Surveying household hazardous waste generation and collection: trends in Arizona.

Introduction

Many common household products used in the kitchen, bathroom, garage and basement have the potential to cause serious health and environmental problems during their use or after their disposal. Consumers use a host of specialized, powerful cleaners, paint and paint-related material, pesticides and a wide variety of automotive products. When the consumer disposes of these materials, they become wastes. These potentially hazardous chemicals are readily available in most retail and wholesale establishments. Most are purchased over the counter by any person, in any age group, at a variety of locations such as grocery stores, hardware stores and automotive centers. HHW are exempt by definition from federal and most state hazardous waste regulations; accordingly, they are not subject to the stringent regulations that industry must follow, even though many of the products have similar chemical ingredients. Little information is available on the direct effect of these materials on the environment. Until recently, studies have focused on regulated waste and not the effect of HHW in municipal solid waste (MSW).

The Garbage Project at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Department of Anthropology, has collected the most comprehensive consumer usage data by conducting detailed residential-refuse characteristic studies in the Tucson community. The primary thrust of the HHW characterization studies has been to count the number of hazardous items (containers). They concluded that the approximately 120,000 households in Tucson generate approximately 11 million hazardous items annually (1). In 1989 the Garbage Project collected curbside waste in four urban communities (Tucson, Phoenix, New Orleans and Marin County, CA). The HHW weight fraction was between 0.42 and 0.61 percent of the refuse weight. The study's final conclusions were: 1) although HHW is relatively small in proportion to the total MSW analyzed, significant quantities are discarded each year; 2) great diversity in HHW types exists; however, certain wastes represent a major proportion of the total by weight; 3) differences among communities in types and quantities of HHW are quite distinctive; and 4) landfilled residential waste may contain higher concentrations of hazardous materials than commercial wastes (1).

In response to growing concerns about HHW, collection programs were implemented in the early 1980s. From 1980 to 1994, the number of HHW collection events per year in the United States grew from two to almost 1,700. Thirty states have established permanent HHW programs. Unfortunately, most of these programs collect from only two to six percent of the general population and have an extremely high per-participant cost (2,3,4,5). Use of HHM has not significantly declined even though products such as SAFETY Stripper[TM] and batteries without heavy metals have entered the market. Homes storing HHM and unsafe disposal of HHW are problems still facing communities.

Health and Environmental Problems

When household products are used, misused or improperly stored or disposed of, residents are most likely to be exposed to dangers and long-term exposure. Materials that are used infrequently are often stored in closets, basements or garages for long periods of time. Materials such as paint thinner solvents and fertilizers may react with their containers over years causing the containers to deteriorate, thus increasing potential danger to homeowners. Over 90 percent of poisonings in the United States occur in the home. In 1994, 45,311 exposures to bleaches containing hypochlorite were reported to poison control centers in the United States (with 8,657 of those treated in a health care facility) and 3,850 exposures to ammonia cleaners were reported (with 642 treated in a health care facility) (6). Nationwide in 1993, 140,000 exposures to pesticides were reported, 93 percent of which involved home use. About 25 percent of these reported pesticide exposures involved poisoning symptoms, and over half the exposures involved children under age six (7). Household products continue to be the major source of poisoning among children (6).

HHW alone or in combination with other substances can pose hazards to refuse collectors and workers at landfills and incinerators. HHW causes injuries to approximately three percent of waste collectors through explosions, acid or caustic splashes and burns from flammable substances (8). For example, a refuse worker in California lost his sight when HHW spilled on his face. A firm in Lemon Grove, California reported incidents in which swimming pool chemicals splashed on personnel during the compaction of residential refuse. Personnel from Tempe, Arizona reported an average of five fires in the city's residential packers each year, primarily from chemicals.

Leachate is produced as water percolates through solid waste, leaching soluble components and degradation products from refuse. Researchers from Texas A&M University found that leachates from MSW landfills that do not accept industrial waste contain many of the same compounds found in industrial waste. The presence of these compounds was attributed to the presence of HHW or illegally dumped regulated waste (9). Studies show that even rural landfills that have had no type of industrial source, have organic chemicals in the leachate (2). A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study found hazardous organic constituents in the leachate of all 53 landfills analyzed (10). An estimated cancer risk calculation resulted in evidence that MSW landfill leachates are as acutely and chronically toxic as co-disposal and hazardous waste landfill leachates (11). In fact, the leachates from two of the MSW landfills that opened since the regulations prohibiting codisposal of hazardous waste went into effect have cancer risks greater than the Love Canal landfill leachate.

The use of landfill liners, both synthetic and compacted clay, and leachate collection systems decreases the risk of groundwater contamination by landfill leachate. However, leachate collection systems may not be pumped out frequently enough, and even plastic liners leak (an average of 13 holes per acre). These limitations cause groundwater to be contaminated with landfill leachate. Recent data indicate that volatile organic compounds commonly found in landfill leachate can rapidly migrate through synthetic liners, even at dilute concentrations. Organics also can diffuse through compacted clay liners (11). Landfilling HHW may not be the best long-term solution.

Many of these wastes are disposed of in an indiscriminate manner that may ultimately degrade surface water, groundwater and air quality (12). A Seattle study on the sources of hazardous chemicals to the municipal sewage treatment plant showed that for a number of contaminants, the non-industrial sources were much higher percentage contributors than any of the industries (2). Residential sources contributed seven to 11 percent of the heavy metals, and 55 to 64 percent of the extractable organics ending up at publicly owned treatment works. Another study found no difference in metal or organic concentration in wastewater for cities with low and high industrial use (8). One third of all U.S. housing uses septic tanks. Organic cleaners, solvents and paint thinners do not bind to soil particles. Instead they go right through these systems and into the groundwater (2). A California Air Resources Board study determined that the overall composition of landfill gases from hazardous and non-hazardous sites appear to be similar. The study stated that non-hazardous landfills may contain concentrations of toxic gases equal to or exceeding those of hazardous landfills (10).

Lack of Knowledge

Large United States businesses have made great strides in instituting pollution prevention and waste minimization programs to employ chemicals in safer and more cost effective ways. On the other hand, general consumers often do not know they are using, storing and discarding hazardous products. Many individuals do not think that the use or disposal of household products poses a threat to their health and environmental quality. A Colorado survey reported that 20 percent of the respondents were unable to identify a single toxic product in their home (13). While the majority correctly assessed the damage potential for pesticides, dishwasher soap and paints, most failed to accurately assess the potential for environmental damage if drain cleaner, motor oil or antifreeze are improperly disposed. A New Mexico survey had similar results: only 28 percent surveyed could name one hazardous product, and 12 percent could not name any (14). Homeowners remain unaware of the dangers of the products in their homes, and the notion that "one can of oil on the ground can't hurt" is pervasive.

Methods

Maricopa County, Arizona 

The study was conducted among households in Maricopa County, population of 2,209,567 and area of 9,204 square miles. The county includes the cities of Phoenix (pop. 1,012,230), Mesa (pop. 296,645), Glendale (pop. 156,165), Scottsdale (pop. 137,022) Tempe (pop. 150,615), Peoria (pop. 65,500) and Chandler (pop. 100,173) (15). A random digit dialing system was used to obtain a sample of Maricopa County residents aged 18 years or older. Specifically, a review of current telephone directories revealed that 237 telephone prefixes served the geographical boundaries of Maricopa County. A random four-digit number was joined to each prefix. A percentage of surveys were completed based upon the population in each telephone prefix area. The sample size (244 completed interviews) was determined by demographic consideration, the amount of data needed to test the computerized survey instrument and the results from previous awareness surveys conducted by Pima County for a representative sample of the population. A larger sample size would be required in order to complete thorough statistical inference calculations for all the disposal data.

Residents of Maricopa County were surveyed by telephone using a computerized or hard-copy survey instrument. The survey questions asked about the following: products purchased, disposal practices, knowledge of HHW and HHW programs, awareness of health and environmental problems and preferences for disposal and funding options. The survey results were entered into a computer database and modeling program, which calculated the statistics. The program also estimated the amount and types of hazardous waste being improperly disposed of and the potential exposure from the improperly disposed material. Calculations included the following:

* all demographic statistics 

* percentage of participants purchasing specific hazardous materials

* amounts of hazardous materials stored and/or disposed of and disposal methods

* percentage of participants aware of HHW and related health and environmental effects

* percentage of participants who use and/or are aware of collection programs

* potential participation in collection programs

* opinions about collection and funding options

* significant differences between responses

Pima County, Arizona 

The City of Tucson/Pima County Household Hazardous Waste Program is the only permanent collection facility in Arizona. Along with the permanent facility, satellite collection events are held at least once a month throughout the county; the municipal landfills have [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] battery, oil and paint collection sites. The program has become the model for other programs in Arizona. The program has a participation rate of five percent and a cost per participant of $43 for fiscal year 19951996. The study was conducted among users of the program at the permanent facility and/or a satellite event. Approximately 12,000 face-to-face interviews were completed when the participants brought their waste to the program. The questions asked the length of time the material had been stored, how often they used the program and how they had heard about the program. Selected demographic data were collected. Eight hundred participants also were asked what they would do with the waste if no program were available.

TABLE 2

Participants purchasing specific categories of household
hazardous materials

Material                         Participants
                                 Purchasing (%)

Automotive Products                    64
Paint Products                         44
Pesticides and Fertilizers             41
Household Cleaners                     72
Miscellaneous                          76
Batteries                              62

Results-Maricopa County

Demographics 

Selected demographic data reported by the study participants and the corresponding 1990 U.S. Census Bureau figures for Maricopa County are given in Table 1. The demographic data for study participants were similar to the data for all residents of Maricopa County except males, who were underrepresented. In many two-person households surveyed, the female answered the telephone and subsequently was surveyed.

Material Usage and Disposal Options

Ninety-six percent of the residents surveyed had purchased hazardous materials in the last year (95-96). The percentage of residents that purchased specific categories of hazardous materials is listed in Table 2. "Batteries" was a subgroup of miscellaneous items. Most residents used up significant portions of their paint products (62%), pesticides and fertilizers (89%) and cleaners (90%), but used up only 46 percent of their automotive products and only eight percent of their miscellaneous items (batteries, hobby chemicals, and pool chemicals for example). Residents were asked what they did with the waste or products that they no longer used. As shown in Table 3, all categories of waste were put in the garbage, including 86 percent of the miscellaneous items and 57 percent of the cleaners. An additional 26 percent of the cleaners were taken to the landfill. Over 66 percent of the waste automotive products were recycled or taken to a collection program; however, five percent (all antifreeze) were disposed of on the ground. Significant quantities of automotive products (18%), paint and paint products (55%), and pesticides and fertilizers (39%) were stored.

Residents were asked to estimate the amount and frequency of material disposed of, as shown in Table 4. Over 20 gallons of paint were improperly disposed of with half of the material poured onto the ground. Over five gallons of antifreeze were poured onto the ground; over four gallons of cleaners poured down the sink. Over seven gallons of paint and 1,989 household batteries were put in the garbage.

Health and Enviromental Perception

To determine awareness of HHW and the potential health and environmental problems, residents were asked if they had heard the term "household hazardous waste" prior to the survey and if they thought HHW caused health and environmental problems. Over 68 percent of the participants had heard the term HHW and believed that the products caused health and environmental problems. However, 31 and 24 percent of those surveyed did not believe or did not know that HHW could cause health or environmental problems respectively. A statistically significant lower percentage of males than females thought the products caused health problems. The results by male and female are shown in Table 5. No significant difference in response was found between income and education levels as has been reported by Schultz et.al. (16).

Preferences for Disposal and Funding Options

Maricopa County has no unified approach to HHW collection, however, several communities do provide annual events. In 1995, Phoenix had approximately 2,000 participants, while Tempe had approximately 600 for one-day events. Twenty percent of the survey participants knew of the collection events in Maricopa County, and 53 percent of those used the events. When surveyed on their preference for HHW collection, 54 percent of the residents preferred a permanent collection facility, while 25 and 6 percent preferred a collection day or curbside pickup respectively. The preference for a permanent collection facility is in agreement with other surveys (17,18).

Of those that chose a permanent facility, 57 percent were willing to drive up to five miles to use the facility, 22 percent up to 10 miles and 12 percent up to fifteen. When asked how a safe disposal option should be funded, 23 percent of the residents chose a tax on products when sold; however, over 30 percent of the participants didn't know or gave no response to this question as shown in Table 6. Only 26 percent stated they would use the facility over three times a year and 32 percent stated twice per year. Of those that chose a [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 4 OMITTED] collection day, 20 percent stated they would use a collection day over three times a year and 29 percent stated only once per year.

Results-Pima County

Sixty-seven percent of the participants were repeat users of the collection program with over 50 percent using the facility more than three times per year. When asked what they would do with the waste if no program were available, 36 percent of the participants responded that they would throw it in the garbage [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]. The majority of new participants had stored their waste for over a year, while the majority of repeat participants had stored their waste for less than three months. Over 75 percent of the participants had heard about the program through word-of-mouth rather than advertisements or announcements.

The percent by weight of waste categories collected by the facility for fiscal year 19951996 are shown in Figure 2. It collected 422,953 pounds of HHW, of which over 50 percent consisted of automotive products (41 percent was used motor oil) and 26 percent of paint and paint-related material.

Discussion

Even with the majority of the residents in Maricopa County properly disposing of their HHW, significant quantities are being disposed of improperly. Both surveys, Figure 1 and Table 3, show similar trends with storing and throwing in the garbage being the most common responses. With a collection program participation rate of only five percent, Pima County landfills are also receiving significant quantities of HHW. Even small quantities of improperly disposed material per person result in significant loading of HHW to the municipal facilities and the environment. As demonstrated by both surveys, many of the methods chosen for "disposal" when a program is not available are potentially dangerous to human health and the environment.

Program Design and Operation

The preference of Maricopa County residents for a permanent facility and a drive of less than five miles requires several permanent facilities for a county the size of Maricopa. Permanent facilities have advantages over satellite collection events but may not be feasible initially. Pima County has conducted satellite collection events for ten years, but has the long-term goal of establishing permanent facilities throughout the county. These permanent collection sites would be supplemented by roving neighborhood cleanups and collection programs at the landfills. In addition, sites would be open every weekend, providing residents with more flexibility, and collection activities would be spread throughout the month. Currently, high output of staff and volunteer labor is required the first weekend of every month.

TABLE 5

Perceptions and use of program by participants

Question                        Female %     Male %
Aware of pollution problems       77           74
Aware of health problems          74           62
Aware of HHW                      82           62
Aware of collection programs      24           15
Use of collection programs        13            8
TABLE 6

Funding options chosen by participants

Funding Option                                          Percent (%)

Small charge on each item when disposed                    16
Small increase in garbage collection or landfill fees      12
Tax on products when sold                                  26
Would not be willing to pay                                12
Other                                                       7
Don't know                                                 16
No response                                                12

Actual usage rates for Pima County are significantly different from those predicted by the Maricopa County survey. With 67 percent repeat users, residents are developing the habit of taking their HHW to the collection center as it is produced. Once established, participants may use a facility more frequently than projected.

Waste streams from Pima County can be compared to the projected waste streams from the Maricopa County survey. Automotive products and paint and paint-related material were the waste streams (besides batteries) that were least frequently used up by the participants. Maricopa County can expect to receive automotive products and paint and paint-related material as the two main waste streams. If Maricopa County collects only automotive products and paint and paint-related material, it can collect over 80 percent by weight of the waste. Focusing on limited waste streams may be an efficient way to begin the program. These waste streams are easy to collect and handle and can be recycled, reused or sent for fuels blending. The Maricopa survey predicted that large numbers of household batteries would be collected. Pima County collected 4,292 pounds of batteries last fiscal year, which represents approximately 214,600 AA batteries, only approximately 1% of the total waste collected by weight. Inferring from the Maricopa survey, these collected batteries are less than what 24,000 to 30,000 people throw out per year, about three percent of the population of Pima County.

Educational Program Implications-Pima County

Traditional public education programs, which focus solely on collection of waste, have the potential to greatly increase the amount of HHW collected at the facility and also the money spent on disposal. The goal of the current educational program is to decrease usage of HHM and production of HHW in the community. Based on the survey demographic data (zip codes), two satellite collection sites were closed and one new site opened. Public awareness programs were increased in areas with low participation rates. However, reliance solely on traditional advertising is being replaced by school curricula and outreach programs, bilingual materials and cooperative neighborhood and retail take-back programs. Even though the facility has the capacity to handle large quantities of material, the program is shifting from a collection to prevention emphasis. The shift in emphasis addresses public health concerns during the use of HHM as well as HHW collection.

Conclusions

The survey represents the first step in long-term HHW planning for Maricopa County. The results indicate that the majority of residents in Maricopa County use up or properly dispose of the hazardous materials that they purchase. However, even with the majority properly disposing of their waste, significant quantities of HHW are being improperly disposed of. Of concern is the fact that 29 percent of those surveyed did not believe or did not know that HHW can cause health problems, and 23 percent did not believe that HHW can cause environmental problems. Of further concern is that the Pima County program, a ten-year old program with a public awareness campaign, has a participation rate of only five percent. Many residents remain unaware of the potential problems associated with using HHM and disposing of HHW. Motivation for using the existing programs remains low.

Even though the surveyed participants preferred a permanent collection facility, this may not be feasible initially for Maricopa County. The county may need to follow the Pima County model with satellite collection events and battery, oil and paint collection sites at municipal facilities in addition to a permanent site that could be later expanded as needed. Results indicated that the participants were open to an additional tax or fee to fund the program. The Pima County program is funded by existing revenues and sale of recyclables. All suggestions of additional fees or taxes have been opposed by its users.

Collection programs must be supplemented by strong educational programs. These educational programs must demonstrate how HHW can affect both human health and the environment, and must emphasize decreased usage of HHM and production of HHW. Educational programs that only emphasize collection have the potential to physically and financially overwhelm programs with collected waste and focus on only one part of the problem, the end product. Removing HHW from the municipal waste stream was the initial motivation for most programs; however, programs must now expand to address usage, safety and prevention as well.

Acknowledgement

The project described was partially supported by grant number 1 R43 ES07677-01 from National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

REFERENCES

1. Wilson, D., and W. Rathje (1989), "Structure and Dynamics of Household Hazardous Wastes," J. Resource Mgmt. and Tech., 17(4):200-206.

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988), Summary of the Third National Conference on Household Haz. Waste Collection Programs, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993), Summary of the Eighth National Conference on Household Haz. Waste Collection Programs, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.

4. Yerkes, T. (1993), "Program Report: Seattle-King County, Part II," Household Haz. Waste Mgmt., Dec.:2-7.

5. Farrell, M. (1995), "Roving for Household Hazardous Waste," Biocycle, July: 40-43.

6. Toby, L., C. Clancy, L.R. Clark, K.C. Holm, T. L. Litovitz, GM Oderda, and B.F. Schmitz (1995), "1994 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System," The Am. J. of Emergency Med., 13(5):551-597.

7. Grossman., J. (1995), "What's Hiding Under the Sink: Dangers of Household Pesticides," Envtl. Health Persp., 3(6):550-554.

8. Boyle, C., and B. Baetz (1993), "Household Hazardous Wastes: Options for Management," Can. J. of Civ. Eng., 20(4):543-549.

9. Spencer, R.L. (1989), "Local Governments Take on Hazardous Waste Collection," Biocycle, March:42-43.

10. Karpinski, G., and J. Glaub (1994), "Screening Hazardous Wastes in Solid Waste Landfills," Waste Age, 25(8):91-98.

11. Schrab. G.E., K.W. Brown, and K.C. Donnelly (1993), "Acute and Genetic Toxicity of Municipal Landfill Leachate," Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 69:99-112.

12. Zeiss, C., and W. Major (1992), "Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal by the Industrial-Commercial-Institutional (ICI) Sector in a Resource-Based Community," Haz. Waste & Haz. Materials, 9(3):297312.

13. Scudder, K., and K.D. Blehm (1991), "Household Hazardous Waste: Assessing Public Attitudes and Awareness," J. of Envtl. Health, 53(6) 18-20.

14. Bass, E. S., R.L. Calderon, and M.E. Khan (1990), "Household Hazardous Waste: A Review of Public Attitudes and Disposal Problems," J. of Envtl. Health, 52(6):358-361.

15. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Admin., Bureau of the Census (1994), County and City Data Book, 1994 Edition, Washington, D. C.:Government Printing Office.

16. Schultz, P.W., T. Mainieri, and S. Oskamp (1995), "Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors," J. of Envtl. Psych., 15:105-121.

17. Shorten, C.V., M.L. Glowacki, and M.M. Lynch (1995), "Household Hazardous Waste and Automotive Products: A Pennsylvania Survey," J. of Envtl. Health, 57(7):19-24.

18. McEvoy, J.W., and A.M. Rossignol (1993), "Household Hazardous Waste Disposal in Benton County, Oregon," J. of Envtl. Health, 56(3):11-15.

Corresponding Author: Ann Marie A. Wolf, Tyris Environmental, L.C., P.O. Box 64514, Tucson, AZ 85728.