Stwes-2waste 02

CHAPTER 5 SOLID WASTE TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 1.1. What is waste? .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Wastes and sustainable development ........................................................................ 3 1.3. Why waste statistics? ................................................................................................ 3 1.4. P-S-R Framework for waste statistics ....................................................................... 4 SOURCES AND TYPES OF WASTES ............................................................................. 5 2.1. Municipal wastes....................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Industrial wastes........................................................................................................ 6 2.3. Agricultural wastes ................................................................................................... 7 2.4. Mining and quarrying wastes .................................................................................... 7 2.5. Energy production wastes ......................................................................................... 7 AMOUNT AND COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL WASTES ....................................... 8 HAZARDOUS WASTES ................................................................................................. 11 4.1. International agreements on hazardous wastes ....................................................... 14 COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES ................................... 15 5.1. Landfilling............................................................................................................... 17 5.2. Incineration ............................................................................................................. 18 5.3. Composting ............................................................................................................. 18 5.4. Dumping and incineration at sea............................................................................. 19 5.5. Waste recycling and waste minimisation............................................................... 19 IMPACTS OF WASTES AND WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS ON HUMANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 20 6.1. Water pollution ....................................................................................................... 20 6.2. Atmospheric pollution ............................................................................................ 21 6.3. Effects on the marine environment ......................................................................... 21 CONTROL STRATEGIES ............................................................................................... 22 7.1. New approaches on waste management: strategic waste prevention...................... 23 7.2. Characteristics of waste prevention ........................................................................ 25 7.3. Toward strategic waste prevention (WP)................................................................ 26 7.3.1. Features of strategic WP ........................................................................... 26 7.3.2. Conceptual framework .............................................................................. 27 WASTE ISSUES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ........................................................ 28 WASTE STATISTICS ...................................................................................................... 30 9.1. Monitoring of waste ................................................................................................ 30 9.1.1. At national level........................................................................................ 30 9.1.2. At international level................................................................................. 30 9.2. Assessment of waste generation ............................................................................. 30 9.3. Classification of wastes........................................................................................... 31 9.4. Assessment of priority activities and areas............................................................. 34 9.5. Assessment of quantities of waste .......................................................................... 34 9.6. Assessment of waste composition .......................................................................... 36
2.
3. 4. 5.
6.
7.
8. 9.
______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page i
10. ROLE OF THE NSO......................................................................................................... 37 11. SUGGESTIONS FOR DATA PRESENTATION AND OUTPUT.................................. 38
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Flow of materials in society ........................................................................................ 1 Figure 2: Life cycle of waste generation................................................................................... 2 Table 1: Global dimensions of solid waste problem................................................................... 4 Table 2: Pressure-state response framework............................................................................... 4 Table 3: General sources of municipal solid wastes ................................................................... 5 Table 4: Classification of materials comprising municipal solid wastes .................................... 6 Table 5: Quantities of solid waste generated in selected countries/areas by source................... 8 category, most recent available year (103 t/year) ........................................................................ 8 Table 6: Domestic waste composition for selected major cities in the ESCAP region (%) ...... 9 Table 7: Urban waste composition in different parts of the world ........................................... 10 Table 8: Some characteristics of domestic waste...................................................................... 10 Table 9: Seasonal variations in the composition of waste in selected cities in Turkey (1993) 11 Table 10: Hazardous waste generated in European Union (by national classifications)a ......... 12 Table 11: Estimates of global generation of industrial and hazardous waste ........................... 12 Table 12: Estimated hazardous waste production in selected countries per billion US$ GDP 13 Table 13: Estimated hazardous wastes generation in some ESCAP countries ......................... 13 Figure 3: Various phases of the municipal solid waste collection system................................ 15 Table 14:Overview of solid waste treatment and disposal methods ......................................... 15 Table 16: Waste management targets in Korea ........................................................................ 22 Figure 4: Waste prevention in the context of waste minimisation............................................ 23 Figure 5: Waste prevention in context ...................................................................................... 25 Table 17: Conceptual framework for strategic waste prevention............................................. 28 Table 18. Possible sources of waste data .................................................................................. 31 Table 19: Main waste categories of the rapid assessment method of WHO ............................ 32 Table 20: Waste generated and waste collected........................................................................ 35 Example Table 21: National totals for selected waste categories ............................................. 38 Example Table 22: Urban areas, totals for selected waste categories ...................................... 38 Example Table 23: Domestic/urban waste: composition and possible alternative treatment and disposal modes.................................................................... 39 Example Table 24: Production, movement and disposal of hazardous waste .......................... 39
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Box 7: Mining waste statistics in Turkey Thermal power plant waste statistics in Turkey Hospital waste inventory in turkey Ragpickers of Bombay, India Avoiding confusion with related terminology Socio-cultural factors and waste prevention brorammes Five policy concepts supporting strategic waste prevention
______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page ii
1.
INTRODUCTION
The growth of the world's population, increasing urbanisation, rising standards of living, and rapid developments in technology have all contributed to an increase in both the amount and the variety of solid wastes generated by industrial, domestic and other activities (UNEP, 1991). The problems of dealing with greater volumes of - often more dangerous -waste materials are particularly acute in developing countries where these changes have not been met by improvements in waste- management technologies (Wilson & Balkau, 1990). Even domestic solid waste has become a health hazard in many developing countries as a result of careless handling and a failure to organise appropriate solid waste collection schemes. In this chapter solid wastes arising from all kind of human activities, their impacts on human health and environment, their classification and handling, as well as international concerns on solid wastes will be elaborated. Environmental statistics regarding to solid wastes will be studied. 1.1. What is waste?
Wastes can be considered, as those materials no longer required by an individual, institution or industry. 1 Wastes are thus regarded as by-products or end products of the production and consumption process respectively. The term waste is defined in the European Union legislation (Directive 75/442/EEC) as any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard (see Annex I).
Source: A. Vesilind, 1995.
Figure 1: Flow of materials in society
The Basel Convention (1989) appends a legal extension to the definition, by adding: "... to be disposed of by the provisions of national law".
______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 1
The flow of materials in our society may be illustrated by the schematic diagram shown in Figure 1. This diagram emphasises the fact that we do not consume materials; we merely use them and ultimately return them, often in an altered state to the environment. The production of useful goods for eventual use by those people called consumers requires an input of materials. These materials originate from one of three sources: raw materials, which are gleaned from the face of the Earth and used for the manufacture of products; scrap materials produced in the manufacturing operations; and materials recovered after the product has been used. The industrial operations are not efficient, and thus produce some waste which must be disposed of. The resulting processed goods are sold to the users of products, who in turn have three options after use: to dispose of this material; to collect the material in sufficient quantities to either use it for energy production or to recycle it back into the industrial sector; or to reuse the material for the same or a different purpose without remanufacture (Vesilind, A., 1995). Figure 2 portrays how waste generation is linked to the life-cycle of products and materials. The cradle-to-grave linkages shown in the figure are merely illustrative of where wastes arise during economic processes. Other waste streams may exist that are not shown. Consider thew consumption of finished goods. Municipal waste is part of the associated wastehowever, it is far from all of it. In many countries, for instance, municipal wastes does not include the building materials from construction, renovation, and demolition projects. On the other hand, hidden flows refer to the natural resource use that occurs when providing commodities for the market place. Examples of such non-visible, non-priced substances include those driving from mining, forestry, earth moving and other sources (OECD, 2000).
Extraction
Primary Production Waste
Production
Distribution
Consumption
Final Disposal
Industrial Waste
Municipal & Industrial waste
Municipal Waste
WASTE
Source: OECD, 2000.
WASTE
WASTE
Figure 2: Life cycle of waste generation By Agenda 21 definition, solid wastes include all domestic refuse and non- hazardous wastes such as commercial and institutional wastes, street sweepings and construction debris. It is also added that, in some countries, the solid wastes management system also handles human wastes such as night soil, ashes from incinerators, septic tank sludge and sludge from sewage treatment plants. If these wastes manifest hazardous characteristics they should be treated as hazardous wastes. Waste management deals with the whole cycle of generation of wastes, their storage, collection and transport, and their eventual treatment and disposal. In developed countries, waste management has changed from relatively passive management of waste arisings to an active management integrating economic and environmental concerns.
1.2.
Wastes and sustainable development
Agenda 21 acknowledges environmentally sound waste management must go beyond the mere safe disposal or recovery of wastes that are generated and seek to address the root cause of the problem by attempting to change unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. This implies the application of life-cycle management concept, which presents a unique opportunity to reconcile development with environmental protection. Agenda 21 proposes four waste- related programme areas: a) b) c) d) Minimising wastes; Maximising environmentally sound waste reuse and recycling; Promoting environmentally sound waste disposal and treatment; Extending waste service coverage.
The four programme areas are interrelated and mutually supportive and must therefore be integrated in order to provide a comprehensive and environmentally responsive framework for managing municipal solid wastes. It is also emphasised that effective control of the generation, storage, treatment, recycling and reuse, transport, recovery and disposal of hazardous wastes is of paramount importance for proper health, environmental protection and natural resource management, and sustainable development. 1.3. Why waste statistics?
Taken broadly, waste generation can be viewed as an environmental impact.. There are multiple determinative factors that directly exercise an influence on the scale of environmental impacts. Commoner (1972) and others after him (Rosa and Thomas 1994, Jackson 1991, Wernick and Ausbel 1997), have used three such determinants: -population -afflunce -technology From a conceptual standpoint, waste generation as an environmental impact [I], can be expressed as a function of population [P], affluence [A], and technology [T]. [I] = [P] x [A] x [T] In short IPAT captures a dynamic relationship: If environmental Impacts are to fall, then beneficial changes in Technology must more than offset the combined effects of increases in Population and Affluence. On a per capita basis, the increase in municipal wastes from 1980-1995 has been 25%, that is, from 410 kilograms per capita to 500 kilograms per capita. (OECD, 1999). The United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development forecasts that within just ten years the amount of wastes generated in developing countries may double. Additional observations on the global dimensions of the waste burden can also be made (Table 1).
This alarming picture highlights the necessity of waste statistics for the following uses: -to estimate the trends for planning -to be able to set quantitative targets -to evaluate the performance with reference to set targets, by employing some quantitative indicators. -to get the picture and to control the transboundary movement of all kind of wastes. Table 1: Global dimensions of solid waste problem
Factor Population Observation By 2050 the global population is projected to be 50% larger than today (i.e. 9 billion people), and 95% of that growth is expected to occur in developing countries (Swell and Morrison 1999). Consumption Consumers in certain rapidly expanding non-OECD economies are emulating the ecologically challenging consumption patterns of consumers in OECD countries. Affluence Some of the highest GDP growth rates in the world is taking place in countries outside the developed world, such as China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia. (OECD 1997b) Technology The World Bank reports that massive levels of industrial investment will occur in developing countries (Hanrahan 1995). In principle, leap-frogging the dirty technologies of the past may be possible because emany developing countries have fewer sunken costs in older eco-unfriendly technologies (Andrews and Socolow 1999). Impact A five -fold increase in global waste generation is possible by 2025 (CSD 1997). Source: OECD, 2000.
1.4.
P-S-R Framework for waste statistics
The pressure-state-response framework for waste statistics is summarised in Table 2. Waste generation, which is a consequence of changing production and consumption patterns, in parallel to increasing population and wealth (see previous section) is a pressure on the environment. The impacts of waste generation (see Section 6) alter the state of environment. In order to overcome these problems, some control strategies for wastes (see Section 7) are put in place. For sustainable waste management, the statistical information are required on all these issues. Table 2: Pressure -state response framework
PRESSURE INDIRECT PRESSURES: Consumption patterns and levels Production levels patterns and Human amenities health and Expenditure on waste Charges for waste disposal STATE Effects on e.g.: Water quality, air quality, land use and soil quality Toxic contamination RESPONSE Waste prevention Product re-use Recycling rates
DIRECT PRESSURES: Waste generation trends and intensities Source: Adapted from OECD, 1999.
2.
SOURCES AND TYPES OF WASTES
Wastes are produced by human activities and include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Municipal wastes Industrial wastes Agricultural wastes Mining and quarrying wastes Energy generation wastes
Differences in the wealth of communities and countries, degree of urbanisation and industrialisation, and intensity of agricultural activities account for the significant differences in waste treatment and disposal problems faced by developed and developing countries, and
between urban and rural areas. Types of wastes according to their sources are described in detail below:
2.1.
Municipal wastes
Municipal wastes are composed of wastes generated by households and wastes of similar character from shops, market and offices, open areas, and treatment plant sites. Each of these sources of municipal waste are elaborated in Table 3. Table 3: General sources of municipal solid wastes
Source Typical facilities, activities, or locations where wastes are generated Single-family and multi-family dwellings, low-, medium-,and high-rise apartments, etc. Stores, restaurants, markets, office buildings, hotels, motels, schools, print shops, auto repair shops, medical facilities and institutions Streets, alleys, parks, vacant lots, playgrounds, beaches, highways, recreational areas, etc. Types of s olid waste
Residential
Food wastes, special wastes
rubbish,
ashes,
Commercial and Institutional
Food wastes, rubbish, ashes, demolition and construction wastes, special wastes, occasionally hazardous wastes Street sweepings, roadside litter, rubbish, and other special wastes
Open areas
Treatment plant sites
Water, sewage and industrial Treatment plant sludges waste water treatment processes Source: adapted from Peavy , Rowe and Tchobanoglous, 1985.
Types of solid wastes comprising municipal wastes are described in detail in Table 4.
Table 4: Classification of materials comprising municipal solid wastes

Component Food wastes Description The animal, fruit, or vegetable residues (also called garbage) resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and eating of foods. Because food wastes are putrescible, they will decompose rapidly, especially in warm weather. Combustible and non-combustible solid wastes, excluding food wastes or putrescible materials. Typically combustible rubbish consists of materials such as paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, rubber, leather, wood, furniture, and garden trimmings. Non- combustible rubbish consists of items such as glass, crockery, tin cans, aluminium cans, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, dirt and construction material. and Materials remaining from the burning wood, coal, coke, and other combustible wastes. Ashes and residues are normally composed of fine, powdery materials, cinders, clinkers, and small amounts of burned and partially burned materials. Wastes from razed buildings and other structures are classified as demolition wastes. Wastes from the construction, remodelling, and repairing of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and similar structures are classified as construction wastes. These wastes may include dirt, stones, concrete, bricks, plaster, lumber, shingles, and plumbing, heating, and electrical parts. They are usually of an inert nature. The main exception is asbestos, where special disposal is required. Wastes such as street sweepings, roadside litter, catch-basin debris, dead animals, trash like abandoned vehicles, electrical appliances are classifies as special wastes. The solid and semisolid wastes from water, sewage and industrial waste water treatment facilities are included in this classification. Sewage sludge isa slurry of fine organic-rich particles with a highly variable chemical composition depending on the sources of the effluent and the type and efficiency of the treatment processes. Sewage sludges tend to concentrate heavy metals and water-soluble synthetic organic compounds, but they may also contain greases, oils and bacteria. Dredged materials are excavated from river estuaries, harbours and other waterways to aid navigation. It is estimated that 10% of dredged materials is contaminated by oil, heavy. metals, nutrients and organochlorine compounds.
Rubbish
Ashes residues
Demolition construction wastes
and
Special wastes
Treatment plant wastes and dredged soil
Source: adapted from Peavy, Rowe and Tchobanoglous, 1985.
2.2.
Industrial wastes
Industrial process wastes include a very wide range of materials and the actual composition of industrial wastes in a country will depend on the nature of the industrial base. Wastes may occur as relatively pure substances or as complex mixtures of varying composition and in varying physicochemical states. Examples of the materials which may be found under this heading are general factory rubbish, organic wastes from food processing, acids, alkalis, metallic sludges and tarry residues. The most important feature of industrial wastes is that a
significant proportion is regarded as hazardous or potentially toxic, thus requiring special handling, treatment and disposal. 2.3. Agricultural wastes
Agricultural wastes, which may include horticultural and forestry wastes, comprise crop residues, animal manure, diseased carcasses, unwanted agrochemicals and 'empty' containers. Their composition will depend on the system of agriculture. Estimates of agricultural waste arisings are rare, but they are generally thought of as contributing a significant proportion of the total waste matter in the developed world. Since 1960, as a result of huge rises in productivity, there have been corresponding increases in the volumes of crop residues and animal manure requiring disposal. There is likely to be a significant increase in agricultural wastes globally if developing countries continue to intensify farming systems.
2.4.
Mining and quarrying wastes
Mine tailings or spoils are the waste material that is extracted in the process of mining minerals of economic value. The waste materials may include topsoil, rock and dirt. It may be inert, such as material from china clay mining, but mine tailings from ore extraction are contaminated with metals or chemicals that have been used for mineral separation. Mechanisation of the underground mining process has also increased the amount of spoil reaching the surface and needing disposal. Reduction in spoil from mechanised extraction seems unlikely in the developed world, and the amount of spoil arising in developing countries could increase substantially with rising mechanisation rates. Arising of mining wastes is likely to be of some significance in many developing countries where extraction and processing of minerals are important economic activities.
BOX 1: MINING WASTE STATISTICS IN TURKEY Mining waste survey was conducted in 1995 covering mining establishments in Turkey. Second survey was conducted 1996. The objectiv es of the survey were to capture the state of the mining waste issue, to define the composition and quantity of waste generated, to identify the recyclable materials and methods of contol implemented.The scope of the survey was limited to the mining establishments in compliance with the ISIC and the industries which have ore enriching units. Along with gaseous and liquid wastes, and the state of the disposal facilities in charge, the amonut and composition of solid wastes, disposal options applied, costs of disposal were investigated.
2.5.
Energy production wastes
Fly ash from the thermal power plants is the major concern. It may be reused as a component of building material, i.e. an additive to cement. Therefore, it is not a big burden in the last decades as it was used to be.
BOX 2: THERMAL POWER PLANT WASTE STATISTICS IN TURKEY The surveys on the waste generation and the state of the thermal power plants were carried out by the State Institute of Statistics between 1992 and 1996. The amount of industrial and household wastes generated in the power plant establishments accomponied by the general production and other waste handling data were collected and processed. The state of the thermal power plants in general and in waste managemnt issues were reported. ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 7
An extensive wastes list has been provided by the European Waste Catalogue, which is a European Council decision under debate (see Annex II). For a general overview of waste data, the reader is referred to the UNEP Environmental Data Report (Part 8: Wastes and waste management) from which the following relevant data have been extracted (Table 5). Table 5: Quantities of solid waste generated in selected countries/areas by source category, most recent available year (103 t/year)
Region/country China a/ Hong Kong Japan Pakistan Republic of Korea Singapore Taiwan Province of China
a/ b/
e/
Year of data 1990 1990 1988 1978 1991 1990
Municipal 5,85/ 1.2 b 48,283 d/ 1.05 78 1,247 f/ 0.96
Industrial 577,970 c/ 1,879
60 903 g/ 30,000
Figures in tonnes/day. Data refer to household, public cleansing and commercial wastes. c/ Estimate comprises 1,605 t/ day collected as part of municipal wastes and a further 274 t/ day of chemical wastes (the latter is a daily average assuming an annual generation of 100,000 t). d/ Wastes generated in Karachi only in grams/capita/day. e/ Data refer to the average daily quantity of wastes generated. f/ Data are in units of kilograms/capita/day.
g/
1985.
Source: UNEP (1993).
3.
AMOUNT AND COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL WASTES
In order to develop frameworks within which effective waste management strategies can be planned, it is essential to know not only the amounts of waste generated and their sources, but also the type of materials in each waste stream, their properties, potential toxicity, and the hazards they pose to human health and the environment. The lack of reliable time series on solid waste streams and rapid changes in the composition of waste streams are a serious impediment to setting priorities in solid waste management in many developed as well as developing countries. Municipal wastes in developing countries have a higher proportion of organic matter and ash, a higher moisture content and lower paper content, although refuse from the wealthier suburbs is similar in composition to West European wastes. Organic matter and ash may account for between 60-85% of all wastes in low income settlements (Cook & Kalbermatten, 1982). Per capita generation of municipal wastes varies between 2.75 and 4.0 kg/day in high income countries, but is as little as 0.5 kg/day in countries with the lowest income levels. Despite the large amounts of waste produced by individuals in the wealthy industrialised nations, municipal wastes account for a small proportion of total wastes generated. Changes in the composition of municipal wastes i n developed countries have undoubtedly taken place both at the community and national levels, but data are still relatively sparse. In
general, the proportion of ash and grit has decreased, while the proportion of plastics has been growing (UNEP, 1991). An important component of domestic wastes in industrialised countries is the "bulky" or "consumer durables" wastes, e.g. cars, refrigerators, washing machines. The number of items discarded each year is growing as rapid changes in technology and production of new models reduces what is perceived to be their useful life. Such wastes are estimated at about 12 million tonnes/year in the European Union. In the last two decades, more data and information on domestic and urban wastes in ESCAP countries have become available. In the following sections, the composition, collection, treatment and disposal of domestic and urban waste will be discussed in more detail. In Table 6, the composition of domestic waste for several capitals or major cities in Asia and elsewhere is shown. 2 Table 6: Domestic waste composition for selected major cities in the ESCAP region (%)
Country/ area and city Australia, Sydney China, Beijing Egypt, Cairo Hong Kong India, Delhi Indonesia, Jakarta Japan, Tokyo Jordan, Amman Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Nepal, Kathmandu Pakistan, Lahore Philippines, Manila Rep. of Korea, Seoul Saudi Arabia, Riyadh Singapore Sri Lanka, Colombo Taiwan Province of China, Taipei Thailand, Bangkok Vegetable and putrescible 33.8 37.0 75.0 14.0 58.1 79.5 23.0 71.0 51.8 68.8 49.0 31.8 10.4 63.0 36.0 73.0 39.7 25.0 Paper Textile Rubber/ wood and leather 0.7 1.0 1.0 3.7 1.0 2.8 27.0 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.8 2.2 2.0 8.8 Plastics Metal Glass Ash/earth
37.7 3.0 16.0 30.0 5.9 7.8 38.0 16.8 28.3 5.6 4.0 14.4 6.7 14.0 32.3 7.0 20.6 24.7
3.6 1.0 1.0 21.0 3.6 2.4 1.8 2.0 6.8 5.0 1.3 0.6 0.7 3.9 2.5 12.8 4.7
2.8 0.5 1.0 18.0 1.5 3.7 7.0 4.8 7.7 0.4 2.0 7.5 2.6 4.0 6.7 2.1 4.0 11.2
8.5 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.6 1.4 4.0 2.6 4.9 5.3 4.0 4.9 0.6 10.6 7.0 2.3 2.5 5.3
12.9 0.5 3.0 3.0 0.3 0.5 7.0 2.2 2.3 1.4 3.0 2.7 0.6 3.0 4.0 1.2 7.6 5.5
57.0 1.0 10.0 30.0 20.0 0.8 11.7 24.0 36.3 76.6 2.3 7.3 9.8 10.8 14.8
Source: Ong (1987).
For comparison, data on solid wastes for several countries and regions have been brought together in Table 7. Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the striking differences between waste composition in developed and
Based on other literature sources, Bhide & Sundaresan (1983) report for many of the same cities significantly different data. This may partly be due to differing reporting periods, but may also be due to varying definitions of the waste under consideration, differing classifications or calculation methods. ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 9
developing countries. 3 While in Asia food remains and vegetables comprise the bulk of the waste (75%), in Europe and the United States, this place is taken by paper, metals and glass (50-60%). The ASEAN countries occupy a middle position, with 45% of urban waste being accounted for by organic wastes while 30% comes from paper, metals and glass. All these data may be taken as representative for the 1970s. The differences influence, as is explained later, the manner in which waste is collected and treated. Table 7: Urban waste composition in different parts of the world
United States Vegetable 28.6 Paper 43.8 Metals 9.1 Glass 9.0 Textiles 2.7 Plastic 3.0 Other 3.7 Total 100% Source: Ong (1987). Europe 21.7 31.7 5.8 8.0 3.6 29.2 100% ASEAN 44.7 21.5 4.7 3.0 2.9 7.4 18.7 100% Middle East 50.0 16.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 23.0 100% Asia 75.0 2.0 0.1 0.2 3.0 1.0 18.7 100% Africa 85.4 6.9 3.1 0.7 1.2 1.4 1.3 100%
In Table 8, some general characteristics of domestic wastes have been collected as range data. The data on the left- hand side of this range data refer to the situation in developing countries, while those on the right- hand side pertain to developed countries. For rational waste management, these kinds of data are indispensable. Consider, for example, the consequences of various waste volumes to weight ratios in organising solid waste collection services. Also, it is clear that, for statistical purposes, measurement by volume should be supplemented by weight data to ensure reliable data. Table 8: Some characteristics of domestic waste
Standard of living Low High % 75---------20 5----------40 2----------60 0----------10 0----------15 kilogram 0.25--------2.25 kg/m
3 a/
Composition Vegetable-putrescible matter Inert matter Paper Glass Metals Weight Person/day Density
600---------100 Volume person/day litres 0.5--------25
b/
The data serve only to illustrate trends and should not be used for quantitative purposes. Different classification and monitoring systems may have been used. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the data include reused or scavenged waste. ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 10
a/
In the ESCAP region, waste generated per capita varied from 0.25 to 0.87 kg/head/day in the 1970s (Kathmandu and Singapore respectively).
b/
In the ESCAP region, the density ranged from 600 to 175 kg/m3 in the 1970s (Dhaka and Singapore respectively). Source: After Flintoff (1976) and Bhide & Sundaresan (1983).
Table 9: Seasonal variations in the composition of waste in selected cities in Turkey (1993)
Cities Household solid waste per capita (g/day) July Dec. Adana 865 473 Ankara 615 635 Bursa 613 793 Diyarbakir 365 250 Gaziantep 221 175 skenderun 597 443 stanbul 554 514 zmir 723 484 Kayseri 752 374 Konya 683 539 Samsun 542 450 Source: State Institute of Statistics Turkey, Food wastes (%) July 75.42 80.50 77.16 85.99 83.30 78.86 80.53 84.02 76.87 76.85 83.32 1993. Dec. 70.56 46.29 33.75 48.36 40.28 72.36 43.70 51.89 49.37 37.75 63.04 Rubbish (%) July 22.91 16.77 19.51 9.64 16.53 20.94 18.18 14.85 11.52 8.42 15.00 Dec. 12.48 4.25 8.28 3.76 10.81 14.96 8.66 10.80 3.63 4.09.00 9.20 Ash, slag, etc. (%) July 1.66 2.74 3.33 4.37 0.17 0.19 1.29 1.13 11.61 14.73 1.68 Dec. 16.96 49.46 57.96 47.88 48.91 12.68 47.64 37.31 47.00 58.16 27.76
4.
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous wastes can stem from any of the above sources. Therefore it should not be taken as a part of the classification of wastes by source, rather as a cross-cutting character for all these wastes. There is no agreed definition of the term "hazardous waste". Some countries define "hazardous wastes" only in terms of danger to human health, whilst others include damage to the environment. Hazardous characteristics of wastes include, but are not limited to human health toxicity, corrosivity, infectiousness, flammability, reactivity, explosivity and ecotoxicity. While many countries refer to similar hazardous characteristics in their environmental legislation, there may be considerable differences in in the testing procedures used to determine whether a waste exhibits actually one or more of the characteristics (Vancini, 1994). The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (see below) makes no attempt to provide a general definition but lists hazardous characteristics and several types of waste, mainly according to origin (See Annex III ). It is almost impossible to obtain reliable information on hazardous waste arisings in any country because of poor data collection methods, infrequency of surveys, reluctance of industry to supply data, and because of ambiguities in the definitions of what constitutes a hazardous waste, and even continuously changing definitions of hazardous waste within the same country (OECD, 2000).
As pointed out earlier, industry is the major source of hazardous wastes. The chemical and allied products industry produces 50-70% of all hazardous wastes, while around 10-15% of total industrial wastes are hazardous; a 2-5% annual increase in their generation has been calculated. The annual world wide generation of hazardous wastes is estimated to be 300-400 million tonnes (UNEP, 1990). As it may be also observed from Table 10, many of the countries in the European Union, experienced an increase in hazardous waste generation between 1990 and 1997. In very few of these countries the hazardous wastes are in decline. Table 10: Hazardous waste generated in European Union (by national classifications)a
COUNTRIES b Belgium (Flanders Region) Denmark Germany Greece Spain France c Ireland Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Finland d Sweden UK Norway Switzerland Reference years Total (1 000 t) kg per person 1994 1997 1994 1990 1990 1990 1 033 1 625 177 276 37 48 165 112 44 33 43 84 123 69 304 341 70 60 86 75 64 111 18 16 42 36 115 46 109 126
1997 194 252 1993 13 079 9 093 1997 450 350 1995 1 700 3 394 1990 7 000 1995 248 1990 1997 116 142 1990 1996 1 040 930 1990 1996 668 606 1987 1992 314 559 1990 1994 154 139 1992 1993 2 452 2 077 1994 1997 500 640 1991 1996 738 888
a: No data available for Italy and Portugal b: For Belgium, data available for Flanders Region only c: Including recovery on site d: According to the Basel Convention
Source: Eurostat Press Office
Table 11: Estimates of global generation of industrial and hazardous waste Region World a/ OECD North America Europe Pacific Eastern Europe Rest of world
a/
Industrial wastes (106 t/yr) 2,100 1,430 821 272 333 520 180
Hazardous and special wastes (106 t/yr) 338 303 278 b/ 24 19 16
Alternative estimates of the quantity of hazardous wastes generated world wide put the figure somewhat higher, at 500*106 t/yr or more (ISBC, 1993). b/ The value for USA (275*106t/yr) used to derive the regional total for North America includes liquid wastes that are classified as hazardous
Source: OECD (1991).
For most developing countries, data on quality and quantity of hazardous waste generation are not available. But, given the present rate of industrial growth, changes in agriculture practices (use of more and more pesticides and fertilisers) and rapid urbanisation, there seems sufficient
reason to expect a strong increase in industrial wastes, municipal solid wastes and sewage sludge generation. Furthermore, owing to evidently inadequate disposal methods, environmental degradation and its consequent environmental and health impacts in these countries can hardly be overrated. Indirect measures were used in an attempt to estimate hazardous waste arisings per billion United States dollars of gross domestic product. Some estimates based on this methodology are shown in Table 12. Table 12: Estimated hazardous waste production in selected countries per billion US$ GDP
Country/level of industrialisation Western Europe United States of America Former USSR Others: mature industrial newly industrialised Developing countries
Note: Including high volume wastewater streams. Source: Adapted from Batstone et al (1989).
Tonnes/year 5,000 75,000 10,000 5,000 2,000 1,000
When the middle figure of the estimated worldwide yearly hazardous wastes generation is taken to be 340 million tonnes, 80% of these are produced in the United States alone. Table 12 shows that the generation of hazardous wastes in China, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand is fairly sizeable. Table 13: Estimated hazardous wastes generation in some ESCAP countries
Countries Hazardous wastes generation (conservative estimates) tonnes/year 590,106 a/ 417,000 a/ 28,000 a/ 22,000
China Malaysia Singapore Thailand

a/
Metric tonnes of industrial solid wastes produced in 1991.
Source: UNEP (1993).
It is generally agreed that the bulk of hazardous wastes is generated by process industries, the main sources being the chemicals sector, the mineral and metal processing industries and the engineering industry. Other industrial sectors, hospitals and laboratories may also produce significant amounts. The definition of "hazardous" excludes domestic wastes, though they may contain small quantities of hazardous wastes, e.g. dry batteries that are of increasing concern in some countries.
BOX 3: HOSPITAL WASTE INVENTORY IN TURKEY The survey had been conducted by the State Institute of Statistics (SIS) on Hospital waste in 1994, was integrated with the Hospital Waste composition Research, which was carried out by SIS in 1995. In the first survey all the hospitals in Turkey were covered while in the latter only 47 sample hospitals were included. Not only the annula medical waste generation rate and its composition but also generation of some indicators correlating waste generation and hospital capacity were the objectves of the both studies. Therefore, the number of beds, occupancy rate of the beds, number of employees and staff, amount of medical waste and household waste generated per day, fuel consumption for heating, collection, deposition, transportation, and disposal of wastes, recycling applied, incineration plant capacity if available were questioned during the survey. In the composition research, amount and type of wastes generated were quantified together with number of patients per week, number of surgeries per week, number of births, number of x-ray photography, number of laboratorey tests, number of teeth prothesis.
Hospital wastes in the municipal wastes are also considered to be hazardous. A basic feature that characterises hospital wastes as hazardous is their biological potential. Hospital wastes contain microorganisms and bacteriotoxins, which are hazardous to humans and to the whole environment. Occasionally, large quantities of hazardous wastes arise from the clean-up of chemical and oil spills. In the case of shoreline pollution from oil spills, for example, large volumes of sand and "sea weeds" are mixed with oil and dispersants. These wastes may need to be treated with fly ash or activated lime or disposed of with municipal rubbish. At the household level, approximately 1% of waste generated is hazardous, though the chemical diversity of household waste seems to be on the rise. Household hazardous wastes comprises such materials as garden chemicals, paints and solvents, batteries, oils, and other items which, while typically present in very small quantities, could pollute groundwater, contaminate soil, or cause explosions or fire. Treatment and disposal of hazardous waste is often difficult and very costly. This has made ocean dumping and export to countries with less strict regulations an attractive option. To regulate such action two Conventions have been the subject of international agreement. They will be discussed in the next section. 4.1. International agreements on hazardous wastes
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Final Disposal was adopted by 116 governments and the European Community on 22 March 1989. As of July 1999, 130 countries ratified had ratified the Convention. The ultimate aim of the Basel Convention is to reduce generation of hazardous wastes to a minimum. The current targets of the Convention are to control strictly the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes that are permitted to be moved. It also strictly controls the disposal of such wastes. The Basel Convention outlines the general obligations of States regarding the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes, defines illegal traffic in hazardous or other wastes, outlines the responsibilities of the parties involved, and indicates the principles of international cooperation to improve and achieve environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes. All transboundary movement of hazardous waste for final disposal from
member states of OECD is now prohibited; furthermore, a phase-out by 31 December 1997 of all transboundary movement of hazardous waste destined for recycling and recovery from OECD to non-OECD states was decided upon. The London Convention on Dumping of Waste at Sea is another international agreement regarding hazardous wastes disposal. Under the London Convention, the ocean dumping of industrial wastes is prohibited from 1 January 1996.
5.
COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES
The collection of solid wastes is usually organised on a communal basis; in developing countries though, it may be organised (to a greater or lesser extent) on an informal basis (e.g. through the activities of night soil collectors, scavengers, etc.). For statistical purposes, two variables of the organisation seem important: costs of the service, and personnel employed.
Figure 3: Various phases of the municipal solid waste collection system The treatment and disposal of solid wastes are definitely connected. Treatment is applied to recover useful substances or energy, to reduce waste volume, or to stabilise waste remains to be dumped or disposed of in landfills. Table 14:Overview of solid waste treatment and disposal methods
Treatment sorting by households organised manual/mechanical sorting organised collection scavenging and unorganised collection open burning (by households or scavengers) incineration ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 15
composting (often combined with sorting) anaerobic digestion (mainly sludges) Disposal land disposal disposal to water bodies * uncontrolled tipping * controlled tipping/sanitary landfill * fresh water and lakes * coastal zone * marine areas
Source: Adapted from Ong (1987).
The Box below illustrates much of the foregoing with the example of Bombay, and the important role of the informal sector in recycling.
BOX 4: RAGPICKERS OF BOMBAY, INDIA Bombay (now called Mumbai) is a megacity of about 10 million inhabitants, producing about 0.5 kg of waste per person every day (ESCAP, 1996?). The formal waste collection service employs about 25,000 people. Waste is collected with trucks. No pre-sorting or recycling is exercised whatsoever. Virtually all waste is dumped, on dumpsites taking up about 1% of the cities scarce surface area. No waste levies are raised; there is very little data on the source of the production of waste, be it households, industry or government. Garbage generation is expected to increase with higher incomes. Already, waste generation grows at more than 6% per year, whereas population grows at about 1.6%. About 100,000 ragpickers are working in the informal sector. While the waste consists for about 40-60% of organic materials, their efforts reclaim about 25% of total waste (paper, plastic, metals, glass). The recycled materials are sorted out and sold to wholesalers. Ragpickers receive only half the price of what wholesalers sell the materials for in the market of to small-scale industries. The collective earnings of ragpickers, valued at whole sale prices, amount to the total salary paid to the formal collection sector. Table 15: Composition and recycle of Bombay waste % of total Amount recycled (kg/day) 7 1.3 7 4.8 4 ? 9 5.8 7 0.9 60 6 100 12.8 Note: Compare composition to that mentioned in table 5.4.
Source: ESCAP (1996?).
Material Glass Paper Rags Plastic Metals Compostibles Moisture content Total
The options for final disposal of wastes are disposal on land through landfill or open dumping, dumping at sea, and incineration. Wastes may be treated before disposal to reduce their volume or to alter their characteristics. Pre-treatment is quite usual for hazardous wastes with the main aim to render them non- hazardous or less hazardous. This can be achieved by various physical, chemical and biological processes. Incineration can be used to destroy some toxic
organic chemicals. Whatever hazardous waste or treated residue remains has to be disposed of to landfill will remain a prominent feature of waste disposal for the foreseeable future. Where a method of waste disposal is not specified, the choice of disposal route will normally depend on the availability of facilities, volume of waste material, hydro-geological characteristics, costs, national policies, and the influence of industrial and environmental lobby groups. 5.1. Landfilling
Provided that there is no shortage of land with suitable geological formations, landfill remains the principal final disposal route for the majority of wastes, even in highly industrialised countries. Over 70% of municipal wastes in North America and Western Europe are landfilled with little or no treatment. Where there is treatment, it is usually designed to reduce the volume of waste to be landfilled and includes compaction, shredding, baling and incineration. Hazardous wastes may be pre-treated to reduce hazard, but about 70% of hazardous wastes generated in North America and about 50% in the European Union are landfilled without treatment. Co-disposal of small quantities of hazardous materials with municipal wastes is widely practised and considered safe because the amount of toxic material is low in relation to the total volume of waste (IMO, 1989). Most solid wastes therefore will directly be disposed of in sanitary landfills. The prefix "sanitary" is mainly to be understood as providing some protection for citizens against airborne dust and litter, stench, rodents and insects. Most of these nuisances can be prevented by the prompt covering of freshly dumped waste with soil. However, to be able to call a waste tip or landfill "sanitary" from an environmental viewpoint requires more measures to be taken. The main environmental problem associated with landfilling is pollution of groundwater. Rainwater percolating through solid waste tends to carry large amounts of pollutants to groundwater aquifers if the underlying strata are pervious or fissured. Thus, wells drawing from the aquifers will be extracting groundwater contaminated by the leachate; such a situation is often difficult to remedy. Studies have shown that the leachate from solid wastes may have a pollution load up to 15 to 20 times higher than domestic wastewater. Landfill tends to predominate as a waste disposal mode because it is regarded as an effective but low-cost method of disposal, also for hazardous waste. Even where other methods are more suitable for environmental reasons, the higher capital and (short-term) running costs mean that they cannot compete without government intervention. However, such cost calculations take no account of the longer term. In the long run, landfill of hazardous materials may impose a larger financial burden than other methods because of the high cost of ensuring that the site remains secure for the time it takes for the waste to be rendered harmless. Disposal to landfill of untreated wastes other than inert material is becoming less acceptable, partly in response to a few well-documented instances where poorly-designed and operated landfills are giving rise to pollution problems, and partly as a result of greater public awareness of the issues involved. In developing countries, open and uncontrolled dumps predominate and hazardous wastes are indiscriminately mixed with other materials. Dumps are poorly engineered and managed and often give rise to pollution problems.
5.2.
Incineration
The main goal of incineration is volume reduction, with the sterilisation of the waste as a significant side-effect. The incineration process may also be used to produce steam and electricity. In most developing countries, as we have seen, households produce high density waste. Hence, volume reduction through incineration will be considerably lower than for wastes incinerated in developed countries. Moreover, as moisture contents will be high and calorific value low, a self-sustaining combustion process is not possible (Flintoff, 1976; Bhide & Sundaresan, 1983). Industrial and municipal wastes, hazardous wastes, and sewage sludge may all be suitable for incineration. Although incineration is not a complete method of disposal, its main advantage is that it produces a residue that is substantially reduced in volume and may be relatively inert (Suess, 1985). Incineration is, however, expensive and supplementary fuel may be required if the moisture content of the waste is high and its combustible content low. Except where mandatory to ensure the complete destruction of highly toxic and persistent organic wastes, such as PCBs, incineration is used mostly when landfill options are restricted. The costeffectiveness of incinerating municipal waste increases when energy recovery is possible; a steady supply of waste with a high combustible content and nearby market for the energy recovered is essential. Recovery of paper, etc. from municipal waste in developed countries may reduce its suitability for incineration. Atmospheric emissions and subsequent deposition to land of some chemical compounds (like dioxins) following incineration of certain waste materials have given rise to concerns. Incineration of municipal wastes will not be a viable disposal option in the near future in developing countries because of its high cost and the high moisture content of the municipal waste stream. Development of incineration plants for industrial wastes will be essential if developing countries are to deal effectively with hazardous wastes.. 5.3. Composting
Organic materials present in municipal wastes can be converted to a stable form either aerobically or an-aerobically. During aerobic decomposition, aerobic micro-organisms oxidise organic compounds to CO2 , NO2 and NO3 . Carbon from organic compounds is used as a source of energy while nitrogen is recycled. Owing to the exothermic character of the reaction, temperature in the composting mass rises. Anaerobic micro-organisms, on the other hand, while metabolising nutrients, break down the organic compounds by a process of chemical reduction. Only a very small amount of energy is released during the process, and the temperature of the composting mass does not rise much. The gases evolved are mainly CH4 and CO2 (Bhide & Sundaresan, 1983). The final product can be used as an organic fertiliser on land; such application at the same time might improve the structure of the soil (FADINAP, 1994). Environmental problems may arise when waste is composted without non-compostible matter like metals and plastics being removed. Hazardous substances like heavy metals may then be found in the compost, which in turn may be taken up in the food chain when compost is used on agricultural land. To prevent this situation, sorting at the composting plant or even at the household level might be called for, though the additional operations would raise the price of the compost or require a sophisticated collection system. Important points to consider in planning a composting plant are the price of the product (including transport costs), and its acceptance by farmers.
5.4.
Dumping and incineration at sea
The ease with which wastes can be discarded at sea, the huge expanse and depth of the oceans, and a belief that dispersion processes will rapidly dilute the waste materials has led to large volumes of material being dumped at sea. Three types of wastes are commonly dumped in this manner: dredged spoils; industrial wastes, including fly ash from power stations and m ine tailings; and sewage sludges. The dumping of wastes at sea is generally well documented for some regions as many coastal countries are signatories to international conventions such as the Oslo Convention and the London Dumping Convention, which controls the sea disposal of wastes. Most waste dumped at sea originates in the industrialised countries of Europe and North America. Approximately 80-90% of all material dumped at sea is dredged spoils and it is estimated that 215 million tonnes were dumped annually between 1980 and 1985, while a further 15 million tonnes of sewage sludge were dumped annually over the same period. The amount of industrial waste dumped is quite variable and ranged from 17 million tonnes in 1982 to 6 million tonnes in 1984 (Wilson & Balkau, 1990). Some toxic organic wastes have been incinerated on ships at sea. Although it is a subject of much debate, this has been portrayed as an attractive option as it takes place far from population centres and because the effects on the marine environment are believed to be negligible. Following the introduction of the Oslo Convention and the London Dumping Convention, there has been a decline in the amounts of industrial waste and sewage sludge dumped at sea. Countries party to the Oslo Convention also agreed to phase out incineration at sea by 1994, and contracting parties to the London Dumping Convention agreed to discourage it. These international agreements, which supplement national legislation aimed at protecting the sea, have provided the necessary forum in which countries could agree on programmes to reduce waste disposal at sea. 5.5. Waste recycling and waste minimisation
The most satisfactory approaches to managing hazardous wastes are those which help to minimise the quantity of waste requiring disposal. These methods are beginning to be more widely used. By modifying production processes, the volumes of wastes generated can often be reduced. Many wastes contain useful materials which can be reclaimed and reused. In certain cases, the amount of hazardous wastes for disposal can be reduced by transferring some to another industry which can use them as raw materials. However, opportunities for this approach may be limited as a result of mismatches between waste stream composition and process specifications. These approaches can be justified because of savings in raw materials and energy inputs, as well as reductions in the costs of disposal.
BOX 5: AVOIDING CONFUSION WITH RELATED TERMINOLOGY According to terminological work undertaken at OECD, waste minimisation is a broader term than waste prevention in that it includes recycling and (if considered appropriate) incineration with energy recovery. As discrete activities, recycling and incineration are distinct from waste prevention. Every effort should be made to have a common understanding of terminology when discussing waste policy (Vancini 1997a). Terms should not be used loosely or interchangeably. OECD Definition of Waste Minimisation: Preventing and/or reducing the generation of waste at the source; improving the quality of waste generated, such as reducing the hazard, and encouraging re-use, recycling, and recovery. ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 19
OECD Definition of Recycling: Using waste materials in manufacturing other products of an identical or similar nature. Examples of recycling include industrial melting of one-way glass bottles for use in new bottles; recycling of collected newspapers for production of sanitary paper products; aerobic or anaerobic treatment of separately collected organic household waste to produce agricultural soil.
Recycling of paper, glass and metals from municipal waste is already highly developed in much of Europe and North America (UNEP, 1991) and is being actively encouraged through educational programmes. Recovery of materials from municipal waste still faces many technical, social and economic barriers. Reclamation of some materials, such as plastics, is hampered by the different chemical formulations as well as the variety of forms used for containers. Reclamation might become possible if whole industries could agree on an identical specification for the composition of their containers. Few countries have made reclamation and recycling of materials from waste streams mandatory, but some have included the principle of waste minimisation in their legislation and will give priority in the future to waste avoidance and increasing use of recycling in order to minimise waste disposal problems. In developing countries, salvaging of secondary waste 6 from tips is an important source of income for some people and in some cities, e.g. Medellin, Colombia (Cointreau, 1982), it is an important source of raw materials for local industry. Small-scale projects for composting and biogas generation from household and agricultural wastes have been set up in many rural communities. These approaches to managing wastes are not widespread or effectively organised, but may offer practical and cost-effective solutions to the problems of waste disposal faced in some developing countries.
6. IMPACTS OF WASTES AND WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS ON HUMANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Where treatment, incineration and landfill are used judiciously and plant design and management are of a high standard, these methods of waste disposal can be effective in safeguarding people and the environment from any harm that wastes might cause. Where this is not the case, serious air, water and soil pollution may occur. 6.1. Water pollution
The infiltration of rainfall into landfill, together with the biochemical and chemical breakdown of the wastes, produces a leachate which is high in suspended solids and of varying organic and inorganic content. All household and most industrial wastes will produce leachate. If the leachate enters surface or groundwater before sufficient dilution has occurred, serious pollution incidents can occur. In surface waters, leachate high in organic material and reduced metals will cause severe oxygen depletion and result in fish-kills. Leachate high in nonbiodegradable synthetic organic compounds is a particular threat: through bioaccumulation, concentrations of these substances may increase to toxic levels and endanger animal and human life. If leachate enters groundwater or shallow aquifers, the problems are more intractable. Dilution and removal of leachate is much slower in groundwater than in surface water and it may render the groundwater non-potable for the foreseeable future. Contamination of groundwater
is a serious problem of immediate concern (WHO/UNEP, 1989). Pollution of shallow aquifers with high concentrations of chemicals can contaminate the soil and render an area uninhabitable. The best known example is Love Canal in the United States where families living near the disposal site suffered health problems and were evacuated. The area was declared a disaster zone. Water pollution from municipal incinerators has generally not been regarded as an important problem because of the limited amounts of wastewater generated. Agricultural manure and sewage sludge are organic materials rich in nutrients. They are widely used as fertilisers on agricultural land, but where they are applied in large quantities organic matter and nutrients can leach into rivers and groundwater causing severe pollution. Nitrate levels may be raised in groundwater making it unsuitable as a source of potable water while rivers and lakes may experience eutrophication, oxygen depletion, and destruction of most aquatic organisms. Pollution of water from this source is growing in many countries as the volume of manure may now exceed the absorption potential of the land. This problem is particularly acute in areas with intensive husbandry of great quantities of pigs or cows and occurs in both developed (e.g. Netherlands) and developing (e.g. Malaysia) countries. 6.2. Atmospheric pollution
The decomposition of solid wastes in landfill results in the production of carbon dioxide and methane ("landfill gas"), both important greenhouse gases. Seven % of methane generated by man's activities is estimated as coming from landfill. Operation of incinerators can cause nuisance and atmospheric pollution from the emission of particulates, acidic gases, unburnt waste material, heavy metals, and trace quantities of organic compounds. Air pollution control measures have previously been aimed at reducing particulate emissions, but stricter emission controls requiring reductions in the emissions of acidic gases and heavy metals have been, or are about to be, introduced in most developed countries. A much publicised problem of waste incineration has been the formation of dioxins as a by-product of the incineration process. They are emitted in the flue gases. Their environmental impact is still a matter of controversy. In many developed countries, public awareness of this problem has led to strong opposition to the siting of new incinerators near major population centres and increased the amount of waste incinerated at sea (Suess, 1985). 6.3. Effects on the marine environment
The disposal of industrial wastes, sewage sludge, and dredged spoils can have diverse harmful effects on the marine environment and direct effects on human health. Ecological effects such as reduction or alteration of faunal populations have been observed in regions where waste is dumped, but it is not clear whether this is due to the physical presence of the waste or its chemical components. Disposal of inert solid materials has its main effects through burial of the benthic populations, disruption of habitats and alteration of the character of the sediment, e.g. reduction in grain size. Recolonisation on the waste material is usually rapid, although there may be some alteration in species composition, but, if dumping ceases, recovery is usually complete. Excess carbon and nutrients derived from sewage sludge can lead to phytoplankton blooms, eutrophication and oxygen depletion. There are accompanying changes in the microfauna, on which small fish feed, and these can affect fish populations. The release
of pathogens from sewage sludge and the release of toxic substances from ind ustrial waste materials may have adverse effects on marine life and through bioaccumulation may be transferred to people. For sea water where sewage sludge has been dumped, data are sparse on both the occurrence of pathogens (bacterial and viral) and on their significance for human health. Discarded plastics are harmful to the marine environment largely because they endanger marine life. Although the information is not sufficient to quantify the impacts of such litter on animal populations, marine mammals, fish, sea-birds and turtles are all at risk of becoming entangled in discarded fishing nets ("ghost fishing"); divers may also be endangered if they become entangled. Abandoned nets may also impose economic costs by damaging shipping, e.g. by fouling propellers. Plastic strapping and packaging bands can girdle marine mammals and large fish and become progressively tighter as the animal grows, restricting movement, respiration and feeding. Plastic yokes from beverage containers pose a similar threat to birds and small fish. Turtles, mammals and birds are also killed by ingesting bags, sheeting and packaging bands. A recent study detected plastic particles in the digestive tracts of 25% of the sea bird species examined (UNEP/GESAMP, 1990).
7.
CONTROL STRATEGIES
In order to ensure proper control of waste disposal practices, countries need national strategies, which provide a legislative and regulatory framework within which enforcement procedures can be carried out. Management strategies should go beyond safe storage and disposal practices and consider comprehensively all the alternatives available. They should consider not only the volume and character of waste arisings, but also what steps can be taken to reduce the volumes of waste needing disposal. Many countries already have legislative frameworks in place. Controls are enforced mainly through systems of licensing of operators or treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Licences are used to impose operating conditions which determine, for example, the types and quantities of waste that can be accepted by landfill sites or the level of emissions considered acceptable from incinerators. In many countries, hazardous waste disposal is more strictly controlled: systems of consignment notes are used to monitor every stage of hazardous waste management from generation, through storage and transport, to final disposal. Regulations may also be used to impose mandatory methods of disposal for some hazardous wastes. For example, in many countries, polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs) must be incinerated. Table 16: Waste management targets in Korea
In Green Vision 21 Municipal waste generation per capita Share of: incinaration/landfill/recycling Upgrading standards of sanitary landfills c/ Treatment facilities for general waste d/ Treatment facilities for specified waste In National Comprehensive Waste b/ Management Plan (1996-2001) Municipal waste Share of: incinaration/landfill/recycling Industrial waste Share of: incinaration/landfill/recycling
a/
Kg/day % % of total number number
1994 1.5 2/86/12 62 15 3 1995
1997 1.3 20/65/15 78 45 7 1998
2001 1.2 30/50/20 92 97 10 2001
2005 1.0 50/25/25 100 136 15
4/72/24 6/33/61
15/55/30 10/25/65
20/45/35 12/20/68
a/
Green Vision 21 (1995) National Comprehensive Waste Management Plan (1996) c/ Non-hazardous industrial waste according to Korean Legislation d/ Hazardous industrial waste according to Korean Legislation
b/
Source: Environmental Performance Reviews: Korea (OECD, 1997).
There is, however, a wide gap between pollution-control legislation and its execution. Controls cannot be enforced if a choice of adequate and suitable facilities is not available; if enforcement officers are not properly trained and are operating without enough resources; or if there is no mechanism to collect and handle wastes from households and small producers. Furthermore, not all the wastes described in the previous section are the subject of controls, even in developed countries, as they very rarely enter the waste disposal process. Mining spoils are land-tipped near the mine and simply allowed to accumulate, straw stubble is burnt in the fields, and animal manure is stored on the farm and spread on the land by farmers, often with few or no restrictions. There m ay also be a lack of "political will": waste control as a political issue is not necessarily a vote winner. Stricter controls over waste disposal, especially hazardous waste disposal, mean increased costs in many industrial countries and there has been a rise in the amount of wastes exported. Particularly worrying are instances where extremely hazardous waste has been sent, sometimes under false declarations, to developing nations, which have neither the facilities nor the technical expertise to deal with it. Accurate information on the amounts and types of wastes exported, their origin and destination is not widely available although some data have been published (UNEP, 1991). Export of waste is unacceptable unless it achieves safer disposal. The Basel Convention provides a framework for the control of movement of wastes and should prevent further incidents of this type (see Section 4.1.). 7.1. New approaches on waste management: strategic waste prevention
This section is taken mainly from the most recent OECD work on wastes, namely Strategic Waste Prevention (OECD, 2000). Waste minimisation concept was explained in section 5.5. In order to avoid some confusion in some concepts and terminology related to wastes, OECD definitions of waste minimisation and recycling by are given in Box 5, before going into details of waste prevention.
Strict Avoidance Reduction at Source Product Re-use Recycling Incineration
W P
Figure 4: Waste prevention in the context of waste minimisation

The concepts stated above and their links to waste prevention is illustrated in Figure 4. Waste prevention encompasses activities that reduce both the quantity and the hazardous character of wastes. These activities are applicable on life cycle basis. The consensus understanding of waste prevention achieved by OECD countries (OECD, 1998) are broken down into three types of action: a) Strict avoidance: Strict avoidance involves the complete prevention of waste generation by virtual elimination of hazardous substances or by reducing material or energy intensity in the production , consumption and distribution. Examples of strict avoidance include those that address: Hazard, such as: Avoiding and/or substituting materials that are hazardous to humans or to the environment (e.g., through bans on PCBs and ozone-depleting substances, or virtual elimination of toxic organochlorines released in bleached pulp mill effluents). Quantity, such as: Avoiding use of materials or stages of production/consumption (e.g., through eliminating interim packaging for cosmetics and toothpaste, or substitution ofcontinuous casting for ingot casting at steel works). b) Reduction at source
Examples of reduction at source include those that address: Hazard, such as: Reducing the use of harmful substances in products, in production and sales systems, and in consumption and disposal systems, and Reducing the use of substances that hinder reuse or recycling (e.g. "Post-its on paper, use of chlorinated solvents as cleansing agents). Quantity, such as: Using smaller amounts of resources to provide the same product or service (e.g. reducing foil thickness, introducing reuse or refill systems, miniaturisation, resource-orientated purchasing and consumption); and using less resource-dependent construction principles and materials. c) Product reuse
Product reuse involves the multiple use of a product in its original form, for its original purpose or for an alternative, with or without reconditioning. Examples of product re-use include those that address: Re-use after reconditioning, such as:
Refilling glass or plastic bottles after washing, and Using empty adhesive barrels as oil barrels after reconditioning. Re-use without reconditioning, such as: Using shopping bags more than once.
Products/Materials Waste
Strict Avoidance
Reduction at Product Source Re-use
Recycling
Incineration*
Incineration* Landfilling
Waste Prevention
Waste Minimization Priority of actions
Waste Disposal
Figure 5: Waste prevention in context

Source: Stutz 1999.
* The arrow in Figure 5 represents the fact that, in different countries, the incineration of waste is sometimes considered waste minimisation. While some countries require energy recovery for incineration to be considered waste minimisation, others classify incineration as waste minimisation even with no energy recovery. On the other hand, many countries never consider incineration to be a waste minimisation method, even if energy is recovered (OECD 1998a).
7.2.
Characteristics of waste prevention
While it is important to include waste prevention as the preferred first step in waste policy, it is also necessary to recognise that it differs significantly from the other waste-related activities: Waste prevention occurs before products or materials are identified or recognised as waste. Waste prevention is potentially diverse in its effects on materials and products. It may impact the quantity, hazard, and energy content of materials and products that may become waste. Waste prevention is also defined by changes, such as avoiding, reducing, or reusing materials. In general, it can be more difficult to implement and measure these types of activities than more traditional waste management activities. Often, the activities that can bring about significant levels of waste prevention-such as
product re-design and use-are not directly within the purview of the waste manager (Schall 1992). When addressing waste prevention, governments often lack basic data used to monitor waste management activities.
All these factors need to be taken into account when developing waste prevention programmes (Stutz 1999c). Along with other factors, those noted above pose new challenges for assessing waste prevention programmes relative to more traditional waste-policy programmes. 7.3. Toward strategic waste prevention (WP)
7.3.1. Features of strategic WP Traditional waste policy approaches have not always been crafted with the explicit intention of avoiding cross- media transfers, or of mitigating linked or secondary hazards and risks, be they of an ecological, economic, human health, or social character. In other words, the approaches have not always been comprehensive or sustainable. Even when effective in attaining their own specific objectives, conventional policy approaches have not been adequate to reduce the overall increase in waste generation. Moreover, notwithstanding progress in relative waste prevention, increases in consumption (from growth in affluence and population) has translated into growth in absolute waste quantities. The practical implication of this is that large increases in absolute waste amounts are possible even with considerable success in relative waste prevention, such as might be obtained with cleaner production or eco-efficiency initiatives. Given the above observations, a more comprehensive, strategic approach to waste prevention would work toward reductions in absolute waste amounts, hazards and risks while attempting to continuously improve at least four factors over time: a) A life-cycle perspective for identifying the policy intervention points linked with the highest waste preventing effects and system- wide environmental benefits. This would include attention to the fact that downstream waste prevention interventions can have upstream benefits, and vice- versa. Life-cycle waste prevention and overall environmental protection is likely to be further supported by the growing trend toward product-oriented policies (and, as a consequence, the analogous trend away from a singular focus on facility-oriented policies); b) A material-differentiated approach that links different types of waste prevention targets, instruments, and performance evaluation approaches to different types and classes of material flows; c) The substantive integration of social and economic aspects into environmental policy discussions on waste prevention. Methods toward this end are wide-ranging and can include increased integration of waste prevention policies with sectoral policies (e.g. mining, energy, and agriculture), and increased stakeholder consultation during programme design to assure policy ownership; and
d)
Institutional mechanisms that facilitate co-operation across traditional institutional structures (Cleland-Hamnett and Retzer 1993) such that greater waste prevention and overall policy synergy are induced.
Some of the concepts adopted by the industrialised countries are given in Box 3, to assist the reader to familiarise himself with the new policy concepts on wastes. The core or principal commonality between strategic waste prevention and the concepts in Box 3 is the emphasis on taking measures to reduce the life-cycle environmental impacts from economic activities, and hence to reduce the need for expensive clean-up technologies, disposal facilities, and environmental remediation.
BOX 6: Socio-cultural factors and waste prevention PROGRAMMES Country-specific factors will influence the process of (1) how strategic waste prevention targets are selected and (2) how instruments are chosen and applied. In his consideration of waste minimisation from a socio-cultural perspective, Bertolini (1996) devised a classification of cultures. Such a classification, while somewhat simplifying reality, could be useful when comparing waste prevention programmes in different countries. Four cultural categories are distinguished: A culture of government by consensus which is characterised by good Government -Industry relations, and in which advice, consultation, and persuasion are the preferred instruments. A non-interventionist/liberal culture, also characterised by good Government-Industry relations, which favours consultation and voluntary agreements as well as the use of economic instruments. An adversarial culture in which openly declared conflicting interests and positions have to be settled by a process of political arbitration, which will tend to result in legal and regulatory instruments. However, this does not exclude a basically liberal element and hence the use of some economic instruments. A culture of planning and programming (after due consideration of all points of view and the balance of power, even in a corporatist culture context) will opt for legal and regulatory approaches.
7.3.2. Conceptual framework

BOX 7: FIVE Policy Concepts Supporting Strategic Waste Prevention There are several evolving policy concepts that complement and (potentially) help drive strategic waste prevention. Here is a sampling: Eco-efficiency (E2). Seven criteria for eco-efficiency are: (a) minimise the material intensity of goods and services, (b) minimise the energy intensity of goods and services, (c) minimise toxic dispersion, (d) enhance material recyclability, (e) maximise the use of renewable resources, (f) extend product durability, and (g) increase the service intensity of goods and services (World Business Council for Sustainable Development 1995). These ideas are not new, but eco-efficiency attempts to combine them in a way that promotes factor level improvements in value creation with minimal resource use and pollution and waste, and as an aid to communication between governments, business, and others. Eco-efficiency is sometimes used interchangeably with Cleaner Production. Industrial Ecology (IE). A field that systematically examines local, regional and global uses and flows of materials, and energy in products, processes, industrial sectors, and economies. It focuses on the potential role of industry in reducing environmental burdens throughout the product life-cycle. (Journal of Industrial Ecology 1997). IE exploits the ecology analogy by placing industrial activity in its environmental context and by drawing on nature as a model. One of the most important goals of IE is to make one industrys waste anothers raw material-something that can be realised in many ways, such as through eco-industrial parks (e.g. in Kalundborg in Denmark (Frosch 1994), or as a response to the Zero Emissions Research Initiative in Japan (Suzuki 1997)). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). IPPC is a method to take into account all environmental media simultaneously when attempting to reduce natural resource and energy use, exposure to hazardous substances and releases of pollutants by economic activities. Therefore, IPPC promotes the concept of economic progress with reduced consumption ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 27
and pollution. To date, implementation of IPPC has usually been associated with the firm-level adoption of so-called integrated permits. (OECD 1996b) Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). An approach where the producers physical and/or financial responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer (waste) stage of a products life-cycle. Producers accept their responsibility when they design their products to minimise life-cycle impacts and when they accept legal, physical and/or economic responsibility for the environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated by design (OECD). Integrated Product Policy (IPP). Five IPP building blocks include: (a) measures aimed at reducing and managing wastes generated by the consumption of products, (b) measures targeted at the innovation of more environmentally friendly products, (c) measures to create markets for environmentally sound products, (d) measures for transmitting information up and down the product chain, (e) measures which allocate responsibility for managing the environmental burdens of product systems (European Commission 1998).
As the previous section makes clear, strategic waste prevention is multi- faceted, having links to and being driven by the application of other evolving concepts. Strategic waste prevention requires the type of thinking that has not always characterised traditional waste policy programmes in many countries, localities, or organisations. In terms of What strategic prevention may apply to, How it can be approached, Who could be involved, and other considerations, the following conceptual framework is offered (Table 17). Table 17: Conceptual framework for strategic waste prevention
(physical scope options)
What ?
(possible approaches) (actors/stakeholders) Institutional arrangements Legal/voluntary/economic Knowledge creation (e.g., R&D) Participatory consultation
How ?
(policy programme aspects)
When ?
Who ?
Macro-level: Material inputs, and material outputs govt. Product- based Material class-based
industry)
Strategic target setting Instrument choice & application
National govt. Regional / local Private sector

(inc.waste mgmt.
Waste stream-based (municipal, industrial, commercial, hazardous)
Multi- factor assessments Performance Consumers - economic, social, environmental evaluation Media Govt resource mgmt. activities Programme and Financial - e.g., procurement decisions policy adjustment institutions Broader context: public policy reform Other Academia ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additionally, Where
? refers to the geographic or organisational scope to which a waste prevention programme is applicable: economy -wide, sector-level, firm-based, municipal-level, household-level. Why ? refers to the objective of
attaining some or all of the benefits potentially associated with an envisaged or existing waste prevention programme.
* Nota Bene: The structure of Figure 6 is not meant to suggest that horizontal (row-by-row) inferences be drawn.
____________________________________________________________________
Source: OECD, 2000.
8.
WASTE ISSUES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
At this point, it seems appropriate to discuss some general problems with waste data. This is not without importance, as a statistician should be able to appreciate the characteristics of waste data. Furthermore, waste data are closely linked to socio-economic data, as collection, treatment and disposal of waste is a labour- intensive process in developing countries, often to a large extent taken care of in the informal economy.
As it is described in section 1.1. waste is those materials no longer needed by an individual or industry, implying that "waste" is a relative concept, strongly linked to income (and maybe culture). Hence, there are low waste arisings in developing countries, linked to a high degree of recycling in the informal economy. In developed countries, on the other hand, where consumer society and affluence in general have resulted in a tenfold increase of household waste, the concept of recycling has just taken root anew recently. In all countries, waste data should be ranked among the very "soft" data, even in comparison with other environment data. This is partly due to the unknown pathways of waste streams and to measurement problems, but may also be linked to the low value attributed to waste and the idea that its disposal can be taken care of by the assimilative capacity of the environment. As this point of view is more and more discredited in developed countries, waste is viewed increasingly as part of the economic (read: market) system. In developing countries, waste is traditionally a de facto part of the economic system, especially its informal sector. Any statistical system neglecting this basic fact will give a biased representation of reality. It may also be safely assumed that a lower per capita income, a greater income disparity, and extent of (seasonal) joblessness, are important factors contributing to the existence of informal systems of waste collection, scavengery and disposal. These economic activities may greatly reduce the amount of waste, because valuable materials like paper, metals, glass and plastics are taken out for recycling. But the disposal of the residual waste (the part that cannot be recycled) is likely to be local (dumping or burning) and undertaken in ways adverse to man and envi-ronment. A general problem with waste data is their accuracy. In the absence of weighing bridges, the problem is acute in developing countries. Waste is collected in many kinds of containers, from open rattan baskets to lidded plastic or metal containers. In the absence of weighing devices, the determination of waste weight or volume still has to be undertaken by counting of, for example, standardised truck load volumes. However, conversion to weight units might easily introduce serious statistical errors, owing to varying volumes, varying composition of load, and changing composition of load over the year or over a longer period. Also, if open containers are used to collect household waste, its moisture content and weight during the rainy season would increase, possibly limiting the transport volume of garbage trucks. Thus, volume counting needs to be supplemented by weight sampling. Even at the dumping site, scavenging may take place, especially of freshly dumped loads. Dumping data might need correction to account for this activity. Scavenging undertaken earlier in the collection-disposal chain should also be taken into account. Salvaged goods and materials might be traced through statistics on services (such as trade in second- hand goods or recycling), though in most countries these statistics might not be available. In conclusion, the generation of satisfactory waste statistics is a path strewn with methodological and measurement problems. In the development of an environmental monitoring and statistical system, country practices must be seriously considered, especially informal economic activities in the waste sector. Failing to do so will lead to waste data with little relevance for environmental planning and management.
9.
9.1.
WASTE STATISTICS
Monitoring of waste
9.1.1. At national level Traditionally, the collection of statistics on wastes has had a relatively low priority in many countries. Consequently the statistical database for solid wastes is poor, especially regarding time-series. The poor availability of data can be attributed to a number of factors, such as: a) Responsibility for regulating and managing waste is diverse, often resting with local levels of administration. In general, little quantitative analysis is undertaken; b) Complexity of waste streams as to composition, coupled with the vague definition of waste and a lack of (authoritative and widely applied) standard classifications (UNEP, 1993); c) Air and water pollution have received far more attention, with environmental problems with waste being underestimated or neglected; d) Waste is a cross- media problem. As most environmental problems are still being handled on a per media basis, many cross- media aspects of waste tend to be neglected: air, water and soil pollution. 9.1.2. At international level Unlike water and air (quality), there is no GEMS programme for monitoring wastes. The most relevant activities at the moment are carried out by UNEP (1991), WHO (1993) and IMO (1992a and b). "Secondary" waste relates to net amounts of treated or dumped wastes, as opposed to gross amounts of primary waste materials arising from productive and consumptive activities. 9.2. Assessment of waste generation
As a start, it might be better to develop a general framework, describing the various sources of waste, waste types (in broad categories), data sources, and the expressed or perceived urgency in waste matters. Three types of waste will typically be important: a. Hazardous waste (mostly from industrial sources). Due to toxicity and long-term effects very urgent. Many countries are signatories of the Basel Convention. For this type of waste, an assessment or statistical system may already have been set up. b. Urban household waste (incl. small businesses, when their waste is removed similar to that of households). Lack of proper removal services (and dumping sites) makes it urgent as a sanitary and health problem. Waste services in urban areas produce data or will make it possible to start a statistical system for this type of waste. A survey among the authorities concerned may be feasible at relatively short notice, starting e.g. with the biggest cities, and via a survey among a representative selection of cities, expanding into a full survey.
c. Industrial waste (incl. mining and energy production). Data may already be collected for selected ISIC activities. To assess the relative importance of waste production by activity the WHO RAM method may fruitfully be employed. Double counting of hazardous waste should be avoided. For urban waste, communal authorities are the first source for data and information: where, how and how often waste is collected, and how it is treated. Also, they might have some insight into informal waste collection and treatment. Table 18 gives some suggestions where data or expertise on several types of waste might be available.
Table 18. Possible sources of waste data Urban waste Industrial waste Hazardous waste Recycling/reuse General Municipal authorities Environmental protection agency Environmental protection agency Trade statistics Production statistics Trade statistics Import/export statistics Population statistics Household income statistics Household consumption statistics Production associations Waste trade and treatment associations Universities: environment, economic or technical studies
Source: ESCAP Environment Statistics Course, May 2000.
If official and informal data are incomplete or lacking, an assessment through monitoring and fieldwork might be too time-consuming and too costly. An indirect assessment, like that of WHO, then seems the best choice; what direct data are available might be used to check the plausibility of the computed data. 9.3. Classification of wastes
After drawing the general framework of wastes, recourse is thus taken to a positive list enumerating all substances, commodities, or mixtures thereof, to be regarded as waste. However, for statistical purposes, a closer look at the term seems appropriate.
What is considered as waste depends on factors like the relative price of potential waste items (e.g. paper, iron), and market friction due to lack of information on possible uses, and transport costs. For developing countries, the availability of cheap or potentially idle labour has, through salvaging, a considerable influence on waste left for treatment There is still little unity both in terminology of waste manageme nt and its meaning. At the moment, no generally accepted classification of wastes is available. The best general classification seems to be the proposed EU Waste Regulation (EU, 1999) which proposes classifications for - waste producers: - waste collection, and - -waste treatment and disposal. The proposal makes use of an aggregation of the European Waste Catalogue (EWC), the most detailed waste classification available for statistical purposes at the moment. The proposal is still under debate. The EU proposal may be considered as an authoritative framework, that will influence work in other parts of the world. As it seems too complex and demanding even for many EU members, it should be adapted to the needs of developing countries. This would certainly imply simplification in many details, but it should also be assessed whether circumstances typical for developing countries are represented in the classifications or can be subsumed under them. The rapid assessment method of WHO (1993), which forms an important element in the statistical approach proposed in this handbook, largely follows the waste typology proposed by Batstone et al. (1989: 45-59). This classification was developed for hazardous wastes, taking into account their nature, using as criteria their pollution potential, as well as applicable treatment technologies. This "biased" origin of the classification might make it less suitable for general statistical purposes. However, the five main categories discerned seem useful in practice, and WHO adapted the classification to better accommodate urban refuse. The main categories are listed in Table 19. Table 19: Main waste categories of the rapid assessment method of WHO
Inorganic Oily Organic a/ Putrescible Low hazard Infectious
a/
Including municipal refus e and sewage sludge.
Sourc e: Economopoulos (1993).
One other classifications is to be mentioned: The Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste provides in its Annex I a list of hazardous wastes according to origin and one according to constituents. (see Annex III) This list may be considered authoritative; the ECE classification of hazardous waste copies this classification. Though the proposed EU classification seems superior from an analytical point of view to the one used by WHO, the latter seems to be in a better position to produce timely and useful results in developing countries.
WHO (1993) assesses its solid waste inventory system as follows: "Any classification scheme, including the one adopted here, aims to classify the wastes produced in broad categories. Such groupings, however, do not convey sufficient information for management purposes and, as a result, the need arises to consider the hazardous and toxic wastes generated by each type of source separately. In highly industrialised economies, this would require a lengthy list of sources. For most developing countries however, the structure and complexity of their chemical and processing industries is considerably simpler, and as a. result, the number of source types which are important, is not prohibitively long for rapid assessment procedures." Still, the simplified WHO classification might not prove sufficiently analytical in certain cases. The EU classification is then suggested for an additional break-up of selected categories. It would, however, require further study to decide whether WHO categories can easily be translated into EU categories and vice versa. If this proves to be feasible, their combined virtues might offer the best starting point now ava ilable to produce systematic and comparable waste data. For general purposes, the following classification criteria seem to be the most important: - source; - collection; - composition; - method of treatment or disposal. Classification according to source (see section 2 ) has the advantage that in many cases it will fit in with existing ways of waste collection and waste disposal. Therefore, this classification system seems the obvious choice in setting up an environmental statistical system. Within the main activity categories, further refinements might be included, according to the country's needs. However, such a system would give us little information about waste composition, and therefore would fail as an environmental information system. Knowledge about waste composition is important to assess options for waste disposal, waste prevention, re-use and recycling, and the identification of hazardous wastes. For policy measures it is important to know who is collecting the waste. Household and similar waste is mostly collected by municipal services or contracted out to private firms. Industrial waste, if not treated on the premises, is mostly transported by private firms, who might or might not be involved in treatment and disposal. The private firms ment ioned, are often classified under the environmental services sector (= ISIC .), a growth sector, that is included in environmental expenditure statistics. The waste composition categories of the WHO assessment have the advantage of being few and simple. However, it is of great importance to retain the more explicit information behind the main categories for in depth analyses and future revisions. The EWC material-oriented breakdown of wastes might be used to this end. The six main WHO categories seem mainly of use for general reporting purposes.
Though the WHO classification claims to be partly based on "applicable treatment technologies", the treatment methods themselves are not explicitly discussed. For a breakdown according to treatment and disposal systems, the reader is referred to the EC classification. 9.4. Assessment of priority activities and areas
The WHO method stresses the importance of a good assessment of priorities. To help this process, several waste producers/categories are discussed in more detail. Minin g: those activities producing considerable amounts of sludges, tailings or hazardous waste deserve priority. Tin mining therefore would qualify, gem mining will not. Agriculture: agricultural centres (on, for example, fertile river plains) might be selected as a whole, if agricultural waste seems a general problem. Otherwise, certain types of agriculture might be singled out, e.g. intensive animal husbandry. In some cases, it might be informative to establish a direct link with the ens uing industrial activities, e.g. the palm oil industry. Industry: depending on the industrial structure, activities concentrated in a limited area or producing great quantities of waste might be singled out. Hazardous wast e: the technical difficulties surrounding this type of waste call for a strategic selection of type of industry and substance (e.g. chromium waste from tanneries). Municipal wast e: as waste problems are most pressing in urban areas, they seem a better starting point than countrywide sur veys. Also, as waste collection, treatment and disposal in these areas are more often organised on a professional basis, basic data and technical expertise will probably be available. As the composition of municipal waste can strongly vary according to, for example, season and neighbourhood, these aspects should be taken into account, as they may strongly influence waste treatment and disposal.. Cars/tyres: as most car registration systems are organised on a countrywide basis, national data seem the logical data source. Data for urban areas might be presented separately. Recyclin g: it might prove difficult to get reliable data on this issue. Survey possibilities seem limited. Data might be had from trade statistics (wholesalers), production statistics (e.g. use of scrap steel and old paper) and finally import/export statistics. It seems best to be selective as to materials, and to treat recycling and reuse as added-on aspects of the categories mentioned before (e.g. scrap metals from car wrecks). 9.5. Assessment of quantities of waste
The quantities of solid wastes generated can be estimated in one of three ways: 1. Input analysis
Input analysis is based on data from published industry production statistics. This analysis may give a rough estimate of materials disposed of by assuming that production is equal to consumption and there is no recycling and reuse. Otherwise, recycling rates and reused materials must be taken into account.
2.
Secondary data
The second method of estimating solid waste generation is to use secondary information such as income, products sold in stores, and so on, and by means of regression analysis. This method is useful for specific settlements with known characteristics. 3. Output analysis
Output analysis is based on weighing of solid waste at disposal site. A first problem in assessing waste generation is weight and volume. The following are methods commonly used by waste collection services to estimate the total quantity of wastes collected and to be disposed of: Average quantity of loads collected per day multiplied by average volume/load ascertained by measuring the volume capacity of the containers or vehicles used, and converted to weight by using an average density obtained by sampling; Sample vehicle weightings, using a weighing bridge, the average being multiplied by the total loads/day;. Weighing of every load on a weighing bridge at the disposal site
Only the last method gives accurate data. However, this method is rarely a correct indication of wastes generated, as distinct from collected, because of "losses" at various stages. Table 20 may represent a typical pattern (Flintoff, 1976). Table 20: Waste generated and waste collected
Handling phase Total generated Losses due to Salvage by householder Salvage by servants Salvage by scavengers Unauthorised disposal Salvage by collectors Salvage by disposal staff Salvage by scavengers
Total collected Delivered for disposal Total disposed of Source: After Flintoff (1976)
For a general assessment of waste arisings due to production and consumption, the reader is referred WHO (1993). As an example of the second method, the WHO method computes emissions with emission coefficients. However, given the peculiarities of solid waste in developing countries, as outlined in the foregoing section, it might be useful to supplement the WHO method with some additions. A detailed statistical methodology has been proposed by the Commission of the EU (1999). The EU proposes quite detailed statistics based on monitoring. The obvious way to compute waste arisings Q from households is the formula
Q = quantity of people * waste per person per unit of time If waste generated per capita per unit of time is known. Usually, the waste generation rate per capita is not a uniform figure computable for the whole country. However, as waste production is strongly linked to income, reality might be better reflected by assigning waste quantities to income classes. To this end, urban areas might be divided into sections according to income class. The latter approach would have the advantage that particular geographic circumstances might be taken into account. Of course, a minimum of empirical data would still be needed: the mean amount of waste per income class. A possible problem with this approach would be the number of unregistered inhabitants and seasonal and yearly fluctuations. Still, a systematic design of the undertaking would allow the introduction of corrections afterwards, when new or better data became available. Household waste generation rate per capita in urban areas was computed in Turkey by collecting the actual waste from households and weighing them (see IV). By this way, the losses during collection and transportation of waste were eliminated and waste generation at source was estimated. 9.6. Assessment of waste composition
Next to weight, the composition of waste is important for waste management. It allows the national planning of refuse collection, recovery, composting, landfill siting, etc. The physical analysis of waste, using an accurate sampling method, should enable the collection of relevant information, such as: density proportions of salvageable constituents proportions of other constituents proportion fit for composting c ombustible/inert proportion Perhaps the most difficult task in solid waste management systems is to predict the composition of solid wastes. The problem is complicated because of heteroge neous nature of waste materials. At least two analyses are needed over a period of one year in order to cover the seasonal variations occurring as a result of the weather cycle and the food production cycle (see Annex IV). There are three methods available for conducting waste composition studies: 1. Refuse composition by manual sampling A truck of wastes is unloaded in a controlled area away from other operations. Waste load is quartered. One of the quarters is selected and it is quartered. One of the quartered quarters is selected and all of the individual components of the waste are separated into preselected components such as those in Table 7. The separated components are weighed and recorded. The percentage distribution by mass of each component is determined. Typically, from 100200 kg of waste should be sorted to obtain a representative sample. 2. Refuse composition at source sampling The households are asked to collect their wastes at different bags. Bags are collected in this way for a period of time. They are weighed immediately after collection and amounts are
recorded. Composition by weight is determined from the mass records of preselected components of waste. This method probably gives different results than the first method. Because of street scavengers, loss during transportation, etc. and the waste samples collected directly from households will be richer in recyclable materials compared to samples taken at disposal site. 3. Refuse composition by photogrammetry This method involves photographing a representative portion of refuse and analyzing the photograph. The methods discussed above are applicable for municipal/household wastes. For other types of wastes, chemical analysis, and heating value might be of greater concern for management purposes.
10.
ROLE OF THE NSO
Compared to the environmental monitoring of and statistics on air and water emissions, the area of waste emissions is poorly developed. For waste, an international monitoring programme within UNEP/GEMS is still lacking; other monitoring approaches are mostly focused on hazardous waste (e.g. Batstone et al., 1989). Internationally agreed upon classifications are not available. In this situation, the NSO cannot start simply from experiences gained at an international level, or base its statistical system on tested classifications. Rather, the NSO faces the task of upgrading current national practices using what environmental monitoring experiences and statistical classifications of solid waste are available. In most of the countries, local authorities are responsible for waste handling issues, i.e. collection,-transportation and disposal. Therefore, the best data source for wastes is the municipalities. If the waste handling services are privatised partially or as a whole, then the companies may be the source of data. Otherwise all the raw data should be collected and processed by the NSO. One example of this is the household waste composition research conducted in Turkey (See Annex IV). The households were aimed to discover the data related to waste composition at source, i.e. where it is generated. Otherwise the data collected at the disposal site, do not cover the full potential of recycling and recovery. When surveys are considered, it should be realised that communal authorities and production units will hardly ever be able to give accurate data, because internal waste bookkeeping is lacking or not compatible with the requirements of the survey. This might force the NSO, in co-operation with EPA, to develop a fairly simple registration system to be adopted by the authorities and production units to be surveyed. Such an undertaking will only be feasible if the respondents concerned might reap direct benefits from the exercise, and if the registration system is endorsed by ministries concerned, employers associations and other stakeholders. The registration system should contain the necessary classifications, definitions, worksheets and measurement methods to record the desired aspects of waste.
The insights gained from this exercise then may be used to develop a national programme on waste data, based on perceived priorities. Even more than for water and air, co-operation with the environmental protection agency is required, though their expertise in this field may be less than for air and water emissions. For most countries, incomplete and patchy data on waste arisings, and waste treatment and disposal will be available (e.g. for hazardous waste, in connection with the Basel Convention, from municipal waste collection services and landfill managers). In this situation, rapid assessment seems to be the obvious choice in gaining a preliminary understanding of waste generation and the connected environmental problems. Rapid assessment would offer a starting point for setting priorities. What aspects of which waste streams should be surveyed in what detail? (For example, household waste surveys might be restricted to urban areas, while waste arisings in the countryside might only be sampled, or indirectly computed.).
11.
SUGGESTIONS FOR DATA PRESENTATION AND OUTPUT
Table 21 can be used for summing up solid waste statistics at the national level for selected solid waste categories. Example Table 21: National totals for selected waste categories
Waste category/ Producer Municipal Manufacturing Agricultural Mining and quarrying Energy generation Water &wastewater treatment Construction&demolition Arising Treatment/reuse Disposal
Note: This should try to assemble all data availa ble, even if based on one-off surveys, data for previous years, etc. If quantitative data are lacking, qualitative indications might be used instead.
Example Table 22: Urban areas, totals for selected waste categories
Waste category/ Producer Household waste Hotels & restaurants Commercial and institutional Street sweeping and litter Hospitals Water & wastewater treatment Arising Treatment/reuse Disposal
Construction&demolition
Example Table 23: Domestic/urban waste: composition and possible alternative treatment and disposal modes
Composition Food and garden waste Paper and paperboard Plastics Glass Metals Textile and others Ash and slag Batteries
Arising
Recycling rate
Treatment & Disposal
Example Table 24: Production, movement and disposal of hazardous waste
Source of waste
Production
Imports Exports
Amounts to be managed
Treatment and disposal
(ISIC Codes of manufacturing industries)
Arising Treatment/reuse Disposal Composition Process waste [Hazardous waste]

Note: Double counting may occur as wastes may be counted under several categories. If sufficient details are known, hazardous waste could be relegated to a separate table..

Stwes-2waste 02

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Stwes-2waste 02

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CHAPTER 5 SOLID WASTE TABLE OF CONTENTS

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page i

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page ii

Source: A. Vesilind, 1995.

Figure 1: Flow of materials in society

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 1

Municipal & Industrial waste

Wastes and sustainable development

P-S-R Framework for waste statistics

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 4

SOURCES AND TYPES OF WASTES

Food wastes, special wastes

Commercial and Institutional

Treatment plant sites

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 5

Table 4: Classification of materials comprising municipal solid wastes

Demolition construction wastes

Treatment plant wastes and dredged soil

Source: adapted from Peavy, Rowe and Tchobanoglous, 1985.

Mining and quarrying wastes

Energy production wastes

Year of data 1990 1990 1988 1978 1991 1990

Municipal 5,85/ 1.2 b 48,283 d/ 1.05 78 1,247 f/ 0.96

Industrial 577,970 c/ 1,879

Source: UNEP (1993).

AMOUNT AND COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL WASTES

Source: Ong (1987).

600---------100 Volume person/day litres 0.5--------25

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 11

Source: Eurostat Press Office

Hazardous and special wastes (106 t/yr) 338 303 278 b/ 24 19 16

Source: OECD (1991).

Tonnes/year 5,000 75,000 10,000 5,000 2,000 1,000

China Malaysia Singapore Thailand

Metric tonnes of industrial solid wastes produced in 1991.

Source: UNEP (1993).

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 13

COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTES

Source: Adapted from Ong (1987).

Dumping and incineration at sea

Kg/day % % of total number number

1994 1.5 2/86/12 62 15 3 1995

1997 1.3 20/65/15 78 45 7 1998

2001 1.2 30/50/20 92 97 10 2001

2005 1.0 50/25/25 100 136 15

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 22

Source: Environmental Performance Reviews: Korea (OECD, 1997).

Strict Avoidance Reduction at Source Product Re-use Recycling Incineration

Figure 4: Waste prevention in the context of waste minimisation

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 24

Reduction at Product Source Re-use

Waste Minimization Priority of actions

Figure 5: Waste prevention in context

Characteristics of waste prevention

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 25

______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 5 Waste draft September 2000 page 26

7.3.2. Conceptual framework

(physical scope options)

(policy programme aspects)

Strategic target setting Instrument choice & application

National govt. Regional / local Private sector

Waste stream-based (municipal, industrial, commercial, hazardous)