal

of 0.1 ng/Nm3 of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxic Equivalents

(table 6-3).8 Initial tests on uncontrolled emissions

at a pilot-scale pyrolysis facility did not detect

dioxins or furans (197).

7Dam from ~ ~l]ot.x~e fwilily in @e&c city, c~~a, indicate that scrubbers and filters also can exhibit high removal effkiencies (over ~ Freent!

depending on the flue gas temperatures) for other organic chemicals such as chlorobenzenes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (52).

8The Compund 2,3,7,8-TCDD is conS1&~ed t. & the most toxic dioxin. me toxicities of o~er dioxins USU~ly Me Cornpard with 2,3,7,8 -TCDD

and expressed as ‘Toxic Equivalents” (173). However, there are several methods of calculating Ibxic Equivalents. The Swedish goal is based on the

“Eadon Method.” The equivalent goal when calculated by the “EPA Method” is 0.2 ng/NmJ.
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 233

RDF may result in dioxin emissions that are only a

fraction of the Swedish goals (1 12,153,154). This

technology, developed for coal gasification into

synfuels, converts RDF into a low-Btu gas that is

cleaned in a scrubber and burned to generate

electricity.

Nitrogen Oxides

Typical uncontrolled emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX

) from mass burn facilities range from 200

to 370 ppm (table 6-3). Based on limited data,

emissions from RDF facilities appear to be around

200 ppm or less and perhaps are even lower for FBC

facilities. Among mass burn plants, higher combustion efficiencies result in lower emissions of organic

chemicals such as dioxins and slightly more conversion of fuel-bound nitrogen into NOX (178). In

general, NOX emissions tend to decrease during

colder months because the MSW contains less yard

waste (and therefore less fuel nitrogen). This suggests that separating yard wastes prior to combustion

could help control NOX (24).

Three types of controls have been demonstrated at

full-scale MSW facilities, although they are used

only at a few locations. Combustion modification

and Thermal DeNOx work during combustion,

while selective catalytic reduction works after combustion. These controls are capable of reducing

NO, levels to below 100 ppm in some cases

(table 6-3). In addition, wet scrubbing is being

explored as a way of controlling NOX. (See ref. 24 for

more information on existing and emerging technologies. )

Combustion modification means changing design and operating features to avoid conversion of

elemental nitrogen to NOX

. Typical modifications

include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

changing grate and furnace design to enhance

combustion;

varying the speed of MSW input to dampen

changes in Btu values;

automatic computer controls;

auxiliary burners in the furnace;

two chambers, with starved air conditions in the

primary chamber; and

using fluidized bed incinerators, at temperatures lower than those used in mass burn

Photo credit Office of Technology Assessment

Emissions of nitrogen oxides, which are precursors to

ozone, can be reduced by separating yard wastes prior to

combustion and by using pollution controls. Shown here is

the catalyst from a selective catalytic reduction system,

currently used in Japan but not in the United States.

incinerators, to decrease the chance of thermal

fixation (21,24).

A variation, flue gas recirculation, involves

injecting the cooler gases leaving the boiler back

into the combustion chamber to reduce operating

temperatures. Tests at a Tokyo, Japan, facility

showed a 25 percent removal rate, while tests at the

mass bum facility in Long Beach, California,

showed a 10 to 20 percent removal rate (21 .24).

Similar results were reported from a small modular

99-420 0 - 89 - 6
234 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

facility in Rutland, Vermont, during performance

tests, but not during subsequent compliance tests.

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) involves

injecting ammonia (NH3) into the flue gases just

before they enter a metal-based catalyst (box 6-C).

The NH3 reacts with nitrogen oxide gases to form

nitrogen, thus precluding NOX emissions, and the

catalyst enables the reactions to occur at lower

temperatures (178). SCR can potentially reduce NOX

by over 70 percent; Mitsubishi, for example, will

guarantee NOX removal efficiency of 70 to 85

percent for MSW facilities in Europe, depending on

the local requirements for NOX reduction. SCR has

not been used in the United States.

Thermal DeNOx is a form of selective noncatalytic reduction that involves injecting NH3 into the

upper furnace, where it reacts with NO and N02 to

produce nitrogen and water.9 Three California facilities use this method (Commerce, Long Beach, and

Stanislaus). The Commerce facility has achieved an

average of 45 percent NOx 

removal (16). Thermal

DeNOx and SCR systems are compared in box 6-C.

Another selective noncatalytic reduction method in

the early stages of commercialization is the injection

of urea into the furnace and boiler (23,24). The

potential advantages are that urea is less toxic than

ammonia and that liquid urea mixes more readily

than gaseous ammonia with the NOX

.

Acid Gases

Acid gases cause corrosion of internal furnace

components, a major problem in early MSW incinerators, and they also can contribute to air quality

problems (e.g., corrosion of buildings and acid rain).

They can be controlled with ‘scrubbers, ’ which add

alkaline reagents that react with the gases to form

salts that are then collected and landfilled (65).

Wet, dry. and spray dry scrubbers add the reagent

after the boiler (see figure 6-1 ). With dry injection,

the reagent is added into or before the boiler. In

general, spray dry and dry scrubbers have several

advantages over wet scrubbers: they do not require

wastewater treatment and they reduce corrosion and

energy consumption (20). However, these scrubbers

are relatively new and research is needed on their

long-term effectiveness. Some observers suggest

that wet scrubbers may be appropriate in modular

facilities that operate on a batch basis (e.g., for

medical waste) (126). Others note that dry injection

may be well-suited for retrofitting facilities because

it tends to be less costly than retrofitting with other

scrubbers (56).

Wet scrubbers use a liquid, alkaline absorbent.

Under optimal conditions, they can remove about 95

percent of HC1 and 85 percent of S02 (20). They use

less reagent but much more water than do dry

scrubbers; this necessitates de-watering of residues

and subsequent wastewater treatment. They also can

be affected by corrosion, so corrosion-resistant

materials are needed in duct work, tanks, and other

equipment (56). In addition, because wet scrubbing

may cool the flue gases to as low as 120 “F, plumes

leaving the stack do not rise very high, leading to

increased ground-level concentrations of pollutants.

Reheating is needed to get more dispersion and

comply with ambient air quality regulations (76).

Flue-gas condensation, a related technology that

has been used in combination with ESPs in Europe,

involves reducing flue gas temperatures to as low as

about 100 ‘F by direct contact with water droplets or

by a heat exchanger (20,65). Theoretically, this

results in condensation of acid gases, as well as

organic chemicals and volatile metals, onto particles

that can be collected (20).

Dry scrubbers inject lime in a dry state into the

flue gases. They use more reagent than wet scrubbers

but do not have wastewater problems. Atone facility

in Claremont, New Hampshire, removal efficiencies

for HC1 and SOX were reported to be 90 and 70

percent, respectively.

Spray dry (or wet-dry or semi-dry) scrubbers

spray an atomized liquid such as a lime slurry into

the flue gases; the water evaporates, leaving only dry

particles (16,65). The process reduces flue gas

temperatures below 300 “F, which aids in removing

acid gases and causes some organic chemicals and

metals to condense on particulate matter. These can

then be collected by particulate controls (20,65).

Removal efficiencies for HC1 and S02 are high

under optimal conditions. At the Commerce, California, facility, removal of HC1 and SOX averaged

98.8 percent; at the Munich North facility in West

Germany, removal of HC1 and S0x averaged 95 and

9**ThCm~ ~NOx” was deve]opcd by Mitsubishi Heavy [ndusuies in Japan and licensed in the United SIN(3S 10 tk Exxon ~0~. (21).
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 235

76 percent, respectively. However, if flue gas

temperatures drop too low, condensation and subsequent wetting of the particles and, in some cases,

clogging of the sprayer, can occur.

Dry (or furnace sorbent) injection systems

inject a dry absorbent such as lime powder into the

boiler or the original MSW, prior to production of

flue gases (56). This avoids the use of water and

excessive cooling of the flue gases (22). However,

because the gases are not cooled, there is no

additional control of metals or dioxins via condensation on particles. Dry injection systems have been

used at about 50 facilities in Japan and at least one

facility each in Canada and Sweden (65). At a

circulating fluidized bed incinerator in Sweden,

fueled with RDF and equipped an ESP, HC1 was

reduced by 77 to 94 percent during test.. in 1986

(122). 10 After the ESP was replaced with a fabric

filter, both HCl and S02 were reduced by about 95

percent during tests in 1988 (2). However, excessive

lime injection also caused an increase in NOX

emissions.

Particulate Matter

After combustion, some particles become incorporated in bottom ash while others are entrained in

the rising flue gases. One way to increase the portion

in the bottom ash is to reduce the vertical velocity of

air introduced from below the grate (i.e., underfire

air). This may be most possible in modular facilities,

which use less air in the primary chamber (22). Once

particles become entrained in the flue gases, however, the primary control method is to remove them

(along with metals and other substances that have

condensed onto them) with a collection device

positioned near the end of the incinerator. Two

devices are common: electrostatic precipitators and

fabric filters (i.e., baghouses).

Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) electrically

charge particles and pass them between parallel

plates of opposite charge so that the particles are

drawn to the plates (65). The plates are shaken

periodically and the particles fall into hoppers. ESP

removal efficiency is greatest when the surface area

of the plates is large and flue gas velocity is slow

(65). Newer ESPs with 3 to 5 fields of plates appear

to perform more efficiently than 2-field ESPs. For

example, 7 of 15 facilities with 3- and 4-field ESPs

achieved emissions levels of less than 0.01 grains

per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) during emissions tests conducted from 1984 to 1988 (20). At the

Pinellas, Florida, facility, removal efficiencies were

greater than 99.7 percent during emissions tests

(158).

Fabric filters or baghouses consist of an array of

cylindrical bags, through which the flue gases are

filtered (65). In most systems, the layer of dust or

“cake” that builds up on the bags increases the

efficiency with which particles are collected, but

only to a point: too much cake lowers efficiency. In

general, removal efficiencies are enhanced if flue

gas temperatures are lowered before reaching the

filters (20).

Combining a fabric filter with a dry or spray dry

scrubber is particularly effective. The scrubber

reduces acid gases (which degrade the baghouse),

reduces “blinding” of the baghouse by wet particles, and cools the gases, while the filter cake helps

absorb particles (20,65). During tests conducted

from 1984 to 1988, 15 of 17 facilities with this

combination had emissions below 0.010 gr/dscf, and

all had emissions below 0.011 gr/dscf (22). In some

cases, emissions were reduced to below 0.005

gr/dscf, with a removal efficiency of over 99.99

percent (table 6-3) (65,84,127). Whether these levels

can be maintained consistently is unknown. In

addition, if the temperature in the baghouse is too

low, then calcium chloride formed in the scrubber

will condense, which can increase blinding (56).

Particle Size, ESPs, and Filters—Some analysts

contend that fabric filters are more efficient than

ESPs in collecting particles smaller than 2 microns

(i.e., ones that penetrate most easily into the lungs)

and that they are not as sensitive to changes in flue

gas volumes and velocities (20,65,87,1 12,178). For

example, data from the 1970s indicate that 98

percent of particles over 2 microns, but only about

93 percent of those smaller than 2 microns, were

captured by ESPs (21).

Research on coal-fired plants showed that fabric

filters generally had greater removal efficiencies

IOBWaux ~e~e faci]itle~ typically “x limestone p~lc]es in the fluid bed [o he]p dis~ibutc heat even]y, some of he repo~~ neutralization Of acid

gases might result from this design feature rather than the dry injection process.
236 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Box 6-C-Selective Catalytic Reduction

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is a technology capable of removing more than 70 percent of the NOX

normally emitted from MSW incinerators. It involves injecting ammonia (NH3) into the flue gas Just before the gas

enters a special catalyst. The NH3 reacts with nitrogen oxide gases (NO and N02) to form nitrogen and water instead

of NO,. The catalyst enables these reactions to occur at lower temperatures (178).

SCR is used at two Japanese facilities. The Iwatsuki facility opened in 1987, while the Tokyo facility opened

in 1983 and was retrofitted with SCR in 1987. The Iwatsuki facility is small, with a capacity of 130 tons per day,

and is equipped with a dry scrubber, fabric filter, and SCR system. The SCR system was installed in anticipation

of future lower national NOX standards and to meet local public demands. Fly and bottom ash—about 15 percent

by weight of the original MSW—are mixed with sludge from the facility’s wastewater plant, then mixed with

cement and sent to a lined monofill.

Emissions Control and Catalyst Efficiency at Iwatsuki

SCR removed 80 percent of NOX during initial testing at Iwatsuki (167). According to Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries (MHI), the SCR manufacturer and plant designer, the system currently removes 50 to 60 percent, with

NOX concentrations of 30 to 60 ppm, because the municipality only requires that level. These emissions are lower

than typical NO, emissions from U.S. facilities, which tend to have higher uncontrolled levels of NOX to begin with,

and lower than emissions at facilities using Thermal DeNOx (204). According to MI-II, operating at a lower control

level requires less NH3 and reduces operating costs.

A potential problem with catalysts in general is that they become less efficient over time, due to “poisoning’

with alkaline metals or “blinding” with particulate matter (76). MHI calculated that catalyst activity at Iwatsuki

had decreased by only 1 to 2 percent after one year of operation, and it expects the catalyst to function efficiently

until activity has been reduced by 20 to 30 percent. *

Another potential disadvantage is the presence of white plumes caused by ammonia “slip.” Slip occurs when

excess NH3 and HC1 are released from the stack as gases and react in the atmosphere to form NH4Cl, which iS visible

at concentrations greater than 10 ppm. At Iwatsuki, this is avoided by carefully controlling the rate of NH3 injection.

According to MHI, 80 percent NOx removal without ammonia slip can be achieved by injecting 2 kg per hour.

Using SCR at U.S. Facilities

Deciding to use SCR at U.S. facilities hinges on: 1) the need to reheat the flue gases, and the costs of doing

so; 2) capital and operating costs of SCR itself; 3) long-term performance; and 4) local NOX requirements.

Reheating Flue Gases—Most Japanese incinerators are small and they use the heat they produce for local

steam heating (e.g., for greenhouses and community swimming pools) rather than electricity generation. Flue gases

typically exit the boiler at 600 to 700 “F, are cooled, and pass through a fabric filter. At Iwatsuki, the gases then pass

through the SCR at a temperature above 430 “F, the temperature required to operate the catalyst efficiently.

In contrast, most large U.S. facilities produce electricity. In these facilities, the flue gases would be too cool

to operate efficiently when they reached an SCR system and would require reheating. This is because the gases leave

the boiler, pass through economizers or other heat exchangers to convert heat into electricity, and then exit the

economizer well below 430 “F (76). Additional cooling to around 300 “F prior to entering the scrubber and filter

is required by some States (e.g., New York), primarily because the controls operate more efficiently at those

temperatures. MHI’s configuration for a proposed California facility required that the SCR be placed after a

scrubber and filter, in part to reduce blinding and poisoning by metals.

MI-II also would guarantee the proposed SCR system only if flue gas temperatures entering the catalyst were

428 “For higher at all times. Because the flue gases would be cooler than 430‘F before they reached the SCR, they

would have to be reheated with an auxiliary burner. After passing through the SCR, the gases then would have to

be recooled to less than 300 “F prior to emission (but not less than 270 0F. to avoid formation of CaC12). This

reheating and recooling adds to total costs.
Chapter 6--Incineration . 237

An alternative is to place the SCR right after the boiler, which would eliminate the need for reheating. This

might cause problems with blinding of the catalyst, but MHI used a similar arrangement at its Tokyo plant, where

the SCR is placed after an ESP but before a wet scrubber (109). In this situation, reheating was not necessary.

Capital and Operating Costs-The SCR system at Iwatsuki cost approximately about $570,000, or $4,400

per ton of capacity.2 For comparison, the fabric filter system had capital costs of about $3.4 million, or $26,000 per

ton of capacity. Operating costs for the SCR consist of the cost of ammonia, about $32,000 annually (about $240

per ton of capacity). According to MI-II, initial costs for new plants and retrofitting costs for old plants are similar,

assuming space is available.

Capital costs for a system with the SCR placed after a scrubber and filter are greater than if the SCR is placed

nearer the boiler because of the extra equipment needed to reheat and recool the flue gases. The cost of a complete

SCR system at the proposed California facility was estimated, in 1987, to be about $13 million (76). The SCR

catalyst was to cost $7.6 million; auxiliary equipment (burners, etc.) $0.5 million; ductwork and support steel $1.65

million; and construction $3.3 million. This would have increased the capital cost of the entire facility by about 8

percent. The additional operating costs for the SCR system were estimated to be roughly $150,000 per year.

Long-Term Catalyst Performance—Data on catalyst performance at MSW incinerators are limited to pilot

tests from Tokyo and one year of operating data from Iwatsuki. In the pilot test, the catalysts were sampled

periodically at different temperatures and NH3

/NOX ratios. About 80 percent NOX reduction was achieved for 2,000

hours of operation (the length of the test) (167). The plant now has operated for a total of 16,000 hours with 80

percent removal efficiency (1 10). As noted above, the SCR system at Iwatsuki exhibited a decrease in activity of

only 1 to 2 percent after one year of operation, and MHI expects it to function efficiently until activity has been

reduced by 20 to 30 percent.

Whether the current rate of decrease will continue is unknown. Although it looks promising, the SCR system

at Iwatsuki has only been operating for 2 years. In addition to normal gradual decreases in activity, catalysts can

be degraded suddenly by thermal shocks (e.g., from startups and shutdowns) (76). MI-II, however, does not consider

this to be important.

Local NOX Controls: SCR or Thermal DeNOx?—The value of SCR at U.S. facilities would depend on local

air quality standards. If the objective is to maximize NOX removal, then SCR is the best technology available.

However, if the objective is to meet established standards for NOx, then other controls, particularly Thermal DeNOx,

can be used at less expense. Under typical operating conditions, Thermal DeNOx can reduce NOX by about 40

percent. At the Commerce, California, facility, for example, tests show an average removal rate of 44.5 percent; a

rate as high as 60 percent was achieved when NH3 was injected at a slightly greater rate (16). In all tests, ammonia

slip was reduced by particulate controls (spray dryer and baghouse) to less than 3 ppm.

Thus Thermal DeNOx removes less NOX than SCR. It also constrains reactions to a smaller temperature range

(1,700 to 1,800 “F) (16), and so requires greater control over operating conditions. However, the capital and

operating costs of Thermal DeNOx are considerably lower. The capital costs of the system at Commerce were

approximately $250,000 (about $660 per ton of design capacity) (204). Operating costs also are relatively low; a

compressor costs about $100,000 annually and ammonia injection costs are only about $2 to $3 per day.

Despite the lower costs of Thermal DeNox, SCR still may be appropriate in some situations. For example,

Clean Air Act regulations state that new plants cannot make additional measurable impacts when an area already

is in violation of annual and hourly standards for NO2

. In southern California, which already violates these

standards, the South Coast Air Quality District defines the measurable impact for N02 as 19 mg/Nm3

. After

estimating that Thermal DeNOx would reduce the measurable impact to between 50 and 100 mg/Nm3

, Ogden

Martin Systems, Inc., suggested using an SCR system at a proposed MSW incinerator.

I ~o~~ scR man~actWeT, TSICUM,S Industnes, also concluded that reduction of catalyst e~lciency by ffte~s was not Yet a problem; ~C Takuma

Hamamatsu facillty showed NO, reductions from 150 to 45 ppm during emissions testing.

conversions into U.S. dollars are based on exchnnge rate of 125 yemldollar.
238 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

than ESPs (111). However, that research also

showed that an ESP combined with a scrubber

exhibited better removal than the fabric filter. The

investigators concluded that both systems could

achieve low levels of particulate emissions. Other

investigators also contend that fabric filters are

sensitive to changes in flue gas volumes and

velocities, for example, that increased gas volumes

would increase the pressure within the bag and cause

more particles to migrate through it (56).

Trace Metals

Most volatilized metals condense at temperatures

below 570 “F. When flue gases are cooled below this

temperature, many of the metals will condense,

usually onto fly ash particles. These can be collected

by ESPs or baghouses. High, but in some instances

variable, removal efficiencies have been reported for

most metals (except mercury):

●

●

●

s

●

over 99 percent removal of 26 metals at Quebec

City, Canada (equipped with scrubber/filter)

(52);

over 99 percent of 12 metals at a Japanese

facility with a baghouse (30);

98 percent of cadmium, lead, and zinc at a

German facility with a spray dry scrubber/ESP

system (20);

over 99.7 percent for chromium and cadmium,

98.6 percent for lead, and 23.0 to 89.7 percent

for nickel, at Marion County, Oregon (183);

and

between 88.4 and 99.9 percent for 12 metals at

Commerce, California,-with all but lead below

detection limits (16).

Mercury and mercury chloride have lower condensation points than other metals, but if temperatures are low enough some will condense onto

particles and be removed by particulate controls.

Limited test data indicate that as temperatures

decrease below 285 “F, mercury removal tends to

increase. For example, removal efficiencies ranged

between 91 and 97 percent at temperatures of 230 to

284 ‘F at the Quebec City, Canada, facility, but no

removal occurred when temperatures were over 390

“F (52). In contrast, no removal was detected at the

Commerce, California, facility even when flue gas

temperatures were around 270 ‘F (16). At the

Bristol, Connecticut, facility, mercury emissions

were about 10 times lower than permit levels (134).

No significant difference appears to exist between

the capability of new ESP-based systems and

scrubber/filter systems to remove most metals. In

general, flue gas temperatures appear to have a

greater effect than the type of control technology

(52,1 18). However, scrubbers may be more effective

in removing mercury; much of the mercury in flue

gases is mercury chloride, and the lime used in

scrubbers may react with this compound and increase removal rates (21).

Failures in even small parts of pollution control

equipment can have dramatic short-term effects. At

the Commerce, California, facility, for example,

several metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury,

and zinc) showed a 10- to 100-fold increase in

emissions when one bag in the baghouse fell from its

supports during a test (139).

Analytical and Monitoring Problems

Several sampling and analytical problems constrain emissions measurements. The concentrations

of many pollutants are so low that they are at

“detection limits”—i.e., they are lower than what

current technologies are capable of measuring.

Whether the expense of continuing to look for

pollutants in such low concentrations is worthwhile

is the subject of considerable debate and probably is

not resolvable on technical grounds.

Another problem is the inherent variability in

measurements. Even at the same facility and with the

same technologies, results of different replicate runs

have varied by a factor of 3 or more (157). This

makes it difficult to compare results between replicate measurements (189). In addition, measurements

of flow rate, which are used in calculating mass

emissions (e.g., pounds emitted per hour), can vary

by as much as 30 percent (76). Furthermore, some

sampling methods developed for other situations

may not be appropriate for MSW incinerators; for

example, sulfuric acid may be difficult to measure

with the standard EPA method, developed for

sulfuric acid plants, because HC1 acts like a sulfuric

acid mist in the method and interferes with the

measurement (135).

Monitoring With Indicator Parameters

The efficiency of a combustion system is often

estimated by measuring, on a continuous basis,

“surrogate’ parameters that indicate whether the
Chapter Incineration . 239

system is operating within a desired range of

conditions. In contrast, actual combustion efficiency

and emissions are rarely measured directly (65).

Carbon monoxide (CO) is one of the most

common surrogate parameters. It is readily monitored on a continuous basis and its concentration

reflects the completeness of oxidation. However,

there is no established correlation between low CO

levels and destruction and removal efficiency (1 12,129).

For example, CO readings may rise or “spike”

during short upsets without substantial increases in

hydrocarbon or other organic emissions. For this

reason, time-averaged CO readings are used to filter

out the effect of spikes. Alternatively, low CO

emissions may mask short-lived, low-temperature

pathways that allow some dioxin and furan formation. However, CO readings over 100 ppm general] y

are considered to be a good indicator of incomplete

combustion (65,1 12,129,154,1 89). Quantitative relationships tend to be unique to each facility.

Continuous monitoring of ambient air quality, as

opposed to monitoring of specific emissions, occurs

at some facilities in Europe and Japan (box 6-B).

Several pollutants (e.g., CO, CO2

, SOx, NOx, total

hydrocarbons, and HC1) and other parameters (e.g.,

opacity, oxygen, and temperature) also are subject to

continuous emissions monitoring in other countries

(105,106). Opacity, for example, is a common

surrogate for particulate.

Risks From Air Emissions

Humans can be exposed to pollutants emitted

from MSW incinerators by either direct pathways

(e.g., inhalation) or indirect pathways (e.g., ingestion of contaminated food). Risk assessments typically use models and a set of conservative assumptions to predict potential exposure from these

pathways. These exposure predictions, along with

estimates of the number of exposed individuals and

the carcinogenic or toxic potency of the pollutants,

are used to estimate human cancer risks. Usually, a

model presents a worst-case scenario that involves a

“maximally-exposed individual ’’-e.g., someone

exposed to high concentrations of a given pollutant

over the course of a 70-year lifetime. This type of

scenario is highly unlikely and thus is the source of

controversy. Some people consider its conservatism

to be an appropriate safeguard, while others consider

it to be unnecessary.

Risk assessments for different waste management

methods are difficult to compare because of differences in the number and type of pollutants, potential

pathways, potential effects, and facility designs and

ages. Most risk assessments of MSW incineration do

not address most of the organic chemicals known to

be in emissions; however, not all that are unaddressed are necessarily risky, and proper risk assessments attempt to include all substances known to

pose potential risks. They also usually do not

address cumulative noncarcinogenic effects; cumulative effects of multiple facilities in a given area;

and health risks from “criteria’ pollutants as

defined by the Clean Air Act, such as S02 and NOX

(at least in part because standards for these have

already been set).

Few risk assessments have addressed populations

that may experience the greatest exposure (e.g.,

incinerator workers, landfill operators, and children); the incremental effects given background

levels or multiple sources (e.g., see ref. 83); or risks

from synergistic or antagonistic reactions among

different compounds (93). In general, risk assessments are not designed to evaluate ecological effects

(e.g., increased CO2 production, lake acidification,

nutrient enrichment from deposition of NOX in lakes

and estuaries) or effects on equipment and buildings.

Nevertheless, risk assessments can play a role in

decisionmaking, for example by examining the

likely reduction in risks that might be associated

with retrofitting a given facility. At least 24 States

plan to use risk assessments on a case-specific basis

to set regulations for various sources of carcinogens

(177).

Importance of Different Pathways

In EPA’s risk assessments for MSW incineration,

direct pathways were defined to include only the

inhalation of air emissions; quantitative cancer risks

were estimated for four metals and six organic

chemicals (table 6-4) (179). Indirect pathways,

which were not assessed quantitatively, included

ingestion of food (made from crops exposed to

emissions), soil, surface water, and fish.

For direct exposure attributable to MSW incinerators, EPA concluded that chlorinated dioxins pose
240 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 6-4-Contribution of Pollutants in MSW Incinerator Emissions to Estimates of Total Annual Cancer Incidence

and Maximum Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk

Existing facilities Projected facilities

Maximum Maximum

Annual cancer individual Annual cancer individual

Pollutant incidencea,b risk rangec,d incidencea,b risk rangec,d

Chlorinated dioxins 2-40 10-6-10-30.8-20 1 0

-6-l0-4

Chlorobenzenes 0.009-0.02 1 0

-7-10-6

0.004-0.01 1 0

- 9

- 1 0

- 7

Chlorophenols 0.0001-0.0003 10-9-10-8

0.0001-0.0003 1 0

-10 - 1 0-9

Formaldehyde 0.009 10-8

0.02 10-8-10-7

Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.02 10-8-10-50.2 10-9-10-6

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 0.01 -0,6 10-7-10-5 0.05-3.0 10-7 -10-5

Arsenic 0.2 1 0

- 7

- 1 0

- 4

0.1 10-S-10-7

Beryllium 0.02 1 0

- 9 - 1 0- 6 0.001 10-11 -10-8

Cadmium 0.2 lo~-104 0.2 1 0

- 7 - 1 0- 6

Chromium 0.2 1 0

- 7

- 1 0

- 4

0.1 10-8-10-6

Rounded totale2-40 10-6 -10-3 2-20 10-6-10-4

aRanges reflect assumptions made regarding potential carcinogenicity of classes of organic compounds.

cAnnual cancer incidence = average annual number of excess cancer cases in exposed populations.

cRanges reflect differences in emissions and combustion technologies

dMaximum individual risk = probability of contracting cancer following lifetime exposure at maximum modeled long-term ambient concentration. Probability IS

expressed as a negative exponent of 10; for example, a risk of one chance in 10,000 is expressed as 104.

‘Apparent errors in total are because of intentional rounding to one significant figure.

SOURCE: After U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Assessment of Health Risks Associated With Municipal Waste

Combustion Emissions, EPA/530-SW-87-02 (Washington, DC: September 1987).

the greatest cancer risk to humans, and that exposure

to cadmium, arsenic, and chromium also pose

significant potential risks. However, disagreement

exists about the levels of cancer risks associated with

these pollutants, particularly about the importance of

dioxin and indirect pathways.

In particular, some observers contend that indirect exposure routes-especially bioaccumulation

in the food chain and subsequent food ingestion—

are more important pathways than inhalation

(8,63,201,202,205). Indeed, ecological principles

suggest that persistent substances such as dioxins

should result in greater exposure over time because

they tend to accumulate in the environment and in

different organisms and to increase in concentration

in successive levels of the food chain.

EPA did not present quantitative estimates of

risks from the indirect pathways, so it is difficult to

compare their importance relative to direct pathways. Nevertheless, EPA concluded that indirect

exposure to emissions may be comparable to direct

exposure for some pollutants. Among organic chemicals, for example, EPA considered dioxins to

present possible health risks for every indirect

pathway. Other investigators contend that deposition of dioxins and furans on agricultural lands may

be a major pathway not only for people in that area,

but also elsewhere because of the transportation of

food products (202) (see “Dioxins and Furans”

below).

Type and Age of Facilities

The type and age of the incineration facility

can-but does not always—affect the potential risks

from air emissions. Limited data on dioxin and

particulate emissions from RDF facilities indicate

that these facilities can achieve levels of emissions

as low as new mass bum facilities (table 6-3).

Assuming that all else is equal, differences in risks

should not be significant.

Within a given type of facility, however, newer

facilities provide much greater control than do older

facilities because of better emission controls and

combustion procedures. Various compliance tests

indicate that new facilities usually meet their permit

limits, often at levels far below the limits. This

should not be surprising because new facilities

usually are designed on the basis of what is

technically achievable. For example, the Commerce,

California, facility met all permit limits for NOX,

SOX

, carbon monoxide, total particulate, and met-
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 241

als, and had extremely low dioxin emissions (16),

although it also had one incident where metal

emissions were higher than expected. Similarly,

Marion County, Oregon, met all of its limits except

for NOx

, which exceeded its limit by 15 percent

(183). The Bristol, Connecticut, facility met all 12

emissions limits (including mercury, lead, and

dioxins and furans), usually by a factor of 10 or more

(134).

Several States and countries and EPA have

concluded that using a scrubber/filter system offers

some emissions control advantages over an ESPbased system. For example, some risk assessments

have predicted that scrubber/filter systems might

reduce total cancer risk by one order of magnitude

compared with an ESP system and by two orders of

magnitude compared with other existing controls

(1 19,179). The EPA Science Advisory Board also

concluded that the scrubber/filter system was generally capable of achieving lower emissions (182)

because it appears to remove particles (with attached

pollutants) more efficiently, particularly smaller

particles. Nonhealth risks also were expected to be

greatly reduced by this system because it provides

greater control of acid gases. Although new facilities

equipped with 3- and 4-field ESPs are capable of

achieving low total particulate emissions levels,

facilities equipped with fabric filters are more likely

to achieve lower levels (ref. 21; table 6-3).

Risks Associated With Specific Pollutants

Dioxins and Furans—Based on analyses of

direct exposure via the inhalation pathway, EPA

concluded that dioxins and furans in incinerator

emissions pose cancer risks that are one to two

orders of magnitude greater than does cadmium, the

second most significant carcinogen in the pathway.

EPA estimated that the upper risk limits were about

2 to 40 additional cancers per year in populations

exposed to dioxin and furan emissions from all

existing MSW incinerators, with an additional 2 to

20 excess cancers per year from proposed facilities.

The maximum individual lifetime cancer risk was

about one in 1,000 to 10,000 people (179).

These estimates have been disputed. EPA’s Science Advisory Board considered them too high

(182). Conversely, others contend that incremental

lifetime cancer risks are much greater, perhaps by

one to two orders of magnitude (26). Critics of this

latter estimate, however, contend that it is outdated

because it is based on emissions from a relatively old

facility and that risk estimates based on newer

facilities would be much lower. This criticism is

valid for new facilities because they clearly have

better emissions control capabilities. However, it

does not address older facilities that lack such

capabilities or the issue of whether low emission

levels from new facilities can be sustained for long

periods.

Questions also exist regarding the indirect food

chain pathways (201 ,202). Dioxins and furans are

relatively stable and fat soluble, features that enable

them to accumulate in organisms and increase in

concentration at successive levels within food

chains. Consequently, food intake may be more a

significant pathway than inhalation. One assessment

of dioxin and furan emissions from a proposed

facility in Minnesota looked at three populations

(i.e., urban, rural consuming locally grown food, and

sports fishermen) (121 ). In all three cases, over 90

percent of the estimated incremental cancer risk was

associated with ingestion of food. Another study of

two counties in Pennsylvania estimated that the

upper-bound incremental risks associated with the

deposition of dioxin and furan emissions on agricultural lands and their uptake by cows and incorporation into milk were 0.15 to 1.5 cancer cases per year,

several orders of magnitude greater than the risks

from inhalation pathways. Because most of the milk

is transported elsewhere, the risks would be spread

beyond the area in question. Another study of

incinerators proposed in Long Island and New York

City also concluded that the majority of effects

would be from long-distance transport and deposition of dioxins in milk-producing areas (63).

Other Sources, Ambient Conditions, Background

Levels-Dioxins and furans can come from many

sources other than MSW incinerators. In fact, some

investigators claim that MSW incinerators are not

important sources of dioxin emissions (154). However, other analysts contend the opposite (26). The

World Health Organization took a somewhat intermediate position, concluding that inhalation of

emissions from MSW incinerators contributed only

a small fraction to the overall daily intake of dioxins

and furans, but that the food chain pathway could be

significant in some situations (205).
242 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Few studies have examined whether dioxin emissions from MSW incinerators have a significant

impact on surrounding ambient air or soil quality

(and, potentially, human health). Very low levels of

dioxins and furans (in the picogram/m3 range) were

detected away from one facility, with no clear

pattern discerned between upwind and downwind

stations. Furthermore, most of the detected compounds were of low or no toxicity (16). In this case,

sampling and analytical techniques were not sophisticated enough to measure whether incremental

changes in ground-level concentrations of dioxins

and furans could be attributed to the incinerator.

Computer models were used in another study to

predict dioxin emissions from one facility (83). The

predicted emissions at the maximum point of impact

were less than 4 percent of ambient concentrations

measured within 1 to 2 miles of the facility before it

opened. This study also concluded that current

techniques were incapable of distinguishing dioxin

emissions from MSW incinerators from background

dioxin levels. These computer predictions need to be

verified with actual measurements of emissions.

Metals-EPA considers several metals emitted

from MSW incinerators to be possible human or

animal carcinogens (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, nickel) (179). Metals

such as lead and mercury also have long been

associated with noncancer risks. For example, lead

is a neurotoxin.

Few studies have looked at the entire range of

these metals in emissions or the relative importance

of food chain pathways. In a study of risks associated

with MSW combustion that focused on inhalation

pathways, EPA estimated that emissions of arsenic,

beryllium, cadmium, and chromium would be associated with up to 0.5 additional cancers each year

from existing facilities and 0.4 additional cancers

each year from proposed facilities (179). As with

dioxins and furans, however, the importance of food

chain pathways warrants more investigation. Noncancer risks also warrant more attention.

EPA estimated that ambient lead concentrations

resulting from existing facilities would be between

20 and 60 percent of ambient air standards, and that

ambient mercury concentrations would be between

1 and 40 percent. Thus, depending on the level of

background concentrations and contributions from

other sources, MSW facilities could contribute to

violations of these standards. Of course, this could

be true of other sources as well, and new MSW

incinerators must undergo a‘ ‘New Source Review’

that includes evaluating potential effects on ambient

air quality. One study of metals in emissions from

several proposed facilities with a scrubber/filter

system estimated that lead emissions would be lower

than ambient background levels by a factor of

around 100 (93). For mercury, the amount added to

ground level concentrations would be at the lower

end of the range of ambient air levels reported for

rural areas.

Acid Gases—EPA examined potential corrosion

of ferrous metals by acid gases, especially HC1.

Using data on average emissions levels, EPA

estimated that the majority of existing incinerators

would exceed annual average ambient standards for

ferrous metals corrosion. For proposed mass bum

and RDF facilities with ESPs and dry scrubbers,

EPA estimated that ambient HC1 concentrations

would be reduced by about 90 percent (179).

Regulatory Status

The Clean Air Act allows EPA to regulate MSW

incinerators by developing numerical emissions

limits for individual pollutants or by developing

performance standards (i.e., specifying a range of

acceptable technologies, generally termed Best Available Control Technology or BACT).

Currently, only a few Federal numerical emissions limits apply to MSW incinerators. Mercury is

regulated under the hazardous air pollutants provision (Section 112), while particulate matter and

opacity are regulated under the New Source Performance Standards provision (or NSPS, Section

111).11 In addition, MSW incinerators are subject to

national ambient air quality standards (Section 109);

that is, emissions from an incinerator must not

contribute to violations of ambient air standards for

pollutants such as NOx and carbon monoxide.

In general, the States administer the permitting

process for individual incinerators. The process

involves, for example, reviewing emissions from

I I Existing fxili(ies a]so can be required to retrofit when new NSPS regulations we PrOmU@ted.
Chapter b-incineration ● 243

new sources to ensure that they will not contribute

to significant deterioration of air quality.

Most of EPA’s regulatory efforts have involved

defining BACT. In 1987, EPA issued guidance on

BACT to those authorities (i.e., the States) that

review and permit new sources of emissions (52

Federal Register 25399, July 7, 1987). The guidance

indicated that BACT for new sources ‘‘should

incorporate gas scrubbers, good combustion controls, and good particulate controls. ” EPA considers

compliance with the guidance to have been excellent

(25).

EPA is scheduled to propose more comprehensive

regulations for new MSW incinerators in November

1989. These are likely to focus on technology-based

standards. 12 EPA also expects to issue guidelines to

States on retrofitting existing incinerators to bring

them into compliance with the final regulations.

Congressional proposals for measures to control air

emissions from MSW incinerators have generally

been more stringent than EPA’s proposals.13

In 1989, EPA’s Region 10 Office issued a

recommendation regarding a permit for a new

facility in Spokane, Washington, that, although

denied by EPA Headquarters, has far-reaching

implications (box 6-D; see ch, 1). The Region

recommended that a permit for the new facility be

issued only if pre-combustion controls such as

curbside separation and recycling were included as

part of the permit’s BACT provisions. This would

have been the first such linkage between recycling

and incineration in a permit.

Some States have adopted their own BACT

provisions. Scrubbers are required in many States

(e.g., Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin),

and similar requirements are being considered in

California. Combustion and particulate controls also

are required in a number of States, but specific

requirements vary (table 6-5).

Some States have adopted minimum, uniform

standards for operating conditions (e.g., temperature

and residence time), continuous monitoring of

surrogate parameters (e.g., carbon monoxide), and

operator training at new facilities. However, maintaining uniform conditions often is difficult because

of the heterogeneous nature of MSW. In addition,

carbon monoxide emissions are not always indicative of other pollutant emissions. As a result, it is

difficult to specify equivalent operating conditions

or surrogate measurement parameters for all facilities.

One suggested approach for providing flexibility

would be to have facility operators establish an

‘‘operating envelope’—a range of conditions that

optimizes a given system’s performance-by directly measuring conditions and emissions during

the design and testing stages (154). The envelope

would differ for each facility, but it could form the

basis for facility-specific permit conditions necessary to meet any emissions standards. However,

under current permitting procedures a facility must

still demonstrate that it is using BACT, which could

reduce this flexibility (56). A case also can be made

that any emissions standards for MSW incinerators

should be comparable to standards for industrial

processes that have comparable emissions (e.g.,

fossil-fueled electricity generating plants, recycling

facilities, and sewage treatment plants) (190).

Another approach would be to set minimum

Federal emissions standards based on the highest

removal efficiencies and lowest emissions levels

observed during tests. It is unlikely that such

standards can be met consistently, Test data are from

relatively infrequent compliance tests, not day-today monitoring, and standards based on the best test

results would be difficult for most facilities to

achieve regularly. However, enforcement of minimum standards developed in this way might act as

motivation to spur the development of more advanced technology (34). Representatives of the

incinerator industry, however, argue that because

IZEPA CouId ~wlate ~e~ sources by setting health-based standards under Section 112 or techrtology-bti smd~ds under the Section 111 NSPS

provision. The latter approach is favored by groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and sevcr~ States (see New York v Thomas, CA

DC, No. 84-1472, May 16, 1986).

t3~g15]at10n considered (but not p~qed) by the looth ~d 10151 congles~s would have defin~ BA~ to include sc~bkrs, combustion controls,

and particulate controls; emissions monitoring; operator training and certification requirements; and State planning for incineration that addresses

reduction, recycling, and ash management. 1! also would have established numerical limits on dioxins, several metals, carbon monoxide, and other

parameters.
244 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 6-D-BACT, Incineration, and Recycling

In 1989, EPA’s Region 10 office recommended that a permit for a new incinerator in Spokane, Washington,

include source separation and recycling as part of its BACT provisions (54,97,188). Although EPA Headquarters

denied the recommendation, this case is significant because EPA indicated that provisions for source separation and

recycling might become a routine part of future permits for new incinerators (see ch. 1).

The potential inclusion of source separation and recycling as BACT provisions makes sense from a materials

management perspective. If and when they are included as part of BACT, it will mark the first direct linkage between

recycling and incineration in a permit. It also will directly address an issue of great public concern-the general

relationship between recycling and incineration.

Many communities already have both a recycling program and an incinerator. Removing and recycling

noncombustible materials such as glass and metals-roughly 15 percent of all MSW-can improve the operating

efficiency of incinerators and reduce the levels of metals in emissions and ash. Beyond that 15 percent, however,

the interplay between recycling and incineration is less clear.

Most incinerators are designed to produce a relatively constant output of heat, within a facility-specific range

of conditions (e.g., fuel moisture and heat value) (figure 6-2). Paper and plastic materials have high Btu contents,

and in some cases removing too much of them prior to incineration can reduce the heat content of the remaining

MSW and cause the incinerator to operate less efficiently. Many incinerator operators try to combat this possibility

by negotiating guarantees with the community they serve for delivery of a specified amount of MSW, most often

through “flow control” agreements.

These kinds of problems might be avoided by designing the size of future incinerators to account for projected

recycling rates and the potential effects of successful waste reduction efforts. If not done carefully, however, this

could cause other problems. If a community sets recycling targets and then builds an incinerator with only enough

capacity for the remaining MSW, then failure to meet the recycling targets might result in unexpected landfilling

of some MSW. This could be one justification for designing larger-than-currently -needed facilities or for

communities joining together to share management capacity.

plants cannot continuously achieve these levels, under normal operating conditions, even by the best

permit levels should be set somewhat above test

levels to provide for an acceptable operating envelope (65).

Dioxin Limits

Several countries have limitations on dioxin

emissions, and these have changed considerably in

recent years. Much of the impetus for the changes

comes from Sweden, where concerns about dioxins

in the environment and in fish and dairy products led

to a 1985 moratorium on new MSW incineration

facilities while research was conducted (1 15). The

moratorium was lifted in 1986, and temporary goals

were established as the basis for granting permits.

The Swedish goal for emissions of dioxins from

existing plants built before 1985 is 0.5 to 2.0 ng/Nm3

(in Eadon Toxic Equivalents; see footnote 8) and 0.1

ng/Nm3 for new plants; definitive standards will be

set after a trial period. It is not clear whether the

goals for new plants can be met on a sustained basis

of current facilities. However, the goal has been

achieved during tests at Swedish, German, and U.S.

facilities (table 6-3); the lowest limits appear to

occur at facilities with a dry scrubber/baghouse

system in combination with careful combustion

controls.

NOx and Acid Gas Limits

Several States have established limits for NO,

emissions from individual incinerators, with limits

ranging between 100 and 350 ppm (21,24). These

limits generally were developed because of ambient

air quality problems (e.g., with NOX levels themselves, acid deposition, or ozone). States such as

California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York

require that the use of BACT (e.g., Thermal DeNOx

or combustion modification) for NOx control be

evaluated for new facilities.

For HC1, about 10 States require either 90 percent

removal or an emissions limit of 30 to 50 ppm (21).
Chapter Incineration . 245

For S02, some States require removal efficiencies of

70 to 80 percent or emissions limits of 30 to 100

ppm.

Particulate Limits

Limits on particulate emissions generally are

based on what can be achieved with BACT. Several

States (e.g., California, Connecticut, Michigan, and

New York) consider the dry scrubber/fabric filter

system to be BACT ( 178). However, new ESP-based

systems appear to be just as effective. Whether dry

scrubbers are more effective than wet scrubbers is

unclear and more research on their long-term effectiveness is needed.

In any event, test results using scrubber/filter

systems have served as the basis for new standards.

The current U.S. standard for total particulate is

0.046 gr/dscf (table 6-5), but several States have set

limits as low as 0.01 gr/dscf, which new plants have

achieved during initial performance tests (table 6-3).

Sweden set a total particulate limit of 0.008 gr/dscf

(20 mg/Nm3

) on a monthly average (8).

Some States such as Oregon also distinguish

between material collected on the air pollution

controls (i.e., “front-half”) and material emitted

from the stack that later condenses into particles

(i.e., “back-half ‘). Confusion can arise if this

distinction is not made when measurements are

reported, and there is a need to review and standardize sampling and reporting procedures. In addition,

standards often are set in terms of pounds per hour

(so that conditions relative to other sources can be

calculated). However, stack emissions generally are

measured in terms of gr/dscf or mg/Nm3

, and

converting these measurements to pounds per hour

requires data on flue gas flow rates (which can be in

error by up to 30 percent), molecular weights, and

operating temperatures (76).

Metals Limits

Few States have limits for metals, and those that

have been developed tend to be based on data from

older plants (127). Many environmentalists contend

that limits for metals should be based on emission

rates from state-of-the art facilities. In Sweden, the

standard for mercury is 0.08 mg/Nm3 on a monthly

average (163), and it may be lowered to 0.03

mg/Nm3 (8). Some industry representatives, however, contend that meeting emissions limits (other

than ambient air standards) for particular metals is

difficult because of the heterogeneous nature of

MSW and the complex chemical reactions that occur

within scrubbers and other pollution control devices

(56).

Besides regulatory limits on emissions, one way

to reduce metals in emissions might be to encourage

municipalities and incinerator operators to separate

noncombustibles or other items prior to combustion—

that is, to implement the concept of ‘ ‘materials

management’ (ch. 1). The suggestion to include

recycling in the BACT provisions for a proposed

incinerator in Spokane, Washington, reflects this

approach (box 6-D). Presorting MSW prior to

incineration (see ‘Controlling Air Emissions’ may

help reduce metals in both emissions and ash. at least

at older facilities; additional research is needed to

explore this possibility.

Operator Training

West Germany and Japan often are cited as

models for operator training, but the extent of

training in these countries varies (box 6-B). Whether

operator performance differs in relation to the type

of training is unknown, but it is clear that lack of

appropriate training (whether by schools or vendors)

can cause more operational problems. In the United

States, various companies and States require people

to be licensed as operating engineers or to have

special licenses to operate boilers. In 1989, the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers proposed standards for the qualification and certification of operators (4). One member of the committee

voted against the proposal, however, because it did

not require enough training or cover enough employee types (23). EPA also is developing an

operation and maintenance manual for small-scale

facilities used in medical waste incineration (187).

Retrofitting

A major question to address is whether standards

for new plants should be applied to older plants.

Older incinerators can be retrofitted in ways that

vary in expense and complexity—including increasing operator training, injecting lime into MS W or the

furnace, changing air distribution systems, adding

automatic computer controls, and adding scrubbers.

Several studies show that retrofitting can help

reduce emissions. For example, the Canadian Na-
246 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 6-5--Selected Emission Standards for MSW lncineratorsa

United west

States California Connecticut Michigan Japan Sweden Germany

Solid particulate matter

(gr/dscf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~i~

(mg/m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carbon monoxide (ppm) . . . . . . .

Hydrogen chloride . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sulfur dioxide (ppm) . . . . . . . . . .

Dioxins (2,3,7,8-TCDD)g

Existing plants (ng/m3) . . . . . .

New plants (ng/m3

) . . . . . . . . .

Total organics (mg/m3

) . . . . . . . .

Mercury, cadmium, thallium

(mg/m3

), including vapors . . . .

O.01b0.015

25 37

30 ppm 900/0

(scrubbers reduction

required)

0.015 0.061’ 0.008

37 150 20

113 (daily 80

average)

909/0 430 ppm 63 ppm

reduction 700 mg/m3 100 ng/m3

86 variesf

0.5-2.0

0.1

0.8

(mercury)

0.012

30

31 ppm

50 ng/m3

35 ppm

200 mg/Nm3

20

0.2

aGas correction factor = 12% C02 dry, except for Sweden (10% CO2 dry) and West Germany (11%O2 dry).

%California regulations permit more stringent limits. Two State guidelines are reported: 0.01 gr/dscf (25 mg/m3) for total solid particulates and 0.008 gr/dscf

(20 mg/m3

) for particles smaller than 2 microns.

cFor continuous gas flows greater than 25,280 scfm (40,000 m3/h).

dUse of BACT required, but no technology specified.

eUse of dry gas scrubbers and baghouses expected to improve removal over ESPs alone.

fBased on formula related to stack height and plant location.

9TCDD = 2,3,7,8 -tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins; measurements in Eadon Toxic Equivalents.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Combustion Study, Report to Congress, EPA/530-SW-87-021a (Washington, DC: June

1987).

tional Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program

conducted pilot-scale experiments at a 17-year-old

incinerator in Quebec City, primarily by changing

some design features, adding computer-aided combustion controls, adjusting air distribution, and

increasing residence time (107). Emissions of dioxins and particulate matter were significantly reduced

under good design and operating conditions (by up

to two orders of magnitude). Even under intentionally poor design and operating conditions, the

retrofit facilities improved by one order of magnitude (figure 6-4). A facility at Hampton, Virginia,

was retrofitted by modifying air distribution, improving operator training, and reducing the temperature of flue gases entering the ESP; subsequent tests

showed that dioxin emissions were reduced by two

orders of magnitude (1 17).

In Europe, scrubbers and, in some cases, fabric

filters, are being added to some existing plants (8).

After six facilities were retrofitted with spray dry

scrubbers, they were able to achieve removal efficiencies typical of new facilities with the same

controls (40,41,42): HC1 was reduced 87 to 98

percent; particulate matter dropped 99.8 percent;

lead and cadmium fell 99 percent; and mercury fell

7 to 85 percent. In West Germany, new air quality

regulations give all existing facilities 5 years to

come into compliance (1 1).

The cost of retrofitting depends on the type of

retrofitting and size of the facility, and the effect on

individual owners obviously will depend on the

financial status of the owners. The overall costs of

retrofitting numerous facilities, however, are likely

to be tens of millions of dollars. One study estimated

the net annualized costs of meeting stricter emissions requirements that were in one bill proposed in

Congress in 1988 (169). After accounting for likely

actions under existing EPA regulations, the net
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 247

Figure 6-4-Dioxin Emissions at Quebec City Facility,

Before and After Retrofitting

Total dioxin concentration. x 1000

portion of ash at Japanese facilities tends to be lower,

probably because MSW is sorted into combustible

and noncombustible portions (box 6-E). Pre-sorting

MSW for non-combustibles lowered ash generation

at some older U.S. incinerators by about half (159).

The extent to which presorting would affect ash

generation at other facilities would depend on the

nature of the MSW, age and type of facility, and

many other factors.

The amount of ash generated in the United States

is about 2.8 to 5.5 million tons per year (46,70). This

might increase two to five times depending on how

many planned facilities are built. Fly ash typically

amounts to about 5 to 15 percent of the total ash (80).

Ash Composition Prior to Management

The main components of ash are inert materials of

low volubility (e.g., silicates, clay, sand, and fine

ash) and inorganic substances. Several inorganic

substances (e.g., aluminum, calcium, chlorine, iron,

selenium, sodium, and zinc) are major elements in

all ash particles and, along with carbon, can comprise over 10 percent by weight of the ash (44).

A broad range of trace metals and organic

compounds also is found in fly and bottom ash (table

6-6). Data on ash composition are difficult to

compare, however, because they reflect: 1 ) different

types and sizes of facilities; 2) unknown sample

sizes at each facility; 3) interlab variation in testing

procedures (even using the same test); and 4)

variable inputs into the ash itself (e.g., heterogeneous MSW). In addition, the presence of a substance

in ash does not mean that it will enter the environment. Its fate depends on its volubility, how the ash

is managed, and whether the ash is subject to

conditions that cause leaching or inhalation and

ingestion.

Metals tend to be distributed differently in fly and

bottom ash. Most volatile metals (e.g., arsenic,

mercury, lead, cadmium, and zinc) tend to be more

concentrated or “enriched” in fly ash (151,180).

Less volatile metals (e.g., aluminum, chromium,

iron, nickel, and tin) typically are concentrated in

bottom ash (150,151 ,192).

14seve.~ ~~er tem~ we ~wja[~ wj~ ~. clinker is the 1~~, fu~~~omb~tib]e matefiat that remains on the gra~c as part of bottom ash.

Superheater, boiler, and economimr ash refers to ash that collects on different parts of the boiler system (figure 6-1) and that usually is handled as

fly twh. Combined a~ refers to mixing the bottom and fly ash waste streams together. Scrubber residue is fly ash that reaets with lime and often is

collected after it forms a cake on particulate controls.
248 Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Table 6-6-Concentrations of Substances in MSW Bottom and Fly Ash

Substance Fly ash Bottom ash Substance Fly ash Bottom ash

Inorganic (ppm)

Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arsenic* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barium* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beryllium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bismuth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boron ti...-~...-ti~...~~..

Bromine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Cadmium” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Cesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Chromium” . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Cobalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Coper.. .t H

..-...... . H. . .

GoId . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

lro nutiHvhH u. tiHtiHM H- uHv . .

Lead* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Lithium -ti-.~~.--.---.~-.-ti..

Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Molybdenum . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Potassium . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Selenium” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Silicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Silver* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sodium....... . t i... .titi . .

Strontium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Tin...---...~.....~titi..-

Titanium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,300-176,000

139-760

15-750

88-9,000

ND-4

36-100

35-5,654

21-250

5-2,210

13,960-27,000

2,100-12,000

1,160-11,200

21-1,900

2.3-1,670

187-2,380

0.16-100

900-87,000

200-26,600

7,9-34

2,150-21,000

171-8,500

0.947

9.2-700

9.9-1,966

2,900-9,300

11,000-99,000

0.48-15.6

1,783-266,000

ND-700

9,780-49,500

98-1,100

300-12,500

5042,000

5,400-53,400

1.3-24.6

47-2,000

ND-0.44

ND

85

1.1-46

5,900-69,500

13-520

3-62

80-10,700

1,000-133,500

110-5,300

7-19

880-10,100

50-3,100

NO-1.9

9.226

3,400-17,800

920-14,500

ND-2.5

133-188,300

ND-38

1,800-33,300

81-240

40-800

3,067-11,400

Vanadium . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Yttrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Zinc t i H. t i. K. u t i. .titi. .H H M.

Organics (ppb)

Acenaphthalene . . . . . . . . .

Alkanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Anthracene . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Benzanthrene . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benzo(k) fluoranthene . . . . ..

Benzo(g,h,i) perylene . . . . ..

Benzo(a) pyrene . . . . . . . . ..

Biphenyl -.--ti..-t~tii.~ti-ti.

Chlorobenzenes . . . . . . . . ..

Chlorophenols . . . . . . . . . . ..

Chrysene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Di-n-butyl Phthalate . . . . . . ..

Dioxins

2,3,7,8-TCDD . . . . . . . . ..

Total PCDDs . . . . . . . . . ..

Fluoranthene . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Fluorene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Furans

2,3,7,8-TCDF . . . . . . . . ..

Total PCDFs . . . . . . . . . ..

Naphthalene . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Phenanthrene . . . . . . . . . . ..

Phthalates

Bis(2-EH)ti--~~--~---~.

Butyl benzyl ..~~ti...-~..

Diethyl . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

PCBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Pyrene.......n . . . . . . . . .

22-166

2-380

2,800-152,000

ND-3,500

50,000

1-500

0-300

ND-470

0-190

ND-400

2-1,300

80-4,220

50.1-9,630

0-690

ND

0.1-42

5.23-10,883

0-6,500

0-1oo

0.1-5.4

3.73-3,187

270-9,300

21-7,600

ND

6,300

ND-250

0-5400

53

200-16,700

37-390

53

ND-51

ND

ND-5

17

0

ND-37

360

0.04-0.7

ND-11O

110-230

ND-150

ND-10

ND-65

570-580

500-540

2,100

180

ND-180

150-220

* Regulated undcr thcRCRA Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test (40CFR 261.24).

ND=not detcctcd.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustor Ashes and Leachates From Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills, Monofills, and Codisposal Sites, preparad by NUS Corporation for Office of Solid Waste and Emergencv Response, EPA/530-SW-87- . 

028A (Washington, DC: October 1987) ‘ “ “

Organic chemicals also exhibit differential distribution. Dioxins and PCBs tend to be enriched in fly

ash, while other chemicals such as polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons and phthalates tend to be

concentrated in bottom ash (180). Concentrations of

dioxins and furans in fly ash exhibit a wide range,but they

are significantly lower in ash from modem facilities than

in ash from older incinerators (35,78,184,189).

MSW incinerator ash may contain higher concentrations of metals and organic chemicals than do

ashes from other combustion processes. For exampie, one study compared concentrations of six heavy

metals (i.e., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,

nickel, and zinc) in MSW bottom and fly ash with

concentrations in coal ash (14). Except for nickel,

average concentrations were greater in MSW ash.

Current Management Practices

Bottom ash typically is collected by ’’quenching”

or cooling it with water in an ashpit and then moving

it into a container or truck. Fly ash is discharged

from the particulate control equipment into a quench

tank or a container, where it can be saturated with

water and then combined with bottom ash into a

mixture that has the consistency of wet concrete.

Using water helps retard emissions of dust during

the handling process. Some people suggest that the

lime from scrubbers might cause ash to setup like

concrete and retard subsequent leaching (154,190),
Chapter 6--Incineration . 249

Box 6-E—Ash Management in Japan

Japanese facilities typically generate only half (or

less) of the amount of ash generated at U.S.

facilities (95). Some of the difference may be

related to higher moisture content of MSW in the

United States (e.g., because of more yard wastes).

A more important factor, however, is the common

practice in Japan of separating out noncombustible

materials. All municipalities in Japan decide which

materials will be classified as combustibles for

incineration and as noncombustibles for landfilling.

Citizens are then required to sort their MSW into

these categories.

Although ash management varies greatly, most

often fly and bottom ash are combined. The

combined ash usually is landfilled by itself or with

the noncombustible materials that were separated

prior to incineration. Ash is rarely Iandfilled with

food wastes.

About 10 percent of ash undergoes some processing. Ten facilities are known to mix their ash with

cement; one facility reuses ash in road pavement. A

handful of facilities use vitrification (or melting) to

treat the combined ash and produce a hard, glassy

slag (94). At the Sohka facility, for example,

vitrification reduces the volume of ash by twothirds, which helps reduce subsequent transport and

labor costs (125). The slag is landfilled alone in a

lined facility. According to officials, short-term

laboratory tests indicate that the concentrations of

metals in leachate from the slag are low, but field

tests have not been conducted.

The Takuma Co., Ltd., is building an advanced

vitrification facility that will use electric arc melting

techniques. Operating costs for electric arc melting

are expected to be similar to the costs of current

‘‘surface’ melting—about $100 per metric ton of

ash (based on 1986 exchange rates). Although the

electric arc process uses about eight times more

electricity than the surface melting process, the

costs of doing this are offset because the electric arc

process uses about 40 times less natural gas (193).

(However, a hidden cost in terms of global pollution

is that increased electricity production results in

higher emissions of carbon dioxide.)

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Almost all municipalities in Japan require their residents,

including the American resident shown here, to separate

their MSW into a combustible portion for incineration and a

noncombustible portion for Iandfilling.

but others question the long-term physical stability

of such material (28,43).

According to EPA, about 36 percent of all ash

goes to monofills, 17 percent is co-disposed with

MSW, and the fate of the remainder is unknown or

not landfilled (180). The amount sent to monofills

probably is an underestimate: one company estimates that it generates over 50 percent of all ash in

the United States, and all of this ash is either

monofilled or used as a final cover over closed MS W

landfills (56). According to another survey, only

about 2 percent of ash is reused outside of landfills

(loo).

Ash management in other countries varies greatly

as well. In Japan, bottom and fly ash sometimes are

combined, occasionally treated, and then landfilled

alone or with the noncombustible fraction of MSW

(box 6-E). A few Japanese facilities use “vitrification” to melt ash into an inert, glass-like substance
250 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

(box 6-E).]5 Some European facilities do not mix fly

and bottom ash (101), but others commonly do

(58,96). In Sweden, bottom liners are not used at ash

monofills; instead, a strategy of controlled dispersion of leachate, along with proper siting of monofills, proper drainage, and a final cover (of soil or

stabilized ash) with vegetation, is used to control

leaching (123). In most European countries, at least

some ash is reused in roads and pavements, usually

subject to some kind of guideline or standard (86).

Concentrations of Pollutants in Leachate

This section discusses: 1) factors affecting leaching, 2) concentrations in actual leachate, 3) types of

tests used to predict leachate concentrations, 4)

results of leachate tests, 5) comparability among

tests and with actual leachate, and 6) risks.

Factors Affecting Leachability

Depending on their volubility, metals and metallic

compounds in ash can be leached by aqueous

solutions into surface water or groundwater. Volubility depends on many factors, including the mineral

phase of the substance, equilibrium reactions (e.g.,

whether metals are sorbed onto other compounds),

size of ash particles that metals sorb onto, liquid-tosolid ratio the particles encounter, and the pH and

ionic strength of the leaching solution (43,44,60).

For example, lead and cadmium are present in fly

and bottom ash in relatively high concentrations

(table 6-6). The fractions of lead and cadmium that

are soluble, however, usually are lower than the total

concentrations; in extractions of bottom ash, the

fractions often are less than 30 percent and sometimes less than 1 percent (44). Lead is relatively

insoluble at a pH of 6 to about 11, cadmium at pH

values of 7 and higher. Lead and cadmium also can

be present in other, less soluble mineral phases (e.g.,

lead phosphate), and they can be trapped in aluminosilicates (45). The soluble fraction of lead, however, can leach in acid solutions with a pH of 5 and

in alkaline solutions with a pH greater than 11 (i.e.,

it is amphoteric).

Leachate from a typical MSW landfill often is

acidic because of the organic nature of MSW and

because of byproducts from microbial activity that

occurs within a landfill. When ash is co-disposed

with MSW, these acidic conditions may leach some

metals from the ash. However, the nature of the ash

also may result in some buffering or neutralization

of the acids. In particular, ash from incinerators with

scrubbers may exhibit high buffering capacity because of the lime used in the scrubbers. However,

more research is needed to evaluate this phenomenon. One study concluded that ash from incinerators

without scrubbers reduced leachability of metals,

while ash from incinerators with scrubbers reduced

the leachability of some metals but increased the

leachability of others (60). Another study concluded

that the buffering capacity of lime from scrubbers is

limited (150).

The concentrations of lead and cadmium in actual

leachates under field conditions are hard to predict.

EPA and the Coalition on Resource Recovery and

the Environment are jointly sponsoring research on

the composition of ash and associated leachates

from monofills (130).

Concentrations in Actual Leachate

Several organic chemicals, including dioxins and

furans, and many metals have been detected in

samples of actual leachates at ash monofills (table

6-7). Small sample sizes and a lack of information on

ash characteristics make it difficult to draw conclusions, particularly about what leaching might occur

over the long-term (144),

The metal concentrations reported in table 6-7 are

lower than Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity

limits (with the exception of some cadmium samples), but higher in some cases than U.S. Drinking

Water Standards (which are 100 times lower than the

EP limits). At one Danish monofill, only 2 of 14

metals tested (chromium and copper) slightly exceeded Danish Drinking Water Standards (96). In

contrast, concentrations of soluble salts (e.g., of

calcium and potassium) tend to be high. One of the

studies in table 6-7 also measured leachates at two

co-disposal sites (180).16 The reported concentrations of cadmium, lead, dioxins, and furans at the

co-disposal sites were within the ranges reported at

ls~e ~erlcm SmieIy of M~h~iC~ Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have proposed a study on the feasibdity of using this technique in

the United States (5).

lbLaboratoVexu~tions and toxicity tests also WCm performed.
Chapter 6--Incineration . 251

Table 6-7-Range of Concentrations in Leachate at Ash Monofills

Drinking water standards EP Tox

Substance Concentration a Denmark United States Limit

Arsenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Molybdenum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Potassium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sodium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Benzaldehyde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Biphenyl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dimethyl propane diol . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dioxins (ng/l)

total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,3,7,8-TCDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethyl hexylphthalate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Furans, total (rig/f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hexa tiepane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PCBs (mg/ul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sulfonylbis sulfur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thiolane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.005-0.218

1-2.48

<0.02-0.76

<0.0001-0.044

21-3200

<0.002-1.53

<0.005-24

0.168-121

<0.0005-2.92

0.09-41

0.103-22.4

<0.00005-0.008

<0.03

<0.005-0.412

21.5-4300

0.0025-0.037

<0.001-0.07

200-7300

310-4900

<0.01-0.32

ND-0,008

ND-O.051

ND-O.120

0.06-543

0,025-1,6

ND-O.08

0.04-280

ND-O.082

<1

ND-O.011

ND-O.400

0.05 0.05 5.0

1.0 100

1

0.005 0.001 0.1

200

0.05 0.05 5.0

0.1

0.05 0.05 5.0

30

0.001 0.002 0.2

0.05

10

0.01 1.0

175

250

5

aConcentrations reported in ppm (=mg/l) except for PCBs, dioxlns, and furans; ND= not detected. Data represent samples taken from range of monofill ages

and operatmg conditions.

SOURCES: K.E. Forrester, ’’State-of-the-Art in Thermal Recycling Facility Ash Residue Handling, Reuse, Landfill Design and Management” unpublished

manuscript (Danvers, MA: Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc., January 1989); O. Hjelmar, “Leachate From Incinerator Ash Disposal

Sites:’ paper presented at Intematiornal Workshop on Municipal Waste Incineration (Montreal Oct. 1-2, 1987); U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustor Ashes and Leachates From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Mono fills, and Codisposal

Sites, prepared by NUS Corp. for Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-87-028A (Washington, DC: October 1987).

four monofills (which represented a span of ages and Some data are available on the concentrations of

operating conditions), although the highest sampled metals, dioxins, and furans in soil (with pH range of

concentrations occurred at the monofills. 4.7 to 6.0) around the Marion County, Oregon,

More recent studies on metals in leachate have “ Woodbum’ landfill (76). For example, the highest

been conducted at a combined ash monofill associ- detected concentration of lead in the soil was 53 ppb;

ated with a new incinerator in Shrewsbury, Massa- mercury and nickel were not detected. The highest

chusetts (60,61). At this site, concentrations of lead values for the octa-homologue of dioxin was 0.112

and cadmium in leachate and surface runoff are well ppb. The highest values tended to occur in the most

below the EP limits and are either less than or only acidic areas.

slightly higher than the Primary Drinking Water Tests for Predicting Leachate

Standards. Several methods are used to predict the leaching

The concentrations of dioxins and furans reported characteristics of ash under laboratory conditions.

in table 6-7 are difficult to evaluate because there are They vary in how well they represent different

no regulatory standards for comparison. landfill conditions, as well as how they are con-
252 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

ducted by different laboratories (137,138). An extensive review concluded that no currently available

method can accurately predict concentrations of

toxic substances in leachate (144).

The first three tests described below are “batch”

tests, in which contact between the waste and an

extraction fluid is maintained for a fixed time to

increase the likelihood that all particles will contact

the fluid. The last test is a “column” test, in which

ash is placed in a column and the extraction fluid is

allowed to flow through it.

The Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test (EP

test) is the standard test used to determine whether

wastes exhibit hazardous characteristics, based on

the potential to leach metallic or organic compounds

under acidic conditions similar to those that might be

found at municipal landfills. The test consists of

mixing the waste with deionized water and sufficient

acetic acid to bring the pH to 5.0. The pH level is

maintained around 5.0 and the mixture is agitated for

24 hours, after which the liquid portion is analyzed

for 8 metals (i.e., arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver), 4

insecticides, and 2 herbicides—substances for which

EPA has established Primary Drinking Water Standards. To determine whether a waste is hazardous,

leachate concentrations are compared to standards

that are based on 100 times the Drinking Water

Standards to account for dilution and attenuation. ’7

The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP test) modifies the EP procedure. It differs

primarily in that a second extraction fluid is used for

samples that are highly alkaline, and it analyzes 38

additional organic compounds. In 1986, EPA proposed a ‘‘Toxicity Characteristic’ rule that included

the TCLP (51 Federal Register 21468, June 13,

1986). EPA has not adopted this as a final rule, but

has used it to evaluate the leaching potential of

MSW ash. EPA concluded that TCLP and EP tests

on the same sample show similar extractions for lead

and cadmium, the two metals that most frequently

exceed the EP limits (180). However, other investigators conclude that test results can differ depending

on the type of fluid used in the TCLP test and how

acetic acid is used in the EP test (56,144). Recently

initiated research will compare different test results

to actual field leachates at ash monofills and at MSW

landfills with ash disposal (130).

The Mono filled Waste Extraction Procedure

(MWEP) (also known as the SW-924 test) uses

distilled or deionized water to evaluate leaching

when ash is disposed separately in a monofill (180).

In this situation, acidity is determined by the

characteristics of the ash itself, rather than the

environment in which the ash might be buried. This

may be a better predictor of lead and cadmium in

leachate.

Lysimeter Tests are designed to simulate leaching

in actual landfills, using an ash column and simulated rain or other extraction fluids as the leaching

medium. Research efforts are underway to compare

lysimeter tests to in-field conditions (49,130).

Leachate Test Results

Metals-Table 6-8 provides information compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) on

EP test results for fly, bottom, and combined ash. In

general, these data indicate that metals are leachable

under the acidic conditions of the EP test, and that

fly ash samples almost always fail the test. Another

review also concluded that nearly all tests of fly ash

exceeded the EP limits (144).

The EDF analysis has been criticized (56). Critics

claim the analysis: 1) used data collected by

sampling and analytical procedures that did not

follow regulations or test guidance; 2) failed to cite

analytical or statistical procedures; and 3) used

simple averaging on highly variable populations,

with many facilities only represented by a few

samples (e.g., 684 of 773 bottom ash samples for

lead were from three facilities). EDF agreed that the

data are limited, especially for facilities with small

sample sizes. It also agreed that the EP test was not

always appropriate (although it still is the test

allowed under current regulations), and that caution

should be exercized in drawing conclusions (36).

However, EDF also noted that the aggregate data

still show that ash generally fails leachate tests and

that fly ash usually would meet the characteristics

under RCRA of a hazardous waste if it was handled

by itself. For example, the data show that over 90

17 Although waste generatom are not required to use the EP test, they are required to determine whether the waste exhibits a huardous characteristic

(unless the waste is either exempt or already listed as hazardous).
Chapter 6---Incineration ● 253

percent of all fly ash samples exceed the EP limits

for lead or cadmium or both (table 6-8). Bottom and

combined ash would be considered hazardous in

less than half of the cases. Only 36 percent of bottom

ash samples and 39 percent of combined ash samples

exceeded the limits for either lead or cadmium; most

of the exceeded cases resulted from high concentrations of lead. In another EDF analysis of combined

ash mixed with scrubber residues, two-thirds of the

samples exceeded the EP limit when pH was lower

than 5.5 and about 90 percent exceeded it when pH

was greater than 12; none exceeded the limit at

intermediate pH values (37).

In another review analysis, Resources for the

Future (RFF) summarized results from several

column leaching tests (144). In three studies on

combined ash in contact with a neutral (distilled

water) or slightly acidic extraction fluid, concentrations of cadmium and lead were well below EP

limits. In one study using distilled water, only

selenium from one ash sample exceeded the Federal

Drinking Water Standards, which are lower than the

EP test limits (62); in the MSW leachate test, metal

concentrations were considerably higher, with cadmium, chromium, and lead exceeding the drinking

water standards in some cases but always being

below the EP limits. Other studies with ash that had

higher levels of fly ash also had higher concentrations of cadmium and lead in leachate during column

tests; in a few cases, EP limits were surpassed when

fly ash alone was tested, especially during the initial

portion of the test (96,144).

Even when only one facility is being considered,

the same test data can be difficult to interpret. At the

Marion County, Oregon, facility, for example, 18

samples were tested for eight metals, using the EP,

TCLP, and deionized water tests (80,131,132).

Seven metals were under the limit for all three tests,

but lead exceeded the limit twice during the EP test

(once by a factor of four) and once during the TCLP

test. The vendor concluded that combined ash was

not hazardous because the upper confidence limits

(i.e., estimates to account for sampling variation) for

all 18 samples were below the regulatory limits

(131,132). In contrast, the State regulatory agency

concluded that the results for lead were neither

clearly above nor below the regulatory limit and that

variability in sample composition and laboratory

Table 6-8-Summary of Extraction Procedure Toxicity

Test Data for Lead and Cadmium from Ash

Type of ash Lead Cadmium Either

Fly ash (23 tactilities)

# samples analyzed . . . . . . . . . . 185 97 185

#samples over EP limit . . . . . . . . 168 94 173

0/’ samples over EP limit . . . . . . . 91% 97% 94%

# facilities over EP limita . . . . . . . 20 21 22

Bottom ash (22 facilities)

# samples analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . 773 271 773

# samples over EP limit. . . . . . . . 276 5 278

% samples over EP limit. . . . . . . 360/o 2% 36Y0

# facilities over EP limita . . . . . . . 9 1 9

Combined ash (46 facilities)

# samples analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . 883 756 883

# samples over EP limit . . . . . . . 345 90 354

0

/0 samples over EP limit. . . . . . . 39°/0 12% 40°/0

# facilities over EP limita . . . . . . . 21 5 21

-. —. —. -

Number of facilities for which mean of all available samples exceeds limits.

NOTE: Caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions about the overall

rate at which samples exceed EP test limits (see text).

SOURCE: Environmental Defense Fund, “Summary of All Available EP

Toxicity Testing Data on Incinerator Ash” (Washington, DC:

February 1989).

procedures made it impossible to determine whether

the ash exhibited hazardous characteristics (137).

Other studies have applied the EP or TCLP tests

to ash from a FBC facility and to scrubber residues

from European facilities. EP tests on bottom and fly

ash samples from a Swedish FBC facility that

burned only RDF indicated that concentrations of all

metals tested (including lead and cadmium) in

bottom and fly ash were below regulatory limits

(122). It is not known whether the result for fly ash

is a consequence of FBC incineration or differences

in the composition of U.S. and Swedish wastes. In

studies on incinerators with spray dry scrubbers,

tests on five metals in the scrubber residues (which

tend to have high metal concentrations) showed only

one case involving lead in a highly alkaline residue

that failed the TCLP (40).

Presorting of MSW to remove the noncombustible fraction has been shown to reduce the quantity of

ash generated and the mass of metals in the ash (per

ton of waste burned) (159). The results of EP tests on

the ash were lower for lead, but higher for three

metals (cadmium, silver, mercury) and unchanged

for four others, in comparison with EP tests on ash

from unsorted MSW.
254 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Organic Chemicals-Leachate test results for

organic chemicals are difficult to evaluate, because

there are no regulatory limits that define allowable

levels of these compounds in leachate (except for six

pesticides regulated under the EP Test). EPA has

proposed but not yet adopted limits for 38 organic

compounds under the Toxicity Characteristic rule

(51 Federal Register 21648, June 13, 1986).

Most available test data show little or no leaching

of organic chemicals, especially dioxins and furans,

from ash samples. In Canada, for example, tests

using distilled water showed little or no mobility for

dioxins and furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, and chlorinated benzenes (150,15 1). In

contrast, the tests did show mobility for chlorophenols. These tests were not conducted under acidic

conditions because most organic chemicals are more

soluble at neutral or alkaline pH levels. Thus the

tests do not necessarily indicate what might happen

under landfill conditions where substances such as

solvents are present. In addition, transport of such

chemicals sorbed onto ultra-fine particles might be

of concern (28).

Lysimeter tests in Sweden also showed no leaching of dioxins and furans (123). Similar tests

conducted for EPA detected low concentrations of

several organic chemicals in ash leachate (e.g.,

phenol, benzoic acid, and methyl naphthalene)

(180).

Comparability Among Tests and

With Actual Leachate

Caution is required when interpreting the results

of leachate tests. Most observers consider the EP and

TCLP tests to overestimate leaching potential,

especially in monofills (100,137,1 38,153,154). Comparing leachate concentrations reported from the

field (table 6-7) with test results (table 6-8) tends to

confirm this. Both the EP and TCLP tests are

intended to simulate leaching in landfills; the

extraction fluid and waste stay in contact for longer

periods and are mixed more thoroughly than in

column tests, which makes the EP and TCLP tests

relatively aggressive in extracting pollutants (1 38,144).

Several problems also have been noted in the

sampling and analytical procedures themselves:

inconsistent procedures for obtaining representative

samples from ash, which tends to be heterogeneous

even within a given batch; variations in how pH is

adjusted during the EP test; and variations among

labs performing the same tests on identical samples

(138,144).

The data from the field are limited and do not

include results from long-term studies (e.g., more

than 10 years) (144). As a result, the use of the EP

test, even though it may overestimate leachate

potential, can be considered a conservative way to

classify ash, particularly because ash is not required

to be placed in monofills; in addition, the EP test is

the one now required by RCRA.

Whether better tests have been developed is

uncertain. The MWEP and other distilled water tests

may be better indicators of ash leaching in monofills.

Such tests are required in Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, and Vermont, and recommended in

Minnesota. These tests may, however, sometimes

underestimate leaching because rainwater tends to

have lower pH values than distilled water. However,

one modeling exercise concluded that the effect of

rainwater should be low, especially for ash from an

incinerator with a scrubber (60).

At least one State regulatory agency concluded

that a more realistic extraction procedure would use

real or synthetic rainwater (1 38). One ongoing study

is comparing several existing extraction tests and

some new ones (e.g., using C02

-saturated deionized

water and simulated acid rain) in comparison with

field samples of leachate (130).

Risks From Ash

The potential risks associated with ash are the

subject of great debate among regulators, industry,

and the public (144). Several exposure pathways

exist for pollutants in ash. One is the leaching of

substances into groundwater, which can then be

ingested in drinking water. Airborne and waterborne

transport of ash during handling operations or from

landfills also can lead to inhalation, ingestion in food

crops, or dermal exposure.

Some observers suggest that the risks from

airborne transport may be as important as the risks

associated with emissions (see “Metals” below).

Other observers contend that risks from ash management should be seen in perspective with risks from

other sources, as well as with other MSW management methods such as recycling and landfilling
Chapter Incineration ● 2 5 5

(6,56,60). In addition, they note that criteria such as

the EP limits are conservative, particularly in terms

of long-term dosages, to assure a wide margin of

safety and account for individuals that have low

tolerances to certain substances.

Results from leachate tests cannot be used quantitatively to predict potential health risks. However,

rough indicators can be developed. For example, one

toxicity index based on various physical and chemical conditions and pathways was used to compare

different ash management scenarios at MSW

landfills (56). Among the scenarios, MSW ash

residues in monofills had the lowest relative risk

ranking. However, quantitative risk assessments

regarding ash do not exist.

Dioxins

In general, there is little information suggesting

that dioxins and furans in ash pose significant risks.

Sampling of field leachates has revealed low concentrations of dioxins and furans, generally in the

parts-per-trillion (ppt) range. Together with leachate

test results, this may indicate that dioxins and furans

are relatively insoluble in water (150,151,181). The

hydrophobic nature of dioxins, for example, suggests that they will tend to bind to ash and not to be

leached by aqueous solutions into groundwater

(166), unless microbial activity is sufficient to

produce organic acids that can mobilize them (150).

However, risk assessments still need to be conducted

for the groundwater pathway to support this conclusion, and airborne and waterborne transport from

landfills also need to be evaluated.

Metals

The metals of greatest concern in ash are lead and

cadmium. Lead, for example, is a human neurotoxin,

and some soluble lead salts and lead phosphate are

carcinogenic to laboratory rats (174). As discussed

above, concentrations of lead and cadmium in

leachate extracted from most samples of fly ash and

some samples of bottom and combined ash exceed

EP limits. Distilled water extractions of fly ash,

designed to mimic disposal in a monofill, also have

exceeded EP limits in a few tests (144).

In contrast, most samples of actual field leachate

from combined ash have not exceeded EP limits

(table 6-7). In addition, lead and cadmium concentrations in ash from one new monofill have been

shown to be less than or only slightly higher than

Drinking Water Standards (60,61 ).

Some analysts suggest that total metal content

should be used as a measure of ash toxicity (39).

However, using the total content of lead, for

example, is problematic because much of it is in

insoluble forms or trapped in aluminosilicate material. In addition, total metal content may not account

for how much of the metals actually move away

from landfills and into groundwater.

However, total metal content may be more

relevant for direct ingestion and inhalation pathways, in which volubility is not an important

consideration (39). For example, potential exposure

and risks associated with fugitive ash—i.e, during

handling and disposal-at one ash monofill were

considered as important as those associated with gas

emissions (73). 19 Most of the incremental cancer risk

was associated with ingestion and dermal absorption

of arsenic. As a result, the vendor and municipality

agreed to a plan to minimize fugitive emissions. In

contrast, another analyst concluded that risks associated with ash dust were quite low (154).

Presorting MSW to remove metal or metalcontaining products and materials could affect the

risks associated with metals in ash. For example,

most lead and cadmium in MSW comes from

batteries and plastics (ch. 3). If the metal fraction

could be separated and recycled prior to incineration, the amounts of these metals that are incorporated into incinerator emissions and ash should

decrease. Some information from experiments at

older facilities (see “Separation Prior to Collection

or Combustion’ indicates that presorting did lower

concentrations of metals in subsequent ash. More

18A study of ~ old ~ttom ~h l~dfjl] Site, used from 19S4 10 19’73, indicaled that lead COIWCXMHiIiOtIS in the SOil were considerably above

recommended levels and could lead to elevated Mood levels in exposti chldm (162). However, oher sources of lead were not analyzed, making it

difficult to determine the relative importance of ash. In addition. design ~d operatkg conditions of new monofills ~ffer considerably from this site.

191n ~omp~Wn, lead ~oncen~ations in Cmlsslons from smelters ad automobiles may be greater ~~ in fugitive, dust-blow ash by a factor of 5

to 25 ( 153, 154). This may depend, however, on the type of ash considered; fly ash particles are finer and more likely to be blown around, and finer particles

tend m have higher metal concentrations.
256 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

research is needed to see how removal of various

items affects the volume and toxicity of ash (144).

Ash Reuse and Treatment

Once MSW ash is collected, other management

options besides landfilling exist. For example,

untreated ash can be stabilized or solidified and

then used in different ways-e. g., road construction,

artificial reef construction, construction blocks, and

landfill cover. Initial field research on the environmental effects of stabilized ash used in artificial reef

construction looks promising (see ‘Artificial Reefs’ ‘).

In addition, ferrous and nonferrous metals in the ash

are recovered at some facilities by using screens,

magnets, and other mechanical processes (67,80,100).

Ash residues also can be treated chemically or

thermally to decrease the likelihood of leaching.

Important questions remain unanswered, however, about the long-term effects of reused ash. EDF,

for example, contends that long-term environmental

testing needs to be conducted before full-scale ash

reuse is allowed (38) because of questions about:

●

●

●

the long-term physical integrity of stabilized

ash products (e.g., will construction blocks

used in buildings eventually crumble);

the potential for occupational exposure (e.g.,

exposure to metals of workers sandblasting a

building made of ash blocks); and

the ability to take remedial action if problems

occur, especially because reused ash products

would be dispersed through commerce.

EDF also suggested that fly ash should be not be

reused because of the high concentrations of metals

and the failure of most fly ash samples to pass EP

tests. Finally, EDF suggested that ash reuse should

only proceed after regulations are developed to

address these and other questions. Subjecting ash

reuse to regulations that protect human health and

the environment is consistent with OTA’s conclusion that all MSW management methods should be

regulated with these goals in mind (ch. 1).

Solidification and Reuse

Ash can be solidified by adding Portland cement

or lime and dampening the mixture so that a

concrete-like product forms. In theory, this immobilizes metals and inhibits leaching, allowing the

blocks to be used for different purposes such as road

aggregate and artificial reefs.

Road Aggregate—Reusing ash as a road aggregate was suggested decades ago. Bottom ash is used

as road aggregate in several European countries

(69,86,123,144), usually under some kind of guidelines. Denmark’s rules for reusing ash residues in

road construction, for example, require that the ash

contain less than 25 percent fly ash and that reuse not

occur less than 20 meters from drinking water wells

(144). Over two dozen U.S. companies have expressed interest in using solidified ash in road beds

or concrete construction (53).

Little research has been conducted, however, on

the long-term fate of metals in road aggregate and on

concentrations of leachate compared with other

sources (e.g., surface runoff of oils, greases, and

lead). Some initial research has been conducted in

Tampa, Florida (198). In February 1987, a street was

paved with an asphaltic concrete aggregate containing up to 15 percent incinerator ash treated with

industrial reagents. The treated incinerator ash

consistently passed EP toxicity tests; one sample of

the asphaltic aggregate was tested and also passed.

Runoff from the street was tested for 13 months

(with an American Public Health Association method,

not the EP toxicity method). Concentrations of 10

metals, including all 8 subject to EP limits, were

below the Drinking Water Standards (except for lead

in 1 of 16 samples). Three metals (iron, manganese,

and sodium) exceeded the standards in some cases.

These results are promising, but because test data are

limited to about 1 year additional research is needed.

Artificial Reefs—Research at the State University of New York at Stony Brook is examining the

feasibility of using stabilized incinerator ash, in the

form of blocks manufactured from crushed combined ash and Portland cement, for artificial reef

construction (145,146,147,148,149). Initial laboratory analyses revealed that the ash blocks contained

significantly higher concentrations of lead, copper,

zinc, cadmium, nickel, and chromium than ordinary

cement blocks or Portland cement (149).

As a result, laboratory leaching studies were

performed to determine the potential for releasing
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 257

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

This pile of pelletized, solidified ash resulted from adding cement and dampening the mixture to form a concrete-like product.

Solidified ash could be used for road and building construction, artificial reefs, or landfill cover. Important questions remain, however,

about the long-term effects of reused ash.

pollutants in marine waters.20 Concentrations of

lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury were below

RCRA limits. In addition, laboratory bioassays were

performed on leachates from two samples of the

stabilized combined ash (148). The activity of

carbon- 14 and chlorophyll-a pigments from diatoms

was significantly reduced when the diatoms were

exposed to a 10 percent concentration of the

leachate. However, this concentration was considered unlikely to occur in most marine situations

because of currents, although it might occur for short

periods in small, enclosed embayments.

In April 1987, blocks were placed in two structures in the marine waters of Long Island Sound.

After 1 year of submersion, the compressive strength

of the ash blocks was unchanged and was well above

the standard for marine disposal of stabilized products. In comparison, the strength of cement blocks

declined by almost 30 percent in the same period.

Tests were conducted on the submerged blocks to

see whether they retained metallic components. Of

13 metals tested, the only significant differences

after 380 days of submersion were an increase in

magnesium and a decrease in potassium. Metals

such as lead, chromium, copper, and cadmium were

retained within the block. The retention was attributed to the high alkalinity of the ash, the Portland

cement additive, and alkalinity of the seawater—all

of which favor formation of less soluble metal

compounds and adsorption of metal ions (146).

The reef structures were colonized rapidly by

hydroids, red and green algae, and bryozoans, which

are common marine organisms, and they are visited

commonly by different fish species. Initial monitorZOA pr~ed~e with distill~ water and fihered seawater WtLS u~.
258 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

ing found that the metal content of the hydroids

growing on the ash blocks was not significantly

different from those growing on cement blocks.

Treatment

Chemical treatment may lead to greater stabilization of ash and less leaching; research on this is

being conducted, although results often are proprietary (144). One method involves passing ash through

acidified water, with metals then extracted from the

water. Others involve adding specific chemicals.

Since 1987, for example, one company has been

compacting combined ash and scrubber residues and

adding lime (61 ). Tests after initial mixing show that

the material has a particle size distribution similar to

cement block aggregates, relatively low permeability, on the order of 10-6 cm/see, and appears to retain

metals in the block. After being allowed to cure for

7 to 28 days, permeability decreased to around 10-7

cm/sec. The company considered runoff over the

treated ash to be of greater significance than leaching

from the ash itself.

Vitrification is a thermal treatment method that

involves melting ash into a solid residue. In Japan,

for example, vitrification is used at about 4 out of

almost 2,000 facilities (box 6-E). Little information

is available regarding whether vitrification results in

metals being volatilized and subsequently entrained

in the flue gases.

Ash also can be combined with sewage sludge to

help reduce leaching, at least under certain conditions. Lab and field studies indicate that microbial

activity can result in the formation of lead carbonate,

lead sulfide, and other salts, thereby reducing

volubility (45,58,69). For example, bacteria present

in sludge convert sulfate to sulfide, which combines

with lead to produce lead sulfide, a relatively

insoluble compound (45).

Regulatory Status

In 1980, EPA promulgated regulations that included a “household waste exclusion. ’ This exclusion exempted MSW incinerator facilities that

burned only residential MSW from being regulated

as Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment facilities

(144). Although the regulations did not specifically

address ash residues, EPA generally applied the

exclusion to include ash.

In 1984, Congress attempted to clarify and expand

the exclusion. In particular, Section 3001(i) of the

1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which amended

RCRA, extended the exclusion to all waste-toenergy facilities that burn any type of MSW and

have a program to keep hazardous wastes out.

However, Congress did not clarify whether ash from

these facilities also was exempt from regulation as a

hazardous waste.

As a result, confusion exists over whether ash

should be managed as a hazardous waste if it fails the

standard EP toxicity test. In 1985, EPA stated that if

an ash exhibited hazardous characteristics on the

basis of the test, then the facility producing the ash

would not be exempt from having to manage it as

hazardous (50 Federal Register 28735, July 15,

1985). However, EPA has not enforced this. In

addition, few guidelines exist on the design and

operating standards that Subtitle D facilities should

meet for managing ash that is not considered

hazardous. In 1987, EPA drafted some design and

operating guidelines (186). However, EPA indicated

in March 1988 that no guidelines on ash would be

issued until the agency received directions from

Congress (166). EPA’s proposed criteria for Subtitle

D landfills (ch. 7) do not address ash management in

detail, although many of the provisions (e.g., location, closure and post-closure requirement, and

financial assurance) presumably would apply to ash

management facilities.

Failure to resolve these issues has created great

uncertainty about what regulations are now required

and what will be required in the future. In 1988, to

obtain a legal clarification as to whether ash that fails

the EP test is a hazardous waste, the Environmental

Defense Fund (EDF) filed suits against the City of

Chicago and Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.21

These cases are still in court. EDF also sent letters to

other facility operators explaining its position on

testing and ash management.

Most bills proposed in Congress during the 100th

and 101st sessions would permit ash to be managed

under Subtitle D, so long as procedures existed to

ensure that landfill operators did not receive hazardZICIV. 8&0769, N.D. Ill., and Civ. 88-0560, S. D. N. Y., Iespectivety.
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 259

ous wastes (other than hazardous household wastes,

or hazardous wastes from “Very Small Quantity

Generators,” i.e., less than 100 kilograms per

month). These proposed bills have tended to require

that ash be managed by itself in a monofill with a

single composite liner and leachate collection system, or be co-disposed with MSW in a landfill with

a double liner and two leachate collection systems,

in both cases with groundwater monitoring.22 Most

bills would allow ash to be reused if it passed

specific tests to be established by EPA. Other

proposed provisions include allowing alternate

landfill designs in response to hydrologic and other

conditions, if the designs provide similar protection

as other required designs; allowing EPA to decide

whether fly and bottom ash should be separated or

not; allowing co-disposal with MSW only if the ash

passes yet-to-be-developed tests; and requiring EPA

to establish a framework for deciding when to

remove certain items from MSW prior to incineration.

The provisions regarding management of ash

under Subtitle D, in single-lined monofills or

double-lined landfills, generally are favored by

industry representatives and many solid waste management officials. One industry group, for example,

suggested that disposal be allowed in monofills

without testing and that co-disposal be allowed only

if the ash passes an appropriate test (or is subsequently treated and passes the test) (101).

Similarly, Resources for the Future recommended

that ash be managed in monofills that have a single

liner, appropriate run-off controls, final cover,

leachate collection, and groundwater monitoring

(144). RFF also recommends moving toward managing ash on the basis of tests that can accurately

predict the long-term toxicity of ash, but it concluded that such tests have not been developed yet.

RFF also concluded that there is no strong justification to keep fly ash and bottom ash separate.

Some environmental groups oppose parts of this

type of regulatory regime because few existing

landfills have groundwater monitoring and leachate

collection systems and because long-term exposures

and risks from ash are uncertain. In general, they

propose that ash be managed separately on the basis

of tests currently required under RCRA (i.e., if ash

fails the EP test, then it should be managed as

hazardous) and that greater attention be given to

removing materials likely to contribute to ash

toxicity (39). EDF also proposed that ash monofills

be designed with two liners (an upper synthetic liner

and a bottom composite liner) and two leachate

collection systems, and that the monofill be covered

after filling with a composite cap overlain by a

vegetative cover (48). Some environmental groups

also argue that bottom and fly ash should be not be

combined (127); RFF concluded that allowing

co-disposal of ash and MSW is generally a poor

practice (144).

These issues, discussed in more detail in chapter

1, are further complicated by a recent EPA proposal

to lower the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for

lead in drinking water (53 Federal Register 31516,

Aug. 18, 1988). The limit for lead in the EP test is

based on multiplying the MCL by 100 to account for

attenuation and dilution. EPA would have to decide

whether or not to change this. If the 100-fold factor

were retained, then much more ash would fail the EP

test. Additional research is needed on attenuation

factors for different substances and varying hydrologic conditions (144).

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Alter, H., ‘‘The History of Refuse-Derived Fuels, ’

Resources and Conservation 15:251-275, 1987.

Alternative Resources, Inc., “Coordinated Permits

Application to Construct the Robbins Resource

Recovery Facility,” submitted to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Concord, MA: December 1988).

Alternative Sources of Energy, “Waste to Energy:

The Exception to the Rule,’ Alternative Sources of

Energy, pp. 10-11, January 1988.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, “Proposed ASME Standard for the Qualification and

Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators, QRO-1-19XX” Draft 5.1 (New York, NY: June

1989).

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ‘Status

Repon ASME/U.S. Bureau of Mines Investigative

Program: Vitrification of Residue from Municipal

Waste Combustion Facilities” (Washington, DC:

May 30, 1989).

‘2zLined monoiil]s are used at some facilities in several Stales (c,g., Ftorida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey. New York ad ~gon)

(13,56,101).
260 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18,

19.

20.

Ames, B. N., “Six Common Errors Relating to

Environmental Pollution,” Waler 27(4):20-222,

Winter 1986.

Argonne National Laboratory, Pyrolysis of Municipal Solid Waste, Annual Report, July 1985-June

2986, ANL/CNSV-62 (Chicago, IL: 1987).

Aslander, O., ‘The Swedish Dioxine Moratorium,”

paper presented at ASCE Dioxin Symposium (New

York, NY: Feb. 10, 1987).

Atanasio, P., “Public or Private Ownership of a

Resource Recovery Project,” unpublished manuscript, Dean Witter Capital Markets (1988).

Bellush, S. M., “The Effects of Tax Law on

Resource Recovery/Solid Waste Financing,” Resource RecoverylCogeneration World, pp. 16-19,

March-April 1988.

Biles, S., “A Review of Municipal and Hazardous

Waste Management Practices and Facilities in

Seven European Countries,” paper prepared for

German Marshall Fund of the United States (Washington, DC: February 1987).

Boley, G., Combustion Engineering, personal communication, August 1988.

Browning-Ferns Industries, “hmer from R.F. Goodstein, Washington Counsel, to W.J. Porter, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, “ Dt2C. 15, 1987.

Bridle, T.R., Cote, P. L., Constable, T. W., and

Fraser, J. L., “Evaluation of Heavy Metal bachability From Solid Wastes, ” Water Sci. Techrud.

19:1029-1036, 1987.

California Assembly, Integrated Solid Waste Management: Putting a Lid on Garbage Overload,

prepared by the Assembly Office of Research and

the Assembly Natural Resources Committee (Sacramento, CA: April 1988).

Caponi, F. R., and Carry, C. W., “Overview of Air

Quality Testing Programs at the Commerce Refuseto-Energy Facility, ” Paper No. 88-24.8 presented at

81st Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control

Association (Dallas, TX: June 19-24, 1988).

Chen, P. M., “Financing Resource Recovery Projects (1989 ),’ paper presented at Mayors Leadership

Institute, 1989.

Christrup, J., “Rising From the Ashes,” Greenpeace 13(2):6-10, May-June 1988.

Chumey, K. L., IArod, Jr., A. E., Bruce, S. S., and

Domalski, E. S., The Chlorine Content of Municipal

Solid Waste From Baltimore County, MD and

Brooklyn, NY, National Bureau of Standards report

NBSIR 85-3213 (Gaithersburg, MD: October 1985).

Clarke, M.J., “Issues, Options and Choices for

Control of Emissions From Resource Recovery

Plants, ” paper presented at Sixth Annual Resource

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Recovery Conference (Washington, DC: Mar. 26-

27, 1987).

Clarke, M.J., “Improving Environmental Performance of MSW Incinerators, ” paper presented at

Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute Forum ’88 (Washington, DC: Nov. 3-4, 1988).

Clarke, M.J., “Laboratory Research to Identify the

Predominant Sources of Pollutant Precursors in

Municipal Solid Waste and Impacts on Emissions,

Ash and hachate,” paper presented at New England Section Air Pollution Control Association

Conference on Hazardous and Municipal Solid

Waste Minimization (Providence, RI: Feb. 7-8,

1989).

Clarke, M.J., “Disapproval of QRO-1-19XX Draft

5—April 1989,” memorandum to D. Wizda, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (New York,

NY: INFORM, June 2, 1989).

Clarke, M.J., “Technologies for Minimizing the

Emission of NOX From MSW Incinerators, ” Paper

No. 89-167.4 presented at 82nd Annual Meeting,

Air and Waste Management Association (Anaheim,

CA: June 26-30, 1989).

Clay, D,, “Is New hgislation Needed on Incinerator Air Emissions?” Waste Age, pp. 40-46, June

1988.

Commoner, B., Webster, T., and Shapiro, K., The

Origin and Health Risks of PCDD and PCDF, paper

presented at Conference on Solid Waste Management and Materials Policy (New York, NY: Feb.

11-14, 1987).

Connett, P., and Webster, T., “Municipal Waste

Incineration and Risk Analyses: The Need to Ask

Larger Questions,” unpublished manuscript (Canton, NY: St. Lawrence University, 1988).

Constable, T. W., Environment Canada, personal

communication, Feb. 15, 1989.

Cook, R. J., Kalamazoo College, personal communication, July 20, 1988.

Cooper Engineers, Inc., Air Emissions and Performance Testing of a Dry Scrubber (Quench Reactor),

Dry Venturi and Fabric Filter System Operating on

a Flue Gas From Combustion of Municipal Solid

Waste in Japan, report prepared for West County

Agency of Contra Costa County, California

(Richmond, CA: May 1985).

Council of State Governments and New York State

hgislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, “Solid Waste Programs in the States,” J.

Resource Management and Technology 15(3):131-

144, September 1987.

Cox, K. A., The National Status of Municipal Solid

Waste Activities: A Summary of Selected Surveys on

State MSW Programs, contract report prepared for
Chapter Incineration ● 2 6 1

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Takoma Park, MD: May 1988).

Darcey,, S., “Recovery Projects Grow Despite

Recent Setbacks, ” World Wastes 32(6):24-25,55,

June 1989.

Denisen, R. A., Environmental Defense Fund, personal communication at Office of Technology

Assessment “Workshop on Incineration/Waste-toEnergy Issues” (Washington, DC: June 28, 1988).

Denisen, R. A., “Figure 3a, Dioxin/Furan Content

of Fly Ash From Municipal Waste Incinerators,

Expressed as 2,3,7,8 -TCDD Toxic Equivalents.

Summary of Data for All Samples, Grouped by

Country, Linear Plot, ’ copyright (Washington, DC:

Environmental Defense Fund, 1988).

Denisen, R. A., Environmental Defense Fund, personal communication, May 1989.

Denisen, R. A., “Figure 1, Concentration of bad in

hachates of Combined Fly Ash, Scrubber Residue,

and Bottom Ash as a Function of I_eachate pH, ”

unpublished data (Washington, DC: Environmental

Defense Fund, undated).

Denisen, R. A., ‘‘Ash Utilization: An Idea Before Its

Time?” unpublished manuscript (Washington, DC:

Environmental Defense Fund, undated).

Denisen, R. A., and Silbergeld, E. K., “Comprehensive Management of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: Understanding the Risks, ’ in Oak Ridge

National Lab Office of Risk Analysis, cd., Municipal Waste Incineration Risk Management (Boca

Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1989 in press).

Donnelly, J. R., and Jons, E., “By-product Disposal

From MSW incinerator Flue Gas Cleaning Systerns, ’ Paper No. 87-94A.3 presented at 80th

Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association (New York, NY: June 21-26, 1987).

Donnelly, J. R., Quach, M.T., and Moller, J. T.,

“Joy/Niro SDA Systems for MSW Incineration,

European Operating Results,” Paper No. 87-26.8

presented at 80th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution

Control Association (New York, NY: June 21-26,

1987).

Donnelly, J. R,, Quach, M.T., and Moller, J.T.,

“Joy/Niro MSW Incinerator FGC Systems, European Experience-An Update,” Paper No. 88-98.5

presented at 81st Annual Meeting of Air Pollution

Control Association (Dallas, TX: June 19-24 1988).

Eighmy, T. T., University of New Hampshire, personal communication, Feb. 16, 1989.

Eighmy, TT., Collins, M. R., DiPietro, J. V., and

Guay, M. A., “Factors Affecting Inorganic baching Phenomena From Incineration Residues, paper

presented at Conference on Municipal Solid Waste

Technology (San Diego, CA: Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 1989).

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

Eighmy, T. T., Guay, M. A., et al., “Heavy Metal

Immobilization During the Codisposal of Municipal Solid Waste Bottom Ash and Wastewater

Sludges, ” Paper No. 88-26.10 presented at 81st

Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association (Dallas, TX: June 19-24 1988).

Environmental Defense Fund, ‘‘Ash From Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fact Sheet” (Washington, DC: undated).

Environmental Defense Fund, “Summary of All

Available EP Toxicity Testing Data on Incinerator

Ash” (Washington, DC: February 1989),

Environmental Defense Fund, “EDF Proposal for

Design of MSW Incinerator Ash Monofills’ (Washington, DC: Mar. 3, 1989).

Environmental Research Group, ‘ ‘Application for a

Research Development and Demonstration Permit

To: Waste Management Division, New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services, ” University of New Hampshire, Department of Civil

Engineering (Durham, NH: May 10, 1988).

Environment Canada, Environmental Protection

Service, “National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation (NITEP), P.E.I. Testing Program, Volume II, ”

unpublished report prepared by Concord Scientific

Corp. (Downsview, Ontario, Canada: June 1985).

Environment Canada, Environmental Protection

Service, “The National Incinerator Testing and

Evaluation Program: Two-stage Combustion

(Prince Edward Island),” Report EPS 3/UP/l (Ottawa, Canada: September 1985).

Environment Canada, “The National Incinerator

Testing and Evaluation Program: Air Pollution

Control Technology, ’ Report EPS 3/UP/2 (Ottawa,

Canada: September 1986).

Environment Reporter, “EPA to Develop Ash

Mangement Strategy, Present it for SAB Review

Within Two Months,” Envir(~nmentRepur/er18(S3):

2548-2549, April 29, 1988.

Environment Reporter, “EPA Region X Calls for

Recycling as Possible Incinerator Permit Condition, ” Environment Reporter 19(49 );2565-2566,

Apr. 7, 1989.

Feldman, R. D., Middleton, G. L.. Jr., and Rescoe,

M. E., “Needed: A Way to Privately Finance

Refuse-to-Energy Plants; Found: Master Limited

Partnerships, ’ Waste Age, pp. 121-124, August

1987.

Ferraro, F. A., Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc., letter to U.S. Congress, Oftice of

Technology Assessment, Feb. 16-17, 1989.

Ferraro, F. A., and Parenteau, R. J., “Resuhs of

Emissions and Ash Testing at the Maine Energy

Recovery Company Waste-to-Energy Plant, ’ Paper
262 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

58.

59.

60.

61.

62

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

No. 88-21.7 presented at 81st Annual Meeting of Air

Pollution Control Association (Dallas, TX: June

19-24, 1988).

Fichtel, K., and Beck, W., “baching Behavior of

Residues From Waste Incinerators, as Illustrated by

the Grossmehring Residue Dump, ” translation,

MULL und ABFALL, pp. 220-224, August 1984.

First, M. W,, “Statement of Melvin W. First before

the Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, ” Needham,

Massachusetts, May 9, 1988.

Forrester, K. E., “Comparison of Municipal Solid

Waste I_eachate to MSW Ash Residue Leachate

Using a Risk Algorithm, ” unpublished manuscript

(Danvers, MA: Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc., October 1988).

Forrester, K. E., “State-of-the-Art in Thermal Recycling Facility Ash Residue Handling, Reuse,

Landfill Design and Management, ” unpublished

manuscript (Danvers, MA: Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc., January 1989).

Francis, C.W. and White, G. H., ‘‘baching of Toxic

Metals From Incinerator Ashes, ” J. Water Po/lution Control Federation 59(1 1):979-986, Nov.

1987.

Franke, B., “Review of the Environmental Impacts

of the Solid Waste Incinerators Proposed for Imng

Island and New York City,’ prepared for Newsday

(Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and

Environmental Research, November 1987).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to

2000 (Update 2988), Final Report prepared for U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (Prairie Village,

KS: March 1988).

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., Performance,

Constraints, and Costs of MSW Management Technologies, contract prepared for U.S. Congress,

OffIce of Technology Assessment (Falls Church,

VA: Sept. 26, 1988).

GiMart, M., California Waste Management Board,

personal communication, Mar. 22, 1989.

Goldberg, D., ‘‘Recycling Metal From MSW Incinerator Ash,” Recycling Today, pp. 34-40, November 1988.

Goldfarb, T. D., ‘‘Evidence for Post-Furnace Formation of PCDDS and PCDFs—Implications for Control, ” Chemosphere in press.

Gortz, W., “Problems in Evaluating the Risk of

Water Contamination by Solids From Incinerator

Residues, ” translation, Gewaesserschutz, Wasser

99:144-169, 1987.

Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc., 1986

Resource Recovery Yearbook (New York, NY:

1986).

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

Gregory, W., Smith Barney, personal communication at Office of Technology Assessment “Workshop on Incinemtiotia.ste-to-Energy Issues’ (Washington, DC: June 28, 1988).

Gregory, W.T., “btter From W.T. Gregory, Managing Director, Smith Barney, to J, Kowalski,

OffIce of Technology Assessment,” Dec. 15, 1988.

Guldberg, P. H., and Eschenroeder, A. Q., “The

Health Risks of Fugitive Ash Emissions From the

Haverhill Resource Recovery Facility Ash Monofill, ’ Paper No. 89-6.9 presented at 82nd Annual

Meeting, Air and Waste Management Association

(Anaheim, CA: June 26-30, 1989).

Hagenmaier, H., Brunner, H., Haag, R., and Kraft,

M., “Copper-catalyzed Dechlorination/Hydrogenation of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins, Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans and Other Chloroaromatic Compounds,” Environ. Sci, Techrud. 21( 11): 1085-

1088, 1987.

Hagenmaier, H., Kraft, M., Brunner, H., and Haag,

R., “Catalytic Effects of Fly Ash From Waste

Incineration Facilities on the Formation and Decomposition of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins

and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans, ’ Environ. Sci.

Techno/. 21(1 1):1080-1084, 1987.

Hahn, J. L., Ogden Projects, Inc., personal communication, August-September 1988.

Hahn, J. L., Ogden Projects, Inc., personal communication, Mar. 1, 1989.

Hahn, J.L. and Sofaer, D. S., “W.riability of NOX

Emissions From Modem Mass-fired Resource Recovery Facilities, ’ Paper No. 88-21.7 presented at

81st Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control

Association (Dallas, TX: June 19-24, 1988).

Hahn, J. L., and Sofaer, D. S., “Environmental Test

Results From the Stanislaus County, California

Resource Recovery Facility, ” Paper No. 89-20.4

presented at 82nd Annual Meeting, Air and Waste

Management Association (Anaheim, CA: June 26-

30, 1989).

Hahn, J. L., and Sussman, D. B., “Municipal Waste

Combustion Ash: Testing Methods, Constituents

and Potential Risks,” Resource Recovery 2(5): 16-

18, December 1988.

Hahn, J. L., Von Dem Fange, H.P., Jordan, R.J.,

Finney, J. A., and Bahor, B., “Air Emissions Tests

of a Deutsche Babcock Anlagen Dry Scrubber

System at the Munich North Refuse-fired Power

Plant, ’ Paper No. 85-76B.1 presented at 78th

Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association (Detroit, MI: June 16-21, 1985).

Hahn, J. L., Von Dem Fange, H. P., and Sofaer, D.,

“Recent Air Emissions Data From Ogden Martin

Systems, Inc. Resource Recovery Facilities Which
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 263

83<

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

9~e

93.

Became Operational During 1988, ” Paper No.

89-109.1 presented at 82nd Annual Meeting, Air

and Waste Management Association (Anaheim,

CA: June 26-30, 1989).

Hahn, J. L., Von Dem Fange, H. P., and Westerman,

G., “A Comparison of Ambient and Workplace

Dioxin bwels From Testing In and Around Modem

Resource Recovery Facilities With Predicted

Ground bvel Concentrations of Dioxins From

Stack Emission Testing With Corresponding

Workplace Health Risks,” paper presented at Dioxin ’88, Eighth International Symposium on

ChlorinatedDioxins and Related Compounds (Umea,

Sweden: Aug. 21-26, 1988).

Hahn, J. L., Von Dem Fange, H. P., Zurlinden, R. A.,

et al., “Air Emissions Testing at the Wurzburg,

West Germany Waste-to-Energy Facility, ” unpublished manuscript, June 1986.

Hamner, R. W., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Oftlce of Water, letter to K. Kamlet, June 7, 1988.

Hartlen, J., “Incinerator Ash Utilization in Some

Countries in Europe,” paper presented at 1988

Conference on Ash Utilization (Philadelphia, PA:

1988).

Hasselriis, F., “Technical Guidance Relative to

Municipal Waste Incineration, ’ report prepared for

New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, Division of Air Task Force on

Municipal Waste Incineration (Albany, NY: Aug.

18, 1985).

Hasselriis, F., “What’s In Our Garbage?” Waste

AlternativeslWaste-to- Energy 1(2):74-77, September 1988.

Hawley -Fedder, R. A., Parsons, M. L., and Karasek,

F.W., “Products Obtained During Combustion of

Polymers Under Simulated Incinerator Conditions.

1. Polyethylene, ’’Journal of Chrornatogr@ry 314:263-

273, 1984.

Hawley -Fedder, R. A., Parsons, M. L., and Karasek,

F. W., “Products Obtained During Combustion of

Polymers Under Simulated Incinerator Conditions.

II. Polystyrene,” Journal ofChromatography 315:201-

210, 1984.

Hawley -Fedder, R. A,, Parsons, M. L., and Karasek,

F. W., “Products Obtained During Combustion of

Polymers Under Simulated Incinerator Conditions.

III. Polyvinyl Chloride,” Journal of Chromatography 315:21 1-221, 1984.

Hazardous Waste News, “Study Finds Poor Neighborhoods Make Best Sites for Incinerators,” Hazardous Waste News No. 81 (Princeton, NJ: Environmental Research Foundation, June 13, 1988).

Health Risk Associates, Health Risk Assessment for

the Brooklyn Navy Yard Resource Recovery Facility

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108,

109,

(Berkeley, CA: November 1988).

Hershkowitz, A., and Salemi, E., Garbage Management in Japan, Leading the Way (New York:

INFORM, 1987).

Hershkowitz, A., International Experiences in Solid

Waste A4anugement, contract prepared for U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(Elmsford, NY: Municipal Recycling Associates,

October 1988).

Hjelmar, O., “hachate From Incinerator Ash

Disposal Sites,” paper presented at International

Workshop on Municipal Waste Incineration (Montreal: Oct. 1-2, 1987).

Inside EPA, “Environmentalists Launch Push to

Get Mandated Recycling for Incinerators, ” Inside

EPA 10(21):1,9-10, May 26, 1989.

Institute for Imcal Self-Reliance, Garbage in Europe: Technologies, Economics, and Trends (Washington, DC: May 1988).

Institute for Imcal Self-Reliance, “Cities Cancel

Incineration Plans, Herald Recycling Comeback, ”

news release (Washington, DC: Aug. 5, 1988).

Institute of Resource Recovery, “Management of

Municipal Waste Combustion Ash” (Washington,

DC: undated).

Institute of Resource Recovery, “Imter From J.

Lyman, Director, to P. Prowitt, Staff Director,

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,” Jan. 7, 1988.

Kamlet, K. S., and Sowrey, B. S., “Off-Shore incineration of Municipal Solid Wastes’ (Alexandria,

VA: A.T. Keamey, June 1988).

Kamlet, K, S., and Sowrey, B. S., “Ocean Incineration, a New Approach to Municipal Solid Waste

Management’ (Alexandria, VA: A.T. Keamey,

June 1988).

Kerr, R., New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, personal communication, September 1988.

Kiser, J. V. L., “Continuous Emissions Monitoring:

A Primer, ” Waste Age, pp. 64-68, May 1988.

Kiser, J. V. L., “More on Continuous Emissions

Monitoring,” Waste Age, pp. 119-124, June 1988.

Klicius, R., Finkelstein, A., and Hay, D.J., “The

National Incinerator lksting and Evaluation Program (NITEP) Mass Burning Technology Assessment,’ Paper No. 87-94.5 presented at 80th Annual

Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association (New

York, NY: June 21-26, 1987).

Kleinau, J. H., “Fluid Bed Combustion: hssons

Isamed,’ Waste Age, pp. 274,275,277,282,284,

April 1988.

Komiya, O., letter to U.S. Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment, Mitsubishi International
264 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

110.

111.

112,

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

Corp. reference no. NYC/MCB 6446 (New York,

NY: Dt3C. 21, 1988).

Komiya, O., Mitsubishi International Corp., personal communication, Feb. 17, 1989.

Lane, W. R., and Khosla, A., “Comparison of

Baghouse and Electrostatic Precipitator Fine Particulate, Trace Element and Total Emissions, ’ paper

presented at ASME-IEEE Joint Power Generation

Conference (Indianapolis, IN: Sept. 27, 1983).

Lauber, J. D., “An Overview of Toxic Emissions

and Best Available Control Technology for Municipal Waste Incineration, ” paper presented at ASCE

Energy Division Specialty Conference “Energy

87” (Atlantic City, NJ: Apr. 27-30, 1987).

Mader, P., Pyrolyse Kraftanlagen GmbH, Federal

Republic of Germany, personal communication,

October 1988.

Magee, R. S., “Plastics in Municipal Solid Waste

Incineration: A Literature Study, ’ prepared for the

Society of Plastics Industry (Newark, NJ: Hazardous Substance Management Research Center, January 1989).

Magnusson, J., “Energy From Solid Waste—

Conclusion From a Study by the National Energy

Administration and the National Protection Board,’

paper presented at An Environmentally Acceptable

Solution to the Solid Waste Problem, symposium

sponsored by Swedish Trade Council and National

Resources Recovery Association (Washington, DC:

Mar. 23, 1988).

McCoy, R. W., Jr., Sweetnam, R. J,, Jr., and Liker,

M. A., “Resource Recovery as of December 31,

1987,” Kidder, Peabody Equity Research Industry

Comment (New York, NY: Kidder, Peabody & Co.,

Apr. 29, 1988).

McDonald, B., ESA, personal communication, Sept.

1988.

McInnes, R. G., and Kohl, N. H., “Heavy Metal

Emissions From Resource Recovery Facilities,”

paper presented at Sixth Annual New England

Resource Recover-y Conference & Exposition (Manchester, NH: June 9-11, 1987).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, “Staff

Activity Report on Permit to Install a Resource

Recovery System in Detroit, Michigan” (Lansing,

MI: Air Quality Division, Apr. 9, 1986).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, European Study Tour, Comporting and Recycling, Report on trip conducted October 10-24, 1987 (Lansing, MI: 1987).

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Supplemental

Health Risk Assessment Technical Work Paper,

Volume I: Polychlorinated DioxinslPolychlorinated

Furans, Winona Cm.@y Resource Recovery Facil122.

123,

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

ity, Winona, Minnesota, prepared by J.B. Stevens&

Associates (April 1988).

Minott, D. H., “Operating Principles and Environmental Performance of Fluid-bed Energy Recovery

Facilities, ’ Paper No. 88-21.9 presented at 81st

Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association (Dallas, TX: June 19-24, 1988),

Modig, S., ‘‘Swedish View of the Ash Issue, paper

presented at An Environmentally Acceptable Solution to the Solid Waste Problem, symposium

sponsored by Swedish Trade Council and National

Resources Recovery Association (Washington, DC:

Mar. 23, 1988).

Moody’s Investors Service, “Resource Recovery:

an Overview,’ Moody’s Municipal Issues 4(3):1-16,

September-October 1987.

Nakazato, K., Takuma Co., Ltd., personal communication, April 1988.

National Solid Waste Management Association,

letter to U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment (Washington, DC: February 1989).

Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental

Defense Fund, INFORM, et al., A So/id Waste

Blueprint for New York State (New York, NY:

March 1988).

Natusch, D. F. S., Wallace, J. R., and Evans, C. A., Jr.,

“Toxic Trace Elements: preferential Concentration

in Respirable Particles, ’ Science 183: 202-204,

Jan. 18, 1974.

New York State Energy and Research Development

Authority, Results of the Combustion and Emissions Research Project at the Vicon incinerator

Facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Final Report

(Volume 1), Report 87-16 (Albany, NY: June 1987).

NUS Corp., “Final Work Plan, ” NUS Project No.

0081, submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and Coalition on Resource Recovery and

the Environment (Pittsburg, PA: December 1988).

Ogden Projects, Inc., ‘‘Environmental Test Report,

Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility

Boilers 1 and 2,” Report No. 118 (Emeryville, CA:

Dec. 19, 1986).

Ogden Projects, Inc., “Environmental Test Report,

Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility

Boilers 1 and 2,” Report No. 119 (Emeryville, CA:

DeC. 22, 1986).

Ogden Projects, Inc., ‘‘Ogden Haverhill Associates’

Responses to Information Requests by the Haverhill

Board of Health, Set V“ (Emery vine, CA: Nov. 10,

1987).

Ogden Projects, Inc., “Environmental Test Report,

Bristol Resource Recovery Facility, ” Report No.

153 Revised (Emeryville, CA: Apr. 7, 1988).
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 265

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

Ogden Projects, Inc., ‘‘Hydrogen Chloride Interference in U.S. EPA Method 8,” Technical Bulletin

No. 01 (Emery vine, CA: June 17, 1988).

Olson, P., and Hedlund, K., “Impact of lhx Reform

on Resource Recovery Projects, ’ Resource Recovery 2:32-35, 1987.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,

Laboratory Division, ‘‘Extraction Procedure Toxicity (EPtox) Characterization of Municipal Incinerator Ash From Ogden Martin, Brooks” (Portland,

OR: May 1987).

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,

Laboratory Division, ‘‘Toxicity Characteristic baching Procedure (TCLP), Extraction Procedure Toxicity (EPtox), and Deionized Water haching Characteristics of had From Municipal Waste Incinerator

Ash” (Portland, OR: July 1987).

Pasek, R. J., and Lindner, G. P., “Toxic Emission

Sampling at the Commerce Refuse to Energy

Facility, ’ Paper No. 89-6.3 presented at 82nd

Annual Meeting, Air and Waste Management Association (Anaheim, CA: June 26-30, 1989).

Penner, S. S., Wiesenhahn, D. F., and Li, C. P.,

“Mass Burning of Municipal Wastes,” Ann. Rev.

Energy 12:415-444, 1987.

Peterson, P.R., Kaempf, E. R., and Mills, D. R.,

“Market Prospects for RefMe-to-Energy Development

in California, ’ undated manuscript.

Pollock, C., Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential

For Recycling, Worldwatch Paper 76 (Washington,

DC: Worldwatch Institute, April 1987).

Rappe, C., “Swedish View of the Dioxin Issue,”

paper presented at An Environmentally Acceptable

Solution to the Solid Waste Problem, symposium

sponsored by Swedish Trade Council and National

Resources Recovery Association (Washington, DC:

Mar, 23, 1988).

Resources for the Future, Center for Risk Management, Management of Municipal Waste Cornbustor

Ash (Washington, DC: 1989).

Roethel, F.J., “Ash Disposal Solution is 2,000

Years Old,” Waste Age, pp. 66-69, February 1987.

Roethel, F. J., and Breslin, V. T., “Unique Method of

Ash Disposal Can Benefit Marine Life,” Solid

Waste & Power 2(5):42-48, October 1988.

Roethel, F. J., and Breslin, V. T., “Stabilized Incinerator Ash Tested in Construction of Artificial

Reef,’ Waste Management Research Report 1(2):3-

8, Spring 1989.

Roethel, F. J., Breslin, V. T., Schaeperkoetter, V.,

and Woodhead, P., “Stabilized Incineration Residue: A Possible Substrate for Artificial Reef Construction, ’ undated manuscript.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

Roethel, F. J., Schaeperkoetter, V., Gregg, R., and

Park, K., The Fixation of Incineration Residues,

Find Report, prepared for New York State bgislative Commission on the Water Resource Needs of

I.mng Island (Stony Brook, NY: State University of

New York, Marine Sciences Research Center,

August 1986).

Sawell, S.E., Bridle, T. R., and Constable, T. W.,

“Uachability of Organic and Inorganic Contaminants in Ashes From Lime-based Air Pollution

Control Devices on a Municipal Waste Incinerator,” Paper No. 87-94A.4 presented at 80th Annual

Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association (New

York, NY: June 21-26, 1987).

Sawell, S. E., and Constable, T. W., “NITEP Phase

HB: Assessment of Contaminant hachability From

the Residues of a Mass Burning Incinerator, ”

volume VI of National Incinerator Testing and

Evaluation Program, The Combustion Characterization of Mass Burning Incinerator Technology,

Quebec City (Toronto, Canada: Environment Canada, August 1988).

Science Applications International Corp. and Meridian Corp., Waste-to-Energy Compendium, Revised 1988 edition, prepared for U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable

Energy, Biofiels and Municipal Waste Technology

Division (Alexandria, VA: December 1988).

Shaub, W. M., “Air Emissions Control and Ash

Problems,” background document for presentation

at Solid Waste Management Options for Texas

Conference (Washington, DC: CORRE, May 19,

1988).

Shaub, W. M., ‘‘Incineration-Some Environmental

Perspectives,’ paper submitted at Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on Incineration/Wasteto-Energy Issues (Washington, DC: June 28, 1988).

Shaub, W.M., “An Overview of What is Known

About Dioxin and Furan Formation, Destruction,

and Control During Incineration of MSW, ’ paper

presented at Municipal Solid Waste Technology

Conference (San Diego, CA: Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 1989).

Shaub, W. M., Coalition on Resource Recovery and

the Environment, personal communication, Feb. 15,

1989.

Siebert, P. C., Alston, D. R., Walsh, J. F., and Jones,

K. H., “Statistical Properties of Available Worldwide MSW Combustion Dioxin/Furan Emissions, ”

Paper No. 87.94.1 presented at 80th Annual Meeting

of Air Pollution Control Association (New York,

NY: June 21-26, 1987).

Signal Environmental Systems, Inc., CARB~DER

Draft DioxinslFurans Test Report-Additions, Revisions (Hampton, NH: May 18, 1987).
266 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

172.

173.

Sommer, E.J., ‘‘Recycling Helps Improve Incinerator Operations, ” Waste AlternativeslWuste -toEnergy 1(2):66-71,78, September 1988.

Sommer, E.J., Kenny, G. R., Kearley, J. A., and

Roos, C. E., “Emissions, Heavy Metals, Boiler

Efficiency, and Disposal Capacity for Mass Bum

Incineration With a Presorted MSW Fuel,” Paper

No. 88-21.2 presented at 81st Annual Meeting of Air

Pollution Control Association (Dallas, TX: June

20-24, 1988).

Steinzor, R. I., “EPA to Draft New Superfund

Municipal Settlement Policy, ” paper presented at

Resource Recovery Conference (Arlington, VA:

NOV. 15-16, 1988).

Stem, A. H., Munshi, A. A., and Goodman, A. K.,

“Potential Exposure Levels and Health Effects of

Neighborhood Exposure to a Municipal Incinerator

Bottom Ash Landfill,” Archives of Environmental

Heaith 44(1):40-48, 1989.

Swedish Association of Public Cleansing and Solid

Waste Management, Solid Waste Management in

Sweden (Malmo, Sweden: February 1988),

Tanaka, M., Institute of Public Health, Tokyo,

Japan, personal communication, April 1988.

Tattam, T., “Rating Project Bonds Is More Complex,” Waste Age, pp. 119-124, Nov. 1987.

Thomas, L., “Testimony of Ixe Thomas before the

House Appropriations Subcommittee on HUDIndependent Agencies, ” Mar. 22, 1988.

Tomisawa, S., and Kaihara, Y., “NOX Removal

Pilot Test of Catalytic Reduction in Municipal

Incinerator,” paper presented at 4th international

Recycling Congress, Oct. 30-Nov. 1, 1984.

U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Resource Recovery

Activities,” City Currenrs 6(4):1-27, October 1987.

U.S. Congnxs, Congressional Research Service,

“Municipal Waste Incineration: An Analysis of

Section 306 of S. 1894,” Report 88-402ENR

(Washington, DC:, May 31, 1988).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

New Electric Power Technologies, OTA-E-246

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1985).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

Ocean Incineration: Its Role in Managing Huzardous Waste, OTA-O-313 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing OffIce, August 1986).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

Issues in Medical Waste Management, OTA-BP-O49 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Ofllce, October 1988).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies for Reducing Dioxin in the Manufacture of Bleached Wood Pulp, Background Paper,

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.

OTA-BP-O-54 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1989).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

The Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in

Children in the United States: A Report to Congress

(Atlanta, GA: Public Health Service, Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, July 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal

Waste Combustion Study, Report to Congress,

EPA/530-SW-87-021a (Washington, DC: June

1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal

Waste Combustion Study, Emission Data Base for

Municipal Waste Combustors, EPA/530-SW-87 -

021b (Washington, DC: June 1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal

Waste Combustion Study, Characterization of the

Municipal Waste Combustion Industry, EPAJ530-SW87- 021h (Washington, DC: June 1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal

Waste Combustion Study, Combustion Control of

Organic Emissions, draft (Washington, DC: June

1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal

Waste Combustion Study: Assessment of Health

Risks Associated With Municipal Waste Combustion Emissions, EPA/530-SW-87-02 (Washington,

DC: September 1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustor Ashes and

Ixachates From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,

Monofills, and Codisposal Sites, prepared by NUS

Corp. for Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response, EPA/530-SW-87-028A (Washington, DC:

October 1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “btter

From he M. Thomas, Administrator, to the Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committe on

Energy and Commerce, ” Oct. 8, 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science

Advisory Board, “Evaluation of Scientific Issues

Related to Municipal Waste Combustion,” SAB-EETFC88-25 (Washington, DC: April 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipa/

Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study, Summary

Report, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EMB Report No. 86-MIN-03A (Research

Triangle Park, NC: September 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipa/

Waste Comb~rtion Multipollutant Study, Characterization Emission Test Report, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, EMB Report No.

87-MIN-04 (Research Triangle Park, NC: September 1988).
Chapter 6--Incineration ● 267

185.

186.

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

19~.

193.

194.

195.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal

Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study, Shutdown/

Startup Emission Test Report, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, EMB Report No. 87-MIN04A (Research Triangle Park, NC: September

1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Guidance: Municipal Waste Combwtion Ash, EPA/530-

SW-88-006 (Washington, DC: 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Operation

and Maintenance of Hospital Medical Waste incinerators, Control Technology Center, EPA-450/3-89-

002 (Research Triangle Park, NC: March 1989).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Spokane

Regional Waste to Energy Project PSD Appeal No.

88-12 (Spokane, Washington), ’ Memorandum From

G. O’Neal, Air and Toxics Division, to R,L.

McCallum, Chief Judicial Officer, EPA Region X

(Seattle, WA: 1989).

Visalli, J. R., “A Comparison of Dioxin, Furan and

Combustion Gas Data From Test Programs at Three

MSW Incinerators,” Journ. Air Pollution Control

Assoc. 37(12):1451-1463, DeC. 1987.

Visalli, J. R., New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority, personal communication

at OffIce of Technology Assessment Workshop on

Incineration/Waste-to-Energy Issues’ (Washington,

DC: June 28, 1988).

Visalli, J. R., New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority, btter to U.S. Congress,

OffIce of Technology Assessment (Albany, NY:

June 30, 1988).

Vogg, H., Metzger, M., and Stieglitz, L., “Recent

Findings on the Formation and Decomposition of

pCDD/pCDF in Solid Municipal Waste incineration, ” unpublished manuscript dated 1987.

Wakamura, Y., “Processing of Residue for Re-use

or Disposal, ’ unpublished manuscript (Tokyo,

Japan: Itoh Takuma Resource Systems, Inc.$ 1987).

Walter, D. K., “Energy From Municipal Waste

Plants in the U.S., ” U.S. Department of Energy,

Biofuels and Municipal Waste Technology Division, database printout (Washington, DC: February

1988).

Waste Age, “Waste Age 1987 Refuse Incineration

and Waste-to-Energy Listings, ” Waste Age, pp.

196.

197.

198.

199.

200.

201.

202.

203.

204.

205.

206.

203-2~4, November 1987.

Waste Age, “Waste Age 1988 Refuse Incineration

and Waste-to-Energy Listings, ’ Waste Age, pp.

195-212, November 1988.

Waste Distillation Technology, Inc., Evaluation

and Test Program of a 50-Ton Per Day ‘‘Waste

Distillator,’ submitted to LT

. S. Department of

Energy, Otlice of Inventors Support Division (Irvingtonon-Hudson, NY: June 1985).

Waste Management Energy Systems, Inc., ‘ ‘McKay

Bay Refuse-to-Energy Facility, Tampa, Florida,

McKaynite Asphalt Test Report” (Tampa, FL:

December 1987).

Waste-to-Energy, “Project Growth Seen Slowing,

operating Services Continuing to Expand,” Wasteto-Energy Report, pp. 1-2, Mar. 9, 1988.

Waste-to-Energy, “House Subcommittee Slates

Markup of Luken Ash Bill for Thursday, ’ Waste-toEnergy Report, p. 1, May 18, 1988.

Webster, T., and Connett, P., “critical Factors in

the Assessment of Food Chain Contamination by

PCDD/PCDF From Incinerators, ’ paper presented

at Dioxin ’87 (Las Vegas, NV: Oct. 4-9, 1987).

Webster, T., and Connett, P., ‘ ‘Cumulative Impact

of Incineration on Agriculture: A Screening Procedure for Calculating Population Risk, ’ paper presented at Dioxin ’88, Eighth Intt=rnationai Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds (Umea, Sweden: Aug. 21-26, 1988).

Westergard, B., “Mercury From HogdaIen Incineration Plant in Stockholm, 1972 -1985,” Waste

Management & Research 4:21, 1986.

Wheless, E., County Sanitation Districts of Lms

Angeles County, personal communication, August

1988.

World Health Organization, “PCDD and PCDF

Emissions From Incinerators for Municipal Sewage

Sludge and Solid Waste—Evaluation of Human

Exposure, report on World Health Organization

meeting, Naples, Mar. 17-21, 1986 (Copenhagen:

Regional Office for Europe, 1987).

Yasuhara, A., and Morita, M., “Formation of

Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Thermal

Decomposition of Vinylidene Chloride Polymer, ”

Environ. Sci. Technol. 22:646-650, 1988.
Chapter 7

Landfilling
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Number and Capacity of MSW Landfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Overall Trends. . ....+.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Data on Numbers and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Interstate Transportation of MAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

Decomposition of MSW in Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Recycling Landfill Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Biodegradable Plastics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Landfills as Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Engineering Controls. .,....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Other System Designs. ..........+.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Health and Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Landfills on the Superfund List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Releases of Potentially Toxic Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Sources of Contamination: MSW or Industrial Waste’?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

Regulation of Municipal Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Effect of 1979 Federal Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Proposed MSW Landfill Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

Boxes

Box Page

7-A. Japan’s Santama Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

Figures

Figure Page

7-l. Diagram of Configuration of Selected Engineering Features at MSW Landfills. . . . 277

7-2. Observed Releases From NPL Landfills to Water and Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Tables

Table Page

7-l. Estimates of the Percentage of Post-Recycling MSW Landfilled in the

United States, Japan, and Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

7-2. Projected Number of Municipal Landfills That Will Remain in Operation

over the Next 20 Years.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

7-3. Presence of Soil or Synthetic Membrane Liners at Closed, Active, and

Planned MSW Landfill Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

7-4. Median Concentrations of Substances Found in MSW Landfill Leachate,

in Comparison With Existing Exposure Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

7-5. Concentrations of Gaseous Constituents From MSW Landfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

7-6. Estimated Cumulative Carcinogenic Potency for Organic Chemicals

in MSW and Industrial Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Chapter 7

Landfilling

INTRODUCTION

Landfilling refers to disposing of waste on land in

a series of compacted layers and covering it, usually

daily, with soil or other materials such as compost.

Landfilling is the primary method of MSW management in the United States today. It will continue to

be needed to manage nonrecyclable, noncombustible materials, as well as residuals from recycling and

incineration.

MSW landfill capacity in the United States is

declining, however, because old landfills are being

closed and because siting new facilities is difficult.

One reason landfills are increasingly difficult to site

is because of public concerns stemming from past

practices, when uncontrolled “open dumping” was

more common and sanitary landfills had few pollution controls. Open dumping often resulted in

unsanitary conditions, methane explosions, and

releases of hazardous substances to groundwater and

the atmosphere, and old municipal landfills make up

twenty-two percent of the sites on the Superfund

National Priorities List (which was established

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA).

To address these concerns, Congress directed

EPA, under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA), to develop landfill

criteria that included a prohibition on open dumping;

EPA issued the criteria in 1979. Landfills also are

now subject to stricter State regulations and the

specter of financial liability under CERCLA for

cleanup of contaminated sites. As a result, many new

landfills, though by no means all, have pollution

controls (e.g., synthetic and clay liners, leachate and

gas detection and collection systems, and final cover

systems) and other engineering features designed to

minimize and detect releases of potentially problematic substances. Whether these technologies are

needed for all landfills is controversial. Some

observers argue that the need for these technologies

depends on the site-specific conditions that lead to

the production and possible release of leachate and

gas. In contrast, other groups argue that landfills

should be uniformly required to have these advanced

features, with some allowance for variations.

This chapter examines the numbers and capacity

of landfills, behavior of MSW in a landfill, the extent

and causes of environmental releases, and technologies for minimizing those releases.

NUMBER AND CAPACITY OF

MSW LANDFILLS

Overall Trends

MSW generation in the United States has increased substantially during the last two decades.

EPA estimates that over 130 million tons—about 80

percent of all MSW—were landfilled in 1986 (24).

The actual total may even be greater than these

estimates indicate because of definition and data

difficulties (ch. 3). Landfilling is the predominant

form of disposal in most other countries, including

many in Europe (table 7-1). Nevertheless, Japan and

some European countries (e.g., Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark) rely on landfilling to a much lesser

extent than the United States.

At the same time that MSW generation is

increasing, parts of the United States—particularly

the Northeast and the Midwest—are in the midst of

a landfill capacity crisis. In one survey, EPA

indicated that about one-third of all existing landfills

were expected to close by 1994 (44, 77). Moreover,

EPA estimated that over 80 percent of the landfills

currently operating in 1988 will close in the next

20 years (table 7-2). Some States or regions, such as

New Jersey and Long Island, are facing critical

landfill capacity problems. Other States, such as

Delaware and Rhode Island, have managed to

develop facilities to treat most or all of their MSW.

EPA’s proposed requirements for landfill operators to provide financial assurance for cleanup (see

“Proposed MSW Landfill Regulations’*) could

–271-
increase the rate at which landfills close. Once the

regulations become effective, which is expected to

be in 1991, any landfill that closes within 18 months

after this date would not need to meet these

requirements. Since the requirements could be

costly to meet, this provision may be an impetus for

many landfills to close before the 18-month period

is over. In Wisconsin, for example, State officials

estimate that up to 600 landfills, mostly small, rural

ones, might close because of the regulations (19). In

Nebraska, communities under 5,000 in size were

previously exempted from meeting State landfill

regulations (20, 54), so these types of facilities also

are likely to close.

Closures of existing facilities do not necessarily

predict future landfill capacity, however, because

some new landfills are being sited and some existing

ones are being expanded. It is particularly difficult

to generalize about overall capacity because most

problems and solutions occur at the city or county

level and because information about capacity and

numbers comes from extremely varied sources.

Capacity, as well as associated risks to human

health and the environment, can be greatly affected

by the practice at some landfills of accepting wastes

other than MSW. Depending on the definition used,

MSW accounts for an estimated 90 percent of all

wastes sent to MS W landfills (77). The remainder is

comprised of construction and demolition debris,

nonhazardous industrial process wastes, sewage

sludge, non-MSW incinerator ash, small quantity

generator (SQG) hazardous waste, medical wastes,

and miscellaneous wastes (77). According to an

EPA survey in November 1986, about 28 percent of

MSW landfills accept SQG hazardous wastes, 32

percent accept medical wastes, and about half accept

sewage sludges, non-MSW incinerator ash, industrial process wastes, and asbestos-containing materials (73).
Chapter 7----Landfilling . 273

Table 7-l—Estimates of the Percentage (by weight)

of Post-Recycling MSW Landfilled In the

United States, Japan, and Europea

Percent

Country Iandfilled Year

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . .

Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . .

United Kingdom . . . . . . . .

United States . . . . . . . . . .

West Germany . . . . . . . . .

44

54

100

100

85

33

56-61

35-49

22-25

90

9 0

a

66-74

1985

1983

1983

1985

1983

1987

1985

1985,1987

1985

1983

1986

1985,1986

aThese figures refer to Iandfilling after recycling (e.g., of source-separated

glass, paper, metals) has occurred. For example, the United States

Iandfills about 80 percent of all MSW, but about 90 percent of post-recycled

MSW.

SOURCES Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid

Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988), final

report prepared for U S Environmental ProtectIon Agency

(Prairie Village. KS: March 1988), A. Hershkowitz, “lnternational Experiences in Solid Waste Management,” contract

prepared for U.S. Congress, Off Ice of Technology Assessment (Elmsford, NY Municipal Recycling Associates, October

1988); Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), Garbage in

Europe: Technologies, Economics, and Trends (Washington,

DC: 1988); C. Pollock, “Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential

For Recycling,” Worldwatch Paper 76 (Washington, DC:

Worldwatch Institute, April 1987), Swedish Association of

Public Cleansing and Solid Waste Management, So/id Waste

Management in Sweden (Malmo, Sweden February 1988).

Data on Numbers and Capacity

On a national scale, EPA estimated that 6,034

active MSW landfill facilities existed in 1986 (77). ’

EPA also indicated the rate at which it expects these

facilities to close during the next 20 years (table 7-2).

Additional information about trends in landfill

numbers and capacity is available from: 1 ) data in

EPA’s 1986 Census (62, 73); 2) State reports; and 3)

conversations with State officials. Data from these

sources are not always comparable because definitions often differ.

As reported by the above sources, though, landfill

capacity problems appear to be most severe in the

Northeast and parts of the Midwest:

Table 7-2—Projected Number of Municipal Landfills

That Will Remain in Operation Over the Next 20 Years

Year Number of landfills

1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,499’

1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,332

1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,720

2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,594

2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,234

al 988 figures reflect projected closings of 535 Iandfills during 1987.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress,

Solid Waste Disposal in the United-States, Vol. II, EPA/53;-SW88-011 B (Washington, DC: Oct 1988),

●

●

8 States had less than 5 years of remaining

capacity (Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,

West Virginia); and

15 States had between 5 and 10 years (Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,

Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Montana, New Hampshire. New York, Oklahoma, Vermont).2

Four states (Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey) were expected to close

almost all existing landfills within the next 10 years.

Because it usually takes 5 or more years to permit

and develop new facilities (ch. 8), any area with less

than 10 years of expected landfill life can be

considered to have capacity problems.

In New Jersey, for example, 7 of 10 major

landfills that were open in early 1987 were expected

to close by the end of 1989. New Jersey law prevents

counties without landfill capacity from transporting

MSW in-state to counties with remaining capacity;

instead, counties lacking capacity must make other

arrangements, such as transporting MSW out-ofstate (67). As a result, the State as a whole has

essentially no remaining capacity.

Even in the densely populated Northeast, however, it is difficult to generalize about capacity. For

example, between 1980 and 1984 the Delaware

Solid Waste Authority located three new landfills

and expanded the State’s available capacity to an

IEpA defined ~ facillly as ~ MSW ]andfi]] If it rcccived iII lc~sI 50 percent household and/or commercial VJastC, was MM a hazardous w’aslc landfill,

and had at least onc active landfill unit (i.e., a disposal area wilhin the facility that had the same iiner Iype throughout). The average fac]llty had 1 OY

ac[wc units, 0.52 closed units, and 0.64 planned unils. An earlier survq reported over 9,()(X) landfills, but that estlmalc included nonmunicipal landfills

(39, 71).

2Rh(~e Island also was inc]udcd ,n Ihc ]a[(cr ~a[cgoV, but o~cr da[a indlca[c [ha[ the Sta[c has ~ cstima(cd ] 5 years of rcnlalning Capacl[y (63).
274 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

estimated 25 to 30 years (81). Rhode Island has an

estimated 15 years of capacity, largely because of

the Central Landfill (operated by the Rhode Island

Solid Waste Management Corporation) that accepts

90 percent of the State’s solid waste (63). Even New

York had an estimated 9 years of remaining capacity

as of 1987 (46).

In the Southwest, States such as Arizona and New

Mexico do not appear to have an overall capacity

crisis. possibly because of lower population densities and greater land availability (1, 65). In addition,

groundwater aquifers in the Southwest tend to be

located far below the surface where they are less

likely to be contaminated by leachate from MSW

landfills.

Great variation in capacity exists within States.

Rural areas, for example, often do not have the same

capacity problems as do urban areas. Within Illinois,

the northwestern part of the State and the Chicago

area face the most severe problems, while rural

southern Illinois does not face capacity problems

(79). Rural areas in Florida do not lack landfill

capacity, but urban areas such as Pinellas County

(St. Petersburg) and Dade County (Miami) are

facing capacity problems (58).

Even these general rural and urban trends are

variable. Some rural areas do face landfill shortages,

and not all urban areas are unable to solve their

capacity problems. In Ohio, landfill capacity in the

more urban north was estimated as of 1988 to be

between 8 and 21 years, while the rural southeast had

only 3.5 years (48). Some large cities have succeeded in increasing their landfill capacity. Phoenix

opened a new landfill that is expected to provide 50

years capacity (l). These facilities are not always

near the cities, however. For example, in 1990

Portland will begin sending MSW to a new landfill

in eastern Oregon that could meet the city’s landfill

needs for up to 20 years (34).

Data on Closings and Openings

Limited data are available on MSW landfill

closings and openings. EPA estimated that 14,000

MSW landfills have closed around the country since

1978,70 percent of those operating at the time (78).

The number of closings, however, does not necessarily reflect net changes in available landfill capacity.

For example, Pennsylvania lost 13 MSW landfills

between July 1986 and November 1987. However,

one new landfill was opened and two others were

expanded, and statewide capacity increased from 4.2

years in May 1987 to 5.5 years by November 1987

(51). Unfortunately, most States collect data on

numbers of closings, rather than capacity.

Many estimates about landfill numbers assume

that current disposal rates will continue and that no

new landfills will be sited in the future. It is true that

new landfills are difficult to site. EPA estimated that

only 10 percent of MSW landfills were under 5 years

old, indicating that few had opened recently (77).

However, in some cases the new facilities are larger

than previous facilities, again illustrating the limitations of data based only on crude numbers.

Landfills are being sited or expanded in some

States, even if the number of new sitings is

declining. Delaware and Pennsylvania, as noted

above, have sited new landfills and expanded old

ones. In Missouri, four new landfills were permitted

and five received permits to expand between July

1986 and late 1987 (17). In California, 4 new

landfills were sited and 12 old ones were expanded

between 1983 and 1988 (21). In Ohio, 2 new

landfills were sited and 12 old ones expanded from

1985 through 1987 (48).

For some States (e.g., Missouri, California, and

Pennsylvania), these developments can translate

into a net increase in capacity. In addition, if new

landfills are larger than the ones that close, then

fewer new landfills would be required to replace lost

capacity. This was the case in Missouri, where 90

percent of its increase was due to one new landfill in

St. Louis county, and in Pennsylvania, where one

new landfill accounted for 75 percent of the capacity

increase.

Interstate Transportation of MSW

Proposals to use disposal sites in other States are

frequent and often focus on areas that are either rural

or that have existing disposal facilities. Although

some States have tried to ban importation of MSW,

such efforts frequently run afoul of the Interstate

Commerce Clause (ch. 8).

Interstate transportation of MSW appears to have

increased, particularly, but not only, in the Northeast. Little concrete information on interstate trans-
Chapter 7-Landfilling ● 275

portation is available, however. Anecdotal information obtained from State reports and conversations

with State officials indicates that shipment of MSW

to other States occurs from many areas, including,

for example, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, New York,

New Jersey, and Wisconsin (17, 48,60,67). Missouri

was estimated to transport one- third of its MSW

out-of-state, In New Jersey, about 55 to 60 percent

of the MSW produced in the State was exported

out-of-state in 1988, primarily to Pennsylvania, but

also to Ohio, West Virginia, Connecticut, New

York, and Kentucky (67).

One factor that can influence interstate transportation is competition among landfill operators and

haulers. In general, waste will flow in the direction

of lower costs. For example, landfill capacity is

adequate in Wisconsin, but even so some MSW is

transported along the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor,

possibly because it is less costly for haulers to

transport MSW over longer distances to their own

landfills than to dispose of MSW in a competitor’s

landfill (60).

DECOMPOSITION OF MSW

IN LANDFILLS

About three-fourths of MS W by weight is organic

waste (e.g., paper, yard waste, and food waste) and

about one-fourth is inorganic (e.g., metals and glass)

(ch. 3). Organic wastes are biodegradable and can

decompose under proper landfill conditions to

produce carbon dioxide, methane, organic acids,

ammonia, water, and other chemicals. In contrast,

inorganic wastes are not biodegradable and essentially remain unchanged over time.

Decomposition refers to the breakdown of organic

materials into different compounds as a result of

microbial activity. When organic wastes are put in a

landfill, some aerobic decomposition occurs initially as aerobic bacteria (i.e., bacteria that function

in the presence of oxygen) begin to break down the

waste. They also quickly consume the available

oxygen (64). Anaerobic decomposition (i.e., decomposition caused by bacteria that function without oxygen) then begins and is the dominant mode

of decomposition (27).

Aerobic and anaerobic decomposition generate

different byproducts. Aerobic bacteria break down

the waste materials into organic acids and other

chemicals, and the bacteria themselves produce

carbon dioxide as a byproduct of their metabolism

(64). Anaerobic bacteria, however, produce methane

as a result of their metabolic activity (i.e., methanogenesis).

Decomposition can continue for many years, as

long as some organic material is available for

bacterial activity. The rate depends on many factors,

including moisture content, pH. temperature, degree

of compaction, and MSW age, composition, and

size. When degradation occurs, the volume of the

original MSW is reduced. in effect providing additional landfill capacity (see ‘‘Recycling Landfill

Space” below). Decomposition also can cause

subsidence of landfill caps and greater penetration

by rain in some cases.

There is evidence, however, that decomposition rates of organic materials in landfills are so

slow that the space-saving benefits may not be

important (57, 85). In particular, decomposition

under relatively dry conditions stops and materials

can remain unaltered for decades (80). At some

landfills, organic materials such as paper and food

waste have not decomposed since their disposal 10

to 20 years ago. This is not necessarily surprising,

since archaeologists have long known that perishable materials can last for centuries under the right

conditions (85).

When decomposition does occur, the fate of the

different byproducts depends on a number of factors.

Liquids that percolate through the landfill (e.g., from

rainfall, moisture in the waste itself, or the byproducts) can carry some chemicals through the soil and

toward groundwater. This mixture is known as

leachate. The organic acids formed during aerobic

decomposition can increase the mobility, volubility,

and sometimes the potential toxicity of metals in the

leachate. In contrast, evidence suggests that under

anaerobic conditions, metals are less soluble and

instead may precipitate out as, for example, metallic

sulfides (27,28).

The quantity of leachate generated depends on

factors such as rainfall, temperature, humidity,

surface runoff, and subsurface water migration, all of

which affect the rate of anaerobic bacterial activity

(27). The presence of leachate is the impetus for

various pollution controls at landfills (e.g., liners
276 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

and leachate collection systems) because decomposition of the organic materials without collection and

control of the byproducts is undesirable.

In most cases, the carbon dioxide and methane

generated by bacteria are eventually emitted to the

atmosphere. These gases were previously considered relatively benign (except for the explosive

threat of methane), but they now are considered as

prime actors in the global warming phenomenon

(87). All methods of dealing with organic wastes

produce carbon dioxide, though. and landfills in the

United States probably contribute a negligible amount

of global carbon dioxide emissions. They may

contribute between 2 and 6 percent of global

methane emissions, however (see ‘‘Atmospheric

Emissions” below). While the methane can be

recovered for energy production. it often is not

produced at a sufficiently high rate to make recovery

economical. One idea to make recovery more viable

and reduce atmospheric emissions is to enhance the

rate of methane production (see ‘Enhancing Decomposition Rates’ ‘).

Recycling Landfill Space

“Recycling” landfills-reusing the same landfill

space after a period of decomposition-has been

suggested as a means of extending landfill lifetimes,

allowing the repair of liners and leachate collection

systems, and recovering materials of value (36, 80).

One recycling operation in Collier County, Florida,

already mines an MSW landfill and processes

materials at a centralized facility (25). Screening is

used to remove fine soil and humus and to recover

ferrous metals.

The Delaware Solid Waste Authority plans to

excavate—when degradation is essentially over, as

measured by a decrease in methane production—an

8-acre cell containing about 140,000 tons of MSW

deposited between 1980 and 1982. The excavated

material will be screened for ferrous scrap, plastics,

wood, textiles, aluminum, glass, and other materials;

some of these could be burned (to exploit their Btu

value), while others possibly could be recycled. The

Authority intends to rebuild the liners and leachate

collection systems so that the area can be reused, and

to use the screened dirt as daily cover material.

Biodegradable Plastics

Biodegradable plastics are being promoted as a

solution to litter problems and, to some extent, to

landfill shortages. The reduction in volume associated with degradation into smaller pieces and

dust-sized particles could be desirable, depending on

its timing and impact on landfill subsidence and

whether the extra capacity created is used to

advantage. However, the types of products that

could be made with biodegradable plastics comprise

a relatively small portion of the MSW that enters

landfills.

In addition, much is unknown about the performance, timing, and rate of degradation of biodegradable plastics (ch. 5).3 Little is known about additives

in plastic products; for example, depending on

conditions, metal additives could be released in

soluble forms and become part of leachate. In

contrast, nondegradable plastics are basically inert

when landfilled and probably are not significant

contributors of byproducts.

Research is needed on subjects such as the

conditions under which different components degrade, how rapidly they degrade, whether degradable plastics would have much effect on landfill

capacity, and whether they would cause any environmental problems.

LANDFILLS AS SYSTEMS

Whether a landfill will eventually cause environmental problems depends on a host of factors—

including the nature of the MSW, the rate of

decomposition, site-specific hydrogeology, rainfall.

distance to aquifers, types of liners and covers,

runoff controls, and ability to collect leachate and

gas. For example, some landfills that caused problems in the past clearly were sited inappropriately.

Many different engineering components or controls can be included in a landfill design, such as

liners, monitoring systems, leachatc collection systems, and gas venting or collection systems (figure

7-1; box 7-A describes a landfill in Japan that has

many of these features). The necessity of various

engineering controls can vary given the hydrogeological and other conditions at a site.

JPhotode~adablc p]astlcs would not degrade in landfills because they would be buried and not exposed IO light.
Chapter 7-Landfilling ● 2 7 7

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989, after 52 Federal Register 20226, May 29, 1887.

Thus, to provide sufficient environmental protec- features and discusses some additional design contion a landfill must be designed as an engineered cepts that merit additional research.4 A later section

system and located where it will be least likely to discusses EPA’s proposed regulations for landfill

cause contamination. For example, landfills should design and operation.

not be sited in areas with permeable soils, shallow

groundwater, or wetlands. This approach enhances Engineering Controls

the prospects of collecting contaminants before they Liners and Covers

migrate to the surrounding environment.

Liners are installed along the bottom and someThis section discusses engineering control fea- times the sides of a landfill to reduce the migration

tures from a technical standpoint. They are discussed of leachate to groundwater beneath the site, as well

separately below, but in practice they must be as laterally. In addition, a ‘‘cover’” or ‘‘cover

considered as integrated elements in a single system. system’ can be placed over a landfill once it has

The section also summarizes available information closed to prevent the introduction of water into the

on the numbers of landfills that actually exhibit these landfill (and thus reduce leaching).

4The infoma(ion on landfill feat~es is drawn primarily from EPA’s survey of landfill operators and owners (73). EPA combined data on the 70

percent of existing landfills that opened before 1980 and the 30 percent that opened since then.
278 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 7-A—Japan’s Santama Landfill

Santama landfill, located in Tokyo prefecture, is an example of a modem landfill. It came on line in 1984, and

although it is not representative of most Japanese landfills, it is likely to be representative of many future designs.

The landfill is a joint venture among 25 municipalities and 2 towns. Funds for operating the facility come from

taxing the contributing municipalities and charging a tipping fee twice a year. The site was identified in 1981, and

although some public opposition was encountered, negotiations lead to an agreement that the facility would have

advanced pollution controls. About 22 hectares will be used for landfilling, with a surrounding undeveloped green

zone of 14 hectares. At the end of its useful life, expected to be about 13 years, the site will be capped and

transformed into a sports facility. Details of post-closure monitoring and leachate collection and treatment plans are

not known to OTA.

One unique aspect of the Santama facility is that, like many Japanese landfills, it does not accept organic wastes

(paper, food, yard wastes). Instead, these wastes are collected by the municipalities and sent to incinerators. It also

does not accept industrial waste. It does accept fly and bottom ash from the MSW incinerators (mostly untreated

but about 10 percent processed by cementation).

Another unique aspect is its inclusion of many different engineering features: computerized weigh-in,

record-keeping system for each truck, truck washing system, intricate liner system and ‘‘sandwich” process,

leachate collection and drainage pipes, groundwater flow channels, secondary wastewater treatment plant for

leachate, groundwater monitoring wells, and gas venting. The bottom liner system consists of 1 meter of thick clay

covered by a synthetic rubber liner and then another 1 meter of clay. The filling of the landfill is based on a

‘‘sandwich process’ ‘-each 2-meter layer of MSW is covered with a 1 meter thick clay lining. The wastewater

treatment facility provides activated sludge secondary treatment for the leachate. It removes an average of 92 percent

of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), bringing post-treatment levels down to 8 to 10 ppm. The leachate is then

disinfected with chlorine and sent to a sewage treatment plant in Tokyo. BOD is tested weekly at an on-site

laboratory; cyanide, PCBs, nitrates, phosphorus, and seven metals are tested monthly.

The design is not without some problems and controversies. The landfill is located along a small stream, which

dictates the need for a disaster prevention flood control system. One reviewer also suggests that the sandwich

process may waste space and inhibit internal drainage (8). Data are not available on leachate volume and

characteristics or on hydrological balance, so it is difficult to evaluate the effect of this feature.

About two-thirds of all landfills have some type 10-6 cm/sec. It is not clear whether one type is more

of soil (including clay) beneath them, but the soil at or less permeable to organic chemicals (see “Synthese landfills was not necessarily engineered (i.e.,

compacted or remolded) to a particular design (table

7-3). Only 1 percent of landfills are estimated to

have synthetic liners; the use of synthetic liners is

expected to increase, but only to about 6 percent at

planned landfills. Many other types of liners have

also been used, including admix compositions (e.g.,

paving asphalt concrete), sprayed-liners (e.g., liquid

rubber), and soil sealants (30).

One difference between clay and synthetic liners

is permeability, the rate at which water and chemicals move through a liner. The permeability of clay

liners to water ranges between 10-6 to 10-7 cm/see,

depending on clay content, compaction, and treatment (e.g., addition of lime). Synthetic liners are less

permeable to water, with a range between 10-5 and

thetic Liners” below). Clay is more absorptive of

chemicals (i.e., once a pollutant moves into clay, it

tends to stay there) (30).

Both types of liners are subject to problems that

can cause leachate to move through the liner more

rapidly. Synthetic liners can sometimes be punctured or tom (e.g., in installation or in actual

operation), while clay liners can crack. However, the

frequency with which these problems occur is

unknown.

Whether these differences and problems are

significant depends on many factors, in particular

the rate at which leachate is generated and how

efficiently it is collected. A liner system cannot be

judged in isolation; the leachate collection system

and other design features must also be considered.
Chapter 7-Landfilling ● 2 7 9

Table 7-3-Presence of Soil or Synthetic Membrane Liners at Closed, Active, and Planned MSW Landfill Unitsa

Percentage of landfill units with given type Percentage used in

combination with another type at

Type of liner Closed Active Planned active units

In-situ soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 28 30 9

Engineered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 39 36 15

Synthetic membrane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <1 1 6 <1

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 8 2

None or unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 40 35 —

aTotals add to more than 100 percent because some units have more than one type.

SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Survey of State and Territorial Subtitle D Municipal Landfill Facilities, draft final report.

prepared by Westat, Inc., Oct. 13, 1987. - -

Synthetic Liners--Synthetic liners are thin sheets

(i.e., 0.3 to 0.6 cm thick) composed of materials such

as rubber, polyvinyl chloride. or various polyethylene. Most synthetic liners are considered impermeable to water, especially when compared with

natural soil liners.

The characteristics of a liner affect how it will

react to different chemicals. For example, liners

made of materials such as high-density polyethylene

(HDPE) and vulcanized rubber have molecular

arrangements that are crosslinked, an arrangement

that resists swelling and dissolution by solvents of

similar polarity (29). 5

Some laboratory experiments suggest that volatile

organic chemicals (e.g., trichloroethylene or TCE,

toluene, and xylene) can migrate rapidly through

synthetic liners (31 ). The amounts and directions of

migration varied depending on characteristics of the

chemicals (e.g., relative volubility), the liner (e.g.,

polymer content, thickness), temperature, and concentration of the chemicals on either side of the liner

(31). In different tests conducted by EPA, most

synthetic liners were eventually destroyed when

exposed to methylene chloride in full strength

concentrations (14, 68).

It is not known whether these results are representative of actual landfill conditions. In the laboratory

experiments reported by Haxo and Lahey (31), the

concentrations of organic chemicals in the solutions

were relatively high, for example 1,100 ppm for

TCE. In a landfill, synthetic liners probably encounter more dilute solutions in most cases. For example,

although TCE is common in leachate, its average

concentration in several MSW leachate samples was

generally less than 200 ppm (table 7-4); another

study indicated an average of 38 ppm (but with a

range of 1 to 1,460 ppm) (41).

Thus laboratory experiments with immersed liners involve TCE concentrations that may not represent field conditions, although they are within the

upper limit of concentrations detected in some field

samples. They do indicate, however, that additional

research is needed on the frequency with which

synthetic liners are exposed to high concentrations

of volatile organic chemicals and on long-term

performance of the liners under these conditions.

Seams for Flexible Membrane Liners-An i mportant aspect of flexible membrane liners is the

process by which the seams of the different liner

segments are joined. Segments of a liner can be

joined together in the factory by using solvent

adhesives or dielectric methods, or in the field using

various welding methods.

EPA has tested seam strength under conditions

designed to simulate chemical and physical environments that might be encountered at hazardous waste

facilities (43). Two types of strength generally are

evaluated: peel strength (i.e., the ability of the seam

to resist peeling apart of two liner segments) and

shear strength (i.e., the ability of the liner material to

resist lateral separation). Results indicate that shear

and peel strength are not correlated, with peel

strength being related to the strength of the bond and

shear strength being related to properties of the liner

material. The method used to create the seams

causes differences in peel and shear strength. EPA

concluded that existing data and manufacturers’

recommendations on the chemical compatibility of

SNon@M molccule5 do not have a significam Clcc[rical ch~ge.
280 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 7-4-Median Concentrations of Substances Found in MSW Landfill Leachate, in Comparison With

Existing Exposure Standardse

Median Exposure

concentration standards Median Exposure

concentration standards

Substance b

(ppm) Type” Value (ppm) Substanceb

(ppm) Type’ Value (ppm)

Inorganics:

Antimony (11 ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.52

Arsenic (72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.042

Barium (60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.853

Beryllium (6) ... , . . . . . . . . . . 0.006

Cadmium (46) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.022

Chromium (total) (97) . . . . . . 0.175

Copper (68) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.168

Cyanide (21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.063

Iron (120) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Lead (73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.162

Manganese (103) . . . . . . . . . 9.59

Mercury (19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002

Nickel (98) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.326

Nitrate (38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.88

Selenium (18) ... , . .......0.012

Silver (19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.021

Thallium (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.175

Zinc (114) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.32

Organics

Acrolein (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~

Benzene (35) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bromomethane (1) . . . . . . . . . 170

Carbon tetrachloride (2) . . . . 202

Chlorobenzene (12) . . . . . . . . 128

Chloroform (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

bis (Chloromethyl) ether (1) . 250

p-Cresol (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,394

2,4-D (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4,4-DDT (16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.103

Di-n-butyl phthalate (5) . . . . . 70.2

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (8) . . . . 11.8

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (12) . . . 13.2

T

N

N

T

N

N

W

W

N

w

N

T

w

N

N

w

w

0.01

0.05

1.0

0.2

0.01

0.05

0.012

0.018

0.7

1,000

0.05

0.05

0.002

0.07

10

0.01

0.05

0.04

0.110

21

5

10

5

1,000

5.7

0.0037

2,000

100

0.1

4,000

763

75

Dichlorodifluoromethane (6) . 237

1,1-Dichloroethane (34) . . . . . 1,715

1,2-Dichloroethane (6) . . . . . . 1,841

1,2-Dichloropropane (12) . . . 66.7

1,3-Dichloropropane (2) . . . .

Diethyl phthalate (27) . . . . . . 118

2,4-Dimethyl phenol (2) . . . . .

Dimethyl phthalate (2) . . . . . . 42.5

Endrin (3) ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8

Ethyl benzene (41) . . . . . . . . 274

bis (2-Ethylhexyl)

phthalate (10) . . . . . . . . . . 184

Isophorone (19) . . . . . . . . . . . 1,168

Lindane (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.020

Methylene chloride (68) . . . . . 5,352

Methyl ethyl ketone (24) . . . . 4,151

Naphthalene (23) . . . . . . . . . . 32.4

Nitrobenzene (3) . . . . . . . . . . 54.7

4-Nitrophenol (1) . . . . . . . . . . 17

Pentachlorophenol (3) . . . . . . 173

Phenol (45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,456

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (1). 210

Tetrachloroethylene (18) . . . . 132

Toluene (69) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,016

Toxaphene (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (20) . . . 887

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (4) . . . . 378

Trichloroethylene (28) . . . . . . 187

Trichlorofluoromethane (10) . 56.1

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1) . . 230

Vinyl chloride (10) . . . . . . . . . 36.1

T

N

T

w

c

W

w

T

w

7,000

7

0.58

5

5,700

0.19

30,000

2,120

313,000

0.2

1,400

5,200

4

4.7

2,000

620

20

150

1,000

1,000

1.75

6.9

10,000

5

200

3,000

6.1

5

3.2

10,000

20

2

aTypes of exposure standards:

C. EPA Human Health Criteria, based on carcenogenicity

N= National Interim Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Standard

T= EPA Human Health Criteria, based on systemic toxicity

W= Water Quality Criteria

bNumber of samples in parentheses.

SOURCE: After U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Characteristics,

Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Pert 258), EPA/530-SW-88-038 (Washington, DC: July 1988).

liner materials provide an initial basis for evaluating

expected liner performance in given chemical environments (43). However, EPA also concluded that

tests of less than 6 months may be inadequate to

determine the performance of some flexible membrane liners and that the 120-day immersion period

specified in one standard test (known as EPA

Method 9090) may need review to ensure that it is

long enough to determine chemical compatibility,

Natural Soil--soil, especially different types of

clay, is commonly used to underlie MSW landfills

(table 7-3). In some cases the materials are simply

used in-situ. In other cases they are brought together

and engineered (i.e., compacted or remolded) to

increase strength and reduce permeability. As noted

above, clay liners are more permeable to water than

are synthetic liners. Engineered soil, however, is less

permeable than uncompacted soil (52 Federal Register 12568. April 17, 1987).

The permeability of natural soil liners to organic

chemicals such as solvents is variable and depends

on many factors, including characteristics and con-
Chapter 7---Landfilling ● 281

centrations of the chemicals, contents and degree of

compaction of the clay, and type of engineering. The

fate of chemicals also depends on whether they are

adsorbed onto soil particles. EPA noted, in a

proposed rulemaking for hazardous waste management systems, that compacted clay liners can adsorb

much of the leachate, reducing the amount that

reaches leachate collection systems (52 Federal

Register 20224, May 29, 1987). Other researchers,

however, contend that little is known about adsorptive capacity for chemicals such as solvents (8).

Soil liners also can become dessicated for various

reasons. For example, some solvents that are insoluble in water (e.g., xylene and carbon tetrachloride)

may cause water to migrate out of the soil. When

dessication occurs, the soil may shrink. Subsequent

cracking and channeling of the soil may form

pathways through which liquids can flow (59).

Composite Liners—A composite liner is composed of an engineered soil layer overlain by a

synthetic flexible membrane liner. This combination

is uncommon (table 7-3). Such liners could provide

higher protection than individual liners because each

liner component has different resistance properties.

Cover Types-During the operating life of a

landfill, cover is usually applied on a daily basis to

control disease vectors and vermin, prevent odors

and fires, and discourage scavenging (74). In general, about 6 inches of compacted earth is used.

Currently, 45 States require that cover be applied

daily. EPA’s proposed landfill regulations also

would require the application of daily cover (53

Federal Register 33314, Aug. 30, 1988). The type of

soil used for daily cover does not appear to be critical

(74); clay, silt, or a combination of the two with sand

or gravel is generally considered adequate.

To close a landfill, a final cover usually is placed

on top to reduce infiltration of water. The design of

the cover considers various factors such as soil type,

degree of compaction, surface slope, drainage, and

water balance (77). For example, the top of the

landfill can be sloped to increase runoff and reduce

infiltration (64). The type of soil used also matters,

because highly organic soils (e.g., peat) do not

compact easily. EPA estimated that most active and

planned units have or will have some type of earth

cover (77); only 2 percent have or will have a

synthetic membrane cover.

Leachate Collection and Removal Systems

Leachate collection and removal systems use

pipes to collect the leachate that settles on top of a

liner and prevent it from migrating into groundwater. A typical system consists of a series of perforated collection pipes (usually 4 to 6 inch PVC),

drainage layers and blankets, header pipes, and

sumps. The pipes are placed above the liner in

drainage layers filled with sand or gravel (76). In

landfills with double liners, the pipes are placed both

above the top liner and between the top and bottom

liners. In general, liners are designed with a slope so

that leachate drains into a central collection point.

The efficiency of leachate collection systems

depends on the rate of leachate generation, spacing

of collection pipes, slope of liners, liner permeabilities, and presence of drainage blankets. EPA has

used models to estimate leachate collection efficiencies. At rates of leachate generation considered

typical of landfills (i.e., 10 to 100 gallons per acre

per day), for example, EPA estimated that systems

associated with composite liners would exhibit

collection efficiencies approaching 100 percent,

while systems associated with clay liners would

exhibit much lower efficiencies (52 Federal Register 12571, April 17, 1987).

Only 11 percent of existing landfills have any type

of leachate collection system (77) and available data

do not allow a determination of how much leachate

is actually subject to collection. In addition, the

presence of a leachate collection system is not

necessarily sufficient to prevent groundwater contamination. EPA has identified MSW landfills

equipped with leachate collection systems that failed

to prevent such contamination because of inadequate design and/or construction (76).

Once leachate is collected. it can be managed by

recirculating it in the landfill, transporting it to a

municipal sewage treatment plant, discharging it to

a treatment plant through a sewer, and treating it

on-site with biological treatment processes (77).

Leachate recirculation is used at about 3 percent of

MS W landfills. Other types of leachate management

methods are used less frequently. According to EPA,

the discharge of leachate to surface water is expected

to decline in the future, while the use of recirculation

and transportation to treatment plants is expected to

increase.

99-420 0 - 89 - 7
282 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Photo credit: 0ffice of Technology Assessment

Methane is of concern because of its explosive nature and

potential to affect global temperatures. It can be collected

for energy recovery, allowed to escape into the atmosphere through vents, or, as shown here, “flared” or burned

as it is emitted from collection pipes.

Methane Production, Collection, and Use

Landfill gas is composed primarily of equal parts

methane and carbon dioxide, with trace organic

chemicals (e.g., benzene, trichloroethylene, vinyl

chloride, methylene chloride) also present. Methane

production begins once conditions in a landfill

become anaerobic. Rates of methane production

depend on moisture content of the landfill; concentrations of nutrients and bacteria; pH, age and

volume of the degrading material; and the presence

or absence of sewage sludge.

Methane can be collected and processed for

energy recovery, allowed to escape into the atmosphere through vents, or “flared*’ (i.e., burned) as it

is emitted from collection pipes. Several methods

can be used to collect or vent methane: 1 ) a

permeable trench can be installed at the landfill’s

edge to provide a pathway to vent gases; 2) a gravel

trench with a semi-permeable liner can be built

running from the top to the bottom of the landfill to

provide a pathway for venting; 3) a system combining pipes with a gravel trench can be built; and 4) an

active pumping system can be used to draw gas out

of the landfill through wells. These systems are

operated only in portions of landfills that have been

closed temporarily or permanently with a cap (22),

although they can be installed as the landfill is built

and then later connected.

The recovery efficiency of individual collection

systems varies, depending on the type and spacing of

the recovery system and the type of landfill covering

(i.e., its permeability to gas). According to EPA,

active pumping systems are the most effective

means for collecting landfill gas, while permeable

trenches are the least effective (74). in active

systems, perforated collection pipes are placed at

depths usually of 30 to 100 feet. Compressors are

used to create a vacuum within the pipes and draw

the gas out of the landfill; an excessive vacuum,

however, can draw atmospheric air into the landfill,

resulting in an aerobic environment that changes the

bacterial mix and leads to production of carbon

dioxide rather than methane.

More than 1,500 MSW landfills deal with methane by venting, flaring, or collection and recovery.

If methane emissions were collected completely and

processed for energy recovery, they could account

for up to 5 percent of all natural gas consumption or

1 percent of all energy demand in the United States

(74). However, only about 123 landfills actually

collect methane to recover energy (77). The collected gas can be purified to increase its Btu content

(to values of 500 to 1,000 Btu per standard cubic

foot) and then be used in boilers, space heaters, and

turbines. Purification involves using chemical and

physical processes (e.g., dehydration by triethylene

glycol process, molecular sieves, and refrigeration)

to remove particulate matter, water, carbon dioxide,

and most trace elements (64, 74).
Chapter 7-Landfilling . 283

Ambient Environmental Monitoring

Most MSW landfills do not have equipment to

monitor air, surface water, or groundwater for

various pollutants (77). As of November 1986, only

about 35 percent monitored groundwater, 15 percent

monitored surface water, 7 percent monitored methane gas, and 3 percent monitored other air emissions.

Among facilities that monitored groundwater, an

average of 2.1 upgradient and 3.8 downgradient

wells existed. Wells were sampled approximately

three times annually, with about two samples taken

per sampling period. On average these facilities had

been monitoring groundwater for 5 years (73).

Ownership Status

EPA estimated as of 1986 that most MSW

landfills (approximately 86 percent) were publicly

owned: 29 percent by counties, 28 percent by cities,

3 percent by the Federal Government, 1 percent by

State governments, and 25 percent by other governmental entities (77). The remaining 14 percent were

privately owned. The majority of publicly owned

facilities are small (i.e., receive less than 30 tons per

day), while privately owned facilities are generally

larger. One representative of private operators estimated that about 50 percent of total landfill capacity

may be privately owned (55).

Data from the mid-1980s show that privately

owned MSW landfills were designed more frequently with leachate collection systems than were

publicly owned landfills (62 percent v. 35 percent

for county-owned and 35 percent for city-owned).

Privately owned landfills are also more likely to

conduct groundwater monitoring (30 percent v.

about 15 percent for county- and city-owned), and

surface water monitoring (31 percent v. 24 percent

for county and 13 percent for city) (44). It is not

clear, however, whether this trend is the result of

ownership or simply a response to more stringent

State regulations that have been promulgated in

recent years and that are applicable to all new

landfills, regardless of ownership status.

Other System Designs

At least two different concepts regarding the

design of landfills merit additional research. One

concept involves enhancing the decomposition process by recycling leachate back into the landfill. The

other involves confining waste in mounds that are

built above the normal ground level.

Enhancing Decomposition Rates

Some researchers suggest that the decomposition

process could be enhanced by collecting leachate

and recycling it back into the organic material, an

idea that has been examined in laboratory situations

(28, 51, 80). Recycling leachate in some manner is

used at a few MSW landfills today (see ‘‘bachate

Collection and Removal Systems” above).

One study at a Pennsylvania landfill concluded

that recycling leachate resulted in more rapid

decomposition, enhanced methane production, and

increased stabilization (77). The Delaware Solid

Waste Authority recently initiated a study to examine this idea on a larger scale under field conditions.

It set up two 1 -acre landfills cells for household

MSW only; leachate is being collected and removed

for external disposal from one cell, and recycled in

the other cell. Decomposition rates will be measured

after 5 years.

Experimental data indicate several potential benefits: 1) the time needed to decompose organic

materials might be reduced from around 15 years to

only a few years; 2) methane production could be

maximized, making recovery more viable; 3) reusable space would become available more rapidly; 4)

collected leachate would not have to be treated at

wastewater treatment plants; and 5) metals might

precipitate out within the landfill instead of being

carried by leachate into groundwater.

However, the researchers also have noted several

problems: 1) uncertainties exist about the ultimate

reactivity or fate of chemical compounds created

during the process; 2) regulatory proposals by EPA

would ban addition of any liquids to landfills; and 3)

these designs would require careful management

(e.g., small landfill cells, proper design and location

of leachate collection systems, and controlled rates

of leachate recycling) to minimize potential off-site

migration. In addition, if problems occur with the

liner or leachate collection system, the chance of

off-site migration would increase. For example,

small tears in the liner can occur during construction

or daily operation. EPA has noted that the increased

volume of leachate may clog the leachate collection

system (77). These potential problems suggest that
284 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

enhanced decomposition be used only at sites that

are not located near groundwater.

Above-Grade Containment Mounds

In general, MSW is now placed below ground

level at landfills. One idea developed for hazardous

waste treatment is to confine waste above-ground

under a waterproof cover system to reduce leachate

generation and make leachate collection easier

(9,10). The design includes: 1) an above-ground

storage mound, sloped to support the weight of the

waste and the cover; 2) a liner system across the base

to retard entry of water and subsequent percolation

of leachate; 3) a drainage system consisting of stable

aggregates and collection pipes installed over the

lower liner; 4) a leachate collection system that is

drained freely by gravity, with drainage exiting the

mound above ground; and 5) a cover system

consisting of a layer with gas collection equipment,

a composite liner, a drainage layer, a topsoil layer,

and permanent vegetative cover.

The possible advantages are that leachate would

be removed immediately by gravitational drainage,

sloped construction would reduce pending of leachate on the liners, and repair may be easier. For

example, if leakage became a problem because of a

faulty cover system, it would become apparent soon

after the fault develops, whereas leaking covers at

below-ground landfills only become apparent as a

result of groundwater contamination. Disadvantages

include the potential for erosion of the topsoil layer

and high costs (e.g., for excavating and transporting

soil to the site to build the mound).

A few MSW landfills already incorporate parts of

this design. For example, the Delaware Solid Waste

Authority has one above-grade section with a 4-foot

separation between the seasonally high groundwater

level and the bottom of the liner (80). It is designed

with two synthetic liners sandwiching a drainage

layer and leachate collection. Another facility in

Wisconsin has similar features (8). However, these

have not been constructed with gravity-operated

drains, so they do not incorporate all of the concept’s

features.

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS

This section reviews landfills on the Superfund

National Priorities List, and discusses releases of

toxic constituents and subsequent contamination of

groundwater, surface water, and air. The information

is derived in part from reviews conducted as EPA

has worked to develop revised regulations under

Subtitle D (72, 77).

Landfills on the Superfund List

According to EPA, 70 percent of existing MSW

landfills began operation before 1980. Many of these

older facilities were not designed with control

features such as leachate collection systems or

liners, and many accepted hazardous wastes. Moreover, many operating landfills continue to accept

hazardous wastes. Small quantity generator wastes

are exempted from the RCRA requirement to be

managed at hazardous waste treatment facilities, and

“household hazardous wastes” also are not subject

to such regulation (ch. 3).

As a result, some older landfills accepted substantial amounts of hazardous waste. Some of these have

been placed on the Superfund National Priorities

List (NPL) due to their potential impacts on human

health and the environment. In May 1986, 184 sites

(22 percent) of the 850 sites proposed for the NPL

were municipal landfills (77). One review of these

sites indicated that only two of them did not involve

co-disposal of MSW and hazardous wastes (41).

Other observers, however, contend that MSW by

itself, without any hazardous wastes, is sufficient to

cause the types of problems associated with the

municipal landfills on the NPL (see “Sources of

Contamination” below).

The general lack of engineering controls at most

existing landfills, combined with the fact that many

landfills have accepted or continue to accept hazardous wastes or industrial nonhazardous wastes, suggests that additional municipal landfills may eventually require remedial action.

Releases of Potentially Toxic Substances

Releases of potentially toxic substances from

MSW landfills occur primarily through three pathways: migration of leachate to groundwater, migra-
Chapter 7--Landfilling . 285

tion of leachate and runoff to surface water, and

emissions of volatile gases to the atmosphere (figure

7-2). In addition, releases can occur through explosions caused by the buildup of explosive gases (e.g.,

methane). Current understanding of these release

processes is incomplete. However, enough monitoring of MSW landfills has occurred to allow some

conclusions to be drawn regarding the types of

substances released to these environments and their

subsequent impacts.

Violations of State environmental protection standards by MSW landfills have occurred at a number

of sites—EPA reports almost 2,300 violations for

groundwater, surface water, air, and subsurface

methane (77). Most violations are detected through

monitoring. However, since few MSW landfills

conduct monitoring, these figures clearly represent

a conservative estimate of actual violations. Although violations do not necessarily mean that

impacts on human health or the environment have

occurred, they do indicate a greater possibility of

impacts now or in the future.

Groundwater Contamination

It is impossible to determine the actual risks posed

by leachate from most landfills because groundwater

monitoring data are rare. Only 25 percent of all

MSW landfills monitored groundwater as of 1986

(77). This lack of monitoring is alarming because

downgradient drinking water wells exist within 1

mile of an estimated 46 percent of all MSW landfills.

Even given the relative lack of monitoring, over 100

potentially harmful substances have been identified

in MSW landfill leachate (77).

Other data indicating that landfills can be a threat

to groundwater quality come from case studies

conducted by EPA at 163 landfills (primarily

non-NPL landfills) (77). EPA identified 135 of these

landfills that constitute a threat to human health or

the environment because of their potential for

groundwater contamination. Moreover, of the 184

MSW landfills on the NPL. 132 have had impacts on

groundwater and 68 were listed solely because of

groundwater contamination.

The extent to which substances of concern have

migrated toward or into groundwater, and the range

of potential risks associated with them, are critical

unanswered issues. To estimate human health risks

Figure 7-2—Observed Releases From NPL Landfills to

Water and Air

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress.

Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, Vol. //, EPA/530.sw88-011B (Washington, DC: Oct. 1988).

posed by MSW landfills, EPA uses a model to

predict the release, transport, fate, and impacts of

eight pollutants (including vinyl chloride, tetrachloroethane, and methylene chloride) found in landfill

leachate. Important variables that influence the

magnitude of risks include distance to the nearest

downgradient well, infiltration rate, landfil1 size, and

aquifer characteristics (77). The model estimates, for

example, that 5.5 percent of existing MSW landfills

pose a lifetime cancer risk of 1O-4 to 1O-s (i.e., one

person out of every 10,000 to 100,000 people) and

that 11.6 percent pose a risk of 10-5 to 10-7 (i.e., one

person out of every 100,000 to 10 million people).

This model, however, has been criticized-both

for underestimating risks and overestimating risks.

One critic, for example, felt that using nationwide

averages for some parameters masks important

site-specific variability and leads to possible underestimates of risk (16). In contrast, another critic felt

that the model used unreliable data that should not

be extrapolated to national estimates because potential risks probably were overestimated (81 ). As of

July 1989, EPA was revising its proposed landfill

regulations in response to these types of public

comments.

Microorganisms that can potentially spread disease also are present in landfills and have been

detected in leachate and in the air (e.g., on dust

particles) at landfills (49). They can originate from
286 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

a number of sources, such as animal feces, human

feces in diapers, sewage sludge, and even from

materials such as glass, metal, plastic, paper, and

yard wastes. Concentrations of pathogenic bacteria

(e.g., fecal streptococci) vary substantially with time

but tend to decrease rapidly after 3 to 6 months of

operation, because they are destroyed by chemicals

in the leachate (49). Viruses have not been found in

leachate. Although only a few studies have been

conducted, they have shown no adverse effects

associated with microorganisms in MSW at

landfills. 6

Surface Water Contamination

Surface water contamination is related, at least in

part, to the fact that few MSW landfills employ

controls designed to prevent leachate and runoff

from migrating out of the facility. Such contamination, for example, is known to have occurred at 73

(45 percent) of the 163 non-NPL landfills and at 79

(43 percent) of the 184 NPL landfills (77). The

overall extent of surface water contamination associated with MSW landfills is impossible to determine,

however, because of the general lack of monitoring.

The effect of leachate on organisms that live in

surface water depends on the concentration of

chemicals in the leachate and on the sensitivity of the

organisms to those concentrations. Laboratory bioassays indicated that the toxicity of MSW leachate

to rainbow trout living in surface water depended on

where the leachate came from and how it was treated

(12). Leachate taken directly from landfills was

about 10 times more toxic than diluted leachate

taken from drainage ditches surrounding landfills,

although diluted leachate still caused some mortality. In contrast, leachate treated with physical or

chemical methods was considered nontoxic. The

experiments indicated that leachate toxicity was

greater at low pH values but that it declined with

time (also see ref. 35).

Ten cases of ecological damage (e.g., reduced

diversity of bottom-dwelling aquatic communities)

have been investigated that were related to contamination of surface water (77). Since ecological effects

are rarely investigated, the extent of such damage

probably is much greater than currently reported.

Atmospheric Emissions

MSW landfills generate several gases that pose

risks to human health and the environment. The

primary gases are methane and carbon dioxide, but

numerous organic chemicals in gaseous forms are

emitted as well (table 7-5). Of the 184 NPL landfills.

less than 2 percent are listed for air emissions alone,

but air emissions contributed to the decision to list

the site in 17 percent of the cases (figure 7-2).

Methane emissions are of concern because of their

explosive nature. EPA examined 29 cases in which

damages occurred because of methane migration

from landfills. In 23 of the cases, methane was

detected away from the landfill at concentrations

above the lower explosive level (77).7 Explosions

and fires occurred at 21 of the surveyed sites,

resulting in a loss of life on five occasions.

More recently, methane emissions have received

attention because of their potential to affect global

temperatures. Current estimates of methane emissions from MSW landfills and other sources vary

considerably and are highly uncertain. One study

examined sources of atmospheric methane and

estimated that the anaerobic decay of MSW in

landfills around the world contributed between 30

million and 70 million tons annually (5). This could

constitute about 5 to 20 percent of all methane

released (13). The United States has been estimated

to account for about one-third of biodegradable

carbon content in the world (5); if this ratio is

applicable to the amount of degradable MSW, then

MSW landfills in the United States could contribute

about 2 to 6 percent of global methane emissions

(based on data in ref. 6). Moreover, since methane

traps about 25 times more infrared energy than does

carbon dioxide (56), from a climate perspective it

6Ac~ording t. ~e American pawr lnsti[u[c (2), there is no CV idcncc thal disposable diapers add infectious material to landfill Ieachates or that

handling such diapers is linked with viral diseases.

7Me[hme is explosive when its Concentration is be[ween 5 and 15 ~rcent, by volume, in air at no~al tem~ratures. TWO Federal regulatory stand~ds

exist: an allowable concentration of 5 percent or less at a property boundary, and an allowable concentration of 1.25 perccm or less at buildings both

on and off the site (40 CFR 257.3-8(a)).
Chapter 7-Landfilling . 287

Table 7-5-Concentrations of Gaseous Constituents From MSW Landfills

Range of

Constituent concentration (ppm) Median

Benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carbon dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carbon tetrachloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,2-Dichloroethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethyl benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heptane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hexane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Isopentane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methyl-cyclohexane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methyl-cyclopentane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methylene chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perchloroethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Toluene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,1,1-Trichloroethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trichloroethylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trichloromethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vinyl chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Xylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m-Xylene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0-Xvlene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0-32

342,000-470,000

0.011

19-59

0-91

0-11

0-31

0.05-4.5

440,000-587,000

0.017-19

0-12

0-118

0-24

0-186

0-357

0-3.6

0-44

0.61

0-1o

0-111

1.7-76

0-19

0.3

350,000

1.5

0.45

0.8

2.0

500,000

3.6

2.8

0.83

0.54

0.03

6.8

0.03

0.12

2.2

0.1

4.1

1.8

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United States,

Vol. II, EPA/530-SW-88-O11B (Washington, DC: October 1988); J. Wood and M. Porter, “Hazardous

Pollutants in Class ll Landfills,’’J .Air Pollutio Control 37(5)609-615, May 1987.

maybe more desirable to flare methane and convert

it to carbon dioxide, rather than merely vent its

Emissions of potentially carcinogenic organic

chemicals (e.g., vinyl chloride and benzene) also

have been detected at landfills. Evidence of this has

been found in southern California at sites that do not

accept non-MSW wastes (86), as well as at landfills

in other States (e.g., Wisconsin and New Jersey)

(42). EPA estimated that about 200,000 metric tons

of non-methane volatile organic chemicals (VOCs)

are emitted from landfills each year (53 Federal

Register 33338, Aug. 30, 1988). However, EPA’s

estimates of VOC emissions have been criticized

because there is no standard method for sampling air

emissions, particularly VOCs, from landfills (84).

The critique suggested that standard procedures

need to be developed for collection of air samples,

sample containment and analysis, and quality control. In one study in the San Francisco Bay area,

VOCs were present in the gas at 47 of 60 landfills

(66), There was only minimal evidence of migration

of the VOCs off-site into the ambient air, but

problems in sampling procedures made it difficult to

evaluate the ambient air data.

VOC emissions can affect ozone concentrations

because many of these emissions are ozone precursors (26). It is unknown, however, to what extent

emissions from landfills contribute to regional

non-attainment of National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for ozone.

In addition, mercury also has the potential to

volatilize into the atmosphere. One Swedish study

found that emissions of mercury from four landfills

were one to two times higher than background levels

(4). However, all four landfills had accepted large

quantities of non-MSW, so it is difficult to use this

data to evaluate the importance of mercury emissions from MSW landfills.

UScver~ ]cglS]all “c jnltiallvcs have lricd 10 ~ddrcss this. One Senate bill proposed in 1%8, fOr t? X~p\e, WOUk.f have: I ) required Subtitle D facilities

to be designed and operated 10 minmlixe methane emissions; 2) prohibited, m of Jan. 1, 1994, mass releases of methane (e.g., by venting wells); and

3) required EPA to determine the contribution of methane to global warming, tie sources and sinks of’ methane, and methods of controlling methane

emissions.
288 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Sources of Contamination:

MSW or Industrial Waste?

A well designed, constructed, and operated landfill might exhibit high rates of leachate and gas

generation because it usually would be designed to

decompose degradable MSW. However, such a

landfill also should be designed to be highly efficient

in collecting that leachate and gas. A landfill that

exhibits these features and is sited properly thus

should not be a major source of contamination of

groundwater, surface water, or the air.

However, some old MSW landfills have been

identified as sources of such contamination, indicating that they were not well designed or operated; as

stated earlier, 184 such sites now are included on the

NPL. The most common chemicals found at these

landfills include halogenated and aromatic organic

chemicals and metals (77). Approximately 72 percent of the landfills were associated with releases

into groundwater, 44 percent experienced surface

water contamination, and 17 percent experienced air

emission problems (figure 7-2). At sites with surface

water contamination, liquid waste was present at

approximately 70 sites, sewage sludge at 45 sites,

and pesticides at approximately 10 sites (77).

EPA considers industrial wastes disposed of at the

184 NPL landfills to be the most significant source

of contamination, followed by sewage sludge and

household hazardous wastes. One analysis of the

landfills, for example, found that industrial wastes

were co-disposed with MSW in all but two cases (41,

61). This finding has been used to support the

contention that MSW landfills are not significant

sources of releases of hazardous substances unless

they have been used for disposal of industrial wastes.

However, there are other possible explanations. It

is possible that MSW landfills that were not known

to receive hazardous wastes were not allowed to be

listed on the NPL, even if they had associated

contamination problems. In particular, an EPA

policy memo stated that MSW landfills without a

clear record of accepting hazardous waste would not

be listed on the NPL (37). This policy was later

changed to allow the listing of MSW facilities that

did not have a clear record of receiving hazardous

waste (38), but whether such landfills will actually

be listed is unknown.

Some researchers also suggest that substantial

releases of hazardous substances will occur from

MSW landfills even where no regulated hazardous

wastes have been accepted (11, 83). Webster, in

particular, hypothesizes that natural anaerobic processes in MSW landfills can convert nonhazardous

waste (e.g., lignin in paper) into hazardous substances such as benzene and toluene (83). These

compounds, which also are used to make ingredients

in some common household products, are present in

gas emissions from MSW landfills (table 7-5; also

see ref. 35).

If correct, this hypothesis would have significant

implications. If anaerobic processes do generate

hazardous substances from MSW, then MSW landfills would not necessarily be safe repositories for

MSW, particularly if the waste contains organic

matter. Moreover, if these processes result in the

formation and release of hazardous substances at

levels comparable to industrial hazardous waste

landfills, then it might not be appropriate to continue

to allow MSW landfills to operate under less

stringent standards than those imposed on Subtitle C

landfills. In addition, if MSW could generate substantial amounts of hazardous substances, current

Superfund apportionment policy, which is based on

volume and toxicity, might force municipal Principal Responsible Parties to contribute a greater share

to cleanup costs of sites where co-disposal of

municipal and industrial waste has occurred. These

costs could be enormous.

As might be expected, this hypothesis is controversial. Two independent reviews criticized both

major premises, that organic substances found in

MSW are degraded anaerobically into more toxic

substances, and that this generation overshadows the

contribution of toxic substances from industrial

wastes (41 .47). One critic believes that insufficient

data were presented to support the premises and that

lignin breaks down very slowly and is most effectively attacked by aerobic bacteria, rather than

anaerobic bacteria (47). One study estimated that the

total cancer risks from all chemicals in MSW

leachate were one to two orders of magnitude lower

than from chemicals in industrial leachate ( 11 ) (table

7-6); if true in general, these data would undermine

the hypothesis.
Chapter 7-Landfilling ● 289

Table 7-6-Estimated Cumulative Carcinogenic Potency for Organic Chemicals in MSW and Industrial Landfills

Estimated carcinogenic potency (X10-6)

All chemicals Suspect carcinogens

Type and name of landfill Median Mean Median Mean

Municipal:

Lyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 1,270 296 1,260

Meeker ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 260 4 30

Rochester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 1,150 112 573

Industrial:

Love Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,020 3,940 117 234

Kin-Buc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,500 13,700 38,300 137,000

Mixed waste:

La Bounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,160 22,900 110 689

SOURCE: K. Brown and K. Donnelly, “An Estimation of the Risk Associated With the Organic Constituents of Hazardous and Municipal Waste Landfill

Leachates,” Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials 5(1):1-30, 1988.

A review conducted for the National Solid Waste

Management Association (NSWMA) pointed out

contradictions between Webster’s data and EPA’s

data on generation rates, with EPA’s rates being

substantially lower (41 ). The NSWMA review

acknowledges that “microbiological degradation of

MSW landfill contents does produce chemicals that

are different than those originally present, ” but it

also contends that concentrations of chemicals are

almost always higher in leachates from industrial

hazardous waste landfills than from MSW or mixed

landfills. The central theme of the NSWMA report

is that while the degradation of MSW may produce

measurable quantities of hazardous substances, these

quantities are small in comparison with those

released from the disposal of industrial hazardous

wastes in MSW landfills.

REGULATION OF MUNICIPAL

LANDFILLS

Federal regulation of MSW landfills increased in

1979 with the promulgation of criteria for open

dumps. These criteria, however, did not have a

substantial impact on practices at MSW landfills.

This prompted EPA to propose additional regulations in 1988 governing the design and operation of

MSW landfills. Both the 1979 criteria and the 1988

proposal are discussed below.

Effect of 1979 Federal Criteria

The 1979 criteria for new and existing MSW

landfills (listed in 40 CFR 257) were intended to

provide greater protection from the adverse effects

of landfills, but the criteria have had little impact.

For example, the percentage of landfills that use

engineering and/or design controls to prevent migration of leachate increased only slightly since 1979.

Prior to 1980, only 11 percent of all landfills that

began operation in the 1970s had leachate collection

systems, while 18 percent of those that started after

1980 reported using such systems. Similarly, 67

percent of all landfills operating prior to 1980 had

liners, while 75 percent that started after 1980 had

liners. Moreover, the criteria have had almost no

effect on the siting of new landfills in hydrologically

sensitive areas (e.g., karst terrain or below the

seasonal high water table) (77).9

Proposed MSW Landfill Regulations

In August 1988, EPA proposed new criteria to

govern the design and operation of new and existing

MSW landfills, as required by Section 4010 of

RCRA (53 Federal Register 33313, Aug. 30, 1988).

The proposed regulations include: location restrictions; facility design restrictions based on performance goals; operating criteria; groundwater

monitoring requirements; corrective action requirements for groundwater contamination; financial

assurance requirements for closure, post-closure,

9Karst tem~n refers to an irregular limestone region with underground streams and caverns.
290 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

and known releases; closure standards; and postclosure standards. ’O

The proposed regulations reflect EPA’s desire to

reduce the costs to municipalities of meeting these

requirements and to give States as much flexibility

in implementing them as possible. EPA had several

choices about the types of standards to propose:

●

●

●

‘‘performance’ standards based on risk assessments, which would probably lead to high

variability in landfill designs;

‘‘uniform’ standards based on technical design

considerations, with some allowance for variations, which would lead to little variability in

designs; and

‘‘categorical standards based on technical

design considerations, with designs for different categories of site-specific conditions, which

would lead to an intermediate level of variability.

EPA chose to propose risk-based performance

standards for design (by outlining the range of risks

allowed) and for closure procedures (by describing

in narrative terms what is required). States would

operate a permitting and regulatory program based

on these standards.

The 1988 proposals received substantial public

comments, including many criticisms of the riskbased performance approach. The Environmental

Defense Fund, for example, called for uniform

landfill standards (e.g., double liners, with an upper

synthetic liner and a lower composite liner; double

leachate collection systems; final cover of synthetic

material), with a limited variance available if

alternative design and operating practices at the site

would prevent migration into groundwater or surface water at least as effectively as the uniform

design standard (16). In contrast, the Association for

State and Territorial Solid Waste Management

Officials and the National Solid Waste Management

Association called for a categorical approach that

allows States and operators to choose designs based

on site-specific conditions (e.g., rainfall and hydrogeology) (15). Other commenters have suggested

that the regulations should not allow landfills to be

located in areas such as flood plains or wetlands (8).

EPA currently is revising the proposed regulations

in light of the public comments it received.

Application to Existing Landfills

The proposed regulations would regulate new and

existing facilities differently. Facilities in existence

when the regulations become effective would not be

required to retrofit with liners, leachate collection

systems, or other control features. Existing facilities

would be required to provide financial assurance and

perform closure, post-closure, and corrective actions. Until the regulations become effective, however, there would be considerable opportunity for

existing landfills to close and avoid these potentially

costly requirements.

The proposed regulations are designed to apply to

all landfills that are in existence 18 months after the

final rule has been promulgated and to all landfills

constructed after that date. Facilities closed at the

time the regulations become effective, however,

would not be covered. Instead, EPA would encourage “each state to develop a long term regulatory

strategy to deal with these closed facilities. ’ Consequently, there could be substantial incentive for

many existing facilities, particularly those approaching the end of their lifespan, to close and

avoid potentially expensive responsibilities such

as corrective action and closure procedures.

EPA’s proposed regulations acknowledge that

these closed facilities represent potential threats to

human health and the environment and states that

they ‘‘may be addressed under EPA’s Superfund

Program or by RCRA enforcement provisions for

imminent hazards. ’

Even for facilities that close after the 18-month

period, the proposed criteria set forth no minimum

technical standards regarding how a landfill should

be closed. Instead, landfill owners or operators are

required to close “each landfill unit in a manner that

minimizes the post-closure formation and release of

leachate and explosive gases to air, groundwater or

surface water to the extent necessary to protect

human health and the environment. ” The lack of

minimum technical requirements in the closure

proposal would leave States with broad discretion in

approving closure plans, while providing them with

Iqn ~ener~, tic new EpA Crilerla would be equa]]y appli~ablc m both publicly and privately owned MSW landfills, although fin~~ial obligations

would differ (see ‘‘Financial Assurance’ below).
Chapter 7-Land filling ● 291

little guidance on what actions constitute adequate

closure.

Risk-Based Design Criteria

EPA’s proposed regulations do not necessarily

require new landfills to install liners or leachate

collection systems. Instead, the proposal would

require each State to choose a‘ ‘risk goal’ based on

the cancer risk associated with consuming contaminated groundwater, and then specify design standards intended to achieve that goal as each State sees

fit. The range of acceptable lifetime risks set by EPA

is 10-4 to 10-7 (i.e., one out of every 10,000 to 10

million people). If a State chose a high risk goal (i.e.,

to allow a relatively high risk of 10-4), then it is

possible that no liner or leachate collection system

would be required.

According to the proposal, a State could choose a

risk goal that applies to all landfills in the State or it

could set risk goals on a site-specific basis, as long

as the level of protection chosen by the State is

within the range of allowable risks in the proposed

regulations. That is, a State could choose to regulate

each aquifer differently, in terms of allowable cancer

risk, so long as the cancer risk from consuming

contaminated drinking water is between 10-4 and

10-7. The States also would have to solve the difficult

task of determining which technical requirements

will meet those standards; the proposed criteria did

not indicate how design features such as liners,

leachate collection systems, covers, and groundwater monitoring systems should be selected once a

State determines the acceptable risk level.

This approach raises some important potential

problems. For instance, the Nation lacks a consistent

risk assessment methodology for States to use in

evaluating landfills; there are also inherent uncertainties in risk assessments. In addition, it is

debatable whether all States have the ability to

quantitatively evaluate different control technologies in the context of potential risk reduction. There

currently are no models or analytical methods for

quantitatively evaluating which combinations of

control technologies, under conditions of varying

leachate quality and exposure pathways, will meet

which standards. The availability of trained state

employees capable of evaluating these models also

is uncertain, and some critics question whether the

models themselves adequately mimic real conditions (7).

Ultimately, then, EPA’s proposal as currently

formulated could lead to an extremely diverse

level of environmental protection provided at

MSW landfills, even within an individual State.

In addition, under these regulations it is likely that

most planned landfills will lack features such as

synthetic liners and groundwater monitoring systems (77).

Liner Specifications-The choice of landfill liners

is not specified in the proposed regulations. This is

significant because a number of different synthetic

and natural liner materials can be used, each

susceptible to different physical and chemical stresses.

Because the requirement to install a liner would rest

with the State and its determination of which control

technologies are necessary to meet the specific risk

goal at the point of compliance (POC), the determination of adequate liner types would also be made by

the State. However, given the uncertainties associated with risk assessments and the added complication of trying to predict risk reductions associated

with the installation of different liner types, another

approach would be to specify approved liner types or

systems to ensure a minimum level of protection

nationwide.

Groundwater Monitoring-The proposed regulations are based in part on the notion that aquifers of

lower resource value deserve less protection than

those of higher resource value. This is consistent

with EPA’s Ground Water Protection Strategy,

which calls for a sliding scale of protection for

aquifers depending on their current status of contamination and use. Specifically, the proposed

regulations would allow States to consider the

“existing quality of the groundwater” in setting

requirements for design of landfills. States also

would have the flexibility to set alternative POCs

beyond the landfill boundary where “the aquifer is

of low quality and has little or no potential for future

use.” This would cause “contaminant concentrations to diminish (due to degradation, dispersion,

and attenuation) over distance and, thus, potentially

decrease the stringency of design criteria needed to

meet the design goal. ’ The use of alternative POCs

would allow the costs of control systems to be
292 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

mitigated by taking advantage of the dilution

available in the aquifer.

The regulations also would set up a two-phase

groundwater monitoring system. The first phase

would monitor a limited number of substances, and

if contamination was detected, the second phase

would monitor for more substances. The frequency

for initial groundwater monitoring would be set by

the States depending on groundwater flow and the

value of the resource.

An important feature of the proposed regulations

is the availability of a waiver from groundwater

monitoring when a facility can demonstrate that

‘‘there is no potential for migration of hazardous

constituents from the landfill unit to the uppermost

aquifer during the active life, closure, or post-closure

periods. ’ The intent of this provision is twofold: to

ease the financial burdens on MSW landfill operators and to provide an incentive to site landfills in

hydrogeologically preferred areas. However, use of

this waiver probably would mean that States would

have to rely on the uncertain predictive ability of

current leachate migration models; where those

models underpredict leaching of hazardous constituents, unmonitored releases to groundwater could

occur.

These proposed provisions have been criticized

by many observers. The groundwater monitoring

requirements, and the requirement that States develop trigger levels, have been criticized as being too

flexible and likely to lead to variable State standards

(18). The Environmental Defense Fund, for example, considered the alternative POC provision to be

a violation of RCRA (16). In contrast. the Small

Business Administration felt the POC should be

greater than proposed. Some groups also have

objected to the requirements because they would be

too costly and stringent, especially for small, municipally owned landfills.

Financial Assurance

The proposed regulations include a requirement

for owners or operators of MSW landfills to

demonstrate that they are capable of financing

closure, post- closure care, and corrective action for

known releases. The financial assurance criteria

would not apply to landfills owned and operated by

the States or the Federal Government, but they

would still apply to local governments. This could

impose large cleanup costs that would have to be

borne entirely by local governments. This issue is

discussed in more detail in chapter 1 (see option 2

under “Landfilling”) and chapter 8.

Corrective Action for Air and

Surface Water Emissions

The proposed regulations state that about 200,000

metric tons of non-methane volatile organic chemicals are emitted to the air from MSW landfills every

year. As a result, the proposal states EPA’s future

intent to regulate these releases under other statutes—

specifically, Clean Air Act Section 111 (b) (for new

landfills) and Section 11 l(d) (for existing landfills).

Consequently, EPA would exclude these releases

from the corrective action requirements in the

landfill regulations. Whether future Clean Air Act

regulations would require some corrective action for

releases of VOCs is unclear, however. Similarly, the

proposed landfill regulations include requirements

to prevent the discharge of pollutants to surface

waters, but would exclude releases to surface waters

(as well as soil contamination) from the corrective

action requirements.

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Abbott, B., Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, personal communication, May 1988.

American Paper Institute, “Data on Disposable

Diapers, Total U.S. and State of Washington” (New

York, NY: January 1988).

BASF Corp., “CONTREP Base Sealing System,”

brochure on file at OTA (Mannheim, West Germany:

1988).

Bergvall, G., Karlsson, R., and Wall in, S., ‘‘Measurement of Mercury Wpor Emissions From Swedish

Waste Landfills, ” in ISWA 88: Proceedings qf the

Ffth International Solid Waste Conference, Volume

2 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press Limited, 1988),

pp. 55-60.

Bingemer, H., and Crutzen, P., “The Production of

Methane From Solid Wastes, ” J. Geophysical Research 92 (D2): 2181-2187, February 1987.

Belle, H. J., Seiler, W., and Bolin, B., “Other

Greenhouse Gases and Aerosols: Assessing Their

Role for Atmospheric Radiative Transfer, ” The

Greenhouse Effect, Climate Chunge and Ecosystems,

B. Bolin et al. (eds.) (New York, NY: John Wiley &

Sons, 1988), pp. 157-203.
Chapter 7-Landfilling ● 2 9 3

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

J 9.

Brown, K. W., “Letter to RCRA Docket Info Center

(0S-305), U.S. EPA, ” NOV. 21, 1988.

Brown, K. W., Texas A&M University, personal

communication, Feb. 13, 1989.

Brown, K. W., and Anderson, D. C., ‘‘Aboveground

Disposal, ’ Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste

Treatment and Disposal, H.M. Freeman (cd.) (New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill, NY: 1988), pp. 10.85-

10.91.

Brown, K. W., and Anderson, D. C., “Above Grade

Storage of Waste, ” paper presented at National

Conference and Exhibition on Hazardous Waste and

Environmental Emergencies (Houston, TX: Mar,

12-14, 1984),

Brown, K., and Donnelly, K., “An Estimation of the

Risk Associated With the Organic Constituents of

Hazardous and Municipal Waste Landfill Leachates, ’ Hazardous Wrote and Hazardous Materials

5(1):1-30, 1988.

Cameron, R. D., and Koch, F. A., “Toxicity of

Landfill Isachates, ” Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 52(4):760-769, April 1980.

Chandler, W. U., Barns, D. W., and Edmonds, J. A.,

“Atmospheric Methane Emissions: A Summary of

Sources and Policy Issues, ” draft contract prepared

for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(Washington, DC: Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Dec. 21, 1988).

Curran, M. A., and Frobel, R. K., “Strength and

Durability of Flexible Membrane Liner Seams After

Short-term Exposure to Selected Chemical Solutions, ’ Lund Disposal of Hazardous l+aste, Proceedings of Eleventh Annuul Research Symposium,

EPA/600/9-85/013 (Cincinatti, OH: 1985), pp. 307-

312.

Darcey, S., “New Draft of Subtitle D Regs Increases

States’ Discretion, ’ World Wastes, pp. 24-26, March

1988.

Environmental Defense Fund, “Comments of the

Environmental Defense Fund on the Solid Waste

Disposal Facility Criteria, ” Docket No. F-88 -CMLPFFFFF (Washington, DC: Nov. 30, 1988).

EnvironmentaJ Improvement and Energy Resources

Authority, Statewide Resource Recovery Feasibility

and Planning Sfudy, Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (Jefferson City, MO: December 1987).

Environment Reporter, “EPA Gets 250 Comments

on Landfill Proposal; Design, Ground Water, Financial Sections Hit, ” Env. Reporter 19(33): 1654-1656,

NC. 16, 1988.

Er)vhomnent Reporter, ‘‘Up to 600 Wisconsin Rural

Landfills Expected To Close Because of EPA Rule, ”

Env. Reporter 19(48):2551-2552, Mar. 31, 1989.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

Environment Reporter, ‘‘Unlicensed Garbage Dumps

Tested To Check Effects on Ground Water, ’ Env.

Reporter 19(48):2556-2557, Mar. 31, 1989.

Eowan, G., California Waste Management Board,

personal communication, May 1988.

Flanagan, K., ‘*Methane Recovery Does More Than

Provide Energy, ” Solid Waste and Power 2(4):30-

33, August 1988.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,

“Report on the Potential for Solid Waste Management Grants,” May 1986.

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to

2000 (Update 1988), final report prepared for U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (Prairie Village,

KS: March 1988).

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., Performance,

Constraints, and Costs of A4SW Management Technologies, contract report prepared for U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment (Falls Church,

VA: Sept. 26, 1988).

Haagen-Smi~ A. J., Bradiey, C, E., and Fox, M. M.,

“Ozone Formation in Photochemical Oxidation of

Organic Substances, ” lndust. Eng. Chem. 45:2086,

1953.

Harper, S. R., and Pohland, F. G., “Design and

Management Strategies for Minimizing Environmental Impact at Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

Sites,” paper presented at 1988 Joint CSCE-ASCE

National Conference on Environmental Engineering

(Wncouver: July 13-15, 1988).

Harper, S.R., and Pohland, F. G., “Landfills: hssening Environmental Impacts, ’ Civil Etzgirzeet-ing

58(1 1):66-69, November 1988.

Haxo, H., ‘ ‘Durability of Liner Materials for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities” (Oakland, CA: Matrecon, Inc., 1981).

Haxo, H., “Effects on Liner Materials of lxmg-term

Exposure in Waste Environments,” Lund Dispo.!a/

of Hazardous Waste, EPA-600/9-82-002 (Cincinnati,

OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, 1982), pp.

191-211.

Haxo, H. E., Jr., and Lahey, T. P., “Transport of

Dissolved Organics From Dilute Aqueous Solutions

Through Flexible Membrane Liners, ” Hazardou.~

W~te and Hazardous Materials 5(4):275-294, 1988.

Hershkowitz, A., ‘‘International Experiences in Solid

Waste Management, ’ contract prepared for U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(Elmsford, NY: Municipal Recycling Associates,

October 1988).

Institute for Imcal Self-Reliance, Garbage in Europe: Technologies, Economics, and Trends (Wash-
294 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

34.

35,

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41,

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

ington, DC: 1988).

Johnson, B., “Portland: First in the West To Send

Waste Imng Distance.” World Was[es 31(10):21-32,

October 1988.

Kinman, R.N., and Nutini, D. L., “Household Hazardous Waste in the Sanitary Landfill, ” Chemical

TIMES & TRENDS 11:23-29 and 39-40, July 1988.

Knapp, D., and Sutton, C., On the I?ecycling of

Lund?lls (Berkeley, CA: Materials World Publishing, 1981).

Longest, H., “Listing Municipal Landfills on the

NPL,’ U.S. Environmental Rotection Agency memorandum, Oct. 24, 1986.

Ixmgest, H., “Listing Municipal Landfills on the

NPL,” U.S. EnvironmentaJ Rotection Agency memorandum, Aug. 21, 1987.

Maples, A., U.S. EnvironmentaJ Protection Agency,

personal communication, April 1988.

Mendieta, H., Texas Department of Health, personal

communication, May 1988.

MetaSystems, Inc., “MunicipalSolid Waste Landfilling: A Review of Environmental Effects’ (Cambridge, MA: Oct. 4, 1988).

Minott, D., “Comparative Health Risk Assessment

of Energy-Recovery and LandfiIl Facilities, ’ presented at the Co@erence on Solid Waste Management and Materials Policy (New York, NY: January

1988).

Morrison, W. R., and Parkhill, L. D., Evaluation of

Flexible Membrane Liner Seams After Chemical

Exposure and Simulated Weathering, U.S. EPA

Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,

EPA/600/S2-87/015 (Cincinnati, OH: April 1987).

National Solid Waste Management Association,

“Landfill Capacity in the U. S.: How Much Do We

Reafly Have” (Washington, DC: Oct. 18,1988).

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Solid Waste Management Pian, Draft Update:

/985-2000 (Trenton, NJ: July 15, 1985).

New York State hgislative Commission on Solid

Waste Management, ‘‘Where Will the Garbage Go?’

(Albany, NY: January 1987).

Noble, J., Tufts University, personal communication,

Oct. 18, 1988.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Available

Capacity for Solid Waste in Ohio, Division of Solid

and Hazardous Waste Management, Annual Report

(Columbus, OH: July 1988).

Pahren, H., “Microorganisms in Municipal Solid

Waste and Public Health Implications, ” CRC Cri/ica! Reviews of Environmental Controi 17(3): 187-

228, 1987.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, “Permitted and Operating MSW Landfills

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

and Incinerators in Pennsylvania” (Harrisburg, PA:

July 1986).

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, “Status of Existing and Proposed Facilities

for the Processing and Disposal of Municipal Solid

Waste in Pennsylvania” (Harrisburg, PA: November

1987).

Pohland, F.G., and Harper, S. R., “Critical Review

and Summary of hachate and Gas Production From

Landfills, ’ U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering

Research Laboratory, EPA/600/S2-86-073 (Cincinnati, OH: March 1987),

Pollock, C., “Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential

For Recycling,‘‘ Worldwatch Paper 76 (Washington,

DC: Worldwatch Institute, April 1987).

Rindiville, S., “Testimony of Sheila M. Pnndiville,

Director, Solid Waste Program, National Solid Waste

Management Association, before House Energy and

Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and Hazardous Materials,” June 5,

1987,

IMndiville, S., National Solid Waste Management

Association, personal communication, November

1988.

Ramanathan, V,, Cicerone. R. J., Singh, H. B., and

Kiehl, J.T., “Trace Gas Trends and Their Potential

Role in Climate Change, ” J. of Geophysical Research 90:5547-5566, 1985.

Rathje, W. L., Hughes, W. W., Archer, G., and

Wilson, D. C., “Source Reduction and Landfill

Myths, ” paper presented at ASTSWMO National

Solid Waste Forum on Integrated Municipal Waste

Management (Lake Buena Vista, FL: July 17-20,

1988).

Reese, J., Florida Department of Solid Waste, Bureau

of Waste Planning and Regulation, personal communication, April 1988.

Reeves, D., “The Performance of Clay Liners for

Hazardous Waste Landfills, ” Environmental Defense Fund In-House Report (Washington, DC:

1982).

Reindl, J., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, May 1988.

Repa, E., “hssons Jarned From Past Disposal

Practices, ” Waste Age 19(5): 86-90, May 1988.

Repa, E., “Landfill Capacity: How Much Really

Remains” (Washington, DC: NSWMA, Oct. 1988).

Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp., Statewide Resource Recovery S?*stem Development Plan

(Providence, RI: June 1987).

Robinson, W., The Solid Waste Handbook (New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1987).

Silva, D., Science & Engineering Associates, Inc.,

personal communication, March 1988.
Chapter 7-Landfilling ● 295

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

Siu, W., Uvaggi, D. A., and Brennan, TF., “Solid

Waste Assessment Test Results From Landfills in the

San Francisco Bay Area, ” paper 89-155.2 presented

at 82nd Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Air & Waste

Management Association (Anaheim, CA: June 25-

30, 1989).

Sondermeyer, G., New Jersey Department of Environmermd Protection, personal communication, March

1988.

Sprague, R. T., and Boschuk, J., “Installation of

HDPE Liners During Winter Months, ” Paper presented at International Conference on Geomembra -

nes (Denver, CO: 1986).

Swedish Association of Public Cleansing and Solid

Waste Management, Solid Waste Management in

Sweden (Malmo, Sweden: February 1988).

Swindler, M., Indiana Department of Environmental

Management, Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste

Management, personal communication, April 1988;

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Census of

State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous

Waste Programs, EPA/530-SW-86-039 (Washington, DC: October 1986).

U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, Sublitle D

Stud~*, Phase 1 Report, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-86-054 (Washington, DC: October 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Survey of

State and Territorial Subtitle D Municipal Landfill

Facilities. draft final report, prepared by Westat, Inc.,

Oct. 13, 1987.

U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, Operating Criteria (Subpart C), ‘ ‘Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Lana’’lls’ (40 CFR

Part 258), EPA/530-SW-88-037 (Washington, DC:

July 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, Summary of Data on Municipal Solid

Waste Landfill Leachate Characteristics, ‘ ‘Criteria

for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (40 CFR Part

258), EPA/530-SW-88-038 (Washington, DC: July

1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, Design Criteria (Subpart D), ‘ ‘Criteria

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

for Municipal Solid Waste Landjills” (40 CFR Part

258), EPA/530-SW-88-042 (Washington, DC: July

1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United States,

Vol. I/, EPA/530-SW-88-01 IB (Washington, DC:

October 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda

for Action, EPA/530-SW-89-019 (Washington, DC:

February 1989).

University of Illinois, “IEPA Report on Disposal

Capacity, ” Solid Waste Management Newsletter

3(3):1, March 1989.

l%uki, N. C., “Why Not Recycle the Landfill!”

Waste Age, pp. 165-70, November 1988.

%&&i, N. C., Delaware Solid Waste Authority,

personal communication, Feb. 16, 1989.

Vonasek, J., “An Investigation of Solid Waste

Management Methods, Formats and Charges in

Florida, ” prepared for Government Refuse CoHection and Disposal Association Mandato~ Collection

Committee (Tallahassee, FL: David M. Griffith &

Associates, Ltd., Apr. 6, 1988).

Webster, I., “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills:

Toxic Chemical Releases and the Role of Industrial

Wastes in Those Releases, ” unpublished manuscript

(Brea, CA: Unocal Corp., 1988).

Weston, R. F., Inc., “Air Sampling and Analysis of

Organic and Inorganic Constituents at Wrious Solid

Waste Facilities, ” report prepared for Delaware

Solid Waste Authority (West Chester, PA: 1988

drafl).

Wilson, D. C., “Ancient Trash, Modern Solid

Wastes: An Archaeologist’s Perspective on Reuse,

Recycling, Waste, and Landfill Degradation, ” paper

presented at National Solid Waste Management

Symposium (Prescot~ AZ: Apr. 10, 1989).

WOod, J., and Porter, M., “Hazardous pollut~ts in

ClassII Landfills,” J. Air Pollution Control 37(5):609-

615, May 1987.

WoodweH, G. M., The Role of Terrestrial Vegetation

in the Global Carbon Cycle (New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons, 1984).
Chapter 8

Government Planning

and Programs
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Movement Toward Comprehensive MSW Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Evolving Nature of MSW Policymaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yurtown and the Rest of the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MSW Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local Planning,,..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional Planning and Cooperation Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specific MSW Programs and Policy Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MSW Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incineration .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Landfill Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Special Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cross-Cutting Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Self-Sufficiency and Interstate Transportation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Restoring Public Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Views of Appropriate Federal Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix 8-A: Federal Statutory Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boxes

299

300

300

301

303

303

305

308

309

309

310

317

333

335

337

340

340

342

345

348

353

Box Page

8-A. Yurtown: A Hypothetical Town. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

8-B. Federal Republic of Germany: Section 14 and the Environmental Angel... . . . . . . . 312

8-C. Beverage Container Deposit Systems in

8-D. Examples of Successful Local and State

Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Siting Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

Figures

Figure Page

8-1.

8-2.

8-3.

Sources of State Subtitle D Budgets, 1981-85. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Germany’s “Environmental Angel” Logo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs By Year. ...,...., .

308

314

338

8-1.

8-2.

8-3.

8-4.

8-5.

State

State

State

Tax Incentives (Active and

Investment Tax Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Proposed). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tax Incentives and Areas of Abdication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relative Prices of Old Newspaper (Old News No. l) and Newsprint from

1970 to 1986, Compared With 1967 Prices.. ..,..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Price Indices of Wood Pulp and Wastepaper Compared With 1967 Prices,

and Recyclable Paper Utilization Ratio, From 1970 to 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

324

325

326

328

328
Chapter 8

Government Efforts: Planning and Programs

OVERVIEW

“Garbage costs to soar,‘‘ “Bury and Bum forces

collide with recyclers, ’ “State urged to define,

collect home toxins, “ “Town finds recycling works,

worth the effort. ’ These types of headlines, appearing with increased frequency in local newspapers all

across the Nation, highlight the difficult challenges

municipal solid waste (MSW) management poses

for local and State governments. Many communities

around the country are attempting to decrease

reliance on landfilling by reducing the generation of

the waste, increasing its reusability, expanding

materials recovery and recycling, and/or building

more incineration facilities. Determining the appropriate mix and feasibility of these prevention and

management methods, however, can be a difficult

task for State and local governments.

The management of MSW has traditionally been

in the bailiwick of municipal and State governments.

Although limited involvement by the Federal Government began in 1965 with the passage of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act (see app. 8-A), the Federal role

may be expanded as the national implications of

increased MS W generation become more evident. In

any case, the relationship among Federal, State, and

local governments in the management of MSW

continues to evolve and the most appropriate roles

for each remain open issues.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), the major Federal statute regulating MSW,

includes specific findings and objectives about

MSW management (see app. 8-A).1 Yet, RCRA does

not include explicit findings, objectives, or goals

which distinguish MSW prevention from management; the law also does not embody the materials

management approach presented in this report (ch.

1). Although the Federal Government has had

limited involvement in MSW activities to date, most

observers now agree that a more clearly defined

Federal role for MSW policy is needed. This task is

a major focus of Congress’ current RCRA reauthorization discussions.

Some Federal activity to pursue the materials and

energy conservation objectives already stated in

RCRA was undertaken in the 1970s. For example,

the Bureau of Mines sponsored research on the

technological and economic feasibility of recovering materials from MSW (94,121), the Department

of Treasury investigated the effects of virgin materials tax subsidies on recycling (152), the Interstate

Commerce Commission examined freight rates to

determine their effects on the use of secondary

materials (55), and the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) established a program to transfer

information about MSW to interested States, communities, and businesses (140). Energy recovery

was encouraged by the Public Utility Regulatory

Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978, which required

utilities to purchase energy from waste-to-energy

facilities at their “avoided cost” of its production,

and the Department of Energy sponsored research on

refuse-derived fuel and methane gas recovery techniques (127,138).

Most of this activity waned in the 1980s as

concern over the energy crisis diminished and the

Nation faced growing economic difficulties. At

EPA, hazardous waste issues became the focal point.

EPA’s efforts to regulate existing MSW landfills

and incinerators, as well as recycling facilities,

remain limited to date. In 1979, EPA developed

criteria to help improve landfill performance, but

these are not enforceable regulations and are outdated. Although EPA proposed new regulations in

1988, their adequacy is debated (ch. 7). MSW

incinerators also have received little regulatory

attention; for example, ash has been left unregulated

at the Federal level (ch. 6). Both Congress and EPA

recently proposed applying more stringent regulations to MSW landfills and incinerators (chs. 6, 7).

ISlatule~ ~e]evmt 10 matena]s ~d energy recove~ also include similar findings, for example, the National Materials and Minerals poiicy. Research

and Development Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-479), and the public LJtility Regulatory policies Act of 1980 (Public Law 95-617).

-299-
300 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Little information has been systematically collected on the status of State programs and activities,

and information on local programs tends to be

anecdotal. It is apparent, however, that State, county,

and municipal governments use a wide range of

approaches to address MSW issues. In particular,

many State and local governments are developing

programs to stimulate recycling and some are

attempting to encourage waste reduction (chs. 4 and

5). States are also adopting stricter regulations for

landfill disposal and incineration facilities to improve their environmental safety. Public involvement is critical to the success of any MSW management strategy, and a number of States and localities

have developed noteworthy programs in public

education and participation.

This chapter, rather than evaluating the limited

efforts of the past, reviews the current status of

governmental activities for MSW, highlights particularly noteworthy and innovative policy programs,

and assesses a number of cross-cutting issues

effecting the prospects for further development of

MSW management programs. The information presented here is meant to be illustrative, but given the

rapidly developing nature of government MSW

activities it cannot be entirely complete or up-todate. 2

The focus is on State and local government

activities, because this is where most MSW activity

has taken place, and the relationship of Federal

efforts to these programs. Details on specific Federal

programs, some State and local efforts, and important private sector activities are also included

throughout the report and are noted where appropriate.

The chapter is divided into four sections: 1) a brief

overview of trends in MSW policymaking; 2) a

discussion of MSW planning efforts by different

levels of government; 3) an examination of other

recent program developments for various MSW

alternatives, with an emphasis on highlighting

innovative approaches; and 4) an assessment of

cross-cutting issues, such as siting and the need for

public involvement.

THE MOVEMENT TOWARD

COMPREHENSIVE MSW

MANAGEMENT

The Evolving Nature of MSW Policymaking

The challenges facing State and local governments today in formulating effective MSW management policies have their roots in the evolution of

MSW management over the past two decades. In the

late 1960s, as the country became increasingly

aware of the environmental impacts of past disposal

practices and concern over air pollution sources

grew, many communities began to phase out open

dumps and open burning of MSW, as well as the

burning of MSW in relatively uncontrolled incinerators. In the 1970s, attempts were made to improve

land disposal through “sanitary landfill” practices

and to experiment with new technologies to reclaim

materials from waste and/or bum the remainder for

energy recovery purposes (e.g., refuse-derived fuel

technology).

In the 1980s, the limitations of these efforts

became apparent as environmental concerns (e.g.,

groundwater contamination from existing landfill

sites) became more apparent (ch. 7). A dilemma

grew clear: just as permitted landfill space became

increasingly scarce and expensive, especially in

more densely populated areas, the lack of readily

available alternatives became evident. Some alternatives, such as incineration, generate intense public

opposition primarily because of concerns about

potential environmental impacts and high costs.

Other MSW alternatives, such as recycling, suffer

from difficulties associated with market uncertainties.

In many areas, public pressure exists to investigate and support recycling at least as aggressively as

landfilling and incineration when devising solid

waste management systems, and also to address the

‘A number of publications are available which surveyed State activities and imovative programs (see e.g., 54,86,150).
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 301

need for waste reduction activities.3 Increasingly,

communities and States are devising comprehensive

or ‘integrated’ MSW plans that consider a range of

MSW options and then coordinate their use based on

some presumed hierarchy. EPA, and many State and

local governments, have explicitly adopted waste

hierarchy and integrated waste management approaches for MSW, but the implications of such

approaches do not appear to be generally well

thought out.4

OTA finds a waste hierarchy can only be

meaningfully applied to MS W when waste is

managed on a materials management basis, that is,

on a material by material basis, not generically as

mixed MSW (ch. 1). A waste prevention and

materials management approach is a more comprehensive approach to MSW than an integrated waste

management approach. In any case, whatever approach a State or local government adopts, careful

planning is key. Adequate resources, however, as

well as sufficient authority or control over certain

aspects of the MSW system, are not always available

to local officials as they grapple to establish viable

and publicly acceptable policies.

Yurtown and the Rest of the Nation

After nearly two decades of experimentation with

MSW management alternatives, the Nation continues to landfill most of its waste—and approximately

40 percent of this waste goes to nonpermitted

facilities (145). States and localities continue to

search for new strategies to improve the management of the ever-growing amounts of MSW. As

illustrated in the description of the experiences of the

hypothetical town, Yurtown (box 8-A), localities

across the Nation have continually adjusted their

MSW management practices as Federal and State

governmental programs have changed and MSW

management options have developed.5

The management options available to localities,

however, have always been affected by State and

Federal activities. For example, in the 1970s as

Federal and State air pollution regulations became

more stringent, many localities were prompted to

move away from municipal incinerators and develop

recycling programs and a greater reliance on landfilling for MSW. In the mid-1970s, when the energy

crisis spurred the establishment of a Federal waste-toenergy program, communities were encouraged to

apply for planning grants for MSW incinerators. The

passage of PURPA in 1978 further supported the

development of municipal incineration. Today, as

more stringent State regulations are implemented for

landfill operations, municipalities making MSW

policy decisions are again faced with a climate of

change (1 14).

Many factors combine to determine the most

suitable variation of MSW management practices at

any given location. These factors include: the degree

and type of governmental regulations; the particular

geological and environmental conditions of the area;

and the level of public concern and the public’s

general disposition and attitudes toward MSW

management. For instance, some communities are

more receptive to voluntary versus mandatory recycling programs; some communities are opposed to

the use of waste-to-energy facilities because of

health and environmental concerns.

The tremendous variation in the demographics

and topography of our Nation is clearly reflected in

the types of waste management methods practiced.

Even a brief review of available national data on

State MSW programs indicates striking variation

across the country (18).

3NmeroW ~IIS in~icale ~a~ Conmmers strong]y support the use of recyclable. For example, a Gallup poll found that over 50 percent of the

respondents would change their purchasing habits to buy recycable con(~ners; a Na~ion~ Solid W=te M~agement Association survey found that over

40 percent of the respondents supported ties on p~kaging ~d nomecyclable matefi~s to fund recycling prog~s; ad a Schoen Associates poll found

91 prcent of the respondents willing to pay a few cents more for recyclable or biodew*ble products (87,98).

4Newly ~1 discussions abut ~lid wxe accept the premise that there is a hierarchy of mmagement options that starts with 4 ‘waste reduction, ’

proceeds to recycling (and comporting), incineration (ad o~er ~eatment me~ods), ~d fin~lY c:n~~s.l~d disposal. [n general, the hierarchy refers

to an ordered set of preferences+ b=d on suppo~d levels of humwI he~~ ad envlr.onment~ ~sk. A hler~chy for m~agement of hazardous waste

is in fact widely employed today. Its qplication to MSW may be more Prob*ematlc (ch. 1). Combining tie hierwchy with an “integrated waste

management approach” may have some utility, since boti reduction ad m~agement Cm ~U*@&tier, but in most applications an integrated waste

management “hierarchy” for MSW is nonlinear. For example. EpA’s discussion about inw~ti management states that ‘ ‘source reduction ~d

recycling are the prefemed options’ (151). EPA approach also considers incineration and Iandfilling as equally prefemed options.

SEven ~ough a typlc~ tom in Ow diverse nation is im~sible to descrik, a snapshot of a hypothetical town, Yurtown, illuminates the problems

that are common to many real communities. EveV event in the Yurtown snapshot occurred somewhere in the country during the past two decades.
302 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Box 8-A—Yurtown: A Hypothetical Town

Yurtown is a middle to upper-middle class suburb of a medium-sized city (population 250,000) and has a

population of about 50,000. The county, Mye County, has a population of nearly 1 million and generates about 2,000

tons a day of MSW. Like many areas in the country, Yurtown, its county, and State are grappling with a number

of MSW management issues. Prior to 1968, open burning and dumps were the primary disposal method in Yurtown.

Several open dumps operated in the rural parts of the township, usually sited in gravel pits or swamps. Some of the

residents in the more rural areas of the township dumped their wastes in gullies and/or burned their garbage in ‘bum

cans” (i.e., 50-gallon drums) on their property. Like most towns, Yurtown imposed few controls on these dumps.

Consequently, hazardous wastes and other materials could be disposed of easily and smoke, odor, rodents, flies,

blowing paper, and contaminated run-off were common.

In 1969, as Yurtown and the entire Nation became more conscious of environmental impacts from our society’s

activities, the State passed a law and established an air quality rule banning open burning. The State also directed

the newly created State environmental protection agency to adopt standards, regulations, and variances regarding

MSW. Under this authority, in 1970, the State agency adopted rules that required the closure of open dumps and

placed operational controls on permitted facilities. In 1972, Federal guidelines for land disposal facilities were

adopted and State requirements were revised accordingly. Most of the open burning at dumps ceased in Yurtown

at this time, although many of the dumps continued to operate until newer sites could be located and permitted. As

environmental consciousness became more prevalent, some community groups and neighborhoods in Yurtown

organized recycling efforts. These were largely private citizen-sponsored activities, not town-supported efforts,

although some funds from the State government were available.

By the mid- 1970s, the energy crisis heightened concern over the use of resources. The Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act passed by Congress in 1976 required the closing of all remaining open dumps and encouraged

resource recovery of materials (through recycling) and energy (through incineration). Yurtown now had one of three

permitted sanitary landfills in Mye County. The recycling programs were diminishing in size and impact, caused

primarily by lower market values for the materials as a result of normal market fluctuations. At roughly this same

time, the State and county expanded their involvement in MSW management. The State defined MS W goals (similar

to those of RCRA), coordinated MSW management among local jurisdictions, and facilitated the development of

waste facilities.

In the case of Yurtown, the county began to work with a major company to secure the construction of a resource

recovery facility. The refuse-derived fuel plant (designed at 2,000 tons per day) was designed to handle all of the

county’s MSW and would require importing some MSW from surrounding areas. It cost over $50 million to build

and its official start up was in 1978. The facility was designed to recover magnetic and non-magnetic metals and

mixed glass for recycling and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) to be used by the local utility company. Some State and

Federal funds supported the facility’s construction and operation. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act

(PURPA) of 1978 guaranteed the sale of any energy recovered by the facility to the local utility.

By the early 1980s, recycling efforts were almost nonexistent in Yurtown, the RDF facility was experiencing

operating difficulties, and newly adopted State landfill regulations, combined with near-full capacity conditions,

would ultimately lead to the closure of all but the Yurtown landfill in the county. The town and county were having

difficulty finding suitable sites for new landfills, and a request for a permit to expand the Yurtown landfill was made

to the State. The State now required county MSW plans to address certain goals for MSW management contained

in the State’s MSW plan. The State had authorized flow control for waste-to-energy facilities and had continued

some support programs for low technology waste management options. Many of these efforts and programs were

discontinued, however, during the recession of 1982-83.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 303

In 1984, the RDF facility closed. No new landfills had been sited in the county and by 1987, the Yurtown

landfill was expected to reach capacity. A park had been built over one of the landfills and the waste management

company that now owned and operated the Yurtown landfill was exploring the possibility of methane recovery at

that site. Approximately 87 percent of the county’s MSW was now being sent 90 miles away to another private

landfill and disposal costs were increasing dramatically. At about this time, the county executive proposed to build

a new mass bum incinerator, next door to the RDF facility, which would be a MOO-ton-per-day facility and cost

approximately $125 million to build. Again, a facility of this size would necessitate the importation of MSW from

other jurisdictions.

The proposed plan for the incinerator and RDF facilities became a campaign issue and ultimately, given the

concerns over the poor past performance of the RDF facility and concerns over the potential environmental effects

of air emissions and ash from the proposed incinerator, the county executive was voted out of office and the proposal

was shelved. The public was also concerned over possible groundwater contamination near old landfill sites and

continued to oppose the siting of new landfills.

The State did grant the landfill in Yurtown an expansion permit. Nonetheless, about 90 percent of the county’s

waste is being transported to other areas for landfilling. Landfill costs have risen four-fold for Yurtown in the last

decade and concerns over current MSW management practices have risen commensurately. A county survey found

that about 80 percent of the citizens were willing to separate their waste as part of a recycling effort. A county

recycling coordinator was hired in 1988 to develop a county recycling program. Meanwhile, Mye County continues

to pursue siting anew landfill. One of the proposed sites is in Yurtown. The county is also reevaluating the necessity

or desirability of an incineration facility for the area and how this management alternative could be coordinated with

recycling and landfilling options.

For example, while some States report they have Federal Government. These diverse national MSW

5 years or less of permitted landfill capacity cur- experiences underscore the importance of coordinatrently available, other States report no capacity

problems at all (ch. 7) (16,17,145). Variation can

also exist within a State, particularly between urban

and rural areas. Among the States, four report

recycling more than 15 percent of their MSW, while

over half estimate that 5 percent or less of MSW is

recycled (16, 17).6 Waste-to-energy facilities also are

not an evenly distributed MSW management option.

As of 1986, approximately 35 percent of the existing

facilities were located in the Northeast, while only 7

percent were found in the Plains/Inter-Mountain and

Pacific coast regions.

This variation in the types of MSW management

options used in different regions of the United States

reflects the difference in the nature and degree of

problems associated with MSW. Naturally, this

variation is also reflected in the types of policy

programs articulated in these areas and has implications for any further policy development by the

ing government efforts and carefully articulating a

Federal involvement that recognizes regional variation.

MSW PLANNING

Local Planning

As noted, the primary responsibility for administering MSW management programs lies with local

governments. Indeed, until recently MSW has been

managed almost exclusively by local governments.

As State governments have begun to take a more

active role in MSW management, and the Federal

Government is reconsidering its role, localities face

ever more complicated conditions for MSW planning and management. Given that most implementation still continues at the local level, however, local

MSW plans are a key part of MSW management

efforts. Indeed, in some States their role maybe most

determinative of MSW policy actions.7

Whe national recycling data fknn Franklin Associates are based on a matefi~s flOW c~culatiom while Stite dam we likely 10 be calculated on different

bases (such as within-State surveys of some sort). ‘l%us the two types of estimates are not directly comparable.

TIn this assessment, the term “local” includes both county and municipal levels of government. The split of responsibilities between these levels

varies throughout the country. In some cases, counties are responsible for the operation of MSW facilities and municipalities are responsible for the

collection and transportation of MSW; in other cases each level of government may have these responsibilities.
304 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Considerable variation exists in local MSW plans.

Although the details of local plans will not be

discussed here, it is worth noting the major components of most plans before focusing on the important

relationship between local and State governments in

MSW planning. Local MSW planning is an ongoing,

action-oriented process. Components of municipal

plans may be required by county (or State) governments, and in turn county plans may have to meet

State requirements. State plans to receive EPA

approval must also meet requirements as defined by

RCRA, but most States’ planning processes are

more comprehensive than that prescribed by the

Federal requirements.

The local MSW planning process is likely to

involve a number of studies: an engineering estimate

of remaining solid waste capacity; a waste composition study; a recycling plan; an incineration feasibility study; analysis of ownership alternatives for

MSW facilities; analysis of alternative pollution

control equipment, facility size and stack height of

incinerators; assessments of potential sites; possibly

preliminary environmental and health assessments;

and some assessment of public concerns over MSW

alternatives. This information is then used by the

local planning body (e.g., the county board, town

council, or a designated planning board) to outline

the best long-term and interim solutions to address

the locality’s MSW problems.

Typically, a local MSW plan will include some

combination of management alternatives and goals

for local reduction and recycling efforts. Interim

solutions might include extending the permit of an

existing landfill, which will be upgraded or closed

when new management capacity is available. Longterm plans might include the development of transfer stations, a new landfill, an incineration facility,

and/or a collection program for recyclable materials.

Local plans involve some regional cooperation in

the construction of new MSW facilities and/or

arrangements for the use of facilities in other

jurisdictions.

According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, at

least four concerns are uppermost in local officials’

minds as more regulatory, management, and planning requirements are imposed on localities. These

are: 1) any liabilities these additional requirements

might entail for the municipalities; 2) the adequacy

of the local government infrastructures to meet or

adapt to mandated requirements; 3) the impact on

the localities’ ability to site and finance needed

MSW facilities; and 4) the effect on the continuity of

existing MSW programs (71).

The critical equation for local officials to balance

is achieving effective planning for MSW programs

with limited resources while State and Federal

requirements for MSW management increase. Given

the continually evolving nature of MSW policies,

incorporating flexibility into a waste prevention and

materials management approach is critical to effective implementation.

Key factors in devising effective local MSW

programs, according to participants at an OTA

workshop,8 include: 1) identifying resources (e.g.,

information exchanges, technical assistance on available options and other resources); 2) collecting

site-specific data on waste quantities and composition to analyze appropriate MSW management

options; 3) developing public outreach (e.g., public

education and participation) to develop a common

perspective and share responsibility for MSW problems in the community; 4) clarifying the regulatory

regime (e.g., link planning to permitting; clarify

definitions/policy directions); 5) devising funding

strategies or sources for new programs; and 6)

identifying implementation options (e.g., assess

siting prospects, flow control issues, and market

development).

How States and localities share in these activities

for devising MSW programs varies. In some States,

such as Rhode Island and Delaware, the State

government assumes a primary and central role in

MSW management and local levels of government

are not highly involved. In other States, such as New

Jersey and Missouri, the State’s role is less pervasive

and counties and/or municipalities have a more

primary role in MSW management.9 Sometimes

planning appears to be uncoordinated. In most cases,

J3ThlS Ilq is a Comwsitc developed by the State and local officials who participated in the OTA Workshop on State ~d bd WW ROIPJIM, Mmch

17-18, 1988. Examination of State and local programs confirms at least the importance of these factors.

g~cr sta~s mat repon prim~ authority for MSW management at a local level are Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina,

Utah, and Washington (16, 17).
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 305

however, there is some cooperation between the

levels of government within States, which can

greatly improve MSW efforts. In some States,

particularly those in New England where municipal

governments are traditionally strong and active, the

State and municipal governments may work together closely. Other State governments work more

closely with the county level of government, as is the

case for Michigan, South Carolina, Idaho, and

several other States (16,17).

New Jersey and New York State exemplify

situations in which the State government articulates

goals, provides information, and establishes baseline regulations and directives to guide local MSW

actions. In New Jersey, for example, a detailed

planning process is outlined in the New Jersey Solid

Waste Management Act Amendments of 1975

(Chapter 326), which sets rigid timetables and clear

delegations of responsibility. The law is an attempt

to move the State away from the past’s uncoordinated and largely piecemeal approach to MSW

management and build “a cooperative checks and

balances strategy toward comprehensive long-term

management’ (1 17). The responsibilities are shared

between the 21 counties, one special district, and the

State. The counties and district assume primary

responsibilities, including:

●

●

●

●

●

●

10-year Solid Waste Master Plan development;

technology selection;

site selection;

permit application submission;

project financing; and

implementation.

The State’s role is one of overseer and regulator. The

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s functions include:

●

c

●

●

●

●

State-level review coordination (including review and approval of county and district plans);

plan amendment certification;

permit application review;

construction and operation permitting;

compliance and enforcement monitoring; and

State funding.

The State, after more than a decade of effort,

believes that the long-term planning process has

been successful and that it will reach its goal of

self-sufficiency in MSW management (i.e., waste

will not be shipped out of the State for disposal) by

1992. Long-term project development has been

hindered, however, by problems siting facilities and

the changing nature of landfill and resource recovery

facility design. These have delayed specific technology selection and submission and review of permit

applications (1 17).

In Missouri, local governments have full authority

for MSW management. The State reviews and

approves local MSW management plans. regulates

permitted facilities, takes enforcement action against

illegal dumps, and provides technical assistance.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

based on studies and its assessment of MSW

activities throughout the State, has identified the key

social, environmental, technological, financial and

market-related, and institutional factors which determine the success of a locality’s materials recovery,

comporting and waste-to-energy projects (77). These

types of factors are likely to be important to local

planning in any State.

State Planning

In most States, primary responsibility for overall

MSW planning lies with the State (16,17). A major

focus of Subtitle D of RCRA was to encourage (not

require) the development of State solid waste

management plans covering MS W and other nonhazardous solid wastes to foster intergovernmental and

public/private cooperation (App. 8-A). Federal technical and financial assistance was offered to States

and localities as an incentive to develop the plans

(Sections 4002-4003; Sections 4006-4008). Federal

funding dwindled to zero in the early 1980s,

however, and as a result some of the current State

plans may not be formally EPA-approved. Most

States continued the planning process for their own

purposes and variation among State plans exists.

Given the voluntary nature of the State planning

process and concern over the general effectiveness

of past MSW management programs, some observers are critical of the State planning process (133).

Congress could address this issue as part of the

RCRA reauthorization by requiring that States

submit plans and that the plans address certain MSW

issues with national implications (ch. 1). Although

RCRA lists some requirements that must be met if

submitted plans are to be approved, some of these
306 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

may no longer be relevant and new issues may

warrant inclusion (ch. 1). For example, some topics

for State plans to address include provisions for

capacity assurance, a siting process, and reporting

composition and generation data. Incentives, for

example in the form of technical assistance, could be

granted to a State if its plan was submitted and

approved by EPA and/or funding decreases or other

penalties could be imposed if a State did not submit

a plan.10 State solid waste plans thus could be

important to national MSW prevention and materials management efforts (e.g., through their impact

on increased interstate transportation of MSW, or

their contribution to a national database for MSW

and recovered materials).

In any case, most State MSW plans are just that,

plans. That is, they are general statements of the

direction the State anticipates focusing MSW management efforts within a time period, usually between 5 and 10 years. The level of specificity of the

plans is usually not high, although they do represent

an attempt at a comprehensive assessment of MSW

management for the State. The plans usually contain

an overview of the State’s current MSW situation,

including the amounts and composition of MSW, the

use of various management methods, variation

within the State, and any problem areas. In addition,

the plans explain new objectives and programs and

outline how existing efforts will be modified. How

State efforts will be coordinated with municipal and

possibly regional efforts may also be included.

One goal of most State solid waste management

plans is ‘integrated waste management. ” Integrated

waste management is basically the recognition that

some combination of waste management methods

(e.g., recycling, incineration, and landfilling) is

necessary to ensure more efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. The waste prevention

and materials management approach presented in

chapter 1, although not explicitly embodied in any

current State plan, is not inconsistent with an

integrated approach. Indeed, the prevention and

materials management strategy described by OTA

may clarify some of the distinctions and interrelationships now blurred in many of the existing plans’

articulation of “integrated waste management. ” A

prevention and materials management strategy could

be required in State plans (ch. 1).

At least 12 States have legislation requiring

recycling (or the opportunity for it). A larger number

of States and localities have set goals for recycling

a certain percentage of MSW. The range is from 15

to 50 percent, but usually the recycling goal is about

25 percent. Of course, how recycling is defined and

which portions of the MSW stream are included in

calculating the percentage affects the recycling rate

figure. States may also project the amount of MSW

to be managed by source reduction, incineration, and

landfilling. l1 The State of Michigan, for example,

has set an overall goal to reduce the use of MSW

landfills by 70 percent and projects that it can reduce

its waste by 5 percent, recycle 25 percent, reuse 5

percent, compost 6 percent, incinerate 40 percent to

recover energy, and landfill 19 percent. Other States

only set a goal for recycling; for instance, New

Jersey has a recycling goal of 25 percent.

In 1986, EPA issued a report as part of its mandate

from the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

(HSWA) of 1984 to survey and assess the adequacy

of national Subtitle D activities (145). EPA reported

that in 39 States and territories, 2 to 8 different

agencies administer parts of the State’s MSW

program (usually solid waste and water-related

agencies were listed). In the other 15 States and

territories, only one State agency administered

Subtitle D activities.

12 The number of agencies

involved in State MSW management presents a

challenge to efforts to achieve a more integrated

waste management approach (145).

In most cases, State MSW plans have been

revised recently or are in the process of changing.

Indeed, State activities in general are in a state of

flux. Almost every State in the country has several

pieces of legislation related to MSW pending or

recently passed. In some States the flurry of activity

l~~er~ ~volvement in encouraging the deveiopmentof Sta[e solid waste planning began with the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1%5, which providd

grants to States to develop statewide solid waste management plans and designate a single implementing agency. By 1975, all States had adopted some

form of solid waste regulations, although tremendous variation existed among them (68).

I t some reduction, however, is defined differently by different States and otlen includes mcyclhtg. The *finition may differ than hat u~ by OTA.

121t should ~ not~ hat Subtide D wastes we a ]~ger ~iver~ ~an MSW M defin~ in I& as~ssntent. EPA believes [hat other Stak agencies may

be administering p~s of Subtitle D activities that were not reported since they are not generally recognized by these agencies as Subtitle D Wtivities.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 307

is almost too fast to follow; for example, in

California close to 50 bills were pending in the

legislature in early 1988 and others continue to be

introduced. Administering agencies are also reorganizing and changing in response to the increased

emphasis to MSW issues.

Despite the recent attention directed to recycling,

most current State MSW activities are focused on

landfill management. According to EPA, 41 percent

of the estimated total number of hours spent on

Subtitle D activities (which would include management of landfill operations) by States were spent on

surveillance and enforcement activities. Permitting

and licensing accounted for almost 28 percent, and

technical assistance accounted for 9 percent. Planning, regulation, development, training, and research accounted for the remaining hours (145).13

Respondents to EPA’s survey indicated that surveillance and enforcement, followed by technical assistance, and permitting, and licensing, are the most

important activities for improving overall Subtitle D

program effectiveness (145). This assessment could

change, however, as new programs are established to

address recycling, source reduction, and other MSW

issues.

There is tremendous variation in the staffing of

MSW activities by States, with a reported range

from zero to over 200 (16,17). 14 Utah reports the

smallest staff—no professionals working on solid

waste activities-while Pennsylvania reports the

most, 212 professionals employed (16). EPA’s

census indicated that 10 or fewer persons were

allocated to Subtitle D activities in 22 States and

territories, 10 to 25 persons were allocated by 15

States and territories, and 25 or more persons were

allocated by 10 States and territories (145). In many

States, the staff allocations for MSW activities are

increasing as MSW programs are dramatically

expanded. Yet, as in many areas of public policy,

staffing and funding resources rarely are commensurate with what is necessary to fully develop quality

programs.

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Many States and communities have adopted slogans and

Iogos to symbolize and promote their recycling efforts.

EPA provided Federal funds to help States fund

Subtitle D programs from 1971 to 1981. Under this

program, the Federal Government provided 25

percent if the States provided 75 percent. Federal

grant money peaked in 1979, but dropped to zero in

1982 after the Reagan Administration’s budget

reductions (18). Since 1982, States have had to

support Subtitle D activities essentially on their

own. In 1981, the State provided 79 percent of the

budget, while the Federal Government provided 21

percent; in 1984, the State provided 95 percent of the

budget, and the Federal Government provided only

2 percent (some Federal funding did continue in

water programs) (figure 8-1 ). EPA’s survey indi-

-

13D~~ fmm he A~soci~tioyt of sue md lmitorial Solid Waste Management Officiah’ SUtVey genelidly SUpport rhese findings (5,18).

14D1screp~cieS exiq ~ag he available estimates of the total number of Pple working ~1-tie on Subtitle D issues. The most recent estimate

is 1,098 full-time professionals (16). B* on information from 1984} EPA Previously repo~~ 858 ~1-time professionals and ASTSWMO reported

787 full-time equivalents (including clerical). The reliability of any of these estimates is questionable and the discrepancies maybe due to the different

number of States reporting, the definitions assumed by the respondents> tie different yews* su~eys wem ~en~ etc. Ffier? they may ove~~imate

the number of persons working only on MSW, because they include all Subtitle D and all solid waste activities ( 18).
308 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

100

80

60

40

20

0

NOTES: “Other’ includes district funding sources in Idaho and environmental license plate funds in California Data for years 1981 to first

1984 column (labeled 1984A) are from ASTSWMO; data for

second 1984 column (labeled 1984E) and 1985 are from EPA.

Differences between ASTSWMO and EPA data in 1984 maybe

caused by differences in methodologies and number of States

reporting.

SOURCES: Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management

Officials (ASTSWMO), National Solid Waste Survey (Washington, DC: October 1984); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous

Waste Programs, prepared by Westat, EPA/530-SW-86-039

(Washington, DC: October 1986).

cated that these trends continued for FY 1984 and

FY 1985 (145).

License and user fees are increasingly important

sources of funding for State MSW management

(figure 8-1) (5,145). It remains to be seen, however,

whether State funding will keep pace with the

expanding scope of MSW activities. In the past,

most States (28) have allocated less than $500,00 per

year for Subtitle D activities; 13 States have

budgeted between $500,000 and $1 million, while 7

have spent over $1 million (145,149).

Regional Planning and Cooperation Efforts

Some regional cooperation within or between

States is planned or exists. Such cooperation is

increasingly desirable given the siting difficulties,

high costs, and capacity issues associated with

planning and developing integrated MSW facilities.

Regional efforts are particularly advantageous for

local MSW management in some rural areas. For

example, the Land-of-Sky Regional Council, a

Council of Governments organization in North

Carolina, represents a four county region in western

North Carolina. It includes the Regional Solid Waste

Alternatives Committee, which is charged to spearhead solid waste projects in the region (including

MSW management plans, feasibility studies for

waste-to-energy plants, and waste composition studies) (80).

The Land-of-Sky Regional Council recently completed a nationwide survey of MSW activities of

Regional Councils of Government and Development Districts. Thirty-seven States responded. In all

regions of the country, “lack of landfill capacity”

was identified as a significant concern (18,80).

Differences in the nature of MSW concerns in

different regions also were evident. In the Midwest,

tipping fees and ‘‘intercounty and interstate transfer

of waste” received more attention than in any other

region. In the Southeast and Central regions, ‘problems with solid waste collection” and “illegal and

open dumps” were identified as two issues of

importance for MSW management (18,80). The

critical MSW issues identified by regional governmental entities are the same as those identified by

States and municipalities (133).

States also have begun to coordinate some efforts,

in particular to support recycling efforts through an

exchange of information and some coordination and

facilitation of marketing secondary materials. The

most formal regional recycling organization is in the

Northeast: the Northeast Recycling Coalition (NERC)

of the Eastern Regional Conference of the Council

of State Governments. NERC, formed in 1988,

consists of the recycling directors and representatives of the State legislatures of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode island, and

Vermont. The group meets quarterly, and publishes

a newsletter to exchange information about State

innovations and research (22).

One NERC project, “Developing a Regional

Approach to Buying Recycled Paper Products,”

addresses matters such as definitions and percentages for the various types of recycled paper products,

cooperative purchasing agreements among and within

States, and standard vendor certification format and

procedures. In addition, discussions at NERC meetings have addressed New York State’s proposed

packaging tax and similar legislation, research being
Chapter 8-Government Planning and Programs ● 309

conducted in each State, and areas in need of

research (22). Independently, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) issued a policy statement about the reduction of packaging(11 ) (also see

“Waste Prevention” below).

In the Midwest, a more informally organized

regional effort exists. Every 3 to 6 months, recycling

officials from the following States and one Canadian

Province have been meeting: Arkansas, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario,

Canada. This regional effort has discussed plastic

packaging and paper markets. The meetings help

States exchange information and update the status of

their activities. The group is seeking to expand their

meetings into a national effort and are cooperating

with the Association of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to establish a Waste Reduction/Recycling Committee

(lo).

In the West, some effort to form an informal

“compact” for recycling is being discussed. The

States interested in such an activity are Alaska,

California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (4). No

government-level regional efforts in the Southwest

and Southeast were identified. However, regional

efforts between States are sometimes part of Council

of Governments efforts. For example, county and

municipal public works officials in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia meet to discuss

how to attract recycling industries to their region.

Their efforts have thus far focused on markets,

cooperative purchasing of recycled products, and

coordination to sell secondary materials (22,33).

SPECIFIC MSW PROGRAMS AND

POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

Many State and local MSW programs are so

recent in their development that there is little

implementation history to evaluate. This chapter,

however, presents examples of past as well as

present MSW management experiences in an attempt to evaluate how the range of waste management and programs being adopted by particular

States and localities are being implemented. For

example, it is possible to examine some existing

management alternatives and the plans for other

programs, such as waste reduction. This section

looks at current policy and programs related to waste

reduction efforts, recycling, resource recovery and

landfill disposal use, and possible future trends.

Special programs for particular problem wastes,

such as household hazardous wastes, tires, and

comporting are noted.

Although this section focuses on State and local

programs, it also reviews some Federal activities

related to MSW management. EPA has the broadest

Federal authority for regulating MSW activities (see

“Environmental Protection Agency” below). Other

Federal agencies also have key roles in particular

aspects of MSW management (see discussions under

“Waste Prevention,” “Recycling,’ and ‘ ‘Incineration”). Even a cursory review of Federal activities

shows the uneven and uncoordinated nature of past

Federal MSW efforts. The need for a more comprehensive approach to MSW issues, by all levels of

government, is clear.

Environmental Protection Agency

In 1988, EPA completed a major assessment of

the adequacy of the current Subtitle D program for

Congress (ch. 7), proposed new landfill guidelines,

and established a special task force to examine

broader MSW issues and outline an agenda for

agency actions regarding MSW ( 147,149,1 51). Many

of the specific actions recommended are described in

chapter 1 and thus are mentioned only briefly in this

chapter.

EPA’s implementation of RCRA’s solid waste

provisions has been described as “tardy, fragmented, at times nonexistent, and consistently inconsistent” (66). This view is borne out by even a

cursory examination of EPA’s actions. According to

Subtitle D of RCRA, Federal criteria for landfills

form the basis of State regulations. However, the

current Federal criteria are general and incomplete.

For example, the Federal criteria do prohibit contamination of groundwater used for drinking water,

but do not require any monitoring or specify

corrective action requirements. Also, no Federal

provisions related to closure, post-closure, or financial responsibility exist (40 CFR Part 257; ref. 149).

The 1984 amendments to RCRA, the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments, required EPA to revise

Federal criteria for solid waste landfills to ensure the

protection of human health and the environment.
310 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Chapter 7 discusses in greater detail the new

proposed landfill criteria and the effect of the

Federal criteria issued in 1979 (53 Federal Register

33314).

EPA has initiated some regulatory activity on air

emissions from MSW incinerators, but generally it

has been criticized for its slow pace. Based on

emissions from new and existing MSW incinerators,

EPA has documented risks to human health and the

environment which warrant regulatory action (ch.

6). EPA and congressional approaches to regulating

MSW incinerators differ, however, in significant

ways (e.g., in emission limits) and contentious

debate continues over how to regulate MSW incinerator ash (see ch. 6).

In 1976, RCRA required agencies to begin

procurement of recycled products within 2 years.

EPA was to establish procurement guidelines. Until

recently, however, all three agencies with some

Federal responsibilities for recycling—EPA, the

Department of Commerce, and the Office of Policy

Procurement (General Services Administration)-

largely failed to encourage the Federal Government

to use items containing the maximum amount of

recovered materials as intended by RCRA (see

“Procurement” below). The Department of Commerce, through the Office of Recycled Materials of

the National Bureau of Standards, however, engaged

in some activity (see “Recycling’ below).

In 1980, in light of EPA’s inactivity, Congress

added specific deadlines requiring that procurement

guidelines for certain materials be set by May 1,

1981, while guidelines for two other areas were due

by September 30, 1982. The deadlines were missed

again and the 1984 Amendments established a 1985

deadline for EPA to establish guidelines for paper

products, tires, and two other materials. Four environmental groups (Environmental Defense Fund

(EDF), Environmental Task Force, Coalition for

Recyclable Waste, and the National Recycling

Congress) sued EPA in 1987 to issue procurement

guidelines and requested the Federal court to place

EPA on an expedient schedule. ’s A consent decree

in the case required that these guidelines be finalized

and also that EPA continue to explore additional

product categories appropriate for guidelines.l6

EPA, meanwhile, had issued only one final

guideline addressing cement containing fly ash. In

1984, EPA proposed guidelines for recycled paper;

in 1986, it presented a proposal for asphalt materials

containing used tires; and in 1987, it proposed a

guideline for re-refined lubricating oil. However,

none of these proposals had been issued in final

form. After the lawsuit was filed, however, EPA did

issue the paper guideline in final form (52 Federal

Register 37293).17 In addition, EPA proposed an

amendment to the paper guideline that would create

minimum content standards (52 Federal Register

37335). Soon after, EPA also issued a proposed

guideline for re-refined lubricating oil (52 Federal

Register 48388). EPA issued final guidelines for

purchase of paper on June 22, 1988; oil on June 30,

1988; tires on November 17, 1988; and insulation

materials on February 17, 1989.

In 1989, EPA’s MSW Task Force proposed a

number of activities to increase waste reduction and

recycling (chs. 1 and 4; ref. 151). In addition, the task

force report suggests schedules for EPA’s MSW

activities.

MSW Prevention

Several Federal agencies have programs or statutory authorities that could be applied to help reduce

the quantity or toxicity of MSW. These agencies

include, for example, EPA, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), and the Consumer Products

Safety Commission (CPSC).

EPA had an active program investigating MSW

reduction in the 1970s under the authorities of the

Resource Recovery Act of 1970, which called for

studying production and packaging practices to

reduce waste generation (93). EPA created a waste

reduction branch that studied, for example, beverage

container deposits, milk packaging, and tires. Waste

reduction options and activities were the subject of

four EPA reports sent to Congress in the mid-1970s

15Enviro~en~l Defeme Fund, et al. V. EPA, No. 87-3212 (D. D.C.).

16Envir~~n~/ f)efe~e Fund V, Thomus, No. 88-1W3 (D.C. C~.).

17~ Jmuw 1988,EDF and tie NationaiR~y~]ing co~ition filed a petition for review of the EpA’sfin~ pa~rguideline in Federal COUII in an atkll’tpt

to address the substance of the guidelines (Environmental Defense Fund and National Recycling Coalitwn v. Thomas). For EDF’s critique of the

guidelines, see ref. 52.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 311

(e.g., 141). Recently, EPA signaled its intent to

reconsider MSW reduction (151). It took an initial

step in this process by sponsoring a dialog on MSW

reduction in 1988 (12).

The Food and Drug Administration also has

authorities that could affect the composition of

MSW. For example, FDA regulates food additives;

some packaging materials; color additives in foods,

drugs, and cosmetics; and various food constituents

(132). FDA regulations require that food packaging

either not be likely to become a component of food

at all (i.e., no migration into the product) or be safe

in a given application. Although FDA clears some

materials, much of the responsibility for evaluating

the health and environmental implications of new

food packaging is given to the manufacturers of the

packaging. These evaluations generally are based on

extraction tests that indicate whether potentially

toxic substances can be extracted from food packaging materials. Recently, the FDA announced that it

would prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

on the effects of its proposed action on the use of

polyvinyl chloride in food containers (53 Federal

Register 47264, Nov. 22, 1988).

The Consumer Products Safety Commission has

authority for all consumer products except foods and

drugs, pesticides, tobacco and tobacco products,

motor vehicles, aircraft and aircraft equipment, and

boats and boat accessories.18 CPSC can require

labeling or packaging as control measures against

accidental or improper use of hazardous substances.

The CPSC also can ban products. In 1978, for

instance, the commission banned consumer use of

any paint that contains lead or lead compounds in

concentrations exceeding 0.06 percent. The commission’s approach since 1981, however, has been

toward voluntary standards developed in cooperation with industry (19a).

Several ongoing CPSC projects within the Chemical Hazards program are relevant to MSW prevention, even though their focus is harm from usage

rather than from disposal. For example, one project

is evaluating products containing methylene chloride, perchloroethylene (dry-cleaning fluid), paradichlorobenzene (room air fresheners and deodorizers), and 1,1,1 trichloroethane (a solvent).

Although few other countries have directly addressed waste prevention, West Germany has made

strides to reduce MSW toxicity and quantity (box

8-B). For instance, the Federal Environmental Agency

has studied ways for individual consumers to reduce

waste generation rates (48), as has the City of

Hamburg (43). The greatest value of these studies

may lie in drawing attention to the possibility of

MSW reduction (48). West Germany also awards an

“Environmental Angel” logo (figure 8-2) to products considered beneficial on the basis of environmentally related criteria; over 2,200 products in 50

categories have received the award in the last 10

years (box 8-B). Canada is instituting a similar

program, using a maple leaf and dove logo, and

Japan and Norway are considering such programs

(28,160).

State governments generally recognize the value

of MSW prevention, but it has been difficult to

translate this into clearly focused programs. Few

States provide the types of positive incentives to

manufacturers or consumers that OTA discusses in

chapter 1 (e.g., information clearinghouses, grants,

procurement, and awards). Most waste reduction

programs proposed in State plans are broad and they

often focus on recycling. OTA, however, considers

recycling as a separate alternative from waste

reduction (see chs. 1 and 4).19

Some States consider recycling together with

reduction because recycling decreases the amount of

MSW that needs landfilling. The Rhode Island

Source Reduction Task Force, a leader among State

groups involved in reduction efforts, devotes some

attention in the State’s reduction program to increased recyclability and use of recycled material

(106). New York’s solid waste plan sets a goal of 8

to 10 percent weight reduction by 1997 and lists six

initiatives for potential legislation; three of these,

Igcpsc ~Cts under tie au~orily tie c~nsumcr Product Safety Act of 1970 (Public Law 92-573). Action under the Act requires a finding of

unreasonable risk of injury or illness. Under tie Federal H=wdous Substmces Act, CPSC CaII f~d that a substance will cause substantial personal inj~

or illness as a result of any customary use or foreseeable handling or use.

lgA]~ough OTA ~eats ~cycling and Auction separately, there may be some merit in a ]OgktiCd sense for States to link the two. For example, one

State official argues that reduction efforts are unlikely to receive financial commitments from State legislators unless they are linked with recycling

programs that yield measurable results in a relatively quick period (49).
312 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Box 8-B—Federal Republic of Germany: Section 14 and the Environmental Angel

West Germany has one of the most advanced approaches to MSW management of the industrialized nations.

For instance, Section 14 of the 1986 Waste Avoidance, Utilization, and Disposal Act gives the government statutory

authority to ban problem products. The act covers all products, not just packaging and containers, and focuses on

materials that increase the amount or toxicity of MSW. When the government determines that a product contributes

unnecessarily to MSW generation or contains toxic substances that hinder MS W management, the act requires one

of

1)

2)

3)

three responses:

Labeling-the specified products can only be marketed if they have labels showing how to deal with the product

after use (e.g., return to manufacturer or separate for municipal collection). This is intended to provide an

incentive to industries to change product designs.

Mandatory return—the specified products can only be marketed if distributors offer the possibility of return

or if they include a deposit on the products to encourage return. This gives manufacturers and distributors

responsibility for waste management of products they market.

Restrictions on circulation—if restricted use or appropriate management of resulting waste cannot be

guaranteed, then a product can be banned. These regulations can only be implemented after the

government has first sought voluntary agreements with the industries involved. The ultimate effect of the

regulations may be to act as a signal to industry.

Implementation of Section 14

Actions taken under Section 14 include: 1) proposals by the Environment Agency that list substances and

products of concern; 2) a voluntary agreement regarding household batteries; and 3) regulations for plastic beverage

containers. Negotiations are proceeding on other plastic products and tinfoil caps for bottles. Discussions with the

plastics industry about the effects of plastics on automobile recycling efforts are also ongoing.

The Environment Agency’s Proposals

Thus far, proposals have been developed for various products or substances for which regulations might be

issued if voluntary agreements cannot be reached with manufacturers. As of April 1989, the list included lead-acid

batteries, tires, waste paper, drugs, ferrous scrap from households, scrap from electronic equipment, used tapes from

typewriters and printers, toner cartridges from copiers, plastics containing fluorinated and chlorinated hydrocarbons, refrigeration liquid from household refrigerators, tinfoil bottle caps, plastic and metal foil from food

packaging, fluorescent lamps, PCBs in household appliances, small PCB-containing capacitors (e.g., from

fluorescent lamp starters), motor oil and oil filters and containers, and pesticide residues and containers (48). In

1988, the Agency proposed mandatory return for starters for electrical equipment and cars, fluorescent tubes,

household batteries, and thermometers, and it drafted a regulation on halogen-containing solvents (48).

A Voluntary Agreement on Household Batteries

In 1987, a voluntary agreement on household batteries was reached between the government, the Association

of Electronic and Electrotechnical Industries, and involved trade organizations (48). Manufacturers and importers

agreed to reduce the level of mercury in alkali-manganese batteries from 0.5 to 0.15 percent by weight by 1988,

with an option to reduce the level to 0.10 percent by 1990 and to less than 0.10 percent by 1993. Manufacturers also

agreed to accept used alkaline/manganese batteries with mercury concentrations above agreed limits, nickel/

cadmium batteries, mercury oxide batteries, and button-shaped batteries (e.g., from watch-makers and camera

shops). If the percentage of returned batteries is deemed insufficient, the government could impose a mandatory

deposit on the sale of new household batteries. One complicating factor is a guideline being prepared by the

European Community on the mercury content of batteries. If the guideline is less stringent than Germany’s

voluntary agreement it is not clear how it would affect implementation of the voluntary agreement.

Mandatory Deposit of Plastic Beverage Containers

Before the 1970s, about 90 percent of Germany’s beer, wine, and soft drinks were packaged in refillable bottles.

This percentage declined in the 1970s as plastic and metal single-use containers became more popular. In 1977, the

government and the beverage industries reached a voluntary agreement to stabilize the use of refillable and

single-use containers, but the proportion of single-use containers continued to grow, reaching about 25 percent in

1986. The government is concerned that the refillable system might collapse economically if the percentage of

refillable bottles drops much lower. and that this might increase MSW generation by about 20 percent.
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 313

Consequently, in November 1986 the government began to negotiate with the beverage industry to stabilize

the use of refillable beverage containers. Government proposals involved specific percentages for different refillable

bottles, increased recycling of throw-aways, and mandatory labeling. The beverage industry offered instead to

reduce the types of bottle shapes and carriers (to make the existing deposit/return system work more easily), include

some labeling information, and work on innovative packaging designs. In response, the government again proposed

quantitative goals for different refillables and indicated that it would consider regulations on labeling, deposits, and

obligations to accept returned containers if a voluntary agreement could not be achieved.

In late 1987, Coca-Cola announced the pending introduction of a new single-use container made of PET

plastic. The beverage industry announced at the same time that it would build a recycling system to accept between

40 and 70 percent of these bottles. This added a new dimension to the negotiations. In spring of 1988, after no

agreement had been reached, the government proposed regulations on plastic beverage bottles-the first time that

Section 14’s regulatory authority was to be used in this context. In December 1988, the government adopted the

regulations, which required: 1) a deposit on plastic beverage containers with capacity between 0.2 and 3 liters; 2)

all retailers, distributors, and bottlers to accept returned plastic beverage containers; and 3) labeling. The deposit

is higher than the deposit on refillable glass bottles. The regulation became effective on March 1, 1989, although

Coca-Cola had announced in January 1989 that it would not use the nonrefillable bottle. The regulation provides

a one-year phase-in period for plastic beverage containers that had already been introduced.

The Environmental Angel

Prior to the 1986 act, the Environmental Agency had developed a special product label, the Environmental

Angel, to highlight environmentally sound products. The logo, a blue angel in the middle of a blue circle (figure

8-2), is awarded to products that contain fewer toxic substances or are more recyclable than similar products. Over

2,200 products have received awards during the last 10 years, including water-soluble paints and floor coverings

without asbestos. The label’s main purpose is to give consumers information about environmentally improved

products and provide a publicity incentive to manufacturers. A list of the products that can use the Environmental

Angel logo and their manufacturers is published by the Environment Agency (20).

however, are more related to recycling than reduc- increasing public awareness, although some localition (89). 20

States and local communities have taken several

approaches to developing MSW reduction efforts:

packaging review boards, packaging taxes, bans on

products, education of consumers, and toxics reduction legislation. Most have focused on implementing

taxes or bans on particular components of MSW,

usually packaging or plastic products, but potentially toxic substances are beginning to receive

greater legislative attention. In addition, the governors of States in the Northeast have initiated a

region-wide reduction task force to address these

issues, and several States have initiated education

programs.

Washington State was the first to establish an

office of waste reduction, which also includes

recycling activities. The Unit of Waste Reduction

and Recycling of the State Department of Ecology,

at least to date, focuses most of its activities on

ties such-& Seattle are adopting b&s or taxes on

nonrecyclable products. As with most State and

local waste reduction efforts, however, waste reduction is not clearly distinguished from recycling, and

recycling programs have received most of the

attention thus far. Rhode Island has an innovative

reduction program, primarily focused on education.

It established a source reduction task force in 1986

to develop a research program, educational efforts,

information-gathering forums, technical assistance

to commercial establishments, and legislative initiatives (107).

Thus far, most State and local efforts to encourage

post-consumer MSW reduction have consisted mainly

of proposed bans of plastics or certain types of

packaging and proposed packaging or product taxes.

Some of these measures have passed; most are

pending. Their main message and impact may

ultimately be to encourage industry and society as a

whole to consider the disposal implications of

%ee on non-recyclable packaging, deposits on tires, price preference for recycled paper products,
314 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Figure 8-2-West Germany’s “Environmental

Angel” Logo

SOURCE: Deutsches Institut fur Gutesicherung und Kennzeichnung,

“Verzelchnis der Produkte und Zeichenanwender sowie der

jeweiligen Produktanforderungen” (Bonn: June 1968)

products as they are made. The best way to

encourage waste prevention may not be direct

regulation by any level of government, but rather

indirectly through education programs and incentives for industry and the public that focus on the

importance of changing the nature of the Nation’s

waste stream (ch. 1).

Packaging Review Boards

The first packaging review board was established

in Minnesota in 1973, when a law passed giving the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency authority to

review new and modified packages sold at retail

outlets (12,93). Although challenged, the courts

eventually ruled that the law did not violate the

interstate commerce clause, but also that the agency

could only issue guidelines, not regulations. Minnesota also passed the Excess Packaging Act in 1977,

which established a State board to review all new

packaging in the State. Guidelines on packaging

were not issued until 1980, and they apparently have

had little effect, apparently because of perceived

industry resistance and some administrative difficulties (12). Iowa passed a law modeled after the

Minnesota statute, and it may soon have its first test

case. Several other States also have proposed

legislation to establish packaging review boards or

study packaging issues.

Packaging Tax Proposals

Packaging taxes are also being proposed with

increased frequency. In New York State, a Waste

Reduction Packaging Tax of $0.03 was to be levied

on non-food or fast-food packaging (i.e., deposit

bottles and other food packaging are not included).

According to the proposal, however, a packaging

review board could apply a tax credit of $0.01 if the

package is made of recyclable material, or if the

product itself is recyclable. Also, the package could

be exempted from the tax if it qualifies for both

credits. The money collected from the tax would

form the “Solid Waste Management Fund,” to be

used for activities such as remedial action at

municipal landfill closure projects, grants for recycling, and technical assistance grants.

At least four other States have proposed packaging taxes similar to the proposed New York State

legislation or tax incentives to encourage the use of

degradable packaging. These include Iowa, Maine,

Massachusetts, and Minnesota. The proposed taxes

range from $0.01 to $0.05 per package and would be

applied to either manufacturers or distributors.

The packaging tax concept has not been fully

analyzed, particularly the relationship between the

disposal costs of a package, the suggested tax rates,

and MSW generation rates. Another problem is that

the tax rate may be too low to induce change across

the multitude of packaged products that industries

sell. If manufacturers rather than retailers or consumers are charged the tax (to increase the likelihood

of influencing packaging design), they can maintain

their profit margins by passing the tax along in the

price of products or they can decide that paying the

tax is preferable to changing product design. Moreover, unless some special labeling is required on the

packages that are subject to such a tax, most

consumers will never know they are paying the tax.

For high-priced items, the tax may be such a small

portion of the cost that, even if known, it will be of
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 315

no consequence to the consumer. Thus, the tangible

outcome of these taxing bills is likely to be revenue

generation rather than changes in MSW generation.

Alternatives to packaging taxes and product bans

are appearing. Recently, for example, a project to

foster recycling of HDPE and PET plastics involving public-private sector cooperation was announced

between the State of Illinois and the DuPont Co. The

initial project, entirely funded by DuPont, will

evaluate the viability of using reprocessed scrap

plastics in highway construction and maintenance

(99) (ch. 5).

Product Bans

Bans on the use of plastics in food packaging have

begun appearing across the country. 21 This legislation is attempting to address concerns about: 1) the

Earth’s ozone layer and the potential for types of

polystyrene made with certain chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs) to harm it (box 4-E in ch. 4); 2) solid waste,

including the tendency for polystyrene/styrofoam to

be nondegradable and nonrecyclable, as well as

resistant to compacting (thereby requiring more

scarce landfill capacity) (ch. 5); and 3) litter.

At least 16 States have legislation pending that

would ban or prohibit the use of some plastic

materials or polystyrene, or require the use of

biodegradable materials. It is not clear how many of

these proposals will actually pass into law. Examples, including examples of local efforts, include:

● Suffolk County, New York, passed a law on

March 29, 1988, scheduled to take effect July

1, 1989, requiring that all retail food establishments within the county only sell food packed

in biodegradable packaging. The law also bans

the use of polyethylene grocery sacks and

polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride in eating

utensils and food containers sold or provided

within the county by retail food establishments.

The law was stayed by the New York Supreme

Court in 1989 until its potential environmental

impact is studied.22

. Rockland County, New York, and the City of

New York have similar legislation pending that

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

would ban the use of polystyrene foam food

packaging.

Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, passed

legislation in 1989 that could ban the use of

nonrecyclable plastic food packaging.

Berkeley, California, in 1988 had one vote on

a proposed ordinance to ban polystyrene foam

food packaging. Another vote was pending and

required for the ordinance to take effect. The

City’s Solid Waste Management Commission

did ask fast-food restaurants to reduce nonbiodegradable packaging by 50 percent.

Maine was the first State to pass a law

prohibiting the use of polystyrene foam food

packaging made with ozone-depleting CFCs,

specifically CFC-11 or CFC-12. Minnesota and

Rhode Island recently passed similar laws.

Minnesota had a law that prohibited the use of

plastic milk bottles but it was repealed. In 1987,

however, the State enacted a law banning

plastic beverage containers.

One proposed law to control packaging in

Missouri would ban the sale of multi-resin

plastic containers. Connecticut has banned the

plastic-aluminum beverage container.

Disposal of yard wastes in landfills has been

banned in Minnesota, effective in the 1990s.

At least three States have had legislation

introduced attempting to ban the use of disposable diapers. New Jersey and Rhode Island

considered legislation to ban plastic tampon

applicator.

Many of the proposed bans on polystyrene or

other nondegradable plastic products require the

substitution of degradable products. In particular,

some proposed laws require State agencies to

procure “ozone safe’ and/or degradable food packaging. Legislation has been introduced in New

Jersey that would prohibit the sale or distribution of

any packaging made of “thermoplastic synthetic

polymeric material or any other petroleum-based,

non-biodegradable material. ” In Florida, as of

January 1, 1990, plastic shopping bags used by

retailers will have to degrade within in 120 days.23

21~er ~yp of bmS ~~w aw~ng in some legislative proposals. For example, a law IXOposed in Connecticut would ban the use of lead and

cadmium as stabilizers, pigments, IAS, m ghucs in p=kqdng.

~swleo oft~ p~tlc~ l~wtv, InC,, et al, v. The COWQ of Suffolk, et al., No. 88/1 1262, New Ywk State Supreme COUrt.

23~~lc~ informdon on degradable ph..tics is presented in ch. 5.
316 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Two problems associated with these bans are that

they do not consider whether the replacements will

be improvements, and they rarely consider the

economic implications to retail stores. For example,

polystyrene is used in many single-use products. The

costs of banning polystyrene foam cups include not

only the costs of replacements, but also the labor and

energy needed to wash or reuse cups, and the costs

of washing equipment; on the other hand, new

service jobs might be created, disposal costs might

be lowered, and other packaging manufacturers

would benefit by having their products purchased.

However, polystyrene foam cups probably constitute less than 0.1 percent of all MSW by weight; their

replacements could be heavier, single-use, plasticcoated paper cups, as opposed to reusable washable

cups. Also, plastic-coated paper cups cost more, and

increasing their production would require additional

investments in manufacturing equipment (l).

Another example of the trade-offs to be considered is seen in switching from plastic to paper bags.

Switching from plastic to paper bags could increase

waste generation because paper bags actually take

up more landfill space than plastic bags, and paper

often does not degrade rapidly in landfills (ch. 7).

The relatively low use of energy for plastics

production, although nonrenewable fossil fuels are

used, is another issue (ch. 5).

Product bans in general might be more effective

if they focused on toxicity reduction—removing

toxic products or chemicals from use to lower the

toxic content of MSW.

Toxics Reduction Legislation and Propositions

States have responded to concerns about household hazardous wastes by providing information and

funds to develop local household hazardous waste

collection programs. On a broader scale, States also

have developed various activities oriented toward

the issue of toxicity in general. In 1986, for example,

voters in California approved Proposition 65, which

shifts the burden of proof in toxicity determination

by saying, essentially, that a manufacturer must

prove that a substance released into the environment

or included in a product is not toxic.

Other action includes lobbying by local grassroots

and statewide environmental organizations to pass

versions of a model toxic use reduction bill authored

by the National Toxics Campaign and the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (2). The intent

of this type of legislation is to help industry reassess

and reduce the use and production of toxic substances, by requiring toxics-use reduction plans and

by offering grants, education, and information.

Revenue would be raised through a tax provision.

The bill has been introduced and debated in Massachusetts and other States, and sponsors planned to

re-introduce it in a number of States in 1989 (2).

Education

Rhode Island has adopted a strong educational

approach at all levels, from grade to graduate school,

which is focused on both consumers and industry

(107). The State’s Department of Environmental

Management has published books on waste management, including waste reduction, and has held

workshops on the topic. A task force is charged with

providing technicaI assistance to commercial establishments, including guidance documents, training

and certification of waste auditors, and design and

specification of equipment and services. The New

York State Department of Economic Development

established a secondary materials program in 1989

that will serve as a clearinghouse for information

about waste reduction techniques available to commercial and industrial firms.

Regional Efforts

In 1988, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors

(CONEG), which includes nine States, issued a

policy statement on the reduction of packaging (11).

The statement called for working with the packaging

industry to reduce the volume of disposable packaging, increase the recyclability of packaging products

that cannot be reduced, increase the use of more

environmentally benign packaging material, and

increase the recycled material content of packaging.

CONEG also established a task force on source

reduction to identify voluntary and other measures

that could be carried out by and within the region.

The task force includes four working groups that

focus on different product categories (i.e., convenience food, consumer electronics, hardware, and

automotive goods). Recommendations, expected by

September 1989 (ha), are likely to address guidelines (i.e., definitions, goals, standards, timetables)

for “preferred” product packaging; voluntary efforts by industry; education; and criteria to evaluate
Chapter 8-Government Planning and Programs ● 317

legislation that incorporates the use of incentives

and disincentives.

Recycling

Although some Federal authority exists to encourage recycling, it has not been exercised in a

concerted, consistent, or coherent manner. In general, States and communities have been left to devise

their own programs. Indeed, recycling is an increasingly popular management option for communities

and States across the country. Many of these

programs focus on the collection of recyclable

materials. Comparable efforts to increase the demand for recycled materials have not been coordinated with efforts encouraging separation and collection, however.

Government efforts to increase recycling must

take into account the market conditions of materials,

their dynamic nature, and the effects of programs on

existing recycling activities and markets (ch. 5) (66).

For example, a glut of used newsprint paper in the

Northeast in 1989 was in part attributed to the

increased supply of used newsprint collected by new

recycling programs in Northeast States. To expand

the market for recycled newsprint, Connecticut

passed legislation in 1989 that requires newspaper

publishers to phase in increased use of recycled

newsprint, and several other States (e.g., California

and Wisconsin) have introduced similar legislation.

In Florida, effective January 1, 1989, newsprint

users began paying a waste disposal fee of $0.10 per

ton of all nonrecycled newsprint. If by October 1,

1992, newsprint is recycled at a rate of 50 percent or

more, the fee will be rescinded; if the rate is not

achieved the fee will be increased, but credits to

publishers using recycled newsprint will also be

available. Some experts suggest that a sufficiently

high consumption tax might be more effective in

altering a publisher’s newsprint purchasing decisions (155).

Beverage Deposit Laws and Recycling Laws

Nine States have mandatory deposit laws for

beverage containers: Connecticut, Delaware (applies to glass only), Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. California and Florida have different types of mandatory

programs (discussed below) and Florida’s law applies to additional types of containers and products.

Mandatory recycling programs, other programs to

encourage recycling, and deposit laws vary considerably from State to State. At least a dozen States

have passed legislation encouraging or requiring

localities to implement community recycling programs.

24 Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut

were the first States to adopt mandatory source

separation programs. Laws enacted more recently by

such States as Florida, Maryland, and Pennsylvania

more explicitly recognize a need for a comprehensive approach to recycling. Although some European countries have adopted beverage container

deposit systems, they are geographically much

smaller than the United States and factors affecting

the feasibility of such systems differ (box 6-C).

These State laws attempt to encourage cooperation between the existing recycling industry and

counties and municipalities and allow the flexibility

needed to design programs to meet specific State

goals. State programs to stimulate recycling can

include financial incentives, technical assistance,

information dissemination and research, procurement requirements, recycling goals, and mandatory

local collection of materials for recycling.25 In the

past, most MSW recycling collection programs have

been based and managed at the local level.

Some States, such as Oregon and New York, have

both mandatory deposit programs and community

recycling programs. The two systems are not necessarily incompatible, but the combination can be

inefficient and less cost-effective than a mandatory

local collection of materials for recycling (chs. 1 and

2). Mandatory recycling laws vary with respect to:

requiring mandatory source separation or primarily

using drop-off centers; local, regional or State

implementation; and whether other mechanisms

such as grants, funding, or educational programs are

included. Variation also exists in the types of

mandatory deposit legislation adopted; for example,

the types of beverage containers included, the

amount and nature of the deposit system can vary.

zdcom~ticut, Nonda, Haw~i, I]linois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mimesota, New Jersey, New York, &egon, pennsyhnia, Rhode Island,

Washington, and Wisconsin.

254 C~&tW cm mea tie Shte m~dates ~1 de~ils of local recycling pro~~s, but l.Isu~ly mew the coll~tion of some materials is mmtitd

and some flexibility remains with the locality to determine which materials are collected, by which methods, etc.
318 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

In some States with deposit legislation--e.g.,

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York—

curbside collection programs also are being adopted.

In areas where either recycling programs existed

first and then mandatory deposit/redemption legislation came into effect (e.g., California), or deposit

legislation existed first and then mandatory recycling laws were enacted (e.g., New York), neither

program appears to have been hindered in the

amount of material collected (15,40,42,63,78,92,1 33).

However, when both approaches operate concurrently, recycling revenues to the public sector may

decrease because aluminum is the highest value

material collected and presumably a beverage container law would largely eliminate its collection with

other recyclable (ch. 2; ref. 37). A recent report

concluded, in part based on its analysis of the States

“of Vermont and New York, that comprehensive

materials recovery programs are more efficient and

cost-effective if beverage containers are included in

them (37).26

In the past, the intent of most State deposit laws

was to deter littering rather than encourage recycling

(ch. 1) (130).27 Ohio and some other States enacted

litter control legislation that does not involve a

mandatory deposit system. Although some research

indicates that aggressive litter control programs can

be highly successful (56), other studies show that

litter programs are not as effective as deposit

legislation in controlling litter and that they do not

address the nonlitter objectives of deposit legislation, such as increasing recycling of beverage

containers (1 10,130). In general, beverage container

deposit systems capture between 70 and 90 percent

of the targeted containers and are particularly

effective in reducing litter (7). Several States with

deposit systems report that roadside litter decreased

15 to 50 percent, and beverage container litter

decreased by as much as 80 percent (47,1 10).

The impact of deposit legislation on MSW,

however, is less certain and difficult to calculate.

Critics of mandatory deposit legislation point out

that it has a relatively small impact on MSW

disposal problems, given that beverage containers

are a small, albeit highly visible, portion of the waste

Box 8-C—Beverage Container Deposit

Systems in Europe

Deposit systems on beverage containers exist in

several European countries (8,95), with the focus of

activity being in Scandinavia and West Germany.

In Sweden, a deposit system exists for most glass

bottles, including wine, beer, and carbonated soft

drinks (74,122). About 98 to 99 percent of the beer

and soft drink bottles and 75 percent of the wine

bottles are returned. Sweden also has a deposit

system on aluminum cans, and over 75 percent of

such cans are recovered; the system is run and

financed by the can companies, breweries, and

retailers. A deposit system for PET bottles was

tested on one island and may be introduced

throughout the country. The Swedish National

Environmental Protection Board has proposed a

target return rate of 90 percent for both aluminum

cans and PET bottles.

Norway also has a deposit system on glass

bottles, although imported bottles are exempted (8).

In contrast to Sweden, Norway places a high tax on

aluminum beverage containers and they are not

used at a high rate.

Denmark does not have a deposit system on glass

or aluminum containers, but in 1984 it placed a tax

on aluminum beverage containers and required all

beverage containers to be refillable (8). As a result,

most beverage containers are now made of glass

and about 50 percent were recycled in 1985 (53).

This action has been criticized by other European

countries as restricting international trade, because

many of Denmark’s plastic and aluminum beverage

containers are imported from other countries (8).

Switzerland has a deposit system on glass

beverage containers, and the rate of return appears

to be high. In contrast to Denmark and Norway, it

has not placed a deposit or high tax on aluminum

beverage containers, and the market share for these

containers is increasing.

In September 1988, the West German government adopted regulations for a mandatory deposit

system on plastic beverage bottles (see box 8-B).

Z6W~~er dirmdy or indir~tly, tie Conswer will ~M costs associa~d with either system or the combination of them. Which system is most

cost-effective is a separate issue, but one that effects the ultimate cost to consumers.

27 ROPM1S for a nation~ rnana&tOry deposit system of some type for beverage containers appear before Congress annually. They are designed to

address a variety of issues, including litter control and energy conservation.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 319

stream (ch.3).28 New York State estimates that

adoption of their Returnable Beverage Container

Law has reduced MSW by 5 percent by weight or 8

percent by volume (47,89). Curbside programs to

collect recyclable, on the other hand, cover a

broader portion of MSW (e.g., newspapers and

nonbeverage containers) and have the potential to

achieve greater diversion of materials from landfills.

Where in the collection and processing systems

costs are borne is critical to consider. In a comprehensive curbside collection program, collection

costs are high, but necessary (and become part of a

government infrastructure). In contrast, a deposit

container system has a ‘‘free” collection system, but

the retail handling and wholesale processing operations do not generate net revenues (even with

unredeemed deposits). Thus, one recurring concern

about deposit systems is increased costs to consumers, retailers, the beverage industry, and the government. The extent of such increases is disputed

(72,96,108), but it appears that the benefits and costs

of deposit systems are relatively balanced (84,96,110).

Studies show a net gain of jobs, plus some energy

and resource savings, from deposit systems, but that

the rate of price increases for beverages in nonrefillable containers is above normal inflation. Costs for

converting to a system for returnable/refillable

containers can be high for the beverage industry, but

they are at least partially recovered within a few

years (84,1 10).

Laws to Encourage or Mandate Recycling

Typical features of recent State recycling laws

include:

A numerical recycling target ranging between

15 to 50 percent, but usually about 25 percent.

These recycling goals generally are not set

based on knowledge of the waste stream or

actual projections of the recycling potential for

particular materials.

Provisions on segregation of materials. There is

a trend toward mandatory source separation of

selected MSW components. Sometimes commercial and institutional sources of MSW, as well

as residences, are covered by the law.

●

●

●

Designation of the materials to be recycled or

delegation of a local authority to designate

them.

Requirements for local government to develop

a recycling plan.

Funding mechanisms. These include such mechanisms as a surcharge on the tipping fee at

landfills to fund grants for local planning and

development of recycling programs, or financial incentives to encourage new recycling

operations.

In addition, States can attempt to stimulate

recycling markets through procurement programs

and/or by providing tax incentives. In general,

mandatory programs are preferred on the east coast,

while the voluntary programs work best on the west

coast. Among the States that have received attention

for their recycling programs are Oregon, Rhode

Island, New Jersey, California, and Florida.

In 1972, Oregon passed a beverage container

deposit law that reportedly recovers over 90 percent

of all soda and beer containers sold and brings a

7-percent reduction of the total waste stream to be

landfilled (84). In 1983, Oregon passed the Opportunity to Recycle law, which requires municipalities of

over 4,000 to provide convenient drop-off centers

and at least monthly curbside collection of recyclable. Household participation is voluntary; localities

are required to fund, administer, and report their

recycling plans to the State. Public education is an

important part of the program. In 1982, only 14

multi-material curbside recycling programs existed.

Since the law’s passage the number of programs has

grown to over 110 programs, even though the

requirement applied to only 70 cities. Oregon now

estimates that it recycles 18 to 22 percent of its waste

stream.

Rhode Island’s Solid Waste Management Act

Amendments of 1986-87 is the Nation’s first mandatory State source separation program. The State has

a target goal of recycling 15 percent of its MSW by

1992. A new materials recovery facility is being

built as part of the program. The recycling efforts are

part of a comprehensive waste management program

that also includes the establishment of three waste-toenergy facilities and possibly a landfill,

28&verage ~Ont~ners c~5i1tute c 101 I prcent of ~1 MSW on a national b~is; &veragc cont~ners cover~ by most deposit Iegidaikm are a smaller

portion, approximately 5 percent, of MSW because some types of containers are not included (e.g., wine, liquor, and milk containers).
320 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Another State recycling program receiving attention is New Jersey’s Mandatory Recycling Act of

1987. This law requires localities to reach a recycling rate of 25 percent by 1989. Each county

designs its own program by designating three

materials (from a list of materials provided by the

State) that households will be required to separate,

in addition to leaves. The programs are supported by

a landfill tax of $1.50/ton that should provide

counties with $8 million to begin their programs.

In 1987, California enacted a redemption law for

beverage containers that requires the establishment

of “convenience” buy-back centers for recycling.

However, the financial stability of the convenience

centers, administrative burdens associated with implementing the program, and other difficulties are

creating concern over the viability of this approach.

A processing fee is the mechanism driving the

California program and is its most unique feature. If

recycling is not high enough, distributors must pay

a processing fee; this keeps market prices high so

recyclers can stay in business. It also gives the State

some control over the markets. Unlike Florida and

most States with beverage deposit laws, California

does not require a deposit by consumers. Instead.

consumers are paid a redemption of $0.01 for

returning containers. 29 Convenience is seen as key to

the law’s success, and the establishment of 2,400

redemption collection centers was required.

Recycling rates have increased only slightly since

the California law took effect. This may be caused

by the slow start-up of the program or its cumbersome administrative nature. Many local officials

express skepticism over the law, in particular that it

is inefficient to team the processing fee with an

emphasis on convenience—although all acknowledge they benefit from the inflated scrap values.

Some officials also maintain that if the same State

resources spent on administering the beverage container law were spent on curbside collection, more

recycling would occur. Some officials actually

predict that the law will “collapse under its own

weight’ within a few years. Still, the processing fee

continues to attract attention from other State and

Federal officials (15,40,42,63,92).

In 1988, Florida adopted a deposit-fee system that

affects all types of containers, not just beverage

containers. The law attempts to distribute the rising

cost of solid waste disposal and emphasize the

virtues of recycling in a State where a high water

table prohibits landfilling in many areas and where

siting incineration facilities has been difficult. As of

October 1, 1992, a disposal fee of one cent will be

levied on any container (i.e., glass, plastic, plasticcoated paper, aluminum, and other metals) sold at

retail which is not recycled at a 50 percent rate in

Florida. The fee will increase to two cents if the 50

percent target is not met by October 1, 1995. The

goals of the law are to discourage single-use

disposable items and build a statewide infrastructure

for recycling.

The inclusive scope of materials covered by the

Florida law is generally viewed as an asset, but it is

too soon to judge how effectively this program will

be implemented. Florida’s new law is one of the

most recent and ambitious efforts to manage MSW.

Localities are required to reduce landfilling by 30

percent by 1993, mostly by recycling. If a locality

does not meet the goal, funding can be suspended by

the State; most municipalities are expected to

establish mandatory residential recycling programs.

Taxes and fees on a variety of products and materials

will be used to encourage recycling.

Variety of Local Programs

In a survey, the Council of State Governments

found that 25 States responding to a question on

recycling identified 6,461 local recycling programs

(16,18). The western States reported the most, with

3,378 recycling programs in Oregon and California

alone. Alaska reported approximately 100 programs.

In the Midwest, 1,710 programs were identified; the

Northeast reported 1,148, the Plains States identified

118, and only 7 programs were reported in the South.

Some of these programs may be private (e.g.,

sponsored by the Boy Scouts, civic groups, or others

groups), although most are assumed to be local

government programs. Because it is not clear how

the respondents were defining “recycling program,’ it is not known for sure how many of these

efforts are public versus private in nature.

2$&rbsidC col]~tion progr~ operators can also receive the $0.01 redemption.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs . 321

Local recycling programs can vary. What mix of

characteristics is ‘‘best” will depend on the locality

(see ch. 2 for cost comparisons between methods). In

many States, recycling associations provide guides,

hold conferences, and distribute information to local

communities to promote recycling. In addition,

organizations such as the National Association of

Towns and Townships issue guides to help communities establish recycling programs (85). Two basic

characteristics of recycling programs are whether

they are mandatory or voluntary and how recyclable are collected (separated or commingled). Other

factors such as the frequency and efficiency of

collection, or location of collection centers (if

drop-off centers are used), and public education

programs also affect the effectiveness of recycling

programs. In general, mandatory recycling programs

generate higher participation rates than voluntary

programs with the same frequency of collection

(18,150).

Variation in participation also occurs when more

than one material is collected. For example, in

Minneapolis, Minnesota, only about 50 percent of

all participants recycle all the collected materials, 25

percent recycle paper and one other item, and the

other 25 percent recycle only paper. In Austin,

Texas, less than 50 percent of the participants

recycle bottles and cans in addition to paper. Even in

Montclair, New Jersey, where recycling is mandatory, only 75 percent of the participants recycle all

the materials required. Not surprisingly, newspaper

makes up about 75 percent of the material collected;

glass contributes 15 to 25 percent and metal 5 to 10

percent (46). It is important to note that participation

rates, however, are different than materials recovery

rates.

Collection of recyclable can happen in at least

three different ways: household source separation of

individual materials or commingled materials and

curbside collection; household collection of mixed

wastes with processing at a centralized facility; and

drop-off centers. Some systems combine two or all

three of these options. In general, weekly curbside

collection of source-separated material is most

effective, generates the most (and least contaminated) material, and achieves higher participation

rates. Curbside collection is often impractical in

rural areas and drop-off centers (and the buy-back

variation of this) are more common.

Photo credit: M. Wagner

Some community programs for collecting recyclable materials distribute special recycling bins to citizens. Filled with

separated materials, the bins are put out at the curbside for

pickup on specified days.

A study completed by The Minnesota Project, a

nonprofit rural community development organization, found that in seven innovative programs in

rural communities, drop-boxes and drop-off recycling centers have been successful (83). In rural

Wayne County, New York, however, private haulers

are cooperating with local officials to initiate

curbside collection of some recyclable (thus far,

newspaper, corrugated cardboard, and tin cans) to

supplement the drop-off collection program.

The striking contrast between the coasts illustrates the Nation’s great variation in MSW management programs. For example, most communities in

the San Francisco Bay area of California favor

voluntary, curbside recycling programs and strongly

support source separation. Many are expanding their

programs to include community comporting and

commercial recycling. Indeed, the desirability of the

“three C’s of recycling” are repeatedly referred to

by these local officials: 1) a curbside program; 2) a

compost program; and 3) a commercial/industrial
322 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

program. These programs are not yet common in the

Northeast.

Even within California, however, there is variation among recycling programs. For example, the

City of San Francisco sees its primary purpose as

coordinating and encouraging the numerous (over

20) private recycling efforts in the city and county.

It estimates that approximately 25 percent of its

waste stream is recycled. The City of San Jose, in

contrast, is more directly involved in recycling. It

operates the largest curbside program in the country,

servicing 180,000 residents, recycling 100 tons/day,

and reportedly diverting about 35 percent of its

waste stream.

The incentive for recycling in California is not, for

the most part, lack of landfill space or high landfill

cost. In fact, some waste officials there look to the

higher disposal costs of Seattle, Washington, the

Northeast, and elsewhere with a bit of envy,

believing it would allow them to justify further

expansion of their recycling operations

(15,40,40a,42,63,78,92,133). Strong markets are a

key advantage for California, which relies primarily

on overseas markets. Profit is not a driving force for

these programs and an important factor contributing

to support for them is that new waste-to-energy or

other combustion facilities are not being sited in

California. This is primarily because of concerns

over air pollution potential and strong public opposition. Using intensive recycling to prolong the life of

landfills is the main MSW management rationale.

In the United States, most communities with

curbside collection designate no more than three

materials to be separated. Typically, localities separate newspapers, other waste paper, glass and cans,

and sometimes plastics. Sometimes grass clippings

and leaves are collected separately for comporting.

Materials for recycling are collected in various types

of bins and containers, usually provided by the

community, and collected on specially designated

days (weekly, biweekly, or monthly). In Japan, a few

communities have households separate their MSW

into seven or more categories. Most community

programs, however, have households separate MSW

into only two categories, combustible and noncombustible, for municipal collection; recyclable materials are separated for collection by the private sector.

Some communities, regions, and States have

developed materials recovery facilities (MRFs) for

commingled recyclable (ch. 5). The State of Delaware manages all waste disposal through the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) and does soon

a mixed waste basis. Mixed waste is brought to the

State’s largest facility in northern Delaware, a

centralized processing facility. A landfill and wasteto-energy facility are also located at this site. The

facility has had some difficulty marketing recovered

materials because of contamination, a problem that

is not uncommon with this type of centralized

processing (ch. 5). The compost material produced

is also too contaminated to be marketed for many

uses, but it can be used for landfill cover (156).

The costs of collecting different materials from

MSW for recycling vary depending on their weight,

volume, and other factors (chs. 2 and 5). The

collection of newspapers (given their weight and

volume) and plastics (given their volume) are the

most expensive materials to collect for recycling.

Materials collected directly from households are

usually less contaminated and of higher market

value than those recovered through centralized

processing facilities.

Financial Incentives

Federal and State financial incentives to stimulate

recycling activities, as well as increase the markets

for recycled materials, have been limited. The

following sections describe past efforts and note

some recent initiatives. Although this discussion is

primarily descriptive, some effort is made to determine the potential for programs, especially at the

Federal level, to increase the use of secondary

materials .30

Federal financial incentives for recycling are

essentially nonexistent. An investment tax credit for

recycling equipment to promote energy conservation was available from 1978 to 1983 under the

Energy Act of 1978. Although many businesses took

advantage of this credit, with total value reaching

$143 million (27), it is difficult to prove that the

investments would not have occurred absent the

credit.

To date, this was the only direct Federal initiative

to provide incentives for market development,

s~e majofity of (his discussion is based on ref. .%
Chapter Government Planning and Programs . 323

despite the fact that RCRA directed the Department

of Commerce to undertake market development

efforts.31 However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 did

remove some disincentives to recycling in an

attempt to equalize the tax system. The act repealed

some preferential tax treatment for the timber

industry and modified oil depletion allowances.

Approximately 16 States use financial incentives

to encourage recycling (16). These incentives include subsidies, grants, low interest loans, and/or

preferential tax treatments. Most States with such

programs are located east of the Mississippi River.

The next section focuses on tax incentives, one of the

most prevalent (such provisions exist in at least 11

States), but also problematic, types of financial

incentive programs.

Tax Incentives-Three main types of tax incentives are available for recycling activities: investment tax credits, sales tax exemptions, and property

tax exemptions. Examples of these incentives are

noted in tables 8-1 and 8-2. As shown in table 8-3,

there is considerable variation in the types of

programs adopted by States, both in the types of

incentives offered and their areas of application.

Investment tax credits (ITCs) allow businesses to

subtract a portion of the cost of qualifying capital

purchases from their Federal or State tax liability,

thus reducing the net after-tax cost of capital. The

most recent Federal experience with ITCs was in the

early 1980s, after Congress passed the Economic

Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) in 1981.32 The purpose

of this ITC was to stimulate economic activity

through increased investment. Thus, the real target

of the ITC was not the investment alone, but the

general economic growth that the increased investment would generate through the ‘‘multiplier effeet. ” One of ERTA’s effects was to cut the cost of

borrowing for capital equipment roughly in half

(36).

The impact of ERTA’s ITC provisions was

uneven across the economy, because the Deficit

Reduction Act of 1982 eliminated ERTA’s tax

subsidies for certain investments and retained them

for others. In any case, the correlation between the

reduction in the net cost of capital and business

investment was not strong, leading to the conclusion

that tax consequences are not the only consideration

in business decisions. The House Committee on

Ways and Means surveyed evidence on business

response to ERTA and concluded (36):

Proponents of the massive tax benefits for depreciable property have theorized that these benefits

would stimulate investment in such property, which

in turn would pull the entire economy into more

rapid growth. The committee perceives that nothing

of this kind has happened.

Among the States, pioneering tax incentive programs of Oregon and Wisconsin are examples of

investment tax mechanisms and sales and property

tax mechanisms, respectively. Oregon has three tax

investment programs, two with purposes broader

than recycling (the business energy tax credit and the

pollution control facility tax credit), and one dedicated exclusively to the reclaiming of plastics (the

plastics recycling tax credit).

The Oregon Department of Energy administers

the Business Energy Tax Credit, which allows

companies to write off, over a 5-year period, 35

percent of the cost of any equipment used solely for

recycling. Garbage haulers and supermarkets have

been the primary recipients of the tax credits to date.

In 1985, the legislature renewed the law until

December 31, 1990. The program is popular with

legislators and businesses. The effect on the State

treasury, however, is not known (although it clearly

amounts to a revenue expenditure for the State) (36).

Oregon’s Pollution Control Facility Tax credit

was made available to recycling facilities or materials recovery facilities in 1973. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which administers

the program, has no limit on the individual projector

total annual project costs. The credit is 50 percent of

the certified costs, which may be taken over 10 years

or the life of the facility if it is shorter than 10 years,

and it can be applied against corporate, individual

income, property taxes for nonprofit organizations.

Pollution control facility tax credits have been used

by firms that process a variety of materials, such as

tires, asphalt, yard debris and wood wastes, gravel,

3 [me ~p~ent of Comerce, ~rou@ tie Nationa] B~eau of St~&rds, Undetik numerous studies of recycling markets, costs, ad t~hologics

(138). However, no direct action to stimulate markets was taken as a consequence,

Jz~bllc Law 97.34.
324 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 8-l-State Tax Incentives (Active and Proposed)

Investment Property tax Sales tax

State tax credit exemption exemption Other

x

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumption tax credit

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Kentucky ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Massachusetts a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

New Yorka 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Income tax deductions

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X(3 programs)

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

aProposed incentives.

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Economic Incentives and Disincentives for Recycling Municipal Solid Waste, contract report prepared for U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village, KS: December 1988).

waste paper, plastics, batteries, and glass. Examples

of certified projects include a $23.8 million battery

recycling plant and a $13.3 million for a facility for

old newsprint deinking.

The Department of Environmental Quality also

administers Oregon’s Plastic Recycling Tax Credit,

which began in 1986. This income tax credit applies

to machinery and equipment that uses at least 50

percent recycled post-consumer or industrial plastic

from Oregon and is manufactured into a product

there. The credit of 50 percent of allocatable costs

taken over 5 years can apply to 100 percent of costs

(or less, if the facility is not only dedicated to

recycling plastics) (36).

Wisconsin uses both a sales tax exemption and a

property tax exemption as financial incentives to 33 Nonprofit organizations, in- ecourage recycling.

cluding some recycling facilities, can avoid sales

taxes in some States but few States offer sales tax

exemptions specifically for recycling, such as Wisconsin does. In Wisconsin, collectors, processors,

and manufacturers using secondary materials are

exempt from paying the 5 percent sales tax on

equipment or on the recyclable themselves. Recyclers can also benefit from the property tax exemption in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin’s Department of Revenue determines

whether a piece of equipment qualifies, and some

litigation has resulted over the Department’s interpretation of the tax code. This type of problem can

occur where tax incentive programs are administered by the Department of Revenue because the

first concern of tax officials is revenue losses, not

promoting the program’s intent. Another difficulty

with property tax exemptions is that reduced property taxes through statewide legislation often hurts

local governments. The overall effect of both the

sales exemption and property tax exemption on

recycling in Wisconsin is reported as minimal (36).

The purpose of recycling tax incentives is different than that of ERTA; recycling tax incentives are

not intended to promote the general economy but to

increase capital in firms using recycled materials,

boost productivity, and thus increase greater demand

for recycled material inputs, and divert solid waste

from landfills. The reduction in the cost of capital

would also theoretically reduce the cost of production, which could then be passed on as a reduction in

the price

State a

revenues

offset by

recovery

of these

of the final product. Tax incentives cost a

certain amount of money in foregone

and administrative costs, but this should be

increased economic activity and increased

of materials from solid waste. The extent

benefits, however, has not been documented in operational programs. Most States do

not know the impact the incentives have had on

33~1~ is ~auw rayc]ers we classified as manufac~~ers in wi~onsin for pUqXXH of property taxes, and are thereby eligible for these benefits

available 10 all manufacturers. Statutes expressly grant these two tax exemptions to both encourage waste reduction and recovery and to provide tax equity

with other manufacturing (103).
Table 8-2-State Investment Tax Credits

State Eligibility Amount Comment

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research and development on recycled

and recyclable materials in manufacturing.

Tangible property used in manufacturing.

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recyding equipment used in transportation,

processing, or manufacturing.

New York (proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Recycling equipment used solely for processing secondary materials.

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Installation, purchase, and construction

of facilities.

Oregon (3 programs):

Business Energy Tax Credit . . . . . . . Equipment used solely for recycling.

Pollution Control Facility Tax

Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equipment, land, and buildings used for

recycling.

Plastics Recycling Tax

Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Machinery and equipment used solely for

reclaiming plastic and making it into a

product.

Pennsylvania (proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . Machinery and equipment used to process and manufacture products from postconsumer waste materials.

50% of R&D costs (100% if performed by

institution of higher learning).

1 O% of cost in year of acquisition.

SO% spread over 5 years; maybe carried

over.

500/’; may be carried over for 4 years.

20%

35% (10°/0 in each of first 2 years; 5%

each of next 3 years). Maybe carried over

for 3 years.

50% spread over 10 years (5% a year).

May be carried over for 3 years.

50% spread over 5 years (10% a year).

May be carried over for 5 years.

50% of equipment cost credit shall not

exceed 20% in any year or 50% of total

tax liability.

Available to corporations manufacturing

plastic and paper consumer products.

Available to corporations only.

Includes deduction for construction

improvement of recycling facilities.

Hazardous wastes only.

or

Certification simple, quick. Major state

program used by MSW recycling activities. Due to sunset after 1990.

Credit will be reduced to 25% in 1989.

Due to sunset after 1990.

Applies to capital investment made from

January 1, 1988, to January 1, 1989.

Does not apply to secondary waste material or demolition waste.

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Economic lncentives and Disincentives for Recycling Municipal Solid Waste, contract report prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(Prairie Village, KS: December 1988).
326 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Table 8-3-State Tax Incentives and Areas of Application

State

Supply-side incentives:

For recycling operations Demand-side incentives:

To manufacturers/users

Equipment Buildings Land of recycled materials

California a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTC

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STE

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PTE PTE PTE PTE

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PTE

Massachusetts a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITC

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITC ITC

New Yorka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITC

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PTE, ITD — c

Oregon:

Business Energy Tax Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITC

Pollution Control Facility Tax Credit . . . . . . . ITC

Plastics Recycling Tax Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . ITC

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITC

Wisconsin ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STE, PTEd

STE, PTE

‘Proposed incentives.

blncludes collection and/or processing operations.

CSome users of recycled materials may qualify as recycling operations.

dSome procssors qualify as a result of court ruling.

Abbreviations: ITC=investment tax credit; PTE=property tax exemption; STE=sales tax exemption; CTC=consumption tax credit; ITD=income tax deduction.

SOURCE: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Economic Incentives and Disincentives for Recycling Municpal Solid Waste, contract report prepared for U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village, KS: December 1988).

ITD

ITD

ITC

ITD

ITC

their treasuries or if they have significantly

increased the amount of material recycled (35,36).

In most cases, tax incentives do not appear to be

major influences on business investment decisions

and they do not necessarily lead to increased

recovery of materials from wastes (35,36). Historical trends in manufacturing industries using secondary materials indicate that recent capital investments have been relatively limited. For example,

most glass container manufacturers, steel mills, and

paper mills are operating with facilities older than 10

years. No new glass container plants have been built

in the last 10 or 15 years in the United States, and the

actual number of operating glass plants has declined

over the last several years as competition from

plastics has increased.

These long-term trends suggest that the lack of

investment in recycling industries is unlikely to be

reversed by the small change in the cost of investment that could be brought about by an ITC. Of

course, definitive estimates of investment behavior

would require a case by case evaluation of individual

plants. If an ITC were available, it would obviously

become a factor in investment decisions. However,

industry representatives indicate that such tax incentives would not be a deciding factor (36). Other

factors, such as labor costs and proximity to markets,

are more critical determinants of investment decisions.

Even if recycling ITCs were successful in expanding capacity to manufacture products from secondary materials, however, the capacity will not be

used unless there is a demand for the final product.

In sum, without increases in the demand for products

made from recycled inputs, there is little reason to

believe that supply-side tax incentives for the

purchase of capital equipment will result in the

increased use of recycled materials.

In addition, no evidence suggests that sales or

property tax exemptions are a determining factor in

a company’s decisions for expansion or startup (36).

In Illinois, and probably elsewhere, a general limit

on the amount of influence any tax incentive will

have is the fact that tax liabilities for most companies

are quite low, generally less than 1 percent of gross

sales. Every business manager interviewed by Franklin Associates reported that this amount is not

significant enough to effect their business decisions.

Further, nonprofit organizations, which many recovery operations are, have no State tax obligations.

Consumption Tax Credits-Consumption credits act as an incentive by reducing the cost of the
Chapter 6--Government Planning and Programs ● 327

targeted material to the manufacturer. In particular,

they reduce tax liability by an amount proportional

to the quantity of targeted material used. For such a

tax-based ‘throughput subsidy” to be effective, two

assumptions must hold:

1. taxes paid by the target industry must be high

enough that credits for purchasing a favored

material can actually affect the material’s net

after-credit price; and

2. the primary factor in buyers’ choice between

competing materials must be price, so that a

difference no larger than possible through the

tax code will cause them to change their buying

habits.

Subsidies can be granted to manufacturers who

reprocess newsprint, glass bottles, and other wastes,

as a way of reducing the cost of the wastes they buy.

They can also be granted to firms that purchase

recycled finished goods such as newsprint, bottles,

and other goods as inputs into their own productive

process. The goal of these subsidies is to reduce the

cost of recycled inputs relative to virgin inputs.

Consumption tax credits have not yet been

applied anywhere, but they are considered by some

analysts to be a potentially effective stimulant for

secondary materials markets (35,36). Also called

‘‘secondary materials use credits,’ this mechanism

allows companies using secondary materials in

manufacturing to apply a portion of the price paid for

those materials as a credit against owed income tax.

Even if effective, however, the use of consumptive

tax credits could require a long-term, State-financed

subsidy to users of secondary materials to maintain

the desired market conditions (36).

A bill proposed in California during the 1985-86

session (Assembly Bill No. 1109), would have given

consumption tax credits to users of recovered glass,

paper, oil, and plastics from the State and used in the

State. The bill would have allowed a tax credit

against a company’s State income tax, based on an

amount calculated as a percent of the amount paid

for qualifying secondary materials.34 The bill was

not enacted, reportedly because of an inability to

develop a suitable funding mechanism, and subsequent versions have also failed.35

The potential effect of consumption tax credits

can be difficult to estimate. For example, newsprint

can be produced from old newspaper (ONP) or

virgin wood pulp, or both. A consumption credit

applied to ONP would theoretically lower its price

as a raw material in newsprint production relative to

the price of virgin wood pulp. This would theoretically increase the use of ONP to make newsprint.

Because the raw material is less expensive, the price

of the finished newsprint could be reduced, and thus

more could be sold. However, historical data for the

newsprint industry indicate that movements in the

price of waste paper are not reflected in price

movements for finished newsprint. In fact, the price

of ONP has declined dramatically over the long run

relative to the price of the newsprint made from it

(table 8-4). These data call into question any

program based on the assumption that a reduction in

the price of an input would lead directly to a

reduction in the price of output.

Because it appears that consumption credits are

not likely to offset prices in all instances, a great deal

of attention need not be given to the second

condition for success—that buyers will choose

recycled products if prices are reduced. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that this condition is not

likely to hold in all cases either. For example,

consumer perceptions that recycled inputs produce

inferior quality products, whether true or not, can

subvert the goal of such credits. Furthermore,

industries such as newspaper publishing are vertically integrated and have substantial investment in,

or longstanding ties to, virgin sources of inputs.

The experience with newsprint suggests that

resistance to production with a particular input may

be caused by factors other than price. Table 8-5

supports this conclusion for the paper industry as a

whole. Over a 16-year period, the utilization ratio of

recycled paper in total paper production has fluctuated over a range of only about 1 percentage point,

despite a long-term trend toward lower recycled

input prices. The recent change, shown in the table,

cannot be attributed to the relative price relationship.

34~e ~rcents for tie four qu~ify~g ~ndq materi~s we: 15 percent for g]~; 10 percent for paper; 22 ~rcent for used oil; and Z! percent for

@iStiCS (36).

MIt ~= re.~~~W~ in 1988 as tie Raycling Tax Fairness Act (Senate Bill No. 188).
328 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal So!id Waste?

Table 8-4--Relative Prices of Old Newspaper (Old News No. 1) and Newsprint from 1970 to 1966,

Compared With 1967 Pricesa

U.S. consumer Ratio of Ratio of

Old news prices-urban old news to newsprint

Year No. 1b Newsprint c

(CPIU) newsprint to CPILUd

1970 . ..0....., . . . . . . . . 10801

1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.1

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 119.2

1973 ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . 137.2

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.6

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.8

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199.5

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209.6

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200.5

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.8

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167.4

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.7

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.1

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150.0

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137.1

107.6

112.2

116.7

122.2

151.2

184.0

198.2

215.5

226.3

250.2

279.3

308.0

315.8

303.0

323.1

332.5

326.1

116.3

121.3

125.3

133.1

147.7

161.2

170.5

181.5

195.4

217.4

246.8

272.4

289.1

298.4

311.1

322.2

328.5

1.005

0.919

1.021

1.123

1.333

0.608

1.007

0.973

0.886

0.607

0.599

0.311

0.228

—

0.598

0.451

0.420

0.925

0.925

0.931

0.918

1.024

1.141

1.162

1,187

1.158

1.151

1.132

1.138

1.092

1,015

1.039

1.032

0.993

aThe price in 1967 is set equal to 100,and then the prices in other years are compared with this value (i.e., Price lndex= 100).

bPrice index for postconsumer newspapers purchased by paper mills.

cPrice index for rolls of newsprint paper purchased from paper mills.

dColumn 4 = (column 1/column 2); column 5 = (column 2/column 3); — means that calculation could not be made.

N/A = Not available.

SOURCE: Compiled by Franklin Associates, Ltd., Economic Incentives and Disincentives for Recycling Municipal Solid Waste, contract report prepared for

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village, KS: December 1988).

Table 6-5-Price indices of Wood Pulp and Waste Paper Compared With 1967 Prices, and Recyclable Paper

Utilization Ratio, From 1970 to 1986a

Ratio of

waste paper Recycled paper

Year Waste paper wood pulp to wood pulp Utilization ratio

1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1975 ...., . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1977 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 ........, . . . . . . . . .

1987 ........, . . . . . . . . .

125.0

112.1

133.6

197.4

265.5

110,2

184.9

187.2

191.2

206.6

208.7

175.7

122.8 b

201.2 b

240.1

148.8

172.8

219.8

109.6

112.1

111.5

128.3

217.8

283.3

286.0

281.1

266.5

314.6

380.3

397.1

397.0

346.9

397.6

346.6

358.8

422.5

1.141

1.000

1.198

1.539

1.219

0.389

0.647

0.666

0.717

0.657

0.549

0.442

0.309

0.580

0.604

0.429

0.482

0.520

0.228

0.228

0.225

0.235

0.236

0.230

0.233

0.234

0.237

0.238

0.234

0.233

0.237

0.234

0.241

0.238

0.247

0.250

aThe price in 1967 IS set equal to 100, and then the prices in other years are compared with this value (i.e., Price Index = 100).

bJuly to December average.

SOURCE: Compiled by Franklin Associates, Ltd , Economic Incentives and Disincentives for Recycling Municipal Solid Waste, contract report prepared for

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village, KS: December 1988).
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 329

This implies that programs that seek to increase the

use of recycled inputs by further reducing the

relative price of such inputs (whether through the tax

system or in any other way) are not likely to meet

much success, at least not in the short term.

Although data from other industries are not as

easy to analyze, no indication is found that low

recovered material prices will increase recycling.

For example, since 1970 the prices of glass cullet

have doubled, or tripled in some instances, while the

consumption has actually risen. The same is true for

aluminum. For steel scrap, prices were deeply

depressed for many years with no widespread

switches in the industry from virgin to recycled

inputs occurring. What does seem to occur is that the

basic demand for these materials determines the

price, not the converse. The demand is created by

complex economic and noneconomic factors, of

which the price of the recycled input is a small part.

Research and Development Tax Credits-For a

tax credit for research and development (R&D)

expenditures to be successful, it must meet the same

criteria as any other investment tax credit. That is, it

must actually increase R&D expenditures above

their previous level or it must reduce the cost of

previously planned R&D. The cost saving must be

passed on to consumers, and sales must increase as

a result.

At the Federal level, ERTA provided a 25 percent

tax credit for R&D expenditures that exceeded

average R&D expenditures in a base period, usually

the three previous tax years. One study concluded

that “there was no evidence . . . which supported a

strong conclusion about the impact of R&D specific

tax incentives on R&D spending” (Piekarz, 1983,

cited in ref. 36).

One reason for this apparent lack of effectiveness

of R&D tax incentives is that R&D costs are only a

small proportion of the total costs involved in

bringing a new product to market. Also, many firms

cannot benefit from tax incentives because of low or

nonexistent tax liability. Overall, firms that took

advantage of the 1981 ERTA credit could only use

59 percent of it in the first year, with the rest being

carried forward (36).

In short, it is unlikely that a tax credit for R&D for

recycling will be a cost-effective method to increase

the amount of solid waste recycled. Taxpayer dollars

might be spent more effectively on direct subsidies

to R&D organizations, such as universities, with a

requirement that discoveries enter the public domain

if not actually put into production within a specified

time. This would foster increased recycling by

discouraging licensing or other arrangements that

permit the licensee to hold a discovery for a lengthy

period of time before deciding whether to use it.

Subsidies, Grants, and Loans-Direct appropriated subsidies are an alternative to tax subsidies.

Such subsidies have advantages over tax credits in

several important respects. First, the appropriation

of a direct subsidy is for a fixed dollar amount, so

that the cost of the subsidy program is known and

can be controlled. Furthermore, the subsidy appropriation must be reconsidered annually, allowing

restructuring and adjustment to reflect changing

conditions.

Second, direct subsidies are not administered by

the Internal Revenue Service, but by other government agencies that are more likely to have experience with the recycling industries targeted for

assistance. Also, the granting agencies are subject to

oversight by congressional committees with responsibilities and expertise relevant to the original goals

of the subsidy. Under these conditions, a direct

subsidy can be carefully targeted to achieve the

desired effects.

Third, direct subsidies can provide benefits more

quickly to firms in need than can tax credits, which

may take many months or years to be realized. These

benefits are available even to firms with no tax

liability; such firms would not be able to take

advantage of tax credits. Finally, the effects of direct

subsidies can be more easily determined than those

associated with a more diffuse tax subsidy program.

Of course, direct subsidies also have some associated problems. Direct subsidies will increase the

Federal budget deficit if new revenue sources are not

specified. Large direct subsidies, although more

likely to be effective than small ones, tend to make

the recipients dependent on them-if the subsidy is

suddenly terminated, these firms may face serious

threats to their continued operation.

Finally, as with the tax incentives, the question of

equity among competitors will arise when deciding

99-420 0 - 89 - 8
330 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

among subsidy recipients.36 There can be no doubt

that the historical use of subsidies at the local level

has played a key role in keeping many recycling

operations in business, especially during difficult

times. However, no direct subsidies to the demandside of the recycling system are known, nor are any

broad subsidies at the Federal level to recycling

industries known. To date, the debate about whether

direct subsidies are preferable to tax incentives has

not been resolved (36).

Direct subsidies, sometimes funded through user

fees collected as part of tipping fees at landfills, may

be of a substantial enough size to more strongly

influence business decisions than tax incentives. For

example, in Illinois, the Solid Waste Management

Act designates the Department of Energy and

Natural Resources to implement State programs to

provide alternatives to traditional landfill disposal.

The programs are to be funded by a surcharge placed

on landfill tipping fees, which is expected to raise

$10 million annually for solid waste planning,

recycling, and resource recovery programs.

Although the constitutionality of the fees was

successfully challenged on the grounds that exemption of certain wastes and a‘ ‘pass through” exemption (for landfill owners with nonnegotiable contracts but not for haulers with similar agreements)

were not defensible, the fees schedule was upheld.

The case is being appealed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

37 In August 1988, the

State of Illinois enacted legislation to correct the

defects in how the fee was imposed. Other States

(e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey) and localities also

charge such fees to generate revenue to fund solid

waste management activities.

Grants, direct loans, and loan guarantees are

non-tax types of financial incentives that can be

funded by revenues generated by user fees. These

programs are not revenue expenditures for the State

and/or local government and can be of sufficient size

to directly influence business decisions with respect

to recycling. In New York State, for example, the

Department of Economic Development (in part as a

response to the State Solid Waste Management Plan)

established a Secondary Materials Program that not

only provides technical assistance, but also financial

assistance in the form of grants and loans to

qualifying companies. The purpose of the program

is to stimulate private sector investment in recycling

capacity, and projects funded by either the grant or

loan program must document increased recycling

and energy savings resulting from the project (88).

Grants up to $50,000 or 80 percent of the total study

cost (whichever is less) can be awarded to firms to

evaluate the feasibility of recycling projects. In

addition, loans up to $250,000 per applicant will be

available to eligible companies to finance the

acquisition, alteration, repair, or improvement of

buildings or equipment used for recycling (88).

Several States award direct grants or loans to

eligible recycling businesses. The Minnesota Waste

Management Board can award grants for the establishment of eligible recycling operations. In Illinois,

the Development Finance Authority Direct Loan

fund provides subordinated, fixed asset loans based

on a fixed rate of interest for 7- to 25-year periods,

depending on the depreciable assets purchased.38

The loans average about $150,000 for creditworthy

businesses that could not acquire conventional

financing (51 ). The New Jersey Office of Recycling

provides low-interest, 10 year direct loans to recycling businesses, which range from $50,000 to

$500,000 for the acquisition of fixed assets.

Loan guarantees for various percentages of loans

may cover fixed assets or working capital and be

offered by the State. New Jersey offers loan guarantees from 30 to 90 percent for up to 10 years for

working capital ($600,000 maximum) and fixed

asset ($1 million maximum) loans to creditworthy

firms. Other types of non-tax financial incentives

offered in some States, which could be used to

encourage recycling businesses, are venture capital

financing (e.g., Massachusetts) and industrial revenue bonds (e.g., Pennsylvania).

36~y SubSidy, ~hether ~ he fo~ of a di~~~ cash payment or a tax incentive, entails the prOViSiOn Of knefits tO Some gfOUps and not to others.

Because tax- based subsidies cannot be targeted as specifically as direct subsidies, they are much more likely to create inequities among competing groups

of taxpayers and among taxpayers within the same industry.

37s= forexmp]e, E & E/#a~ing, ]nc, Br~w~ng Ferris lndusmies oflllhwis, Inc., Land andbkes Co., and Hauiaway, lnc v. Illinois Enviro~enlal

Protection Agency (No. 87 CH 1262, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division, State of Illinois).

38F1x~ -tsmi~l inclu& ~ulpment, land, or bui]ding p~chmes. Dir~t ]oans co~d ako be used f~ working capita], for example fOr lnVf.31tOfy

purchases. Direct loans are also usually low interest (i.e., below prime rate) and may have an extended repayment term. See ref. 51.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs . 331

Other types of non-financial assistance for recycling businesses offered by States include technical

assistance (e.g., management training, site selection

assistance, export assistance, regulatory compliance

assistance, direct business consulting); business

incubators (i.e., providing space, office services,

consulting services and financial services at reduced

fees or included in the rent in a multi-tenant facility);

and categorical assistance (based on categories of

business) (see ref. 51).

Procurement

To function, all governments and businesses must

purchase materials and services; these are usually

procured by awarding contracts. The most common

method of awarding government contracts is by low

bid. It is not uncommon, however, for noneconomic

factors to be considered, such as special arrangements to Buy American or encourage affirmative

action. Similarly, at least 23 States and the Federal

Government have enacted legislation encouraging

the purchase of secondary materials and items

containing recycled materials.39

More than half of the States with procurement

programs include more than paper in the materials to

be preferentially procured (58). Items eligible for

recycled materials procurement programs, in addition to paper, include tires, re-refined lubricating oil,

construction materials such as glassphalt, and potentially items such as asphalt, HDPE drainage pipes,

plastic floor mats, and polyester carpeting.

The potential of this market is large-Federal,

State, and local government purchases of goods and

services account for about 20 percent of the gross

national product (GNP), amounting to expenditures

of $865 billion in 1986 (135a).@ However, the

amount of a product procured by the government

will not necessarily have a significant effect on the

overall market for the product or on MSW management. For example, one reason for the minimal

impact of government procurement programs on

paper recycling is that the government consumes

only 1 to 2 percent of the Nation’s total paper (36).

Marty State and Federal procurement provisions

have not yet been implemented, or have not achieved

their intent to provide viable markets for secondary

materials. EPA’s failure to issue procurement guidelines was discussed above (see “Environmental

Protection Agency”). The Department of Commerce, specifically the Office of Recycled Materials

of the National Bureau of Standards (ORM/NBS),

was at least initially the most active agency in

attempting to fulfill the procurement requirements

set under RCRA. ORM/NBS produced reports on

State procurement efforts and on test method development and specification guidelines for numerous

materials (136,1 37). The methods and standards

developed by the ORM/NBS have been adopted by

the recycling industry. Yet most of this activity

occurred nearly a decade ago. Further, demonstration projects and other activities were not vigorously

pursued.

A variety of reasons have been suggested for this

lack of success, including unclear or no guidelines,

inexact specifications, uncompetitive costs, and a

generally negative societal attitude toward recycled

materials (134). Two particularly critical barriers to

implementing procurement guidelines are 1) conflicting definitions and percentages of recycled

content, which hinder mass production; and 2) the

lack of knowledge of where to buy recycled products

(155).

Nonetheless, despite problems achieving specific

quantitative results, procurement policies can act as

stimulants and demonstrate government leadership

in materials and energy conservation. One major

advantage of procurement programs is their visibility and educational value. They can be used to

demonstrate the successful use of recycled products.

Widespread use of consistent guidelines by both

government and business could provide economic

stimulus for market development and expansion.

One noteworthy development is the initiation of

“buy-recycled” programs by State and local governments (155). For example, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. and Suffolk

39Th~~ include ~~ka, ComWticut, c~ifomla, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, M~l~d, M~~husetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rmm@vmia, Rh* Islmd, TeX~! ve~ontt w~h~gton, md Wkconsin. For a comptism of State

procurement laws see refs. 3 and 105.

401t S~Uld ~ e~@~iz~, however, that 20 pe~ent of the GNp does not d~tly Irmslate into that percentage of product consumption. h f~l, no

national statistics document percentages that high (155),
332 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

County, New York have such programs. NERC also

has supported the development of “buy-recycled”

plans.

Paper Procurement-Most targeted procurement

programs focus on paper, primarily recycled printing

and writing paper. Despite these programs, however,

the supply of such paper made from ‘‘waste paper”

has not increased significantly .41 Although total

U.S. shipments of printing and writing papers

increased from 15.5 million tons in 1980 to 19.6

million tons in 1986 (a 26 percent increase), the

amount of high-grade deinking recycled paper

consumed in the manufacture of printing and writing

paper increased from only 303,000 tons in 1980 to

342,000 tons in 1986, about a 13 percent increase.

This actually represents a slight reduction in the

utilization rate (i.e., waste paper consumed/paper

production) of high-grade deinking recycled paper

from 1.95 to 1.74 percent. The amount of pulp

substitutes consumed in the manufacture of printing

and writing papers increased from 502,000 tons in

1980 to 910,000 tons in 1986, for an increase in the

utilization rate of 3.2 to 4.6 percent. Therefore,

constrained supply may present a barrier to increased consumption of recycled printing and writing paper.

Many factors might be contributing to the

relatively small increase in recycled printing and

writing paper production:

●

●

●

●

capital investment required to build a recycled

paper mill is high;

government procurement programs do not provide adequate incentive because they are small

and do not assure a long-term market;

costs at smaller, non-integrated recycled paper

mills are higher than at big, integrated virgin

paper mills because economies of scale have

not been realized, making it difficult to compete in the highly competitive non-specialty

paper product market;

consolidation in the paper industry has resulted

in purchases of recycled paper mills by larger

companies that subsequently resorted to the use

of virgin raw materials and closed the deinking

facilities required to use post-consumer waste

paper;

●

●

●

●

increased exports of waste paper have reduced

the domestic supply and increased the price

significantly;

use of waste paper in producing printing paper

requires more energy, labor, and materials than

use of virgin pulp;

a great deal of competition exists for the supply

of clean waste paper from domestic mills

producing tissue, paperboard, and other paper

products; and

the use of waste paper in paper products other

than printing papers-may be more efficient from

a raw materials viewpoint—the yield (weight

of finished product/weight of raw material) in

paperboard is 85 percent, compared with 65

percent in printing paper.

On the demand side, barriers to increase paper

recycling via government procurement programs

exist in the procurement process itself. Purchasing

officials are often reluctant to use price preferences

because of a desire to restrict ‘‘unnecessary’

expenses and maximize the purchasing value of

public funds (161). Other arguments include:

●

●

●

●

●

scientific tests to verify the recycled content of

particular lots of paper are not economically

available, providing no legal means of supporting a bid choice if contested;

government orders are sometimes too small to

qualify for direct mill runs, which often can

supply paper at lower cost and allow for easier

verification of recycled content;

fewer responses to purchasing requests for

recycled paper might be likely, reducing both

competition and purchasing options considerably;

the amount of paper procured by the government is too small to have an effect on MSW;

and

purchasing officials receive complaints about

the quality of recycled paper (although it

appears that high-quality recycled papers are

more readily available and at more competitive

prices than previously, an image of the inferior

quality of recycled paper still persists).

These problems are not insurmountable. In some

States, notably California, New York, and Maryland,

procurement programs for secondary materials have

QIThe General ~co~ting Office is seheducled to release a report in 1989 on implementation of tie paper guideltie.
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 333

provided a market for recycled paper. The mechanisms most commonly used for recycled paper

procurement are minimum content standards, price

preferences, and set asides. Minimum content standards define the procuring agency’s idea of “recycled” paper. Separate standards are often set for

each type, or grade, of paper purchased to allow for

technological constraints. A minimum content standard may include requirements for post-consumer

waste as well as any type of waste paper in general.

Price preferences allow the procuring agency to

subvert the usual legal requirement to award contracts to the lowest qualified bidder. Most commonly, preferences range from 5 to 10 percent for

paper, thus allowing the purchase of recycled paper

at a price up to 10 percent above that of competing

paper without the specified waste paper content.

Set-aside programs allocate a specified amount of

paper purchases to recycled paper, without consideration of price.

New York’s procurement program has a 10

percent price preference for paper with a recycled

content of at least 40 percent. During the period 1981

to 1987, paper certified by the State as recycled

accounted for 40 percent of the paper purchased by

the State government. This percentage fluctuated,

with no discernible trend, reaching a high of 59

percent in 1985 and a low of 24 percent in 1987. A

preference of $77,403 was paid in 1987 for the

recycled paper, amounting to 0.9 percent of the total

value of paper purchases. The types of recycled

paper products purchased under the preference

program in 1987 included offset sheet and rolls (43

percent), paper towels (38 percent), scratch pads (18

percent), and text and cover paper (1 percent) .42 In

addition to certified recycled paper obtained under

the recycled paper procurement program, the State

purchased tissue, corrugated and chipboard boxes,

napkins, fiber drums, and refuse sacks, all commonly made of recycled fiber, that amounted to

about 30 percent of total paper purchases (45).

California has a 5 percent price preference for

paper with a recycled content of 50 percent, including 10 percent post-consumer waste. During the

period 1977 to 1987, 14.4 percent of California’s

paper expenditures was for recycled paper (57). The

preference paid to procure this paper amounted to

$505,000, or only 0.2 percent of the total value of

paper purchases. In fiscal year 1986-87, California’s

recycled paper purchases amounted to 25 percent of

total State paper purchases, the highest proportion of

recycled paper attained thus far. Even so, the

preferences granted amounted to only 0.35 percent.

The types of recycled paper bought in that year

included bond paper (52 percent), copier paper (22

percent), envelopes (22 percent), lunch boxes (3

percent), and chipboard (1 percent) .43

Maryland has a set-aside program for recycled

paper that specified graduated increases in recycled

paper purchases up to 40 percent of total paper

purchases by 1985, the eighth year of the program.

By 1986, Maryland had spent more than $19 million

to purchase recycled paper products, defined as

containing 80 percent recycled paper, including 80

percent post-consumer waste (57,58,153,154). Maryland’s program focuses on bond paper.

Clearly, this review of various Federal and State

financial incentives indicates that careful evaluation

of the potential effect of incentives to encourage

recycling is necessary before program commitments

are made. Indeed, the dynamic nature of secondary

materials markets makes it imperative that recycling

be a carefully planned and implemented MSW

management option.

Incineration

OTA estimates that about 10 to 15 percent of the

Nation’s MSW is managed through incineration.

The status of regulation of air emissions and

management of ash residues from MSW incineration

is discussed in chapters 1 and 6. The discussion in

this chapter is limited to the general context in which

this policy debate is taking place.

Local officials were first encouraged to develop

waste-to-energy incineration facilities by the Department of Energy and EPA, which in the mid1970s promoted incineration as part of the Nation’s

strategy to be energy self-sufficient. The Department of Energy (DOE) was given authority to

provide Federal funds to encourage the developing

420ffWt ~Pm, ~nd p-r, copier P=r, envelops, ~d ~xt ad cover papr ~conside~ pfiting and writing paper, while toilet paper, paper

towels, and facial tissues are considered tissue papers.

43~viow Ye=s’ pmhaaes includ~ tissue, paper towels, correlated, and other non-printing ~d ~@ P~rs.

99-420 0 - 89 - 9
334 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

waste-to-energy industry (i.e., incineration facilities

that recover energy). A comprehensive waste-toenergy program, however, never developed. DOE

issued several internal drafts of a Comprehensive

Waste-To-Energy Plan, but the document was not

published or submitted to Congress (66). Nonetheless, DOE continues to sponsor some related research efforts (139).

Price support regulations, in accordance with the

Energy Security Act, were issued in 1980 but

withdrawn in 1982. The funding for loan guarantees

and price supports for waste-to-energy facilities was

virtually eliminated at this same time (66). However,

Federal support for waste-to-energy facilities continues through the Public Utility Regulatory Policies

Act. PURPA guarantees a market for the electricity

generated by waste-to-energy facilities (chs. 5 and

6). Utilities are not generally enthusiastic about the

requirement to make “avoided cost” purchases of

energy from MSW facilities, and although the

program is under review it to date has seined to

create an artificial market for these sources.

Many early combustion facilities suffered mechanical and technical difficulties, thus creating a

climate of skepticism about the reliability of this

management option. Today, the industry believes it

has acquired the technical expertise necessary to run

successful facilities (116). The public, however,

remains concerned about the high capital costs

associated with incineration, site selection, air emissions, and ash management.

Siting incineration facilities is a slow process that

can take 5 years or more. In addition, several more

years may pass before a facility is operational. For

example, in New Jersey the Department of Environmental Protection estimates that it may take a year

or more to complete its comprehensive permit

process; construction is estimated to require an

additional 2 to 3 years (117). The financing and

management costs associated with incineration can

also be formidable (ch. 2). Some localities have

canceled or postponed proposed waste-to-energy

facilities (including Austin, Texas; Seattle, Washington; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Alachua

County, Florida). In March 1989, Tulsa, Oklahoma

adopted an ordinance that increases trash collection

rates for households and businesses to help finance

the city’s waste-to-energy facility. The facility has

experienced annual shortfalls of $6.3 million since

1986, largely caused by lower than projected natural

gas prices and because the facility is operating at

only 65 percent capacity (31).

In the current highly uncertain regulatory climate

for MSW incineration, municipalities need reliable

information on incineration technologies, cost estimate scenarios, and realistic assessments of their

potential liabilities if they are to plan and evaluate

proposals for incineration projects. The National

League of Cities published a guide to answer

questions many municipalities face when contemplating an incineration project, and some other

information resources are available (86a). Guidance

from the Federal Government to clarify the regulation of incineration is strongly needed, however, to

facilitate local planning.

Compatibility With Recycling

As incineration and landfilling become more

costly, recycling may become more cost competitive

with these options. Some observers are concerned,

however, that “flow control ordinances,” designed

to ensure sufficient refuse for efficient incinerator

operation, and related factors make these two

options basically incompatible.44 Flow control ordinances, in which a municipality grants an exclusive

contract for the collection and/or disposal of waste

to an incinerator (or other waste facility), have been

upheld as “a reasonable and foreseeable exercise of

[State] powers.”45 That is, flow control ordinances

under certain circumstances have been upheld by the

Supreme Court, and are not a violation of antitrust

laws even though they can displace competition.

44M~ l~~iti~ do gum~ti a ceflfi flOW of MSW to f~ilities, the so-eakd “put or pay” or “flOW control” contracts. If a fwiiity iS flOt SiZed

to adjust for the amount of MSW a community will recycle, and an ambitious recycling program reduces the volume of waste available to the facility,

the kxality may have to contrae~ with other communities for that amount of MSW. Flow control ordinances of some sort exist in every region of the

country (80).

4SHyb~Eq*@CoW, V. c@ofAkron, OhiO 742 F.2d 949 (1984),471 U.S. 1004; see also TwnofHailie, etal. (Wiscomin) V. @ ofEau Chire

(Wiseonsin)700 F.2d 376(1983), 467 U.S. 1240; Centrailowa Refuse Systetm, Inc. v. lles Moines Me@~olitan Solid Waste Agency, et al. 715 F.2d

419 (1983), 471 U.S. 1003; and J. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. v, State ofNewJersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection and Board ofPublic Utilities;

Hunterdon County Municipal Utilities Authority 857 F.2d 913 (3rd Cir, 1988).
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 335

Although some experts argue that incineration

deters recycling, others disagree, saying that recycling and incineration are compatible management

options (ch. 6). Section 4003(d) of RCRA states that

the sizing of waste-to-energy facilities should take

recycling and resource recovery activities into account. In some cases, States are taking an active role

to help ensure that recycling and incineration are

compatible. This is essential if States are to successfully implement a waste prevention and materials

management approach to MSW.

In New Jersey, the State’s mandatory recycling

law targets 25 percent of MSW for recycling. In

Essex County, New Jersey, the State funded a study

to examine how comprehensive recycling might

effect the design and operation of the county’s

proposed waste-to-energy project. The study estimated that removing significant quantities of recyclable could increase the heat content of the

remaining waste and reduce the quantity of ash

produced. In addition, capital costs could be reduced

by approximately $22 million by reducing the size

of the facility 15 percent. Ground was recently

broken for the 2,250-ton-per-day facility. According

to the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Conservation, most of the State’s planned waste-toenergy projects have been scaled down to be

consistent with the State’s 25 percent recycling goal.

Scaling facilities to meet recycling goals underscores the critical role of recycling in integrated

MSW management systems.

Failure to consider the reduction in waste caused

by recycling can bring unexpected problems. In

Warren County, New Jersey, for instance, a 400-tonper-day facility is under construction. It will be the

first large-scale waste-to-energy facility to open in

New Jersey; a new landfill was also permitted

nearby. But Warren County, in meeting its 25

percent recycling goal and given the anticipated

growth of its communities, may have a shortfall of

refuse for its facility by 1990. It has, therefore,

contracted with Hunderdon County for 100 tons per

day. It also decided not to require newspaper

recycling, and has instead targeted glass and aluminum containers, and plastic beverage bottles for

recycling. The newspaper will then flow to the

waste-to-energy facility. This compromise brought

mixed reactions from citizens and public officials.

This situation and similar ones around the country

illustrate the difficulty of achieving a delicate

balance between incineration and recycling management options. Recently in Spokane, Washington, the

County Board of Health issued a permit that requires

35 percent of Spokane’s MSW to be recycled by

1998, but supporters of the incineration project

believe that the new county recycling requirement

may make the incinerator economically unfeasible

because there would not be enough MSW to burn.46

In contrast, the County Commissioner of Marion

County maintains that Oregon’s ambitious recycling

goals are not having a negative impact on operation

of the county’s waste-to-energy facility (133). New

York State has a regulatory requirement that a

community applying for a permit to build an MSW

management facility include a comprehensive recycling analysis in the preliminary application.

The ultimate effect of provisions to ensure the

compatibility of recycling and incineration is not yet

clear. State and local planning and development of

incineration facilities requires as careful consideration as the development of any other MSW alternative.

Landfill Disposal

Many areas around the country are facing shortages in permitted landfill capacity (ch. 7). Continued

reliance on landfilling is a source of concern as a

number of potential problems become increasingly

apparent: capacity issues (as landfills unable to meet

permit requirements close); costs (as tipping fees

increase to cover costs or control use); siting

difficulties for new landfills; and concerns over

ground and surface water and air emissions. In

addition to efforts to upgrade existing landfills and

site new landfills with better environmental designs

(ch. 7), many States are also attempting to clean up

existing landfills. This can be expensive. For example, in Wisconsin it is estimated that a six-fold

increase in the State’s tipping fee could be needed to

cover expected pollution problems at licensed

landfills during the next 30 years.

4f5~ 1%9, EPA R@on 10 (which inclu&s Wmhington Stile) included the front-end source ~p~tion of r~yclab]es in tie permit ss a Best Available

Control lkehnology (BACT) requirement. AlthouSh EPA Headquarters denied the permit, the attempt has potentially far-reaching implications (chs.

1 and 6).
336 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

The current Federal criteria regulating landfills

became effective in late 1979 and apply to both new

and existing MSW landfills. In August 1988, EPA

proposed regulations for the design and operation of

new and existing MSW landfill facilities (ch. 7).

Currently, 38 States require groundwater monitoring, but only 14 States require corrective action for

groundwater contamination. Final cover at closure is

required in 49 States and 42 States have requirements for post-closure care (this varies, however,

from 1 to 5 years to 20 years), and 20 States require

some financial assurance.

EPA has concluded that while a few States have

comprehensive regulations, the majority have inadequacies in one or more provisions (149,149a). For

example, few States include location standards for

landfill sites in their regulations.47 Almost 60

percent of all MSW landfills have permits or

approved plans (yet 50 percent of all Subtitle D

facilities are operating without a State permit).

Enforcement efforts in general also need improvement, even though most of the States’ activities (as

noted above) are spent on surveillance/enforcement

and permitting.48 Inadequacies with State regulations indicate that Federal criteria may need to be

more complete, and the proposed regulations include provisions for corrective actions, performance

standards, closure and post-closure requirements,

and financial assurance. As Federal requirements are

developed, the relationship to State permitting and

enforcement programs needs to be clarified. State

variation in standards also means that the degree to

which landfills are located, designed, and operated

in an environmentally sound manner is highly

dependent on wherein the country they are located.

Although landfill ownership varies among States,

on a national level most MSW landfills tend to be

owned and operated by public entities (ch. 7)

(16,18,145).49 Overall, 86 percent of all the landfills

are publicly owned, 57 percent of these by local

governments (149a). In some States (e.g., Indiana,

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia), however, the

distribution of ownership among public and private

entities is relatively even.

Details of landfill technologies and related issues

of performance are discussed in chapter 7. As in

many areas of MSW management, contrasts between different regions of the country, particularly

between the west and east coasts, are apparent. For

example, methane gas recovery at landfills began in

California at the Los Angeles Sanitation District in

the early 1970s. Most sites recovering methane gas

remain in the West, but recovery operations are

opening with increased frequency east of the Mississippi (78). 50 Some of the recovery operations in

California are associated with sites that are now

closing as new regulations take effect or adapting to

changing circumstances.

One example is the landfill in Mountainview,

California, which has a successful methane gas

recovery project. The landfill project started in 1970

and today is nearly completed. Mountainview wanted

a park in a swampy, wrecking area which is the

landfill site, but to bring in fill would have been too

costly. Nearby San Francisco wanted a transfer

station and additional disposal capacity; Mountainview built the landfill to secure the money for a park

and eventually a park was developed over closed

areas of the landfill. In addition, an amphitheater, a

golf course, park, and saltwater lake have been

created. The methane gas recovery project was

established largely as a response to flares of methane

gas escaping from the landfill caused by cigarette

smoking on the amphitheater grounds.

In some areas of the country, particularly rural

areas of the Midwest and in the generally arid

Southwest, municipalities and States are generally

concerned over their ability (and in some cases need)

to meet any new Federal requirements for landfills.

Even in these areas where the goal is to upgrade

landfills to better protect groundwater or for other

purposes, lack of financial resources seriously con4TI’ht is, o~y IZ Smtes inCIUdC lwation standards for wetlands, 3 States have such standards for seismic impact zones, and 6 States have hem fm

subsidence-prone areas.

48EpA e~im~es hat ~roximately $200 and 8 Iahr hours per facility per year are spent on average by States agencies for Subtitle D Activities. h

is not surprising, then, that about 75 percent of all MSW landfills are inspected only once a year.

4% ~tu~ vo]ume of w~e disposed of in tiese facilities may be a much smaller percentage of the waste. For example, in Wisconsin 95 pemenl

of the hmd!llls are owned by public entities, but they manage only 28 percent of the waste (103).

50~@Is abut tie recovery of methane gas are discussed in ch. 7.
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 337

strains these activities and the development of any

management alternatives. These concerns need to be

addressed at the Federal level. Clearly, programs

cannot be implemented at the State and local level

without resources, and the funding of any new MS W

regulations and provisions needs to be considered at

the time of their adoption.

Special Programs

The potential for certain elements of MSW to pose

greater risks than the rest of the waste stream or

require special handling has caused some States and

localities to establish special programs for these

MSW components. Such programs are being adopted

for household hazardous wastes (including waste oil

and batteries), tires, and yard wastes. Concerns over

the possible harmful effects from improper disposal

of these wastes are associated with both landfilling

(i.e., releases of harmful substances to groundwater

or the air) and combustion technologies (i.e., contributing to hazardous air emissions or ash toxicity). 51 Again, this discussion only highlights the

general nature of some of these special programs.

Household Hazardous Waste

Household hazardous waste (HHW) is now exempt from Federal regulations for disposal that are

applicable to other types of hazardous wastes

(RCRA, Section 3001).52 About 1 percent or less of

MSW is believed to be hazardous, but the potential

impact of these wastes on leachate and emissions

from waste management facilities continues to fuel

interest in household hazardous waste programs (ch.

3) (see e.g., 146,39).

EPA completed the only comprehensive study of

HHW in 1986, which is already dated given how

rapidly the number and nature of these programs is

changing (144). The EPA survey found that participation in HHW programs has been low, often less

than 1 percent. The quantities collected, however,

typically range from 20 to 40 pounds per household

(apparently representing several years accumulation

of wastes). Unit costs for these collection programs

can be very high, up to $18,000 per ton. A program

with high participation may cost $2/pound of HHW

Photo credit Office of Technology Assessment

Special management programs for household hazardous

wastes are increasing throughout the country. The information distributed as part of the programs can be a very

effective way of educating people about alternatives to

toxic products.

collected, while a program with low participation

may cost over $9/pound (144).

The relatively high economic cost of collecting

HHW raises some questions, given that other

sources of toxic pollution such as small quantity

industrial generators may dwarf the HHW contribution to potential environmental and health risks

(60,79) (ch. 3). Small quantity generators (SQGs)

may be included in HHW programs and at least one

study, for Seattle/King County, Washington, found

that about the same amount of HHW and SQG waste

was sent to the area landfill as was sent off-site from

larger industrial sources (39). In addition, the

separate collection of HHW is not always necessarily consistent with a materials management ap51w effcxIsof hou~hold hazudow wmtes on m~icip~ wastewater and its treatment also are a concern if they are disposed of into a sewer S)’StCm.

52~s mCmS hat it IS ~~ “Wessv t. ~b~n a ~mit t. qae $+Hw. Li~ili~ un& CER~A (“ Suprfund’ ‘), however, may k incurred by a

municipality transporting or disposing of HHW at a site (21).
338 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

preach to MSW (ch. 1).53 In any case, support for

HHW programs continues because of the educational value of these efforts, especially in terms of

promoting the use of alternative, less toxic products

(24,144).

At least one HHW collection program has been

held in each of 42 States between 1981 and 1987; in

total, there are at least 849 ongoing HHW programs

(23,24). 54 Half of the States have laws and/or

regulations addressing HHW. Often, however, localities hold these programs with or without State or

Federal funding (18,24). This, in part, may be why

many HHW programs are short-lived or sporadically

held. Nonetheless, particularly in areas highly dependent on groundwater, HHW programs tend to

persist and appear to be expanding.

Some areas are establishing regional and permanent facilities for HHW management. These facilities are intended to boost participation rates and

distribute the cost of HHW collection among communities. Public education is also key to the success

of HHW programs. As of 1988, there were 27

permanent HHW collection programs in the country,

sometimes at transfer stations (figure 8-3). For

example, San Bernardino County, California, has

two permanent HHW centers that are open on a daily

basis. Each facility has a specially designed storage

unit for the wastes. Wastes are accepted, categorized

(open and unidentified wastes are not accepted),

properly packaged, and entered on a log sheet.

Wastes are then shipped off site for disposal (usually

in drums to hazardous waste landfills). The program

is funded by the State with some matching funds

from the county’s surcharge at landfills (38,81,82,91,1 11).

One of the oldest and largest State HHW programs is in Florida (62,73,146). Florida, with its

high water table and porous soil, is dependent on

groundwater and vulnerable to groundwater contamination. The county-breed “Amnesty Days” program is funded by the State through the Water

Quality Assurance Trust Fund and is supervised by

the Department of Environmental Regulation. A

variety of approaches have been used in the 3

l/2-year-old program, but educational efforts are

generally combined with collection. Usually a‘‘transFigure 8-3-Permanent Household Hazardous Waste

Collection Programs By Year

Number of programs

9

15

7

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Year

SOURCE: Dana Duxbury & Associates, personal communication, February 1989.

fer station on wheels,” tractor rigs equipped for the

collection process, are used. Unlike some HHW

programs, the “Amnesty Days” collections will

accept hazardous waste (and pesticides) from small

businesses, farmers, and State agencies as well as

households. Rhode Island has a similar Statemanaged regional collection program (50). Other

States, such as California and Washington State

provide guidelines but no direct funding.

Perhaps the most effective framework for HHW

programs is a statewide, State-managed collection

program with adequate funding (73). If no funds are

available, at a minimum State guidelines or regulations are considered desirable (73). A State excise

tax (essentially a user fee) is one funding option for

HHW programs. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, and Vermont, among other States, have

matching grant programs to help fund local HHW

efforts. For example, in Connecticut matching grants

of 50 percent are available for HHW collection days.

Other types of funding available are EPA grants,

State Superfund monies, and State bonding (73,100),

Local governments may use a variety of approaches

to fund or subsidize HHW programs, such as

establishing surcharges (e.g., refuse collection surcharge, water bill surcharge, or tipping fee surssFOreX~ple, ~me toxic residues h glsss containers might be destroyed during recycling processes, in which CiXX the collection of this type of HHW

in a separate program may not be desirable from a materials use perspective.

sdIn Cmtra$t t. the proliferation of HHW programs today, in 1981 there were Only twO programs in one s~~.
Chapter 8-Government Planning and Programs ● 339

charge), stipulating the establishment of an HHW

program when granting a site permit to an appropriate firm, and/or using subsidies or general tax

revenues (100,101).

States can also provide technical assistance to

localities for HHW programs and evaluate the

impacts of existing programs. Indeed, some State

statutes require the evaluation of pilot HHW program efforts. Areas of concern for improving HHW

programs that could be addressed by the Federal

Government include clarifying the liability of collection program sponsors, improving technical assistance, funding public information efforts, and

addressing labelling and disposal restriction issues

(e.g., providing clearer guidelines for use and

disposal; requiring consideration of HHW in MSW

plans). Industry cooperation, by both manufacturers

and waste management companies, will facilitate

any of these efforts for proper disposal of HHW.

In some States and/or localities, more specialized

programs to handle pesticides, paints, used oil, and

batteries have been established.55 “Pesticide Days”

are held with increased frequency around the country, but pesticides are also often accepted at HHW

collection programs (6,41). Some communities will

collect used oil at their recycling centers (e.g., Davis,

California); several communities also collect used

oil through curbside collection programs (e.g., Palo

Alto, California) (44,148). Liability concerns have

limited efforts to establish permanent collection

sites in some areas, but collection directly from

households may avoid classification of the oil as

hazardous.

Batteries are also collected by some targeted

programs. For example, the New Hampshire/

Vermont Solid Waste Project, a consortium of 26

municipalities in the two States, began a program to

collect household batteries in 1987. The batteries are

collected through retail stores that sell dry cell

batteries for flashlights, radios, cameras, and hearing

aids.56 Consumers are encouraged to return batteries

through public education efforts, and batteries are

collected by local civic groups and stored in 55

gallon drums in a secure location until the next local

HHW collection is held.57 In New York City, the

Environmental Action Coalition (EAC) began in

1988 to collect button cell batteries from apartment

buildings participating in its recycling programs.

The EAC estimates that as many as 10,000 button

cell batteries may be disposed of daily in the city.58

Tires

Tires are a prevalent MSW problem for States and

localities because they create serious problems for

landfills. They tend to float to the surface; sometimes they ignite underground and cause severe

fires. Aboveground stockpiles are fire and health

hazards (e.g., mosquitoes, which can transmit diseases, breed when water collects in the tires).

Chipping tires and landfilling them or chipping and

burning them have been expensive alternatives to

landfilling whole tires.59 The Department of Energy

estimates that 168 million of the 200 to 250 million

tires disposed of each year are landfilled or placed in

junk yards. At least 34 stockpiles of 100,000 tires or

more have been identified and are within 150 miles

of major metropolitan areas.

Some States impose deposits on tires to help

finance recycling and research on appropriate disposal methods (e.g., Wisconsin imposes a $2 deposit). Other States have adopted a fee (e.g., Florida

and Oregon) or are proposing to adopt a fee (e.g.,

New York State) on new tires and to use the money

to help municipalities remediate existing tire piles,

provide grants and/or loans to businesses adopting

new technologies for tire recycling, and/or support

research on new methods for managing discarded

tires. Fee systems typically require that tire retailers

accept discarded tires from consumers purchasing

new tires. At least three States have a used tire

recycling program.

55~=jk~S we ~w ~~n ~Ol]mted in high vol~es in HHW p~~s, ~d they do rquire special h~dling.

56~~.Wjdb~tterieS ~~W aconcem, but no know pro~~ for heir collation was identified. Wvate IwyChllgOf these batteries h= been tif~tt!d

by liability concerns and, until recently, depressed prices for lead in secondu mdet (ch. 5).

57~eSoutiwest~wfista~ u~versity HOu~hO]dHuudous w~~~j~tis establishing a mechanism to fmilitatc battery collection in retail

stores by providing self-mailer boxes (123) (ch. 5).

reliability ~oncems over tie ~We~~~g of tie battefies for r~ve~ ~d r~ycl~g ~ not resolv~. S= refs. 91 ad 123.

Sgch. 5 di~usses technologies and related concerns associated with tk dispos~.
340 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Yard Wastes

Several States (e.g., California, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and

Wisconsin) have programs and/or regulations to

encourage or even mandate comporting (10a,107a).

In 1988, New Jersey banned disposal of leaves in

landfills (September through December) and mandated comporting (76).60 Minnesota and Wisconsin

banned landfill disposal of all yard wastes effective

in 1993 (46). At least three States (i.e., California,

Massachusetts, New Jersey) have preferential procurement policies regarding compost. The New

Jersey State Department of Transportation, however, has said it cannot give preferential treatment to

compost until specifications are developed (76).

Minnesota has a policy of using compost, and

Montana has exempted compost from the State sales

tax (107a).

Some States offer technical or financial assistance

to foster comporting (l0a). New Jersey, Wisconsin,

and other States provide manuals on comporting for

community-level operations. In New Jersey, leaf

comporting operations are eligible for State recycling grants and, because siting in general is so

difficult, the State will approve the siting of such

operations on public lands (10a,120a). The 1987

Massachusetts Solid Waste Act provides $7 million

for municipal yard waste comporting programs

(109). Minnesota’s Waste Management Board has

provided funding for various studies and projects,

and Florida has provided financial assistance for

feasibility studies (107a). Delaware played a major

role in developing the mixed MSW comporting

facility in Wilmington.

Many localities operate yard and leaf waste

comporting operations or contract with private

operations (ch. 5). For example, Urban Ore, a

nonprofit recycling business in Berkeley, California,

produced commercial grade compost for 3 years.

The program ended because of political reasons, not

its effectiveness (63). However, the city may renew

its comporting efforts because studies indicate that

35 percent of the MSW volume accepted by the

landfill is brush and yard debris from small and

independent haulers.

Two private firms in Portland, Oregon, cooperate

with the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) to

compost the area’s yard waste. Metro provides

technical assistance to the firms, marketing assistance to processors, and a public education program

to promote comporting. At least 25 percent of the

area’s yard waste is now composted and officials

expect this will double within 5 years (157). In

Davis, California, leaves are collected in plastic bags

by the municipality, which grinds them and makes

non-commercial grade compost. Unlike some communities with similar programs, it has been able to

give away compost the town does not use. These few

examples indicate that compost programs, if carefully planned and executed, can preserve landfill

space and produce usable compost (also see ch. 5).

CROSS-CUTTING CHALLENGES

As the responsibilities for MSW management are

increasingly shared among local, State, and Federal

Governments, a high level of coordination and clear

designation of responsibilities becomes critical.

Requirements and program initiatives cannot be

enacted by higher levels of government without

considering available resources and activities at

lower levels of government. Further, planning efforts are severely handicapped if the regulation of

various management alternatives, and indeed the

entire Federal MSW program, is in a constant state

of flux or is ambiguous.

Several problems exemplify contentious issues

and illustrate the need for coordinated and cooperative intergovernmental efforts. Concerns over the

potential for increased interstate shipment of MSW

are often sparked by the problem of insufficient

capacity within jurisdictions. Issues of siting and

public participation are related to the problem of a

lack of public confidence in newly proposed MSW

policies.

Self-Sufficiency and Interstate

Transportation Issues

To plan an effective MSW strategy, the responsible political jurisdiction needs to be able to predict

the approximate amount of MSW to be handled and

provide sufficient capacity. Currently, however,

60H~w~v~r, ~uf~clent ~min~ Cwwily 10 compost all the leaves collected does not exist. As a result, New Jerwy promulga~d ~ emerEencY ~le

that simplified the permitting process for small operations and allowed larger facilities to obtain temporary operating certificates.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 341

many communities and States are experiencing an

MSW capacity shortfall, at least until new facilities

are operational. This often leads to a greater

shipment of waste between political jurisdictions.

As a result, some States and communities are

experiencing unexpected and dramatic increases in

the amount of waste received from other areas at

their facilities (ch. 7), which generates concern over

the effect on their own future capacity and on other,

revenue-raising activities (e.g., tourism).

In response to interstate imports, some States have

attempted to ban the importation of MSW. However,

given that siting MSW facilities may take 5 or more

years, it is likely that at least in the short term, some

communities will continue to need to ship some

waste to areas with existing capacity. Therefore, the

concerns of jurisdictions with existing capacity need

to be addressed.

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants

Congress the power to regulate all commerce; the

“dormant commerce clause’ is essentially a restatement of this power that makes explicit that State

lines cannot be made barriers to the free flow of

commerce (19).61 The City of Philadelphia v. New

Jersey case is the landmark decision regarding the

question of whether a State may regulate the

shipment of MSW into its jurisdiction.62 in 1973,

New Jersey enacted a waste control law clearly

aimed at prohibiting the shipment of “unusable”

MSW into the State for landfill disposal, but

allowing shipment of MSW materials with some

potential economic value (e.g., through reprocessing, heat recovery, recycling, or as animal feed).63

Philadelphia sued New Jersey over the statute,

claiming it was an encumbrance to interstate commerce, and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the

New Jersey law was indeed in violation of the

Commerce Clause. The New Jersey statute was not

preempted by any existing Federal law; it was

considered a ‘‘protectionist” measure rather than a

law “directed to legitimate local concerns, with

effects on interstate commerce that are only incidental.” 64 Some municipal bans on MSW importation

also have been challenged as violations of the

Commerce Clause, but the case law is not entirely

consistent. 65

Federal courts and at least one State appellate

court have addressed the “market participation’

exception to the Commerce Clause (as articulated by

the Supreme Court) with respect to landfills.66 If the

State is acting as a “market participant,’ that is, it

owns, operates, or transacts business itself, then it

may chose to conduct business with whom it wishes

(e.g., refuse to accept out-of-State shipments of

MSW) without violating the Commerce Clause. 67

The Commerce Clause is interpreted as prohibiting

a governmental unit from “hoarding” all landfill

facilities for its citizens, when the sites are viewed as

natural resources. Restrictions are permissible under

certain conditions if facilities are viewed as complex

activities rather than natural resources (e.g., when

private operators are allowed to compete with

publicly operated landfills) (67).

Thus Delaware, which established the Delaware

Solid Waste Authority to manage all of the State’s

MSW, can restrict the influx of any out-of-State

waste .

68 Maine passed legislation that requires

future solid waste facilities to be State-owned, the

apparent intent being greater control over siting and

interstate shipments of wastes. It appears that a

locality would also be able to restrict the flow of

61u.s. consti~tion, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945).

b~i~ ojphe&de@hia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978); 98 S. Ct. 2531.

63w~EConml ~t, N.J. Admin. Code 7:1A,2 (Supp. 1977). See refs. 19,70, md 1z8-

~~e CO~ ~j~t~ New Jersey’s argument that MSW was “valueless.’ SW mfs. 19, 70, 128.

65 S= Mowoe.Livin8~ton SmltW_ll, Inc. v. Town of Cale&m’a, 51 N.Y. 2d 679; Dutchess Sanitation Serv., Inc. V. Town of Plattekill 51 N.Y.

2d 670; 435 N. Y.S.2d 966 (1980). In addition, attempts by municipalities to control MSW disposal through their zoning power have also been challenged

successfully if they discriminate on the basis of the source of the MSW (see refs. 70, 128),

66See Hughes v. Ale&r~ ScrW Corp. 426 U.S. 794 ( 1976); also Reeves, Inc. v. Stake 477 U.S. 429 (1980) ad White V. Massachusetts Council

of Construction Empfoyees 460 U.S. 204 (1983).

67sW, e.g., L#r~~olS v. R~& /s&~ 669 F. Supp, 1z04(D,R.I. 1987); L$@W Brothers v, District of Columbia 592 F. SUpp. 1128 (D.D.C. 1984);

and County Commissioners of Char&s County v. Stevens 299 Md. 203 (1984). l%ese cases generally find that when States or municipalities operate

landfill setvices as market participants they may under certain conditions be able to restrict their services to wastes from only their jurisdictions without

violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

6s&lawwe So]id W=te Au~orjty, 7 &lawme Cole, ChWter 64; ~so,H~gheS v. A/e~ndria SC~q co~oration, 426 U.S. 794 (1976), See ref. 128.
342 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

waste if it was a “market participant, ” that is it

owned or operated a facility.69

The Federal Government could address the issue

of self-sufficiency and interstate transportation by

requiring or encouraging State solid waste plans to

address capacity and how it will be provided (see ch.

1 for additional discussion). Some legislation has

been proposed or discussed in Congress to establish

Federal requirements regarding interstate transportation of MSW, as well as the exportation of MSW

to foreign countries. One proposal, for example,

would allow a State to ban imports from other States

if it had an EPA-certified solid waste plan and a

process for developing sufficient capacity to handle

its own MSW. A reliable system to collect data on

existing, planned, and future capacity also is needed

and could be included in requirements for approval

of State plans.

An alternative approach would be to provide

mechanisms for cooperation in interstate MSW

transportation (ch. 1). For example, interstate compacts have been used to deal with issues such as

low-level radioactive waste disposal, navigation and

flood control, water pollution control, community

development, and crime prevention (66). In fact,

provisions exist in RCRA (Sections 4002(a) and

4006(C))” to encourage interstate regional planning to

facilitate MSW management. These provisions,

which have not been implemented, could provide a

basis for allowing States to enter into agreements on

MSW issues such as transportation of wastes,

disposal fees, or development of new management

facilities. Instead of erecting a barrier, this would

allow some wastes to move unimpeded across State

lines, but in an orderly manner.70

Restoring Public Confidence

Siting

Siting new MSW management facilities—

whether landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities—

has become increasingly difficult in some areas.

Some State MSW plans, which in part address the

development of adequate capacity, have failed to be

implemented because new facilities to meet the

goals of the plan could not be sited. Given that

additional capacity shortages are expected as landfill

closings increase when the new EPA landfill regulations take effect (ch. 7), the problem of siting

facilities in a timely way is a growing concern.

Informal discussions by OTA with State and local

officials and developers of various types of waste

management facilities throughout the country revealed that most facilities have taken at least 5 to

8 years to site. Realistically, any locality needing

additional disposal capacity within a shorter period

of time will probably have to make interim arrangements for MSW disposal, such as expanding the

capacity of existing facilities and/or entering into

agreements with jurisdictions or facilities nearby

that have sufficient capacity to accept additional

wastes. Again, escalating costs will result.

Public opposition is the primary cause for the

lengthiness of the siting process. The opposition is

in part related to the “NIMBY” (not in my

backyard) syndrome, which seems to affect a broad

range of activities. The primary cause of the

opposition, however, stems from a lack of confidence in the safety of a proposed facility and the

uncertainties associated with its regulation and

reliable operation. Residents also have concerns

about potential negative effects on local property

values.

Nonetheless, some new management facilities of

all types have been sited in recent years (box 8-D).

An extensive body of literature exists on the

difficulties of siting facilities (particularly hazardous waste facilities) and evaluating various approaches to siting. In general, the key factors to

foster public acceptance of a facility identified by

such studies (69, 97, 131) are the:

. credibility of the siting process (i.e., the

scientific assessments and political judgments

of a site’s suitability are trusted by the public);

@Evergreen Wute system, inc. v. Metropolitan Service District 820 FM 951 (1987).

7~e bill ~W~ in t~ loolh Congew (H.R< 3515) would n~ prohibit jntersme u~spon of MSW, but woltld require that a written agreement

exist between a party transporting MSW across a State line and the facility accepting the waste, and that other speeified conditions be met as WCIL Bills

restricting interstate transportation continue to be proposed in Congress (e.g., H.R. 2099, IOlst Cong., 1st sess.), although it is not clear whether Congress

will enact any such measures (75).
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 343

●

●

equity issues (i.e., assurances to the host

community that health and environmental risks

will not be unfairly borne on its residents); and

public participation (i.e., involving the public

in selecting, evaluating, and locating facilities).

Successful siting is most likely if there is early,

substantive, and continual public participation, positive local-State relations, and sincere efforts to

mitigate risks (e.g., through additional controls,

frequent monitoring and inspection, and rigorous

enforcement).

Involving the public and building trust can add a

significant amount of time and expense to the siting

process. Yet, allowing the public only limited

opportunities for participation (e.g., public hearings

on an already government-selected site) can fuel

opposition to waste management alternatives and

also add delays and high costs to a project.

A comparison of the political processes in Japan

and the United States provides some guidance on

how to improve this critical component of policymaking. In Japan, public acceptance for new

facilities is gained primarily by meeting public

demands for advanced pollution controls. That is,

political and social acceptability (rather than environmental, health, economic, or technical factors)

are critical in determining which methods a community adopts. In addition, a community swimming

pool or greenhouses, heated by steam recovered

from the waste-to-energy facility, may be provided

to the host community as part of the facility. This

process, although generally successful, has resulted

in escalating expectations by the public, longer

negotiations, and substantial extra costs (in some

cases up to 50 percent, some of which are borne by

the national government). In the United States,

similar approaches may prove necessary to gain

public confidence in our entire approach to MSW

management.

Effective siting is most likely when two basic

premises are recognized—siting is a continual

negotiations process and it must take place with

public support (125,126).71 One study, which reviewed 120 proposed MSW incineration projects

and analyzed 20 as representative of the national

situation, found that 35 percent completely abanPhoto credit: M. Wagner

The famous “Not In My Backyard” or NIMBY situation

applies not only to incinerators and landfills, but also to

facilities for processing reclyclable materials. It stems from

past experiences with poorly performing facilities, concerns over potential risks, and failure to involve the public

adequately in decisionmaking.

doned plans for the facility, 15 percent are in

“serious difficulty” proceeding, 25 percent are

proceeding toward contract signing and are not at

more than double the expected time at this stage, and

25 percent are under construction or operational

(13).

In this study, the investigators found that it was

not the technology, concerns over air degradation, or

other concerns which caused a site or project to be

abandoned, but rather “insufficient public appreciation of the need to find a waste disposal alternative.

The researchers found that public education programs needed to begin before the site was announced

and needed to include detailed explanations about

the need for the facility.

Political and personal economic considerations

can affect citizens living near a site. Sometimes

indecision by local officials can fuel opposition to a

proposed site; citizen advisory committees without

sufficient public education efforts can also be

associated with siting difficulties. In addition, if

homeowner equity is the major personal asset of

local citizens, opposition is likely to be high.

TIsa ~sO refs. M and 124. For discussions of how proced~~ improvemen~ in the siting process could increase the likelihood Of Siting, see ref. 9.
344 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Wrote?

Box 8-D-Examples of Successful Local and State Siting Experiences

The Palm Beach County (Florida) Solid Waste Authority considers involvement of the Citizens Advisory

Council (CAC) key to the successful siting of its resource recovery facility. The CAC assisted in defining the details

of the $320 million bond issue, reviewing elements of the project before contract signing occurred, and continues

to serve as a “watchdog” for the project. The authority, in an attempt to gain public confidence, went beyond

regulatory requirements and attempted to address public concerns throughout the planning and implementation of

the project. Although the siting process for the resource recovery facility did take 7 years and possibly entailed some

additional expenditures, public support was established for the project and the county’s MSW efforts (1 15).

Approximately 5 years were required to site the waste-to-energy facility in Marion County, Oregon. In total,

however, 12 years were spent to develop a relatively long-term MSW solution for the county. The County Board

of Commissioners, after meeting resistance to siting a new landfill, established a citizens group (the Solid Waste

Advisory Council) in 1979 to study MSW options. The citizens advisory group recommended at the end of 2 years

that a waste-to-energy facility be built. The board concurred and selected a prospective vendor. Soon, however,

public pressure mounted again. A public relations firm was hired, and another citizens group was formed (the

Citizens’ Committee to Solve Marion County’s Garbage Crisis). Eventually, a petition filed in opposition to the

waste-to-energy facility was defeated and the plant opened in 1986 (34).

In Wisconsin, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for the technical and environmental

regulatory review of landfill sites, and the State Waste Facility Siting Board has the power to arbitrate an agreement

between a municipality and a landfill developer as long as the agreement meets the regulatory requirements set by

the DNR.l The DNR includes in its technical and environmental review criteria such as: an evaluation of the need

for the facility; location criteria; environmental criteria (e.g., soil type); design criteria (e.g., liner and cap design);

construction documentation; proof of financial responsibility for closure and long-term care; site licensing; and

periodic inspections. The negotiated agreement can address landfill design, operation and closure issues, and

alleviating economic impacts on the local area—but, again, State requirements must be met.

Of the 103 facilities that have been subject to the law, in 30 cases no negotiation process was sought; for the

73 which entered into the process, 26 reached a negotiated agreement, 41 are still in the process, 5 have withdrawn,

and one is being brought to arbitration (102). The State of Wisconsin acknowledges that its siting process is

“complex, comprehensive and time consuming’ ’-taking 3 to 5 years to complete, but it is also successful

(102,1 12). One State official concludes that it is, ‘‘The interplay of planning, state licensing and enforcement and

the negotiation/arbitration of local approvals [which] makes the siting of new environmentally safe facilities

possible” (1 12).

Another key to the siting program’s success is the local approval process, which allows local units of

government to establish reasonable controls on the facility and provides an opportunity for any adverse social and

economic impacts to be mitigated through the negotiation process. Apparently, economic compensation to host

communities and sometimes directly to property owners has been important to a number of agreements. In general,

the negotiations proceed in good faith and result in resolution because of the specter of arbitration by the State, which

could result in a less favorable outcome.

IFor rn~ dl~~.js]orl of the R%consln siting process, See ref. ] 12.

Although OTA did not attempt an exhaustive facility, and landfilling. A different approach, also

review of all siting experiences, it recognizes siting successful, occurred in Marion County, Oregon, for

as a central problem for MSW managers. As a waste-to-energy facility. Wisconsin is often identidiscussed in box 8-D, several examples of successful fied as having an innovative siting program for

State and local siting experiences can help identify landfills that incorporates the use of a negotiation/

what types of siting policies are likely to be most arbitration process.

effective. In Palm Beach County, Florida, for

example, local officials were able to implement a As this discussion indicates, public support is

multi-faceted MSW program consisting of recy- crucial to success. This means public involvement,

cling, a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) resource recovery through education and participation, must occur
Chapter 8-Government Planning and Programs ● 345

early and throughout the planning, siting, and

development of MSW management options. Sporadic involvement of the public, an unwillingness (or

the appearance of inflexibility) to address public

concerns, and a lack of consideration of all available

management alternatives, can jeopardize successful

siting. This may add time and additional expense to

MSW projects, but it will encourage necessary

public support.

Public Education and Participation

The importance of consumer education of the next

generation of consumers--our children--can not be

understated. As the public grows more aware of the

environmental consequences of its lifestyles (e.g.,

purchasing decisions), its understanding of waste

reduction, recycling, and other management alternatives broadens. In addition, concern for the interconnectedness of environmental problems increases.

Public education, public participation, and public

acceptance of MSW management alternatives are

inextricably intertwined. One effort will not have

meaningful results without the others.

A number of States and localities have created

education programs as part of their MSW activities.

For example, in California, particularly in the San

Francisco Bay area, the importance of public education is widely recognized and is a key component in

local recycling programs. This includes not only

pamphlets and materials distributed to residents

about the recycling program, but also a recycling

curriculum guide for teachers. In Ohio, the Department of Education requires all Ohio schools to

include environmental education in the curriculum,

and the Department of Natural Resources’ Division

of Litter Prevention and Recycling developed a

comprehensive solid waste, recycling, and litter

prevention curriculum guide. It developed the guide

because a review of current health, science, and

social studies texts in the schools revealed that solid

waste issues generally were not included. The solid

waste curriculum guide is indexed to allow activities

to be selected for lessons in mathematics, English,

science, and social studies (158),

Most State and local education programs assume

that the use of materials and the prevention and

management of MSW should be included in the

curriculum of all school-age children. The logic is

that if the importance of sound waste management

and the ethics of waste reduction and recycling are

taught beginning in elementary school, by the time

a child reaches adulthood practices such as materials

separation will be part of one’s lifestyle. In Japan, as

well as in a number of other countries, lessons on

recycling and other waste management issues are

taught to all school-age children.

One example of a successful recycling information center is in Portland, Oregon. The Metropolitan

Service District in Portland operates a Recycling

Information Center that responded to nearly 30,000

calls in 1988. The Center began as a volunteer

organization initially supported by a grant from the

U.S. Office of Environmental Education (part of the

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) and

donations. To date, however, the Federal Government has not been extensively involved in supporting any educational programs for MSW. Suggestions have been made that the Federal Government

establish an organization similar to the Clean Japan

Center to serve as an information source and

clearinghouse for citizens and the private sector

(66). Again, although some States and localities

have established information centers, most have a

more narrow focus than the Clean Japan Center.

Views of Appropriate Federal Roles

OTA released a study on materials in MSW 10

years ago, Materials and Energy From Municipal

Waste, and many conclusions regarding key issues,

findings, and the “current” Federal role appear

strikingly similar to those in this report-at least at

first glance (130). Little has changed in the Federal

Government’s role in MSW in the last 10 years.

Concerns over appropriate methods of “resource

recovery,” the marketability of recovered materials,

institutional barriers to recycling, inequities in the

governmental incentives for resource recovery and

recycling, and the desirability of source separation,
346 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Recycling

Curriculum

The links between the extraction of virgin resources and the mounds of waste that we discard must be made more apparent to the

next generation than they are to most Americans today. States and localities usually cite education-particularly at the grade school

level—as a key factor in their recycling programs.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 347

are all topics in the decade-old OTA assessment.72

Yet new concerns have also arisen, such as the need

for waste reduction efforts, and the technologies for

resource (both energy and materials) recovery and

recycling have changed. In the 1979 report, an entire

chapter analyzed proposals for beverage container

deposit legislation. In 1989, implications of newly

adopted mandatory source separation recycling programs warrant detailed examination. Further, the

rationale for source separation has been broadened

beyond recycling (ch. 1).

Although the list of appropriate Federal activities

suggested 10 years ago is not very different from that

discussed in this assessment, the motivation for

action may have changed. As more stringent landfill

requirements have been adopted, available MSW

capacity has declined dramatically. This was not a

serious concern in 1979, although the potential

environmental problems associated with improper

landfilling methods were and prompted adoption of

stricter regulations .73

Whether the pressure for new, more adequate

MSW capacity and other conditions present today

will motivate Federal action remains to be seen. As

the 1979 OTA assessment concluded:

Ultimately, the widespread adoption of resource

recovery and recycling may depend not so much on

the objective analysis of small actions taken together

or separately, but on Federal action to create a

climate in which the recovery, recycling, and reuse

of discarded wastes becomes a valued way of life for

all Americans.

Federal attention to MSW disposal and management problems lapsed during the last decade,

primarily because of the Nation’s preoccupation

with hazardous waste problems. As municipalities

struggle to devise appropriate mixes of MSW

management options for their communities, and

States become more directly involved in MSW

management, the issue of the appropriate role for the

Federal Government resurfaces. State by State,

locality by locality, MSW policy development is

hampered by limited resources. This results in

inconsistent MS W programs and regulations. Consequently, the need for greater Federal involvement is

once again being emphasized. As in other areas of

environmental policy where a strong rationale for

Federal involvement is clear, inconsistencies can

lead to a confusing regulatory climate (hampering

business decisionmaking) and even encourage the

movement of waste from more regulated to less

regulated jurisdictions (ch. 7).

State and local officials generally agree that there

should be greater Federal involvement in MSW

management. Specifically, the following tasks, compiled from a roundtable discussion at an OTA

workshop (133), are frequently included in “wish

lists” for an expanded Federal role in MSW

management:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

establishing a national clearinghouse for information (e.g., developing a database, standardizing terms and definitions, compiling bibliographies);

providing Federal incentives for recycling (e.g.,

stimulating markets, mandating product disposal charges, encouraging design for recyclability of products);

undertaking research and development (e.g.,

ash disposal methods, determine health effects

of management options, improve recycling

processes, provide incentives for private research and development);

providing technical assistance (e.g., provide

training to State officials, develop performancebased standards for options, assist States in

methods of waste reduction);

establishing packaging and product regulations/

guidelines to reduce waste/toxicity (e.g., require labeling, ban toxic constituents);

establishing workable Federal procurement standards; and

finalizing regulations for landfilling and incineration facilities.

These tasks for further Federal involvement are not

unlike those frequently voiced by other public and

private interests as well.

7ZUWC of btm“resource recovery” has changed somewhat. In the 1979 (YI’A ~,I’CWWW remvexy activities referred mainly to the use of

technologies for burning the combustible portion of MSW or converting it (through RDF processes) and recovering energy. At that time recovery of

materhds for recycling or cmmposting was less available commercially. In this assessmcnL materials recovery is distitlguished from energy recovery,

and resource recovery can refer to either or both types of recovery activities.

731n ~ition t. envirmmt~ ~oncem, Wi= ad emcient ~w of ma~ri~s, tie pre~~~ion of virgin materi~s, energy consemation, and improving

the balance of trade by reducing our dependence on imported naturat resources were goals noted in the 1979 assessment.
348 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

As indicated in appendix 8-A, authority for many,

but not all, of these activities already exists in

RCRA. The current reauthorization of RCRA is an

opportunity to address these issues and further

define the Federal role in MSW. The establishment

of a more effective system to reduce the generation

of MSW and better manage what is produced is

directly dependent on how well Congress meets the

challenge of defining Federal involvement in MSW

management.

The effective management of MSW will require

not only intergovernmental changes in responsibilities and changes in Federal, State, and especially

local budgets for MSW management, but also

changes in people’s lifestyles. If this is to happen,

governments will have to proceed now with programs that will restore public confidence. Involving

the public in meaningful ways-i. e., without allowing citizens only the power to object-in the MSW

planning and facility siting processes will be key to

ensuring the public trust necessary to re-direct past

MSW management efforts and adopt lifestyle changes

that generate less waste.

APPENDIX 8-A: FEDERAL

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Solid Waste Disposal Act and

Resource Recovery Act

Congress first established a Federal role in solid waste

issues bypassing the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1 %5.74

As was typical at this time for other environmental policy

areas, the law merely authorized Federal research in the

area and set up a program of grants to the States for similar

research. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 amended

this law and strengthened the Federal role.75 It was not

until the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) of 1976 that Federal involvement was significantly expanded (see next section).

Prior to the mid- 1960s, fewer than half of the municipalities with populations greater than 2,500 had programs for

solid waste disposal (68). Waste management regulations

that did exist were primarily general health and safety

ordinances applied to waste disposal sites. State activities

were for the most part limited to formally delegating

authority to municipalities for solid waste management,

prohibitions against dumping of wastes on public property, and anti-litter programs. A few States, however, did

have some solid waste activities, usually as part of their

public health program (68).

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, in addition to

initiating the Federal role in MSW policy, encouraged

greater State involvement while affirming primary reliance on local management, The Department of Health$

Education, and Welfare was authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to State and local governments, In addition, grants were available to States that

developed statewide solid waste management plans and

designated a single implementing agency (Section 206).

By 1975, all States had adopted some form of solid waste

regulations, although there was tremendous variation

among them.

The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 amended the Solid

Waste Disposal Act to authorize a Federal grant program

for the “demonstration, construction, and application of

solid waste management and resource recovery systems’

(Section 101) and established Federal authority for the

promulgation of guidelines for “solid waste collection,

transport, separation, recovery, and disposal systems”

(Section 104(b)). The funding of such solid waste

activities increased after the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. EPA, for

example, funded eight resource recovery projects under

the program established by the 1970 Act. Shortly after this

time, however, EPA activity decreased as other environmental issues received higher priority (68).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) of 197676

Passage of RCRA in 1976 was a clear movement

toward more direct Federal involvement in solid waste

management. The intent of RCRA was to improve waste

management by discouraging landfill disposal. This was

done by shifting the burden of costs more directly to users,

and by encouraging development of resource recovery

Td~b]lc Law 89.272.

TSfiblic Law 91-512.

Tb~b]ic Law 94.5s0 (1976). RCRA’S statutory definition of solid waste was quite broad, and included ‘garbage, refuse, and other discarded solid

materials, including solid-waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. . .“ (42

U.S.C. 53251-3259 (1970). Later, the definition was expanded to include sludges of various types and “. . . other discarded materiat, including solid,

liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materiat resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community

activities” (42 U.S.C. Section 6!X)3(27) (1977)). This mses.sment, however, does not examine all of these types of waste (ch. 1). Solid waste management

was also broadly defined by the act to include “the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal

of solid waste” (42 U.S.C. Section 6903(28)).
Chapter Government Planning and Programs . 349

technologies and use of the materials or energy recovered

(66).

RCRA distinguishes between hazardous (Subtitle C)

and nonhazardous (Subtitle D, including MSW) wastes.

Since its passage, most activities by the Federal Government have focused on hazardous waste issues, RCRA did

establish an office of solid waste within EPA, mandated

regulations on solid waste disposal, and established

procedures for State development of solid waste management plans. Yet most responsibility for overseeing the

management of solid wastes remains with the States, as

Congress expressly avoided preemption of State regulations in this area.

Subtitle D (Subchapter IV, RCRA) includes objectives

that encourage methods of MSW management that are

‘‘environmentally sound and [will] maximize the utilization of valuable resources including energy and materials

which are recoverable from solid waste and to encourage

resource conservation’ (Section 4001 ). These objectives

are consistent with the findings presented in RCRA’s

initial section (Section 1002) about solid waste, the

environment and human health, and materials and energy.

Similar findings relevant to MSW management are

included in other statutes, such as the Mineral Lands and

Mining Act (MLMA) and the Public Utility Regulatory

Policies Act (PURPA).77

Despite these types of findings and objectives, what is

not stated in the act is of great interest. It is noteworthy

that RCRA does not contain a statement of national

policy for MSW. Indeed, the lack of national goals for

MSW possibly has contributed to the general lack of

Federal leadership in this area. Such a policy may not have

been stated because Congress has been careful to respect

the traditional roles of local and State governments.

In addition, although it is frequently assumed that a

hierarchy of preferred MSW management options is

stated in RCRA, no such hierarchy is explicitly

outlined in the statute. The section on findings (Section

loo), for example, only notes a need for alternatives to landfills. With the statute’s general emphasis on

resource recovery, recycling and waste-to-energy incinerators seem to be viewed as equally desirable. MSW

prevention is not clearly stated as a policy or as the

preferred option within a hierarchical approach.78

Finally, contrary to what often may be assumed, RCRA

does not explicitly state a policy of minimizing

environmental and health risks associated with MSW

management practices. Again, however, the sections on

findings (Section 1002(b)) and objectives (Section 4001)

note the danger to human health and the environment

from inadequate MSW management and state an objective of environmentally sound MSW management.

A major focus of Subtitle D was to encourage the

development of State solid waste management plans

(addressing both MSW and nonhazardous wastes) and

foster intergovernmental (Federal, State, and local) and

public/private cooperation. Federal technical and financial assistance were offered to States and localities as

incentives for the development of plans (Sections 4002-

4003, Sections 4006-4008). Another major focus of

Subtitle D is the improvement of landfills. EPA was

authorized to promulgate regulations containing criteria

for classifying types of sanitary landfills (Section 4004),

to facilitate in the closing or upgrading of existing open

dumps (Section 4005), and to provide some assistance for

these activities to rural communities (Section 4009).

RCRA also contains a substantial research, development, demonstration, and information subtitle (Subchapter VIII). This subtitle, in addition to establishing broad

research authorities for EPA, ‘‘alone or after consultation

with the Secretary of Energy’ (Section 8001), identifies

a number of special studies to be supported, such as glass

and plastic, tires, waste composition, ‘‘small-scale and

low technology,” and “front-end source separation”

(Section 8002). The act established the Resource Conservation Committee, composed of the EPA Administrator,

the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the

Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the

Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Interior, the

Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of the Counsel of

Economic Advisors, and a representative of the Office of

Management and Budget (Section 8002@). The committee was to investigate ‘all aspects of the economic, social,

and environmental consequences of resource conservation, “ including the “appropriateness and feasibility” of

product charges or product bans, and the effect of existing

policies (e.g., subsidies and other economic incentives)

on resource conservation (104).

In addition, Section 8003 identifies a comprehensive

list of topics for which the EPA is to “develop, collect,

evaluate and coordinate information. ’ This includes

information on methods to reduce the amount of solid

waste generated, the availability of markets for energy

and materials recovered, methods and costs of solid waste

collection and management, and research and development projects for solid waste management (section

8003(a)). A central reference library was to be established

T~~b}ic Law 96479 and Public Law 95-617, respectively.

T6R~A~~ ~]icy smtement abut reducing the gener~on of Wrote app]ies only to h~mdous WXteS (SeCtion ltX)2(a)(6)), although MSW reduction

is included in the findings as an area necessitating Federal action.
350 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

and maintained to house this information and other

relevant data on performance and cost-effectiveness

records for various solid waste management and resource

conservation technologies and systems (Section 8003(b)).

Full-scale demonstration facilities and grants for resource

recovery systems and “improved solid waste disposal

facilities” programs were also established (Sections

8004-8006).

Procurement guidelines are to be prepared by EPA,

after consultation with the Administrator of General

Services, the Secretary of Commerce (acting through the

Bureau of Standards), and the Public Printer (RCRA,

Subchapter IV). The guidelines should designate items

produced with recovered materials that must be procured

by Federal agencies (in accordance with the provisions of

the Section), recommend practices for the procurement

and certification of such items, and provide information

on the availability, relative price, and performance of such

items (Section 6002(e)). EPA was required to prepare

final guidelines for paper and three other product categories, including tires, by 1985. In addition, each procuring

Federal agency is required to establish an affirmative

procurement program (Section 6002(i)).

In addition to EPA, the other Federal agency given

major responsibilities under RCRA is the Department of

Commerce. Four special areas of responsibilities under

RCRA (Subchapter V, Sections 5001-5005) are delineated for the Secretary of Commerce: 1) to develop

accurate specifications for recovered materials; 2) to

stimulate and develop markets for recovered materials; 3)

to evaluate and promote proven energy and materials

recovery technologies; and 4) to establish a forum for the

exchange of technical and economic data relating to

resource recovery facilities.

Even this brief summary of RCRA indicates that it

established broad authority for Federal involvement in the

development of MSW policies. RCRA already includes

provisions to address many of the areas frequently

identified today in need of Federal attention (ch. 1). Yet

Congress did not grant EPA any authority to require State

implementation of any Federal standards relating to MS W

management. 79 This, as noted above, preserved the

primacy of State and local responsibilities for MSW

management. Federal activity in MSW management has

indeed remained limited, as clearly illustrated in the lack

of funding of Subtitle D activities since 1981.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

of 198480

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)

of 1984 represent a broadening of the Federal involvement in MSW management, although their major focus is

on refining hazardous waste management under RCRA.

HSWA does add one additional method for EPA to

encourage compliance of State solid waste plans with

federal guidelines. EPA can use its enforcement powers

under the hazardous waste provisions of RCRA if a State

fails to implement permit programs for solid waste

facilities receiving hazardous wastes from small quantity

generators (SQGs) and/or household hazardous wastes

(HHW) (Section 4005(c); see also Section 3001(d)).

HSWA also gives EPA the authority, if necessary, to

directly manage portions of a State’s solid waste management plan. Successful implementation, however, still

depends on State and local planning and enforcement

efforts. In addition, EPA is directed to survey solid waste

management facilities across the Nation and evaluate

whether current guidelines and standards are adequate to

protect the environment and human health. It is also

directed to promulgate revisions of the landfill guidelines

and those for landfills receiving HHW and SQG hazardous wastes (Section 4009a) (143,144,145,147,149a).

HSWA also clarified the open dumping ban and reemphasized the procurement program.

Current RCRA Reauthorization Efforts

Congress is focusing its attention during the current

reauthorization process for RCRA on Subtitle D of the

law and is revisiting the issue of the appropriate Federal

role in MSW management. There is agreement that the

Federal role in this policy area needs to be expanded, yet

it is unlikely that a Federal role comparable to that

established in other environmental areas (e.g., hazardous

waste management) will be defined for MSW management.

The Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Hazardous and Toxic Substances of the Committee on Environment and Public Works introduced the Waste Minimization and Control Act of 1989 (S. 11 13; also see S. 1112)

and held hearings throughout the year on MSW issues.

The Chairman of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and Hazardous Materials of the Energy and Commerce Committee also held

hearings and is expected to introduce a RCRA reauthorization bill in 1989. Separate legislation also has been

TgSever~ me~~s exl~, ~wever, for EPA to encourage compliance. For example, if a State does not develop OT implement a m~agement Pl~~ it

will not receive fmancia.t or technicat assistance (Section 4007). Also, EPA may seek injunctive relief if disposal practices present *’an imminent and

substantial endangerment to heatth or the environment’ (Section 7003). Citizen suits can also be used to encourage compliance (Section 7002).

~blic Law 98-616.
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 351

introduced to address specific aspects of MSW issues

(e.g., the disposal of incinerator ash residues, interstate

transportation restrictions, etc.).

Other Relevant Statutes and Authority

Public Utility Regulatory Polities Act and Other

Energy Laws--The Public Utility Regulatory Policies

Act (PURPA, Section 210)81 of 1978 requires the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to guarantee a

market for electricity generated by qualified small power

producers, which includes most waste-to-energy incineration facilities (chs. 5 and 6). FERC is mandated to issue

rules requiring electric utilities to purchase electricity

from qualified cogenerators and small power producers.

A qualified facility must: 1) produce electric energy

“solely by the use, as a primary energy source, of

biomass, waste, renewable resources, or any combination

thereof”; 2) produce no more than 80 megawatts of

power; 3) have the total annual input of oil, coal, and

natural gas not exceed 25 percent in Btu value of the fuel;

and 4) have equity ownership of a small power producer

by a utility exceed 50 percent (Section 201; 16 U.S.C.

Section 824a-3). PURPA also provides some exemptions

from Federal and State requirements, such as those

relating to financial arrangements for power sources and

the Federal Power Act (Section 201(e)).

The intent of PURPA was to encourage cogeneration

and small power energy production and thus decrease the

Nation’s dependence on fossil fuel and foreign sources of

energy, and diversify energy production. Concern has

been raised that FERC regulations issued in 1980 to

implement PURPA essentially created a subsidy system

for such sources of power. This is because the 1980

regulations allow States to set rates exceeding or falling

below the avoided cost of purchasing the qualified

facility’s energy production.82 These “incentive rates”

can be used to encourage certain technologies, such as

waste-to-energy incineration. In April 1988 FERC invalidated New York State’s law which set the purchase rate

above the utility’s full avoided cost.83 At least 20 other

States have similar laws or regulations which could be

preempted. The claim is that these laws could encourage

the production of energy from “inefficient” sources,

which was not the intent of PURPA; the counter-claim is

that utilities are generally opposed to small power

generators and this FERC decision reflects a “proutility” perspective (26). In any case, the New York

Public Service Commission is contesting FERC’s order in

court and in Congress.

A number of other past energy and conservation

statutes encouraged the use of resource recovery, either of

energy or secondary materials. The Energy Security Act84

of 1980 has a purpose of reducing the dependence of the

Nation on imported oil. This in part entailed financial

support of waste-to-energy facilities by providing the

Secretary of Energy authority to grant construction loans

and guarantee them, provide price support loans and

guarantee them, and establish an accelerated research,

development, and demonstration program (Section 237).

The Non-Nuclear Research and Development Act85 of

1974 was amended by the Department of Energy Act86 of

1978 (Civilian Applications) to give the Department of

Energy (DOE) general authority to award grants, contracts, price supports, and loan guarantees for municipal

waste reprocessing demonstration projects (Section 20).

In addition, the Department of Energy Act of 1978

amended the Energy Security Act to accelerate further the

research, development, and demonstration program for

waste-to-energy and to evaluate existing facilities for

performance and costs.

The act which created DOE, the Department of Energy

Organization Act87 of 1977, includes as a goal the

development and commercialization of recycling as part

of a general emphasis on energy conservation. The

National Energy Conservation Policy Act88 went further

to encourage the use of recovered or recycled materials in

industrial operations by requiring DOE to set targets for

the use of secondary materials for the metals, paper,

textile, and rubber industries, and to create incentives for

industries to work with the government to achieve these

goals.

Other Relevant Statutes-Several other environmental statutes contain authority relevant to MSW

8] fib]ic Law 95+17.

82~e “avold~ COW” is c~culat~ b~d on whal a utility would have paid to produce or purchase the energy itself rather than from a qualifying

facility.

sBOrange ad ROCk,&~ V. IVm York Public Service Cot?vnission, ~ket No. E~87-53.

84~bllc Law 96.2~. Biomass, which tie ~t enco~ages the use of by d] economically and CXWirOIUWItally sound ways, is defined in the Act to

include MSW and industrial waste.

85~b11c Law 9S-’2380

~fi~{~c hW 95-238.

s7Public Law 95-91.

ssPublic Law 95-619.
352 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

management or its reduction. These include the Clean Air

Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, often refereed to

as “Superfund”), and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has some

relevant authority effecting MSW activities. The Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and

Drug Administration have authorities relevant to product

or packaging changes that might result from waste

reduction efforts (see “Waste Prevention’ in text).

The only current standards promulgated under the

Clean Air Act89 that apply specifically to MSW incinerators are those for particulate emissions (ch. 6). In June

1987, EPA sent guidance to its regional offices that

permits for new and modified facilities should be issued

based on a dry scrubber and fabric filter, or electrostatic

precipitator, as the best available control technology

(BACT) for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, and

combustion controls as BACT for carbon monoxide (ch.

6). 90

EPA is scheduled to propose new regulations for MSW

incinerators by November 1989 (ch. 6). At that time, EPA

also expects to issue guidelines for States to regulate the

retrofitting of existing incinerators to bring them into

compliance with new emission limits. Current congressional proposals for controlling air emissions are generally viewed as more stringent than EPA’s proposals

(29,30). Some environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources

Defense Council, generally favor the more stringent

congressional proposals. Some local and State officials,

such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Northeast

States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and industry

interests favor the EPA proposal (29,30).

CERCLA91 directly affects localities whose MSW

landfills are identified by EPA as Superfund sites (chs.

1,7). Under the liability provisions of CERCLA, all

responsible parties (i.e., all parties disposing of waste at

a site) cart be required to pay proportional shares of

remediation costs. In the past, EPA usually only required

private industrial parties to cover the costs of remedial

actions and compensation from MSW landfills. Recently,

EPA convened a Municipal Settlement Task Force to

determine how local governments involved with Superfund sites will be handled. Local officials, for example the

National League of Cities, argue that EPA should

continue to consider the public and private sectors

differently. In contrast, industry interests argue that local

governments should be treated and prosecuted in the same

way as corporate defendants (1 19,120). Indeed, it appears

that there is no basis in Superfund to treat local

governments differently from other responsible parties.

However, the potential for creating a financial crisis for

some municipalities by imposing this interpretation is a

legitimate source of concern to local governments.

Some observers suggest that the Toxic Substances

Control Act92 (TSCA) is a potential tool for EPA to

prevent or minimize toxic substances in products which

ultimately become part of the MSW stream. Clearly,

TSCA does contain appropriate legal authority, because

it provides authority to regulate any part of a chemical’s

life cycle from production, distribution, use, and disposal

(Section 4(a)(l)(A)(i); also Sections 5 and 6). To do so,

however, requires determination of ‘unreasonable risk of

injury to health or the environment” (Section 4(a)(2). A

major problem for regulating under TSCA is that ‘unreasonable risk” is not defined. This requires a tremendous

amount of data, and the resulting case-by-case approach

leads to an extremely slow regulatory process. Thus

TSCA is not likely to be an efficient way to prevent or

minimize toxic substances in MSW. Rather, approaches

that attempt more directly to affect the design of products

(considering their waste implications) may be more

effective for this purpose (chs. 1 and 4).

At least two sections of the Internal Revenue Code are

directly related to MSW (chs. 5 and 6).93 First, the Internal

Revenue Service’s (IRS) definition of solid waste is based

on that of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, with the

additional condition that the material have no market

value. 94 Therefore, if anyone is willing to purchase the

material at any price, it is not solid waste according to the

IRS definition (66). Second, Section 103 of the Internal

Revenue Code allows tax-exempt industrial development

bonds to be issued by political subdivisions to private

corporations to finance the construction of solid waste

disposal facilities and arty waste disposal function of a

facility. However, once the material is in saleable form it

is no longer solid waste and bond revenues cart not be

“hblic Law 95-95.

‘%PA believes that acombinat.ion of an acid gas scrubber, controlled combustion conditions, and a particulate matter collection device can also reduce

dioxins, furans, other organic chemicals, and metals to acceptable levels (ch. 6).

gl~b]ic Law 96.51().

!lZ~blic La w ~~@.

gJ1n 1982, he Energy Tax Act (~blic Law 95-618) provided a crcxiit for “recycling equipment,” but this h= ~n rewd~.

gdTre~. Reg. s~tion 1.103 -108( 2)(ii)(b); Rev. Rul. 72-190, 75-1 W, d 76-222.
Chapter Government Planning and Programs ● 353

applied to it. At least 65 percent of the materials processed

are required by the IRS to be ‘‘solid waste. ”

Exercising existing Federal regulatory authority could

have the effect of internalizing production costs associated with environmental pollution in a way favorable to

the use of secondary materials. Because the use of primary

materials is sometimes more polluting in manufacturing

processes than the use of secondary materials, further

regulation and enforcement of pollution standards could

indirectly increase the demand for secondary materials

(ch. 5).

For example, under the Clean Water Act95 EPA has set

effluent guidelines and standards for industries in the

pulp, paper, and paperboard point source category (including subcategories for primary and secondary material

industries). Initially, the rulemaking focused on establishing effluent limitations based on “best practicable control

technology currently available” (BPT), “best available

technology economically achievable’ (BAT), and “new

source performance standards” (NSPS) for conventional

pollutants such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

total suspended solids, and pH.96 To address toxic and

nonconventional pollutants as well, BPT and BAT control

and treatment options have been adopted for some sources

in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry category

directly discharging into navigable waters. Requirements

for all toxic pollutants have not been established to date

(142). If regulations for additional toxic and nonconventional pollutants were promulgated-and these regulations applied to more subcategories of the industry-it

is likely that they would have a greater economic impact.

CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Alexander, J. H., James River Corp., personal

communication, Feb. , 1989.

A1len, D., National Toxics Prevention Fund, personal communication, March 1989.

American Paper Institute, “State and bail Procurement of Recycled Products’ (Washington, DC:

Sept. 20, 1989).

Anderson, R., Washington State Senate, personal

communication, May 20, 1988.

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials, National Solid Waste Survey (Washington, DC: 1984).

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

lOa.

11.

1 la.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Auerbach, J., “Pesticides,” Summary of the Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management,

1987), pp. 112-114.

Belasen, A.T., The New York State Returnable

Beverage Container L.uw-Economic E#ects, industry Adaptations, and Guidelines for Improved

Environmental Policy, Rockefeller Institute Working Papers No. 31 (Albany: State University of

New York, Spring 1988).

Biles, S., ‘‘A Review of Municipal and Hazardous

Waste Management Practices and Facilities in

Seven European Countries,” working paper ~-

pared for German Marshall Fund of the United

States (Washington, DC: February 1987).

Broiles, S., “Incineration: A Suggested Approach

to Overcome California’s Inability to Permit

Urban Resource Recovery Facilities,’ Risk Aria/y -

sis 8(3):357-366, 1988.

Buckner, D., Illinois Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, July 7, 1988.

Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., C’omposting Technologies, Costs, Programs, and Markets, contract

report prepared for US. Congress, Offke of

Technology Assessment (Richmond, CA: January

1989).

Coalition of Northeastern Governors, “CONEG

Policy, Source Reduction and Packaging” (Washington, DC: September 1988).

Coalition of Northeastern Governors, “Interim

Report of the CONEG Source Reduction Task

Force, Executive Summary” (Washington, DC:

April 1989).

Conservation Foundation, “Summary of Design

for Disposal Dialogue,” meeting held June 14,

1988 (Washington, DC: Sept. 9, 1988).

Chertoff, L., and Buxbaum, D,, “Chapter 3, Public

Perceptions and Community Relations,” The Solid

Waste Handbook (New York, NY: WileyInterscience, 1986).

Clay, D., “Is New Ixgislation Needed on Incinerator Air Emissions?” Waste Age, pp. 40-46, June

1988.

Cotter, D., West Coast Salvage and Recycling Co.,

personal communication, March 1988.

gs~bli~ Law 95-217. s~tion 208 of the cle~ Water Act provides for areawide waste treatment management and funding provided under such

programs has been used for some solid waste management activities.

9640 ~pm 430, su~~ A.U. b 1977, perform~ce standards for existing sources were proposed and efforts were directed toward establishing

‘‘best conventional pollutant control technology” and BA1’ effluent Iirnitations, along WIt.h pretreatment standards for existing and newscwces, m ~dt

in reasonable progress toward the discharge elimination goat of the law (40 CFR Part 128; see Clean Water Act Sections 101, 304, and 306). In setting

effluent limitation guidelines, the Act includes a provision requiring EPA to consider, among other factors, ‘‘non-water quality environmental imptwt[s]”

when determining control measures. his would include effects on solid waste generation (e.g., sludge).
354 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

16.

17.

18.

19.

19a.

20.

21.

‘p.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Council of State Governments and the New York

State hgislative Commission on Solid Waste

Management, “Solid Waste Programs in the

States,” Journal of Resource Maruzgement and

Technology 15(3):132-144, September 1987.

Council of State Governments, “1987 Municipal

Solid Waste Questionnaires” (New York, NY:

1987).

Cox, K. A., The National Status of Municipal Solid

Waste Activities: A Summary of Selected Surveys

on State MSW Programs, contract report prepared

for the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment (Takoma Park, MD: 1988).

Curlin, J., “Can a State Limit, Regulate, or

Prohibit the Importation of Solid Waste From

Another State?’ unpublished memorandum (Washington, DC: 1988).

Dawson, C., “Safe Products Through Cooperation,” Chemical TIMES & TRENDS 11(1):35-37,

January 1988.

Deutsches 1nstitut fur Gutesicherung und Kennzeichnung, “Verzeichnis der Produkte und Zeichenanwender sowie der jeweiligen Produktanforderungen” (Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany:

June 1988).

Dougherty, J., ‘‘Household Hazardous Waste Program Liability, ” Summary of the Second National

Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston. MA: Tufts University, Center

for Environmental Management, 1987), pp. 25-27.

Dresser, S., Council of State Governments, untitled paper presented at Office of Technology

Assessment” Workshop on State and Imcal MSW

Programs” (Washington, DC: Mar. 17-18, 1988).

Duxbury, D., ‘‘Household Hazardous Waste: State

Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines Regarding

Household Hazardous Wastes,” Summary of the

Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts

University, Center for Environmental Management, 1987), pp. 20-24.

Duxbury, D., Dana Duxbury & Associates, personal communication, March 1988.

Duxbury, D., Dana Duxbury & Associates, personal communication, February 1989.

Electric Utility Weekly, “FERC Strikes Down

New York Law Setting 6-Cent Floor for ‘QFs’,”

Electric Utiiity Weekfy, pp. 1 and 9-11, April 1988.

Environmental Defense Fund, Coming Full Circle: Successful Recycling T{]day (New York, NY:

1988).

Environment, ● ’Environmentally Friendly Products,” Environment 31(2):23, 1989.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36,

37,

38.

39,

40,

40a.

41,

Environment Reporter, “Bill To Impose Stringent

Emission Limits on Municipal Incinerators Criticizedby EPA,” Environrnen/Reporter 18(1 1):767-

768, July 10, 1987.

Environment Reporter, “EPA Decides To Regulate Air Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste

Incinerators,” Environment Reporter 18(1 1):768-

769, July 10, 1987.

Environment Reporter, ‘‘Tulsa, Okla., Trash Collection Rates Increased, ” Environment Reporter

19(48):2557, Mar. 31, 1989.

Femey, S., “A Liability Crisis Cities Can’t Throw

Away,” The Los Angeles Times, Part II: Oct. 20,

1986.

Foerter, D., Council of State Governments, personal communication, 1988.

Franke, R., “Establishing a Solid Waste Management Program, ” paper presented at Office of

Technology Assessment “Workshop on State and

Imcal MSW Programs” (Washington, DC: Mar.

17-18, 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Feasibility of Tax Incentives for Purchases of Recycling Equipment or

Recycled Products, Final Report, prepared for

Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, ILENR/RE-EA-87/06 (Prairie Village,

KS: May 1987).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., Economic incentives

and Disincentives for Recycling Municipal Solid

Waste, contract report prepared for U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment (Prairie Village,

KS: December 1988).

Franklin Associates, Ltd., The Role of Beverage

Containers in Recycling and Solid Waste Management: A Perspective ft~r the 1990s, final report

prepared for Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.

(Prairie Village, KS: April 1989).

Gage, K., “Permanent Site, ” Summa~ of the

Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts

University, Center for Environmental Management, 1987), pp. 73-75,

Galvin, D., “Why Worry About Household Hazardous Waste?” Summary of the Second National

Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center

for Environmental Management, 1987), pp. 20-24.

Garbarino, J., Marin Sanitary Service, San Rafael,

CA, personal communication, March 1988.

Geisler, J., City of Davis, CA, personal communication, March 1988.

Gelinas, J., ‘‘ Pesticides,’ Summary of the Second

National Conference on Household Hazardous

Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts Univer-
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 355

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

sity, Center for Environmental Management, 1987),

pp. 115-117.

Gertman, R., City of San Jose Office of Environmental Management/Solid Waste Program, personal communication, March 1988.

Gewiese, A., Bilitewski, B., and Okeke, M.,

‘ ‘Abfallvermeidung--ein Modellvemuch in HarnburgHarburg im Jahre 1987,” Mull und Abfall, pp.

104-120 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, March

1989).

Gilson, D., “Waste Oil, ” Summary of the Second

National Conference on Household Hazardous

Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management, 1987),

pp. 103-105.

Gleason, J., New York State Office of Procurement, personal communication, June 1988.

Glenn, J., “Special Report: Curbside Strategies;

Junior, Take Out the Recyclable,” f3iocycle

29(5):26-31, May/June 1988.

Golub, N. M., Strachan, J. R., Berle, P. A. A., et al.,

Final Report of the Temporary State Commission

on Returnable Beverage Containers (Albany, NY:

Mar. 27, 1985).

Goosmann, G., Director, Federal Environment

Agency, Federal Republic of Germany, personal

communication, Apr. 14, 1989.

Guttman, E., Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp., personal communication, Feb. 20,

1989.

Harvey, F., “State-Sponsored Collection Programs,’ Summary of the Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center for

Environmental Management 1987), pp. 37-40.

Hemphill, T., “State Economic Development

Incentives, ” Resource Recycling 7(2):36-37,54-

56, May/June 1988.

Herz, M., “Federal Procurement of Recycled

Products, ” paper presented at Fourth Annual

Conference on Solid Waste Management and

Materials Policy (New York, NY: Jan. 28, 1988).

Institute for Imcal Self-Reliance, Garbage in

Europe: Technologies, Economics, and Trends

(Washington, DC: May 1988).

Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Beyond 25 Percent: Materials Recove~ Comes of Age (Washington, DC: April 1989).

Interstate Commerce Commission, “Investigation

of Freight Rates for the Transportation of Recyclable or Recycled Commodities, ” Ex Parte 319

(Washington, DC: February 1977).

JoumaI of Resource Management and Technology, “Special Issue: Second Penn Workshop on

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

Litter Management and Recycling, ” Journal of

Resource Management and Technology 15(2&3):41-

114, December 1986.

Keller, R., Maryland Energy OffIce, personal

communication, March 1988.

Keller, R., and WndenBerg, N., “State and lmcai

Procurement of Recycled Products: Programs

Defined by Ugislation as of 8/87,” unpublished

manuscript, March 1988.

King, L., “Public Concerns in Siting of [sic] a

Waste Facility and the Permitting Process From

the Citizens’ Point of View, ” paper presented at

Office of Technology Assessment ‘*Workshop on

State and Local MSW Programs” (Washington,

DC: Mar. 17-18, 1988).

Kinman, R., and Nutini, D., “Household Hazardous Waste in the Sanitary Landfill,” Chemical

Times and Trends 11(3):23-29, July 1988.

Kiser, J., “Waste-To-Energy and Recycling: A

Compatible Solution,” Waste Alternatives, pp.

18-21, June 1988.

Kleman, J., “State Collection Programs—

Florid%” Summary of the First National Conference on Household Hazardous Wwte Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center for

Environmental Management, 1986), pp. 27-28.

Knapp, D., Urban Ore, and Wrdleventer, M.,

Materials World, personal communication, Mar. 7,

1988.

Konheim, C., ‘‘Incineration: Risk Communication

in the Real World,” Risk Analysis 8(3):367-373,

1988.

Konheim, C., untitled paper presented at Office of

Technology Assessment “Workshop on State and

Imcal MSW programs” (Washington, DC: Mar.

17-18, 1988).

Kovacs, W. L., “The Coming Era of Conservation

and Industrial Utilization of Recyclable Materials,” Ecology Luw Quarterly 15:537-625, 1988.

Kovacs, W. L., and Anderson, A., “States AS

Market Participants in Solid Waste Disposal

Services,” Environmental Law 18(4):779-816,

1988.

Kovacs, W., and Klucsik, J., “The New Federal

Role in Solid Waste Management: The Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 3:205-265,

1977.

IGtit M., and Kraut, R., “The Impact of Citizen

Participation on Hazardous Waste Policy Implementation: The Case of Clerrnont County, Ohio, ”

Poh’cy Studies Journal 14(1):52-61, 1985.

Lanza+ D., “Municipal Solid Waste Regulation:

An Ineffective Solution to a National Problem,”
356 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

Fordharn Urban Law Journal 10:215-245, 1982.

bxierer, J., U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Mayors’

Question: How Many Experts Are There That Can

Give Me Advice? Answer: How Big a Conference

Room Are We Talking About?” paper presented

at Office of Technology Assessment “Workshop

on State and Local MSW programs” (Washington, DC: Mar. 17-18, 1988).

Lesser, W., and Madhavan, A., “Economic Impacts of a National Deposit Law: Cost Estimates

and Policy Questions, ” Journ. Consumer Aflairs

21(1):122-140, Summer 1987.

hwis, L., “State Matching Grants Program,

Connecticut,” Summary of the Second National

Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center

for Environmental Managemen4 1987), p. 30.

Lindhqvist, T., “The Deposit System—Swedish

Experiences Concerning Present and Proposed

Systems,” paper for ECE Seminar on Economic

Implications ofLow-waste Technology (The Hague,

Netherlands: Oct. 16-19, 1989).

Luken, T., Opening Remarks at Hearing on MSW

Crisis, Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism

and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on

Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 22, 1989.

McShane, E., New Jersey Department of Environmental Rotection, personal communication, December 1988.

Markus, L., “Recycling: Institutional Constraints

and Imovative Approaches-The Missouri Experience, ’ paper presented at Office of Technology

Assessment “Workshop on State and Lmcal MSW

Programs” (Washington, DC: Mar. 17-18, 1988).

Marshall, B., and Powell, D., Laidlaw, personal

communication, March 1988.

Mattheis, A., “Collecting Household Toxics—Is

It Worth the Effort?” Waste Age, pp. 76-90,

February 1987.

Maurer, S., Land-of-Sky Regional Council, unhtled paper presented at OffIce of Technology

Assessment “Workshop on State and Local MSW

Programs” (Washington, DC: Mar. 17-18, 1988).

Meiorin, E., “Regional Programs,” Summary of

the Second National Conference on Household

Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA:

Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management, 1987), pp. 51-63.

Merry, W., “Collection Programs at a Landfill,”

Summary of the Second National Conference on

Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: lbfts University, Center for Environmental Management, 1987), pp. 66-72.

83.

84.

85.

86.

86a.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

%.

97.

Minnesota Project, Case Studies in Rural Solid

Waste Recycling, prepared for the Ford Foundation

(Minneapolis, MN: 1987).

Moore, W. K., and ScotL D. L., “Beverage Container Deposit Laws: A Survey of the Issues and

Results,” Journ. Consumer Afiairs 17(1):57-80,

Summer 1983.

National Association of Towns and Townships,

Why Waste a Second Chance: A Small Town Guide

to Recycling (Washington, DC: National Center

for Small Communities, 1989).

National Conference of State hgislatures, “Solid

Waste Management” (Denver, CO: April 1989).

National hague of Cities, Local Oflicia/s Guide;

Municipal Incinerators: 50 Questions Every Local

Government Should Ask (Washington, DC: National Uague of Cities, 1988).

National Solid Waste Management Association,

“Public Attitudes Toward Garbage Disposal, ”

Special Report (Washington, DC: 1988).

New York State Department of Economic Development, “Program Information,” Energy Conservation Series (Albany, NY: 1989).

New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, 1987-88 Update (Albany: March

1988).

Orttung, J., “Use of A Permanent Facility at a

Transfer Station,’ Summary of the First National

Conference on Household Hazardous Wrote Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center

for Environmental Management, 1986), pp. 25-26.

Orttung, J., “Batteries,” Summary of the Second

National Conference on Household Hazardous

Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management, 1987),

pp. 101-102.

Perlmutter, A., City and County of San Francisco,

CA, personal communication, March 1988.

Peterson, C., “A Waste Reduction Boom . . . In The

Seventies!” Waste Age, pp. 100-106, Feb. 1989.

Phillips, T. A., “An Economic Evaluation of a

Process to Separate Raw Urban Refuse Into Its

Metal, Mineral and Energy Components,” IC

8732 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Mines, 1977).

Pollock, C., Mining Urban Wa~tes: The Potential

for Recycling, Worldwatch Paper 76 (Washington,

DC: April 1987).

Porter, R. C., ‘ ‘Michigan’s Experience With Mandatory Deposits on Beverage Containers, ” Land

Economics 59(2):177-194, May 1983.

Portney, K., “The Potential of the Theory of

Compensation for Mitigating Public Opposition to

Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility Siting: Some
Chapter 8-Government Planning and Programs . 357

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

107a.

108.

109.

110.

Evidence From Five Massachusetts Communities,” Policy Studies Journal 14(1):81-89, 1985.

Powell, J., “The Public Wants Recycling, ” Resource Recycling 7(6):32,42, November/

December 1988.

Powell, J., “Packaging Under Attack: The Waste

War, ” Resource Recycling 8(2):26-27, May/June

1989.

Purin, G., “Financing Programs and Reducing

Costs, ” Summary of the First National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center for

Environmental Management, 1986), pp.38-47.

Purin, G., “Overview of Future Funding Options,” Summary of the Second National Conference on Household Hazardour Waste Management (Boston, MA: Tufts University, Center for

Environmental Management, 1987), p, 126.

Reindl, J., Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, personal communication, March 1988.

Reindl, J., Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, personal communication, Feb. 12,

1989.

Resource Conservation Committee, Choices for

Conservation; Final Report to the President and

Congress, Solid Waste Information, SW-779 (Cincimati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

July 1979).

Resource Recovery Report, “Compilation of State

Statutes Regarding Procurement of Items Containing Recycled Materials” (Washington, DC: 1989).

Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp.,

“Source Reduction Task Force Report” (Providence, RI: November 1987).

Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp.,

Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan,

draft report (Providence, RI: December 1988).

Ron Albrecht Associates, Inc., Comporting Technologies, Costs, Programs and Markets, contract

report prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment (Annapolis, MD: December 1988).

Rose, D., “National Beverage Container Deposit

bgislation: A Cost-Benefit Analysis,’ Y. Environmental Systems 12(1):71-84, 1982-83.

Roy, N., Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality and Engineering, personal communication, November 1988.

RozetL J. M., ‘‘Resolving the Bottle Bill’ Controversy: The Role of Policy Analysis in Decision

Making, ” Rockefeller Institute of Government,

New York Case Studies in Public Management

No. 14 (Albany, NY: State University of New

York, November 1984).

111,

112,

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

120a.

121.

122.

123.

Schafer, S,, “Pilot/Permanent Site, ” Summary of

the Second National Conference on Household

Hazardous Wrote Management (Boston, MA:

Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management, 1987), pp. 76-80.

Schuff, R., ‘Solid Waste Landfill Siting in Wisconsin: An Effective Process, ” unpublished manuscript (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources, 1986).

Science Applications International Corp., “New

Jersey Household Hazardous Waste Study, ” submitted to the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Advisory Council (Trenton, NJ: Nov. 16, 1987).

Seldman, N., “Technology and Society: How

Shall We Put Out the Trash?” draft (Washington,

DC: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1988).

Snow, D., “County’s Creativity Cures Waste

Crisis, ” Waste Alternatives, 1(3):6-12), December

1988.

Sokol, D,, “What We Have Imrned, Where We

Are Headed; An Industry Uader Speaks to the

Past Weaknesses and Current Strengths of Refuseto-Energy System Contractors, ” Waste Age, pp.

81-90, June 1988.

Sondermeyer, G., New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection, personal communication, March, 1988.

Steinzor, R., “Municipal Incinerators: Recent

Regulatory and Izgislative Developments,” paper

presented at First Resource Recovery Technology

Conference (Arlington, VA: Nov. 12-13, 1987).

Steinzor, R., “EPA to Draft New Superfund

Municipal Settlement Policy, ” paper prepared at

Second Annual Resource Recovery Conference

(Arlington, VA: Nov. 15-16, 1988).

Steinzor, R., “Comments of the National hague

of Cities and the Governmental Refuse Collection

and Disposal Association on EPA’s Proposed

Revisions to the Superfund National Contingency

Plan” (Washington, DC: Spiegel & McDiarmid,

Mar. 23, 1989).

Strom, P. F., and Finstein, M. S., Leaf Cornposting

Manual for New Jersey Municipalities (New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, revised edition, October 1986).

Sullivan, P. M., Stanczyk, M. H., and Spendlove,

M.J., “Resource Recovery From Raw Urban

Refuse,” RI 7760 (Washington, DC: Bureau of

Mines, 1973).

Swedish Association of Public Cleansing and

Solid Waste Management, Solid Waste Management in Sweden (Sweden: Malmo, February 1988).

Taylor, K., Hurd, D. and Rohan, B., “Recycling in

the 1980s: Batteries Not Included, ” Resource
358 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

135a.

Recycling 7(2):26-27,58-60, May/June 1988.

Trimble, L., “What Do Citizens Want in Siting of

Waste Management Facilities?” Risk Analysis

8(3):375-377, 1988.

Trumbell, T., “Siting Waste-to-Energy Facilities:

Putting Citizen Concerns First,” paper presented

at Renewable Energy Conference (Palo Alto, CA:

Waste Management Communications, June 9,

1988).

Trumbell, T., “Using Citizens to Site Solid Waste

Facilities,’ Public Works 119(9):66-67, August

1988.

United Kingdom Department of Energy and U.S.

Department of Energy, Energy From Landfill Gav,

Proceedings of a Conference Jointly Sponsored by

the U.K. Department of Energy and the U.S.

Department of Energy, Solihull, United Kingdom,

October 1986 (United Kingdom: Harwell Reprographic Section, 1986),

U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service,

“State and Imcal Bans on the Import of Solid

Waste: Constitutional Issues,” Report No. 86-

943A (Washington, DC: 1986).

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Hearing

on MSW Crisis, Subcommittee on Transportation,

Tourism and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of

Representatives (Washington, DC: June 22, 1989),

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Materials and Energy From Municipal Waste,

OTA-M-93 (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, July 1979).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, A@l 1987).

U.S. Congress, Offke of Technology Assessment,

Identifying and Regulating Carcinogens—

Background Paper, OTA-BP-H-42 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November

1987).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

Workshop on State and Local MSW Programs

(Washington, DC: Mar. 17-18, 1988).

U.S. Congress, Offke of Technology Assessment,

Workshop on Markets for Recycled Materials

(Washington, DC: June 8, 1988).

U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment,

Workshop on MSW Reduction (Washington, DC:

July 14-15, 1988).

U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, Economic

Report of the President (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1987).

136.

37.

38.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau

of Standards, Office of Recycled Materials, Procurement Policies Containing Recovered Material: A

Summaq of Activities in 7 States (Washington,

DC: July 1981).

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau

of Standards, Office of Recycled Materials, The

National Bureau of Standards OftIce of Recycled

Materials; 1976-1982, NBS Special Publication

662 (Washington, DC: 1983).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy From Municipal Waste: State-of-the-Art and Emerging Technologie+Workshop Proceedings, Argonne National

Laboratory, Contract W-3 l-10% Emg-38 (Chicago, IL: Nov. 28-30, 1983).

139. U.S. Department of Energy, “Municipal Waste-toEnergy Research,” unpublished manuscript (Washington, DC: 1988).

140. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource

Recovery and Waste Reduction; Third Report to

Congress (Washington, DC: National Technical

Information Service, 1975).

141. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource

Recovery and Waste Reduction, Fourth Report to

Congress (Washington, DC: National Technical

Information Service, 1977).

142. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Efluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and

Paperboard and the Builder-s’ Paper and Board

Mills; Point Source Categories, EPA 440/1-82/

025 (Washington, DC: October 1982).

143. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SurnmaW

of Data on Industrial Non-Hazardom Waste

Disposal Practices, prepared by Science Applications International Corp., EPA Contract No. 68-01-

7050 (Washington, DC: December 1985).

144. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Survey

of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related

Collection Programs, EPA/530-SW-86-038 (Washington, DC: 1986),

145, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Census of

State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous

Waste Program, prepared by Westa4 EPA/530-SW86-039 (Washington, DC: October 1986).

146. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Household Hazardous Waste From

Marin County, California, and New Orleans,

Louisiana, Environmental Systems Monitoring

Laboratory (Las Vegas, NV: August 1987).

147. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress, EPA Activities and Accomplishments

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act: Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 1986 Through
Chapter 8--Government Planning and Programs ● 359

148.

149.

149a.

150,

151,

152.

153.

Fiscal Year 1987, EPA/530-SW-88-O07 (Washington, DC: December 1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Review

of Curbside Used Oil Recycling Programs in the

United States, ” contract submitted by Versar, Inc.

(Washington, DC: April 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, “Updated Review of Selected Provisions of State Solid Waste Regulations, Draft,

Background Document” (Washington, DC: July

1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United

States, Vol. /, EPA/530-SW-88-Ol 1 (Washington,

DC: October 1988),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Recycling Works! State and Imcal Solutions to Solid

Waste Management Problems,” Office of Solid

Waste (Washington, DC: January 1989).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Solid

Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action, Oi%ce of

Solid Waste, EPA/530-SW-89-019 (Washington,

DC: February 1989).

U.S. Treasury Department, “Federal Tax Policy

and Recycling of Solid Waste Materials, ’ office

of Tax Analysis (Washington, DC: February

1979).

lhndenBerg, N., “Recycled Materials Procurement: Part 1,“ Resource Recycling 5(5):14-1 5,38-

154,

155.

156.

157

158.

159.

160.

161.

39, September/October 1986.

MmdenBerg, N., “Recycled Materials Procurement: Part 2,” Resource Recycling 5(6): 12-15,36,

November/December 1986.

WndenBerg, N., Council on the Environment of

New York City, personal communication, Feb. 8,

1989.

Viwuki, N., Delaware Solid Waste Authority,

personal communication, January 1988.

Watson, T,, ‘ ‘Yard Waste Composting—

Podand’s Success Story, ” Resource Recyc/ing

7(2):18-19,52, May/June 1988.

Wiard, M., Ohio Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, February 1989.

Wilson, D., and Rathje, W., “Quantities and

Composition of Household Hazardous Wast.eS:

Report on a Multi-Community, Multi-Disciplin~

projec~’ paper prepared for Third National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste h4anage -

ment (Boston, MA: Nov. 2-4, 1988).

Worldwatch Institute, “Environmental Seal of

Approval,” World Watch 2(3):6-7, May/June

1989.

Zemansky, S., “Procurement: The Great Purchasing Mythstery, ” Government Executive, pp. 25-

30, h]y 1981.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Glossary

Additive—a substance added to plastic resins that

imparts physical properties to meet specific applications and improve processing.

Ash—the noncombustible solid byproducts of incineration processes.

Avoided cost-costs a utility may pay for electric power

purchased from a waste-to-energy facility, based on

how much it would have cost the utility to generate the

power itself; or, costs not incurred because of diversion

of waste from a landfill (e.g., disposal, environmental,

and opportunity costs).

Baghouse (or fabric filter)--emission control device; an

array of cylindrical bags used to trap solid particles and

dust.

Beneficiation-initial processing of a raw material to

remove contaminants.

Biodegradable plastic—a plastic that can be broken

down by microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi;

as generally used, the term does not necessarily mean

complete degradation into carbon dioxide and water.

Bottom ash—relatively coarse uncombusted or partly

combusted residue of incineration that accumulates on

the grate of a furnace.

Buy-back—a facility that pays individuals for recyclable

materials and further processes them for market.

Capacity utilization—ratio of quantity of production to

total capacity of production facilities.

Capture rate—tonnage of recyclable collected, divided

by total tonnage of MSW generated by participating

households or commercial establishments.

Codisposa1--disposal in one area of two or more types of

solid waste, for example unprocessed MSW and

incinerator ash in a landfill.

Cogeneration-production of both electricity and steam

at one facility, from same primary fuel source.

Collection-gathering of MSW for subsequent management (i.e., landfilling, incineration, or recycling).

Combined ash-mixture of bottom ash and fly ash.

Combustion—see incineration.

Commerce Clause—a constitutional clause granting

Congress the power to regulate all commerce; the

“dormant commerce clause” makes it explicit that

State lines cannot be made barriers to the free flow of

commerce.

Commingled recyclables--recyclable materials separated

from mixed MSW at point of generation; further

separation into individual components occurs at collection vehicle or centralized processing facility.

Composite liner—a liner system composed of an engineered soil layer overlain by a synthetic flexible

membrane liner,

Comporting-biological decomposition of solid organic

materials (e.g., yard waste, paper) by microorganisms

(mainly bacteria and fungi); “compost” is the humusor soil-like product.

Cullet-crushed waste glass.

Curbside collection-collection at individual households or commercial buildings by municipal or private

haulers, for subsequent transport to management

facility.

Demand-limited materials---secondary materials for

which buyers are relatively scarce even though supplies may be available.

Dioxins--a family of chlorinated chemicals, some of

which are toxic to animals under certain exposure and

dosage conditions.

Drop-off-transport of individual MSW materials (e.g.,

newspaper, cans, bottles) by individuals to specified

area, for subsequent processing and transport to

recycling facility.

Dry injection—injection of a dry reagent such as lime

powder into an incinerator boiler or the original MSW,

to aid in control of acid gases.

Economies of scale-increases in production capacity

that reduce the average cost per ton of output.

Electrostatic precipitator (ESP--emission control device that electrically charges particles, which are

drawn to oppositely-charged plates; particles fall from

the plates and are collected for management.

Energy recovery-retrieval of energy from MSW by

converting heat from incineration or methane gas from

landfills.

Fabric filter-see baghouse,

Fixed costs--Costs that do not vary with level of output

of a production facility (e.g., administrative costs,

building rent, mortgage payments).

Flaring—burning of methane emitted from collection

pipes at a landfill.

Flint glass--clear glass.

Flow control ordinance--Ordinances that require delivery of collected MSW to specific management facilities.

-363 -
364 . Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Fly ash-particles that are carried off an incinerator grate

by turbulence or volatilized material that condenses in

the flue gas into particles.

Furnish—the pulp used as raw material in a paper mill.

Glassphalt-an asphalt product that uses crushed glass as

a partial substitute for aggregate in the mix.

Heavy metals-metals of high atomic weight and

density, such as mercury, lead, and cadmium, that are

toxic to living organisms.

Home scrap--waste produced and reused inside a

production facility.

Household hazardous waste-products used at residences that are discarded in MSW and that contain

substances already regulated under RCRA as an

industrial hazardous waste.

Incineration-burning of fuel under controlled conditions, ideally converting all carbon to carbon dioxide

and all hydrogen to water.

Integrated waste management-coordinated use of a

hierarchy of management methods, including waste

prevention; OTA does not use the term because

prevention is fundamentally different than management.

Investment tax credit—a tax credit that allows businesses to subtract a portion of the cost of qualifying

capital purchases from their Federal or State tax

liability, thus reducing the net after-tax cost of capital.

Landfilling-disposing of solid waste on land in a series

of compacted layers and covering it, usually daily,

with soil or other materials.

Leachate-contaminated water emanating from a

landfill.

Leachate collection and removal system—pipes used to

collect leachate that settles on a liner and prevent it

from migrating into groundwater.

Liner-a protective layer, made of soil or synthetic

materials, installed along the bottom or sides of a

landfill to reduce migration of leachate into groundwater beneath the site or laterally away from the site.

Loan guarantee-government-funded insurance that

protects lenders against the failure of a project to pay

back the principal and interest on a loan.

Low-interest loans-government subsidy that allows

loans for specific purposes to be offered at below

market interest rates.

Mass burn—incineration without prior sorting or processing of MSW, in a one-chamber combustion system

under conditions of excess air; built on-site.

Materials management—an MSW management appreach that would: 1) coordinate product manufacturing with different management methods (e.g., design

products for recyclability); and 2) manage MSW on a

material-by-material basis, by diverting discarded

materials to most appropriate management method

based on their physical and chemical characteristics.

Materials recovery-retrieval of materials from MSW.

Materials recovery facility (MRF)-facility for separating recyclable from mixed waste or for separating

commingled recyclable.

Mixed MSW—trash that is not sorted into categories of

materials.

Modular-incineration without prior sorting or processing of MSW, in relatively small two-chamber

combustion system; usually fabricated elsewhere and

then delivered to incineration site.

Monofill--a sanitary landfill for one type of waste only.

Municipal solid waste (MSW)—solid waste generated at

residences, commercial establishments, and institutions; as used here, MSW excludes construction or

demolition debris and automobile scrap.

Nonferrous metals-metals other than iron and steel that

are found in MSW.

Old scrap-waste generated by the product’s final

consumer.

Open dumping-disposing waste in an open, uncovered

area that lacks pollution controls and associated design

features.

Opportunity cost-the cost of foregoing alternative uses

of a resource.

Paper converting operations—manufacturing facilities

that transform paper into products such as envelopes or

boxes.

Participation rate-portion of a population participating

in a recycling program.

Photodegradable plastic-a plastic that will breakdown

in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light.

Post-consumer waste-waste generated by the product

final consumer.

Pre-consumer waste-waste generated in processing

materials or manufacturing them into final products.

Prevention/reduction-activities by manufacturers (e.g.,

modifying products) and consumers (e.g., modifying

purchasing decisions) that reduce toxicity or quantity

of products before they are purchased.

Primary material—a commercial material produced

from virgin materials.

Processing-preparing individual or mixed MSW materials for subsequent management, using processes such

as baling, magnetic removal, shredding.

Procurement-the purchase of materials and services,

usually, in the case of government procurement,

through awarding contracts to low bidders.

Product fee—a tax or fee on materials or products that

can be designed to add the cost of their disposal to the

purchase price.

Prompt industrial scrap-waste produced in an intermediate stage of processing and returned to the basic
Appendix A--Glossary ● 365

production facility for reuse.

Pyrolysis-chemical decomposition of a substance by

heat in the absence of oxygen.

Quantity reduction-changing the design of a product

so that less MSW is generated when the product or its

residuals are discarded, or so that the product is more

durable or repairable.

Recycling--collecting components of MSW and processing them into forms in which they can be reused as

raw materials for new products.

Recycling/recovery/diversion rate-the tonnage of recyclable collected and processed into new products,

divided by total tonnage of MSW generated.

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF)----fuel produced from MSW

that has undergone processing; fuel can be in shredded,

fluff, or densified pellet forms.

Resource recovery-retrieval of materials or energy

from MSW, for purposes of recycling or reuse; the

term “waste-to-energy” is used here for incinerators

that recover energy.

Reuse-taking a component of MSW and, possibly with

some slight modification (e.g., cleaning, repair), using

it again for its original purpose (e.g., refillable

beverage bottles).

Sanitary landfill-a specially designed and operated

landfilling facility that meets local, State, and Federal

regulations and permit requirements.

Scrubber-mission control device that adds alkaline

reagents to react with and neutralize acid gases;

resultant products are then collected for management.

Secondary material—a commercial material recovered

from the waste stream for reprocessing and remanufacturing.

Sensitivity analysis-an analysis that compares changes

in a dependent variable resulting from incremental

changes in independent variables.

Solid waste--defined in RCRA as “garbage, refuse,

sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply

treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and

other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from

industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. . .“

Solid waste management—planning and implementation of systems to handle solid waste.

Source separation—separation at a household or commercial establishment of MSW into different recyclable components.

Source-separated recyclables-recyclable materials sep

arated from each other and from mixed waste at the

point of generation.

Subsidy-direct or indirect payment from government to

businesses, citizens, or institutions to encourage a

desired activity.

Supply-limited materials-secondary materials that are

not collected in sufficient amounts or are too highly

contaminated for current manufacturing processes.

Tipping fee-price charged for delivering MSW to

landfill, incinerator, or recycling facility; usually

expressed in dollars per ton.

Toxicity reduction--eliminating or reducing (including

using benign substitutes) substances in products that

pose risks when the products are discarded as MSW.

Transfer station-facility at which MSW is transferred

from collection vehicles to larger trucks or rail cars for

longer distance transport.

Virgin material—material extracted from nature in its

raw form.

Waste-to-energy facility (WTE)-MSW incinerator that

converts heat from combustion into energy (i.e., steam

or electricity).

Waste paper utilization rate-ratio of waste paper

consumption to total production of paper and paperboard.

White goods-large, metal household appliances (e.g.,

stoves, dryers, refrigerators, etc.).
Appendix B

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AA —Aluminum Association

ANPA —American Newspaper Publishers

Association

API —American Paper Institute

ASME —American Society of Mechanical

Engineers

ASTM —American Society for Testing and

Materials

ASTSWMO--Association of State and Territorial Solid

BACT

Btu

CERCLA

CFC

CJC

co

CONEG

CPRR

CPSC

DOE

DSWA

EAC

EAF

EDF

EP

EPA

ERDA

ERTA

ESP

ESRG

FBC

FDA

FERC

GPI

GSA

HDPE

HHW

HSWA

ISRI

ITC

Waste Management Officials

—Best Available Control Technology

—British thermal unit

—Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(Superfund)

—chlorofluorocarbon

—Clean Japan Center

—carbon monoxide

—Coalition of Northeastern Governors

—Center for Plastics Recycling Research

—Consumer Products Safety Commission

—Department of Energy

—Delaware Solid Waste Authority

—Environmental Action Coalition

—electric arc furnace

—Environmental Defense Fund

—Extraction Procedure

—Environmental Protection Agency

—Energy Research and Development

Authority

—Economic Recovery Tax Act

—electrostatic precipitator

—Energy Systems Research Group

—fluidized bed combustion

—Food and Drug Administration

—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

—Glass Packaging Institute

—General Services Administration

—high-density polyethylene

—household hazardous wastes

—Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

—Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

—investment tax credit

LDPE

OTA

MCL

MHI

MRF

MSW

MWEP

NAPIM

NECRInc

NEMA

NERC

NIMBY

NOX

NPL

NSDA

NSPS

NSWMA

OCC

OECD

ONP

PCB

PE

PET

PS

PURPA

PVC

RCRA

RDF

RFF

SCR

SQG

TDF

TCLP

TSCA

UBC

UV

VOC

WTE

—low-density polyethylene

—Office of Technology Assessment

—maximum contaminant level

—Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

—materials recovery facility

—municipal solid waste

—Monofilled Waste Extraction Procedure

—National Association of Printing Ink

Manufacturers

—New England Container Recovery, Inc.

—National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

—Northeast Recycling Coalition

—Not In My Backyard

—nitrogen oxide

—National Priorities List

—National Soft Drink Association

—New Source Performance Standards

—National Solid Waste Management

Association

—old corrugated containers

—Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development

—old newspapers

—polychlorinated biphenyls

—polyethylene

—polyethylene terephthalate

—polystyrene

—Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act

—polyvinyl chloride

—Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

—refuse-derived fuel

—Resources for the Future

—selective catalytic reduction

—small quantity generator

—tire-derived fuel

—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure

—Toxic Substances Control Act

—used beverage container

— ultraviolet

—volatile organic chemical

— waste-to-energy

-366-
Appendix C

Contributors

Contractors

Principal contractors

Allen Hershkowitz

Cal Recovery Systems, Inc.

Chris Elfring, Editor

Energy Systems Research Group

Franklin Associates, Ltd.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

Ron Albrecht Associates, Inc.

In-house contractors

Rhonda Bitterli

Kathryn Cox

Ingeborg Stehr

Eric Washburn

OTA Services

Special thanks for internal support at OTA are due to the:

. Information Center

. Publishing Office

● Service Center

Reviewers and Other Contributors

Many individuals and organizations contributed valuable information, guidance, and substantive reviews of

draft material. In addition to the advisory panel members

and contractors, OTA wishes to extend its gratitude to the

following for their help (and apologizes to any contributors inadvertently omitted from this list):

Judd Alexander, James River Corp.

David Allen, National Toxics Campaign

Harvey Alter, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Mary Amini, General Foods

A.L. Andrady, Research Triangle Institute

William Apgar, Pennsylvania Dept. Environmental

Protection

Rob Amer, Versar Inc.

Raymond Balfour, Rayovac Corp.

Thomas Bailestero, Univ. New Hampshire

Jerome Baiter, Public Interest Law Center

Donald Barnes, Science Advisory Board

John Bastey, Maine Dept. Environmental Protection

Victor Bell, Rhode Island Dept. Environmental

Management

Robert Bennett, Univ. Toledo

Andrea Bilson, Food Marketing Institute

Richard Bishop, Richard Bishop Consulting, Ltd.

Gary Boley, Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Melissa Bouzianis, Belland

Gretchen Brewer, Earth Circle

K.W. Brown, Texas A&M

Raymond Brown, Bureau of Mines

Steve Brown, Council of State Governments

William Brown, Waste Management

Dietrich Brune, Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe,

Federal Republic of Germany

David Buckner, Illinois Dept. Energy and Natural

Resources

John Burke, James River Corp.

Kerry Callahan, Assoc. State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials

Allegra Cangelosi, Coalition of Northeastern Governors

Charles Carson, U.S. Steel

Ron Catlett, Dow Consumer Products, Inc.

Christine Chapman, Washington Dept. of Ecology

Marjorie Clarke, INFORM

Fred Clinton, Michigan Dept. Natural Resources

Thomas Constable, Environment Canada

Richard Cook, Kalamazoo College

Leroy Cooper, California Dept. General Services

Kim Copperthite, Dept. of Commerce

Dan Cotter, West Coast Salvage and Recycling Co.

Tom Couling, Minnesota Waste Management Board

J.B. Cox, Department of Commerce

Michael Curry, CTZ Inc.

Herschel Cutler, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

Steve Cutler, Cutler Salvage

Ervin Dan, Polysar

Drew Davis, National Soft Drink Association

Truett DeGeare, Environmental Protection Agency

Maarten de Kadt, INFORM

Richard Denisen, Environmental Defense Fund

Bruce De Woolfson, ENVIPCO

Robert Deyle, Univ. Oklahoma

Luis Diaz, Cal Recovery

John Dickenson, Aluminum Association

Glenn DiGiovanni, Malcolm Pirnie

Daryl Ditz, Cornell Univ.

Bill Deane, U.S. Dept. Agriculture

Michael Downs, Oregon Dept. Environmental Quality

Shelley Dresser-Gagnon, Council of State Governments

Taylor Eighmy, Univ. New Hampshire

Robert Ennis, Plastigone

George Eowan, California Waste Management Board

Rolf Faste, Stanford Univ.

-367-
368 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Harry Fatkin, Polaroid Corp.

Trisha Ferrand, Ferrand Associates

Francis Ferraro, Wheelabrator Environmental Systems

Melvin Finstein, Rutgers University

Mike Flynn, Environmental Protection Agency

Jack Force, MRE Corp.

Domenic Forcella, National Governors’ Association

Keith Forester, Wheelabrator Environmental Systems

Ed Fox, Procter& Gamble Co.

Bernd Franke, Institut für Energie und Umweltforschung,

Federal Republic of Germany

Randall Franke, Marion County Board of Commissioners

Henry Frankel, Rutgers Univ.

Marjorie Franklin, Franklin Associates

Lewis Freeman, Society of the Plastics Industry

Jack Friedline, Phoenix Dept. of Sanitation

Bob Friedman, OTA

Charlotte Frola, Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Eugene Gabrielli, The Ecology Companies, Inc.

Wes Gaskin, Container Recovery Corp.

Dave Gatton, U.S. Conference of Mayors

Helmut Geipel, Bundesministerium für Forschung und

Technologies, Federal Republic of Germany

John Geisler, City of Davis, California

Richard Gertmann, R.W. Beck and Associates

Lois Gibbs, Citizens’ Clearinghouse

Jane Gilbert, Arthur D. Little

Martha Gildart, California Waste Management Board

Joseph Gilson, Camden County Office Solid Waste

Management

John Gleason, New York State Procurement Division

Alan Gloxin, Diamond Bathurst

John Gold, North Shore Recycled Fibers

Marc Goldberg, Safer, Inc.

Ted Goldfarb, State University of New York, Stony

Brook

Nora Goldstein, Biocycle

Richard Goodstein, Browning-Ferns Industries

William Gooden, Haverhill/Natick Paperboard Corp.

Georg Goosmann, Environment Agency, Federal

Republic of Germany

Mike Gough, Resources for the Future

Robert Graulich, Oxford Energy Company

Sharon Green, Conservation Foundation

Jonathan Greenberg, Browning-Ferris Industries

Joseph Greenblott, Technical Resources, Inc.

Warren Gregory, Smith-Barney

Jim Grove, Miami Paper Corp.

James Guillet Univ. Toronto

Erica Guttman, Rhode Island Solid Waste Management

Corp.

Hiroyuki Hatano, Kyoto University, Japan

Tom Hemphill, New Jersey Recycling Office

Roy Herndon, Florida State Univ.

Lanny Hickman, Governmental Refuse Collection and

Disposal Association

William Hinkley, Florida Dept. Environmental

Regulation

Taka Hiraishi, Environment Agency, Japan

Joel Hirschhorn, OTA

Buzz Hoffmann, Food and Drug Administration

Ken Hunnibell, Rhode Island School of Design

Carl Hursh, Pennsylvania Dept. Environmental

Resources

Rinzo Iijima, Plastic Waste Management institute, Japan

Peter Ince, Forest Products Lab

David Jeanes, Iron& Steel Institute

Jerry Johnson, Polystyrene Packaging Council

Lanny Johnson, Mackormick and Putziger

Yuji Kaihara, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Japan

Ken Kamlet, A.T. Kearney, Inc.

Richard Kashmanian, Environmental Protection Agency

Rosamond Katz, General Accounting Office

Tom Keith, Palm Beach County

Janet Keller, Rhode Island Dept. Environmental

Management

Michael Kelley, Department of Commerce

Richard Keller, Maryland Energy Office

Robert Kerr, New York Dept. Environmental

Conservation

Linda King, Citizen’s Clearinghouse

Ed Klein, Environmental Protection Agency

Raymond Klicius, Environment Canada

Bruce Kline, Pentapco, Inc.

John Klungness, Forest Products Lab

Dan Knapp, Urban Ore

Katsuhiko Kobayashi, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.,

Japan

Carol Kocheisen, National League of Cities

Richard Koelling, New York State Dept. Environmental

Conservation

Mel Koenigs, General Accounting Office

O. Komiya, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Carolyn Konheim, Konheim and Konheim

Hiroshi Kubota, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Robert Lamb, McGuire Woods Battle& Booth

Ruth Lampi, Coalition for Recyclable Waste

David Larrabee, Dept. of Commerce

Connie Leach, Vermont Dept. Environmental

Conservation

Gerry Lederer, U.S. Conference of Mayors

Debra Levin, Intitute of Scrap Recycling Industries

Thomas Lindhqvist, Univ. Lund, Sweden

Glenn Lovin, Resource Recovery Institute

Rod Lowman, Council for Solid Waste Solutions

Michael Lynch, Illinois Tool Works

John MacLean, Homans McGraw

Lou Magdits, Exide Battery Corporation
Appendix C-Contributors ● 369

Lynne Markus, Missouri Dept. Natural Resources

Bruce Marshall, Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems

Wayne Martin, DuPont

Mark Matlock, Archer Daniels Midland

Cassandra Maurer, Land-of-Sky Regional Council

Jim McCarthy, Congressional Research Service

Frank McManus, Resource Recovery Report

Eve McNiff, Council on Environment of New York City

Ellen McShane, New Jersey Dept. Environmental

Protection

Hector Mendieta, Texas Dept. Health

Ken Mentzer, Mineral Insulation Manufacturers

Association

Barry Meyer, Aluminum Association

Jack Milgrom, Walden Research

Chaz Miller, Glass Packaging Institute

Ron Miller, New York Dept. Environmental

Conservation

David Minott, Alternative Resources, Inc.

Susan Mooney, Environmental Protection Agency

Bill Moore, Waste Management

John Murphy, Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Assoc.

Kazuhiro Nakane, Plastic Waste Management Institute,

Japan

Kunihiro Nakazato, Takuma Co., Ltd., Japan

Bob Neuman, Ogilvy & Mather Public Affairs

Fred Nicholson, National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc.

Norman Nosenchuck, New York Dept. Environmental

Conservation

Thomas Obermeier, ITU-Ingenieurgemeinschaft, Federal

Republic of Germany

George Oechsle, Atlantic Coast Paperboard

Hidenobu Ogasawara, Clean Japan Center, Japan

Kiyomi Ogawa Clean Japan Center, Japan

Kirsten Oldenburg, OTA

Greg Olson, National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Paul O’Neill, General Accounting Office

Theodore O’Neill, Cape May County Municipal Utilities

Authority

William O’Toole, Recovery Sciences

Barbara Paley, National Assoc. of Counties

Jim Palmer, GNB Inc.

Al Pederson, AMG Resources Corp.

Amy Perlmutter, City and County of San Francisco

Amy Perry, Mass PIRG

Bruce Piasecki, Clarkson Univ.

Suellen Pirages, National Solid Waste Management

Assoc.

Pat Plunkert, Bureau of Mines

Cynthia Pollock Shea, Worldwatch Institute

Donald Powell, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.

Jerry Powell, Resource Recycling

Sheila Prindiville, National Solid Waste Management

Assoc.

Ellen Rajewski, General Accounting Office

Sidney Rankin, Rutgers Univ.

William Rathje, Univ. Arizona

Pat Raymond, Environmental & Energy Study Institute

Merilyn Reeves, League of Women Voters

John Reindl, Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources

Paul Relis, Gildea Resource Center

Dick Richards, Science Applications International Corp.

Jenifer Robison, OTA

Margaret Rogers, Society of the Plastics Industry

Natalie Roy, Massachusetts Div. Environmental Quality

& Engineering

John Ruston, Environmental Defense Fund

Dennis Sabourin, Wellman Trading Corp.

Gene Salerni, Schillinger, Salerni and Boyd, Inc.

Amy Sapowith, Renew America

Steve Sawell, Environment Canada

Moira Schoen, Environmental Protection Agency

Hans-Dieter Schulz, Munich Planning Board, Federal

Republic of Germany

Jim Sears, Marion Co. Dept. Solid Waste

Richard Sedgley, McGuire Woods Battle & Booth

Nancy Seidman, Northeast States for Coordinated Air

Use Management

Jere Sellers, Franklin Associates, Ltd.

Terry Serie, American Paper Institute

Walter Shaub, Coalition on Resource Recovery and the

Environment

Mary Shiel, New Jersey Dept. Environmental Protection

Duane Siler, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

Don Silva, Science and Engineering Associates

Bill Sire, American Recovery Corp.

Ed Skernolis, Waste Management

Kurt Smalberg, Steel Can Recycling Institute

Allan Smith, Health Risk Associates

Garrett Smith, Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.

Gary Sondermeyer, New Jersey Dept. Environmental

Protection

David Sorenson, Can Manufacturers Inst.

Gifford Stack, National Soft Drink Association

Gary Stanley, Dept. of Commerce

John Stark, Rubber Research Elastomeric, Inc.

Marie Steinwachs, Southwest Missouri State Univ.

Rena Steinzor, Speigel and McDiarmid

Andrew Stephens, Eaglebrook Plastics, Inc.

Tom Stinsen, Industrial Power Technology

Dennis Stone, California Dept. Conservation

Peter Strom, Rutgers Univ.

David Sussman, Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.

Akira Takimura, Environment Agency, Japan

Masaru Tanaka, Institute of Public Health, Japan

Terry Telzrow, Eveready Battery Co.
370 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

Patrick Toner, Society of the Plastics Industry

Roger Tuttle, Earthlife Sales Co.

Alyce Ujihara, Resources for the Future

Nancy VandenBerg, Markets for Recycled Products

May VanDeventer, Materials World

N.C. Vasuki, Delaware Solid Waste Authority

Jim Vilendre, Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality

Joe Visalli, New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority

Donald Walter, Dept. of Energy

Richard Wand, P.H. Gladtfelter

David Ward, Hershman Recycling

Ian Webster, Unocal Corp.

Thomas Webster, Center for Biology of Natural Systems

Bruce Wedddle, Environmental Protection Agency

Nancy Weissman, Philadelphia Recycling Office

Ed Wheless, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

County

Mary Wiard, Ohio Dept. Natural Resources

Douglas Wilson, Univ. Arizona

Jeanne Wirka, Environmental Action Foundation

Dan Witkowsky, Bureau of Mines

Liz Wood, Gershman, Brickner and Bratton, Inc.

William Woodbury, Bureau of Mines

Richard Wool, Univ. Illinois

Shelby Yastrow, McDonald’s Corp.

Shizuo Yasuda, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Japan

Iraj Zandi, Univ. Pennsylvania

Elliott Zimmerman, Illinois Dept. Dept. Energy and

Natural Resources
Index
Index

acid gases: see emissions

aluminum

amount in MSW: 80, 83, 114, 153

beverage containers: 81, 83, 109, 114, 118, 153-156

energy consumption: 119, 154, 155

markets: 155, 156, 196

pollutants from manufacturing: 192, 193

production technologies: 155

recovery, utilization rates: 28, 136, 153, 154, 202

American Newspaper Publishers Association: 105

American Society of Mechanical Engineers: 40

American Society of Testing Materials: 30, 178, 182

ash: 37-39, 217, 222, 247-259

amounts, types: 37, 247

classification as hazardous: 37-39, 224, 252, 258, 259

codisposal: 38-39, 249, 250, 259

composition: 247, 248

Europe, Japan: 222, 247,249, 250, 254,256,258

Extraction Procedure (EP): 250-259

general management: 247-250

household waste exclusion: 37,258

leachate: 250-255

leachate tests, results: 37,38,252-256,258-259

metals: 247, 248, 250-253

regulations: 36-38,224,250,252,254-256, 258,259,299,310

reuse and treatment: 38, 39, 249, 256-258, 310

risks: 254-256

vitrification: 222, 249, 258

ASTSWMO: 290, 307-309

automotive batteries: 31, 157-161

amounts: 87, 157-160

hazardous waste regulations: 159, 160

markets for lead: 102, 157, 160, 161, 202

recycling rates: 160, 161

avoided costs: 30, 31, 223, 224, 351

awards: see information flow

bans: see interstate transportation, local programs, packaging,

plastics, prevention, State programs

batteries: see household or automotive batteries

beverage containers: also see deposit programs, specific

materials

amounts, types: 35, 51, 319

Bureau of Mines: 19, 30, 102, 155,299

cadmium: a/so see plastics, household batteries, toxic

substances

uses, amounts: 86, 101-104, 107, 156, 191,231,247,248-253,

255

Center for Plastics Recycling Research: 174, 176, 178, 183, 184

CERCLA: see Superfund

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association: 104

chlorofluorocarbons: 104, 117, 166, 315

Clean Air Act: also see emissions; 101,217,224,239,242, 243,

292,352

Clean Japan Center: 159,203, 345

Clean Water Act: 101, 172,353

Coalition on Resource Recovery & the Environment: 249

comporting: also see yard wastes; 10, 81, 124, 184-190, 192,

321,340

backyard comporting: 7,97,98, 124, 126, 185

costs: 188, 189

decomposition process: 184-186

facilities, configurations: 186-189

markets, products: 184, 186, 187, 189, 190

pollutants, operational problems: 187, 188, 192, 193

standards: 189-190

CONEG: 309, 316,317

Conservation Foundation: 50

consumer patterns: 21, 49, 98, 110-112

disposable income: 78, 111

offices, mailers: 126-128

purchasing choices: 7, 18,97,98, 107-108, 110-112, 116,

122-128, 196, 197, 301

use of services: 111, 112

Consumer Products Safety Commission: 25, 310,311,352

containers: see aluminum, glass, packaging, plastics

costs of MSW management: 56-68

factors affecting: 59,62-68

in model scenarios: 18, 57, 59-68

internalization: 20, 21, 33-35

survey: 56-59, 62, 64, 65

to communities: 5, 18, 38, 39, 42, 54, 56, 58, 59, 62-65,

302-304,322,335-337

decomposition/degradation

comporting: 184-186

in landfills: 85, 86,275, 275, 283, 288

of plastics: 180-183,276

degradable plastics: 98, 100, 179-183.276,315

Department of Agriculture: 29, 33, 200

Department of Commerce: 11, 18,24, 25,29, 30, 32, 33,310,

323,331, 350

Department of Education: 18

Department of Energy: 19,299, 333,334, 339, 351

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: 345, 348

Department of Interior: 29, 33

Department of Transportation: 33

Department of Treasury: 299

deposit systems: 34-36,51,67, 176, 312, 313

benefits and costs: 35,36,51,67,318,319

effects on litter, MSW, municipal programs: 34, 35, 51, 67,

318,319

Europe: 312,313, 318

refillable bottles: 118, 119, 312, 313, 318

State programs: 35,36, 317-319

-373-
374 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

design: see manufacturing

diapers: 80,84,98, 116, 117,286,315

dioxins and furans: 55, 192, 193,225-229,232,233, 239-242,

244,246-248,250,251, 254,255

catalysis on fly ash: 227, 229

risks: 55, 239, 239-242, 255

role of plastics: 227, 229, 230

disposable products: see prevention

education: 18, 19, 103, 313, 316, 319, 338, 345, 346

emissions: 221-222,224-247

acid gases: 226-230, 234-235, 242, 244-246

BACT: 39,40,224,242-245,335, 352

baghouse/fabric filter: 39,221,232,235,238,239, 241,245

carbon monoxide: 226-228,239, 242,246

combustion controls: 39, 225, 226

concentrations: 226-228,232-235, 238.240

dioxins: see dioxins and furans

effect of source separation: 39, 221, 231, 232, 243, 244

ESPS: 39,221, 235, 236,238,239,241, 243

metals: 226-228, 230, 231, 238-240, 242, 245, 246

monitoring: 238, 239

nitrogen oxides: 10, 36, 225, 230, 233, 234, 237, 238, 242,

244,246

particulate matter: 226-228,230,235,238, 245,246

pollution controls: 221,231-239

regulations: 39,40, 221, 224, 232, 238,242-246, 310, 352

risks: 217, 230, 231, 239-242

scrubbers: 39, 221, 232,234,235, 241,243, 246,249

selective catalytic reduction: 233, 234, 236, 237

Thermal DeNOx: 234,237,244

enforcement: 6, 17, 350

Environmental Defense Fund: 19,252,253,256,258,259, 290,

292,310,352

EPA: 3-7,9-13, 15-19,22-26,29-32,36-42, 101, 103,104, 106,

113, 172, 175, 178, 186, 191, 193,224,226,227,238,

241-246,249,252,254, 258,259,271-274,277, 279-281,

283-292,299,301,304-307, 309-311,331,333,335, 336,

342,348-350,352,353

Agenda for Action: 10, 12, 19

incineration regulations: see ash, emissions, incineration

landfill regulations: see landfills

Europe: 78,79, 104,108,113, 119, 145, 149-151,154-159, 162,

171,173,174,185,188, 189,192,219-222,231, 232,234,

235,239,244-246,250, 253,254,256,271,273,311-314,

318

Export Trading Company Act: 33

Extraction Procedure: see ash

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 34,201,223,224.351

fees and funding mechanisms:

grants, loans: 19, 23, 24, 30, 329, 330

income tax: 20-21

product/packaging fees: 20,34, 314,315, 339

rate of progress fee: 33

tax credits: see tax incentives

tipping fee set-asides: 40,42

waste-end fees: 20

FIFRA: 106

Food and Drug Administration: 104, 169, 172, 175, 182,310,

311,352

food waste: 28, 86, 109-111, 121, 185, 188

Forest Products Laboratory: 19,30

Franklin model

estimates: 4, 73, 79, 80, 109-111, 114, 115

limitations: 73,75, 109

furans: see dioxins and furans

General Accounting Office: 182

General Services Administration: 310,350

glass

amount in MSW: 80-83, 110, 113-115, 150, 155

beneficiation, color sorting: 151-153

energy use: 119, 151, 152

glassmaking technologies: 151, 152

markets for products: 152, 153, 196

recovery, utilization rates: 28, 136, 150, 151

refillable containers: 118, 119, 150, 312, 318, 319

GRCDA: 42

Great Lakes Recycling Coalition: 53,309

hazardous wastes: 192-194,349

ash: see ash

disposal in landfills: 42,87,90,272,284,288, 289

effect on recycling: 31, 159, 160, 165, 168

prevention: 21, 100, 101

small quantity generators: 42,87,90,258, 272,284,337, 350

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments: 37,306, 309, 350

household batteries

amounts, types: 87, 106, 107, 156

collection, reprocessing: 157-159,337, 339

Japan, Sweden, West Germany: 157-159, 161,231,312

use of mercury, cadmium: 86, 102, 104-107, 156, 157, 312

household hazardous waste: 282,284,316,337-339

amounts, types: 54, 55, 86-89, 103, 104

lists: 88,89, 103, 108

programs: 19,316,337-339

incineration: also see ash, emissions; 3, 6, 57, 62, 63, 217-267,

333-335

at sea: 220

benefits: 9, 36, 217

capacity, numbers: 36, 217, 220-225

combustion process: 225, 226, 243, 244

costs and financing: 36, 62-64, 217, 219, 223, 224, 235, 246,

247

energy recovery: 9, 217-219

Europe, Japan: 219-222,231-239,245-250, 253,254,256,

258

flow control: 334, 335

fluidized bed: 219,220,228,232,233, 253

mass bum: 217-219, 221, 225, 228, 232, 233

modular: 217-219, 221.224, 227

operator training: 40, 221, 243, 245

pollution controls: see emissions

public opposition: 3, 36,217,222-224, 333

pyrolysis: 220,222

RDF: 137, 138,217-219,221,225-228, 232,233,253

regulations: see ash, emissions; 6, 36, 299

reliability, upsets: 219, 232
Index ● 375

retrofitting: 243, 245-247

risks: 54-56, 217, 230, 231, 239-242

tax and bond issues: 201, 202, 223, 224

types of facilities: 217-220

information flow: 11, 17-19, 29, 108, 110. 124, 125, 304, 349,

350

advertising: 19, 111, 122, 123

awards: 24, 29, 118

clearinghouse: 11, 12, 17, 18, 29

education: 18, 19, 29, 103

labeling: 19,24-25,29-31, 311-314

Internal Revenue Service: 329, 352, 353

Interstate Commerce Commission: 299

interstate transportation

bans, Commerce Clause: 16, 274, 275, 340-342

compacts: 16, 342

incidence: 3, 273-275, 341

market participation: 341, 342

iron and steel

amounts, types: 80, 82, 83, 114, 161, 162

beverage containers: 113, 114

detinning: 163

electric arc furnace, minimills: 162, 163

energy use: 162.163

markets for scrap: 162, 164, 165, 196

pollutants from manufacturing: 192, 193

recovery rates: 28, 162-164, 202

steel drums: 165

white goods: see white goods

Japan: 78,79, 136, 149, 150, 154, 155, 157, 159, 161, 171, 173,

203,204,219-221,231, 233-239,245-249,258, 271,273,

278, 311,322, 343,345

recycling rate: 136, 203, 204

labeling: see information flow

landfills: also see interstate transportation; 271-295,335-337

capacity, numbers: 3, 6, 10, 40,41, 271-274.283, 290

closure & post-closure requirements: 41, 42, 290, 292, 336

corrective action: 41, 42, 292

decomposition: 275, 276, 283, 288

design: 276-284

excavations: 4, 82-84, 275

gas production, collection: 275,276,282,286,287

Japan: 78,79,271,273,278

leachate collection: 38,41,271,277,281,289-291

leachate composition, movement: 275,276,278-281,285,

286

liners and covers: 38,41,271,277-281,289-291

monitoring: 277, 283, 286-287, 291, 292

monofill: 38, 250-252,254, 255, 258, 259, 271

municipal liability: 42, 271, 288, 292, 304, 352

ownership status: 283, 290

pollutants and risks: 42, 271,284-292

regulations: 36,41,42,258,259,271, 272,281,289-292,299,

309,336,337, 349,350

siting: 41, 271-274, 276, 277, 289, 342, 344

sources of contamination: 272, 284-289

Superfund sites: 42,271,284-286,288

Land-of-Sky Regional Council: 308

lead: see automotive batteries, toxic substances

in ash: 247-253, 255, 256, 258, 259

lead-based inks: 75, 102, 105, 106

maximum contaminant level: 38, 259

uses, amounts: 86, 101-106, 157, 160

liability: see Superfund

local programs: 10,52-54,56-59,62-65, 299-305,320-322,

344-346

costs: see avoided costs, costs

decisionmaking, planning: 3,9, 32, 73,301-305

product bans: 180,313, 315, 316

recycling: 26, 59, 177, 317, 320-322

relation to State programs: 304, 305

source separation: see recycling

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act: 16

manufacturing

pollution: 9, 10, 190-194, 197, 202, 353

product design: 7,10, 11, 18,26,29,34,49,50,97, 104-107,

113-116, 118, 121, 122

use of secondary materials: see specific materails, markets

Marin Sanitary Service: 52

markets: also see specific material

barriers: 27,28, 145-148, 152, 153, 194-202, 300, 332, 333

demand- and supply-limited: 27,32, 195-197

development: 32-36, 195

nature of commodities markets: 27, 194, 195

procurement: 32,310, 311, 331-333

subsidies for virgin materials: see subsidies

materials management: 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 26, 36, 39,

41-43,299,301,304,306, 335

materials use, conservation: 5, 6, 9, 18, 26, 299, 345

previous OTA study: 345,347

mercury: also see household batteries, toxic substances

uses, amounts: 86,101,102, 104-107,156,157,191, 231,238,

242,245-247,250,287

metals: see ash, cadmium, emissions, lead, mercury, plastics

(additives)

microwave ovens: 115

MS W composition

chemical composition, combustibility: 85, 86

landfill excavations: 4, 82-84,275

materials categories: 4, 5, 79-81, 109-111

products categories: 4,5, 81, 82, 109-122

toxic substances: 86-90, 97, 101-107

MS W generation

factors affecting: 4,73, 74, 77, 78, 110-112

generation in other counties: 78,79,203

local and State data: 4, 74, 76, 77

methodology for estimating: 4, 75, 76

per-capita generation rates: 4, 22, 74, 76, 77

research needs: 4, 25, 90, 108

residential/commercial portions: 76, 77

U.S. generation rates: 3,4, 73,97

weight v. volume: 4, 79, 82-84, 109, 110

municipal solid waste (MSW): also see costs, MSW

composition, MSW generation

definition: 4, 74,76

‘‘system’ 13, 15,49-54,300
376 ● Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?

National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers: 105

National Association of Towns& Townships: 321

National Electrical Manufacturers Association: 106-107

National Institute of Standards and Technology (National

Bureau of Standards): 19,25,30,310,323,331

National League of Cities: 42,334,352

National Recycling Coalition: 30,310

National Science Foundation: 30,53

National Solid Waste Management Association: 289,290

Natural Resources Defense Council: 352

newspapers: see paper and paperboard

nitrogen oxides: see emissions

North East Recycling Coalition: 53,308,309,332

OECD: 79, 107, 161

oil: 167-168, 196, 310, 339

ownership of facilities: 54, 224, 336

packaging: 21,75, 112-116, 121, 122,311

amounts, types in MSW: 20, 75,80-82,98, 108-116

bans, fees, taxes: 20,25,26,313, 315,316

defining excessive: 112, 113

fast-food: 26,84, 115

functions: 98, 112

multi-material: 82, 98, 113, 114, 315

review boards: 24, 314, 315

paper and paperboard

amounts, types in MSW: 79-86, 109, 114, 140

corrugated cardboard: 80-84, 109, 113-115, 121, 146, 147,

149, 195

deinking: 142, 144-146, 192, 193

energy use: 142-144

exports: 140, 141, 148-150

grades: 141-148

mail, telephone books: 81, 120, 126

markets, product prices: 140, 141, 143-150, 195, 196

newspapers, newsprint: 34,80,81,83-86, 141, 143, 145, 146,

149, 150, 195,317,327,328

paperboard: 146-148

pollutants from manufacturing: 142, 192, 193

printing and writing paper: 81, 143-145, 195, 196,332,333

recovery, utilization rates: 28, 136, 140-149, 202

structure of industry, number of mills: 140-146

technologies of papermaking: 142, 143

tissue: 143, 146

particulate matter: see emissions

planning and coordination: 13, 15

plastics: also see dioxins and furans, packaging; 168-184

additives: 86, 101, 102, 172, 174

amounts, types produced: 168, 172, 173

amounts in MSW: 79-83, 100, 113, 114, 117, 156, 168

bans: 117, 146,313,315,316

barriers to recycling: 169, 175-179

costs of recycling: 174, 176, 178

degradable: 98, 100, 179-183,276,315

energy consumption: 175-177

HDPE: 28, 121, 169-171, 173, 174, 176-178, 183, 184,279,

315

markets and products: 28, 168-171, 173, 178, 179, 183, 196

mixed plastics: 171, 173, 174, 177, 184

packaging: 113, 114, 121, 122, 168, 172, 173, 175,311

PET: 28,121,169-171,173,174, 176-179,183,184,193, 313,

315

pollutants from manufacturing: 100, 193, 194

polystyrene: 29, 117, 169, 170, 173, 174, 179, 182,315

PVC: 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 177-179,228-231,311

recycling in Japan and Europe: 171-173, 175, 178

recycling rates: 28, 169-171, 183, 184

recycling technologies: 173-176, 178

weight v. volume: 83

pollutants: see specific pollutants, management methods,

manufacturing, risks

prevention: 6,8,21-26,42,43,97-128, 299-301, 304,306,

310-317

bans: 25-26, 117, 146,311,313,315,316

benefits, constraints, tradeoffs: 7,21,22,97-100, 113

consumer opportunities: 7,98, 107, 108, 122-128

content to packaging ratio: 24, 124, 125

definition: 7,97,98, 100

durability, repairability: 110, 116-118

examples: 104-107, 121-123

goals, incentives: 21-25

labeling: see information flow

measuring: 21, 22, 25, 98, 108, 109

product trends: 81, 82, 112-121

quantity reduction: 7,22,97, 108-122

reusable v. single-use products: 97-99, 116-120, 124

review boards: 24, 314, 315

targeting: 22-26,97,98, 101-104, 108-122, 316

toxicity reduction: 7,22,23,97,99, 100-108, 156, 316

printing ink: see lead

procurement

extension to “reduction” products: 24

Federal: 32,310,350

State: 331-333

public opposition: 3, 10,36,49,54,217,222-224, 300,322,342

public participation: 3, 16,223,271,321,342-345

PURPA: 33,34,201,202,219,222-224, 299,301,302,334,349,

351

RCRA: 9, 10, 11, 16-18,29,32,37,38,42, 299,302,304-306,

309,310,322,331,335, 337,342,348-350

specific regulations: see incineration, landfills, recycling

State plans: see State solid waste management plans

recycling: also see specific materials, markets; 3, 6, 9, 26-32,

135-212, 317-335

buy-back, dropoff: 50,51,321

collection constraints: 65, 169, 176-178

commingled recyclable: 66, 137-139, 321

costs: see avoided costs, costs

curbside: 66, 176, 177, 318, 319, 321, 322

definitions: 30,31, 135

deposit legislation: see deposit programs

energy use: 9,26, 142-144, 150, 151, 154, 155, 162, 163, 197

exports: 33, 140, 141, 148-150, 155, 161, 162

goals: 26,27,33

labeling: see information flow

market constraints: see markets

materials recovery facilities: 136-140, 192, 319, 322

pollutants from manufacturing: 9, 142, 190-194
Index ● 377

preparing materials for recycling: 136-140, 162, 174, 185

rates of recycling: 5, 26, 28, 135-137, 143-148, 150-151, 153,

154, 160-l&l

regulations: 6, 9, 31, 32, 159, 160, 165, 166, 190, 191

reverse vending machines: 177

source separation: 66, 137, 139, 140, 153, 185, 188, 189,221,

231,232,243, 244,245,247,253, 319

technical constraints: 29, 142, 144, 145, 150-152, 163, 164,

175, 195, 196

reduction: see prevention

refuse-derived fuel: see incineration

regulations: see each management method

research and development: 11, 19, 29, 30

Resources for the Future: 253,259

risks: 54-56, 156, 157, 166, 167, 172, 190-194, 239-242, 254,

255

ash: 56, 254, 255

batteries: 156, 157

dioxins: see dioxins and furans

food chain: 239-242,254,255

incineration: 54-56, 217, 230, 231, 239-242, 254, 255

landfilling: 54-56, 271, 284-292

metals: 55, 172, 192, 239, 240, 242, 255

recycling, manufacturing: 54-56, 190-194

risk assessments: 55, 56, 239

siting: 222-224, 271, 274, 289, 334, 342-345

ensuring capacity: 6, 13, 15, 16

examples, model procedures: 6, 16, 17, 273, 274, 342-345

Society of Packaging and Handling Engineers: 30

Society of the Plastics Industry: 30, 178, 179

Solid Waste Disposal Act: 299, 306,348

source separation: see recycling

State MSW programs: 10,299-309,335-337,344

deposit systems: 317-319

education: 313, 316, 319, 338, 345

financial incentives: 322-331

financial resources: 305, 307, 308, 338

household hazardous wastes: 316, 337-339

packaging review boards, taxes: 308, 313-315

planning: 304-309,348-350

prevention: 311-313

procurement: 310,331-333

product bans: 313,315,316

recycling: 26,306-309,311,317-320, 323-327,330,331,335,

339,340

regional efforts: 50, 308, 309, 316, 317

regulations: 36, 41, 190, 191, 243-246, 254

State solid waste management plans: 10, 11, 13, 16,304-307,

348-350

capacity requirements: 13, 16

relation to EPA: 11, 13

steel, steel drums: see iron and steel

subsidies: 32-35, 197-202, 329-331

effect on recycling: 32, 33, 34, 197, 200-202

mineral depletion allowance: 33, 197-199, 201

timber income treatment: 197-202

waste-to-energy facilities: 34, 35, 201, 202, 351

Superfund (CERCLA): 16, 101,352

liability: 31,42, 159, 197,224,271,288,290, 292,304,337,

339,352

NPL: 42,271,284-286,288

tax incentives: 30, 322-331

Economic Recovery Tax Act: 323, 324,329

Federal programs: 322, 323, 329

State programs: 323-327,330, 331

tax credits: 322-331, 352

Tax Reform Act: 199,201,223,224,323

testing: see ash, degradable plastics

tipping fee: 34,40,42, 308, 330, 335, 338

tires: 118, 166, 167, 196, 310, 339

toxic substances: also see prevention, risks

identifying: 22, 55, 86-90, 97, 101-104

metals: see cadmium, lead, mercury

organic chemicals: also see ash, dioxins, emissions; 102-104,

106, 172

product sources: 101-104

substitutes: 23, 104-107

Toxic Substances Control Act: 26, 165, 352

U.S. Conference of Mayors: 304, 352

waste management industry

changing infrastructure: 50-54, 300, 301

financing: 54,201,202,223,224

waste audits: 23

West Germany: 121-123, 149-151, 153, 158,159,161, 173-175,

188-189,311-314, 318

deposit, refillable bottle systems: 312, 313, 318

Environmental Angel: 25, 311, 313, 314

household batteries: 159, 312

incineration: 220-222, 236, 244-246

Section 14: 312,314

white goods: 31, 161, 162, 165, 166

PCBs: 31, 165

World Health Organization: 106, 242

yard waste: also see comporting; 36,41, 86, 233, 315

amounts in MSW: 79-81, 84, 109-111, 185

leaf comporting: 185, 187, 188

programs: 188-189, 321,340

recycling rates: 28