Source: https://text.123doc.org/document/4829662-solid-waste-management.htm
Timestamp: 2018-12-14 02:51:41
Document Index: 614753327

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'art 6', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 13', 'art 13', 'art 13']

Solid waste management - Tài liệu text
0-07-150034-0
The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: 0-07-135623-1.
DOI: 10.1036/0071356231
Chapter 1. Introduction George Tchobanoglous, Frank Kreith, and Marcia E. Williams
Waste Generation and Management in a Technological Society / 1.1
Issues in Solid Waste Management / 1.2
Integrated Waste Management / 1.8
Implementing Integrated Waste Management Strategies / 1.11
Typical Costs for Major Waste Management Options / 1.13
Framework for Decision Making / 1.19
Key Factors for Success / 1.22
Philosophy and Organization of this Handbook / 1.24
Concluding Remarks / 1.25
Chapter 2. Federal Role in Municipal Solid Waste Management
Barbara Foster and Edward W. Repa
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act / 2.1
Clean Air Act / 2.22
Clean Water Act / 2.35
Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines / 2.38
Flow Control Implications / 2.38
Chapter 3. Solid Waste State Legislation Kelly Hill and Jim Glenn
3.2 Trends in Municipal Waste Generation and Management / 3.1
3.3 The Waste Reduction Legislation Movement / 3.3
3.4 The Effect of Legislation / 3.5
3.5 State Municipal Solid Waste Legislation / 3.8
3.6 State Planning Provisions / 3.8
3.7 Permitting and Regulation Requirements / 3.9
3.8 Waste Reduction Legislation / 3.9
3.9 Establishing Waste Reduction Goals / 3.10
3.10 Legislating Local Government Responsibility / 3.12
3.11 Making Producers and Retailers Responsible for Waste / 3.16
3.12 Advanced Disposal Fees / 3.18
3.13 Special Waste Legislation / 3.20
3.14 Market Development Initiatives / 3.21
3.15 State Funding / 3.25
3.16 Flow Control Legislation: Interstate Movement of Unprocessed and Processed Solid Waste / 3.25
References / 3.27
Appendix: State Solid Waste Regulatory Agencies / 3.28
Chapter 4. Planning for Municipal Solid Waste Management Programs
James E. Kundell and Deanna L. Ruffer
State Solid Waste Management Planning / 4.1
Local and Regional Solid Waste Management Planning / 4.7
Conclusions / 4.13
Chapter 5. Solid Waste Stream Characteristics Marjorie A. Franklin
Municipal Solid Waste Defined / 5.1
Methods of Characterizing Municipal Solid Waste / 5.2
Materials in Municipal Solid Waste by Weight / 5.3
Products in Municipal Solid Waste by Weight / 5.11
Municipal Solid Waste Management / 5.19
Discards of Municipal Solid Waste by Volume / 5.24
The Variability of Municipal Solid Waste Generation / 5.25
References / 5.30
Chapter 6. Source Reduction: Quantity and Toxicity
Part 6A. Quantity Reduction Harold Leverenz
Effects of Source Reduction / 6.2
Involvement by Government / 6.6
Developing a Source Reduction Plan / 6.15
Strategies for Source Reduction / 6.17
Part 6B. Toxicity Reduction Ken Geiser
The Toxicity of Trash / 6.27
Waste Management Policy / 6.30
Product Management Policy / 6.33
Production Management Policy / 6.37
A Sustainable Economy / 6.39
References / 6.40
Chapter 7. Collection of Solid Waste Hilary Theisen
The Logistics of Solid Waste Collection / 7.1
Types of Waste Collection Services / 7.2
Types of Collection Systems, Equipment, and Personnel Requirements / 7.14
Collection Routes / 7.22
Management of Collection Systems / 7.25
Collection System Economics / 7.25
References / 7.27
Chapter 8. Recycling Harold Leverenz, George Tchobanoglous, and David B. Spencer
Overview of Recycling / 8.1
Recovery of Recyclable Materials from Solid Waste / 8.3
Development and Implementation of Materials Recovery Facilities / 8.10
Unit Operations and Equipment for Processing of Recyclables / 8.38
Environmental and Public Health and Safety Issues / 8.70
Recycling Economics / 8.74
References / 8.77
Chapter 9. Markets and Products for Recycled Material
Harold Leverenz and Frank Kreith
Sustainable Recycling / 9.1
Recycling Markets / 9.3
Market Development / 9.8
Trade Issues / 9.16
References / 9.17
Chapter 10. Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW)
David E.B. Nightingale and Rachel Donnette
Problems of Household Hazardous Products / 10.3
HHW Regulation and Policy / 10.16
Product Stewardship and Sustainability / 10.21
Education and Outreach / 10.26
HHW Collection, Trends, and Infrastructure / 10.29
References / 10.33
Chapter 11. Other Special Wastes
Part 11A. Batteries Gary R. Brenniman, Stephen D. Casper,
William H. Hallenbeck, and James M. Lyznicki
Automobile and Household Batteries / 11.1
References / 11.14
Part 11B. Used Oil Stephen D. Casper, William H. Hallenbeck, and Gary R. Brenniman
Used Oil / 11.15
Part 11C. Scrap Tires John K. Bell
Background / 11.31
Source Reduction and Reuse / 11.32
Disposal of Waste Tires / 11.33
Alternatives to Disposal / 11.34
References / 11.36
Part 11D. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris George Tchobanoglous
Sources, Characteristics, and Quantities of C&D Debris / 11.39
Regulations Governing C&D Materials and Debris / 11.42
Management of C&D Debris / 11.42
11D.4 Specifications for Recovered C&D Debris / 11.44
11D.5 Management of Debris from Natural and Humanmade Disasters / 11.46
References / 11.47
Part 11E. Computer and Other Electronic Solid Waste
Gary R. Brenniman and William H. Hallenbeck
11E.1
11E.2
11E.3
11E.4
11E.5
11E.6
11E.7
Introduction / 11.49
Hazardous Components in Computers and Electronic Waste / 11.50
Disposing of Computers is Hazardous / 11.53
Extended Producer Responsibility and Electronic Toxin Phaseouts / 11.55
Can a Clean Computer Be Designed? / 11.57
What Can You Do As a Computer Owner? / 11.58
Contacts and Resources for Dealing with Computer Waste / 11.58
References / 11.60
Chapter 12. Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes
Luis F. Diaz, George M. Savage, and Clarence G. Golueke
12.1 Principles / 12.3
12.2 Technology / 12.14
12.3 Economics / 12.27
12.4 Marketing Principles and Methods / 12.33
12.5 Environmental, Public, and Industrial Health Considerations / 12.40
12.6 Case Study / 12.45
12.7 Conclusions / 12.45
References / 12.47
Appendix 12A. Partial Listing of Vendors of Equipment and Systems for Composting MSW
and Other Organic Wastes / 12.50
Appendix 12B. Costs for Composting MSW and Yard Wastes / 12.68
Chapter 13. Waste-to-Energy Combustion
Introduction Frank Kreith
Part 13A. Incineration Technologies Calvin R. Brunner
Incineration / 13.3
References / 13.84
Part 13B. Ash Management and Disposal Floyd Hasselriis
13B.8
Sources and Types of Ash Residues / 13.85
Properties of Ash Residues / 13.86
Ash Management / 13.93
Landfill Disposal / 13.95
Regulatory Aspects / 13.97
Actual Leaching of MWC Ash / 13.99
Treatment of Ash Residues / 13.100
Environmental Impact of Ash Residue Use / 13.101
Ash Management Around the World / 13.102
Beneficial Use of Residues / 13.104
Analysis of Ash Residue Test Data / 13.109
References / 13.116
Part 13C. Emission Control Floyd Hasselriis
13C.6
13C.7
13C.8
13C.9
13C.10
Introduction / 13.121
Emissions from Combustion / 13.124
Emission Standards and Guidelines / 13.126
Emission Control Devices / 13.132
Controlled and Uncontrolled Emission Factors / 13.154
Variability of Emissions / 13.160
Dispersion of Pollutants from Stack to Ground / 13.161
Risk Assessment / 13.165
Calculation of Municipal Waste Combustor Emissions / 13.168
Conversions and Corrections / 13.171
References / 13.174
Chapter 14. Landfilling Philip R. O’Leary and George Tchobanoglous
The Landfill Method of Solid Waste Disposal / 14.2
Generation and Composition of Landfill Gases / 14.10
Formation, Composition, and Management of Leachate / 14.30
Intermediate and Final Landfill Cover / 14.47
Structural and Settlement Characteristics of Landfills / 14.54
Landfill Design Considerations / 14.58
Landfill Operation / 14.69
Environmental Quality Monitoring at Landfills / 14.77
Landfill Closure, Postclosure Care, and Remediation / 14.84
References / 14.88
Chapter 15. Siting Municipal Solid Waste Facilities David Laws, Lawrence Susskind,
and Jason Corburn
Understanding the Sources of Public Concern / 15.1
A Typical Siting Chronology / 15.4
Building Consensus on Siting Choices / 15.8
Conclusions / 15.16
Chapter 16. Financing and Life-Cycle Costing of Solid Waste Management Systems
Nicholas S. Artz, Jacob E. Beachey, and Philip R. O’Leary
Financing Options / 16.2
Issues in Financing Choices / 16.5
Steps to Secure System Financing / 16.8
Life-Cycle Costing / 16.10
Summary / 16.16
Nicholas S. Artz
Franklin Associates, Ltd., 4121 W. 83rd Street, Suite 108, Prairie Village, KS 666208
Jacob E. Beachey Franklin Associates, Ltd., 4121 W. 83rd Street, Suite 108, Prairie Village, KS 66208
John K. Bell California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), 8800 Cal Center Drive, Sacramento, CA 95826 (CHAP. 11C).
Gary R. Brenniman School of Public Health, University of Illinois, 2121 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL
60612-7260 (CHAPS. 11A, 11B, 11E).
Calvin R. Brunner Incinerator Consultant, Inc., 11204 Longwood Grove Drive, Reston,VA 22094 (CHAP.
Stephen D. Casper School of Public Health, University of Illinois, 2121 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL
60612-7260 (CHAPS. 11A, 11B).
Jason Corburn Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), 77 Massachusetts Ave., RM 3-411, Cambridge, MA 02139 (CHAP. 15).
Luis F. Diaz CalRecovery, Inc., 1850 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1060, Concord, CA 94520 (CHAP. 12).
Rachel Donnette Thurston County Environmental Health, 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia, WA
98502 (CHAP. 10).
Barbara Foster National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 1560 Broadway, Suite 700, Denver,
CO 80202 (CHAP. 2).
Marjorie A. Franklin Franklin Associates, Ltd., 4121 W. 83rd Street, Suite 108, Prairie Village, KS 66208
Ken Geiser Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854
(CHAP. 6B).
Jim Glenn BioCycle, 419 State Avenue, Emmaus, PA 18049 (CHAP. 3).
Clarence G. Golueke CalRecovery, Inc., 1850 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1060, Concord, CA 94520
William H. Hallenbeck 1106 Maple Street, Western Springs, IL 60558 (CHAPS. 11A, 11B, 11E).
Floyd Hasselriis Engineering Consultant, 52 Seasongood Road, Forest Hills Gardens, New York, NY
11375 (CHAPS. 13B, 13C).
Kelly Hill 105 Rosella Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701 (CHAP. 3).
Frank Kreith Engineering Consultant, 1485 Sierra Drive, Boulder, CO 80302 (CHAPS. 1, 9, 13).
James E. Kundell Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 (CHAP. 4).
David Laws Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),
77 Massachusetts Ave., RM 3-411, Cambridge, MA 02139 (CHAP. 15).
Harold Leverenz Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis,
Davis, CA 95616 (CHAPS. 6A, 8, 9).
Copyright © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Click here for terms of use.
James M. Lyznicki School of Public Health, 2121 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60612-7260 (CHAP.
David E. B. Nightingale Solid Waste and Financial Assistance Program, Washington State Department
of Ecology, P.O. Box 47775, Olympia, WA 98504-7775 (CHAP. 10).
Philip R. O’Leary University of Wisconsin, 432 N. Lake Street, Madison, WI 53706 (CHAPS. 14, 16).
Edward W. Repa National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA), 1730 Rhode Island
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 (CHAP. 2).
Deanna K. Ruffer Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 (CHAP. 4).
George M. Savage CalRecovery, Inc., 1850 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1060, Concord, CA 94520 (CHAP.
David B. Spencer WTE Corporation, 7 Alfred Circle, Bedford, MA 01730 (CHAP. 8).
Lawrence Susskind Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
George Tchobanoglous Engineering Consultant, 662 Diego Place, Davis, CA 95616 (CHAPS. 1, 8, 11D).
Hilary Theisen Solid Waste Consultant, 2451 Palmira Place, San Ramon, CA 94583 (CHAP. 7).
Marcia E. Williams LECG, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (CHAP. 1).
The first edition of this handbook was an outgrowth of a two-day conference on integrated solid
waste management in June 1989, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the National Conference
of State Legislatures (NCSL). At that time, the management of solid waste was considered a
national crisis, because the number of available landfills was decreasing, there was a great deal
of concern about the health risks associated with waste incineration, and there was growing
opposition to siting new waste management facilities. The crisis mode was exacerbated by such
incidents as the ship named Mobro, filled with waste, sailing from harbor to harbor and not being
allowed to discharge its ever-more-fragrant cargo; a large number of landfills, built with insufficient environmental safeguards, that were placed on the Superfund List; and stories about the
carcinogenic effects of emissions from incinerators creating fear among the population.
In the 12 years that have intervened between the time the first edition was written and the
preparation of the second edition, solid waste management has achieved a maturity that has
removed virtually all fear of it being a crisis. Although the number of landfills is diminishing,
larger ones are being built with increased safeguards that prevent leaching or the emission of
gases. Improved management of hazardous waste and the emergence of cost-effective integrated waste management systems, with greater emphasis on waste reduction and recycling,
have reduced or eliminated most of the previous concerns and problems associated with solid
waste management. Improved air pollution control devices on incinerators have proven to be
effective, and a better understanding of hazardous materials found in solid waste has led to
management options that are considered environmentally acceptable.
While there have been no revolutionary breakthroughs in waste management options,
there has been a steady advance in the technologies necessary to handle solid waste materials
safely and economically. Thus, the purpose of the second edition of this handbook is to bring
the reader up to date on what these options are and how waste can be managed efficiently and
cost-effectively. These new technologies have been incorporated in this edition to give the
reader the tools necessary to plan and evaluate alternative solid waste management systems
and/or programs. In addition to updating all of the chapters, new material has been added on
(1) the characteristics of the solid waste stream as it exists now, and how it is likely to develop
in the next 10 to 20 years; (2) the collection of solid waste; (3) the handling of construction and
demolition wastes; (4) how a modern landfill should be built and managed; and (5) the cost of
various waste management systems, so as to enable the reader to make reasonable estimates
and comparisons of various waste management options.
The book has been reorganized slightly but has maintained the original sequence of topics,
beginning with federal and state legislation in Chapters 2 and 3. Planning municipal solid
waste (MSW) programs and the characterization of the solid waste stream are addressed in
Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. Methods for reducing both the amount and toxicity of solid
waste are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 is a new chapter dealing with the collection and
transport of solid waste. Chapters 8 and 9, which deal with recycling and markets for recycled
products, have been revised extensively. Household hazardous waste is discussed in Chapter
10. Special wastes are considered in Chapter 11, with new sections on construction and demolition and electronics and computer wastes. Composting, incineration, and landfilling are documented in Chapters 12, 13, and 14, respectively. Finally, siting and cost estimating of MSW
facilities are discussed in Chapters 15 and 16, respectively. Many photographs have been
added to the book to provide the reader with visual insights into various management strategies. To make the end-of-chapter references more accessible, they have been reorganized
alphabetically.The glossary of terms, given in Appendix A, has been updated to reflect current
practice, and conversion factors for transforming U.S. customary units to SI units have also
George Tchobanoglous is a professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at the
University of California at Davis. He received a B.S. degree in civil engineering from the University of the Pacific, an M.S. degree in sanitary engineering from the University of California
at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Stanford University. His principal research interests are in the areas of solid waste management, wastewater treatment,
wastewater filtration, aquatic systems for wastewater treatment, and individual onsite treatment systems. He has taught courses on these subjects at UC Davis for the past 32 years. He
has authored or coauthored over 350 technical publications including 12 textbooks and 3 reference books. He is the principal author of a textbook titled Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, published by McGraw-Hill. The textbooks are
used in more than 200 colleges and universities throughout the United States, and they are
also used extensively by practicing engineers in the United States and abroad.
Dr. Tchobanoglous is an active member of numerous professional societies. He is a corecipient of the Gordon Maskew Fair Medal and the Jack Edward McKee Medal from the Water
Environment Federation. Professor Tchobanoglous serves nationally and internationally as a
consultant to governmental agencies and private concerns. He is a past president of the Association of Environmental Engineering Professors. He is consulting editor for the McGraw-Hill
book company series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. He has served as a
member of the California Waste Management Board. He is a Diplomate of the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers and a registered Civil Engineer in California.
Frank Kreith is a professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder,
where he taught in the Mechanical and Chemical Engineering Departments from 1959 to
1978. For the past 13 years, Dr. Frank Kreith served as the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) legislative fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), where he provided assistance on waste management, transportation, and energy
issues to legislators in state governments. Prior to joining NCSL in 1988, Dr. Kreith was chief
of thermal research at the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), now the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). During his tenure at SERI, he participated in the presidential domestic energy review and served as an advisor to the governor of Colorado. In 1983, he
received SERI’s first General Achievement Award. He has written more than a hundred peerreviewed articles and authored or edited 12 books.
Dr. Kreith has served as a consultant and advisor all over the world. His assignments
included consultancies to Vice Presidents Rockefeller and Gore, the U.S. Department of
Energy, NATO, the U.S. Agency for National Development, and the United Nations. He is the
recipient of numerous national awards, including the Charles Greeley Abbott Award from the
American Solar Energy Society and the Max Jakob Award from ASME-AIChE. In 1992, he
received the Ralph Coates Roe Medal for providing technical information to legislators
about energy conservation, waste management, and environmental protection, and in 1998 he
was the recipient of the prestigious Washington Award for “unselfish and preeminent service
in advancing human progress.”
Human activities generate waste materials that are often discarded because they are considered useless. These wastes are normally solid, and the word waste suggests that the material is
useless and unwanted. However, many of these waste materials can be reused, and thus they
can become a resource for industrial production or energy generation, if managed properly.
Waste management has become one of the most significant problems of our time because the
American way of life produces enormous amounts of waste, and most people want to preserve
their lifestyle, while also protecting the environment and public health. Industry, private citizens, and state legislatures are searching for means to reduce the growing amount of waste that
American homes and businesses discard and to reuse it or dispose of it safely and economically. In recent years, state legislatures have passed more laws dealing with solid waste management than with any other topic on their legislative agendas. The purpose of this chapter is
to provide background material on the issues and challenges involved in the management of
municipal solid waste (MSW) and to provide a foundation for the information on specific
technologies and management options presented in the subsequent chapters. Appropriate references for the material covered in this chapter will be found in the chapters that follow.
1.1 WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
IN A TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Historically, waste management has been an engineering function. It is related to the evolution
of a technological society, which, along with the benefits of mass production, has also created
problems that require the disposal of solid wastes.The flow of materials in a technological society and the resulting waste generation are illustrated schematically in Fig. 1.1. Wastes are generated during the mining and production of raw materials, such as the tailings from a mine or
the discarded husks from a cornfield. After the raw materials have been mined, harvested, or
otherwise procured, more wastes are generated during subsequent steps of the processes that
generate goods for consumption by society from these raw materials. It is apparent from the
diagram in Fig. 1.1 that the most effective way to ameliorate the solid waste disposal problem
is to reduce both the amount and the toxicity of waste that is generated, but as people search
for a better life and a higher standard of living, they tend to consume more goods and generate
more waste. Consequently, society is searching for improved methods of waste management
and ways to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be landfilled.
Sources of solid wastes in a community are, in general, related to land use and zoning.
Although any number of source classifications can be developed, the following categories
have been found useful: (1) residential, (2) commercial, (3) institutional, (4) construction and
demolition, (5) municipal services, (6) treatment plant sites, (7) industrial, and (8) agricultural.
Typical facilities, activities, or locations associated with each of these sources of waste are
reported in Table 1.1. As noted in Table 1.1, MSW is normally assumed to include all community wastes, with the exception of wastes generated by municipal services, water and waste1.1
FIGURE 1.1 Flow of materials and waste in an industrial society.
water treatment plants, industrial processes, and agricultural operations. It is important to be
aware that the definitions of terms and the classifications of solid waste vary greatly in the literature and in the profession. Consequently, the use of published data requires considerable
care, judgment, and common sense.
Solid waste management is a complex process because it involves many technologies and
disciplines. These include technologies associated with the control of generation, handling,
storage, collection, transfer, transportation, processing, and disposal of solid wastes (see Table
1.2 and Fig. 1.2). All of these processes have to be carried out within existing legal and social
guidelines that protect the public health and the environment and are aesthetically and economically acceptable. For the disposal process to be responsive to public attitudes, the disciplines that must be considered include administrative, financial, legal, architectural, planning,
and engineering functions. All these disciplines must communicate and interact with each
other in a positive interdisciplinary relationship for an integrated solid waste management
plan to be successful. This handbook is devoted to facilitating this process.
ISSUES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The following major issues must be considered in discussing the management of solid wastes:
(1) increasing waste quantities; (2) wastes not reported in the national MSW totals; (3) lack of
clear definitions for solid waste management terms and functions; (4) lack of quality data, (5)
need for clear roles and leadership in federal, state, and local government; (6) need for even
and predictable enforcement regulations and standards, and (7) resolution of intercounty,
interstate, and intercountry waste issues for MSW and its components. These topics are considered briefly in this section and in the subsequent chapters of this handbook.
TABLE 1.1 Sources of Solid Wastes in a Community
locations where wastes are generated
Single-family and multifamily
dwellings; low-, medium-, and
high-density apartments; etc.
Food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics,
textiles, leather, yard wastes, wood,
glass, tin cans, aluminum, other metal,
ashes, street leaves, special wastes
(including bulky items, consumer
electronics, white goods, yard wastes
collected separately, batteries, oil, and
tires), and household hazardous wastes
Stores, restaurants, markets,
office buildings, hotels, motels,
print shops, service stations,
auto repair shops, etc.
Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood,
food wastes, glass, metal wastes,
ashes, special wastes (see
preceding), hazardous wastes, etc.
Schools, hospitals, prisons,
governmental centers, etc.
Same as for commercial
Industrial (nonprocess wastes)
Construction, fabrication, light
and heavy manufacturing,
refineries, chemical plants,
power plants, demolition, etc.
Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food
wastes, glass, metal wastes, ashes,
special wastes (see preceding),
hazardous wastes, etc.
New construction sites, road
repair, renovation sites, razing of
buildings, broken pavement, etc.
Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, etc.
Municipal services (excluding
Street cleaning, landscaping,
catch-basin cleaning, parks and
beaches, other recreational
Special wastes, rubbish, street sweepings,
landscape and tree trimmings, catchbasin debris; general wastes from
parks, beaches, and recreational areas
Water, wastewater, industrial
treatment processes, etc.
Treatment plant wastes, principally
composed of residual sludges and
refineries, chemical plants, power
plants, demolition, etc.
Industrial process wastes, scrap
materials, etc.; nonindustrial waste
including food wastes, rubbish,
ashes, demolition and construction
wastes, special wastes, and
Field and row crops, orchards,
vineyards, dairies, feedlots, farms, etc.
Spoiled food wastes, agricultural
wastes, rubbish, and hazardous wastes
* The term municipal solid waste (MSW) is normally assumed to include all of the wastes generated in a community, with the exception of
waste generated by municipal services, treatment plants, and industrial and agricultural processes.
Increasing Waste Quantities
As of 2000, about 226 million tons of MSW were generated each year in the United States.
This total works out to be over 1600 lb per year per person (4.5 lb per person per day). The
amount of MSW generated each year has continued to increase on both a per capita basis and
a total generation rate basis. In 1960, per capita generation was about 2.7 lb per person per day
and 88 million tons per year. By 1986, per capita generation jumped to 4.2 lb per person per
day. The waste generation rate is expected to continue to increase over the current level to a
TABLE 1.2 Functional Elements of a Solid Waste Management System
Waste generation encompasses those activities in which materials are identified
as no longer being of value and are either thrown away or gathered together
for disposal. What is important in waste generation is to note that there is an
identification step and that this step varies with each individual. Waste generation is, at present, an activity that is not very controllable.
Waste handling and separation,
storage, and processing at the source
Waste handling and separation involve the activities associated with managing
wastes until they are placed in storage containers for collection. Handling
also encompasses the movement of loaded containers to the point of collection. Separation of waste components is an important step in the handling
and storage of solid waste at the source. On-site storage is of primary importance because of public health concerns and aesthetic considerations.
Collection includes both the gathering of solid wastes and recyclable materials
and the transport of these materials, after collection, to the location where
the collection vehicle is emptied, such as a materials-processing facility, a
transfer station, or a landfill.
The functional element of transfer and transport involves two steps: (1) the
transfer of wastes from the smaller collection vehicle to the larger transport
equipment, and (2) the subsequent transport of the wastes, usually over long
distances, to a processing or disposal site. The transfer usually takes place at a
transfer station. Although motor vehicle transport is most common, rail cars
and barges are also used to transport wastes.
Separation, processing, and
transformation of solid waste
The means and facilities that are now used for the recovery of waste materials
that have been separated at the source include curbside collection and dropoff and buyback centers. The separation and processing of wastes that have
been separated at the source and the separation of commingled wastes usually occurs at materials recovery facilities, transfer stations, combustion facilities, and disposal sites.
Transformation processes are used to reduce the volume and weight of waste
requiring disposal and to recover conversion products and energy. The
organic fraction of MSW can be transformed by a variety of chemical and
biological processes. The most commonly used chemical transformation process is combustion, used in conjunction with the recovery of energy. The most
commonly used biological transformation process is aerobic composting.
Today, disposal by landfilling or landspreading is the ultimate fate of all solid
wastes, whether they are residential wastes collected and transported directly
to a landfill site, residual materials from MRFs, residue from the combustion
of solid waste, compost, or other substances from various solid waste processing facilities. A modern sanitary landfill is not a dump. It is a method of disposing of solid wastes on land or within the earth’s mantel without creating
public health hazards or nuisances.
per capita rate of about 4.6 lb per person per day and an overall rate of 240 million tons per
year by 2005. While waste reduction and recycling now play an important part in management, these management options alone cannot solve the solid waste problem. Assuming it
were possible to reach a recycling (diversion) rate of about 50 percent, more than 120 million
tons of solid waste would still have to be treated by other means, such as combustion (wasteto-energy) and landfilling.
FIGURE 1.2 Views of the functional activities that comprise a solid waste management system: (a) waste generation; (b) waste handling and separation, storage, and processing at the source; (c) collection; (d) separation,
processing, and transformation of solid waste; (e) transfer and transport; and (f ) disposal.
Waste Not Reported in the National MSW Totals
In addition to the large volumes of MSW that are generated and reported nationally, larger
quantities of solid waste are not included in the national totals. For example, in some states
waste materials not classified as MSW are processed in the same facilities used for MSW.
These wastes may include construction and demolition wastes, agricultural waste, municipal
sludge, combustion ash (including cement kiln dust and boiler ash), medical waste, contaminated soil, mining wastes, oil and gas wastes, and industrial process wastes that are not classified as hazardous waste. The national volume of these wastes is extremely high and has
been estimated at 7 to 10 billion tons per year. Most of these wastes are managed at the site
of generation. However, if even 1 or 2 percent of these wastes are managed in MSW facilities, it can dramatically affect MSW capacity. One or two percent is probably a reasonable
To date, the lack of clear definitions in the field of solid waste management (SWM) has been
a significant impediment to the development of sound waste management strategies.At a fundamental level, it has resulted in confusion as to what constitutes MSW and what processing
capacity exists to manage it. Consistent definitions form the basis for a defensible measurement system. They allow an entity to track progress and to compare its progress with other
entities. They facilitate quality dialogue with all affected and interested parties. Moreover,
what is measured is managed, so if waste materials are not measured they are unlikely to
receive careful management attention. Waste management decision makers must give significant attention to definitions at the front end of the planning process. Because all future legislation, regulations, and public dialogue will depend on these definitions, decision makers
should consider an open public comment process to establish appropriate definitions early in
the strategy development (planning) process.
It is difficult to develop sound integrated MSW management strategies without good data. It
is even more difficult to engage the public in a dialogue about the choice of an optimal strategy without these data. While the federal government and some states have focused on collecting better waste generation and capacity data, these data are still weaker than they should
be. Creative waste management strategies often require knowledge of who generates the
waste, not just what volumes are generated.
The environmental, health, and safety (EHS) impacts and the costs of alternatives to landfilling and combustion are another data weakness. Landfilling and combustion have been
studied in depth, although risks and costs are usually highly site-specific. Source reduction,
recycling, and composting have received much less attention. While these activities can often
result in reduced EHS impacts compared to landfilling, they do not always. Again, the answer
is often site- and/or commodity-specific.
MSW management strategies developed without quality data on the risks and costs of all
available options under consideration are not likely to optimize decision making and may, in
some cases, result in unsound decisions. Because data are often costly and difficult to obtain,
decision makers should plan for an active data collection stage before making critical strategy
choices. While this approach may appear to result in slower progress in the short term, it will
result in true long-term progress characterized by cost-effective and environmentally sound
Need for Clear Roles and Leadership in Federal, State, and Local Government
Historically, MSW has been considered a local government issue. That status has become
increasingly confused over the past 10 years as EHS concerns have increased and more waste
has moved outside the localities where it is generated. At the present time, federal, state, and
local governments are developing location, design, and operating standards for waste management facilities. State and local governments are controlling facility permits for a range of
issues including air emissions, stormwater runoff, and surface and groundwater discharges in
addition to solid waste management. These requirements often result in the involvement of
multiple agencies and multiple permits. While product labeling and product design have tra-
ditionally been regulated at the federal level, state and local governments have looked
increasingly to product labeling and design as they attempt to reduce source generation and
increase recycling of municipal waste.
Understandably, the current regulatory situation is becoming increasingly less efficient,
and unless there is increased cooperation among all levels of government, the current trends
will continue. However, a more rational and cost-effective waste management framework can
result if roles are clarified and leadership is embraced. In particular, federal leadership on
product labeling and product requirements is important. It will become increasingly unrealistic for multinational manufacturers to develop products for each state. The impact will be particularly severe on small states and on small businesses operating nationally. Along with the
federal leadership on products, state leadership will be crucial in permit streamlining.The cost
of facility permitting is severely impacted by the time-consuming nature of the permitting
process, although a long process does nothing for increased environmental protection. Moreover, the best waste management strategies become obsolete and unimplementable if waste
management facilities and facilities using secondary materials as feedstocks cannot be built or
expanded. Even source reduction initiatives often depend on major permit modifications for
existing manufacturing facilities.
Need for Even and Predictable Enforcement of Regulations and Standards
The public continues to distrust both the individuals who operate waste facilities and the regulators who enforce proper operation of those facilities. One key contributor to this phenomenon is the fact that state and federal enforcement programs are perceived as being
understaffed or weak. Thus, even if a strong permit is written, the public lacks confidence that
it will be enforced. Concern is also expressed that governments are reluctant to enforce regulations against other government-owned or -operated facilities. Whether these perceptions
are true, they are the crucial ones to address if consensus on a sound waste management strategy is to be achieved.
There are multiple approaches which decision makers can consider. They can develop
internally staffed state-of-the-art enforcement programs designed to provide a level playing
field for all facilities, regardless of type, size, or ownership. If decision makers involve the public in the overall design of the enforcement program and report on inspections and results,
public trust will increase. If internal resources are constrained, decision makers can examine
more innovative approaches, including use of third-party inspectors, public disclosure
requirements for facilities, or separate contracts on performance assurance between the host
community and the facility.
Resolution of Intercounty, Interstate, and Intercountry Waste Issues
for MSW and Its Components
The movement of wastes across juristictional boundaries (e.g., township, county, and state)
has been a continuous issue over the past few years, as communities without sufficient local
capacity ship their wastes to other locations. While a few receiving communities have welcomed the waste because it has resulted in a significant income source, most receiving communities have felt quite differently. These communities have wanted to preserve their existing
capacity, knowing they will also find it difficult to site new capacity. Moreover, they do not
want to become dumping grounds for other communities’ waste, because they believe the
adverse environmental impacts of the materials outweigh any short-term financial benefit.
This dilemma has resulted in the adoption of many restrictive ordinances, with subsequent
court challenges. While the current federal legislative framework, embodied in the interstate
commerce clause, makes it difficult for any state or local official to uphold state and local ordinances that prevent the inflow of nonlocal waste, the federal legislative playing field can be
Chất thải rắn - solid waste - P1
Chất thải rắn - solid waste - P2
Chất thải rắn - solid waste - P3
Chất thải rắn - solid waste - P5
Chất thải rắn - solid waste - P6
Solid waste management associated with develop of 3R initiative
Electronics waste management: Indian practices and guidelines
(12.73 MB) - Solid waste management