The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3. Presentations by Metropolitan Council Staff ' Risk Assessrnent . � Choos�ng Betweer� Resource t�ec�v�ry Facitities and Landfills Health risks are often cited by the oppo�aents of waste-to-energy faci.l,i�ies. But air pollutant emissions frorn landfills mczy pose even a greczter risk to public � � heaZth. � � ; , , By David H. Minott � �he ma}ority of the municipal salid landfills. The CONEG study compared levels of health risk associated with ( � waste stream continues to be managed the types and levels of tvxic air ashfills. Proposed new regu}ations � � through disposal, even in cities with pollutants emitted from resource re- under RGRA, Subtitle U, would re- � significant recpcling and waste reduc- covery facilities versus municipa! quire liners to be placed beneath tion progratns. I'or that fracdon of landfills, as well as the degree to which ashfills, and all rainu�ater that filters ` � so}id waste that cannot be recycled such emissions can be controlled in through the ash to the liners to be � economically, there are only two each case, and the level of healf.h risk coliected. This leachate must be i � practical disposal options: resource associated with toxic air pollutant tested for unacc�ptable levels of to3cic j (energy) recovery facilities and landfill emissions from landfills versus ener,gy pollutants prior to discharge. Such �, facilities. recovery facilities. The CONEG study control requirements are being im- � One factar that should weigh heavily used a nationai data base assembled by plemented to preclude significant risk � � in deciding between these options is our company since 1986 on the subject of groundwater eontamination from � f' the issue of health risks. Until recent- of risks for energy recovery facilities ashfills. � � ly, howe��er, there have been few, if versus landfills. For rnunicipal tivaste landfiiis, the any, attempts to put energy recovery In support of plans to regulate air principal source of health risk per- � � facilities and landfill facilities "on an poilutant emissions from municipal ceived by the public is risk of water- � equal footing"to compare health risks. waste landfills, the Environmental supply contamination. Indeed, in- Such a factual comparison is needed. Protection Agency (EPA) recently stances of groundwater contarrtination � For example, the public is certainly issued a study of the air po}lutant have occurred, but little quantitative aware that stack emissions from emissions from landfills, ernission information regarding such potential ' energy recovery facitities can pose a controt alternatives, and emissions- risk for landfil)s of modern design is potential health risk, and the issue has related health risks. Based an the available at this time. EPA's recent)y caused 'rr�tense debate and spawned results of the CONEG and EPA prop4sed new regulations that impose � nationally organized opposition. With studies, we can compare air-pallutant design requirements an new municipal landfills, however, while the public has emissions, cantrol measures, and waste landfills may preclude significant long understoo8 that a potential exists health risks of resource recovery risk of groundwater contamination. for leachate eontamination of ground facilities and landfills on an equal Such design requirements include � water, public reaction has largely been footing. liners, leaehate collection, and ground- one of general coneern, rather than water m�nitoring. widespread, intense opposition. More- �ources of Health Risk A demonstrably significant sot,tr�ce of over, the public is virtually una�vare $t Energy-ftecovery and health risk at munitipal land6l}s is !he that emissions of toxic air pollutants Landfill Facilities emissions from landfills of toxie air (� from municipaf landfi}Is are common, Air poliutant emissions are the pollutants. AltMough the public is and at levels that can ose a si �cant S' p gnif principal source of concern for poten- virtually unaware that landfills com- risk to public heatth. tial health risks associated with energy monly emit to�ic air pollutants, can- C Recentiy, the Coalition of North- reco��ery facilities, and such risks have siderable study has been carried out i eastern Governors (CONEG} com- been the subject of considerable study. recentiy to assess the potential health � [ pleted a study to objectively compare There is also concern aver the risk from landfili gas emissic,ns. { risks of er.��r�• recovery facilities and possible risk of �vater-supply contan�- Because little ynantitafive informa- � f - ination as a coi�sequence of iandfilling iion is available reg�rding the risk of � � Da:vi.d H. ll�i.rzott is uice president the ash resid�e from ihese facilities. water-supply cantaminatinn from either of Alterrtcr.ti.r-e Resources, Inc., a Scant quantitative information is pub- energy reco��ery ashfi{is ar from ' ? solicl tz�a.ste consultin,g firm. licly available, l�o��ever, regardin� the municipal u�aste laaidfills, this article M '�' f% 18 SOLIil 11'ASTE d.POu'ER/APRIL 1989 �; i ' . . Table 1: Health Risk Assessments for Energy Recovery Facilities 6� ' C8rcinoFJBrtk Flue-Gas Exposure Poilulants qisk• Facility Setfing Control Palhways Considered (per Midion) EXISTING NEW YORK FACILtTIES Oneida Urban& ESP Inha{ation Dioxins, Furans i (200 TPO) Rural Cattaraugus(112 TPDj Rural None Inhalation pioxins, Furans 7 Westchester Rural& ESP inhalation Qioxins, Furans 2 r� (2250 TPD) Urban � Aibany Answers Urban ESP inhalation aioxins, Furans 6 (RDF-600 TPD) •. OeeideMai Urban ESP Inhalaiion Dioxins, 1=ur�ns 21 (RDF-24D0 TPD) . PLANNED FACILITIES r lancaster Co.,PA Rural Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil Ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 4 ,,;�,,g�, t12�TP�) Baghouse Food Chain, Dermal Contact Organics,7race Metals ., ��' N.Hempstead,NY Urban Scrubber, inhalation,Soil ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 1 •r (990 TPD) Baghouse Food Chain,Dermai Contact Organics,Trace Metals ' Erie, PA Urban Bagfiouse, Inhalation Dioxins,Furans 0.3 � (RDF•710 TPO) Fumance � ScrUbber �' York Co., PA Rural Scrubber, Inhalation,Soi!ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 5 {1344 TPD) Industrial Baghouse Food Chain,Dermal Contact Organics,Trace Meials � Brooklyn, NY Urban Scrubber, Inhatation,Soil Ingestion, pioxins, Furans,Qther 2 �"� � (3000 TPD) Baghouse Food Chain,Deemal Gontact Organics,Trace Metais f Washington Co., NY Rural Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil Ingestion, Dioxins,Furans 10 �� (400 TPD) ESP Food Ghain, Dermal Contact Boston, MA Urban Scrubber, Inhalation, Soil Ingestion, Dirncins,furans,Other 2 � � (1516 TPQ) ESP Dermal Gontact Organics,Trace Meials i Philadeiphia, PA Urban Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil Ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 1 1 (2250 TPDJ Baghouse Fvod Chain, Dermal Contact Organics,Trace Metals Stanislaus Co:,CA Urban& Scrubber, Inhalation,Soii Ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 2 (500 TPD) Rurai Baghouse Food Chain,Dermal Contact Organics,Trace Metals San Marcos,CA Urban Scrubber, Inhalation Dioxins, Furans,Other 3 (1600 TPD) Baghouse Organics.Trace Metals Invindale,CA Urban Scrubber, inhalation,Soii ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other (3000 TPD) Baghouse Food Chain,Dermal Contact Organics,Traee Metai� 'Upper-bound estimate ot the number of cancer eases per miilion people exposed, based on continuous expasure to maximum impacts 24 hours per day,everyday,tor a 70-year iitetime. � �, compares the potential health risks facility developers and operators dem- Particulate matter is contralled with � associated with toxic air pollutant onstrate that facility impacts of criteria either an electrostatic precipitator ! emissions from energy recovery facil- pollutants do not cause violation of (ESP) or a fabric 51ter (baghouse). ( ities with those from munieipat land- ambient standards, pubGc health in- Both types of devices, as designed �S• terests are preserved. today, remove particulate matter with Air Pollutant Emissions and �� bn'eater interest in the public greater than 99 percent efficiency, Control at Energy R,ecovery health debate are emissions of toxic although the overall removal efficiency Facil�ties potlutants for which no Federal ambi- is slightly higher far the baghouse. ent standards exist: acid gases (e.g., The baghouse als4 provides better The principal souree of potential hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride), control of the respirabie-sized partieles heaith risk for energy recovery facil- trace metals (especially arsenic, beryl- (2-nucron or less diameter) to which ities is as a consequence of toxic lium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, toxic trace organic compaunds and pollutant emissions from the stack. nickel), and trace organic compt�unds traee metals adhere. ' Pollutants emitted include EPA "cri- (esnecially dioxins, furans, PCB, PAI-i, Conirol of trace meials is achieved „ teria" pollutants (particulate matter, c}ilorophenots, chlorobenzenes). Of principally by capture of particulate � sulfur dioxide, nitrogen rntides, carbon these toxic pollutants, the trace matter with high eHiciency. Except for monoxide, lead, and volatile hydro- organic compounds and all trace mercury, «�hich remains volatile and � carbons), as well as other poliutants metals (except mercury) are known or resists capture, trace metal control in � �f' (acid gases, trace organic compounds, suspected to cause cancer. tize ran�e of 65-9�3 percent is reported � �� and U-ace metals). Etnissinns conlrol techn�lo�,ry capa- ��vith ESPs, and hi�l�er ren�ovai effi- � � For criteria pollutants, EPA has ble of reducing toxic air potlutant cieneies of 95-99 percent have been -' established National Ambient Air emission le��els to small ie�•els is no�u obtained �+�ith haghouses. �?uality Siandards to protect public both a��ailable ancl routinely required 11cid g�ses �nci sulfur dioxide are hcalt)�. 'fl�t�s, ticl�en ene��gy reco��ery for E}etv ener��= recovei-�� facilities. typically controlled i�*itl�ftue-gas scrub- 20 SULI�11'AS7'E�Ppt\'ERiAPIZfL 1939 I � i bers, providin�; removal efficiencies of Dioxin and furan remaval efficiencies decades after the landGll is closed. . 9U p�rcent or�nore for acid gasses and achieved with E5I's are reported in 1,anclfili Ras is ron�pri5ed ctjietty of the at 1e<�st 70 percenl f�r sulfur diUaide. the range c�f ap�roximately ,50-89 pr�ter�irall} explv�iti�e�as,�nethane, but . I)ioxins caa� fc�rm in the (urnace, and percent, �ncl tor baghouses, approxi- also c�»la»rs adnrnus sulfur com- can also Iorm in the duclwork between mately 84-99 percent. pounds, volatile organic compounds the furnace and the stack as the ftue (VOC} thought by some to contribvte gas begins to cool. Dioxin formation in �r Pollutant Emissions and to violations of the ozone ambient the furnace is cantrolled through the Control at Municipal Landfills standards, and q�antities of taxic combination of high combustion tem- As waste decomposes in a landfill, organic compounds sueh as ��inyl perature, sufficient gas "residence "landfill gases" are formed and are chloride and benzene, which have ; time" in the furnace, and sufficient emitted to the ambient air above the cancer-causing potentiaL ! turbutence during combustion. Dioxins landfill surface. LandSll gas can also Emissions of vinyl chloride, a known and furans that form in the flue-gas migrate laterally beneath the surface human careinogen, are of particular ductwork are controtled by efficient to locations offsite, including into the �po�ance. Reeent research has dem- � capture of the flue-gas particles onto basements of homes near the landfill. onstrated that vinyf chloride is formed 1 � which the dioxin and furans condense. Landfill gas production can persist for in Iandfilis during the bacterial decom- i position of municipal solid waste contaiT�ing small amounts of chlorine- ' containing solvents, such as common � i �� cieaning solvents, and that vinyl � T� � � chloride emissions do not result frvm � the breakdown of polyvinyi ehloride ' � � � E D t� E R � «VC)plastics found in the waste. � Following incidents such as landfill- � gas fires in the early 1980� at the F O R A L L YO U R S I Z E R E Q U CT I Q N N E E DS o�eans�a�, California, tandfiv a�a a landfilt gas explosion at the Greentree { �—""- landfill in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1983, + � ;? , ��, regulatory agencies stepped up effarts � � �,� ";: � � to test land5lls to determine the ��:� , :� � .'��f- -�� ;: quantities and constituents of gases �,` ,;7�J;' '�� ':-�{ �;i�; . ! being emitted. The most comprehen- ;� ' �.i ' ` ! t; sive program undertaken ko identify _ ._,,,,, R ,�� °_—'---- � °_—"_ �"� and quantify trncic eompounds in landfill � �' gas is that eamed out in Cati#ornia � since the mid-19sOs by the South MOb1�e . . . Coast Air Quality Management District , . . . or Stationary (SCQAMD). SCAQMD reported on � landfill gas testing at 20 landfills in Saturn offers a complete line of shredding equipment to ca�;forn,a that aecept or�y mun�c�par � handle virtually any waste reduction requirement. With Waste. Both active and clased landfills Saturn's patented hydraulic drive and automatic anti- Were tested. SCAQMD detected significant quan- jamming capabilities, troublesome materials are readily t�t��s of some ten toX,c compounas i� reduced without stress on shredder or shredder drive the landfill gas em�ss;ons (uncon- syste�ns. Saturn Shredders can't be beai for size reduc- trolled) from n,ost ot the �ana��s. tiOtl Ot1: Approximately 85 percent of all ZO landfitls tested had detectable levels of MSW • PALLETS • HAZARDOUS • DRUMS the carcinogens, vinyt chloride and/or IN-PLANT • WIRE CABLE • WOOD PRODUCTS benzene, and over half showed signif- NON FERROUS • NUCIEAR LOW RAQ * PLASTICS 1 part per m Ilion�(ppmj�' "' excess o( TIRES • ETC. Five of the tested fandfills ��ere active, and al}had vinyl chtoride levels To get more information and arrange for a test on you� in che�as�n excess of i part per billi4n material, please write or call: tpp�3, aiid four had benzene)e�=e�s oc� ppm or m�re. Inactive IandfiUs ��ere MAC/SATURN Carporation �� also reported to ha�•e "significant 301 E.Shady Grove Road '� amowtts of trinyl chloricle." Grand Prairie,Texas 75050 �� Iiaving documented that toxic p�t- (Zi4)�so-�8pp ��JU UU U lutants are indeed emitted from most Fnx:�zia��9o-e��3 landfil(s, SCA(;�Itill testecl for the ciRc�E�eoN�FA�FRs��icFca�o prese��re af I<��ic po}l�rtanis aff5ite in 22 SOt_!Ii t��:1STE& PUtVER/AI'It(t_19S9 � the ambient air near five landfills. Vinyt �chich would rec�uire gas coqection, �sessin�HeRlth Risks chloride concentrations were detected and control of toxic organic poltut�nts 6Vith air polluk�nt emissie�ns from . in the ambient air near the "Operating in the gas with 98 percent ef6ciency. energy recovery� and fandfill facilities, Industries" landfill at levels exceeding Another similar regulation is being it is carcinngenic risk that is the Catifornia's 24-hour ambient standard developed for existing landfi(is. FPA primary heafth issue. This is because ' for vinyt chlaride of 10 ppb, indicating has proposed that the regulations will significant rarcinc�genic risk can resu}t ; a health threat. apply to current and new tandfiils from long-term exposure to even ; The State of 4Visconsin has also designed for or reaching 1 miltion rninute poll��tlnt eoncentrations. ; been aetive in landfdl-gas testing. metric tons af deposited waste. As an Cancer risk is assessed in terms of � Wisconsin tested 13 municipal landfdts example, a medium-sized region�l an upper-bound estirr�ate pf the num- i and found "significant" vinyi chloride landfit! of 500 tpd capacity woulcl reach ber of eancer cases to be expected if a emissions at six landfitls, and de- the 1 million mark in about 6 years. population of 1 million people were teetable levels at two others. In New Jersey, testing of the Pennsauken landfill in 1985 showed N � „ � � � � � _ � significant emissions of the carcino- p y HOT GA� BAGHOUSES ° gens benzene and erchloroeth lene. ; � Landfill Gas Controls � j Presentl landfill STANDARD GONSTRUCTION � Y, gases are not � controlled at the majority of tandfills in Waik•in Pienum t the United States. Recently, however, N►elded Construction . _ _. � 1 a number of states have moved to •Seal weided Inside � � Punched Hole Tube Sheets � require such controls, and nationat •Designed for Snap Band Bags ; i requirements appear to be in the 4ntegral Vertical Wire Gages and � � � offing. Venturi - � Control of landfill gas begins with a Insulation and Lagging � '�"�.. Support Steei �� ;':4 :" gas collection system. The collection Walkway at Door Level �� ` ,� � system includes a network of porous Aecess Ladders '� � piping beneath the landfill to coUect the OPTIONS � � gas produced there, and to direct the �nkrol Panels � � collected gas to vents above the landfiil _'' ' � � RLC�Contro}lers �'�� ' surface. Impervious barriers, when Hopper Heaters ' installed, prevent subsurface migration Poppet Dampers I �•�� of the gas offsite. Ctosed portions (or Butterfly Dampe�s Rotary Air Locks ' "cells"of a landfill can be covered with Screw Conveyors � an impervious "cap" to prevent "fugi- Explosion Proof Electronics ' ° ! tive"emissions af the gas to the air. Explosion Panels � t Gas directed ta the vents can then Hopper High Level Switches � be controtled by several methods, the Acid Gas Treatment Systems � most popular being•r flaring and the Air•To-Air Fiue Gas Coolers � combustion of the gas in an internal- e combustion or turbine engine to LAC3GING DESIGN FEATURES K generate electricity. Gas treatment Factory insulatiort and lagging is engineered and designed to meet the eondf- � (such as carbon filtration) is another tions of each appiication.Factory application provides much greater quality � ' method used to remove toxic po1- controi, ' lutants from landfill gas. Doors are designed with Hat Gas Appiications in mind. � � Because of recent findings that Penetrating camponents are designed to allow the proper insulation of ' municipal landfills commonty emit immed'+ate area(s). �� ', significant quantities of toxic Ilutants t Po lagging on roof is of#he Skand Seam Design to eiiminate water leaks which i> such as vinyl chloride, in cases would cause corrosion of outside skin of the dust eoNector. � resulting in a demonstrated pubGc Field-applied insulation is kept to a minimum,normally iess fhan 5°l0 of totaL , ; health threat, a growing number of � states, as well as the EPA, are Specific GMD fabrication specifica#ians minimize corr�sion of innersurfaces. � i implementing requirements for landfill SINGtE SOURCE RESPONSIBIl.1TY gas testing and installation of landfill � gas collection and control systems. �MD ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC services are not limited to equipment ; The list includes Catifornia, Wisconsin, SUPP�Y•�e can pravide you with our"Total"services,providing sfngle source � and New Jersey, and likely others. fesponsibili#y for the design,fabrication,erection,and start-up af your entire I Fabric Fiiter System.This ensures the most econornical system,completed The EP�1 is developing new regula- f ' within budget and in a timely manner. tions, tikely to be prop�sed this year, � to limit landfill gas emissions through a CIRCLE 88 ON READER SEAVtCE CARD New Source Performance Standard, GMD Engineered Systems,Fnc.•vo.sox„��s•Fon wonh,r.zag�e„o•�s,�szs-�.•FAX(8tn 939-0035 i � � � �� SflE,tt�t�;iSTls&F'(3�i+�RfAf RfF,2989 23 � � ,r;. Tabie 2: Heaith Risk Assessments far Municipal landfilis pet'fc�rmed to d�te foC tOxtC air-po�- lutant emissions frvm individual landfiil � Carctn enrc facilities, and these have, for the m�st '`�' Landfilt � Gas !'ouutants t7isk � (��rt, heer� "iirst-ct�t" �cse�smentc. locar�on Status Controt Considered (per MiUion) "Che results of risk assessnients `� Sart Diego,CA Hypotheticai None Benzene,8 other organics, 43o Performed f«r two landfilis not having f� (2,250 TPD) Landfiill�l vinyl chloride not studied gas controls aCe ShoWn tn Table 2, Montgomery Co.,MD Hypothetical None Vinyl chloride,benzene, 1•50�21 w'ith risk levelS indicated W@11 in �'s,� (1.800 TPO) �andfiut» ott,er oryan�cs excess of the acceptabte range. Ri�k ;`'� Sylmer,CA Active Flare vinyl chloride,other Less than 1 assessnients perfarmed for two okher ' '�' (unk.TPD) orgarncs ��= faeilities assumed to have gas cantrols * Simi Valie�,ca Active Engine Vinyl chloride,otner 1� in ptace are also summarized in Table ,., (est.60� PO) organics 2, and khe risk levels are significantly `'�; {1) Risks for a hypothetical landfiil were assessed as the"aiternative"to a proposed Iotver. . f.`'�; energy-�ecovery facitity. EPA has recently compleked a ;�J� (2) The range is indicative ol analytical uncertainty. genEriC iisk assesSment foC landf�lls - '%�' �vithout gas controls and found the risk "?�;�; to be in the range of lOt? to 10,t�0 `'!� cases per miliion peop(e exposed. This ,.:< �t exposed to the maximum emissions pounds, and trace metals. Most atso risk is a fult arder of magnitude greater '� impact from a facility, 24 hours per considered exposure to emitted pol- than has been indicated as a worst- ' day, every day, for a 70-year Gfetirne. tutants by various exposure pathways: case risk for older, poarly-designed r�. These assumptions help to ensure inhalation; ingestion and dermal con- energy recovery plants. ; conservatism in the risk assessment. tact with contaminated soils (children The initial effarts to assess the risk Determining the significance of an are especially exposed to sails); and associated with land611 gas emissiQns estimated level of cancer risk is the food chain. have met with some controversy and ` difficult, because this requires sub- As shown in Table 1, with the peer criticism. Nonetheless, these risk ' jective judgment regarding what level emissions controls planned, risks es- data do support the position of the of rrsk is acceptable. Most often this timated for the 11 facilities are within regulatory agencies that uneontrolled judgment is made case-by-case. Based, the acceptable range of 1 to 10 cases landfitl gas emissions pose a potentially however, an the historical actions of per million. These risk estimates signiftcant risk, if one presumes "ao- regulatory and health agencies which reflect the cumulative risk hom ali ceptabie" cancer risk to be in the : perforrn and review risk assessments, poltutants and all eaiposure pathways range af 1-IO cases per million. The a maximum individual cancer risk of analyzed. limited data also suggest that gas ' less than 1 case per milGon people EPA has conducted generic assess- controis have the potential to bring � exposed is normally considered "in- ments of inhalation-related risks for these risks into the acceptable range. significant" risk, and risk levels be- energy recovery faeilities of both otder tween 1 and 10 cancer cases per and modern designs, For those exist- Conclusion million exposed are considered "ac- ing ptants having the poorest com- Emissions of toxic pollutants from � ceptable," providing all reasonable bustion efficiency, mediocre control of planned, new energy recovety facil- I means to reduce risk have been particulate emissions, and no scrub- ities (and likely the majority of facitities adopted. bers, EPA estimated risks as high as currently in operation)pose aeceptabte Both operating and proposed energy 1,Q00 cases per million. This risk level tevels of risk, (in the range of 1 to 10 recovery facilities have been the is welt beyond the acceptable range in a m�Mian1. $y contrast, ernissions of subject oE numerous risk assessments and should prompt more re6ned toxic paUutants from municipal landfilis since 1985. New York State has led assessments to evaluate whether without lantlftil gas controls (inclttcling the country in performing risk assess- some plants of older design require most existing and many planned �� ments on operating plants, based on retrofitting with modern air pollution landfilts) may pose � potentiat heatth actual, tested emissions. A sununary controis. hazard that exceeds acceptable levels. of risk assessments performed for five With regard to modern plants, Imptementation of contrals an landfill energy recovery facilities operaking in however, plants that feature high gas emissians may be necessary at New York is presented in Table 1. combustion ef6ciency, baghouses, and some, and perhaps many, landfills io Also in Tabte l, a summary is scrubbers, EPA calculated the risk to reduce risks to within acceptab(e ' provided of risk assessments per- be in the range of 1 to 10 cases per levels; howeuer, this will need to be formed since 1985 for ll energy million. The EPA assessment shows, confirmed by additional field t�sting recavery faeilities ptanned in Pennsyl- therefore, that risks associated with and risk assessment of emissions from vania, New York, California, and modern facilities are within the ac- landfitls where controls are installed. Massachusetts. The planned facilities ceptabte range. ❑ range in size from 500 TPD to 3,000 TPD capacity, and would be located in Health Risks for A.ir David H. Minott ean be reached czt urban, rural, and mixed [and-use Pollutant Emissions from Alternative Resources, Inc.; Dce- settings. Most of the risk assessments Landfills monmill Square, Suite 4DA; 9 � considered exposure to emissions of Onlq a limited number of quantita- Pond Lane; Concord, MA 01742- dio�tiris, turans, other organic com- tive risk assessmertts have been 2853. 24 SOLID WASTE&POWER/APRIL 1989 :�, , presentsd �t tAe Fourth Interr+sttcrost Conierence on Urben ♦ Sotid usst� Mstiqement �nd Materiats, ihiladelp�f�, PA, Dteeniber 6-9, 19dQ. HEALTH RISKS AND THE CHOICE BETWEEN RESOURCE RECOVERY FI�CTLITIES AND MUNICIPAL LANDFII,SS by David H. Minatt, C.C.M. , Vice President Alternative Resources, Inc. Damonmi3i Square, 9 Pond Lane Concord, MA 01742 � , �) 37 ! - Z� �� INTRODUCTION While it i5 practical to look fio recyc2ing for management of up to, perhaps, 25 percent of th@ municipal wa�te stream, the majority of our solid waste must continue to be managed through disposal. For that fraction of solid waste which` cannot be recycled economicaily, there are only two disposal options: resource (energy) recovery facilities and landfill facilities. One factor that should weiqh heavily in deciding between these two disposal options is the issue af health risks. Until recently, however, there have been few, if any, attempts to put energy recovery facilities and Iandfill facilities "on an equal footinq" #or a comparison of h�al�h risks. 5uch a factual comparison is needed. For example, the pubiic is certainly aware that stack emissions fram en�rqy recovery facilities can posa a potential he�3th risk, and the issue has caus�ed intense debate and spawned ,nationally-orqanized opposition. Wfth landfills, however, while ths publie has long understood that a potential sxists for l�achat� contamination of qround water, public reaction has boan large2y one o! qeneral concern, rather tAan widespread, intense opposition. Mor�over, the publie is virtually unaware that emiasions of toxic air poliutants #rom municipal landlilla are ccmmon, and at levels that can pose a significant risk to public health. Recently, the Coaliti�on af Narthenstern Governors tCONEG� completed a study (1) to objectively compare risks of energy recovery facilities and landfills. The focus ot the CqNF.G study was a comparison of the types and levels o� toxic air � , pollutnnts emitted from rescurce recovery facflities versus municipal landfills, as well as the degree to which such emissions can be cor�trolled in eaeh cas�, and ths level of health risk associated with taxic air pollutant emissions from landfills versus energy recovery facilities. The CONEG study used a national data base assembled by Alternativ� Resources, Inc. since 1986 on the subject of risks far energy recovery facilities versus landfills. In support of plans to regulate air p411utant emissions from municipal waste landfills, EPA recently issued a study of landfill air-pollutant emissions, emission control alternatives, and emissions-related health risks. Sased on the results of the CONEG and EPA studies, the present paper puts resource recovery facilities and landfills on an equai footing for comparison of air-pollutant emissions, control measures, and health risks. SUMMARy 1. This study has focused on a comparison of health risks associated with emissions of toxic air pollutants f�om energy-recovery versus landfill facilities. While the focus here is on risks stemming from air pollutant emissions, it is recognized that the landtilling of municipal waste, as well as the landfilling ef ash residue from energy recovery facilitiss also present a risk of contamination to groundwater. Little quantitative information has been developed to-date, however, regarding health risk assoc�.ated vith the potential for groundwater contamination by landfills and ashfills. While not addressed in the present study, this - issue merits systematic, quantitative investigation, and subsequent public discussion. EPA is presently developinq desiqn and operational quidance for landfilling o! bcth solid wa�te and ash residue in order to preclude �iqniticant risk o! water contamination. . 2• Whil� det�raination of what constitutes an acceptable lev�l ot risk is hiqhly subjective, cancer risk of less than l� chance in a million i: normally considered insfqnilicant, and risk in the range o� l to 10 in a million ia generally considered acceptable, based on past determinationa by regulatory aqencies. 3. Energy recov�ry facilities emit quantittes of carcinogenic gollutants to the air. Of principal concern are the carcinogens, dioxins, furans, and trace metals. With regard to health risks posed by energy recovery facilities operatinq today, New York State performed 2 . , assessments for all operatinq enerqy recovery facilities in the State, based on tested emissions. Risks for four of five plants tested were within the range of aeceptable risk of 1 to 10 in a million. This is evidence that a majority of operatinq facilities Iikely do not pose a siqnificant health risk, nnd that testinq af operating facilities can identify the minority of facilities that requires remedia2 action. 4 . Best Available Control Technoiogy is now wel3-defined for modern energy recovery facilities (scrubber, with baghouse or �SP) , and is implemented on new facilities as a matter of course. An EPA risk nsse�sment determined that far older, less-efficient facilities, n4t equipped with such modern emissions controls, risk levels can be as high as 1000 cases per million. This is well above the aceeptable range of risk, and indicates the advisability of retrofittinq some older pTants w�th modern controls. For er�ergy recovery facilities that use modern controls, however, comprehensive ri�k assessments for numerous such facilities cansistently indicate the expected risk level to be within the acceptable ri.sk range of 1 to 10 per million. air pollutant emissions from planned energy recovery facilitfes of modern design are normally shown not to pose a siqnifieant health threat. 5. Gas produced as waste decomposes in a landfill contains methane, signiffcant quantities of reactive hydrocarbons (VOC) , and quantities of toxic pallutants. Methane is also able to migrate beneath the 2andfill surfaee where it can enter the basements of homea nearby. Explosions of landfill methan� gas have destroyed homes and caused injuries. Emissions ot VOC are believed to contribute siqnificantly to existinq violations ot the ozone ambient standards in the Northeast. Landfill qas contains quantities cf toxic pollutants, of principal interest, . the carcinogenic pollutants, vinyl eh2orfde and benzene. Vinyl chlorfdt is actuaily produced in landfills during bacterial decomposition of the waste. 6. Moat exi�ting landfills (and many planned landfills) do not incorporat• any landfill gaa controls �uch as flares or qas-to-enerqy enqines. Vinyl chloride is commor�ly emitted to the air in sfqnificant quantities trom these landfills. In some cases, significant levels are also recorded offsite. A number of states have de�med vinyl ` chloride emission level� to pose a potential health hazard. The limited zisk assessments performed to-date for uncontrolled emissions of qas from individual landfiZl facilities also indicate unacceptable risk 3 levels, approximately 50-400 cases per million. A generic risk assessment perfarmed by EPA indicates risk levels in the ranqe of l0o to I0,000 cases per million is possible for uncontrolT�d gas emissions fram landfills. 7. California, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have recently decided to impose specific requirements for landfill gas _ testing, as well as requirements for landfill qas collection and control. EPA has also proposed new regulations that would siqnificantly limit emissions from both existing and new landfills, in turn, necessitating landfill gas controls at many landfills nationally. 8. Best Available Cantrol Technclogy ean siqnificantiy reduce emissions of landfill gas and the toxic pollutants it centains. Landfill gas cvllection systems can capture 50�-90� of the gas generated in th� landfiTl, wfth the remaining fraction escapinq to the afr as "fuq�,tfve" emissions. Control devices such as flares and engines remove up to 95� af the toxic pollutants from the fraction of the qas that fs collected. Regulatary agencfes believe that such controls will reduc� taxic pollutant emissions from landfill�, and associated health risks to acceptable levels. Risk assessment studies carried out for two landfills with emi�sions controis yielded risk levels of less than 1 in a millfon in one case, and 17 in a million in th� other. These results are ccnsistent with the aqencies� expectation of significant mitigation, 9. Emissions of toxie pol2utants from planned, new energy recovery facilities (and likely the majority of facilities currently in operation) pose acceptable levels of risk, i.e. risks in the ranqe o! 1 to 10 in a million. By eontrast, emissions of toxfe pollutants from , municipal landfill� without landlill gas controls (i.e. most existfng and many planned landtilisj pose a potential health risk that exceeds acc�ptable l�vels. � Imglementation o! controls on landlill qa� emissions has the potential to reduce risks to within acceptable ievelas-however, this will need to be confirmed by additional field testinq and risk assessment of emi�ssions fram landfilla where controls are installed. 4 . ' � SOURCES OF NEALTH RISK AT ENERGY-RECOVERY AND LANDFILL FACILITIES Air pol2utant emissions are the principal source of ' concern for potential health ri5ks assaciated with energy recovery faeilities, and such risks have been the sub�ect of considerable study. There is also concern over the possible risk of water-supply contamination as a consequence of land disposal of the ash residue from these facilities. Scant quantitative information is publicly available, however, regardinq the levels of hea2th risk associated with ashfills. The U.S. EPA plans to proposs new regv].ations under RCRA, Subtitle D, in 1988 that wouid requfre �.iners to be placed beneath ashfills, and all rainwater that filters throuqh the ash to the liners �o be collected, and this leachate tested for unacceptable lev�ls of toxic pollutants prior to discharge. Such cantrol requirements are b�inq implemented to preclude significant risk of groundwater contamination from ash€ills. For municipal waste landfills, the prfncipal souree of health risk perceived by the public is risk of water-supply contamination. Indeed, instances of qroundwater contamination have occurred with some existinq landfill�. Little quantitative information reqarding such potentinl risk for landfills of modern de�iqn i� available, howev�r, at this time. EPA is planninq to issue propo�e�d requlations under RCRA, Subtitle D, ear2y in 1988, that would impose de�ign requirements on new municipal �►aste landfills in order to preclude significant risk of groundwater contamination. Such design requirements are to include liners, 2eaehate collection, and groundwater monitcring. A demonstrably siqnificant seurce of heaith risk at municipal landfills is the emissions lrom landfills of toxic air pollutants. 1►lthough the public is virtually unaware that landfills commonly emit toxic air pollutants, ,considerable study has been carried out recently to assess the pctential health risk from landfill qas emissions. Becanae little quantitative information �s available regarding the riak of water-supply contaminatior� From either energy recovery ashfills or from municipal waste l�ndfills, this pap�r will focus on a comparfson of potential health risks associated wfth toxic air pollutant emfsaians from energy recovery facilities versus municipal landii2ls. 5 � AIR POLI,UT,ANT gMISSIONS AND CONTR4L AT ENERGY RECptTERY FACILITIES A.ir Pollutants Emitted The principal source of gatentia�l health risk for ene�gy recovery facilities i� as a eonsequence of toxfc pollutant emissions from t2�e stack. PcZlutants emitt�d inc2vd� EPA "criteria" pollutants (particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitroqen oxides, carbon monoxide�, lead, and volatile hydrocarbons) , as well as other pollutants -- acid gases, trace orqanic compounds, and trace metala. For criteria pollutants, EPX has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health. Thus, by demonstrating that facility impacts of eriterfa pollutants do not cause violation of ambiant standards, publie l��ealth interests are preserved. Of gteater intexest in the public health debate are emissions of toY.ic pollutants for which� no F�deral ambient standards exist: acid qases (e.g. hydrochlorfc acid, hydrogen fluoride) , trac� metal� (especially arsenic, beryllium, cadmium� chromium, mercury, nickel) , and trace organic compounds (especially dioxfns, furans, PCB, PAH, chlorophenols, chlorabenzenes) . Of these toxic pollutmnts, the trace orqanic compounds and a12 trace metals (except mercury) are kno�n or �uspected to cause cancer. Best Available Contrel Technoloav .Em�ssions control technoloqy capable of redueing toxic air pollutant emission levels to small levels is now both available and routinely required for new en�rgy recovery facilities. Farticulate matter is controlled with either an electrostatic precipitntor (ESP) or a fabric filter ("baghouse") . �►s indfcated in Table 1, both type� ef devices, as designed today, remove particulate matt�r with greater than 99� elficiency. �2) �� overall remova2 efficiency is slightly hjqher for the baghouse. The baghouse also provides better control ot the respirnble- sized particles (2-micron or less diameterj to which toxic traee orgnnie ccm$ounds and trace metals adhere. Control o! trace n+ztals is achieved principally by captur� ot particu2ate natter with high efficiency. Except for mercury, Which remains volatile and resists capture, trace metal contro3 in tfie ranqe of 65�-98� is achieved with E5Ps, and hiqher removal efticiencies of 95�-99� are obtained with baqhouses. �2} . Acid gases and sulfur dioxide aze typfcally c�ntrolled with flue-gas scrubbers, providing removal eflicfencies of 90� for acid gases and at least 70� for sulfur aioxiae�4) . 6 ru� t . CWtROC Of A1R PQIIUTIWT EN12SlQWS iRCM ENERGf RECOYERC iAtltlilES Cmt roi poliut�M Ca�trot Rcthod Efficiencies Retererre Partiwtat� Matter ESP s9g7r 3�t a�,«�� .sx, �.�•z s,< Pir+e, Rcspirablt ESO q3x � Partic�ul�te iap►,oust >99X Acid Wses (NCi� Ki) Drr Scn#ber 9�?x i Sulfur Dioxide Ory Scruhber TOX { kitroytn Docides Efficient Cor.t:ystion • L T�errtrl DcNflx � ,� Grbon Isonozide, Nydrocsrbont E1f�tient Gartxsifon - Tr�cc Met�ls •Ikt�ts fxeept Nertury Eti �5.q� � itphouse 95.99+X 2 •Nerc�xY ESP 0•iSX Z i�p+�ane 0-9TX 2 Dioxinc, fur�rs Eifitfant Ca+b�ation i � ESP ib-E9X 2 . - ��p',ouse 84-44X d . Dioxins can form in the furnace, and can also farm in the ductwork between the furnace and the stack as th� flue qas begins to cool. �4� Dioxin formation in the furnace is controlled through efficient combustion, i.e. th� combination of high combustion temperature, sutticient qas "resfdence time" in the furnace, and sufficient turbulence durinq combustion. Dioxins and furans that �orm in the flue-gas ductwork are controlled by efficient capture of the flue-qas partieles onto which the dioxin and furans condense. Dioxin and furan removal efficiencies achi�ved with ESPs are in the range af 50�-89�, (2� and for baghouses, 84�-99�. �5� AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS AND CONTROL AT MUNICIPAL LANDFILIS Air Pollutants Emitted As waste decomposes in a landtill, "landfill qases" are formed and are emitted to the ambient air above the landfill surface. Land€ill gas can also migrate laterally beneath the surface to location� offsite, includinq into the ba�ements cf homes near the landtiil. Landfill qas production can persist for decades after the l�tndf311 is closed. Landfill gas is � comprised chiefly af the potentially-explosive gas, methane, but also contains odorous sulfur eompounds, vokatile organic compounds (VOCj which can contribute to violatians of the ozone ambient standards, and quantities of toxic organic compounds such as vinyl chloride and benzene, which are cancer-causing. Emissions of vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen (i.e. . cancer-causinq) , are of particular impertance. Recent research�6� has clearly demonstrated that vinyl chloride is formed in 1.andfills durinq the bacterial decomposition of municipal solid waste containing small - amounts of common cleaninq soivents, and that vinyl cMloride emissions do not result from the breakdown of poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) plastics found in the vaste. Following incidents such as landfiil-qar� fires in the �ariy 198�s at tha Oceanside, California landtill�7� and a landfill qas �xplosion at the Greentree landfili in Madison, Wisconsfn in 1983 that severely damaq�d a home and injured its occupants, f8) regulatory �g�ncies st�pp�d up effcrts to t�st landtflls to detQrmine the quantitiea� and constituents of gases beinq emitted. The most comprehensive pregram undertaken to identify and quantify toxic compounds in landfill gas is that cazried out in California �ince the ' mid-1980s by the South Coast air Quaiity Manaqement District {SCAQMD) . SCAQMD has recently zeportedt9) on landfiil-qas , testinq at twenty landfills in California that accept only municipal waste. Both active and closed landfills were tested. 8 Siqnificant quantities of some 10 toxic compounds were detected in the landfill gas emissions (uncontrolled} from most of the landfills. Approximately 85� of all 2O landfills tested had detectable levels of the carcinogens, vi�yl chlcride and/or benzene, and over half showed significant cancentrations, i.e. in excess of 1 ppm. Five of the tested landfills were active, and all had vinyl chloride levels in the gas in excess of 1 ppb, and four had benzene levels of �1 ppm or more. Inactive landfills were also reported to have "siqnificant amounts of vinyl chloride." The Davis landfill, closed for 30 years, had a vinyl chloride emissions concentrations of .3 ppm, and the . Kobra landfill, closed 15 years, showed vinyl chlaride levels of 7 ppm in the landfill gas. Havinq documented that toxic pailutants are indeed emitted from most landfills, SCAQMD tested for the presence of toxic pollutants offsite in the ambient air n�ar �ive landfills. Vinyl ch�.oride concentrations were detected in the ambient air near the "Operatinq Indu�tries" Iandfill at levels exceedinq California'� 24-hour ambient standard for vinyl chloride of 10 ppb, indicating a health threat. During its test proqram, SCAQMD documented cases of subsurface migration of landfill qas beyond'the boundaries of the iandfil3. SCAQMD documented a detectable level ,of the carcinog�n, vinyl chloride "under the kitchen sink� of a home near the BKK landfill in We�t Covinq. The results of these test programs led SCAQMD to conclude that emissions from municipal landtills po�e a potential threat to public h�alth. The State of Wisconsin ha� also b�en active in landfill-gas t�sting. wisconsin tested thirteen municipal landfill� and found "siqnificant" vinyl ch3oride emisafon� at six landfills, and detectable l+�v�ls at twc oth�rs. �� . In New Jersty, testinq of the Pennsauken landfill in 1985 showed siqnificant emisaiona of the carcineqens, be�zene and perch2oro4thylene. f10,11) Best l�vailable eontrol Techno2oav Presently, landfil2 gases ar� not ccntrolled at the majority of landfills in the United States. Recently, however, a number of states have moved to requfre such contrels, and national requirements apgear to be in the offing. Cantrol of landtill qas begins with a qas collection system. The collection system is made up of a network of porous piping beneath the landfill to coilect the gas produced there, and to direct the collected gas to vents 9 above the landfilZ surfaee. Impervious barriers can alsca be installed to prevent subsurface migration of the qas offsite. Closed portions (or "cells"j of a landfill can be covered with an impervious "cap" to prevent "fugitive" emissions of the gas to the air. Gas directed to the vents can then be controlled by several methods, the most popular being flaring and also the combustion of the gas in an internal-combustion ar turbine engine to generate electricity. Gas treatment (e.g. carbon filtration) is another method used to remove toxic pollutants from landfill qas. The overall efficiency of landfi�l qas cantrol degends on what fraction of all gas generated by a landfill ean be collected with a landfill qas collection system, and for that portion of gas that is collected, the control efficiency provided by the control dev�,ce (f2are or engine) . One consultant's survey(1�) conclud�d that fcr inactive landfills, ?5-90� o! the qaa be�inq gen�rated eain be co�ed by a landfill gas collection system; hos�ever, with active landfills, lower collection efficiency (40-60�) may be typical. SCAQMD has tested flar�s in California and faund flares to be 95� efficient in destroyinq the nan-methane fraction of organic compaunds in landfi�.1 gas.�T'—It is the non-a�ethane fraction that contributes to ozons formation and also contains the toxic organic compounds of concern. Because of recent findings that municipal landfa.11s commonly emit significant quantities of toxic pollutants such as vinyl chloride, in cases resultinq in a demonstrated public health threat, a growfnq number of states, as well as the EPA, are implementinq requirements for landfill-gas testinq and installation of landfill gas collection and control systems. The list includes California, tl3) Wisconsin, and New Jersey, and likely othe=s. The U.S. EPA is developinq nav requiations, likely to be propossed in early 1989, to-liait landlill gas emissions through a New Source Performanca Stnndard t141 , which would require gas collection, and control of toxic orqanic pollutants in the gas with 98� efticiancy. Another �imilar requlation is being developed for existinq landfills. EPA indicates that to meet these emission lfmits, landfill qas coilection and control systems are likely to be required for new landfills designed for, as well as existing landtills reaching 1 million m�tric tons of deposited waste. As an example, a medium-aized regional landfill of 500 TPD capacity would reach the 1 million ton mark in about 6 years. i0 ASSESSING HEALTH RISK With air pollutant emissiona from both energy recovery and landfill facilities, it is carcinogenic risk, i.e. risk of cancer, that is the primary public health issue. This is because significant carcinogenic rfsk can resu3t from long-term exposure to even minute pollutant concentrations. Cancer risk is assessed in terms of an upper-bound estimate of the number of cancer cases tc be expected if a population of one million people were exposed to the maximum emissions impact from a facility, 24 hours per day, every day, for a 70-year lifetime. These assumptions help to ensure conservatism in the risk assessment. Judqing the siqnificance of an estimated level of cancer risk is difficult, beeause this requires subjective judgment reqarding what level of risk is acceptable. Most often this judqment is made case-by-case. Based, however, on the historical actions of regulatory and health agencies which perform and review risk assessments, a maximum individual cancer risk of less than i case per million people exposed fs normally considered "insignificant" risk, and risk levels between i to 10 cancer cases per million exposed are considered "accegtable, " providinq all =easonable means to reduce risk have been adopted. This mirrors the palicy(15) on acceptable risk levels set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Cali€ornia, and is consistent with policy statements by other states, for example, , det�rminations(16) by the Department ot Environmental Conservation in New Ycrk State. HEALTH RISKS FOR AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FR4M ENERGY-RECOVERY FACILITIES Both op�ratinq and proposed enerqy recovery facilities have b��n t.he subject of numerous risk ass�ssments since 1985. Nev York State has led the Country in performing risk asses,am�nts on eperating plants, based on actual, tested emissior�s. J� sun►mary ot risk assessments performed for five enerqy recovery faci3ities operatinq in New York is presented in Table 2. (16I Four of the facilities have ESPs for particulate control, cne facility has no particuiate control. None ot the facilfties is scrubber-equipped. Rfsk was estimated for inhalation exposure to dioxfns and furans in each ca�e, The risks at four of tive facilities Were determined to be in the acceptable ra�nge of 1 to 10 in a million. At the fifth facility, the estimated risk af 21 in 11 , . TABLE 2 . ESTIMI�►TED HEALTH RISKS FOR TESTED EMISSIONS FROM �NERGY RECOVERY FACILIT2ES IN NEW YORK STATE �1� Facilit F1ue-Gas Exposure Po2lutmnts Carcinogenic Risk�i; Settin Control Pathwa s Considered Chances er Milliot Oneida Urban i ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans (200 TPD) Rural 1 Cattaraugus Rural None (i12 TPOj Inhalation Dioxins, Furans 7 Westchester Rural & ESP Inha�ation Dioxins, Furans (2250 TPD� Urban 2 Albany Answers Urban ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans (RbF-600 TPD) 6 Occidental Urban ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans (RDF-2400 TPD) 21 {1j Upper bound estimate of the number a� cancer cases per million people expased, based o continuous exposure to �naximu� impacts 24 hours per dayy ever'y day, tor a 70-year lifetime, Data Source: Reference 16 a million was deemed unacceptable; and the State has required design and operational improvements to reduce diaxin emissions and the associated risk ta an acceptable level. {16) In Table 3, a summary is provided of risk assessments performed since 1985 €ar li enerqy r�aovery facilities planned in Pennsylvania, New York, California, and Massachusetts. The planned facilities range �.n size from 500 TPD to 3000 TPD capacity, and would be located in urban, rural, and mixed landuse settinqs. All would incorporate scrubbers and high-efficiency ESP's or baghouses. Mas� of the risk assessments considered exposure to emissions of dioxins, furans, other organic compounds, and trace metals. Most also considered exposure to emitted pollutants by various exposure pathways: inhalation; ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soils (children are �specially exposed to soils) ; and the food chain. Food chain exposure occurs, for example, by ingestion of reservoir water and vegetables exposed to emitted pollutants, and by ingestion of meats and dairy products from animals that grazed on contaminated forage. Human mother's milk can be a €ood-chain source of exposure for infant� in the same manner. As shown in Table 3, with the emission� control,� p�ann�d, risk: �stimated for the eleven taciliti�s ara within the acc�eptable range of 1 to 10 ca�es per millior�. These risk estimates refleet the cumu3ative risk fram all poliutant� and all exposure pathways anaiyzed. EPA has condncted generic assessments �28) of inhalation-related risks for energy recovery facilities of both older and modern designs. For those existing plants havinq the poorest combustion efficiency, mediocre control of particulate emissions, and no scrubbers, £PA estimated risks as high as 1000 cases per million. This risk Ievel is well beyond the acceptable range and shouid prompt more refined assessments to evaluate whether some plants of o2der design require retrotitting with modern air pollution controls. With reqard to modern plants, however, plants that featura high combustion efficiency, baghouses, and scrubbers, EPA caiculated th� risk to be in the range o� 1 to 10 cases per million. Tha EP� assessment shows, therefore, that risks associated with modern facilities are within the acceptable range. 13 ��a�E 3 �� RECENT MEAtTM RtSK ASSESSKEMTt RRf�ARED Ft1R iUNNED EMERGT Rft'DVE�Y iAClLlTJE! Fl�•� E��e Potlutants Grefnogsnfe Risk* pat• ►�cilit Settf tontrol� P�thxs on�{ r A�nc r M ttfon R t renci t�rc�stcr Co., YA Ru��l fcn,t�+cr, irfial�tion, Otoufru, iuraAe i 1� t1200 ipD) taphdx� So{t lnpestfon, OtAer Orp�nia, faod t7+ain, trut ketalt Ocnast Cont�ct M. Nenpstead� MY Urban Scruti�e�, Inhstation, Dfa,cins, furaru 1 td t99'0 TPD) 9a�+au� Sot! lnpesHon, OtA�r drpsnia, Food Cnsin, Trace Netats Dennt Cantsct � Erie, PA Urban ��qhane, Inh�l�tio� Dioxins� furw 0.3 19 (R�F•710 tP�) Funvte Scrutber Tork Co., PA Rurat Scrt#aber, 1rh�tatton, Ofo�ciro, iurarn, 5 tp (13iG TPD) Jndustti�i laphouse Sait inpestion, Othrr 0►pinios, iood Ghain, 1r�ct Mstait Derart Cont�ct Brooktyn. NY Urb+n Scruhber, Jr�h�{ation, Otcutro� furrn, 2 zi (3030 TDD)� �aQfiause Soil lnpestion, Oth�r Orpsnies, food Chain, Tru� Metsts Qernrl Contact vashinpton Co., KT Rural Scntber, IM�l�tion, Ofoxins, Iuruu 10 z2 {t00 TP0) ESP Soil fnqestion, Food Ch�in, Dtnrol tontscL • Upper•bar,d esti+nrte of the n.mber of crxer cases per �niilion �pq(* �� ds� p� CmtiruCut l��c4ur! t0 maxim,lfl inpscts 2t �ours per d�y, t�ryd�Y. 1or � 70-ye�� liittiw�. . f � . . . . � .. . . . � 1AP�F 3� COf1t♦/11Jld RECEItt NEAtfM RISK ASSES9tEMTf PREPAREO tpR PUIwNED EYERGT RE[DYERT FJICILJTIES f[ue•Gas Exp�osur• Poltutants C�rciropenie Ritk• O�t• factiit Setti Cant�ots P�thw Ca+sidered Chances r Mitlion Reterence Boston. MA Urb�n Scrutbe�� I�tial�tton, i1516 TPO) Oiaaciro, iur�nt 2 23 ESP Soii tnpestion, Other Orp�nies, : Dersrt Cont�ct Tr�et Met�ls Phit�delphi�, PA Urban Sc�uF�er, fr+ihal�tfon, Dtouirx� ►urrec 1 2E t2250 TPD) tapho,,ise Soit lnqestion, otAtr Orp�niu, . food Chafn, Tr�c• Metii� Ccnn�t Contict Staaisl�us Co., G Urbsn t Scrut�er, inf,at�tion Otouir►e, turr�s Z 25 (509 TPD) R�mal taphaxe fotl Inp�stia►, OtAcr Orymfcs iood Cf+sin, ir�e• Met�tc Otnti! Cont�tt Ssn K�rco:, G tlrban Sc�+�6ber, lfislation Dioziru, Fur�ns ; (tb00 1P0) 26 iapha,s� Othe� Organics�. Trsce Ikt�lt Ir�indsls, CA Urban Scruhtxr� tr�i4�lation, Dioxin�� ivranR � t30�0 too) 27 ;so!+wse 3ofl Jnqcstton� OtAer Orpsnie; • iood CAain, Tru• ISat�ls Dene�l tont�ct . ' HEALTH RISKS FOR AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FRC?M LANDFILIS The siqnificant concentrations of carcinoqenic pollutants emitted from landf311s, and the faet that such emissions seem to be common with municipal landfills, has led a number of both state regulatory agencies as well as the EPA to conclude that landfills operating without ga� controls pvse a siqnificant risk to public health. The�� same agencies are now requiring implementation of controls that they bel�.eve will bring risk levels to within acc�ptable levels. Only a limited num2ier o� quantitative risk assessments . have been perfarmed to-date for toxic afr-pollutant emfs�ion� from individuai landfill facilities, and these have, for the mast part, been "first-cut" assessment�. The results of risk assessments performed for two landfills not havinq qas controls are shown in Table 4. The risk in the first case was found ta be 430 cancer cases per million people e�o�ed, and in the other case to be up to 50 cases per million exposed. Risk assessments performed for two other facilities assumed to have qas controls in place are also summariz+�d in Table 4, with the estimated risk for one facility at l? cas�a� per million, and for the other, less than one fn a millfon. EPA has recently completed (34, 35) a q�neric risk assessment for landfills without qas controls and found the ` risk•to be in th� sanqe of 100 to 10,000 ca�ses per million people exposed. This risk is a full order of maqnitude greater than has been indicated as a woz�t-case risk for older, poorly-designed energy recovery plants. The limited number or risk assessments summarized in Table 4 as well as EPa's generic risk a�sessment, t�rnd to confirm the pasition af the regvlatary aqencies that uncontroiled landfill gas emission� pose a potentially significant risk, if one gresumes "aeceptabl�" cancer risk to be in the range of 1-10 cases per million. The limited data also suggest that gas controls have the potential to bring these risks into the acceptable range. i6 . � � . TABIE 4 • ESTIMATED NEAITH RGSrCS 01� TO INiU1lATi0N�OF TOxIC AIR P011L1TAlITS PROI MJNiCIPAI LAlqfiLLS l�rdf 1 l t �s Carcino9enic Risk �ocstlon ltatt� Control Pottutants Coroidered (Che�ces per Ntllio�) Referer�ce San Ole�o. G NyQoth�Nul None 9en:ene, e other ory�nics• ;30 �q t2,250 TPD) L�ndfitt�t) virryl chtoride rot studied MantqaMry Co.. Ip Nypoti►Klul Nont Wiryl chtoride, banzene, 1-50�2) 3p�;1 (1,e00 TPD) L�ndllti�l> oth�r orpanic� Eytwr. CA Active iiu� Yir�yl chioride, other <� � (v�k. TPOI aryanies Yi�f Y�tlr'Y. � Attiv�e E�pine Wnyl chtoctde, other �T � (art. 600 TPO) orqanlca t1) Risks tor � hypothetiui landfllt rer� Nsess�d as th� "attern�tiv�• to � proposed enerpy-rfcovery tseillty. t2) TM ranpe is Indiutiw of ansiyticat u+cectalnty. i � . . � � � . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS Enerqy recovery facilities and muni,cipal landfills have been compared "on an equal footing" with re�pect to toxic air-pollutant emissions, and associated carcinogenic h�alth risks. Major conclusions are as follows: 1. Emissions cantrols common2y implemented at energy recovery facilitie� do significantly abate toxic air pailutant �missions. 2. Such emissions from planned energy recovery � facilitfes, and likely moat existing facilities, da not pose an unacceptable health rf�k. For existing facilities, emissions testinq can identify the �mall minority of plants that require remedial action. 3. Most existinq and many planned landfills do not incorporate controls for emissions of taxic a�r pollutants. At many such landfills, uneontrolled emissions likely do pose an unacceptable hea2th risk. 4: Requirements for land�ill qas contral set recer�tly by several stat�s, and similar requirements now proposed by EPA, may potentially reduee landfill gas emissions and health risks to acceptable levels, . 18 � � r . .. . � . . . .. REFERENC£S l. Coalition of Northeastern Governor� (CONEG) . October, 1988. Manaaina Municfpal Solid Waste: A Comparative Risk Analvsis of LandLill and Resource Recovery Facilities. Prepared by Enarqy Sy�tems Resea=ch Group; Alternative Resources, Inc. ; and Wehran Enqineerinq, Inc. 2. Radian Corp. (RTP, NC) . June 1987. Munieipal Waste Ccmbustion Studv, Report to Conaress, pp. 59, 6?, 72, 73, ._ 75. 3. Radian Corp. (RTP, NC) . Sep�ember 1987. Municipal Waste Combustion Stud Assessment of Health Risks Associated with Municival Waste Combustion Em ssions, pp. 3-8 4. Clarke, Marjorie. October 1-2, 1987. Minimizinq Emissions from Resource Recoverv. Distributed at the International Workshop on Municipal Waste Ir�cineration, Montreal, Canada, pp. 4, 8, 1Q, il. 5. Hahn, Jeffrey, et. al. June 21, i987. Recent �iir Emissian Test Data from Several Waste-to-Enerav Facilities Utilizinq,�iartin Stoker Combustion Svstems and Advanced Air Pollution Control Equipment. Presented at 80th Annual APCA Meetinq, New York, NY. 6. Molton� P. , R. Hallen and J. Pyne. January 1987. StudY of Vinvl Chloride Formation at Landfill Site� in Cali€ornia. Battelle Pacitic Nvrthwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington. 7. California Air Resources Board. September 22, 1983. Internal Memorandum, Subject: "Lar�dfill Samplir�q in Sa� Dieqo County. " 8. Chazin, Julian. April 1987. Measurement, Ass�ssment, and Controi ot Hazardous fToxic air Contamina�nts in • LandZill Ga� Emissions in Wisconsin (Draft) . Wisconsin Dapartment of Natural Resources, Madiscn, WI. 9• Wcod, J. and K. Pater. May 1987. "Hazardous Po2iutants in Class II Landfills," JAPCA, V34, N 5. 10. Personal Communication. December 30, 1987, between David Minott, J�lternative Resources, Inc. and Lou Mikoiajczyk, New Jersey Department of Environmentnl Protection, Trenton, NJ. 19 .� � 11. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Trenton, NJ) . October 24, 1985. Internal Memorandum, Subject: "Pennsavken Township Landfill, Perimeter Gas ' Venting System, Emissions Tests." 12. R&W Consultants (San Diego, CA) . July 10, 1987. Letter to Rust International, Inc. , Subject: "Efficiencies of Landfill Gas Collection Systems." 13. California Air Resources Board. December 1986. Tes� Guidelines for Active Solid Waste Dispos�l Sit�es. 14 . Personal Communication. December 27, 1987, between David Minott� Alternative Resources, Inc. , Concord, MA,' and Susan Thorneloe, EPA Fro�ect Officer, EPA-OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC. 15. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1410. E1 Monte, CA. 16. New York State Department af Environm�ntal Conservation {Albany, NY) . May 198?. Phase 1 Re�ource Recoverv Facilitv Emissian Characterization Studv - overview Report. . 17. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (Hoston, MA) . June 1987. Resource Recoverv Facilitv H�alth Risk Assessment (Draft} , 18. Maicalm Pirnie, Inc. (White Plains, NY) , February 198?. Health Risk Assessment (Volume 2 of the Draft EIS for the North Nempstead Solid Waste Kanagement Fro�ect) . 19. Shawmut Enqineerinq, Inc. (Baltimore, MD) . March 1986 (Rev. � . Erie_ Munici�al Waste-to-Enerav Plant Permitting Documents, Volume l. . 20. Malcolm Pirni�, Inc. (white Plains, NY) . May 19$7. Multfpla Pathwav Health Risk �►ssessmenta, York Cauntv, Pennaylvanfa Resource Recovery Proiect. 22. Smith Allan, et. al. Aprii 30, 1987. Health Risk Assessment far the Brooklvn Naw Yard Re�vurce RecoverY Fac,ilitv• Nealth Risk xssociates, Berkeley, CA. . 22. ENVTRON Corpora�ion. Ju1.y il, 1986. Documentation of the Methodoloav and Assumptions Used in the Risk Analvsis for Polvchlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Polvchlorinated Dibenzofurans at a Proposed Resource Recoverv FacilitY. 20 s� . � 23. Meta Systems, Inc. �Cambridge, MA) . November ?, 1986. Qualitative nnd Quantitative Health Risk assessment, ` Airborne Emissions for the Cit of Boston W�ste-to�Ener Fac�tv• 24. C�ement Associates, Inc. December 1986. R,isk Assessment for the Pro osed Trash-to-Steam Munici al Solid Waste Incinerator at the U.S. Nava1 Bese in Phfladel hia Pennsylvania. 25. Stanislaus Waste Energy Company (Modesto, CA) . November 14, 1985, revised June 3, 1986. Stanfs2aus Waste-to-Enerw Faciiitv Health Risk Assessment. 26. North County Resource Recov+�ry Associnte�. April 198a, revised June 1984 . Risk Asse�ssment for Trace El�ment and Oraanic Emissions, North Countv Recvcl na and Enercrv Recoverv Center, San Marcos, California. _,_____ 27. Eschenro�der, Alan, et. al. Fsbruary 7, 198b. An Analvsis ef Health Rfsks from fi2�e Irwindal� Resource Recovery FacilitY. Prepared for Pacific Waste Management Corporation, Newport Beach, G. 28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 1987. •Municipal Waste Combustion StudY: Report to Conqress. NTIS No. PS 87-206074 29. Woodland-Clyde Consultants (Santa Barbara, CA) . June 19, 1987• Letter to Rust International Corp. , Sub�ect: _ "Preliminary Draft Landlili Health Risk Assessment Study. " 30. Personal Communication. I3acember 30, 1987, between David Minott, alternative Resources, Zne. , and Ramana Roa, Montqomery County (Maryland) Departme�t of Environmental Protection. . 31. Natike, John. July 25, 1986. Solid Waste Manaaement study; Pha�4 II, Findinas and Recommendations. Montqomery County (Maryland) Department of Environmental Protection. 32. South Coast Air Qualfty Management District. July 28, 1487. Internal Hemorandum, Subject: "Review of Hodelfng Analysis for the Propoaed North Valiey Landfill Flare," El Monte, CA. 21 w f . . 33. Ventura County Air Pollution Contro2 District (Ventura, CA) . October 1987. Draft EIR for Pro�os+�d Si.mi Vallev Landfill E�cpansion, Prepared by SCS Engineers on beh�alf of the L+ead Agency, (The Countyj and the Project Proponent (Waste Manaqement, Inc. j . 34. U.S. Environmental Pratection Agency (O�►QPS) . March, 1988. Preliminarv Draft EIS: Air Emissions from Munici al Solid Waste Landfills -- Back round Information for Pro�osed Stanc3ards and Gu delines, Research Triang2e Park, NC. • 35. U.S. Environmentai Protection Aqency. Nay, 1988, Minute� of Meetin : National Air Po2lutiQn Control Techniaues Advisorv Committee. Research Tr anqle Park, NC. . . 22 - 1 . � TME S4LiD► WASTE DILEMMA: : AN AGENDA FOR A�CT�4N Final Report of the Municipal So1id Waste Task Force Office of Solld Waste U.S. Envlrvnmentat Protection Agency February 1989 � � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thls report Is about what the gov¢mment calls munlclpal solld waste, and almc�si everyone else calls garbage. As a nation, we generated about 160 mithon tons of suild waste tast Year; by the year 2U00, w¢ are pro}ect¢d to ge�erate 190 million tons. This report ls about how we shou�d handie thls outflow of r¢#use - tha cans, the battles, the leaves and tawn cllppings, the paper and plastic pa�kages, the broken furniture and appilances, the uneaten food and Che oid tfres. This deluge of garbage is growing steadily and we must find ways to manage it safely and eftectively. Elghty` percent of garbage Is landfdled. But we're running out of space to bury tt in extsting landfills; more than one third of the nation's (anditits will be full withln the next few years and many citles are unabte to iind enough acceptable sites fcar new landflHs or new combustors. To eltrr�lnate this grouring capacity gap, a!1 levels of government, the public and fndustry musi iorge a new aiilance to develop and lmpiement integrated systems for solid waste management. This report pres¢nts thQ goais and recommendatiqns for actton by EPA, stnte and iacal government, industry and privat¢ citizens to address the municipai soiid waste management problems that are facing this country. Thes¢ goats and recommendations are the result of the efforts of EPA's recently created Munictgal Sotid Waste 7ask Force. The Task Force gathered exlsting data on municfpa! waste and problerns regarding fts managernent, soltcited �nput from int¢r¢sted persons and groups, heid pubitc'meettngs and developed a number of optlons to address these probiems. This summary data Is contained in a supptementai documQnt tftled "Background Document for the Sohd Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Actlon." The types and extent oF the problem in managing munictpal solld waste vary from reglon fo region depending on waste type, (and use and demographFc cMaracteristics, but some trends and probiems are clear(y nationa{ in scope: From I960 ta 198$, we generated more waste ev¢ry year, both In tota) tonnage and in pounds Rer person. and - 1 � . tMs trend Js pro)�ect¢d to contlnue. (n addition, we a�e ru�ning sut of places to put ' � our waste because ald landfflis are elosing and• (ew new Iandfills and comhustors are abte to be slted and bullt. There are concerns about �otentt�i thr�ats to human health and the ¢nvlronment from combustor ernisslons and asl�, (rom lar�ciflil emissions, leachate, and litter. High costs are borne by tt�e wast¢ generator anci tiandler, as niany areas of the country resort to shlpping waste lang distances k�y truek and �ntl 10 areas with avaliable tanditil or combustoc capaclry. Recyciing, aitliougi� a waste management technique popular wJth the pubiic, Is used cuRentty to manage oMly Iq percent of our naUon's waste, and Is successful oniy when partici�atto� in separatton and collectton ls high and market prlces for seco�dary materials are favorabl¢. ' Siting of recyc!!ng facilltles is also becoming more dlificw(t. Flnally, manufac- turers of products have no direct lncentive to deslgn products (or ef(ectlue wastQ management because they are not �usually directiy r¢spanslbie For llie ulttmat¢ cosEs of waste management. Simllariy, most consumers do not have a direct econ�rntc incenNve to throw away (es�, because they are not usually eharged based Qn tt�e amouM they throw away. 7his report recommends using '`Integrated waste management" systems to solve munlcipa! sohd waste generation arad management problems at th¢ local, reglonal, and nattonal levels. !n this hoNstte approach, sysiems are d¢signed sa tt�at s�.ne or � of the four waste management optlons (source reduction, reeycitng, combustlon and land(iils) are used as a compiement ta �ne another to safely and e(ficierttly manage municipal soNd waste. The system is "custom designed" to mQet local pnvironmenial, economlc and institutional needs. � key elem¢nt af integrat¢d waste manr�gement is th¢ hlerarchy, which favors s4urce reductlon (Includtng r�use� to tlrst decrease the volunne and toxictty and increase the use(ul life of �oducts in orcier ta reduce the volume and toxiclty of waste. Recycling �Including composting) is the prefeITed waste management option to further reduce potentlal risks to humar� heaith anc� the envlron- ment, divert w�ste from landfltls anci combustors, conserve energy, anci slow the depletion of nonrenewabie naturai resourees. In Implementfng source reciuctlon and recyciing, w� must avoid shltting risks (rom one rnec�Jum to ar�attier (e.g., c�roundwater to �Irj or (rom one papulati�n to ano�her. Landfills and coii�k�ustors w�il !�� necessar�� . � � . � . � " L ' . . . � . . � .. for the fvteseeable future to handle a stgniflcant portion of wastes, but ar¢ lower on the hierarchy because of the potentlal risks to human health and tfie environment and long-term management costs. This risk potential can be largely minimized through proper design and management. tntegrated waste management can and should be implemented at a {ocal level to the extent prac#Ical, and is a us¢fu! concQptuai taol for making management declslons. But, 1t is nat meant to tae rigidfy appil¢d when local untque waste and demographic characteristics mak¢ sourc¢ reduciion and recycfing tnfeasibie. The tntegrated waste management system is the framework for the national goals pres¢nted 1n thts r¢port. This repoct presents EPA's stated goal of managing 25 percent of aur natlon's munieipai soitd waste through source reductlon and recycling by 1992. Composttng of yard waste will play a key rate in attaining thts gvaL Whlie no long-term numerica! goals are established beyond 1992, the Agency anticipates that the 25 percent level will be exceeded as capital recycltng equlpment comes on 1lne. This wili be especfally true in the paper industry, where plannMg today wi!! be essenttal to lncreasing domestic paper recycting tn the mId-1990's. In additlan, w¢ must strive to revene our ever-increasfng per capita generatlon of garbage. We al�o must work to reduce the rtsks associated wttfi tandfilis a�d combustcrs, tnasmuth as these management alternatives wlil be necessary to handte most �:� the wa;,tes. - rtsks of recycling need to be examined to determine if risk reduction is aiso needed for recyciing. By Implementing these 3oats, we can sc�lve or reduce many of our � muntclpal waste management probtems. Thts report outilnes EPA's program to address these goals. It aiso presents a � number of recornmendations For state and lexai governments, industry, and consurnen that wttl enable us to meet tF�ese goals. Informatlon, assistance, a�d 'data must be made more accessible to everyone by generating catalogs o( avallable materials. establtshing a national clearinghouse, developing a '"peer matching'` program to aliow all levels of government and waste management to exchangg expert►se, and developing a national research agenda for cotlectlr�g new informatlon and devefoping neuv technoiogies. - 3 - . . Planning at ail levels of government is recommended In the report. Nailonal and reglonal planning conferenees are ne¢ded to :faciNtate tt�e exehange o( Intormation, This report contalns a Itst of elements that state and tocal munictpat solid waste management plans should Inciude. Source reduetlon should be (oster¢d at the manufacturing, government�l, a,�d Iac�1 leveis. EPA wi11 study optfons for reducing tead and cadmlum In �raducts in order to reduce the hsks of cambustor emtsstons and ash, landflll teact�ate, and recycling operations. EPA wlll foster workshops for manutactur¢ts and educators to promote the design of products and packaging for eftectiv¢ wast� management. EPA witf identlfy economic, regulatory and possibly legislattv¢ Incentiv¢s !or decreasing lFie vQtume and toxlUry of wasie. EPA will also take steps to facititate Federai pfocurement at products with source reductivn attrit�utes. Industry should conduct waste audits, and determine ways to decrease tl�e voiume and toxiclty of materla#s usec� In manufaeture. Recommendations for recycting (including composting� cai! tor fosiertng imple- mentatlon of existing Federal procurem¢nE guidetines (as weli as evaluatln� ones for addltlonal commodltles)� and creating an interagency wo�king group ta develop pitot and iuif-scale pro)ects for separating recyclables in Federal agenctes, Markets for secondary materials and recycled goods must be sttmulated and sta�lllzed; thus EPA will conduct market deveiopment studies for different commodltles, witi examine economic and regulatory incentives for using secondary or recycle+� matQrtals, and cu11) fosier the Formailon of �egion�f rnarkettng councils for th� exchange ot market informatio�. A Natlonai Recycling Counclt wlil b¢ formed wlth me�nkiers from ai) sectors of waste managem¢nt to track recycling issues and prvblems and to r¢commend actlons. Flnally, EPA will study how to toster r¢cyeltng lead-�+�1d batteries, including examtMng the current incenttve� ard disincentfues assoclated wtth ilabillty. Industry shou{ci step up Its eFiohs in fostering the recycling of plastics. State and local governm�nis should encourage separation nf rccyciat�i�s. conduct waste exchanges, and prov�c�e Incentives For stable markets for reeyclocj goods. � � � . a Ftnally, recommendatlons for decreastng the rislcs from landfliiing and combustto� include contlnuing EPA's ongoing efforts to devetop air emiss�on standards for new combustofs and landfllls, a1r emission guidellnes �equiring state standards Eor existing combustors and landfills, and revls¢d mintmum design and operatfon crlterta for fandfi(ls. EPA recommends ihat ash management ptans be deu¢loped as part of any plan Eor combustlon of waste. EPA. In con)unctfon with trade assaciatlons, w1U facilliate development of guidance on tralning and certifitation for combustor and landfltl operators. EPA w�il aiso study whether bans are n¢cessary or deslrable fvr certain types of waste. � Th¢se recommendatfons present a core program foc gov¢rnm¢ntal, industrtal and citizen aetion which wiil hetp sotve our nation's munlcipal waste management problems, _ � . � , tNTRQDUCTION _ This report Is about what the government calis muMclpat solid waste and almost everybody etse cails garbage. tt's about botties, cans, dlsposable dlapers, uneaten food, scraps of wood and metai, worn•out tlres and used-up batteries, paper and plastic packages, boxes, broken furniture and appilances, clippings from our tawns and shrubs--the varied human refuse of our modern IndusMa! society. Al! of us generate solld waste every day--a totai foc the natlon of about 1b0 rntllion tons a yeaT. And the garbage deluge Is growing st¢adily; with out eunent garbage practices, it couid reach 193 mittion tons by the Year 2004. More than 40 percent of thts sotld waste stream conststs of the pap¢r a�d paper produ�ts we dlscard tn our homes, offices and factories.' Yard wastes make '�Euerybody u,ants us co pc�c ic up� c�d Robody up another 18 percen# of the total. The other ma}or �a us w pue tc components are metals, giass, foed waste, and plastfcs dO1'"'�� (see Figure l y. Symptomatic of what socia! crttics cail our '•throwaway seciety„ are the many dlsposabie produeis that ar¢ manufactured, imparted, sold, used and thrown away; for exampte, we dlscard 1.6 b�{11on pe�s, 2 biltlo� razors and blades, and 1b billlon d�apers every year. '`Convenlence" packaging sulted to our high•speed, Increasingly busy 11fe- styies--N dinners, fast•food cvntainers, m�crowavable bags of popcorn, and the Iike--mak� a substantiai contrtbuttan to the flood of trash. 'in thls repon, the term "munldpai satid waStE" refers primarily t� �r�s�dentiai saiid' waste, with some contributlon from commerclal, Instttutlonal and Industriat sourc¢s. 1� sor�e areas. n�nresid¢nUal wanes are rnanaged separately, largely because Industrial and some cammercial sources produce retatively uniform wastes in large quantitles, which makes them more suitdble for aiternative dtsposal techniques or retycting. Hazardous wastes. as deflned by Federai and State regulation, generally are managed outside the municipal solld waste stream. Exeeptions are household hazardous wastes and hazardous wastes generated In very small quantities. whfch are ohen placed in the municipai soiid waste stream by tha generator. Th!s r�r^� �oes n�t �tt�mGf ;�� grapple w�th rne �ss�a oi medlcal waste. This Issue !s the subject of a separate EPA Task Force. t f-'aper and . pap4�bOard - 41 .0% et, �' 4 1.O X Gtass s 8.2% 9.2 x + MisC. inorya QiC wa tes - l .fi /a S �.sx . e.T x � • < .<�. .,� < � ' �9ta�5 6.5%� • / � � , �7.9% �.: 8.7% .,. `� ` . �a.�x � �.sx � :�� , Yard wastes . � i ,- �� `�.�`"� 17.9% "I� Plastics 6.5% � Food wastes 7.9% Rubber, Ieather, textiles, wood - 8.1% � , FI GU RE � • GROSS DISCARDS , BY WEIGHT, �F MSW MAT£RIALS, 1986 (Source: Characterization of Municipal Salid Waste ' in the United States , I960 to 20q0; Franklin Associat�s , 3/ 30/88) � t � . . . . . . . . � � . . . � . Peopie who manage soitd waste say that the First Law of Garbage Is: "Eue�rybody wants us to pick tt up, and nobody wants us to put tt down." Many Amertcans want their hash to dlsappear qulcicly and qufetly from� their backyards and curbs, neuer to be seen or h¢ard from again. And the last thing they want !n thelr nelghborhocd is a landittl, combustor o� recycling center•-all of whlch are associated in the publk mtnd wlth noxious odocs, possibty dangerous pollution, and nolsy trafftc. Thes¢ two social forces••the thrawaway mentality on the part of manufacturers and many consumers and the NIMBY syndrome--have combi�ed to creat¢a sarlous and growing solld wast¢ probiem in many Amertcan cities. As a natfon, we aE¢ generating mAre garbage all the time, and we don't know what to do wlth It. [neHective or Irrespon- sible dlsposal of ali this waste fias the potential to degTade the e�vironcr�ent and cause risk to pub!!c fieaith. We're runnlna o+�t of space ..T't�e aru�,ua!U.S. to bury it In exi�ting landfltls; more than one•thtrd oi � generatton u/158 miJlion ' ecne o/nx,�dtwl ao�d the natlon's tandfllis w1U be full wlthln th¢ next two �"'O1�fl��°C°ffOy to three years. Yet because of the M1MBY syndrome and of IU-ton garbogc trvcks. 145,000 mues lo�... concems over potential thr¢ats to human hea�lth and tM� ��tiO�R�,�'� environment, many citfes are unable to #lnd enough acceptable s[tes for new iandfllts. Siting new combustors can be equally difficult; many people are concerned as to whettter garbage can be burned without producing dangerous air pollutlon and r¢sldues. The p�robtem has gotten to th¢ point that some AmeTican cftfes are paytng p�emium prices to have their trash shtpped to other counties, states, and even foreign countri¢s. [n respanse to this soitd waste dilemma, many states, lacalitles, and concemed citizens have stepped up recycling activities and formed compr¢hensiv¢ wast¢ manage- ment programs. With thelr progressive programs, some locafttles are far ahead of any Federal program for municipal sotld waste, whlle other communities and states lag far` behind and may not even recognlze or antictpate a probiem. The private sector, in the form of the waste managernent, secondary materials, and manuFacturtng industrles, have also recogntzed the beneflts of recyciing and have successfully imptemented prog�ams. The Federal role for munlcipat waste management �as ranged through the years from an active nonregulator�� role prior to 19$0, to a less comprehensiL•c mnre rpgulatory roie . . � . . � slnce 1980. In the past severai years, EPA has proposed revlsed mint�r►um sta�dards for designing and operating munielpal tanditNs; tssued procurement guideltries fat some recycled goods; tssued a Report to Congress on alr emissions from rnuniclpa{ waste combustors; publlshed an Acivance Notice of Proposed Rulen�aking (or regUlafing alr ernlssfons from new and exlsting combustors; Issued combus#or yuldance to new source permitting authoritles; devetoped a report on tite ¢(ficacy of the euR¢nt nonha�atdous waste regulations; recentty IniUated s¢veral bulletins and b�ochures to promote used oil recycling; and conciucted � toxlclty study o� munlclpai waste combustor aish, EPA aiso Is developing guidance for p�op¢r handling and disposat oF combustor r�sh reslduais. More recentiy, the� Envlronmental Pratectior� Agency createsi a Muntclpai Soltd Waste Task Force In February i988 to speciftcaily address the prablem of increasing wasie generat�on and decreasing management capaclty. The Task Fv�ce was giv�n the asslgnment vf quickly assesstng the size and seope of the soiid waste ptobiem, exarnintng atternatives for solvtng tt, and developing a welf-coordlnated s#rategy oi actlon for Improving the nation's management of municlpat soitd waste. tn an ef[ort to make the strategy credible and practtcaf, the Task Force soltdted comments from the public and interest¢d groups and organtzailons. Seven publlc meetings were held In May, September and Octob¢r In Boston, Uallas, Seattl¢, St. Paul {Mtnnesota), Washington (D.C.), Los Angeles and Atlanta. A G�-day public comment perlod on the draft strategy was also p�ovided. Tt�e Task Forc� atso icientt- fied interested hade a,ssoclatfons, enviranm¢nta) groups, and govgrnment organt�attons and offered drafts of Its �nalysts for their review during the cievelopme�t of the draft strategy. These comments. from the public contributed substanttaity to this Agenda fo�Action. ' - 9 - , This report presents the Task Force's nationai action agenda.' There is nr� single salutlon to thts complex problem. A myrtad of activittes must be implemented, both In the short and long term, by ali of us in order to solve the curr¢nt and future problems with municipal solid waste. This report suggests a number of things that government, business, Industry and cltlzens can do to reduce the productlon of solid waste and better mana9¢ the soiid waste that ts produced: manufacturing products with consideratlon for th¢ir ultimate managem¢nt as wastes; e�couraging, produc�ng and . buying products that ar¢ made from recycled or recyclable materiats; s¢parating bottles, cans and paper and turning ttiem in for recy- ..Eafi o/us conaibu�es cll�g; improvtng the safety and efficlency of #andf111s an aue+�ogs a/2.300 pcx,nds o year to�e and combustors; and wherever practical, choosing source �"1O""t"�" reduction and recycting over landitliic�g and combustlen o/garbage, ond ead�o/ ua, i/u,e'reu,�1l�ng, can as the preferred methods fo� managing mun{clpa{ soltd '�bocic°A�°"'O1"�'�� waste. A mix of these optlons must be molded tnto an � Integrated waste management syscem where each compon�nt complements ihe others to safeIy and efficfently rnanage the waste. Local environ- mental, economtc and tnstitutionat n¢eds wlii, of course, play an impQrtant roie in d¢termining the mix ai the locai leveL While this report acknowiedges that the bulk of waste wlll be managed through combustfon and landf111s, it emphastzes a significant shlh to source reductlon and reeycling. The report reiterates EPA's stated goal" of diverting 25 percent of the natlon's municipai sotid waste ftom landflils and . combustoFs through source r¢duetton and recycling by 1992. Much oi thls goai witl be met through increased recycl#ng, with a spectai ¢mphasis or► composting o( yard waste. But EPA believes that implementtng souTce reductton, by not Increastng caur pcesent per � capita generatlon of munietpa) solld waste, Is vttai{y lmportant. in the longer term. 'Oniy the Task Force's recommendatlons are tnciuded in thts report; the drta and Informatton supporting th¢ recommendations can be found in a supplementai document entlded. "Background Document For The Solld Waste Dtlemma: An Agenda far Ad1on, Draft Repvrt of the Munt'cipal Solid �'l'aste Task Force." (EPA •530•SW•88•054A' and ''The Svltd Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Act�on, Appendlces A-B•C"tEPA 530•SW-88-05481. "This goal was ftrst stated bv the Ass�stant Administrator of the Oifice of Soi�d Waste and Emergency Response, J. Winston Porter, in a speeth at the Founh Annuat Cvnfer¢nce on Soiid Wasre Management and titrterials P�licy, on .Januaru 29. t9$8. - l� . the Agency anticlpates that the 25 percent goal wll! be exceeded as caplta! recyciing equlpment comes on Iine. Thts wNl be espectally tru¢ In the paper tndustry, where pianning taday wlll b¢ essentlat to increasing �our domestic paper recycling capacity in the mid-1990's. Another cruclal long-term goal is to reduce tlie per capita generation of municlpal solld waste, Some proposals, such as government Incentfves to eneourage the productton of iong-lastln9 P�oducts that can t�e reused o� recycled, witf be controversial; but the solid waste probfem is s=rlous, and contrnversy Is not sufficlent reason to ignore workab(e salutions. When Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Reeovery Rct of 1976 t�CRAI, lt recogntzed that state and local governrnents have primz+ry �esponslbillty for municlpal solld waste managpment, but it also gave EPA regulatory and asslstance responslbtlities In thls area. h1�ny of fhe �eeommendatlons tn lt�is �epor# were developed wlth the teco5nitlon tt�at sttong national leadershtp !s essentlal in flnding solutions to what has become a widesp�ead natlonat probiem. Nattonaf Ieadership means not only establlshing natlonal gvals and policies, but setung a good ¢xample by purchastng recycted or recyciable produets and by separating waste to faciNtate recycitng or safe dlsposal. Each of us contributes an average of 1,3J� ;,�u�ds a year to the growing mounta'� of garbage, and each of us, if we're wiliing, can, at le�t; ,,,,p tn�easfng the amount of waste �equlrtng dlsposal. (� �ho i�nger tetrn, we can reduce our per capita generatlon of waste. Inc�ustry c�n also work toward reducing th¢ volume and toxlcJty of products and packaging that wIN ulUmately requlre dlspc�sal. The repc�rt recom- mends a number of educationai and otf�er programs to Inform citizens and industry about tF e'r .�e..ponsibiltUes and oppohunities to help stem the tlde oi so�ld wasie. ft !s Important for a(I o( us--�overnment, business, and prtvate cttizens--to acknowiedge that our country has a solid waste problem and tQ begtn tf�e ditf)cult but ' Inescapable task of findtng soiutlons. li we wait, the prot�lern wil! oniy get worse. (f thts report stimudates though�t, dlscussion and action to hel� tmprave ihe management of our nation's m{anlcipai solfd w��ste. It wlll have ar_cori�pltshed its {�urpose. - 11 . SCUPE OF THE PROB[.EM When loca! officiais are asked to I�st the chlef probiems assoctated wtth municfpat solid waste, they usually cite the growt�g �hortage of tandflit capaclty and the htgh cost of managing wasce. Th¢s¢ two managernent probt¢ms are ¢speclatly sev¢re in some Am¢rican tfti�s, where disposal casts have soared ��j� 1�'A�� to mor¢ than �104 per ton of waste because vf long- ga�an+ted u�ce ac c rate 0/2.65 pvunds�er Ferso� distance hauling and hlgh landitil and combustor '`ttp" pa doy: by 1986, ttwt fees.l The internattonal wanderings oE the "garbage jlgure hod)umped ta 3„5g pou,r,ds,�• barge", foriomly searching for a last resting pface foc garbage from {sltp, New York, graphlcaliy illustrated the capaclty shvrtages tn popuious eommunities. Som¢ stat¢s and locailtfes hav¢ responded to thls probi¢m by enacting laws r¢qulring mandatory recycling oc dis- couraging wasie generatfon. Htgh costs and capactty shortages, howe��p*, are only symptoms of a more basic problem: Most of America's citizens, offtc�als and indust�v �� yet t� recoy: �e their responslbillty for the growth in solld waste and fcr th¢ problems caused by 'that growth. In 1960, Amerfcans generated waste at a rate of 2.65 pounds pec person per day; by 1986, that ftgure had )umped to 3.58 pounds, and the rre�d !s pro}¢cted ta contlnue tnto the Y¢ar 2000.2 Gen¢rat�on of ¢very kind of waste is up, tncluding paa..r. ,�lastic, giass, and metals, as shown in F1guTe 2. An Arnerican generates approxirnateiy one pound per day more waste than hls/her counterpart in West Germacn,�. an equally industrtalized natton,' Much of the dtfference can be haced to the hlgh 1 Frank J. Sudoi and Aivin L. Zach, "Recycltng in New Jersey; tfi¢ Newark Experience," Resource Recyciing. Volume Vil. No. 2, MaylJune, 1988. p. 28. � 2 Charact¢rizntion of Municlpal So�1d Waste tn the U 5. 1950-2U00 Iupdated 19�81. Franktfn Assoc�a;es. titarcn 30. 1988. u � 7 ., t�1, f1 "�"a.ti,,,� R•�•-.�, ' c ^ CJt;SE'15U5 3t�:.: 1 ;�,"" �•�,:4 u�i... .. .. �.. . _ . . .� _.S�GnS fTJnt G;1r�Fr. Controversy In Four European States." fnform. 1986, p 13. 80 ' PAPFR AND PAPEABOAAO � o o , � �o � �� .��z4."` 1 9 8 6 � � 6 0 t:.�; t�;:. + � x� 2 � 00 � � .,. .Y's�" w 5 � r�fi , c. �;: r�n z � � _ ` . . O . t-- YARD :� u' �: WASiE , � 3 � ��;. . , ? {�'�` RU88ER, : � ;`._ . . , . < LEATHEfl, f. �, 2 0 : �: --� t MiETALS PIASTICS Tx�OD. � �`: � Gt,.ASS EXTILES Vv�STE � 1 � " ' ` ` �` s :t a�,y . 1 � . E : � a-�� ,r . . q � } . . ��t• A �� *, �� '�, . . . . . �,.�. f.�. x••. a i�:,� . Y.� S� . . .. � . i�Y" 4k��, . .y�Z�.�`.�� . ? � S .. v� : �� .. � . . . � `�, t2.' �. "'�"' � � �� It`� � . . 1�. i��. ��.•�1 �� . � , i_. � . 1 t;: -�� ..� � �x� �� O GAt�ICs �;, �:� �. �� }� � � GF�OSS �iS�ARDS �F N1AT�i�IALS !N h1SW' '��(: Ch�raccerizatian Of Municipal Soiid Wasie !n 7he �.��ited S�ac�?s, � 960 T� 2dOQ;� �rankli� Assoc, 313�i8 � �'IC� tJR� ? > ?"'�"rr r,� ��rr •! ��•� ��r,.,rRv rr�•��t��rv) levei of product manufacture and consumptlon in this country and the need for con• venience on the part of Increasingly busy famllles. In general, Ame�ican consumers haue no incentive to limlt their waste generatfon, because they are not charged for dtsposai according to the amount of waste they produce. Nor are there many intentives for manufacturers to destgn thelr products and packaging In a way that takes into account the etfective management of those products wh¢n they ar¢euentually disca��.ci. At the same tlm¢ more waste Is being ger�erated, less processing a�d disposai capacity is availabie to handte it. Qne•thtrd �f the natton's landfliis wi11 be fui! by 1992, whtch means that waste that ts now disposed of in these inciiitles will have to be disposed of elsewhere. Many existing Eacilitles are closing e�ther because they are fllted �or because thely deslgn and operatlon do not meet �ederal or state standards for protectlon of human health and the environment. New facilltles must be bulit to replace this dtmtNshing capaciry but must be environrn¢ntally sound, preserve vatuabie resources, and not present undue risk to human health. The inc¢nttve to bulld new, environmentaily sound facilltles and adopt better mar�agement practices may not exlst in some areas because of the cuR¢nt practic¢ of "waste ftight," in whlch waste Is shipped by truck or ratl across state and county Iines to areas with avail- able capacity, tf not done concurrently with long-term planning to solve the capacity probiem for a region, the short•term solution of waste flight Qnly delays the tnevitable managernent problem In th¢ tocality shlpping the waste, and hastens potenttal probiems in the area that receiues and dlsposes of the waste, Efforts to stt¢ new landfills, combustocs and recycling centers, however, are met with mvunttng oppositlon. This oppositlon may stem from concerns abont environmental or health risks from contaminated ground and surface waters and soil, toxtc asfi from munlcipal waste combustlon, and air emisslons: from resistanc¢ to such nulsance factors as notse, smells, and truck traffte; and from anxiery ov¢r property vatues. Because few governmenis h��e established effective dispute resolutlon mechaolsms, "stttng impasses" result when local poitticlans are unwilhng or unable to override the ob)ections o( their constltuents. These stting dtsputes tilustrate the �(act that - 14 - few of us are eager to assurne responslbillty for elther our neighbors' wastes a� vur own. Although reeycling and reuse of waste ma[e�lals are publicly acceptabie methods for managing muntclpai solid waste, the exlsting waste management trifrastrvctu�¢ often dtscourages effective recyciing efforts. Far exam�ale, a nattonal polt su the use of a waste managemer�t "hierarchy" has been i� ¢ffect since 19?fi.� Under#the hlerarrhy, source �eduction and recycHng are the preferred optlons for managtng soiid W�e. Combustlon and lancifilling are to be used oniy when the preferred optlons are unavallable or tnsufflclent. Overwhelmed by the burgeo�tng amvunts of waste that must be removed from the curb every day, many waste managerz a�e unabie to implement the hlerarehy at the Iocal Ievel. As a result, $0 percent of the p'�� pr wasie ts IandfNled; oni 10 natlon s Y percent ts recycled and 10 percent combu5ted. This rellance on (andflllln9 may stern from a desire for a single, '"quick-fIx„ s Iut more recent! man Q 1on; Y. y pubfic offlclals seem to be turning to mass-fiurn combustors as the "silver-bu�fet" answer to thei� waste management problems. The temptation to buitd a fac!lity that can combust 2,OOQ tons of garbage a day may be dlffteult For a hard-pressed waste manager to resist. Why aren't many states and focalities impi¢menting the waste mana em arch � 9 ent hier- y. One reason !s that local ofticlais may consid¢r rerycHng Uroyrams too costiy. They also may not co�slder recycling a reHabie way to hancile munici al because success In recycling depends heavily on markets (o� seeondap mat�d waste well as - erials as public particlpatlon ievels, both of which can fluc#uate w�c�eiy, And, tnformatlon on the true costs oF each waste management Qpllon mey nvt be avallable This brlef desc:r��uon ot the sco�e of the problem Is by no means co�np�eh¢nsive. ft ts mea�t to escabilsh the t�asls for setttng goals and actions (car a natlonat strategy. Chapters 2 and 3 0( the Background Document �rovtde a R�ore thorou h descrlption of the probiems tnvolved in managtng municipai snlid waste. � ------�----__._ 4 • Effp��e H�zarcio�,s bV�ste Managemont IN�n Radioactiva►: Posltlon Slaternent. Foder�l Re �stvr. Votume al. No 161. August 18. 191b -------_. - 15 - [NTEGRATED WAS3E IMANAGEMENT The term "integrated waste management" re#en to the complementary use of a variery of waste management practices to safely and effectively handi¢ the municlpai soild waste strearn wlth the least advene impact on human health and the envtronment. An integrated waste management system wlll contaln some or all of the foilowing components: o Source reduction (Including reuse of products► o Recycling of materlals (IncludJng composttngy o Waste cambustton (with energy recovery) o Landfiiling. In integtated waste management, aN the eiements wvrk together to forrn a compfete system for proper management of muniUpai waste. Waste stream constltu¢nts are matched to the managernent practices that are best sulted to those pr�rticula� const!- tuents, !n order to reduce toxlcs, reduce quan#1ty, and safely extract any useful energy or mat¢rial from th¢ waste prior to finai disposal. Every community can "custom-design" !ts Int¢grated waste management system to emphastze certal�management p�acilces, consistent with the community's demography and waste stream characteristics. For example, a community hke L.as Vegas, Nevada, where landfill tipping fees as ivw as �6 per ton reflect the ready auailabillty of {ands, may choose to continuP to rely on (andfitling as Its prtmary waste ma�?gern�nt practtce after evaluating the feasiblllty of source reduction and re�y�i�ng. Convarsely, a s C. L. Pettit, "Th¢ 19$7 Tip Fee Survey • Last Year's Rise was the Biggest Ever," Waste Age. Voi. t9. No. 3. March 1488. p. ?7 town such as East Lyme, Conneeticut, where disposal costs exceed $1(}U per ton, (►nds recvcling an essentiai way Eo h�ncfle a major part Q( Ihe wasle siro�nj h In an integra�ecl waste manageinent system; eacl� �very c�mmunity con cornponent is designec� so .it compier�,ents. rather tMa�, : ,.custom-design";�s competes wlth. the otlier componenis in tl�e sysiem, For integrvted tuoste rnanaqemen�system�o example, combustors shouid be designed io f�andle a voiume sv�r;csneedc, o( waste wiih a tertatn Btu ualue atter altowing for the effect o( recycling on totat waste volurne and Citu values. Faifure to do thls can lead to a situation where matertais wt�ich u, otherwise be recycted are not t�ecause Ihey are needed as fuel for ihe combustor. ��'d Hierarchy oF (ntegra#ed Waste 1�lanagement . To most etfectively reduce c�ur waste managernent problems at the nallonai 1ev states, munici�alihes, and the waste management industry st�ouid use the hierarcht describeci below (o:�• evaluating the components o( integrated wasie rnariagemeni agaln t the eommunity's needs. Of course, strict adherence to a rigici hierarcl�v Is inapp�a- priale (or everv communtty. M�nha�t�n, Nevada will very likely choose a dlFfera.nt mlx . . ,�...-M"w""---�-� w�-••... .. . . . . .� �� . . � . � � . � . � . � . . . � VOLl\� �� 1 �L � REDUC'E ..,...�,,,,,�,,,,,� '�''"*�,,�,�.........,,�, . � �►� . � �rr.."..r�."'' . � . � . . L�F�.L co�us-r�o�r --_--______ � Ti�incc-�i�� nl ti�o �ui�liC Mootinq nn �liini�i 1 C�, i, . �t.,v �. �q�� i � ��, h�l t .,5ta [i•,��. tir��ss.��i,��r�� z� � z;, r-,.,�ko� =r.�as.��»f-�: ��,-E r. E!�� , ,,�:�� „ 4. , , � i' �.t,ict�i�i„t��n !1 r' ` ( �Tl:�1 l. Io. -�(1� •t Slrocl (1�I(i(1 � � ! of opttons than Manhattan, New York. But the integrated waste management hierarchy Is a useEul conceptuai tool Eor both communities to•use tn setti�g goals and planning for thelr particular mix of waste management aitemaNves. The hterarchy begins wtth soufce reductlon and reuse to reduce boEh the to�cic constituents in products and the generation of large quantitles of wast¢. Sourc¢ reductlon, as d¢fin¢d In this report, may occur through the design and manufacture of products and packaging with mintmum toxlc content, minlmurn volume o#materiai, a�dlor a longer usefui hfe. Sourc¢ reduction may aiso be practiced at the corporat¢ or household levei through selective buying habits a�d reuse of produ�ts and materials. Effective source reduction siows the depietlon of environmental �esoarces, protongs the Ilfe of avaltable �vz+,ste management capaclry and can make cornbustion and land- filiing of wastes s�'.- �n the short and long term by remavtng toxi� c�nstituents. Source reductlon is not used by local waste handiers for managing the waste ihat is picked up every day; tather, It cuts back on the amount and ih� toxiclty of the waste whlch ts handied. However, local gavernment can encourage as well as practfcQ source reductton. The second rung in the hi¢rarchy is re cltn af materials, including composting of food and yard waste. Recycitng 1s near the top of the hterarchy becaus¢ tt pre- vents potentiatly usefui materlats from being combusted or landflited, th¢reby preserving waste dfsposal capaUty. Recyciing 1s a technviagy that can prevent ' depletion of valuable Iandf111 space, save energy and natural resources, provide usefut products from dtscarded matertals, and even make a profit (¢specialty when the avotded costs of combustton or landfdling are taken into account). Thus, pubik offtc�ais and wt�ste handlers shouid give serious consideratlon to the practtcaiity of recycling and composttng programs in thelr communities. Aithougi� lower than source reductlon and retycling in the hlerarchy of desirabte waste management optlons, waste combustton is useful In reductng tF�e buik (although not ai!) of munEcipal waste and can provide the added bQnefit of energy ptoductton. Rithough combustion is not risk-free, a state-af-the•act combustc�r that ts we1� . �� . . operated should not p�esent a signiftcant risk ta human healtfi and ihe Qnviranme�� When recyeJing Is part of a cammunity's or a waste handler's chose,n Integrated waste management system, combustlon can compfement recycUng by reductng !he buik of the nonrecyctabie, nonreusabie waste. Llkewis¢, combustlan can be made more efflcient by soucce reduction and removal of recyclabies which are iess conducive to combustivn or whlch �ould lead to potenually harmful stack emissJons ar operaHonal problems caused by heterogeneous waste mixtures. Residual ash Is another probiern assocfated with combustors because of the sometlmes high metals content and the neec� to manage it Properly. L.afl, df_ �_c also ls lower in the hterarchy than source reductton, reus¢ and recyc!ing, bui is essentlal to handie wastes such as nonr¢cyclable waste and th� noncombusttbles such as demolltion waste and canstructlon debris. in �ddltion, fandfllls can provtde the beneflt of energy p��uctlon #hrough recoue of m tY ethane 9�• Landflils designated for handNng combustton ash reslduats �re essentia! and, in the absence of attemative ash management plans, must be pianned and d con�unction with the combustor. L.andfNls should also be usec� for mate taisQ�that cannot practicably be managed in any otfier way. A we!!-constructed, prope�iy aperated landflil shouid not pre.sent a slgnlficant healtFi rixk. As previousl mentlon comrnunitles and� waste handlers, based on land avaitabllit and y �d' sQme terlstics that make recyeling impraciJcat. ma choos � R°��f��an charac- . y e (and(Illing as thelr princlpal method of managing municlpa! waste. for t'he (oreseeable futurp, tanclftlls wUl be necessary to handte a signitfcant porllon of wastes, so steps mus� t�e taken to mt�k� landFllling as safe as posslbie. Wha's Re�ponslbfe? We ail are. Everyone has a role In making integrated waste mar�a ement w 9 ork. Industry has a responsiblilty to consJder source reductlon, reuse and recyciabtlitv in deslgning products and packaging, and ta use seconciary materi�is in It�eir rrj�nufacture. CI(izens have a responsibility to (e�rn about tt�e pr��ducis anc� pack��gtng tl�e� buy ancl the waste they create. What i, in the nroduct? Wf�at is recyci�blp? Wh at is 1� h . potenttally harmful? How long wil! the product last? Now much dar¢s �t cost to dispose of it? Every Individuat and corporate ,cJtizen shovid assume responslbstity for waste disposal and adopt a "pay-as•you-th�row" attitude•-a recognitio� of the true costs of disposing of the wastes we generate. who's R�b1e.t Waste management companles, including p�ocessors wE At1"AR�. and handlers of secondary materials, have a E+esponst- E�eeyo�ru iw�o rok!n �� bility for planning and implemenUng i�teqr�t¢d waste "'O"Qs�'`""°"t"'O�`' management for thelr communitles. Th¢y should wcrk tn partnership with stat¢ and locai publtc offlclals to plan and impiement integrated waste management and to educate the publlc. This partnership can be an effective mechan�sm for managtng municipal soiid waste. All levels of government, especiaily state, tribai and locai, are ultimately . responsible fo� managing waste and planning the mix of management options thnt wIN most effecttveiy handle the waste stream. The Federal government should partleipate in municipai so�id waste management by establtshing national goals ar�d leadersiaip, developing educatton programs, providing technlcai assistance, and lssuing regula- tfons. The Federal govemment aiso has a roie in establishing a framework for state. Tribal and local pianning, setting minimum standards for faeiiltfes, and encouraging the manufacturing industry to design products and pacicaging for effective waste management, as well as to uttltze secondary materiais in manufacturing. Finally, ait levels of government should set a good example by purchasing recycled or r¢cyclable products and products that have be¢n sub)ect to source reductio� whenever pc�sslble, and handling thelr own wastes in a way that facititates recycling and reuse. Ptann�ng Planning ts a vitai componeni in achieving a national goai of integrated waste management. Siting, designing, and butlding a landfill or combustion faciliry car� take many years. SimUarly, co(lecrion and recycling programs may take severai years to develop to fuN scale. This detay �s especlalty ditfkuit Eor communnies - 20 • , . expe�iencing an tmmedlate waste fiandiing capacity shortage, but it also may afiect communitlex that face posslt�Je capaciry p�oblems In the future. Tt►us, states, Cndian Tribes and iocai communittes should actively plan short- ar►d Iong�(erm �,�,a�t� p�Qgrams based on current and pro}ected characterlsttcs of thelr waste streams. Evaluating and implementing, where feasibie, the integrated waste management hterarchy at the loca( level he)ps sotve the probtems assc�ctated wlth waste management. Mlnimizing toxiclty and volume throvgh source reducllon, raus¢ and recycfing dlrectly addres,ses the problem ot capacity shortag¢ and potential risks from toxic constituents. . ,,1 ' . NATIONAG GOA4S The prvblems assocfated with municipal solid waste management, Including cost and capaclty, are f¢!t most directly and can best be handled at the tcxal level through tmplernentation of Integrated waste ma�agement praettces. These probiems. however, ar¢ also regional a�d natlonai In scope. The widening gap betwe¢n avallable capaclty a�d levels of waste generatton demands national solutlo�s and a long-term commltment by all. We can no longer rely on IandflUs to handle $0 percent of the natlon's waste. The United States must find a saFe and permanent way to e!!minat¢ the gap between waste generatlon and avallable capacity In iandfiits, combustors, and In secondary materials markets. How can this goal be accompllshed? W¢ must take short-term actlons now in ord¢r to soive the probi¢ms of today and tomorrow. Above ai1, we must increase source. reducilon and recycling act1u1t1es while making all 7�s UrocedStot�s musi management o�t+,^s rellabie and safe. EPA believes that. R�a�f��d vemwrfv�t to the extent practical, source -.:�uctlon and t�en u�oy ta�mfrwte tfx gop �e��`�,�� recycttn�are the preferred optlons for clostng the gap and avad�obie cepodty�n and reductng the amount and toxfci� of waste that must �O"dR��s' CO"'�"'�' be landitlled or combusted. To foster tmplementatlon of and in seccx�dary �,ar,er�a�s r�,arlcees. thls pfe#erence for sourc¢ reduction and recyclinc�, EFA s¢t a nattonal goai In January 198$ of 25 percent source reduction a�d recycltng (up from the current 10 percent) by 1992. Although recycltng (with spedal emphasls on composting of yard waste) wdl play the ma�or rote in achterring this goal, source reduction is an Important component. Whlle no long term numerical gval has been estabtished, we antidpate that the 25 pereent levei will be surpassed as capital recycltng equipment comes on-Itne. This wiil be especialiy tru� in the paper lndustry, where planning today wlll be essenNai to increastng domestic paper reeycfing 1n the rntd-1990's. Our nation musi siop the increase in our per per capita generation rate. �1nd. in tl�e long run, we must alsa strlve �o fed�� i Source reefuction and reevelin I�el , � . s p pre�ent many oF tha �,oblerr,s assoeiateci «�ii, municipai so�id waste. inciuding the pres�ing need to sile new I�ndfills anci comb��stors lo handie the farge volumes of waste being generaEecl. Prevenlin generation af wastes and diverting waste cvmpanents from fanctfills ancl combustors info reuse, recycting or composting heips to alleviate 5ltfng problems anci potentiat risks to human health and the envlronment attributable Eo tmproper managernent. Thus. planning and implementing these activiti¢s now yields bene(Its In mana in wa g g stes in the years to come. Reacfiing the 25 percent source reducUon and �ecycling goal wNl mean that the remainder wil! be handied by eombustlan and land(llis. On-ilne and aireaciy permitted. combusio�s are • pro)ected to handle about 20 percent ot the waste stream. The remainder {about 55 percent► ls pro)ected for landfills. . ---------- CURRENT SiTUATIQN u�x� � b ,� 111 � �Y+a�eMr;rn nEc�ra.�»� GC)AC F�R 1992 m- �. • l ii� 1HC1qEMi1 20 Iiil11 � �ECrC1E tsx ' �.7 - Even the most effecUve source reductton and recyc!!ng efforts, however, cannot handle the tota! waste rneam. Thus, EPA believes that al) waste manaqement�practices should be made safer. We w�it n¢ed landf111s and combustars into the io�eseeable future to process and dlspose of a slgniflcant ponlon of the waste stream. Improving the safety of these disposai aitematives, as we1� as matertals recovery and recycling facilitles, cnn help protect human health and the ¢nvironment and can only help gain publlc acceptance of all such facilltles. Qb)ec#ives The Task Force has ldentlfled six ob)ecttves for a national ag¢nda for actlon to solve the municlpal soiid waste difemma. By fulfi!ling these ob)ec#1v�s, we help overcome many of the problems associated with municlpai solld waste management, including siting problems, increased waste generatlon rates, concerns over human heaith and the environment, and, perhaps, some of the high costs of waste managem¢nt. in addltlon, by canying oui these objecttves--especialty by tncreasing source redurtion, recycltng, and effectfve planning--government, indushies, waste managers and citlzens wilt have helped fulfill the concept of Integrated waste management and will learn tv look beyond the "single solutivn" to waste probiems. The objectives are: � i. lncrease the waste pianning and management tnformaticr� (both technicai and educationai) avaitable to states, local tommunities, waste handlers, citizens, and tndus#ry, and increase data cciyection for research and development. . 2. lncsease effecttve ptanning by waste handiers. locai communities. and states. 3. Increase source reduction activittes by the manufactur�ng Industry, government and citizens. � 4 Increase recycling by governrnent and by individuat and corporate citi2ens. 5. Reduce risks from municipal solid waste combustion in c�rd�r to protect human health and the environment. - 24 - 6. Reduce rlsks fram landiills In otder to pratect human heetth a�nd •the environment. The foitowing Agenda For Action Is structured within the framewark of these slx ot��ectives. Each ob)ecttve Is brietty de�crtbed, and rotes for gov�rnrnent {Federal, state, trlbe and local), tndus-t7y and cttizens are summarized. A table of next sEeps follows each ob)ecttve, for easy reference by the reader. The Task Force recelved many suggestions on potential activns, a�d studled a number of different options. The fo{Iowing actlon items are cuiled from the la�get array of optlons, and constltute a minimum program for meeting the a_ave-stated goals. Most of these actfons received broad-based support from publlc commentocs. Elements that were noted by commentors as being especlally lmportant are a nationai cl¢aring- house ior Information dlssemination, Federai procurement guldeltnes for fecycled gvods, market deveiopment studles fo� recycling, design anci operatlon sta�dards toT IandfiJls, and atr emission and aperator certtficatton standards (or combustors. - �J . k TABtE 1. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA TO INCREASE INFQRMATtON . Develop Educatlonal Materials , Begln complting available matertals . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVEMBER 1988 Cataloglbibliography ot avallable materlals . . . . . . . MAY 1989 Identify educatlonai materials needed . . . . . . . . . . JUL.Y 1989 Review cost methodologtes for true cost accounting . . . . . AUGUST I9$9 Develop Technicai Materials Review and summarize state tir� management programs . . . . . JANUARY 1940 Begin compiiing avallabie matertals . . . . . . . . . . , NiOVEMBER 19$8 (dentify technlcal materlals needed . . . . . . . . . . . JULY 1489 Publlsh declston•malcers gutde for local waste managers . . . . SEFTEMBER 1'989 Coltect Data and Estabtish Research and Development Agenda Natio�a! research conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . FESRUARY 1989 Establish a Clearfnghause Estabpsh functlons far a ctearinghouse . . . . . . . . . . JANUARY 1989 Clearinghouse operationai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER 1989 Estabtish a Peer Matching Program PTogram operattonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JULY 19$9 - 35 • � a . . : � . . . . . 3 . � . . � . � . . . . . . � . TAEiI.E Z. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA T(� ENCOUR�GE iNCREAS�D RL.ANNlMG Devejop 5tate Sfrategles First regianal workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP�}L 29$9 EPA reviQws selected state pfans to provide Techntcztt Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �UGUST 1989 - 39 � . � . TABLE 3. NEXT STEPS FQR EPA TU ENC4URAGE INCREASED SOURCE REDUCTiON ACTiViT1ES Mln�mizc Toxic Constituents and Materials in Waste Determtne which products, If any, are sources of(ead and eadm�um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JANUARY 1989 Screen for potentlal substitutes for lead and cadmium . . . . AUGUST 1984 Evaluate regulatory and non-regulatory optlons for � restrlcUo� on, or substitutton for lead and cadmlum In products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVEhtBER 1989 Initfate Investigation of other toxic constituents in products . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER 19$4 Evaluate need for Federal testing guldellnes . . . . . . . . . NU1lEMBER 1989 Minimtze the Amount of Waste Genernted Study on economic lncentives . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER 1989 Estabtish corporate recognitlon program . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER I989 Design fo�source reducilo� workshops . . . . . . . . JUL�r �3 Incresse Procurement of Products Srv`ith Source Reduction Attsibutes Form F¢derat Task Group to study procurement tsame group as for pfocurement of recycled pcoducts! . . . . NQVEMBER 1989 �:udy of passibte changes In procurement pvilcies . . . JUNE 1940 Study Ongoing or Potenttat Source Reductloa PoUcies Degradable Plastic Study by General Accountfng Office . . . , SEP7EMBER 1988 (nitiate database fvr tracking state source reduction programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUNE. ' 1989 - 47 . . * TABI.E 3. (Contlnued) NEXT STEPS FOR EPA T4 ENCQUFtAG� tNCitEASED SOURCE REDUCTIQN ACTIVITIES EPA Report to Congress on Plastics . , . . . . . . . . . JUNE I984 (nitfate user fee study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC?VEMBEF� 1989 Household Hazardous Waste Confere�ce. . . . . . . . . . . NOVEMBER l�$9 � - 4� _ � . TABLE 4. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA TO PARTiCIPATE IN AND ENEOURAGE INCREASED RECY�LtN+lG Stimulate Markets for Secondary Materfals Study on exlsting economlc and transportatton dlslncenttves to recyciing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER 1989 Study on potentiai recycling incentfves to encourage recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QECEMBER 1989 Market development study for paper . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER 1989 Market development study for compost . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER I489 inittate gutdelines tor compost faciiittes . . . . . . . . NOVEMBER �989 Inrtiate guidellnes for compost quality . . . . . . . . . NOVEMBER 19$9 Form EPA Working Group for implementtng procurement. . . . N04'EMBER 19$8 Form Federal Task Group for imptementing procurement . . . NQVEMBER 19$9 Finaf tire procurement gutdellnes . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVEMBER 1988 Ftnal Insulatlon materlais procurement guldellnes . . . . . FE6RUARY I989 Study on procurement of other rnaterials. . . . . . . . . . . , AUGUST 1989 Better Separation. Colleetlon Processing a�d Recycli�g of Waste . Initlate modet training program for recycling coordinators . . NQVEMBER 1989 Review regulatory, non-regulatory aptions for batteries . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . AUGUST 1989 Evaluate recycling of wh►te goods and other metals . . . . . ONGOING Form interagency work group on recycling and separation in Federal agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUGUST 1989 Modef educatlon program for Federal agencies . . . . . . . . JUNE 198g i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T'AI3l.E 4. {Contlnued) PVEXT STCFS FC}R EPA TO PARTIClPATE tN ANT.� ENCOURAGE tNCRFASED F�ECYCLtNG Natlo�at Recycling Councii Facllltate the fo�mation of the Nattonai Councll . . . . . . . MARCH 19$9 I�tevtew incentives and Distncentive of L,labtNty � Review of lead-actd batteries and metat- shredding byproducts . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ONGQtNG • �� . � � . TRBL.E 5. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA TO HELP REDUCE TME RfSKS OF CUI'�IBUSTi(?N Upgrade Combustor Performance Standacds and Ash Managemeet : PToposed air em�ssion standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVEMBER 1989 Final atr emtssion standards . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER i994 4perator Certffication Resoive issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUNE 1989 Dectde whethe• � ?velop a model operator certtficacion program . . , . . . . . . . . . �� SER 1989 Bans on Materials from incinerators (See also Tabie 3, Minimizing Toxlc Constltu¢nts and Materlals ln Wastel Provide information on probtem wastes tsee aiso Table 6, Bans vn MateMals from Landfitls) . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER I9$9 _ �;� . � ,. i . � . � . � � � � � � � � . i-� . . .. . . � � � . . . .. . k.: .� � � � � � . . � . . . . . � . TABI.E 6 NEXT STEPS FOR EPA T4 HE�P REDU�E TNE RISKS OF LANDFILLlNG Operafor certlfication Tratning materlals for operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER 1989 Siate certlileatlon guldance . . . . , . . . . . . . DECEMBER 1990 Design ar�d operation standards Prapose revlsed minimum crlterla for landfllls . . . . . . AUGUST 14$$ Issue Unal �r�ter�a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER 1989 Atr emission standards proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAY 1990 final air emission standa�ds : . . . . . . . . . AUGUST 1991 Education and TechNcat Assistancc Technlcal guidance for the revlsed land(lU criterla , . . . JANUARY 1490 Bans on Materials from Land�llUng �see aiso Tabfe 3, MInlmlzing Toxlc Constttuents and Matertals In Wastel Provide intvrmaRton on problem wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . QECEMBER I989 (see also Table S. 6an on Matertals #rom combusto�sl • 6 9 - 'i .. �. � . . . . . . . . � . �. . � . . .. . . . � � .. � . . � . : . � . . � . . _ �,�� • < !� 1��-,��. CITY 4F ROSEMOUNT , A G E N D A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING � , MAY 1; 1989 6;30 P.M. i � 1 . Ca11 to Order/Pledge of' Allegiance I , ; � 2. Additions or Corrections to Agenda j - , � , ; 3. Presentations by Metropolitan Council Staff ; ; � �!. Adj ournment , ; .. � . . . . . . � . . � � . � . . �. . . . : f . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . ' �.. . �� . � � . . . . � . , .. � . . . . � - .. . . . . . . . .. . i .. ��.� � � � � . . . . . � . . . . . � .. � . �� . . . . � .. � .. . . . .. � . . �. . . � . � . � ' .�. . .� . . . . .. . j . . . . . . . . � ..� � � �. � � . � . � � � . . . � � . ; � � . . . . . . . � . . . . . � � � .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . � .. .. � . . Risk Assessment . � Choosing Between Resource Recovery Facilities and Landfills Health rishs are often cited$y the op�o�zen�s af waste-to-energy faci.l.ities. But air pollutant emissions from landfills may pose euen a greater risk to public � � health. , � ; �y David H. Minott � 1 he majority of the municipal solid land511s. The CQNEG study compared levels of health risk assc�ciated with ( � waste stream continues to be managed the types and levels af toxic air ashfills. Fropased new regulatic�ns � � through dispasal, even in cities with pollutants emitted from resource re- under RGRA, Subtitle D, would re- � significant recycling and waste reduc- covery facilities versus municipal quire tiners to be placed beneath tion programs. For that haction of landfills, as well as the degree to which ashfilis, and all rainu�ater that filters ' � solid waste that cannot be recycled such emissions can be controiled in through the ash to the liners to be � economieaily, there are only two each case, and the leve! of health risk collected. This leachate must be � � practieat disposal aptions: resource associated r��ith toxic air pollutant tested for unaccQptable levels of tcn�ic i (energy) recovery facilities and' land5ll emissions fiom landfips versus energy pollutants prior to discharge. Such facilities. recovery facilities. The CONEG study controi requirements are being im- � � One factor that should weigh heavily used a nationai data base assembled by plemented to precl�de significant risk � � in deciding between these options is our company since 1986 on the subject of groundwater eontamination from � f' the issue of hea}th risks. Until recent- of risks for energy recovery facilities ashfills. � ly, however, there have been few, if versus landfills. For rnunicipal waste landfills, the � any, attempts to put energy recovery In support o{ plans to regulate air principa! s�urce c�f health risk per- � � facilities and landfill facilities 'bn an pollutant emissions from rnunicipal ceived by the public is risk of water- � equal footing"to compare health risks. waste landfills, the Environmentat supply contamination, Indeed, in= Such a factual comparison is needed. Protection Agency (EPA) recently stances of groundwater contamination � For example, the public is certainly issued a study of the air po}lutant have occurred, but litde quantitative aware that stack emissions from emissions from landfills, ernission information regarding such potential energy recovery facilities can pose a controt alternatives, and ernissions- risk for landfills of modern design is potential heaith risk, and the issue has related health risks. Based on the available at i.his time. EPA"s recenkly caused intense debate and spawned results of the CONEG and EPA proposed new regulations that impvse � nationally vrganized opposition. With studies, we can compare air-pallutant design requirements c�n new municipal landfills, however, while the public has emissions, control measures, and waste landfills may preclude significant long understood that a potential exists health risks of resource recovery risk of groundwater contamination. for leachate contamination of ground facilities and landfilts on an equal Such design requirements inctude � water, public reaction has largely been footing. liners, leaehate collection, and ground- one of general concern, rather ihan water mc�nitoring. widespread, intense opposition. More- Sources of Health Risk A demonstrably significant sout�ee of over, the public is virtually una�vare at Energy-R,ecovery and health risk at municipal landfi)Is is the j that emissions of toxie air pollutants Lancifill Facilities emissions from landfills of toxie air p fram munieipal landfilts are common, Air poliutant errvssions are the pollutants. Alth4ugh the pub}ic is and at levels that can ose a si ificant S' p gn principal source of concern for pc�ten- virtually unaware that landfills com- risk to pubfic health. tial health risks associated with energy monly emit toxic air pollutants, con- C Recently, the Coalition of North- reco��ery facilities, and such risks have siderable study has #�een carried out i eastern Governors (CQNEG) com- been the subject of considerable study. reeently to assess the potential heatth � j pleted a study to objectively cornpare There is also concern over the risk from landfill gas emissions. 1 risks of en��-�:• recovery facilities and possib}e risk �f �vater-supply eontam- Because Iittle quantitati��e informa- ` � - ination as a consequence of landfilling tion is available regard'mg the risk of ( � Davi.d H. ll1x:reott is vice president the ash residue from these facilities. water-suppiy c�ntamination from either of Alterna.ti.r�e Resources, Inc., a Scant quantitative infnrn3ation is pub- e�aer�}� recorerv ashfilts or from � 2 solicl rucz,ste eonsulting firm. licly available, ho��ever, regarding the municip�i �>aste la»clfills, this article � '�• i_ 18 SC�L1il 1tiAS7'E&PO�t'ER/APRIL 1989 F� 1 ; . � . . � . . � . � � � � � � . . . ! � . � . . . � . . . . . .. . . . � . . � . . � . . �. � . � .. . �. Table 1: Health Risk Assessments tor Energy Recovery Facilili�s �� Csreinogenic Flue-Gas Exposwe Poitulants Risk' : Facilrry Setling Gon1ro/ Pathways Considered (per Mrl/fon) EXISTING NEW YORK FACILITIES Oneitia Urban& ESP Inhalaiion Dioxins, Furans � {200 TPD) Rural Gattaraugus(112 TPDj Rural None inhalation Dirncins,Furans 7 Westchester Rural& ESP Inhalation Qioxins, Furans 2 t' (2250 TPD? Urban � Albany Answers Urban ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans s (ADF-600 TPD) •• ; Occidental Urban ESP inhalafian Dfoxins, �urans 21 , (RDF-2400 TPD) PLANNED FACtL(TIES r ' Lancasier Co., PA Rurai Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil figestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 4 ,,: ' �, (1200 TPD) Baghouse Food Chain, Dermal Contact Organics,7race Metals , �f,.� N.Hempstead, NY Urban Scrubber, inhai8tion,Soil Ingestion, Diaxins, Furans,Othe� 1 •� (990 TPDj Baghouse Food Ghain, Dermal Contact Organics,Trace Metals Erie, PA Urban Bagfiouse, inhalaiion Dioxins, Furans 0.3 � (RDF-710 TPD) Fumance � Scrubber York Co., PA Rural Scrubber, inhalation,Sofl Ingestion, Divxins,Furans,Other 5 ' � (1344 TPD) Industrial Baghouse Food Chain,Dermal Contact Organics,Trace Meials � Brooklyn, NY Urban Scrubber, lnhalation,Soii Ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 2 „ � (3000 TPD) Baghouse Food Chain, Dermai Gontact C3rganics,Trace Metais , Washington Co., NY Rural Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil ingestio�, Dirncins,Furans 10 f . I (400 TPD) ESP Food Chain,Dermal Contact �--�` � I Boston, MA Urban Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other 2 � (1516 TPD) ESP Dermal Contact Organics,Trace Metals i Philadelphia, PA Urban Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil Ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Othar 1 � (2250 TPD) BagMouse Food Chain,Dermel Contact Organics,Trace Metais Stanisiaus Co.,CA Urban& Scrubber, Inhalation,Soil Ingestion, Dirncins, Furans,Other 2 (500 TPD) Rural Baghouse Food Chain, Dermal Contact Qrganics,Trace Metals San Marcos,CA Urban Scrubber, Inhalation Dioxins, Furans,Other 3 (1600 TPDJ Baghouse Organics.Trace Metals Irvvindale,CA Urban Scrubber, inhalation,Soil ingestion, Dioxins, Furans,Other (3000 TPD) Baghouse Food Chain,Dermal Contact Organics,Traee Metais 'Upper-bound estimate oi ihe number of cancer cases per miilion people exposed, based on continuous exposure to maximum impacts 24 hours per day,everyday,tor a 70•year litetime. � compares the potential health risks facility developers and operators dem- Particulate matter is controlled with � associated with toxic air pollutant onstrate that facility impacts of criteria eiiher an electrostatic precipitatar ! ernissions from energy recovery facil- pollutants do not cause violation of (ESP) or a fabric filter (baghouse). � ities with those from mu�veipal land- ambient standards, public health in- Both -types of devices, as designed ' �S• terests are preserved. today, remove partieulate matter with A.ir Pollutan�Emissions and Of greater interest in the public greater than 99 pereent ef5ciency, health de6ate are emissions of toxic althongh the overall removal efficiency Control at Energy R,ecovery pollutants for wl�ich no Pederal ambi- is slightly higher €ar the baghouse. Facilities ent standards exist: acid gases (e.g., The baghouse also provides better The principal source of potentiat hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride), control of the xespirable-sized particles health risk for energy recovery facil- trace metals (especially arsenic, beryl- (2-nucron or less diameter) to which ities is as a consequence of toxic lium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, toxic trace organic eompounds and pal}utant emissions from the stack. nickel}, and trace organic compounds trace metals adhere. ; Pollutants en�itted inciude EPA "cri- (esaeciaHy dioxins, furans, PC$, I'AH, Control of trace metais is aehieved ' . teria" }�ollutants (particulate rnatter, c}ilorophenols, chlorobenzenes). Of principally by capiure of particulate sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon these toxic p�liutants, the trace matter vvith high eKciency. Except far i monoxide, lead, and volatile hydro- organic compounds and all trace mercury, «�hich remains �tolatile and carbons), as well as other poilutants metals (exeept mercury) are known or resists capture, t}-ace meiai eontral in � �J' (acid gases, irace organic compounds, suspected to cat�se cancer. tite ran�e of G5-9�3 �ercent is reported ; f` and traee n�elals). En3issions cat�trol techy�olo�y capa- �a�ith ESI's, and hi�lier removal effi- i n For criteria poliutants, EPA has ble of redueing toxic air pollutant ciencies of 95-99 percent ha�e been j -' established National Ambient Air emission te��els to small le�•els is no�u oblained �~�ith baghc�uses. G�ua}ity Standards to protect public b�th at•ailable and r�utinety rec��ired licic� gases af�d clilfur clioxide are hcalth. '['hus, �r-l�en energy reco��ery far i�etv ener�;y recovery facilities. typic�lly ccmtrcalled��i[i�ftae-gas scrub- 20 SOLID 11AS7'E�:POt1�ERlAPRIL 1939 � , � bers, pr�viding removat efficiencies of Dioxin and furan removai efficiencies deca�3es after the lancifili is closed. 90 p�rcei�t or inore for acid gasses and achieved wiih FSPs are reported in �,�n�(�� R�s is comp�7sed chiefly of the ` al Icasl 70�ercent for suifur dioxide. lhe ran e c�f a roximatel 50-8J • K UP Y pater�tially expivsi��e Kas, methane, but . Uioxins ca�i tornr in lhe furnace, and percent, artd for baghouses, approxi- a�so ��ntai��s ��rnus sulfur com- can also form in the ductwork between mately 84-9�percent. pounds, volatile organic compounds the fiarnaee and the stack as the flue (VOC) thou�ht by some to contribute gas begins to cool. Dioxin forn�ation in �r I'ollutant Emissions and to violatians o€ the ozone ambient the furnace is controlled through the Control at Munieipal Landfilis standards, and quantities of toxic combination of high combustion tem- As waste decomposes in a landfill, organic eompaunds such as rinyl perature, sufficient gas "residence "landfill gases" are formed and are chloride and benzene, which have � time" in the furnace, and sufficient emitted to the ambient air above the cancer-causing potentiaL turbulence during cornbustion. Dioxins landfill surface. Landfill gas can also Emissions of vin}�I chloride, a known and furans that form in the flue-gas migrate laterally beneath the surface human carcinogen, are of particular duckwork are controtled by efficient to locations offsite, inctuding into the importance. Recent research has dem- � capture of the flue-gas particles onto basements of homes near the landfill. onstrated that vinyl ctiloride is formed ! � which the dioxin and furans condense. I.andfill gas production can persist for jn Iandfills during ihe bacterial decom- � position of munieipa} soGd waste � containinA smali amc�unts of chlorine- ' containing solvents, such as common � i �� eteaning solvents, and that vinyl chloride emissions do not resnit fram � � the breakdown of polyvinyl ehloride � � � � � D � {PVC)glastics found in the waste. �■ R � Foilowing incidents such as tandfill- � gas fires in the early 1980s at the F Q R A L L Y O U R S I Z E R E D U CT I O N N E E D S �ceanside, California, landfill and a land511 gas explosion at the Greentree � — " landfill in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1983, � �` , regulatory agencies stepped up efforts � �-''� - to test land6tls to determine the I ��:� ;� � :��- ' �� -; quantities and constituents of gases � ��` 7�1�' ��'�,'r�,� being emitted. The most comprehen- ;;� ' �,.��„�.: ' � 1 t: sive program undertaken to identi#y �� " K,� �"T— �`�"� : � and quantify to�cic compounds in landfill r. � gas is that eamed out in California � since the mid-1980s by the South M o b i l e . . . Coast Air Quality Management District . . . or Stationary (SCQA1vID). SCAQMD reported on , landfill gas testing at 20 landfilis in Saturn offe�s a complete line of shredding equipment to California that aecept vn�y munic�pal handle virtually any waste reduction requirement. With Waste. Both active and closed landfills Saturn's patented hydraulic drive and automatic anti- �'ere tested. SCAQMD detected significant quan- jamming capabilities, trouble�ome materiats are readily tities of some ten toxic compounds ir, reduced without stress on shredder or shredder drive tt,e landfitl gas emissions �uncon- systems. Saturn Shredders can't be beat for size reduc- trolled) from n,ost of the landfills. ti0►1 Ot1: Approximately 85 percent of alt 20 tandfills tested had detectable levels of I MSW • PALLETS • HAZARDOUS • DRUMS the carcinogens, vinyl chlonde and/or ( IN-PLANT • WfRE CABLE + WOOD PRODUCTS benzene, and over half showed signif- icant c�ncentratians, i.e., in excess of NON FfRROUS • NUCLEAR lOW RAD • PLASTlCS 1 part per million Eppm). TIRES • ETC. Five of the tested landfills ��ere active, and a}I had vinyl chloride levets To get more information and arrange for a test on your in che ga$►n excess�t� part per ba�;on mate�ial, please write or call: (ppb), a»d four had benzene levels of 1 ppm or m�re. lnactive landfi})s a�ere MAC/SATURN Corporation �� also reported to ha��e "significant 201 f.Shady Grove Road �� amc�w}ts of ��inyl cl�loride." Grand Pra�ne,Texas 75050 �� I�aving docume��(ed that foxic p�I- (Zi4)��o-�eoo C�JU L1U-1.� lutants are indeed emitted from most FAx:(214)790-8733 landfills, SCAt�R�U testec} for the CIRCLE 160N RFAGER�ERVICE CAFiD presence nf tc>�ic pollutants affsitP in 22 SOL1p 11:1�'I'E& f'Ut4'ER/AYRfI.19S9 , � � the ambient air near five landfiils. Vinyl which cvouid re uire Assessin �ie�lth Risks q gas collection, � chloride concentrations were detected and control of toxic organic pol(utants �Vith air pol(utant emissions fr�m . in the ambient air near the "Operating in the gas with 98 percent efficiency. energy recovery� and landfill facitities, Industries" landFili at tevels exceeding Another similar regulation is being it is earcinogenic risk th�t is the ; Catifornia's 24-hour ambient standard developed for existing fandfilis. EPA primary health issue. This is because for vinyl chtoride of lU ppb, indicating has pro�osed that the regulations will significant carcin�genic risk can result ; a heatth threat. apply to current and new }andfills from tong-tetm exposure to even ; The State of �Visconsin has also designed for or reaching 1 n�iltion mim�te po1lR�tank eoncentrations. ; been active in tandC�l-gas testing. metric tons of deposited waste. As an Cancer risk is assessed in terms of � Wisconsin tested 13 murucipal landfills example, a medium-sized region�l an upper-F�ound estimate of the num- � and found "significant" viny( chloride land6lt of 5Q0 tpd capacity would reach ber of cancer cases to be expected if a emissions at six landfills, and de- the 1 million mark in about 6 years. population of 1 million people wece tectable levels at two others. In New jersey, testing of the Pennsauken landfill in 1985 showed � � „ � significant emissions of the carcino- • • � • � • i gens benzene and perch}oroethylene. uO� �� p�nuOU�e� f7 G) Vf fl G � Land�ll Gas Controls i Presently, landfill gases are not STANDARD CONSTRUCTION � � controiled at the majority of landfills in Walk•in Plenum � ( the United States. Recently, however, ��ded Constructior� _..._ _.. � I a number of states have moved to •Seal welded inside 4 require such controls, and nationat Punched Hole Tube Sheets i •Designed for Snap Band Bags , , requirements appear to be in the Integral Vertical Wire Cages and � ; � of6ng. Venturi - � Control of landfill gas begins with a �nsutation and lagging w; � x�-: � Support Steei ��: �� gas collection system. The collection �"� j �i'� Walkway at Door Level : �.:�; , system includes a netwark of porous Access ladders .; � � piping beneath the landfill to collect the OP710NS gas produced there, and to direct the Control Paneis ; � ; collected gas to vents above the landfill .r� � , PLC Gontrollers - surface. Impervious barriers, when Hopper Heaters . ... i ' installed, prevent subsurface migration Poppet Oampers a. �.,� � of the gas offsite. Ctosed portions (or Butterfiy Dampers Rotary Air Locks ' "celis" of a landfill can be covered with Screw Conveyors � an impervious "cap" to prevent "fugi- Explosion Proof Electronics ¢ ! tive°ernissions af the gas to the air. Explosion Paneis ; E Gas direeted ta the vents can then Hopper High Level Switches � be controlled by several methods, the Acid Gas Treatment Systems � most popular being•�flaring and the air-To•Air Fiue Gas Goolsrs r combustion of the gas in an internal- r combustion or turbine engine to LA(3GIN0 DESIGN fEATURES i generate electricity. Gas treatment Factory insufation and lagging is engineered and designed to meet the condi- � (such as carbon filtration) is another tions of each application. Factory application provides much greater quality � � method used to remove toxic poi- controL � lutants from landfill gas. Doors are designed with Hot Gas Applications in mind. � � Because of recent findings that Penetrating components are designed to allow the proper insulation of �r i municipal tandfills commonly emit immediate area(s}. k ; significant quantities of toxic pollutants �agging on roof is of the Stand Seam Design to eiiminate water leaks which such as vinyl chloride, in cases would cause corrosion of outside skin of the dust collector. resulting in a demonstrated public Field-appfied insulation is kept to a minimum,normaliy less#han 5%of 3otal. ; health threat, a growing number of � states, as well as the EPA, are Sp�ffic GMD fabrication specifications rrrinimize corrosion of inner surfaces. � � implementing requirements for land611 SINGLE SOURCE RESPONSIBILiTY gas testing and installation of tandfill � gas collection and control systems. GMD ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. services are not lim�ted to equipment ; The list includes California, Wisconsin, ��PP�Y•We can provide you with our"Totai"ssrvices,providing singie source ' and New Jersey, and likety others. responsibility for the design,fabrication,erection,and start-up o(your entire � ' The EP�1 is developing new regula- �abric Fiiter System.This ensures the most ecanom+caf system,completed { � tians, likely to be prop�secl this year, w�thin budget and in a timely manner. �, t0 j1t111f.Idl'!(ICIll g1S effllSStOitS E�lCOUg}t d CIRCIE BS ON READER SERVICE CARD New Source Performance Standard, GM� Engineered Systems,tnc.•P.O.Box ttJ75•Fo�t Worth,T,zas 78110•�arnszs-s�a.Fax�s,�sr�.00as �; ��E.t�ti',1S'i'E&t'{)�4ERfAPRti.I989 23 � � � Table 2: Heaith Risk Assessments for Municipal Landfills �eCf�tmecl t� date IoC toxiC 8ir-pol- lutant emissions from individuaf landfitl faci(ities, and these have, for the most '.� Landlil! � Gas f'ollutants Risk�nogenic ��rt, bet�n "fir'�t-Ctit" as5es5m�nts. Location sratus conr�oi Consrdered (per Mi!/ron) �I'he results oE risk assessn�ents '� San Diego,CA HyQothetical None Benzene,8 other organics, 43o Performed fc�r two landfilis not having "� (2,250 TPD) LandiiHt�1 vinyl chloride not studied g1s COt1ti'OIS �t'e sho�vn in Table 2, � �.. /.R." . . '; Montgomery Co.,MD Hypothetical None Vinyt chloride,benzene, 1•50�z> with risic tevels intliC�tCd WGI} in •� (�,soo TPQ) �andfiut+� otner oryan�cs excess of the acceptable range. Risk 'a Sylmer,CA Active Flare Vinyi chloride,other Less than 1 assessments performed for two okher ' •% (unk.TPD} organics ''i� Simi vaue ,CA Active Engine vi�yl chloride,other 1� faeilities assumed to have gas controls ..,: {est.soo�PD) organics in ptace are also summarized in Table 'si � Ri k t r 2, and the risk levels are significantty s s o a h othetical Iandiili were ass s " 1 O yp e sed as the a ternative"to a proposed (otver. �''+: energy-recovery(acility. �� (2) The range is indicative of analytical unc�rtainty. ��'� has reCently completed a .;r; generic risk assessment for landfills �vithout gas controls and found the risk j:�� to be in the range of 100 to 10,000 cases per million people exposed. This '•� exposed to the maximum emissions pounds, and trace metals. Most also risk is a full order of rttagnitude greater 'ti impact &om a facility, 24 hours per considered exposure to emitted pol- than has been indicated as a worst- day, every day, for a ?Q-year lifetime. lutants by various exposure pathways: case risk for older, poorly-designed �� These assumptions help to ensure inhalation; ingestion and dermal con- energy recovery plants. i conservatism in the risk assessment. tact with contaminated soils (children The initial effarts to assess the risk Determining the significance of an are especiaily exposed to soils); and associated with land611 gas emissians estimated level of eancer risk is the food chain. have met with same controversy and ' difficult, because this requires sub- As shown in Table 1, with the peer criticisrn. Nonetheless, these risk ` jective judgment regarding what level emissions controls planned, risks es- data do support the position of the of risk is acceptable. Most often this timated for the 11 facilities are within regulatory agencies fihat uncontrolled ? judgment is made case-by-case. Based, the aceeptable range of 1 to 10 cases }andhll gas emissions pose a potentially however, on the historical actions of per million. These risk estimates significant risk, if one presumes "ac- regulatory and health agencies which reflect the cumulative risk from a(1 eeptable" cancer risk to be in the perform and review risk assessments, pollutants and all exposure pathways range of 1-10 cases per million. The ` a maximum individual cancer risk of analyzed. limited data also suggest that gas ' less than 1 case per milGon peopte EPA has conducted generic assess- controls have the potential to bring � exposed is normally considered "in- ments af inhalation-related risks for these risks into the acceptable range. significant" risk, and risk levels be- energy recovery facilities of both older tween 1 and 10 cancer cases per and modern designs. For those exist- �onclusion million exposed are considered "ac- ing plants having the poorest com- Emissions of toxic potlutants from � ceptable," providing all reasonable bustian etficiency, mediocre control of �laruled, new energy recovery facit- 1 means to reduce risk have been particulate emissians, and no scrub- ities (and likely the majority of facilities adopted. bers, EPA estimated risks as high as currentiy in operation)pose aeceptable Both operating and proposed energy 1,Q04 cases per million. This risk level levels of risk, (in the range of I to 1(1 recovery facilities have been the is well beyond the acceptable range in a million). By contrast, ernissions of subject of numeraus risk assessments and shou(d prompt more refined toxic poliutants &orn municipat landhlis since 1985. New York State has led assessments to evaluate whether without lanclfilt gas contro(s (including the country in performing risk assess- some plants af older design require most existing and many planned i ments on operating plants, based on retroC�tting with modern a'rr pollution landfilts) may pose a potential health actuat, tested emissions. A sununary controls. h�zard that exceeds acceptable levels. of risk assessments performed for five With regard to modern plants, Implemer�tation of controls on landfill energy recovery facilities operating in however, plants that feature high gas emissions may be necessary at New York is presented in Table 1. combustion ef6ciency, baghouses, and some, and perhaps many, landfills to � Also in Table 1, a summary is scrubbers, EPA calculated the risk to reduce risks to within acceptabte � provided of risk assessments per- be in the range of 1 to 10 cases per leueis; however, this will need to be formed since 1985 for 11 energy million. The EPA assessment shows, confrrmed by additional field testing recavery facilities pianned in Pennsyl- therefore, that risks associated with and risk assessment of emissions from vania, New York, California, and madern facilities are within the ac- land6[ts where controls are installed. Massachusetts. The planned facilities ceptable range. ❑ range in size from 500 TPD to 3,000 TPD capaeity, and would be located in Health Risks for Air Dczvid H. Minott can be reached at urban, rurai, and mixed [and-use �'ollutant Emissions from Alternateve Resources, Inc,; Dce- ; settings. Most of the risk assessments Landfills monmill Square, Suite 4DA; 3 ' cansidered exposure to emissions af Only a limited number of quantita- Pand L,cane; Concord, MA 01742- dioxins, furans, other organic com- tive risk assessments haue been 2853. 24 SOLID WASTE&PQWEKlAPR[L 1989 ,� , Presented at tht faurtfi Internstionsl Conlerence on Urbs� ti Solid Yast• Iqn�oement �rd Meterists, Phil�dei�hi�, PA, Daeember 6•9, 196�. � HEALTH RISKS AND THE CHOICE $ETWE�N RESOURCE RECOVERX FACII,zTZES AND MUNICiPAL LANDFII.IS by David H. Minott, C.C.M. , Vice President Alternative Resources, Inc. Damonmi3l Square, 9 Pond Lane Concord, MA Oi742 � � � ) 371 - �� >'� � INTRODUCTION While it is practical to look to recycling for manaqement of up to, perhaps, 25 percent of the municipal waste stream, the majority of our solid waste must continue to be managed through disposal. For that fraction of solfd waste which cannot be =ecycled economically, there are only two disposal options: resource (energy� recovery facilities and landfill facilities. One factor that should weiqh heavily ir� deciding between these two disposal options is the issue of health risks. Until recently, however, there have been few, if any, attempts to put energy recovery facilities and landfill facilities "on an equal footing" for �t comparfson of h�alth risks. 5uch a factual comparison is needed. For example, the public is certainly aware that stack emissio�s from energy recovery facilities can posa a potential health risk, and the issue has caus�ed intense debata and sgawned nationally-organized opposition. With landfills, however, while tha public has long understood that u potential exists for l�achata contamination ot qround watez, public reaction has b��,�t larqely one ot qeneral concern, rather tMan widespraad, intense opposition. Mor�over, the public is virtually unawars that emissions of toxic afr pollut�nts from municipal land�filia are common, and at levels that can pose a siqnificant risk to public health. Recently, the Coalition of Nartheastern Governor� (CONEG) completed a study (�) ta objectively compare risks of energy recovery facilities and landfills. The focvs ot the CONF.G study was a comparison of the types and level� of toxic air 4� . . � � � � � � .� � . � � . . . � � � pollutants emitted from zesource recovery faeilities� versus municipal iandfills, as well as th� deqre� to �rhich such emissions can be controlled in each oSs�� at�d the lev�l of health risk associat�d with toxic air pollutant emissions from landfi2ls v�rsus enerqy recovery facilities. The CONEG study used a national data base ass@mbled by Altemative Resources, Inc. since 1986 on the subject of risks for energy recovery facilitfes versus landfills. In support of plans to regulate air pollutant emissions from municipal waste landfilis, EPA recently issued a s�kudy af landfill air-pollutant emissions, emission control alternatives, and emissions-related health risks. Based on the results of the CONEG and EPA studies, the present paper puts resource recovery facilities and landfi].ls on an equai footing for comparison of air-pollutant emissions, contra3 measures, and health risks. SUMMARy 1. This study has focused on a comparison of h�alth risks associated with emissions of toxic air pollutants from enerqy-recovery versus landfill facilfties. While the focus here is on risks stemming from air pollutant emissions, it is recoqnized that the landlilling of ' municipal waste, as well as the landfillinq of ash residue from energy recovery facilities alsa present a risk of contamination to g�oundwater. Littl� quantitative information has been developed to,date, however, regarding health risk associated with the potential for groundwater contaminatfon by landfills and ashfills. While not address�d in the present study, this - issue merits systematic, quantitative investigation, and subsequent pubifc discussion. EPA is presently developinq desiqn and operational guidance for landfilling ot both solid waste and ash residue in order to preclude significant risk o! water contaminaticn. . Z. Whil� det�rmination of what con�titutes an acc�ptable Iev�l ot risk is hiqhly subjective, cancer risk af less than i� chance in a million is normally considered insiqnilicant, and risk in the rnnge ot 1 to lo in a mil.lion ia qenerally considered acceptabl�, based on past determinationa by regulatory agencies. 3. Energy recovery facilities emit qvantities o! carcinogenic pollutants to the air. Of principal cancern are the cnrcinogens, dioxins, furans, and trace m�tals. With regard to health risks posed by energy reeovery facilities operating today, New York State performed 2 � , assessments for all operatinq enerqy recovery facilities in the State, based an tested emissions. Risks for four of five plants tested were within the range of acceptable risk of 1 to 10 in a million. This is evidence that a majority of operating facilities Iikely da not pose a significant health risk, and that testing o� operating facilities can identify the minority of facilities that requires remedial action. 4. Best Available Control Technoiogy is now weLl-defined �or modern energy recovery facilities (scrubber, with baghouse or �SP) , and is implemented on new facilities as a matter of course. An EPA risk asse�sment determined that for older, less-efficient facilities, nat equipped with such modern emissions controls, risk levels can be as high as 1000 cases per million. This is well abave the acceptable range of risk, and indfcates the advisability of retrofittinq some older plants with modern contrels. For energy recovery facilities that use modern controls, however, comprehensive risk assessments for numerous sueh facilities consist��tly indicate the expected risk level to be within the acceptable ri�k range of 1 to 10 per million. Air pallutant emissions from planned energy recovery facilities of modern desiqn are normally shown not to pose a significant health threat. 5. Gas prcduced as waste decomposes in a landfill contains methane, significant quantities of reaetive hydrocarbons (VOC) , and quantities of toxic pollutants. Methane is also able to miqrate beneath the landfill surface wheze it can enter the basements of homea nearby. Explosions of landfill methane qas have destroyed homes and caused injuries. Emissions ot VOC are believed to contr�bute significantly to existinq violationa of the ozone ambient standards in the Northenst. Landfill qas contains quantities of toxic pollutants, of principal interest, . the carcfnogenic pollutants, vinyl chloride and benzene. Vinyl chlorfd� ia actually produced in landfills during bact�rial decomposition of the waste. 6. Mo=t axiating landfills (and many planned landfills) do not incorporat• any landfill qas controls such as flares or gas-to-enerqy engines. Vinyl ehloride is ccmmonly emitted to the air in signiffcant quantitias t'rom these landt"ills. In some cases, significant levels are also recorded offsite. A number of states have de�med vinyl chloride emission levels to poa� a potentinl henith hazard. The limited risk assessments performed to-date for uncontrolled emissions of gas from individual landfill facilities also indicate unacceptable risk 3 . , ' levels, approximately 50-400 cases per million. A - generic risk assessment perfarmed by EpA indicates risk levels in the range of l00 to 10,000 cases pe� million is possible for uncontrolled gas emissions from landfills. 7. California, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have �ceeently decided ta impose specific requirements for landfilZ gas testing, as weli as requirements for landfili qas collection and control. EPA has also proposed new regulations that would siqnificantly limit emissions from both existing and new landfills, in turn, necessitat�ng landfill gas controls at many landfills nationally. 8. Hest Available Control Technology can significantly reduce emissions of landfill gas and the toxic pollutants it contains. Landfill gas collection �yst�ms can eapture 5�#-90� of the gas generated in the landfiri, with the remaining fraction escapinq to th� air as "fugitive" emissions. Control devices such as flares and engines remove up to 95� of the toxic pollutants from ths fraction of the gas that is coll+�cted, Regulatory aqencies believe that such cantrols will reduce tQxic pollutant emissions from landfills, and assoeiated health risks to acceptable levels. Risk asse�sment studies carried out for two landfills wfth emissions controis yielded risk levels of less than 1 in a million in one case, and 17 in a million in th� other. These results are consistent with the agencies� expectation of significant mitigation. 9. Emissions of toxic pol2utants from planned, new energy recovery facilities (and likely the majority of facilities currently in operation) pose aeceptable Ievels of risk, i.e. risks in the ranqe o! 1 to iQ in a miliion. By contrast, emissions of toxic pol2utants from municipal landfilis without landfill gas controls (i.e. most existinq and many planned landtills) po�e a . potential health rfsk that exceeds acceptable levels. Implementntion ot controls on landtill qas emissions has the potential to reduce risks te within acc�ptabie levelat-however, this will need to be confirmed by additional fisld testing and r�sk assessment of emissions from landtil2s where controls are instalied. 4 . SOURCES OF HEALTH RISK AT ENERGY-RECOVERY ANQ LANDFILL FACZLITIES Air pollutant emissions are the grincipal source of concern for potential health risks associated with energy recovery facilities, and such risks have been the subject of considerable study. There is also concern over the possible risk of water-supply contamination as a consequence ot land disposal of the ash residue from these facilities, Scant quantitative information is publicly avaflabl�, however, regarding the levels of health risk associated with ashfills. The U.S. EPA plans to propo�a new regulaticns under RCRA, Subtitle D, in 1988 that would require liners to be placed beneath ashfills, and all rafnwa,ter that filters throuqh the ash to the liners to be collected, and this leachate tested for unacceptable l�vels of texic pollutants prior to discharge. Such con�rol requirements are b�ing implemented to prec2ude significant risk of groundwater " contamination from ash€ills. For municipal waste landfills, the princfpal source of health risk perceived by the public is risk of water-supply contamination. Indeed, instances of groundwater contamination have occurred with some ex�stinq landfills. L�ttle quantitative information reqardinq such potential risk for landfills of modern desiqn is available, howev�r, at this time. EPA is planning to issue proposed regulations under RCRA, Subtitle D, early in 1988, that would impose design requirements on new municipal waste landfills in order to preclude significant risk of groundwater contamination. Such design requirements are to include liners, leachate collection, and graundwater monitorfnq. A demonstrably significant source ot henith risk at municipal landfills ts the emissions f=om landfills cf toxic a�.r pollutants. �lthough the public is virtually unaware that landfills commonly emit toxic air pollutants, .considerable study has been carried out recently to assess the potential health risk from landfill qas emissions. Becauae little quantitative information is avnilable regarding tha risk cf water-supply contamination from either energy recovery ashfills or from municipal waste landtills, this pap�r will focus on a comparison o� gotential health risks associated wfth toxic air pollutant emisa�.ons from energy recovery fac�lities versus munfcipal landlills. 5 � AIR POLI�ITI�NT EMISSIDNS AND C�NT'ROL AT ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITIES Air Pollutants Emitted The principal source of potentia2 health risk for �ne�qy recovery facilities is as a consequence of toxic pollutnnt emissions from the stack. Poilvtants emitted inelude EFA "criteria" pollutants (particulate matter, sulfur d:Toxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead, and vola�tile hydrocarbons) , as well as other pollutants -- acid qa�es, trace organic eompounds, and trace metals. For criterfa pollutants► EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health. Thus, by demonstrating that facility impacts of criteria pollutants do not cause violation of ambient standards, public henith interest� are preserved. Of g=eater int�xest in the gublic health debate are emissions of to�c pollutants for Which• no Federai ambient standards exist: acid gas� (e.g. hydrochloric -acid, hydrogen fluoride) , trace metals (especially arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, nlckex) , and tracee organic compounds (�specially dioxin�, furans, FCB, pAH, chlorophenols, chlorob�nzenes) . Of thes� toxic pollutants, the trace orqanic compounds and all trace meta2s (except mercury) are kno�n or suspected to cause cancer. Best Available Control Technoloav .Ema,ssions control technology capable of reducinq toxic air pollutant emission levels to small levels is now both available and routinely required for new enerqy reeovery facilities. Farticulate matter is controlled with either an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or a fabric filter ("baghouse") . As indicated in Table l, both typea cf devices, as designed today, remove particulate ma�tter with greater than 99� aificiency. (2) The overall re�nova2 efficiency is slightly h.igher for the baghouse. The baghouse also provides better control of the respirable- sized particles (2-micron or less diameter) to whfch toxic trace " organic ccampounds ansi trace metals adhere. Control o! trace metals is achieved principally by captur� ot pnrticu3ate aatter with hiqh efticiency, Excegt for mercury, which remains volatile and resists capture, trace metal control in t3�e range of 65�-98� is achieved with ESPs, and hiqher remaval efficiencies of 95�-99� are obtained with baqhouses. fZ� . Acid gases and sulfur dioxide are typically controlled with flue-gas scrubbers, providfng removal efficiencies of 90� for acid gases and at least 70; for sulfur dioxide�'�) . 6 1A11.E 1 . CONTROL Of A1R P4llUTAHT EMlSitONS iRO� EHERGT REtttvERr iAt'lllitES Controi Poliutant Control Mttfiod Fflitiaexies Referenee P�rtiwt�te Matter ESP >Qqx 3�2 t�phouse 94.SX, 4D.4�X 3,; iine, Respir�bl♦ ESP 93X � P�rticutate iap►,ouse >99X Acid Wses (NCi� MF) Dry Scrutber 9pz i Sut/ur Dioxide Ory Scruhber 7pX i Aitroycn Oocicies Effici�nt Cor,b�ation - �, TAermrl DeNOx �0'X �, Grbon Moroxide, Mydrocarbont Etficient Canbuciion • 1r�ce Netsts -Met�Is Except itercury ESa 65-qaX � i�Chous� 95•44+X 2 . -MercurY ESP O-�SX 2 iap'�an� 0-97X Z Dioxinc, fur�n Et�ietant tantxstion i • fSP Ca-S9: � " - tap!+ouse 84•94X � . Dioxins can form in the furnace, and can also farm in the ductwork between the furnace and the stack as the �lue gas beqins to cool. f4) Dioxin formation in the furnace is controlled through efficient combustion, i.e. the combination of high combustion temperature, sulticient gas "residence time" in the furnace, and sufficient turbulence during combustion. Dioxins and furans that form in the flue-gas ductwork are controlled by efficient capture of the flue-gas particles onto wriich the dioxin and furans condense. Dfoxin and furan removal efficiencies achi�ved with ESPs are in the range of 50�-89�, (�) and for baghouses, 84t-99�. �� AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIt?NS AND CONTROL AT MUNTCIPAL LANDFILIS Air Pollutants Emitted As waste decomposes in a land�ill, "landfill gases" are formed and are emitted to the ambient air above the landfill surfaee. Landfill gas can also miqrate iaterally ben�ath the surface to location� offsite, includinq into the basements of , homes near the iandfill. Landfill qas production can persi�t for decades after the landfill is closed. Landfill gas is � comprised chiefly af the potentially-explosive gas, methane, but also contains cdorous sulfur compounds, volatile organic compounds (VOC) which can contribute to violations of the ozone ambient standards, and quantities of toxic organic compounds such as vinyl chloride and benzene, which are cancer-causing. Emissions of vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen (i.e. . cancer-causing) , ar� of particuiar importance. Recent research(6) has clearly dentanstrated that vinyl chloride is form�d in landtills durinq the bacteriai decomposition of munieipal solid waste containinq small amounts of common cleaninq solvents, and that viny� chloride emissions do not resuit from the breakdown of poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) plastics found in the waste. Followinq incidents such as landfill-gas tires in the �arly 1984s at tha Oceanside, California landfi11��2 and a landfill gas axplosion at the Greentrae landfill in Madison, Wisccnsfn in 1983 that severely damaqed a hom� and injured its occupants, �8) requlatory agencies st�pped up effort� to test landfills to determine the quantitie: and cons�ituents of qases befnq emitted. The most comprehensive prc9gram undertaken to identify and quantify toxic compounds in lnndfiil gas is that carried Qut in California �ince the mid-198os by the South Coast J►ir Qualit�j Manaq�ment District {SCAQMD) . SCAQMD has recently reportedtg� on landfi2l-qas testing at twenty landfills in California that accept only municipal waste. Both active and closed landfills were ' tested. 8 Significant quantities of some 10 toxic compounds were detected in the landfill gas emissions (uncontrolled} from most of the landfills. Approximately 85� of all 2O landfills tested had detectable levels of the carcinogen�, vfnyl chloride and/or benzene, and over half showed signfficant concentrations, i.e. in exces�s of 1 ppm. Five of the tested landfills vere actiye, and all had vinyl chloride levels in the gas in excess of l ppb, and four had benzene levels of -1 ppm or more. Inactive landfills were also reported to have "significant amounts of vinyl chloride." The Davis landfill, closed for 30 years, had a vinyl chloride emissions concentratfons of .3 ppm, and the . Kobra landfill, closed 15 years, showed vinyl chloride levels af 7 ppm in the landfill gas. Having documented that toxic pollutants are indeed emitted from most landfills, SCAQHD tested for the p�resenCe of toxic pollutants offsite in the ambient air near five landfills. Vinyl chloride concentrations w@re detected in the ambient air near the "Operating Industr�tes" landfill at levels exceeding California's 24-hcur ambient standard for vin�l chloride of 10 ppb, indicatinq a health threat. During its test proqram, SCAQMD documented cases of subsurface migration of landfill qas beyond'the boundaries of the landfill. SCAQMD documented a detectable level of the carcinogen, vinyl chloride "under the kitchen sink" of a home near the BKK landfill in West Covinq. Th� results of these test programs led SCAQMD to conclude that emissions from municipal landfills pose a potential threr�t to public h�a2th. The State o! Wisconsin haa also b�en active in � landfill-gas testing. wisconsin tested thirteen n�unicipal landfill: and found "siqnificant" vinyl chloride em:�.ssions at six landfills, and detectable levels at two otherss. �� . In New Jers�y, testinq of the P�nnsauken landfill in 1985 showed siqnificant emisssions ot the carainoqens, benzene and perchlo=o�thylene. t10,11) Best Jlvaiiable Control Technoloav Presently, lnndfill qases ar� not ccntrolled at th8 majority of landfills in the United States. Reeently, however, a number o! states have moved to require such controls, and national requirements appear to be in the offinq. Control of landfill qas begins with a qas collection system. The collection system is mad� up of a network of porous piping beneath the landfill to coilect the qas produced there, and to direct the collected gas to vents 9 above the landfill surfaee. Impervious barriers can also be installed to prevent subsurface migration af the gas offsite. Closed portions (or "ce32s") of a la�dfi21 can be covered with an impervious "cap" to prevent "fugitive" emissions of the gas to the air. Gas directed to the vents can then be controlled by several methods, the most popular beinq flaring and also the combustion of the gas in an internal-combustion or turbine engine to generate eleetricity. Gas treatment (e.g. carbon filtration) is another method us�d to remove toxic pollutants from landfill gas. The overall efficiency of landfill gas control depends on what fraction of all gas generated by a 2andfill can be collected with a landfill qas collection system, and for that portion of gas that is collected, the contzol efficiency provided by the control d+evxca (flar� or engine) . one consultant's survey{12) conclud�d that for inactive landfills, 75-90� o� the qas b�aing gen�rat�ed can be collected by a landfill qas collection system; however, with active Iandfills, lower collection efficiency (40-60�) may be typical. SCAQMD has tested flares in California and found f2ares to be 95� efficient in destroyinq the nan-methane fraction of organic compounds in landfill gas�t is the non-methane fraction that contributes to ozane formation and also ccntains the toxic organic compounds o� concern. Because of recent findings that municipal landfills commonly emit significant quantities of toxic pollutants sueh as vinyl chloride, in cases resultinq in a demonstrated public health thrsat, a growinq number of states, as we12 as the EPA, are implementfnq requirements for landfill-gas testinq and installation of iandfill qas collection and control systems. The list includes Califarnia, �i3j Wisconsin, and New Jersey, and likely others. The U.S. E�A is developinq nav regulations, likely to be propo�ed in early 1989, to-liait landlill gas emissions through a New Source Performanca Standard (14? , which would require gas collection, and controZ of toxic orqanic pollutants in the gas with 98� etticiancy. Another �imilar regulatian is being developed for existing landtills. EPA indicates that to meet these emission limits, landfill qas collection and control systems are likely to be required for new landfills designed for, as weii as exfstinq landfills reachinq 1 million metric tons of depesited waste. As an example, a medium-sized regional landfill of 500 TPD capacfty would reach the 1 million ton mark in about 6 years. 10 ASSESSING HEALTH RISK With air pollutant emissions from both energy recovery and landfill facili,ties, it is carcinogenic risk, i.e. risk of cancer, that is the primary public health issue. This is because significant carcinogenic risk can resul� From lonq-term exposure to even minute pollutant concentrations. Cancer risk is assessed in terms of an upper-baund estimate of the number of cance= cases to be expected if a population of one millfon people were exposed to the maximum emissions fmpact from a facility, 24 hours per day, every day, for a 70-year lifetime. These assumptions help to ensure conservatism in the risk assessment. Judging the siqnifieance of an estimated l�vel of cancer risk is difficult, beeause this requires subjective judgment regarding what level of risk is acceptable. Most often this judgment is made case-by-case. Based, however, on the historical actions of regulatory and health agencies which perform and review risk assessments, a maximum individual cancer risk of less than l case per million people exposed is normally considered "insignificant" risk, and risk leuels between 1 to 10 caneer cases per mfllion exposed are considered "accegtable, " providfnq a12 reasonable means to reduce risk have been adopted. This mirrors the policy��5) on acceptable risk levels set by the South Coast Afr Quality Management District in Calffornia, and is consistent with policy statements by other states, for example, . determinations(16) by the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York State. HEALTH RISXS FOR AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY-RECOVERY FACILITI£S �oth operatinq and proposed enerqy recovery facilitie� have bt�n the subject ot numerous risk ass�sssments since 1985. Nav Yo=k State has led the Country in performfnq risk assessm�nts on operatinq plants, based on actual, tested emissione. a summary of risk ass�ssments performed fer five enerqy reccvery taciiities operatinq in New York i� presented in Table 2. �1�) Four of the facilitfes have ESPs for particulate contzol, one facilfty has no particulate contzol. None ot the facflities is scrubber-equipped. Risk was estimated tor inhalation exposure to dioxins and #urans in each ca�e. The risks at four ot five laci�ities were determined to be in the aeceptnble range of 1 to 30 in a million. At the fifth facility, the estimated risk of 21 fn Z2 � . . . . � . � � �. � .. . � . . � � � .. . � � � •. . � . . . � . � . � . � . TABLE 2 . ESTIMI�TED HEALTH RISKS , FOR TESTED EHISSION5 FROM �NERGY REGOVERY FACILITIES IN NEW Y�RK STATE �1) Facilit F1ue-Gas Exposure Poilutants Settin Control Pathwa s Carcinoqenic Ri,sk(1J Considered Chances er Million Oneida Urban � ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans (200 TPD) Rural 1 Cattaraugus Rural None Inhalation Dioxins, F'�arans (112 TPD j 7 Westchester Rural & ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans (2250 TPD? Urban 2 Albany Answers Urban ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans {RDF-600 TPD) 6 Occidental Urban ESP Inhalation Dioxins, Furans (RDF-2�00 TPOj 21 (1) Upper bound estimate of the number og cancer cases pear million people expvsed bas continuous exposure to �naximu�a impacts 24 hours per day, eve da ' �d �n rY Y. tor a 7'0-year lifetime. Data Souree: Reference 16 a million was deemed unacceptable, and the State has reqvired design and operational improvements to reduce dioxin emissions and the associated rfsk to an acceptable level. (1�) In Table 3, a summary is provided of risk assessments performed since i985 for 11 energy recovery facilities planned in Pennsylvania; New York, California, and Massachusetts. The planned facilities ranqe in size from 500 TPD to 3000 TPD capacity, and would be located in urban, rural, and mixed landuse settinqs. AIi would incorporate scrubbers and high-efficiency ESP's or baghouses. Mast of the risk assessments considered exposure to emissions of dioxins, furans, other organic compaunds, and trace metals. Most also considered exposure to emitted pollutants by various exposure pathways: inhalation; ingestian and dermal contact with cantaminated soils (children are especially exposed to soils} ; and the faod chain. Food chain ex�posure occurs, for example, by ingestion of reservoir water and vegetables exposed to emitted po2lutants, and by ingestion of meats and dairy products from animals that qrazed on contaminated forage. Numan mother's milk can be a food-chain source of exposure for infants in the same manner. As �hown 3n Table 3, with the emission� cor�trolss plann�d, risks �stimatad for the el�ven tacilities ar� within the acceptable ranqe ot' l to 10 ca�ses per million. These risk estimates reflect the cumu3ativ� ri�k from all pollutants and all exposure pathways analyzed. EPA has conducted generic assessments (28) of inhalation-related risks for enerqy recovery facilities of both older and modern designs. For those existing plants having the paorest combustion efficiency, mediocre control of particulate emissions, and no scrubbers, EPa estimated risks as high as 1000 cases per million. This risk level is well beyond the aceeptable range and should prompt more refined assessments to evaluate whether some plants of older desiqn require retrofitting with modern air pollution controls. With reqard to medern plants, however, plants that featura high combustion efficiency, baghouses, and scrubbers, _ EPA calculated th� risk to be in the range of 1 to 10 cases per mfilion. The EP� assessment shows, thtrefore, that risks associated with modern facilities are within the acceptable range. 13 UYIE 3 �� RECBNT MEALtM RFSK ASSESS�tEMif PREiAREO i0R PUNMED ENERGr RECnYERY iACtilTlEt Ftuc-Gas E�ure Poitutants Carsin�qsntc Risk• pat• ��ctiitv Settino Controls i�thvrv� Corufder�cl t[h�rnees pe Nttlf 11 t rer,et L.��1 t� tarc�ster Co., PA Rural fcrut�er, trha(�tion, O{oacins, iurartie < 17 (1?00 TPD) bpho�s+ Soil inQestion, Other Or4anies, Food p,�in, Traet ket�te Denat Ccnt�ct it. Me.psted, NT Urban Scru6be�, Jfi�t�tion, Gfiaciix, furans 1 ta (� T�) �iG�+�+ 3oit tnpestfon, ptA�r �panies, food Cuin, 1r�►ce Metsts oer+�.t e«,c.ct � Erie, PA Urban taphaxe, trhalstion Ofoxins, Furaru 0.3 19 (R�F•710 TPO) Furrw�ce Sc rut�ber Tark Co.� PA Rur�l Scrubber� fnh�l�tian, Dimcint, iurw. S 20 (13L4 TPO) Jr+d�strial taQhouse Sail Inpestion, Otfier Orpsnics, Food thain, Tr�ct NeUi• Dera�t Cont�et erooklyn, Mtt Urb�n Scruht�e�, Jrhal�tion, Dioxins� Furans, = Z�� i30�0 TPD) taphouse Soit lnpettion, Other Orp�nia, iood Chain, True Net�t: Qeren�l Contaet vashinptm to., AT Rur�l Scnt.l�er, IMit+�tion, Otox{ru, /uru�t ip zz {t00 TPO) ESP Soil Jnpestfon, Food Chafn, Dtrnr! Contsct ' UPPer'bard estie�te of the nhbrr of cr�ce� usrs per �niilion peopt* exposd� l�sed on contiruous ta,�esure to mazim,m iap�cts 2i Aours per dsy, ��r�r� tor � 7p-yti�� liteti�s. . . ' lAilE 3, to�t irv.kd RECEMT NE�l1M RtSK ASSES 9tEMTS PREPARfD fpt PLAANED EMERGY RECDVERY FACILtTIEt Ftut•6at Exposur• Potlutants Grcir+aqe�ic Ritk� Dat� f�cilit Setti Cont�ols O�th�s C«sidered Chances r Mittion Refererxe ioston, Wl Urban St►ttber, Irhal�tton, t1516 TPD) Oieuciro, iurw 2 23 ESP Soii Inpestion, Other Orpania, Dernl Cont�et ir�ce Met�ls Pfiiladclphi�� PA Urb�n Scr�ber, Jr+t+atation, D(oactnt� ►ur�ru 1 i2250 TPO) 2E taphaxt So{t Jnpeftion, OtAtr ap�nies, Food CA�in, Tr�ct Met�te Dennt Cantsc! Sta�i:laus Co., G1 Urbsn t Scrul,�r, Irhat�tion Dtaclrut furar�t 2 Zg (i0� TPD) Rurat Japhane foit tr+pestfon, Other Orpanics iood p�ain, Tr�et Met�ts Dtra»! Contict San Karcos, G Urban Scruhbtr, 1N»i�tion Diox{ru, fur�ns 3 ��, (1600 TPO) iaphaes� Other Orpanics�. Trsct 1kt�tt Irwirclste, CA Urbar� Scruhbe�� lrhsiation, Diaxfr�� i�xans g 27 t3090 ?00) RsoAouse Soft Jnpestion� OtAtr Orptnies iood Chsin� tr�ce Metals Dtna�l Cont�ct . ' HEALTH RISKS FOR AIR FOLLUTANT EMISBIONS FROM I�NDFILIS The significant concentrations of carcinogenic gollutants emitted from landfills, and the fact that such emissions seem to be common with municipal landfills, has led a number cf both state requlatory agencies as well as the EPA to cflnelude that landfills operatinq without qas controls pc�se a significant risk to public health. These same agencies are now requiring implementation of controls that they beli�ve will brinq risk levels to �rithin acceptable leveis. Only a limited num�ier of quantitative risk a�sessments . have been perfarmed to-date for toxic air-poilutant emfssion� from individual landfill facilitie,�, and these have, far the most part, been "first-cut" assessments. Th� zesults of ri�k assessments performed �or two landfills not havinq qas controls are shown in Table 4. The risk in the first case was found to be 43o cancer cases per million geople exposed, and in the other case to be up to 50 eases per a�illi.on exposed. Risk assessments perfozmed for two other facilities assumed to have gas contro3s in place are also summarized in Table 4, with the estimated risk for one facility at l? caaes per million, and for the other, less than one in a million. EPA has recently completed f3a, 35? a g�neric risk assessment for landfflls without qas controls and found the risk•to be in the range of lOQ to 10,000 ca�es per millicn people exposed. This rfsk ie� a lull order ot magnitude greater than has been indicated as a worst-case risk for older, poorly-designed enerqy recovery p2ants. The limited number or risk assessment� summarized in Table 4 as w�ll as EPa's qeneric risk assessment, tend tv confirm the position of the regulatory aqencies that uncontrolled landfill gas emissions pose a potentialiy significant risk, if one presumes "aeceptable" cancer risk to be in the range o! 2-10 cases per million. T'li�e limited data also suggest that gas controls have the potential to bring these risks into the acceptable ranq�. is` . a + . , TABIE i . ESTINATEfl NEAITM RISJCS Ol� TO IMNALATlON�OF TOl(!C AIR P011tRl4lITS FROM lM�i1CiPAl LAUDfILIS lrxff i t t Gas Carcinopen{c Risk �xallon ltstu� Control Pollut�nts Conaiderer! (Cher,ces per Mitlim? Referenee San Dieyo. G Mypath�Nc�l Mone Benzene, 0 otfie� orysnics• �3p 29 t2,25A TPO) l�r+dfitt�t) vir►yl chloride not studicd Mantpa�ry Co.. !D Nypoti►�Nul Ma» Vtnyi chtorid�, b�enza+,e. 1-50(2) 30,31 (i,e00 TPO) L�eudHtt�t) other orpanlcs 8yl�rr. G Aetiwr ft�re Wnyl chloride, other <� � tv�ic. tP0) orp�nics Si�t Y�il�ry. G lktiw Erqine Wnyl chtorlde, otAer 1T � (a+rt. 600 TPG) or9�nits (t) Riska tor � hypothetipt tard#Itl rer� Nsess�d q thf ��lte�'rwNw» to � proposed eneryy-c�rcavery tacility. l2) TM ranp� is Indtutiw of an�lytle�t �ncsct�inty. � . i � . . � . � �. . � � �� . � V� . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS Enerqy recovery facilities and municipal landfiils have been compared "on an equal footing" with re�p�ct tc toxic air-pollutant emissions, and associated carcinogenic health risks. Major conelusions are as follows: 1. Emissions controls commonly implemented at energy recovery faeilities do siqnifica�tiy abate toxic air pollutant emissions. 2. Such emissions from planned energy recovery • facilities, and likely most existing facilitfes, do not pose an unacceptable health risk. For �xisting facilities, emissions testinq can identify the �mall minority of plants that require rem�dial action. 3 . Most existinq and many planned landfiils do �ot incorporate controls for emisBions of taxic air pollutants. At many such landfills, uncentrolled emissions likely do pose an unacceptable health risk. 4 . Requirements for landfi2l qas control set recently by several �tat�s, and sfmilar requirements now proposed by EPA, may potentialiy reduee landfill gas emissions and health riska to aceeptahle levels, . 18 . . REFERENCES 1. Coalition of Northeastern Governor� (CONEG} . October, 1988. ManaQing Municipal Solid Waste. A Comparative Risk Analvsis of Landtill and Resource RecoverY Facilities. Prepared by Enerqy Sy�tems Research Group; Alternative Resources, Inc. i and Wehran Engineerinq, Inc. 2. Radian Corp. (RTP, NC) . June 1987. Municipal Waste _ Combustion Studv. Report to Conaress, pp. 59, 6?, 72, ?3, 75. _ 3. Radian Corp. (RTP, NC) . September 198'7. Municip�i Waste Combustion StuctY, Assessment of Health Risks Associated with Municipal Waste Combustion Emissions, FP• �-a 4. Clarke, Marjorie. October 1-2, 1987. MinimizinQ Emissions from Resource Recavery. Distributed at th� International Workshop on Nunicipal Waste Tneineration, Montreal, Canada, pp. 4, 8, 10, 11. 5. Hahn, Jeffrey, et. al. June 22, 2987. Recent Air Emission Test Data from Several Waste-to-En�rav Facilities Utilizina Martfn Stoker Combustion Syst�ms and Advanced Air Pollution Control Ectuipment. Presented at 80th Annual APCA Meetinq, New York, NY. . 6. Molton, P. , R. Hallen and J. Pyne. January 1987. Study of Vinvi Chloride Formation at Landfill Sites in California. Batte2le Pacifie Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington. 7. California Afr Resources Hoard. September 22, 1983. Internal Memorandum, Subject: "Landfill Sampling fn San Diego County. " S. Chazin, Julian. April 1987. Measurement� Assessment, and Control at Hazardous (Toxic air Contaminants in • Landtill Ga� Emissions in wisconsin (Draft) . Wisconsin Dapartmant of Natural Resources, Madfson, WI. 9. Wood, J. and M. Pater. May 1987. "Hazardous Pollutants in Class II Landfills, " JAPCA, V34, N 5. 10. Personal Communication. December 30, 1987, between David Minott, xlternative Resources, Inc. and Lou Mikoiajczyk, New Jersey Department of Environmental Frotection, Trenton, NJ. 19 .` � . 11. New Jersey Department af Environmental Protectian (Trenton, NJ) . October 24, 1985. Internal Memorandum, Subject: "Pennsavk�n Township Landfill, Perimeter Gas Venting System, Emissions Tests." 12. R&W Consultants (San Dieqo, CA) . July 10, 1987. Letter to Rust International, Inc. , Subject: "Efficiencies of Landfill Gas Collection Systems." 13. California Air Resources Hoard. Qecember 1986. Testinq Guidelines for Active Solid Waste Disposal Sites. 14. Personal Communication. December 27, 198�, between David Minott, Alternative Resources, Inc. , Concord, MA, and Susan Thorneloe, EPA Project Officer, EPA-OAQPS, Re�earch Trianqle Park, NC. 15. South Caast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1410. E1 Monte, CA. 16. New York State Department ot Environmental Conservation {Albany, NY) . May 1987. Phase 1 ResQurce RecoverY Facilitv Emission Characterization Studv Ov+�rview RepOrt• , 17. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (Boston, MAj . June 1987. Resouree Recovery Facilitv Nea2th Risk Assessment (Draft} . 18. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (White Plains, NY) . February 1987. Health Risk Assessment (Volume 2 of the Draft EIS for the North Hempstead Soiid Waste Management Project) . 19. Shawmut Enqineering, Inc. (Baltimore, MD) . March 1986 (R�v. j . Erfe_Municical Waste-to-En�rav Plant P�rmittina Documents� Volume l. . 20. Malcolm Pirni�, Inc. (white Plains, NY) . May lgg7, MultiDla Pathway Health Risk asse�sme_nts, yark �ountv, Pannavlvania Resource Recoverv Pro,�ect. 21. smith Allan, et. al. Aprii 30, 1987. Health Risk Assessment tor the Brooklvn NaW Yard Resource Recovery Fnc�litY. Health Risk Associates, Berkeley, CA. 22. ENVIRON Corporation. July 11, 1986. Documentaticn of the Methodoloav and Assumption� Used in the Risk AnalYsis for_ Polvchlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Polvchlorfnated Diben2ofurans at a Proposed Resource Recovery FacilitY. 20 . f• � • . � . � � � . .� � . ` . . . . . . . . , . . . . . •� . � . . � . . . . . 23. Meta Systems, Inc. (Cambrfdge, MA) . November 7, 1986. ualitative and Quantitative Health Risk Assessment. Airborne Emissions for the Cit af Boston Wast�-to=Ener Fac_,..,il tv• 24. Clement Associates, Inc. December 1986. Risk Assessment for the Proposed Trash-to-Steam Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator r�t the U,S. Naval Base in Philadel hia Pennsvlvania. 25. Stanislaus Waste Energy Company (�iodesto, CA) . November 14, 1985, revfsed June 3, 1986. Stanislaus Waste-to-Enercnr Facilitv Health Ri�k Assessment. 26. North County Resource Recov�ry Associates. April i984, revised Jun� 2984. Risk Asse�sment for Trace Element and Oraanic Emissions, North Countv Recvcl na and Enerqv Re�overv Center, San Marcos, cal�fornia. 27. Eschenroeder, Alan, et. al. Februazy ?, 1986. An Ana�vsfs cf Health Rfsks lrom the Irwindale Reso� Recovery Facility. Prepared for Pa ic fic Waste Management corporation, Newport Beach, G. 28. U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency. June, 1987. •Municipal waste Combustion Study: Report to Conaress. NTIS No. PS 87-206074 29. Woodland-ciyae Consultants (Santa Barbara, CA) . June 19, 1987• Letter to Rust International Corp. , Sub�ect: _ "Preliminary Draft Landlill Health Risk Ass�sessment Study. �� 30. Person�sl Communication. December 30, 1987, between David Minott, alternative Resources, Inc. , and Ramana Roa, Montgomery County (Marylandj Department of Environmental , Protection. 31. He=f1ce, John. July 25, 1986. Solid Waste Manac�ement Study; Phaao II, Findinas and Recommendations. Montqomary County (Marylandj Department of Environmental Protaction. 32. South Coast Air Quality Manaqement District. July 28, 1487. Internal Hemorandum, Subject: "Review of Nodelfng Analysis for the Propoaed North Valley Land�ill Flare," E1 Monte, CA. 21 � � . � 33. ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Ventura, CA) . October 1987. Draft EIR for Propos�d Simi Vallev Landffll Expansion, Prepared by SCS Engineers on behalf of the Lead Agency, (The Countyj and the Project Proponent (Waste Management, Inc. ) . 34 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (O1�QPS) . March, 1988• Preliminarv Draft EIS: Afr Emissions from Munici al Solid Waste Landfills -- Back round Information for Pro�osed Standards and Gu delines, R�search Trianqle Park, NC. � 35. U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency. May, 1988. M_inutes og Meetina: N�tianal Air Pollution CQntrol Techniques Advisory Committee. Research Trianqle Park, NC. . . 22 . � . � THE SQLiD WASTE DILEMMA: AN AGENDA FQR ACT�t)N Final Report of the Municipal 5alid Waste Task Force Offtce of Sotld Waste U.S. Envtronmentai Protettion Agency February i989 s . �t. EXECUTiVE SUMMARY This report is about what the govemm¢nt cails mun�etpal solid waste, and atmost everyone else catis garbage. As a nation, we generated about 1b4 mitlic�n to�s of soltd waste iast year; by the year 2000, w¢ are projected to ge�erate 194 milllon tons. Thts ceport 1s about how we shouid handle thls outflaw of refuse • the cans, the bottles, the I¢aves and lawn clippings, the paper and plastic packages, the tnoicen furniture and appitances, the uneaten food and the oid ttres. This deluge of garbage is growing steadlly and we must Hnd ways to rnanag¢ It safe�y and effeetively. Elghty percent of garbage is landitlled. But we're running out of space to bury It In exlsting landfitis; more than vne third of the natlon's IandflHs will be f�11 within the next few years and many cittes are unabte to Hnd enough acceptable sttes for new landfiils or new combustQrs. To ellminate thts growtng capaclty gap, ali leveis of government, the pubiic and industry must fvrge a new alliance to develop and tmplement lntegrated systems for soHd waste management. This report presents the goals and recommendattons (or actton by EPA, state and focal gov¢rnment. tndustry and privat¢ eittzens to address the munlctpai sQild waste management problems that are facing this country. These goais and recommendationa are the result of th¢ efforts of EPA's recently ereated Municipal Solld Waste Task Force. The Task Force gath¢red existing data on municfpal waste and probtern� regarding tts manag¢ment, solfclted input f�om interested persons and groups, field pubik maettngs and developed a numb¢r of optlons to address these problems. This summary data is contatned in a suppiemental document tltled "Background Document for the Salid Waste flilemma: An Agenda fo�Actlon." The types and extent oF the problem in managing municipai so[id waste vary from reglon fo reglon depending on waste type, land use and demog�aphlc char�cterisilcs, but some trends and problems are cleariy nationa} In scope: From 196t? to 19$8. we generated more waste every year, both In total tonnage and �n pour►ds per person. and - 1 a • this trend .ls project¢d to contlnue: in addit�on, we are �unning out of places to put ,�. our waste because old landfiils are ciosing and� tew new Iandfi)ts and �orr�bustors are abie to be s�t¢d and buiit. There are cvncerns abaut �otential threats to Muman heatth and the environment from eombustvr emisslons and ash, trom Iancilill emisstons. leachate, and lltter. Migh costs ar¢ borne t�y ttie wast¢ generator anci fiandler, as many areas of the country resc�rt to shlPP�n9 Waste long dtstances by truck and rall lo areas with ava11ab1¢ landitll or combustor capacfry. Recyeling, aflhougt� a wa�ste management technique popular with the publit, Is used curre�tly to manage only lp percent of our natlon's waste, and Is successtul only when participahon in separatlon and colT¢ttlon is high and market prices for seco�dary matetials are favorable. Siting of recycltng iacilfties ls also becoming more difftcutt. Finally, manuiac- turers of products have no direcf ineentive to ciesign products fc►r efifeetive 'waste management because they are not �usually directly res�onstble for tl�e ultirnate costs of waste management. Stmllarly, most consumers do not have a dtrect eco�iorntc ineentive to throw away less, because they are not usually charged t�ased on the a�f�ount they throw away. This report recommends using "fntegrated waste management" systems to soive munldpal solid waste generaUon and management problems at th¢ local, reglonal, and natlonal levels. In this holistte approach, systems are designed so ttiat s.,�,n� or 4 of the four waste management optlons (source reductton, r¢cycling, con�busllon and landfllls) are used as a complement to �ne another to safely and effi�ier�tly manage municipat solid waste. Th¢ system is "custom designed" to meet local envlronmental, economlc and Instituttonal neQds. � key elem¢nt of tntegrated waste man�+gsrnent is th� hlerarchy, which favors source reductlon {Inc}uding r�usel to tlrst deerease the volume and toxlcfty and �ncrease the usetul IiFe of resducts in order to reduce the volume and toxlclty of waste. Recyeling �tnckuding composting) Is ihe preferred waste management option to further reduce potential rlsks to human heatth anc� the envlron- ment, dtvert w�ste from landtitls and combustors, co�serve energy, anc� slow the depletlon of nonrenewable n�tural resources. In lmplementing scaurce rec:it�ction and recycling, we must avoid shitting r�sks (rom one medium to another (e.g., c�roundwata.r to air) or from one population to ano�f�er. Land(ills and co»>t�ustc�rs wttl I},� necessar4� � � � . � � . � � • L, � .. . . . � � � � . . . ,. for the fvreseeable future to handte a signfficant port�on of wastes, bUt are lower on the hferarchy betause of the poten#tai risks to human health arfd the envtrQnment and long-term management costs. This Msk potentiat can be largely minimized through proper design and management. Integrated waste management can and should be tmpiemented at a locai levei :to the extent practical, and is a useful conceptual tacal for making rnanagement decis�ons. But, it is not meant ta he rigldiy appli¢d wh¢n local untque waste and demographtc characteristics make source reductlon and recyc�tng infeasible, The tntegrated waste management system is the framework for the nationat goals presented ln this report. This report presents EPA's stated goal of managing 25 percent af out natlon's municlpai solid waste through soutce reduetion and recycling by 1992. Composttng of yard waste wtli play a key rote in attaining this gval. While no tong-term numericat goais are established beya�d 1992, the Agency anticipatas that the 25 percent }evel wifl be exceeded as capital recycltng equipment comes on line. This witt be especfaliy true in the paper industry, where planning today wi!! be essentlat to increas�ng domestlC paper recycling in the mid-I990's. In addltion, w¢ : must strtve to reverse our ever-increasfng per capita generatlon of garbage. We also must work to reduce the rtsks assoclated with landfiils and combusiars, inasmu�h as these management altematives wtU be necessary to handle most c-F the wa:,tes. - risks of recyc{Ing need to be examined to determine if risk reduetton is also needed for recyciing. By Implementing these ��oats, we can soive or reduce many of our � municipai waste management probiems. This report outlines EPA's program to address these goais. (t also pres�ents a number of recornmendattons for state and local governments, i�dustry, and consumen that wil! enable us to meet these goals. Infvrmation, assistance, and data must be made more accesslble to everyone by generating catalogs of avaflabie materiais. establtshing a nattanal clearinghouse, developing a "peer matching" program to aflow ai( levels of govemment and waste management to exchange experttse, and developing a national research agenda far collecting new lnformation and deveiQp�ng new technologies. - :� - � . � Planning at all levels oE government is recommended in the repvrt. National and regional planning conferences �re needed to :facllitate the exchange of iniormatfon. This report contalns a Iist of eiements that siate and tocal munlcipat solld waste management plans should include. Source reductlan should be (osteTed at the manu(acturing, c�overnment�,t, and local levels. EPA wltl study optlons for reducing lead and cadmlum in praducis in order to reduce the risks of combustor emtsstons and ash, landiltl teachate, and �ecycling operations. EPA wlli foster workshops for manufacturers and �ducators to promote the deslgn of products and packaging for effective waste management. EP� witt identtfy economic, regutatory and possibly legislative Incentives !of decreastng tFie volume and toxkity of waste. EPA will afso take steps b Factfttate Federal p�acurement ot produc#s wtth source reductlon at#rlt�utes. Industry should conduct waste audFts, and determtne ways to decrease the volume and toxicity of mat¢rtals usec� In m�t�+�faeture. Recommendatlons for recyciing (including compostingJ caH for fostertng imple- mentatJon vf existing Federaf praeuremenE guidelines (as weli as evaluatln� ones For additlonal commodliles), and creating an interageney working group t4 dewelop pitot and fuif-scale pro)ects for separattng recyclabtes in Federal agencies, Markets (or secondary materials and recycled gopds must be stimulated and stat�ilized; thus EPA will conduct market deveiopment studies for di(ferent cornmc�dltles, will examine economic and regulatory incentives Fur usfng secondary ar recycled matQrtals, and �vill foster the formailon of regional marketing counclls for the exehange ot ma�ket Information. A Nattonai Recycling Councll wlll be fc�rmed with membe�rs from ail sectors of waste management to track recyciing issues and probiems and to r¢commend activns. Finally, EPA will study haw to iost¢r r¢cycttng lead'-�+e1d batteri¢s. including examtning the current ince�tive� ard dlslncentives assoclated with ll�billty. Industry shouicl step up Its eFforts In fosteriny the recyeling of plastics. Statg and (ocal gavernments should encourage s�parallon c�f r�cyclables. conduct waste exchanges, and provide tncentives fvr stabte marlcets for recUct.o_cj goods. � . , ; Flnally, recomm¢ndations for decreasing the risks from landitllfng and combustton Include contlnUing EPA's ongoing efforts to devetop alr emission standards for new combustors and landitils, aU emission ` guidetin�s requiring state standards foT exlsting combustors and landitlls, and revised minlmum design and operatlan crlteria for landfills. EPA recommends that ash managem¢nt plans be deu¢ioped as part of any pian for combustton of waste. EPA, ln con)unctlon wlth trade assoctations, witl facilitate development of guidance on haiNng and cert�ficatlon for eombustor and landfilt operators. EPA will aiso study whether bans are nec�sary or destrable for certaln types of waste. - These recomm¢ndatto�s present a core program #or governm¢ntal, Induslriat and c�tizen act�on which wil! heip solve our natfon's municipa! waste managem�nt probiems. _ 5 . a ♦ � . . � � � . . . . . �. . � � . . . . . INTRO�UCTit)N This report Is about what the government cails municipa# soiid waste and almost everybody else calls garbage. It's about bottles, cans, disposable diapers, uneaten food, scraps of wood and matal, worn•out tlres and used-up batteries, paper and plasttc packages, boxes, broken furniture and apptlances, cbppings frQm our lawns and shrubs-•the varied human refuse of our modeTn industrfat societ}r. All of us generate solid waste every day--a total for the natlon af about 154 rnllllon tons a year. And the garbage deluge ts growing steadliy; with our cutrent garbage practices, it could reach 193 million tons by the Year 2000. Mc,re than 40 percent of this solid waste stream consists of the pap¢r and pape� products we dlscard tn our homes, offlces and factories.' Yard wastes make ��F"�'�y"'�'�"s tO up another 18 percent of the total. The other ma)or pic*it up, and nobody u,�es us w pue u components are metals, glass, food waste, and plasttcs daun.•• � tsee Figure 1). Symptomatic of what sxtat cMtJcs cail our "throwaway society" are thQ many dlsposable products that ar¢ manufactured, imported, sold, used and thrown away; for example, we dtscard 1.6 btllion pens, 2 bit lo� razors and biades, and I6 blltlon diapers every year. "Canvenience" pac4cag ng suit¢d to our high-speed, Incrgastngiy busy Itfe- styles--TV dlnneTs, fast-food ontainers, mlcrowavable bags of popcorn, and the ilke•-make a substantial contribut n to th¢ flood of trash. 'in thts repon, the term "muniei ai solic! waste" referx primarlly t,� r`sldentiai soild waste, with some contr4butlo� trom cornmerctai, InstituNonal and Indu�tsiai sourc�es. t� so�e areas. nonresldentfal wastes a�e managed separately, lnrgeiy because indust�ial and some comm¢rUal sources produce re tiveiy uniform wastes in iarge quantities. which makes them more suitable for alt¢rnative d1 posal techniques or retytling. Hazardaus wastes. as deflned by Federal and State regutat n, generaily are managed outside the muntcipal solid waste stream. Exeeptions are hauseh fd hazardous wastes and hazardous wastes genereted In very smail quantities. which are oh n p}aced in the municipai solid waste stream by tha generator: Th!s r��^� does n�t attEmG� ;u � rapple wuh cne �s5ue oi medicai wasce: Thts tssue �s the subject o(a separate EPA Task Fo�ce. . � I a iill .1 . . � � . . . . . . . . � . .. . � , . � � . . . . . a r oe an d p �o�boa�d - 41 .0% a t.ox Giass °� 8.2% � � � � , Mis�. inorUaniC s.2 x =-� �, _ astes i .sQ/o 1.6 X • 8.T',Y, �. < .<• � � � . � Metais s.sxl � \ � � ».sx .' 8.7% .�x � �.sx � ',,��`� , Yard wastes , .;, . . �� ! �� '`�.-`" 17.9°l0 � Piastics 6.5% � Food wasies 7.9°l0 Rubber, leath r. textiles, waod • !.1% . � � . � G R U O U RE SS DISC DS � � ► BY WEIGHT, OF MSW MAT£RIALS, I996 (Saurce : C racterization of Municipal Solid Waste � in the Uni ed States , 196Q to ZQ00; Franklin Assoczates 3/30/88) ; I�I , s � .. � . - . . . . � � � � . � � . People who manage solid w e say that the First Law af Garbage Is: "Everybody wants us to pick lt up, and nobo wants us to put tt down." Many Amertcans want thelr hash to dlsappear qutcWy d qutetiy fram� their backyards and curbs, never to be seen or h¢ard from agatn. A the last thing they want In their nelghborhood is a landitll, combustor or recycting enter•-ail of whlch are associated tn the pubilc mind wlth noxious odon, possibiy ngerous poltutlon, and notsy trafflc. Th¢se two social forces-•the rowaway mentapty on the part of manufacturers and many co�sumers and the NIMBY drome••have combi�¢d to create a s¢rious and grawing solid waste probtem In many A �ican Uttes. As a natfon, w¢ ace generating mor¢ garbage all the time, and we do t know what to do wtth it. tneffecilve or trrespon- sible disposal of all thls waste as the potential to degrade the envfronment and cau risk to public heatth. We're �unnina o�+E of space "�e annud U.s. to ry It in exlsting landfltls; more than one-third of � 9enve�tian o/I58 millio� ' t�e o/�n�td�ol ao�d the atian's iandfilis wil! be futl urlthln the next two �"'O1�A��°CO"fOs' Eo t ee years. Yet beeause af the NtMBY syndrome and of 1 D-ton gerboge aucJcs. 145,0ov muea tax,�... con s over potential threats ta human health and the °"��f"'�'h°"'� env nment, many clties are unable to find enough to d,s rno�on.•• : acc tabie sltes for new iandiilis. Sittng new combustors can be equalty dlfflc ; many people are concerned as to whe#Mer garbage can be burned without producing angerous afr pollution a�d r¢sidu¢s. The pr�obiem has gotten to the point that some A erican cities are payi�g premium prices to have their trash shipped to other counttes, st , and even foreign countrles. ln respanse to this soitd e dilemma, many states, lacalities, and concemed cittzens have stepped up recycli activities and facmed comprehens�ve waste manage- ment programs. With thelr pro ssive programs, some Iocallties are far ahead of any federal program for municipal s �1d waste, whlle other communities and states lag far behind and may not even recog � e or anticipate a problem. The private sector, in the form of the waste mana ement, �ondarv materials, and manuFacturing inctustrles, have 8 - also recognlzed the beneftts of I ycfing and have successfully Impiemented programs. The Federal role Eor municfpal w te management tlas ranged through the years from an active nonre�ulatorv role priar t 19�0. to a Ie55 comprehensi�,•o. more ro_gulatory roie . - 8 - . ` slnce 1980. ln the past severai y�ars, EPA has propvsed revised mir�ir�aurr� standards (vr designing and operating munlcipal landillls; lssued proeurement gutdelities Eo� some recycled goods; issued a Report to Congress on air emisslons From muntcipal waste combustors; publish¢d an Advanee Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ar regulattng air ernlsslons hom new and existing comt�ustors; Issued combustor �utdance to �ew source permitting authorities; developed a repo�t on the ¢ft{cacy of tt�e curr¢nt nontta�ua�dvus waste regulations; recently lnitlated s¢veral buIletlns and b�ochures to pramote used vil recycling; and conciucted � toxlclty study on munlclpaf waste combustor ash. EPA also Is developing guidance for proper handllng and disposal oF comt�ustor ash residuais. More recentiy, the� Envlranmenta! Protectian Agency created a Municipat Solid Waste Task Force In Feb�uary 14F38 to spectfieally address the prob(em of Increastng waste generatton and decreasing management capacity. The Task Force was given the assignment of qufckly assessing the size and scope of the solid' wasi¢ problem, examining alternatives for solvtng tt, and devetoping a weli-cootdinated strategy of action for improving the natlon's management af munlclpal solld waste. (n an ef(ort to make the strategy credible and praetical, the Task Foree soltclt¢d comments frorn the public and Interest¢d groups and organizatlans. Seven pubilc meetings were held in May, September and Octob¢r !n 8ost4n, Ualtas, Seattle, St. Paut (Mtnnesota), Washington (D.C.), Los Angeles and Atlanta. A G�-day pubUc comment perlod on the draft str�tegy was also p�ovlded. Tt�e Task �orce also ic�ent�- fied Interested trade assocfatlons, environmental groups, and government organi�attons and offered drafts of Its anaiysis for thelr review durinq the cievetopment oi the draft strategy. These comments• from the publl� contributed substantlaliy to tMis Agenda fo�Aciion. � - 9 - � Thts iepo�t presents the Task Force's natlonat actlon agenda.' There is no single solutlon to this compiex probiem. A myriad of acttvittes must be implemented, both in the short and long term, by all of us tn order to soive the cuRent and (uture probtems wlth muntcipal solid waste. This report sugge�ts a number of things that govemment, business, Industry and ettlzens can do to r¢duce the productlo� of soifd waste and better manage the solid waste that Is produced: manufacturtng p�oducis with consideratfon for thelr uttimate management as wasles; encouraging, producfng and buying products that ar¢ made from recycled or recyclable materiats; separating bottles, cans and papec and turning ttiem tn for r�cy- ��E°c!'°�u'ca"'Ma't�" ciing; Improving the saiery and efficiency of landitiis an oue�'o9s c/1.300 pounds a ye�r to�he and combustors; and wherever practical, choosing source �°f�'�'�'g"'Q""�°�" reduetlon and recycting over landfllling and combustlon o/ga�boge. ond soch oj . us, t/u,c'.e u,jntng, ccn as the preferred methods for managing rnunicipa{ solld "'i b°`�`°"�he°"'°""'t'�� waste. A mix of these options must b¢ rnolded into an Integrated waste management system wh�e each compon+ent complements the otMers to safely and efficiently manage the waste. Local envtron- mental, economic and tnstttuttonal needs wlii, of cou�se, piay an impqrtant roie 1n determining the mix at the locai level. Whil¢ thts report acknowledges that the bulk of waste wlll be managed through combustion and landfilis, it emphasizes a significant shlh to source reductlon and recycling. The report reiterates EPA's stated goal" of diverting 25 percent of the natlon's municipai solld waste fTam landfitls and combusiors through source reduction and recycifng by 1992. Much of this goal will be met through Increased recycling with a speciat emphasis on composting ot yard waste. But EPA belleves that lmplementing source reduction, by not Increasing our present per cap�ta generatfon of munielpa( solid waste, is vitally tmportant. in the longer term, 'Only the Task Force's recommendations are incfuded In this report; the de►ta and lnto�matlon supporting the recommendattans can be found In a supplementai document entitled. "Background Document for The Solid W�ste Dilemma: An Agende br Aetlon, Orrft Repo�t of the Mun�dpai Solid t1'aste 7ask Force." IEPA •53D•SW•88•054A� and "The Solid Waste Dfiemma: An Agenda for Action, Appendic¢s A-B•C" tEPA 530•SW-88•054B1. ''This goal was first stated by the Ass�stant Admmistrator of the Office of Soltd Waste and Emergency Respvnse, J. Winston Porter, fn a speech at th¢ Fourth Annual Conierence on Soiid Waste Management and tiirceriafs Policy, on Januarv 29. 19$8. . ln . the Agency anticlpates that the 25 percent goal wllf be exceeded as capttal recycfing equlpment comes on Iine. Thls will be especlally true In the paper Industry, where pianning today wiil be essentlai to IncreasJng �our domesik paper recycling capaclty in the mid-1990's. Another cruciai long-term goai !s to �educe the per caplta generation of municlpal solld waste. Some proposals, such as governnt¢nt Incentives to encourage the pToductlon of iong.(asting p�oducts that can t�¢ reused ar recycled, wNl be controverslat; bui the soiid waste probtem 1s t�rious, and cantroversy is not sutfictent reason to ignore workable svlutions. When Congress passed tt�e Resource Conservation and Recov¢ry Act of 1976 f�CRAa, it recogntzed that state and local govemments have pTlmary responsibllity for municlpal soltd waste management, but lt alsv gave EPA regulatory and asststance responsibll{ties ln thls area. I�t�ny of the recommendatlons tn tt�is report were developed with the recosnitlon tt�at strong national Ieadership is essentfal fn finding solutions to what has become a widespread nationat problem. Matlonal Ieadership means not only establlshing national goals and poitcles, but setUng a gaod ¢xample by purchasing recycted or reeyclable products and by separating waste to faclNfake retyclJng or safe disposal. Eaeh of us conmbuies an average of I,3J� r�unds a year to the grouving mountal� of garbage, and each of us, lf we're wllling, can, at lea.�-t; �,�p increastng the amount of waste requirtng disposal. In �ho I�,nger term, we can reduce our per capita generatlon of waste, lndustry ca�n aiso work toward reducing the volume and toxfcity o( producis and packaging that will ultirnateJy requlre dispc►sat. The report recc�m- mends a number of educational and other programs to inform citlxens and Industry about tt-,e'r .�e..ponslbiliUes and opportunities to heip stem the tlde of soltd wastQ, ft is tmportant for all c,f us--government, business, and private citizens--to acknowledge that our country has a solid waste prQbiem and to begin the di�ftcuit but tneseapabie task of finding solutions. if we wait, the prot�lem wtll c�r}ly gec worse. If this report stimulates thought, discussion and action ta hei� Improve the management of our nation's m�.inictpal solld w��ste, It wi�1 ha��e acc�rnplished Its �urpose. - ll - SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM When loca! offlciala are asked to 11st the chlef probiems a�ss�cactated with munic�pat solid wast¢, they usuatly ctte the growt�g �Mortage of landf[t1 capaclty and the higfi eost of managing waste. Th¢s¢ two managernent probl¢ms are especfatty s�v¢re ln some American cfttes, where disposat casts have soared "In 19�6t).Amer�c� to more than S I00 per ton of wast� because of ivr�g- g�axrcted u�a�oce at o rct�e o/2.65 vounds per perso� distance ha�ltng and high landfill and combustor '`ttp" par day: by 1986, dwt fees.l The lnternational wandetings of the "garbage J�gure had jumped to 3.5,g�a,nds," barge", foriornly searching for a last resting pfac¢ foc garbage from isiip, New York, graphicaliy ii{ustrated the capaclty shortages tn popuious eommunities. Som¢ states and locailtles have responded to this problem by enacting laws requlring rnandatory recycttng or dis- couraging waste generatfon. High costs and capactty shortages, howe��p•, are only symptoms oi a moce basic probiem: Most of America's eitlzens, offtcfals and industrv �,� � yet tU recoy: �e their responstbtitty for the growth !n solid waste and Eor the problems caused by that growth. (n 19b0, Americans generated waste at a rate of 2.65 pounds per person per day; by 1986, that ftgur¢ had )umped to 3.58 pounds, and the tre�d Is projected to contlnue into the Y¢ar 2000.= Generatton of every klnd o# waste is uF, tncluding pa��r, ,�lasttc, giass, and metals, as shown tn Figure 2. An American generates approximately one pvund peT day rr►ore waste than his/her counterpart tn West German��. an equally industrlalized natlon,' Much af the dif#erence can be tt�ced to the fitgh 1 Frank J. Sudol and Aivin L. Zach. "Recycltng in New Jersey: the Newark Expe�ience." Resource Recyctfng, Volume Vil. No. 2, May/June, 1988, p. 2$. � = Characterizntton of Mun►cipal Solld Waste t� the U S. 1960•2400 (updated 1988f. Fr�nkltn Assoc�a.es. 4larcn 3�. t988. l u?�s`4�3u�+'z. [�ti n ..ra.ti,,.� R�......... • eJr,SE^Su5 31�.: .. �.. .7 _c5�Gf15 Ef Jft3 CU�J�r. Gontroversy In Four European States." inform, 1986,p 13. 80 �: PAPER AND PAPERBOAAD 7 � � 1 970 � <� . .��L4-<, 1 9 8 6 Q 6 � �� i W Y� 2000 � �' � �. �.;. w 5 � ...�� . c. <i: c� � � 0 ' . • F- <.,; YARD i WASTE �,t„ F. � � 3 0 {.�� n ��' � i�, RUBBER, f,;, . . � LEATNER, $: � 2O ,�:: -� > METALS PLASTICS GLAS �D, �� j. � ; S EXTiLES yy�1STE � 10 " : ,�;� < ; �� ' �:: � �'�� t�i�s�. , � x. � �� R��: <,��: r;� �� .�� { , ` �� r�o��r�acs � , . � �7: �« w•%� i 'i � :� �� ,. � . . . � ��;.:.� . . � . . Si�. � � �-� ��': �. . i°�"�. �'!f.. � . : . . . . . . � . . . �<S. �.�' ;.. �� . . . . :,. �, �� #�C3SS a1SCARDS UF MAT�RlALS IN �r1SW; ' �?ef: Ch��racceri�ation Of N1Unicipal Soiid Waste In Tl�e �;�iiea S�ai��s, � 960 To 2000;� �ranklir� Assoc, 3I3�I8� rIt� ili2� � , ��',+'S�[' It� �t�'r V TC l)'lf'f� � '� (}•• �,'�.,�t� �. � i , , level oE product manufacture and consumption tn this country and the need tor con- ventence on the part of Increasingly busy famtlies. In general, American consumen have no incentive to Itmlt their waste generatfon, because they are not charged for disposal according to the amount of waste they produce. Nor are there many lntentives for manufactur¢rs to destgn their products and packaging in a way that takes into account the effecilve management of those products when they ar¢eventualty dtsca�-+�d. At the same tlme more waste Is being generated, tess processing and dtsposai capacity is avatl�bl¢ to handle It. One-thtrd of th� naHon's landfllls will b¢ fvil by 1991, which means that waste that ts now disposed of in these facilttles wili have to be disposed of elsewhere. Many exlsting faciiities are cfosing either because they are f111ed �or because their desfgn and operation do not meet Federat or state standards for proteciton of human health and the envlronmcnt. New fact{Itles must be bullt to replace this dlmiNshing capaclry but must b¢ environmentally sound, ptes¢nre vatuabie resources, and not present undue risk to human heaith. The Incentive to butld new, environmentaliy sound fadilties and adopt bett¢r managem¢�t practices may not exist in some areas because of the current practice of "waste fttght," in wfilch waste is shipped by truck or rail aaoss state and county Iines to areas wtth avaii- able capaciry, tf not done concurrently with long-t¢rm pianning to solve the capaciry probiem for a reglon, the short-term sotutlon of waste flight only delays the tnevitabie management problem in th¢ Iocality shipping the waste, and hasfens potentfal probiems In the area that recetves and disposes of the waste. Efforts to stte new Iandfilis, combustocs and recyc{ing centers, however, are met with mounting oppositio�. Thls oppositlon may stem from concerns about enviro�mentai or heaith risks from contaminated ground and sur#ace waters and so�f, toxic ash from rnunlcipaf waste combustton, and air emisslons: from resistance to such nulsance faetors as notse, smells, and truck trafflc; and fTom anxlety ov¢r prop¢rty vatues. Because few governments h?��e established effective dispute resolutlon mechanisms, "stttng impasses" result when ivcat paltticlans are unwil(Ing or unabie to ovenide the ob)ections of their constituents. These siting dlsputes iitustrate ihe fact that - 14 - few vf us are eager to assume responsibiiity for elther our nelghbors' wast¢s at aw�. our Although recyciing and reuse oF waste materials are publicly accepEable rneEhods for managing municipaf so11d waste, the exlsting waste rnanagement l��frastructure often dtscourages ¢ffective recycling eftorts. Fo� ¢xample, a natlonal poU su rtfn the use of a waste managemerrt "hierarchy" has b¢e� in ef(ect sl�ce 197G.� Under the hjerarchy, source reductlon and recycling are the pr��erred optlons to� managing soltd w�e. Combustlon and land(!!ling are to be used onty when ihe preferrecl optlons are unavailable or tnsufficient, pverwhefined by the burgeoning amounts of w�ste that must be removed from the curb every day, many waste managers ace unable to ian implement the hlerarch at the loca! levei. As a result, $0 p �r y percent of ihe nation`s waste is landfilled; only 1Q percent is recycied and 1Q percent combusted, This rellance on landfltling may stem from a desire for a stngle, "quick-tix'' salut more recentl ma� lon; Y, y pubilc afficJ�is seem to be tuming #o mass-t�urn combustors as th¢ "sllver-bu�let'� answer to their waste management problems. The tem tatlon a fac!lity that can combust 2,000 tons of garbage a day may bepd{fficultO fb��d hard-pressed waste manager to resist. ot a Why aren't many states and Iocalities implementing the waste mana emen archy? One reason !s that local offlcJals may constder rec clin g t hier- They also may not consider recycting a reHable w y g �'�ograms too costly. ay to handle municipal solid wasie because success In recycling depends heavily on markets for secondary rnaterlals as well as pubtic partictpatlon ievels, both of whlch can fluctuafe wic�ely, q��, information on the true costs of each waste management opElon mey no1 b� avaltabie. This brlef desc:r��uon of the scope of the problem is by no means carnprehenstve. . ft Is meant to estabiish the basJs (o� setttng goats and acttons tor a nationai strategy. Chapters 2 and 3 0( the Background Document pravide a more thorough descriptlon of the problems Involved in managfng muntcfpai solicf wasie. -----------�--_ 4 Effec��e H�zarclr��is LV�ste Management IN�n Radioactivel: Positlon Stalement, feder�i Re isto_r. Volume 41. No 161. August 1S. 19�4 ____ - 1S - G JNTEGRA7ED WASTE MANAGEMENT The term "lntegrated waste manag¢ment" ref¢rs to the complementary use of a vartety of waste management practices to safely and effecttvety fiandie the municfpa! solld waste strearn wlth the least adverse Impact on human health and lhe envtronment_ An tntegrated waste management system wili contain sc�me or all oE the followtng components: o Source r¢duciton (ineluding reuse of products) o Recycling of materials Iincfuding compostingy o Waste combustion (with energy recovery) o Landfilling. In lntegtated waste management, all the etements work together to form a compiete system Eor proper management of munfcipal waste. Waste stream constltuents are matched to the managernent practices that are best sulted to those partfcular cansti- tuents, ln order to Teduce toxics, reduce quantlty, and safely ¢xhact any usefui energy or material from the waste prior to flnal disposal. Every communtty can '`custom-destgn" its Integrated waste management system to emphasize certaln managem¢nt practices, conslst¢nt with the cvmmunity's demography and wasie stream characteristics. For example, a community iike Las Vegas, Nevada, where landfill tlpping fees as low as �6 per ton reflect the ready auallab!ltty o# lands, may choose to contlnup to rely on landfilling as Its p�tmary wasie man�gen�nt practice after evaluating the feasib�tity of source reduction and recy�t�ng. Conversely, � S C. L. Pettlt, "The 1987 Ti� Fee Survey • Last Year's Rise was the Biggest Ever," Waste Age. Voi. I9. No. 3. March 1988. p. 77 town such as East �yme. Conn�cticut, wt�ere disposal costs exceed $it)U per ton, f�ncts recvcling an essentiai way �o hancile a major par� af Ihe wE�slc slro��n� 5 in an integrateci wasie naanage�nent svstem, each F.very c�mmunity con �orllpottt�( is designec� sp .it compfements, rather thar� 'cus�om•des;Qn'�;ts Competes with, the otiter tomponents in ttie system. Fpr integroted woste manaqement system to examP�e, combustors should be designed io handle a vvlume su�r�ts need�, of waste with a certain Btu value a(ter �Itowing for tfie effect o( recycting on total wasle vo�ume and Citu values. Failure to do thts can lead to a situatlon where rnaterials wtilch wo I otherwise be recycied are not because they are needed as fuel for ttie eomt�uStar. � � Hier�rchy of Integrated Waste Rta�ag�m�nt To most ef(ectivelv reduce aur waste management �roblems at tile nationai 1ev states, municinalities, and the waste management Industry st�oulci use tite hi¢rarch described below (or evaluating the components of integrated waste rnanagement against the community's needs. Of course, strlct adherenee to a rigici hierarcliv is i , priate for eveiv community. Maniialtan, Nevada wi(1 very likeiy ehoose a differpnt mix�pf� ....-.-,-..,� .,.......� �.�..,,,,,,,,,,� SOURC'E REG'YCL� REDUC'E ...�---"'"'–'"—^,�,�„ ' �� ... L�►.NDFILL CQMBUSTION ----.-._____._ 4 Ti��n«�i�r nf rlio F�til�lic Mootinq �ii '�tiini�i I C,-, , i, ��lV �. ��)t` (Zt�ii;l �nrkPl =(�.4�y'.F� .�` ��l �l � � ASIP (Znct- ��.1SS�1f�t�I�rt�C, c �_ � � ��'.� . +A,,ci r ,; 11 F f F"F�F. E!'� r i��;�o ,.( �„�tirl l�. ,o -1n 1.� S �oo ��,,,�.,,, . r s.' �n�aGn f � � � 17 - of opttons than Manhattan, N¢w York. But the integrated waste management hierarcfiy is a useful conceptual tool ior both communitles to•use ln setting goals and ptanntng #or thelr particular mix of waste management alternatives. The hterarchy b¢glns wtth source reductlon and reus¢ to reduce boEh the to�cic constitu¢nts in products and the generatlon of latge quantities of wast¢. Source reducilon, as defined In this repo�t, may occur through the design and manufactur¢ of products and packaging with mtnlmum toxlc content, minimum votume of materlai, a�dlo� a Ionger usefut Iife. Sourc¢ reductlo� may also be practiced at the corporate or household level through selective buying habits and �euse af products and materials. Effec#1ve sourc¢ reduction stows the depletion of environmental resources, prolongs the Ufe of avaliable �vaste managem�nt eapaclry and ean make cornbvstton and Iand- fflling of wastes s�t.- In the short and Ivng term by removing toxi� c�nstituents. Source reductJon ts not used by local waste handlers for managing the waste that is ptcked up every day; rather, tt cuts back on the amount and the toxlclty of the waste which ts handied. However, iocal govemment can encourage as weli as practtce source reduction. The second rung In the hi¢rarchy is recyclfng af materlals, including composting of food and yard waste. Recycitng is near the top of the hlerarchy because tt pre- vents potentlally usefuf materlals from b¢ing combust¢d or landfllled, thereby preserving waste dlsposa! capacity. Recycling is a technolagy that can prevent depletion of valuabie tandflll space, save en¢rgy and naturai resources, provide usefu! products from dts�arded matertals, and even make a profit (especiaAy wfien the avolded costs of combustton or IandEilling are taken into account). Thus, pubilc officiats and waste handlen should give serio�s consideratton to the practicaltty of recycling and composting programs in their communitfes. Although fower than source reduction and recycling in tfie h�erarehy oF desirabie waste management options, waste combustion is usefui in reducing the bulk �although not aN1 of muntcipal waste and can provlde the added ben¢fit of energy producttvn. Although combustion ts not risk-free, a state-of-the•art cambustor tfiat ts weli ,p . ` operated should not present a signiftcant risk to human health and the environment Wt�en recy�Jtng is part of a community's or a wasEe handler"s chosen �ntegrated wastp management system, combustton can cvmplement recycling by reducing th� buik of the nonrecyciable, nonreusable waste. L,tkewise, combustion can be ma�de more eftictent b source �eductfon and removal of recyclabies which are less conducfve to combustion or whieh could lead to potentlaliy harmtul stack emissJons or operationaf problems caused by heterogeneous waste mlxtures. Resldual ash Is another p�obiern asso�elated with combustors because of the sometlmes hlgh metals content and the nee�i to manage It Properly. l..andittlinq alsa is lower In the hierarchy than sour�e reductto�, �euse and recycltng, but Is essentlal to handle wastes such as nonr¢cyclable waste and tt�e noncombustlb(es such as demolitton waste and canstructton debris. fn addltlon landfills can provide th¢ beneflt of ener ' 9Y p�oductlon through reeovery of inethane 9�• Landfltts designated for handling combustion ash residuats are essentlal and, 1n the absence of alternative ash management plans, must be pianned and de signed !n conjunction with the combustor. LandfUls shoutd also be used for materlais that cannot pracilcably be managed In any other way. A welt-consttucted, properiy operated Iandf111 should not present a slgnlficant healtF� rtsk. As prevlously mentlon¢d, some comrnunitles and� waste handJers, based an land availablilty and po�ufatlon charac• terlsttes that make recyeling impracticat, may ehoose landfllhng as thelr princlpa,l method of managtng munlclpal waste. for the foreseeable futur�, Ian�lltNs wi necessary to handte a s1 n�flcant II be 9 por�ron of wastes, so steps must �e t�ker� to make landfllling as safe as posslble. Who's Responstble? We alf are. Everyone has a rote tn maktng Integrated waste mar�a eme Indusiry has a responsibihty to conslder saurce reductlon, �euse and recvclabtt�Wof�� c3eslgning products and packa�Ing, �nd to use secondary materl�ls In tt�elr rt�a��utacture. Citlzens have a responsibillty to fearn about the pr��ducts anr� paeka In Ihe the waste they create. Wliat is Ir� the i�rodu�t? What is ra_c cl t i�? � �� and at is - 1� . ♦ ' ` potentlalty harmful? How long wiU the product last? How much does 1t cost to dispose of It? Every individual and corporate ,citizer� shoutd assume responsibtlity for waste dtsposal and adopt a "pay-as•you•thiow" aitttude--a recognition of the true costs of disposing of the wastes we generate. who's Rarpo�tble? Waste management companles, inctuding proces�ors wEAUAR�. and handlers of sacondary materiats, have a responsl- E�eryor�e hes o rols tn mal�q tn�u,mts btlity for ptanning and Implementing integrated waste "fO"Qg�"'O1�`' management {or thelr communitles. Th¢y should woric !n partnenhtp with state and tocal pubtic officiais to plan and lmplement integrated waste management and to educate th¢ pubNc. This partnership can be an effective mechanlsm for managing municipat solld waste. All fevels of gouemment, espec�ally state, tribal and locat, are ultimatety .. responsible for managing waste and planning the mtx of manag¢ment opttons that wiN most effecttvely handle the waste stream. The Federal government shouid partfcipate tn municlpai sohd waste management by establtshtng naUanal goais and leadership, developing educatton progTams, providing technical assistance, and issuing regula- tfons. The Federal govemment aiso has a role ln estabUshing a framework for state, Tribal and local planning, setting minimum standards for faciitties, and encouraging the manufacturing lndustry to design products and pac�Caging for effective waste management, as well as to utilize secondary materiais in manufacturing. Finally, all levels af government should set a good example by purchasing recycled or recyclable products and products that have be¢n subject to sc�urce reductton wheneuer posslbl¢, and handling thelr own wastes in a way that facliltat¢s recycling and reuse. Ptanning Planning ts a vital componeni in achieving a national goa) of integra#ed waste management. Siting, designing, and building a landflll or combustion factlity cafl take many years. Similarly, cotlectton and recycling programs may take severai years to develop to fuN scale. This delay is especlalty difficult for eommunittes - 20 - , . experiencing an immediate waste handling capacity shortage, but It also may affect communitles that face possible ca�aciry problems In the tuture. Tf�us, states, Indian Trlbes and local communitles should actively plan short• and long-tenn waste programs based on current and pro}ecied characteristics of thelr waste stTeams. Evaluating and Implementing, wher¢ feaslble, the Integrated waste management hierarchy at tha Ic�cal level heips solve the problems as.sociated wtth waste managemQnt. Mlnimtzing toxiclty and volume through source rec�uciFon, reus¢ snd rerycling directly addresses the probiem of capaciry shortage and potential hsks from toxFc constttuents. _ -�� - � . NAT[�DNAL GOA4S The problems assocfated with municipa! sohd waste management, including cost and capaclty, are felt most directly and can best be handled at the tocat leve! through tmpi¢rnentation of lntegrated waste management practttes. These probi¢ms, however, are also regional and national in scope. The wldening gap between avallable capaclty and levels oE waste generatton dema�ds national solutlons and a long•term commitment by all. We can no longer rely on landfllls to handie 80 percent of the nattort's waste. The United States must find a safe and permanent way to ellminat¢ the gap between waste generation and avallable caeacity In fand`ftlts, combustors, and in secondary materials markets. How can this goa! be accompilshed? W¢ must take short-term acttons now in ordec to soive the problems of today and tomorrow. Above aii, we must increase source: reducilon and recycling activltles wh11e making all management o�t�,^s rellabie and safe. EPA believes that. The Untted Stote.�must _,.. pnd o scfe ar,d�c to the extent practicat, sourc� -.:�uctlon and tnen t"OS'�O��g°p recycHng are the prefeRed optiens fQr closing the gap bebureen uraste ga�crativn -. _ _ . and ava��obis ccpodry�n and reductng th¢ amount and toxiclty of waste that must �and}�1�s, combuseas, be landfitled or combusted. Ta #oster tmpfementatlon of and tn secondary macerrats ma�rds. this preference for source reduction and recycling, EPA set a nattonai goa! in January 198$ of 25 percent sc�urce reduction and recycling iup from tFie current 10 percentl by 1992. Althaugh recycling �with spectal emphasls on composting of yard waste? wtit play fhe ma)or role in achieving thts goal, souree reduction is an important component. UtJhl{e no long terrn numerical gval has been estabitshed, we anticlpate that the 25 peccent level w111 b� surpassed as capttal recycling equipment comes on-ttne. This witl be especlally rtue !n the paper industry, where pfanntng today wNi be essential to increas[ng domestic paper recycling 1n the mld-1990's. Our nation must stop the increase ln our per . fler capita generation rate. �1nd. in tl�e long run, we rnust also strlve 10 red�ce it Souree reduction anci reevcling lielp nrevent many oF ihe ��oblems associa�ed t�itij municipal solid waste. including the Fres�ii�g need to site no_w landfills ancf combustors �o handie ihe iarge vaiu�r�es of waste beiny generateci, Preventln generation of waste`s and cilve��ting waste components From lanci(ttts and combustors tnto reuse, recyciing or composting helps io alleviafe siting problems anci poientlat risks to human health and the environment attributable to lmproper mana ement. Thu planntng anci impiemeniing these activitles now ylelds benefits in managing wastes in the years Io come. Reaching the 25 pereent source reduction and rec clin oal w Y 9 9 ili mean that the remainder will be hand}ed by combustion and land(111s. On-Ilne and aiready �ermitted, combustors are pro)ected to handie about ZQ stream. The remainder {about 55 percent) is pro)ected fo�landfills. �ercent of tf�e waste CURRENT SiTUATIQN u«�,� . „4 ,�, 111 ) wC+►a[�urc�x � � � � � � AECYa.E 111� , GOAC FQR 1942 t"'t'.t_ t.�►no.�u. � � � � 1MpNEMtL 20 � � " � � �ECrCIE t7x . ��) - Even the most effettive source reductton and recycHng efforts, however, cannot fiandle the total waste stream. Thus, EPA believes that all waste manaqement practices should be made safer. We will need landfi(ts and combustors into the foTeseeable future to process and dispose of a signlficant poction of the waste siream. tmproving the safety of these dlsposat alternattves, as weN as materiais recovery and recycling facilittes, can help protect human health and the environment and can only hetp galn pubfic acceptance of aU such facillties. 46jecttves The Task Force has ldentlfied six oblectives for a natlona! agenda #ar actlon to solve the munlcipai saild waste dliemma. By fulftlling these objecilve�, we help avercorne many of the problems associated wtih munlUpal solld waste management, Including siting problems, fncreased waste generatton rates, conceTns over human heafth and the environment, and, perhaps, some of the hlgh costs a�waste management. in additlon, by carrying out these ob�ectives-•especialiy by lncreasing source reductlon, recycling, and effective planning--government, industries, waste managers and citlzens will have helped fulftll the concept of tntegrated waste management and wlll tearn to look beyond the "single solutlon" to waste problems. The ob�ctiv¢s are: � 1. tncrease the waste planning and management iniormation (both technicat and educatlonai) available to states, tocsl communities, waste handlers, citizens, and tndustry, and increase data collection for research and devel4pment. . 2. lncresse effective planning by waste handlers, local communities, and states. 3. Incsease source reduction activities by the ma�ufactur�ng industry, governmeni and citfzens. � 4 increase recycling by government and by individuai and corporate citizens. 5. Reduce risks from municipal solid waste combustion !n order to protect human health and the environrnent. - 2 4 - ` 6. Reduce risks from tandfills In order tv pra#ec# humar� health a�nd •the environment. The foliowi�g Agenda for Action is structured withln the framework of these slx ob)ectives. Each ob}ective is t�rietty described, and roles tor governr»ent (Federal, state, trtbe and locai), tndust�y and c1t{zens a�e summarized. A table of next st�ps fvliows each ob)ective, for easy reference by the reader. The Task Force recelved many suggestions on potential activns, and studl¢d a number of different opttons. The foUowtng action ttems are cuiled fram the larget array of options, and constitute a minimum program fo� meeting the a_ove-stated goals. Most of these actlons recelved broad-based suppoct from pubttc commentors. Eiements that were noted by commento�s as being especially important are a nattonal eJearing- house for informatton disseminatlon, Federaf procurement guldelines tor recycied goods, market development studles for recycling, design a�id operatton standards for lanclfllts, and a!r emission and operator certificatton standards far combustors. - ZJ - TABI.E 1. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA TO [NCREASE [NFORMATI4N . Qevelop Educattonal Materiais . Beg1n compiling available materials . . . . . . . . . . . . NfJVEMBER 1988 Catalog/bibilography of ava�labte materiais . . . . . . . . . MAY 1989 tdentlfy educatlona! matettals needed . . . . . . . . . . . , JULY 19$9 Revlew cost methodologtes for true cost accounttng . . . . . AUGUST 19$9 Develop Technical Materlals Review and summarize state tir� management programs . . . . . JANUARY 1990 Begtn comp�ling avaNable matertais . . . . . . . . . NfJVEMBER 1488 (dentlfy technical materials needed . . : . . . . . . . . JULY 1989 Publish declston-makers guide for iocai waste managers . . . SEPT�MBER 19$9 Cottect Data and Estabiish Research and Development Agenda Nattonai research confeT¢nce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FEBRUARY 19$9 Establtsh a Clearinghouse Fstabllsh functlons for a ctearinghouse . . . . . . . . . . JANUARY 1989 Clearinghouse operattona! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMB£R 1989 Establish a Peer Matching Program ProgTam operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUL.Y 19$9 _ 35 . . J. . . � . . . . � . TAE3CE 2. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA TC? ENCOUR�GE iNCREASED R[.ANNlMG Qevelop 5tate S#mtegles Ftrst reglonai worfcshop • . • . . . • . . . . . . . . ARRtL I9$9 EPA reviews se(ected state plans to pcovide Techn�cal Ass�stance Frogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUGUST 19$9 - 39 � . . TAB�E 3. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA T4 ENCOURAGE INCREASEQ SOURCE REDUCTION AGTIVITIES Minimize Toxtc Constituents and Materials in Waste Determine whlct� products, t#any, are sources of lead and cadmlum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JANUARY 1989 Srreen foT potent�al substitutes for {¢ad and cadmium . . . : AUGUST 19$9 Evaluate regulatory and non-regulatory opUons for restriction on, or substltutlon for lead and cadmium In products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC)VEMBER' 1989 Inttiate lnvestlgation of other toxic constitu¢nts In products . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f?EGEMBER 19$9 Evaluate need fo� Fed¢ral Eesting guideltnes . . . . . . . . MQVEMBER 19$9 Mtnlmlze the Amount of Waste Generated Study on economk incentives . . . . . . . . . . , . . , DECEMBER 1989 Establlsh corporate recognitlon program . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER 1489 Design fo� source reductlon workshops . . . . . . . 1UL�r �� Increase Procurernent of Products Siv`ith Source Reduction Attribu#es Form Federal Task Group to study procurement (same group as for procurement of recyc!¢d pcoducts� . . . . N4VEMBER i989 �:udy of possible changes In procurement pollcles . . . . . . dUNE 1940 Study Ongoing or Potentiai Source Reductio� Pcticies DegTadabte Plastic Study by Generat Accounting Offlce , . . , SEPTEMSER 19$8 Inittate clatabase for track�ng state source reduction programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUNE. 1989 . 47 . . . TAB�E 3. (Conttnued) NEXT STEPS FOR EPA T4 ENCOUFtAGE iNCi�EASER SOfJFtCE REDUCTION ACT1VtT1E5 EPA Repart to Congress on Plastics . , . . . . . , . . . JUNE 2989 Inttiate usec fee study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NQVEMBER 1989 Household Hazardous Waste Conferenc¢. . . . . . . . . . . . NQVEMBEft 1989 . - �a - � � TABLE 4. NEXT STEPS FOR EPA TO PARTICIPATE tN AND ENCOURAGE INCREASED RECY�LtNG Stimulate Markets for Secondary Materlals Study on existing economlc and transportation disincentives � to recycHng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER i989 Study vn potential recyciing incentives to encourage recycfing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEC€MBER 1489 Market development study for paper . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER I989 Market developm¢nt study for compost . . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBER I989 initlate gwdellnes for eompost'facilities . . . . . . . NOVEMBER I989 Initlate guidellnes tor compost quaUty . . . . . . . . . NflVEMBER 1989 Form EPA Working Group for impiementing procurement. . . . Nfl�'EMBER 19$8 Form Federa! Task Group for imptementing procurement . . . NQVEMBER I9$9 Fina! tire procurement guidelines . . . , . . . . . . , . NOVEM$ER 1488 Finai insulation materials proeurement guldellnes . . . . F€BRUARY I989 Study on procurement of other materials. . . . . . . . . . . AUGU57 1989 Better Separ�tlon. Collectior� Processing and R4cycUng of Wasts � initfate modet trainJng program for recycling coordtnmtors . . NQVEMBER 19$9 , Review regulatory, non-regulatory opttons for batterles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . AUGUST 1984 Evaluate recycling of wh►te goods and other m�tals . . . . ONG4tNG Form interagency work group on recycling and separation !n Federaf agencles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUGUST 1989 Model educailon prograrn for Federai agencfes . . . . . . . . JC.1NE 1989 y T'AL3l.E 4. {Conttnued) NEXT STEPS FQFt EPA TO PARTICIPA7E iN AMD ENCOURAGE tNCREASED F�ECYC1.tNG Natlo�al Recycling Counctl Fac111tate the formatlon of the Natlonat Council . . , . . . . MAf�CH 19$g i�eview Incentives and DistncenC�ve o( Liabitlty � Review of lead•actd batt¢ries and metat- shredding byproducts . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . �NGQtNG . �q � • , ' TABLE 5. NEXT STEPS FOR EFA TO HELP REDUCE TME RiSKS QF CCIMBUSTIUN Upgrade Combustor Performance Standards and Aah Management Proposed atr em�sston standards . . . . . . . . . . . . NOVEMB�R 1989 Final aIr emisston standatds . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER 199U 4perator Certiftcation Resoive issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUNE 1989 Decide wh¢the* � ?velop a model • operator certiflcacton program . . . . . . . . . . . N< ��6ER 1989 Bans on Materiats f�om intinecators (See also Table 3, Mlnimizing Toxfc Constuuents and Mater►als In Waste2 - PTovide lnformation on probf¢m wastes (see aiso Table b, 8ans on MateTials from Landfllisl . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER 29$9 . 5� - . ; . ♦ TAB1.E 6 NEXT STEPS FQR EPA TO HELP REDUCE TNE RISKS OF LANDFiLtING Operator cert[Eicatlon Tratning materials for operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEPTEMBEFt 1989 S�ate certlilcation guldance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER 1990 Deslgn and operation standasds , Propose �evised minimum crlterta fo� landtlils . . . . . AUGUST 1988 (ssue flnat criter�a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; DECEMBER 19$9 Alr emisslon standards proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAY 1990 Flna! a�r ernission standa�ds . . . . . . . . AUGUST 1991 Educatton and Technicat Assistance Techn►cai quidance for the revlsed landflll criteNa ' . . . . JANUARY 1990 Bans Qn Materiais from LandFilling (see aiso Tabfe 3. M1nlmlzing Toxtc CaRstituents and Matertals in Waste} Provlde Intormation on problem wastes . . . . . . . . . . . DECEMBER I9$9 fsee aiso Table 5. Ban on Materiats from combustorsl - 69 -