
Today's RealityThe existing regulatory system for moderate-risk wastes focuses on waste management. These wastes are conditionally or categorically excluded from the state Dangerous Waste Regulations. Little attention is given to the hazardous materials themselves, unless they are used in very large quantities. Household hazardous waste (HHW) is any waste created by discarding a “hazardous household substance.” Hazardous household substances are defined by state statute (RCW 70.105.010(17)). The broad categories of hazardous household substances are listed in the table below.
* Local jurisdictions may include additional hazardous substances as a result of local hazardous waste planning processes. The remainder of the moderate-risk waste stream comes from non-household generators of small quantities of hazardous waste, commonly referred to as conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). In 1990, Ecology estimated there were approximately 240,000 CESQGs in Washington. These businesses generate up to 220 pounds per month or per batch for most hazardous wastes. CESQG wastes include the same substances as HHW, but also may include some additional commercial-type wastes that would be less likely to be found in HHW. Some examples are: commercial quantities of copier and photo processing wastes; high-strength cleaning and production chemicals; and strong oxidizers, acids, and bases. In 2002, 24.1 million pounds of MRW (HHW and CESQG, combined) were collected in the publicly sponsored system. Of that, 22.7 million pounds was HHW. HHW is estimated to represent approximately 1 percent of the total municipal solid waste stream. One percent would equal 144 million pounds in 2002, which is far more than the 22.7 million pounds that were collected. Therefore, only about 16 percent (22.7/144) of all HHW in 2002 was collected through HHW collection programs. The remaining 84 percent of the HHW generated in 2002 may have entered landfills, solid waste combustors, sanitary sewers, stormwater systems, or may have been dumped on the ground. The CESQG waste stream is less well quantified, but experts estimate that it is probably at least as large as the HHW waste stream. If it is the same size as the HHW waste stream (144 million pounds), then the 1.4 million pounds of CESQG waste collected in 2002 (24.1 million pounds of MRW minus 22.7 million pounds of HHW equals 1.4 million pounds of CESQG waste) would represent only 1 percent of the total CESQG waste stream. The remaining 99 percent of the CESQG waste stream is unaccounted for. It is estimated that the current MRW collection system is managing a small percentage of the wastes from HHW and CESQG sources. It is unlikely that the collection system can manage all MRW with the current level of resources. Local and state resources are challenged to fund the current level of HHW services. For the CESQG waste stream, most programs provide services for a fee and so some additional capacity might be available to serve this client base by the generation of fee-based revenues. Although MRW collection is inadequate compared to the volumes generated, it does divert hazardous materials from the municipal waste streams and provide numerous benefits. MRW collection provides an opportunity for waste reduction education, allows for the recovery of materials as resources, reduces the toxicity of solid waste landfills and wastewater systems, helps the public avoid improper disposal practices, and protects waste processing equipment and handlers from exposure to hazardous materials. |
Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.