Tenant Discards of Household Hazardous Waste at a Multi-Family Dwelling: A Case

Study of Quantity, Management Intervention, Capture, and Collection

Challenges

Presentation by

Stephan PollardEnvironmental Dynamics Doctoral Program

University of Arkansas

North American Hazardous Materials Management Association’s 20th Annual Conference

September 18-23, 2005, Tacoma, Washington

Abstract Informed multi-family dwelling (MFD) household

hazardous waste (HHW) diversion programs, attendant environmental education and communication, and policy, require empirical knowledge of the composition and quantity of HHW discarded by MFD tenants, the effectiveness of management interventions, and an understanding of collection challenges.

Attempting to maximize capture rates of HHW while minimizing contamination by improper material an 8-month program of intense management intervention including visual and verbal prompting of multi-family dwelling tenants was undertaken at a 28-unit near-campus apartment complex in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

HHW generation rates were approximately two percent,

capture rates were encouraging, and contamination generally minimal. Implications for collection and education efforts, and policy are highlighted.

Background

• Varying sources suggest U.S. households may generate an average of five1 or even 25 pounds2 a year of household hazardous waste (HHW).

• Volume per household is small BUT total is significant when considering the sum of all households….and the concerns related to HHW in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and incinerators.

1. Richard Porter, 2002 in the Economics of Waste citing Glaub, 19932. From http://ci.lexington.ma.us/OCD/Health/HazWaste.htm accessed September 8, 2005

Background• Most locales offer little more than drop-off

collection of HHW or once or twice a year curbside pickup.

• Only a handful of cities offer frequent curbside pickup, and even then only a limited list of items – usually used motor oil and household batteries.

• Examples: – Clark County, WA– Millbrae, CA– San Leandro, CA– Warren County, NJ

• Participation rate of households in curbside-pickup programs is low, typically less than 10%1.

1. Richard Porter, 2002 in the Economics of Waste

Background• Economics of curbside collection of HHW

from MFDs would seem to be favorable given the density of availability, especially if piggy-backed with recyclables and compost-target collection.

• Participation rate studies involving HHW collection from MFD tenants are non-existent.

• Generally speaking, participation rates of MFD tenants in recycling collection programs are less than that of single-family dwellings (SFDs).

• The cost of collection per ton is likely to be higher for MFDs than for SFDs because of lower participation of MFD tenants.

Background

Other Studies– City of Toronto1

• Two Apartment Complexes Fall 2003– Batteries– Paint– Motor oil– Flammables– Unemptied Aerosol Cans– Other Household Special Wastes

• Complex 1 (N = 2 weeks; 20 households)

– 3.04 lbs / household / yr– 0.37% of Total Solid Waste

• Complex 2 (N = 8 sub-samples; 266 households)

– 3.75 lbs / household / yr– 0.28% of Total Solid Waste1. City of Toronto, 2004. Waste Composition Study of Multi-Family Residential

Buildings Receiving Collection of Source Separated Organic Materials: Final Report.

Overview of Study• 17,000+ multi-family dwelling (MFD) units in the Northwest

Arkansas have NO access to curbside waste pickup programs.

• Limited curbside recycling in Fayetteville – Springdale – Rogers, Arkansas Metropolitan Statistical Area directed at single-family residences only.

• Scientific determination of solid-waste compositions, quantities, and generation rates is important.

• Such determinations of the area’s MFD waste stream has never before been undertaken.

• Case Study does NOT include hazardous waste generated by MFD management / maintenance operations.

Study Objectives• Dual focus

1. Audit of generated recyclables, compost-target material, and household hazardous waste

2. Development of baseline data that can be replicated at other sites to provide information relevant to implementation, development and quantitative assessment of related collections targeting MFDs

Audit Objective – accurate quantitative measurements of:

A. CompositionB. Discard rate of solid wastes

Study Area Background

• 28 Units near UofA– 14 1-bdr – 14 2-bdr

• 32 to 40 Tenants– Undergrads– Grads– Young workers– No children,

families, or seniors

• Resident Manager

• Average rent for area

• Turnover– Summer 1/3 to 2/5 – Rare at other times

• Owner pays trash bill

• Only MFD in the region with waste diversion program (5yrs)

• “More proper” disposal of HHW and recycling required per lease

• Manager takes HHW to local HHW drop-off center

• E-waste NOT collected in HHW diversion program

• Local HHW drop-off center $5 / item of e-waste

Methodology• Materials Categories

– Paper• Cardboard• Rigid Paperboard• Newspaper• Mixed Paper

– Plastic Containers• PET/PETE• HDPE

– Metals• Steel Cans and Lids• Aluminum Cans

– Glass• Brown• Clear• Green/Blue

– Plastic Film• Plastic Bags and Other

– Compost-Targets• Food Waste• Cat Litter• Soiled Paper

– Household Hazardous Waste

• Aerosol Cans• Household Batteries• Liquid Special Wastes• Electronic Waste (not

collected but counted)

HHW Measurement Methodology

• Sample Size– 100 Percent sampling

• HHW collection bin• Dumpster discards (excluding move-outs)• HHW from mgmt. operations NOT included

• Sampling Period and Frequency– Two Periods of HHW measurement:

1. Fall ’048 week-samplings

2. Spring ’058 week-samplings

16 Weeks of Data

HHW Collection Area

Dumpster Diving before the Truck

DUMPSTER RULES

1. Comply with all waste diversion regulations

2. NO toxic or flammable materials

3. NO auto batteries, oils, or petroleum products.

Weighing Matters

Quantification of Divertibles

Compost-Target Collected

Household Hazardous Waste

MFD Tenant HHW Generation

n = 8 Weeks (Average of 33.125 people)

* Typically only two or three batteries were discarded each week. One week 20 – 30 small assorted household batteries were discarded.

** Only a 40.5 lb television was discarded during the period.

Percent0.10 Liquid Special Waste

0.21 Aerosol Cans

0.43 Household Batteries

1.40 Electronic WasteNOTES:

Percent of Mean Total Discard: Fall 2004

Recyclables,Recyclables, Compost-Targets, and ResidualsCompost-Targets, and Residuals

98%98%

HHW2%

*

**

GENERATION

w E-waste 0.22 lbs / person / wk

w/o E-waste0.08 lbs / person / wk

MFD Tenant HHW Generation

n = 8 Weeks (Average of 33.25 people)

* Typically only two or three batteries were discarded each week. However, there were several weeks when from 12 – 14 various small batteries were discarded.

** Only two boom boxes were discarded during the period for a total of 21.55 lbs.

Percent0.03 Liquid Special Waste

0.16 Aerosol Cans

0.16 Household Batteries

0.98 Electronic WasteNOTES:

Percent of Mean Total Discard: Spring 2005

Recyclables,Recyclables, Compost-Targets, and ResidualsCompost-Targets, and Residuals

99%99%

HHW1%

*

**

GENERATION

w E-waste 0.12 lbs / person / wk

w/o E-waste0.03 lbs / person / wk

Management Intervention:Mandated Diversion, Commitment, and

the Lease!Education and Communication

9b. Trash, Recycling, Hazardous Wastes, and Bulky Wastes.

Garbage shall be disposed of only in appropriate receptacles. This apartment complex is excited to be striving for environmental consciousness. To this end ALL tenants are expected to abide by the Maple Street Apartments and City of Fayetteville’s Curbside Recycling Program protocols including those directed at residential curbside pickup and the use of recycling bins…and any hazardous waste disposal protocols. Any separate protocols that Maple Street Apartments may have must also be followed. Failure to comply with the protocols subjects the tenant(s) to eviction (and therefore loss of security deposit) as described in Paragraph 18 of this lease contract…

HHW Capture by Weight and Count: Fall 2004

Period

Aerosol Cans Household Batteries Special Liquid Wastes

Weight Count Weight Count Weight Count

Week 1 75% 3 of 4 0% 0 of 1 - 0 of 0

Week 2 0% 0 of 2 > 99% ? of ? 45% 1 of 2

Week 3 43% 1 of 2 100% 4 of 4 100% 1 of 1

Week 4 - 0 of 0

100% 4 of 4 0% 0 of 1

Week 5 0% 0 of 1 100% 6 of 6 - 0 of 0

Week 6 26% 2 of 3 - 0 of 0 21% 1 of 3

Week 7 0% 0 of 1 0% 0 of 2 100% 7 of 7

Week 8 59% 3 of 2 0% 0 of 2 100% 1 of 0

47% > 74%

79%

HHW Capture by Weight and Count: Spring 2005

Period

Aerosol Cans Household Batteries Special Liquid Wastes

Weight Count Weight Count Weight Count

Week 1 0% 0 of 2 0% 0 of 13 100% 2 of 2

Week 2 0% 0 of 2 0% 0 of 3 - 0 of 0

Week 3 - 0 of 0

28% 4 of 14 - 0 of 0

Week 4 100% 2 of 2 66% 1 of 3 0% 0 of 1

Week 5 0% 0 of 1 94% 3 of 6

- 0 of 0

Week 6 - 0 of 0

26% 2 of 12 - 0 of 0

Week 7 24% 1 of 5 60% 2 of 3 - 0 of 0

Week 8 28% 1 of 4 7% 1 of 15 0% 0 of 3

25% 19%

33%

Contamination

• Found:– Freebie internet connection CDs– Automobile headlamp– Incandescent lamps– Scrap paper– Plastic wrappers– Broken drinking glass

• Function of:– location of collector bins

• Proximity to mailboxes• Proximity to other discard collectors including a

residuals collector

– communication

SUMMARY of OBSERVATIONS

• MFD tenant-generated HHW accounted for between 1 to 2% of Total Discards across two eight-week sampling periods.

• Liquid special wastes, household batteries, and aerosol cans together accounted for between 27 to 35% of MFD tenant-generated HHW. Electronic waste made up the balance.

• Aerosol can generation rates were relatively consistent.

• Large inter-period variation in generation rates of batteries and liquid special wastes

• HHW capture rates were very inconsistent.

• Some people discard “large” quantities of batteries in a single instance.

• One or two individuals can have an appreciable influence on the waste stream.

Research needs remain!

• Data came from a single apartment complex– Data may or may not be representative of other

complexes

• Sample size may have been too small

• Covered only periods when students were more likely to be in town

• Did not incorporate:– Move-out discards– Plan to capture e-waste

• What if only specific aerosol cans and only Ni-Cd batteries were collected?

Collection Challenges and Barriers

• MFD Management Support / Role– Promoter– Monitor of participation– Collection facilitator (carrying HHW for elderly

or the disabled)• Education

– Who is going to do the educating?– Transient nature of apartment residents– Language differences– General lack of knowledge

• Accessibility– Hours of operation– Collection container access ease (seniors,

physically challenged, kids!)• On-Site Safety

– Depends on what is discarded for collection!

Collection Challenges and Barriers• Regulations for MFDS – a “No man’s

land” in some parts of the US– HHW not regulated under RCRA– No HHW regulations relating to households

exist in Arkansas and other places– In the UW case are MFDs considered:

• “Handlers” if there is a collection program on site?• “Transporters” if staff is transporting UW?

– For Non-UW are MFDs considered “Generators” if only collecting from tenants?

• Liability / Insurance– On-Site Collection– Transportation

• Transportation Logistics– Who is doing it? Private / municipal hauler,

MFD staff, or resident?– Safety, Convenience, Regulations, etc.

MFD HHW Collection - The Powerful Role Played by System Variables

• COLLECTION CONTAINERS– Usability and convenience afforded the tenant– Serviceability by the hauler– Costs

• COLLECTION SYSTEM LOCATION– Proximity of Collection Area to Dumpster– Centrality of the Collection Area– Site Barriers – Unauthorized Usage of Collection Area

• COLLECTION PROGRAM SUPPORTS– On-site Manager– Owner/Property Mgmt Company– Tenants– State and Local Government – Hauler

Presentation by

Stephan Pollard, Ph.D. CandidateEnvironmental Dynamics Doctoral ProgramUniversity of Arkansas

(479) 575 6603

Rm 113 Ozark HallFayetteville, AR 72701

www.cast.uark.edu/~spstephan.pollard@gmail.com

APPENDIX

MFD Tenant HHW Generation

**

*

NOTES:

Percent of Mean Household Hazardous Waste: Spring 2005

Liquid Special Waste

3%

Aerosol Cans12%

Household Batteries

12%

Electronic Waste74%

n = 8 Weeks (Average of 33.25 people)

* Typically only two or three batteries were discarded each week. However, there were several weeks when from 12 – 14 various small batteries were discarded.

** Only two boom boxes were discarded during the period for a total of 21.55 lbs.

MFD Tenant HHW Generation

**

*

n = 8 Weeks (Average of 33.125 people)

* Typically only two or three batteries were discarded each week. One week 20 – 30 small assorted household batteries were discarded.

** Only a 40.5 lb television was discarded during the period.

NOTES:

Percent of Mean Household Hazardous Waste: Fall 2004

Liquid Special Waste

5%

Aerosol Cans10%

Household Batteries

20%

Electronic Waste65%

Not Found• General Household Materials

– Acids– Art supplies– Chemistry set chemicals– Fiberglass resins– Hobby supplies– Mercury containing devices (switches, thermostats,

thermometers, blood pressure equipment)– Moth balls/crystals– Oil paint and paint thinners, varnish, stain, and shellac– Paint strippers– Photography chemicals– Solvent adhesives– Turpentine and other paint solvents– Wood preservatives

• Lawn and Garden Materials– Cesspool cleaners– Flammable liquids/Gasoline– Flea and tick powders– Fire starters– Fungicides– Herbicides– No-pest strips– Poisons– Pool chemicals– Propane tanks

• Automotive Products– Batteries (autos, motorcycle, etc.)– Carburetor cleaner– Radiator flush

• Laundry Materials– Brighteners– Spot removers– Spray starch– Whiteners

• General Household Materials– Batteries (all years and all types)– Aerosol cans (empty or otherwise)– Furniture, floor, metal polishes, and strippers– Mercury containing devices (fluorescent lamps)– Rug and upholstery cleaners

• Automotive Products– Antifreeze– Brake fluid– Solvents and degreasers– Tire cleaners– Transmission fluid– Used motor oil– Waste fuels

• Bathroom Products– Hair dye– Nail polish remover– Toilet cleaners

• Laundry Materials– Bleach

• Kitchen Materials– Drain cleaners– Lighter fluids– Oven cleaners

• E-Waste– TV– Boom box– Remote controls– Printers– Computer housings and guts

Found

Acknowledgements

• Kendrick Properties for permitting the use of the study area.

• Dr. Jennie Popp for guidance and editorial support.

• City of Fayetteville Solid Waste and Recycling Division for collection of recyclable materials.

• Washington County Arkansas’ Department of Environmental Affairs and Boston Mountain Solid Waste District for information provision and collection of HHW.

• Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s Supplemental Environmental Projects Program for approved funding.