Waste Management, Vol. 16, Nos 5/6, pp.

361-366, 1996
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0956-053X/96 $15.00 + 0.00
PII: S0956-053X(96)00080-3

U.S.A. NATIONAL OVERVIEW ON WASTE

MANAGEMENT

T. Taylor E i g h m y a and D a v i d S. Kosson b

aEnvironmental Research Group, Al15 Kingsbury Hall, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 038243, U.S.A.
bDepartment of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey, PO Box 909, Piscataway,
NJ 08855-0909, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT. A brief national overview of waste management in the United States is provided. More emphasis is given to
trends and management of municipal solid waste (MSW) although some is also provided on hazardous wastes (HW).
Specific information is provided on MSW characteristics and management, MSW waste minimization, thermal treatment
of MSW, incineration residue management, and contaminated site remediation. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION (listing, testing, treatment, storage and disposal) and

In the United States, municipal solid waste (MSW)
is principally regulated at the federal level by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA), as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1980 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendment (HSWA) of 1984. Efforts to amend RCRA
again have been ongoing for some time in the U.S.
Congress. Subtitle D of RCRA deals with non-
hazardous solid waste disposal and requires the
development of comprehensive solid waste manage-
ment plans at the state level. These state plans
delegate authority at the local, state and regional
level. At the local and state level, legislation is con-
tinually evolving and is usually more encompassing
or restrictive than federal legislation. In 1989, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for
Action, 1 a policy document promoting source reduc-
tion, recycling (including composting), waste com-
bustion, and land- filling as a preferred hierarchy for
MSW management. This has also had a bearing on
MSW management strategies promoted at the fed-
eral and state level. As will be discussed below, the
recently passed Clean Air Act rules for MSW com-
bustion systems (from the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendment) also have some direct and indirect infl-
uence on MSW management.
At the federal level, hazardous wastes (HW) are
principally regulated by RCRA under subtitle C
361
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or
"Superfund" (for HW site remediation) and its
amendment, the Superfund Amendment Reautho-
rization Act of 1986 (SARA). Efforts to amend the
Superfund laws are ongoing in the U.S. Congress.
HW legislation at the state and local level is less
apparent. Federal regulations tend to be restrictive,
though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has given primacy to the states for manage-
ment of HW.
MSW MANAGEMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS
The most recent data on the management and char-
acteristics of MSW in the U.S. come from two prin-
cipal sources. Data provided for calendar year 1993
come from an EPA study conducted in 19942 that is
based on a materials flow methodology that uses
material production data and economic models
(Table 1). Data from Steuteville3 for calendar year
1994 are based on actual data reported by state reg-
ulatory agencies and can include industrial wastes
that are managed by MSW facilities (Table 2).
Where appropriate, these differences will be high-
lighted.
According to EPA, 2 the data from calendar year
1993 show that 206.9 million tons of solid waste
were generated. This generation has been steadily
increasing since the 1960s. The majority of the MSW
362
TABLE 1
Generation and Management of MSW in the U.S. in 19932
Managementscheme Tonnage (× 106) Percentage
Landfill 129.0 62.4
Recycling& composting 45.0 21.7
Combustion 32.9 15.9
Total 206.9 100.0
TABLE2
Generation and Management of MSW in the U.S. in 19943
Managementscheme Tonnage (× 106) Percentage
Landfill 216.3 67.0
Recycling& composting 74.2 23.0
Combustion 32.3 10.0
Total 322.8 100.0
is managed in permitted landfills (about 62%). The
total annual tonnage of landfilled material was high-
est in the late 1980s; landfilling is now declining as
older facilities are closed. About 22% is managed in
recycling and composting facilities. The total annual
tonnage managed by recycling has been increasing
since the 1960s. About 16% is managed in combus-
tion facilities. Since about 1988, the annual tonnage
managed by combustion has been relatively con-
stant. The data offered by SteuteviUe3 for calendar
year 1994 show the same reliance on landfilling;
however, the total quantity is higher than in the
EPA data. This is due to both modest increases in
generation as well as the fact that the data reported
by Steuteville 3 reflect actual tonnages reported by
the states for 1994 (rather than modeled estimates)
and the fact that states usually include light indus-
trial waste tonnages that were processed through
MSW facilities.
As shown in Table 3, the number of presently per-
mitted landfills in the U.S. is 3558. This number has
declined significantly from 1988 (about 8000 land-
fills). The slow increase in recycling rates has been
manifested in the steady increase in curbside pro-
grams, drop-off centers, and materials recovery facil-
ities (MRFs). While the number of large MSW
composting facilities has not changed dramatically,
the number of yard waste composting facilities has
increased a great deal since 1988. The number of
combustion facilities (waste-to-energy plus incinera-
tion) has remained relatively constant since about
1988. The maximum was seen in 1991 when 171
facilities were in operation.
The composition of MSW in the U.S. is fairly typ-
ical (Table 4). Paper and paper products comprise
the largest fraction of the waste stream. Yard trim-
mings also constitute a significant fraction of the
T.T. EIGHMY AND D. S. KOSSON
waste stream, though this value is expected to
decrease as communities and states impose bans on
landfilling of yard wastes and continue to promote
yard waste composting. Containers and packaging
constitute the largest category of waste products in
the waste stream (Table 5).
While recycling rates have modestly increased, the
market has been volatile with regard to prices. Gen-
erally, prices for recycled good (paper, cardboard,
aluminum) increased slightly in 1994.3 Average tip-
ping fees at landfills are about $29/ton with ranges
from $8 to $75/ton. 3 Average tipping fees at combus-
tion facilities are $48/ton with ranges from $22 to
$80/ton. 3
Projected trends include (i) a continued significant
increase in the number of yard waste programs and
facilities, (ii) a continued significant decrease in
landfills and landfill disposal capacity, (iii) a contin-
ued modest increase in recycling, and (iv) a steady-
state situation with regard to combustion.2'3
MSW MINIMIZATION
Separate from the issues surrounding MSW recy-
cling, a number of issues have been developing in
the U.S. regarding disposal bans, waste minimiza-
tion, pollution prevention, and product bans.
Virtually all states have enacted legislation that
bans the disposal of household hazardous waste,
vehicle batteries, tires, yard and garden wastes,
motor oil, and white goods (refrigerators, etc.). 3
Many states have banned the disposal of special
items including mercury batteries, automobile scrap,
non-degradable grocery bags, glass, metal, single
polymer plastic, nickel-cadmium batteries, and spe-
cialty paper (printing paper, glossy paper). The legis-
lation at the state level on disposal bans is very
dynamic at the moment.
In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Pollution
Prevention Act. The text of the act provides lan-
TABLE3
MSW Management Facilities in the U.S. in 19943
Managementscheme Number of facilities
Operating landfills 3558
Recycling
Curbside programs 7265
Drop-offcenters (1995 data) 8386
Materials recoveryfacilities 1243
Composting
MSW 17
Yard waste 3202
Combustion
Waste-to-energy 121
Incinerators 27
U.S.A. NATIONAL OVERVIEW ON WASTE MANAGEMENT 363

TABLE 4 hexavalent chromium in packaging. The presence of

MSW Characteristics in the U.S. in 19932 incidental concentrations was also limited. It was felt
that the use of inks, dyes, pigments, adhesives, and
Category Tonnage (× 106) Percentage
stabilizers containing these metals contravened pol-
Paper & paperboard 77.8 37.6 lution prevention principles. There may be more
Glass 13.7 6.6 recent efforts at adopting toxics bans in individual
Metals 17.1 8.3 states. There is no federal legislation that would
Plastics 19.3 9.3
accomplish this at the national level.
Wood 13.7 6.6
Food 13.8 6.7
Yard trimmings 32.8 15.9
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE THERMAL
Other 18.7 9.0
Total 206.9 100.0 TREATMENT OF MSW
In late 1995, the U.S. EPA issued the new Clean Air
Act rules regulating MSW combustors. 6 The stan-
TABLE 5 dards, arising from the 1990 Clean Air Act, are
MSW Characteristics in the U.S. in 19932 referred to as the "Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines
Product Tonnage (× 106) Percentage for Existing Sources: Municipal Waste Combus-
tors". They are also known as the maximum achiev-
Containers & packaging 70.6 34.1
Non-durable goods 54.8 26.5 able control technology (MACT) rules. The rules
Durable goods 31.9 15.4 impose strict new limits on metals and strict limits
Yard trimmings 32.8 15.9 on dioxins. EPA has predicted that air-borne pollu-
Food, other 16.8 8.1 tant emissions will be reduced by 145,000 tons per
Total 206.9 100.0
year with an estimated increased annual cost of
about $450 million.
The rules are broken down into two categories:
guage encouraging "pollution prevention", recycling, existing plants and new plants (new source perfor-
treatment, and disposal as a hierarchy for manage- mance standards). Further, distinctions are made
ment. At this time, "pollution prevention" is defined about facility size. Plants that are larger than 248
as source reduction (waste minimization via input tons per day (tpd) are considered large facilities.
substitution, product reformulation, production pro- Plants that are less than 248 tpd but greater than 39
cess redesign or modernization) and in-process recy- tpd are considered small facilities. Plants less than
cling? As of 1987, at least 27 states have adopted 39 tpd are not regulated. The rules impact about
legislation to promote pollution prevention) This 121 waste-to-energy facilities and nine combustors.
number has undoubtedly grown since then. Many Generally, all retrofits will need to be in place by the
states promulgated these laws prior to the 1990 year 2000.
Pollution Prevention Act to encourage pollution pre- Table 6 summarizes the emission limits using the
vention and to decrease "end of pipe" management units used in the U.S. (normalized to 7% 02 21°C,
strategies. The action at the state level included pol- dry, atmospheric pressure with units of part per mil-
icy formulation (focus on pollutants, strategies, lion dry volume (ppmdv) or mass per dry standard
goals, plans) and the requirement for pollution pre- cubic meter, mass/dscm). For convenience, data are
vention planning. Planning efforts usually involve also provided using International Units (normalized
issues about confidentiality, fees, technical assis- to 11% 02 25°C, dry, atmospheric pressure with
tance, education, incentives, and training. In many units of ppmdv or mass per normal cubic meter,
states, business associations (e.g. the Business and mass/Rm3). The table presents data for new plants
Industry Association), regional associations, and and existing plants. Emissions limits for carbon
state and federal regulators have teamed to promote monoxide, total PCDDs/PCDFs, particulate matter,
pollution prevention programs for industry. These opacity, lead, cadmium, mercury, sulfur dioxide,
have been quite successful. hydrogen chloride, and nitrogen oxides are shown.
There has not been a great deal of progress on Also shown are the EPA method numbers for ana-
toxics reduction in MSW packaging. As of 1993, 16 lytical procedures and the monitoring periods that
states had passed toxics reduction legislation. 5 The are used for continuous emission monitoring (CEM)
legislative efforts were based on model legislation or compliance testing. As shown in the table, dis-
prepared by the Source Reduction Council of tinctions are made about combustor type for exist-
the Coalition of Northeast Governors (CONEG). ing plants regarding the monitoring of carbon
The legislation required a phaseout of the inten- monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Also, existing large
tional introduction of lead, cadmium, mercury, and plants with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have
364 T. T. EIGHMY A N D D. S. K O S S O N

TABLE 6
Clean Air Act MACT Rules for Existing and New Plants

Parameter U.S. EPA Final Regulations Comments

New Plants Existing Plants

7% 02 11% 02 7% 02, 11% 02,

21°C 25°C 21°C 25°C

Carbon monoxide CEMS

Modular 50 ppmdv 35 ppmdv 50 ppmdv 35 ppmdv 4 hour avg
Mass burn water 100 ppmdv 70 ppmdv 100 ppmdv 70 ppmdv
Wall/rotary
Waterwall
Mass burn rotary 100 ppmdv 70 ppmdv 100 ppmdv 70 ppmdv
Refractory
Fiuidized bed 100 ppmdv 70 ppmdv 100 ppmdv 70 ppmdv
Coai/RDF 150 ppmdv 105 ppmdv 150 ppmdv 105 ppmdv
Total PCDD/PCDF Meth 23
>248 tpd 13 ng/dscm 9 ng/Rm3 30 ng/dscm 21 ng/Rm3 avg 3 tests
>248 tpd w/ESP 13 ng/dscm 9 ng/Rm3 60 ng/dscm 42 ng/Rm3
>39 and >248 tpd 13 ng/dscm 9 ng/Rm3 125 ng/dscm 88 ng/Rm3
Particulate matter Meth 5
>248 tpd 24 mg/dscm 17 mg/Rm3 27 mg/dscm 19 mg/Rm3 avg 3 tests
>39 and <248 tpd 24 mg/dscm 17 mg/Rm3 70 mg/dscm 49 mg/Rm3
Opacity 10O/0 10% 10OA 10%
Cadmium Meth 29
>248 tpd 0.020 mg/dscm 0.014 mg/Rm3 0.040 mg/dscm 0.028 mg/Rm3 avg 3 tests
>39 and <248 tpd 0.020 mg/dscm 0.'014 mg/Rm3 0.100 mg/dscm 0.070 mg/Rm3
Lead Meth 29
>248 tpd 0.20 mg/dscm 0.140 mg/Rm3 0.49 mg/dscm 0.343 mg/Rm3 avg 3 tests
>39 and <248 tpd 0.20 mg/dscm 0.140 mg/Rm3 1.6 mg/dscm 1.120 mg/Rm3
Mercury Meth 29
>248 tpd 0.080 mg/dscm 0.056 mg/Rm3 0.080 mg/dscm 0.056 mg/Rm3 avg 3 tests
>39 and <248 tpd 0.080 mg/dscm 0.056 mg/Rm3 0.080 mg/dscm 0.056 mg/Rm3
or % removal 85% 85% 85% 85%
Sulfur dioxide CEMS
>248 tpd 30 ppmdv 21 ppmdv 31 ppmdv t 22 ppmdv 1
>39 and <248 tpd 30 ppmdv 21 ppmdv 80 ppmdv2 56 ppmdv2
or % removal 80% 80% 75%1 or 50o/02 75%I or 50%2
Hydrogen chloride Meth 26
>248 tpd 25 ppmdv 18 ppmdv 31 ppmdvI 22 ppmdv l avg 3 tests
>39 and <248 tpd 25 ppmdv 18 ppmdv 250 ppmdv2 175 ppmdv2
or % removal 95% 95% 95%1 or 50%2 95%l or 500/02
Nitrogen oxides CEMS
>248 tpd 150 ppmdv 105 ppmdv see below see below
>39 and <248 tpd exempt exempt exempt exempt
Fluidized bed 240 ppmdv 168 ppmdv
Refractory wall exempt exempt
RDF stokers 250 ppmdv 175 ppmdv
Mass burn water wall 200 ppmdv 140 ppmdv
Mass burn rotary 250 ppmdv 175 ppmdv
Other 200 ppmdv 140 ppmdv

l'2The superscripts denote pairings between limit values and percent removals within "either" category.
#

less stringent dioxin limits t h a n large plants with
other air pollution control systems (e.g. dry scrubbers/
fabric filters). I n the case o f mercury, sulfur dioxide,
a n d h y d r o g e n chloride, percentage removals, as
opposed to emissions limits, can be used as the
standard. Finally, the States o f N e w Jersey a n d
F l o r i d a have imposed stricter m e r c u r y emission
limits t h a n the federal limits.
F o r new plants, siting provisions are required.
This includes a site analysis, a materials s e p a r a t i o n
U.S.A. NATIONAL OVERVIEW ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
plan, and public meeting requirements. The materi-
als separation plan is designed to promote source
separation and recycling.
INCINERATION RESIDUE MANAGEMENT
Bottom ash and air pollution control (APC) residues
are mixed together at most MSW incineration
(MSWI) facilities and disposed as a "combined ash".
Residues are subject to testing by the Toxicity Char-
acteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) 7 prior to dis-
posal. Residues which pass TCLP are subject to
management as a non-hazardous solid waste, while
residues which fail TCLP are subject to management
as a hazardous waste or special waste, depending on
state requirements. In practice, operations at most
MSWI facilities have been adjusted so that failure to
pass TCLP is a rare event. Required testing fre-
quency varies considerably from state to state, typi-
cally ranging from testing of weekly to quarterly
composite samples. The most frequent disposal
options practiced for combined ash are disposal in a
landfill which receives only MSWI residues (termed
a "monofiU"), disposal in a segregated cell within an
MSW landfill which only receives MSWI residues,
or disposal on top of previously landfilled MSW. 8
Several jurisdictions are evaluating the use of MSWI
residues as daily cover for conventional MSW landfills.
Utilization of MSWI residues has been sought in
jurisdictions which have high costs associated with
disposal of MSWI residues, limited disposal capacity,
which is constrained by the difficulty associated with
siting new landfills, or limited reserves of natural
aggregate. These conditions are most prevalent in
areas with high population densities. While several
utilization options have been considered, the most
promising utilization scenario is use of bottom ash
as an aggregate substitute in road construction
applications. Utilization of cement-stabilized bottom
ash as a compacted base coarse has been applied in
Florida. 9 Extensive field testing of utilization of bot-
tom ash as an aggregate substitute in asphalt pave-
ment used as a binder coarse has been carried out in
New Hampshire. 1°,11 Results to date have indicated
no measurable environmental impact from this appli-
cation. In most jurisdictions, utilization of bottom
ash has been constrained by negative public opinion,
lack of generally accepted standard practices and
design criteria for utilization applications, and uncer-
tainty associated with long-term liability.
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Extensive remediation of past industrial waste dis-
posal sites, contaminated soils and groundwater is
required throughout the U.S. Primary sources of
contamination include leakage from civilian fuel and
365
industrial solvent storage tanks, past industrial waste
disposal practices, mining wastes, fuel and solvent
tank leakage and waste management practices at
military bases (Department of Defense (DOD)), and
waste management practices associated with produc-
tion of nuclear weapons (Department of Energy
(DOE)). Clean up of contaminated DOD and DOE
sites alone has been projected to cost several hun-
dred billion dollars. 12
Development of remediation goals and technolo-
gies that are consistent with human health protec-
tion, environmental protection and national
economic resources has been extremely challenging.
Initial remediation goals during the 1980s were
based on attempts to restore pristine environmental
conditions, the philosophy of "the polluter must
pay," and the technology of soil or waste excavation
followed by incineration, solidification/stabilization
and/or landfill disposal. Groundwater remediation
was primarily through recovery (pumping) and
above ground treatment. The technical and eco-
nomic difficulties associated with this approach sub-
sequently became apparent.
The next shift in remediation strategy was to base
remediation clean-up standards for soil contami-
nants on human health risk assessments. This
approach required development or definition of
acceptable risk levels, contaminant exposure path-
ways, and toxicological dose-response models.
Acceptable risk levels initially were defined as an
excess lifetime cancer risk of one in a million (10-6). 13
This policy was based on a de minimus standard
arising from standards for food additives 14 and sub-
sequently, insecticide management. 15 The 10 -6 excess
cancer risk is in contrast to the current risk of devel-
oping cancer of 1 in 4, or 250,000 in a million. 16
Thus, a 10~ risk standard would increase an individ-
ual's lifetime risk of developing cancer by 0.00025%.
Currently, the U.S. EPA acceptable cancer risk
standards range from 1 × 104 to 1 × 10-6.17
Risk, as used for establishing remediation, is
defined as the product of hazard and exposure. TMThe
hazard component of risk includes assessment of the
toxicological dose-response for lifetime incidence of
cancer or non-carcinogenic health effects. For
carcinogenic effects, a linear extrapolation of cancer
incidences at higher doses with animal experimenta-
tion is used. For non-carcinogenic health effects, a
reference dose is established for a "no observed effects"
level. Estimates of exposure are based on contami-
nant transport models and conservative estimates of
human ingestion (e.g. groundwater consumption,
soil ingestion by children). 19' 20 It has been reported
that this risk assessment process may result in over-
estimation of risk by 1 to 4 orders of magnitude. 2''22
Current methods for establishing remediation stan-
dards are based primarily on risk-based approaches.
366
However, consideration is given to current and
future land use (e.g. residential vs. industrial) when
determining human exposure rates. Restriction on
future land use is required when less stringent (e.g.
industrial locations) remediation standards are used.
Default soil and groundwater standards, which
include more conservative assumptions, may be used
when considered expedient. Alternatively, site-specific
risk assessments may be carried out to establish
remediation standards when this approach is consid-
ered cost-effective.
Remediation technology has advanced signifi-
cantly in parallel with revision of approaches to
remediation standards. Widely used ex situ treat-
ment approaches for contaminated soil include phys-
ical separation based on particle size, soil washing,
aerobic biodegradation in piles ("bio-piles"), thermal
desorption and solidification/stabilization. Ground-
water is usually pumped to contain contaminant
plumes and then treated either by air stripping fol-
lowed by activated carbon for volatile c~ontaminants,
direct activated carbon for non-volatile contami-
nants, or discharge to wastewater treatment facili-
ties. Widely used in situ remediation approaches for
unsaturated soils include soil vapor extraction (for
volatile contaminants), bio-venting (use of air circu-
lation to increase sub-surface biodegradation), and
solidification/stabilization (for inorganic contami-
nants). Groundwater recirculation is also used fre-
quently to enhance contaminant recovery and
sub-surface biodegradation. Several recent reviews
provide overviews of remediation technology. 23 25
Technology selection is based on either presump-
tive remedies or site-specific technology development
or demonstration. Presumptive remedies assume a
specific approach for a generic class of contaminated
sites. For example, capping and leachate collection
have been employed as presumptive remedies for
landfill sites. Similarly, soil vapor extraction has been
employed for remediation of contaminated vadose
zone soils at gasoline stations.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action.
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC (1989).
2. U.S. EPA. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1994 Update. EPA 530-R-94-042 (1994).
3. Steuteville, R. The state of garbage in America. Biocycle
36(4): 54-63 (1995).
4. Allen, D. T. and Rosselot, K. S., Pollution Prevention for
Chemical Processes. HWRIC TR-022, Hazardous Waste
Research and Information Center, Champaign, IL (1994).
5. Style, R. Are state laws motivating business to pursue pollution
prevention? Poll. Prey. Rev. Winter 61-70 (1994).
T.T. EIGHMY AND D. S. KOSSON
6. U.S. EPA. Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Infor-
mation Document for Promulgated Standards and Guide-
lines-Public Comments and Responses. EPA-453/R-95-0136
(1995).
7. U.S. EPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
SW-846, Method 1311 (1992).
8. Anon. Municipal waste combustion. Proceedings from Munici-
pal Waste Combustion, International Specialty Conference.
Air & Waste Management Association, Williamsburg, VA
(1993).
9. Andrews, J. C. Jr. Incinerator ash disposal in the Tampa Bay
Region. Proceedings from Municipal Waste Combustion, Sec-
ond Annual International Specialty Conference. Air & Waste
Management Association, sponsored by EPA (1991).
10. Whitehead, I. E. An environmental evaluation of bottom ash
substitution in pavement materials. M.S. Thesis in Civil Engi-
neering, University of New Hampshire (1992).
11. Eighmy, T. T., Gress, D. L., Crimi, D., Hasan, S. L., Karpinski,
S. J. and Janoo, V. The Laconia, N. H. Bottom Ash Paving
Project, Volume 1, Environmental Testing Report. Environ-
mental Research Group, University of New Hampshire and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory. Draft (1995)
12. U.S. DOE. Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: Baseline
Environmental Report, Volume 1. DOE/EM-0230 (1995).
13. Travis, C. C. and Hattemer-Frey, H. A. Determining an
acceptable level of risk. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22:873-876
(1988).
14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Compounds used in
food-producing animals: proposed rule. Fed. Register 38:
19226-19230 (1973).
15. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food additives; thresh-
old of regulation for substances used in food-contact articles.
Fed. Register 58:52719-52729 (1993).
16. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures (1994)
17. U.S. EPA. National oil and hazardous substances pollution
contingency plan: final rule. Fed. Register 55:8666-8853
(1990).
18. Cothern, C. R., ed. Comparative Environmental Risk Assess-
ment. Lewis Publishers, New York (1992).
19. U.S. EPA. Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC (1993).
20. National Research Council (NRC). Science and Judgment
in Risk Assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment of
Hazardous Air Pollutants, Board on Environmental Studies
and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences. National
Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
(1994).
21. Anderson, E. L. Risk Analysis in Environmental Health with
Emphasis on Carcinogenesis Presentation. Harvard School of
Public Health, Sept (1984).
22. Allen, B. C., Crump, K. S. and Shipp, A. M. Correlation
between carcinogenic potency of chemicals in animals and
humans. Risk Analysis 8:531-544 (1988).
23. Nyer, E. K. and MoreUo, B. Trichloroethylene treatment
and remediation. Ground Water Monit. Rem. 13(2): 98-103
(1993).
24. Just, S. R. and Stockwell, K. J. Comparison of the effective-
ness of emerging in situ technologies and traditional ex situ
treatment of solvent-contaminated soils. ACS Syrup. Set. 518
(Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste Management
II1): 238-277 (1993).
25. U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Selected
Metal-contaminated Sites. EPA/540/R-95/512 (1995).