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