Kunci Jawaban Soal-Soal Ujian Nasional Matematika SMA

Kunci Jawaban Soal-Soal Ujian Nasional Matematika SMA

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS-GENERATED INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE in TEXAS, 1999 CATEGORY ON-SITE OFF-SITE FACILITIES Deep-well injection 14,144,900 137,616 Incineration (Liquids and Solids) 484,000 77,743 Energy or Thermal Recovery, Including Cement Kiln Incineration 617,900 88,272 Landfill 40,200 3,398 Land Treatment 1,000 Solvent Recovery 16,195 Fuel Blending (followed by energy recovery out-of-state) 79,690 Zinc Recovery 0 Other Metals Recovery 2,488 Stabilization 28,993 Storage 20,517 Others 15,977 Treatment and Other Recovery 234,100 On-site Wastewater Treatment 35,432,000 Pretreatment and Discharge to Public Sewer Treatment 3,497,400 375,100 Discharge to POTW with no prior treatment 7,751,700 Out-of-state Commercial Facilities 216,907 In-state Captive Facilities 128,100 Out-of-state Captive Facilities 41,200 Total 62,173,100 857,898 63,010,600 Note: To avoid double-counting wastes sent to commercial storage facilities are not added in total since they represent an interim processes and not final management. Source: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Trends in Texas Hazardous Waste Management: 1999 Update (June 2001), 8 and 23 Before substantial state and federal regulation of waste began in the late 1970s, most industrial waste was disposed of in landfills, stored in surface impoundments such as lagoons or pits, discharged into surface waters with little or no treatment, or burned. Mismanagement of these wastes has resulted in polluted groundwater, streams, lakes, and rivers, as well as damage to wildlife and vegetation.* High levels of toxic contaminants have been found in animals and humans who have been continually exposed to such waste streams.* Today, three major federal laws – the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act -- and one state law – the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act -- guide management of hazardous and other industrial waste in Texas. Other federal laws that relate to hazardous waste include the Federal Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Toxics Control and Safety Act. Between 1986 and 1999, Texans and their Texas-based industries produced at least 60 million tons of hazardous waste every year, significantly more than any other state.* Although there are places to place these wastes, both on-site and off, none of the management or disposal alternatives is fail-safe. Among state officials and the public, serious concerns about both commercial management of industrial waste and on-site industrial management of wastes remain: Hazardous and many "nonhazardous" industrial wastes are inherently dangerous to human health and the environment no matter how they are managed. Between 1989 and 2002, leaks and accidents at industrial hazardous-waste disposal facilities, or industrial unauthorized discharges of wastewater, were responsible for 538 cases of groundwater contamination -- including 26 new cases in 2002 -- that have yet to be cleaned up.* There are some 158,000 underground and 21,000 above-ground storage tanks registered with the TCEQ, and between 1989 and 2002, TCEQ has documented approximately 12,010 groundwater contamination incidents, of which 6,690 (about 56 percent) have been successfully cleaned up.* Abandoned oil, gas, and water wells located near hazardous waste injection wells could be possible avenues for the underground-injected hazardous waste to seep up to the surface or into underground drinking water supplies.* The continued disposal of "nonhazardous" industrial waste at both municipal solid waste landfills and industrial solid waste facilities and at oil and gas exploration and production sites is not as highly regulated as hazardous waste disposal. In fact, municipal solid waste landfills are for the most part more highly regulated than nonhazardous industrial solid waste disposal sites, which often do not require permits, groundwater monitoring, liners, or leachate collection systems despite the dangerous wastes they may contain. Thousands of abandoned industrial waste sites in Texas -- both those in the Superfund program and those not -- will require public management and cleanup well into the twenty-first century. Many of these will also require public money. The specific health effects of many toxic substances are not well understood, including their impact on birth defects. Industrial solid waste can be managed either on site—at the facility where it is generated—or transported off site to commercial facilities. Whether on-site or off-site, industrial solid waste can be disposed of through the use of municipal and industrial wastewater facilities; land disposal facilities such as landfills, waste pits—principally for petroleum exploration waste—and deep underground injection wells; and incineration or waste-to-energy incineration facilities like cement kilns. A variety of treatment, recycling, and other management options -- such as stabilization and solidification -- also exist for many types of industrial wastes. Nearly 99 percent of hazardous wastes are managed on site at the facility itself or treated and discharged through a wastewater treatment facility. About 74 percent of all hazardous wastes are managed through wastewater treatment facilities.* In some cases, the industrial wastewater is simply sent directly to a municipal wastewater treatment plant, while in others the level of hazardous waste is decreased to a certain level by treatment, and then discharged, either through a publicly owned (wastewater) treatment works or from the industrial facility itself. Most of the other waste managed on site is injected underground into deep wells.* MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS-GENERATED NON-HAZARDOUS CLASS I WASTE, 1997 DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY TONS Landfill 417,620 Landfarm 6,130 Deep Well Injection 22,820 On-Site and Waste Water Treatment 82,684,820 Note: About 90 percent of the Class I waste sent to commercial Deep-Well Injection facilities went out of the state, and about 10 percent of the waste sent to landfills went out-of-state. Source: TCEQ, Waste Planning and Assessment Division, Needs Assessment for Industrial Class I Non-hazardous Waste Commercial Disposal Capacity in Texas (2000 Update), Table 2. About 90 percent of Class I nonhazardous wastes are inorganic or organic liquids contained in aqueous solutions—primarily wastewaters—which are then treated at on-site or off-site wastewater treatment facilities. Inorganic and organic sludge, ash thermal residue from cement kilns and incinerators, and organic and inorganic solids make up most of the rest of this waste stream. In addition to on-site management of Class 1 wastes, in 1997 Texas facilities sent 446,030 tons of Class 1 nonhazardous wastes—out of 83 million tons generated—to commercial facilities.* Only a few facilities in the state manage only nonhazardous industrial waste commercially, and most of these facilities are landfills. Other management options include hazardous commercial facilities and, in some cases, municipal solid waste facilities. Industrial Choices: Hierarchies of Industrial Solid Waste Management As in the case of municipal solid waste, the State of Texas and the EPA have created a hierarchy or a set of priorities for how best to manage industrial solid waste, whether nonhazardous or hazardous.* In decreasing order of preference, these priorities are: Source reduction; Reuse or recycling of waste; Treatment to neutralize hazardous characteristics; Treatment to reduce hazardous characteristics (incineration); Underground injection; and Land disposal Long before RCRA and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act were passed to regulate the storage and disposal of hazardous waste, manufacturing industries, the national defense industry, and the oil and gas industry were producing and disposing of hazardous wastes. Many of these waste disposal sites, as well as production facilities, have closed down, been abandoned, or changed ownership several times, often without the new owners fully understanding what they have inherited. Not surprisingly, these abandoned and near-abandoned waste sites have contaminated water and surface water and caused adverse human health effects. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed by Congress in 1980 to provide funding to clean up these facilities and waste sites. As part of the act, a trust fund of $1.6 billion was authorized over five years. Since then, Congress has twice re-authorized CERCLA, increasing funding from $1.6 billion to $13.6 billion.* These funds are to be used to help clean up abandoned and closed hazardous waste sites that are placed by the EPA on a national priority list if they meet certain conditions under a hazard ranking system.* About 70 percent -- more than $20.6 billion -- of total cleanup costs, however, have come from the responsible parties.* However, since 1995, there have been significant concerns about funding at the National Superfund program, as Congress has chosen not to reauthorize a variety of "polluter pays" fees on the purchase of chemicals and petroleum as well as a corporate environmental income tax on large chemical companies to help fund the program. When the fees expired in 1995, there was still a surplus of $3.6 billion in the Superfund trust fund. However, by the end of 2004, by present rates of spending, the fund will only support some 20 percent of the total amount earmarked for the program, with other funds supported by the general taxpayers picking up the rest. A recent EPA Inspector General's report found that 78 Superfund sites that had requested funding in FY 2002 received either no or partial funding.* Even with the slowdown in funding, the EPA's federal superfund program has cleaned up hundreds of highly polluted sites around the country. As of December 2002, there were 1,232 waste sites on the final Superfund list, with another 61 proposed for the list, and another 267 which had been on the list but have since been deleted because of clean-up activities being completed.* In addition to those on the list, the EPA, states and tribal partners have assessed more than 44,000 sites, with 75 percent of those having been removed from the Superfund inventory. Industrial solvents are present at 87 percent of Superfund sites; inorganic compounds, including lead, at 87 percent; and pesticides, at 50 percent.* All told, 1 in 4 people in the U.S. -- including 10 million children -- live within four miles of a Superfund toxic waste site.* ACTIVE FEDERAL AND STATE SUPERFUND SITES BY COUNTY, SEPTEMBER 2003 For greater detail: Federal Sites orState Sites Source: TCEQ, Texas State Superfund Registry, September 19, 2003 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NPL Sites in Texas, September 2003. By September 2003, 43 sites in Texas were included on, and two were proposed for the federal Superfund National Priority List. Seven other sites were previously on the National Priority List but have since been cleaned up or removed from the NPL.* In addition to the Federal Superfund program, the Texas legislature amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1985 to create the State Superfund Program. If a site is not eligible for the national list and cannot be resolved through an agreed order with a responsible company, it can be become part of the Texas State Superfund Registry. These sites are not considered dangerous enough to be placed on the National Priority List, but are still determined to pose an "imminent and substantial endagerment" to Texans. As of September 2003, 20 sites were listed as actively forming part of the "active" State Superfund Registry, and another 26 sites have been proposed for the Superfund Registry, while 31 sites previously on or proposed on the Registry have since been taken off the list, either due to further information or resolution of the pollution problems.* There are several thousand other closed or abandoned sites in Texas that contain hazardous substances, about 600 of which must be investigated to determine if they should be on either the state or federal Superfund lists.* Most of the abandoned waste and production facility sites in Texas are related to the production of oil and gas or to the chemical industry.* Unfortunately, the federal Superfund program has not resulted in the expected rapid restoration of abandoned dump sites. Between 1980 and 1992, it took an average of two and one-half years for the first stages of the cleanup process to begin.* During this phase, the Superfund program attempts to locate responsible parties—those who actually produced, transported, or disposed of hazardous waste in an unsafe manner—-and make them pay for remediation and restoration. This often results in long legal battles. If the responsible parties are unable or unwilling to fund cleanup, or if they cannot be found, the federal government will pay.* However, in recent years, clean-up has occured significantly faster. As of December 2002, 267 sites had been deleted from the NPL list due to clean-up, while another 583 -- together representing more than 56 percent -- of the 1,499 sites on the federal Superfund list had completed construction cleanup.* In Texas, 14 of the 43 active sites on the federal list have completed cleanup, while six others formerly on the list have been officially deleted.* Texas's state Superfund program also has been hit by delays, although clean-up has occured faster in recent years. By the end of FY 2003, 31 sites had been deleted from the State Registry, either because of clean-up, an agreement with the responsible party or because it was discovered that the sites did not require as much clean-up as initially believed.* The state Superfund program is funded through a fee on the sale of lead acid batteries and from a fee on the on-site management of hazardous and industrial solid waste. These funds pay for cleanups under the state Superfund program and also provide the state's 10 percent share of cleanup costs under the federal Superfund program. Where a responsible party can be identified, the agency recovers the cost of state Superfund cleanups.* The state estimates that it spent a total of $29 million from 1985 to 1998 to begin the cleanup process at those sites where a responsible party could not be held accountable.* For FY 2004 and 2005, the Texas Legislature earmarked $63 million for the hazardous materials clean-up program, which includes the state and federal superfund programs, as well as other clean-up programs. Still, the funds represented a $6 million cut from what the agency had initially requested to clean-up Superfund sites and will result in some delays in clean-up.* In part because of the high costs and the time delays in identifying responsible parties, in 1995 the Texas legislature amended the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act and created the Voluntary Cleanup Program. The program became effective in September 1995. In 1996 the Houston Lead State Superfund Site, a former secondary smelting and metal refining plant and lead-battery recycling facility, became the first Superfund site to enter this voluntary program.* The voluntary cleanup program has focused on "brownfields," abandoned industrial or commercial sites in urban areas that have remained undeveloped because of contamination and fear of liability. The Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program operates in partnership with the EPA's Brownfields Initiative. In Texas, the EPA has awarded brownfield pilot grants to the cities of Dallas, Houston, and Laredo and has provided funds to the TCEQ for the state's voluntary program. Under the state program, a property owner carries out an environmental site assessment of the property and sends in an application and a $1,000 application fee. Once the application is accepted, an agreement to clean up the site is negotiated between the applicant and the TCEQ. Brownfields used for industrial sites do not need to be cleaned up to the same level as those used for residential or commercial development. Once contaminant levels in all media meet the health-based standards for the property's future land use, a release of liability is issued by the TCEQ for future lenders and landowners. Most contaminated sites are eligible for the program.* Through June, 2002, the Voluntary Cleanup Program had received 1,270 applications.* Legislation passed in 1997 allows municipalities to enter into a tax-abatement agreement with the owner of property in the Voluntary Cleanup Program. Under these agreements, a municipality can exempt from property tax a portion of the property's value for up to four years if the property is located in a reinvestment zone. The measure was passed to offer another incentive for the cleanup of industrial sites. However, opponents of the legislation claim the tax-abatement agreements will shift the burden of taxes to other taxpayers.* Since the splitting of the atom, both uranium and plutonium have been used to create bombs, provide medical supplies, and furnish energy. Not surprisingly, these uses create waste management problems: what do you do with materials that stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years? The disposal of most radioactive materials is regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and subsequent amendments, as well as by a radioactive material licensing program established by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. While some states are subject to direct control by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), a federal agency, Texas has been delegated authority by this agency and its predecessors and has its own laws and regulations relating to the use of radioactive materials and radioactive waste disposal. Radioactive waste has four main categories: low-level radioactive waste, high-level radioactive waste, naturally occurring radioactive material, and transuranic waste. Low-level Radioactive Waste FYI Each cubic foot of low-level radioactive waste costs between $350 and $500 to ship and manage at a proper waste management facility. (Source: Susan Jablonski, Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, phone interview by author, September 1994, Austin.) Low-level radioactive waste includes all tools, instruments, pipes, syringes, paper, water, soils, and protective clothing such as gloves contaminated with radioactive materials. Nationwide, about 80 percent of low-level radioactive waste by volume is from nuclear power plants. Low-level "fuel-related" radioactive wastes such as sludge, resins and evaporator bottoms from cleaning the large volumes of water used at nuclear power reactors, and clothes, paper, and filters contaminated by radioactive waste make up one category of nuclear-generated waste. Low-level "neutron-activated waste" from the intense bombardment of reactor parts with radioactive neutrons is a second category of low-level radioactive waste. Finally, hospitals and other medical facilities also produce low-level radioactive wastes. About 1.4 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive wastes were disposed of in the United States in 1991—enough to fill about 280 boxcar loads.* In Texas, it is believed that by 2007, there will be approximately 2 million cubic fee of low-level radioactive waste needing disposal. Currently, two commercial sites are receiving low-level radioactive waste in South Carolina, and Utah.* In Texas, mining, power plants, industries, hospitals, and university research facilities generate about 20,000 cubic feet per year of low-level radioactive waste.* By volume, about one-third of this low-level radioactive waste comes from Texas's two nuclear power reactors: the South Texas Project in Matagorda County, and the two-unit Comanche Peak Project in Somervell County.* By the amount of radioactivity—as measured in a radioactivity scale known as curies—nuclear power plants account for at least 70 percent of the state's low-level radioactive waste.* While most radioactive waste produced in Texas stays radioactive less than 100 years, about one percent—again associated with power plants—will remain radioactive for thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years.* Federal and state definitions of low-level radioactive waste differ. In Texas, low-level radioactive waste includes radioactive waste that has a half-life of 35 years or less and fewer than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics, as well as wastes with half-lives of more than 35 years if special criteria for the disposal of the waste are established by the TCEQ.* The federal definition, on the other hand, considers any radioactive waste that has less than 100 nanocuries per gram of transuranics low-level.* Texas's nuclear plants—as well as many of the state's universities and industries—sent their radioactive wastes to a low-level radioactive facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, until July 1994, when the facility temporarily closed. Since then, the facility has reopened and both the Barnwell and a similar facility in Clive Utah -- accept low-level radioactive waste from Texas generators*. However, the Barnwell facility will stop accepting waste from Texas beginning in 2008 and the Utah site only accepts certain kinds of low-level radioactive waste. The two nuclear plants in Texas currently store their nuclear wastes on-site in above-ground facilities, while hospitals and universities either store such waste on-site or send it to a centralized storage facility in Fort Stockton, Texas.* There are an estimated 60 sites throughout Texas which store low-level radioactive waste.* Low-level radioactive waste regulation falls under the jurisdiction of both the TCEQ and the Texas Department of Health's Bureau of Radiation Control. While TCEQ regulates disposal of low-level waste and has the authority to issue a license for a disposal facility, the TDH regulates and licenses the use, transport, and storage of radioactive materials. FYI Only 1.4 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste was generated in 1990 nationwide, while experts of the nuclear waste disposal industry in the late 1970s were predicting as much as five million cubic feet by that date. (Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Partnership Under Pressure [Washington, D.C., 1989].) Under the federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and 1985 amendments, states are expected to arrange for disposal of low-level waste generated within their borders -- other than those wastes generated by federal weapon facilities -- or form a compact with other states to create a single disposal site, which may refuse to accept waste from other states not in the compact. In 1981 the Texas legislature created the Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority to develop a state site to manage these wastes. In 1991 the legislature ordered the Waste Disposal Authority to locate the site in Hudspeth County, and in 1992 a site was preliminary approved in Hudspeth County, about seven miles from Sierra Blanca. In 1993, Texas formed a compact with the States of Vermont, and Maine to dispose of low-level radioactive waste from these two states and from Texas in Texas, which was later approved by the U.S. Congress.In 1996 the then-TNRCC proposed a draft permit for the site. However, several individuals, cities, counties, and organizations from both sides of the border opposed the permit, and in 1997 the State Office of Administrative Hearings ordered a hearing to decide whether to recommend denying or granting the permit. In July 1998 the hearings examiners in the case recommended that the TNRCC deny the permit because the applicant failed to characterize the fault directly beneath the site and failed to address potential negative socioeconomic impacts from the proposed facility.* In October 1998 the TNRCC commissioners denied the permit. In 1999, the Texas legislature eliminated the TRLLWDA, transferring all of its functions to the TNRCC. Finally, in 2003, the Texas Legislature approved and the governor approved HB 1567, which created a process for a private entity to hold a license to dispose of low-level radioactive waste, and also allow another similar facility -- which could be owned by the same company although the wastes would have to be disposed of separately -- to accept low-level federal radioactive waste from Department of Energy (DOE) weapon or other facilities. Under the legislation, the TCEQ has written rules for how it will accept applications to dispose of the radioactive waste, and applications would need to be received by January of 2004. Applicants would need to submit an application fee of $500,000. The disposal site would be run and managed by the private company, but after a time period would revert to state ownership. Because of the way both the legislation and the subsequent rules are written, it is most likely the waste site would be located in Andrews County in West Texas. Waste Control Specialist, a private waste management company, currently manages a mixed hazardous waste landfill and radioactive storage facility in Andrews County and has proposed disposing and managing low-level radioactive waste there. Another company – Envirocare – has in the past proposed building a facility to accept low-level radioactive waste in several counties in West Texas. It is expected that one or more of these companies would apply for a permit to manage low-level state and federal radioactive waste. Nonetheless, the application is certain to generate some opposition, and a decision will not be reached on approving such a site for several years. While it is difficult to estimate how much waste would be buried at such a site, estimates of "compact" waste -- low-level radioactive waste in Texas, Vermont and Maine -- are between two and three million cubic feet, while the DOE expects to generate hundreds of millions of cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste by 2007.* Under the bill, up to 162 million cubic feet of DOE waste could be disposed of in Texas*. High-level Radioactive Waste High-level radioactive waste includes radioactive material that results from the reprocessing of nuclear fuel, from spent fuel rods removed from a nuclear power reactor (a machine that splits atoms to make radioactive heat to boil water used for electricity generation); and from nuclear weapons. High-level radioactive waste is currently being stored on-site at weapons manufacturing plants and power plants around the nation until a permanent disposal site can be located.* One potential site, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is being considered as a repository for high-level waste, including spent nuclear fuel, although it has generated fierce opposition. By 1990 the nation's nuclear plants had produced more than 20,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste.* Texas's two nuclear power plants produce spent fuel rods and other high-level nuclear waste, which is stored in pools of water at the reactors. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials Naturally occurring radioactive materials (often referred to as NORMs), can be found virtually anywhere. It is estimated that the average person in the United States is exposed to about 360 millirems of radiation from natural sources each year. In Texas, NORM is found in drinking water, and also includes waste resulting from the mining of uranium and phosphate and from a number of other industrial activities, such as oil and gas production. The mining of uranium results in mountains of radioactive waste referred to as "tailings"—one example of material classified as naturally occurring radioactive material. Tailings are the radioactive soil and sand left on the ground after uranium ore has been crushed and processed for its radioactivity. These wastes contain uranium and radium as well as a number of toxic chemicals. Increased incidence of cancer in some mine workers has been associated with their exposure to these wastes.* In addition, coal power production, oil and gas exploration and production, fertilizer production, and water treatment can all produce wastes classified as naturally occurring. For example, the insides of oil extraction pipes may be coated with radium, or radium may be brought up to the surface while drilling for oil.* Naturally occurring radioactive wastes are managed apart from other radioactive and toxic wastes. Naturally occurring radioactive material waste is regulated in Texas by three different agencies. The Texas Department of Health's Bureau of Radiation Control regulates the receipt, possession, strorage, use and treatment of NORM, while the Railroad Commission of Texas regulates the disposal of oil and gas NORM waste. Finally, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulates disposal of all other NORM waste that does not result from oil and gas production. In oil and gas exploration, development and production, NORM originates in underground formations and can be brought to the surface in the formation water that is produced along with oil and gas, usually in the form of radium 226 and 228 and radon gas. Concentrations of these NORM wastes can occur in sludge that accumulates in oil pits, or become present in well tubulars or other equipment. Under RCT regulations, oil and gas waste containing NORM can no be injected back underground or discharged into surface waters without a permit. Oil and gas producers that are removing pipes from the ground which might contain traces of uranium or other radioactive materials must first get a license from the Department of Health. If they intend to export the waste to another site in Texas, that disposal site must be licensed by the Railroad Commission. As of January 1998, only two off-site disposal sites—Newpark Environmental Services in Winnie, Texas, and Lotus, L.L.C. in Andrews County—were authorized by the Railroad Commission to receive naturally occurring radioactive material waste.* Both use pits and injection wells to dispose of the waste. Transuranic Waste Transuranic waste, or TRU, includes waste containing plutonium and other elements heavier than uranium which contain more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting isotopes. Transuranic waste is produced mainly from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods, nuclear weapons production, and reactor fuel assembly. The main producer of transuranic waste is the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons production facilities. In 1999 the department began sending transuranic waste for disposal at natural underground salt formations near Carlsbad, New Mexico. This locale is known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP. While the site was certified by the EPA in 1998, it still must receive an operating permit from the New Mexico Environment Department before it can receive other types of radioactive and hazardous waste.* In Texas, tons of plutonium from the nation's nuclear arsenal are being stored at the Pantex nuclear weapons plant some seventeen miles northeast of Amarillo in Carson County. About 2,000 nuclear weapons are being dismantled there each year and stored at the plant site.* The Pantex plant is owned by the Department of Energy and operated under contract by Mason and Hangar-Siles Mason Co. In 1994 the plant was declared a Superfund site and is currently undergoing cleanup. FYI Municipal solid waste disposal: disposal, in this term, refers specifically to landfilling. Municipal solid waste generation: this term refers to solid waste (trash, garbage) created through various activities that enters the solid waste stream and is either disposed in a landfill, recycled, composted, or combusted. Source: TNRCC, MSW Management in Texas: Status Report [1997], 8. The question of what to do with human trash—recycle, reduce, dump, incinerate has been of concern to every society. In the late nineteenth century the first systematic, municipally run waste-collection system was put in place in the United States. The system started in New York City where, under the direction of the Street Cleaning Commission, 1,000 men clad in white, known as the "Apostles of Cleanliness," transported trash from the streets to dumps and incinerators.* By 1910 most municipalities across the country had established some system of waste collection and disposal. Today, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality oversees municipal waste procedures and strategies in Texas. TRENDS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION IN THE U.S., 1960-2000 YEAR MILLIONS OF TONS PER CAPITA (LBS/PERSON/DAY) 1960 88.1 2.7 1970 121.0 3.3 1980 151.6 3.7 1990 205.2 4.5 2000 232.0 4.5 Source: EPA Office of Solid Waste, Municipal Solid Waste www.epa.gov/epa/gov/epaoswer/nonhw/mncpl Over the past twenty years, a substantial body of state and federal legislation regulating the disposal of industrial, hazardous, and municipal solid waste (MSW) has been developed. Before that time, solid waste management depended on the judgment and decisions of individuals or local departments of health and sanitation. No distinction was made between industrial and municipal solid waste—each was handled and disposed of in the same manner, mainly through incineration, landfilling, or disposing into rivers and streams. Far-reaching federal regulations governing the disposal of nonhazardous and hazardous waste went into effect in 1976. In what seems to be a natural evolution of environmental law, federal waste legislation fell in place right on the heels of national water- and air-pollution control legislation. Concern for human health and the environment was the impetus for the enactment of the major federal legislation—the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). During the crafting of the 1976 act, Congress had the opportunity both to regulate disposal methods and to reduce the generation of waste by regulating production and products. Though several bills were introduced to minimize waste by regulating product contents , consumer product packaging, and manufacturing processes, these bills did not pass. At that time, for both solid waste and hazardous waste, Congress opted to regulate waste disposal rather than encourage source reduction.* GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING,AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE U.S., 1960-1998 Note:Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes. Does not include mixed MSW composting or backyard composting. Source: EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1999 Update There are numerous reasons to be concerned with waste. It is costly to dispose of, and the generation of large amounts of wastes impacts the environment. Domestic and industrial discharges of waste contaminate air, land, and water with pollutants and toxics that can harm human health and animal and plant life. According to environmental lawyer and author Paul Wilson, "the biosphere is disrupted by the sheer volume of our wastes—and also by the fact that many of those wastes are compounds that biosphere systems cannot absorb and recycle."* Moreover, the more waste that is disposed of rather than recycled, the more raw materials, like trees, must be consumed in making new products. Though not all scientists agree, many, like Paul Ehrlich, have concluded that human activity is changing the planet's basic chemistry at an increasing rate, as seen in the depletion of fossil fuels and natural resources, global warming, greenhouse gases, destruction of natural ecosystems, and biodiversity. For these scientists, "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" that can be prevented only if the people in industrialized nations greatly reduce their over consumption, for only then will there be a reduction of pressures on resources and the global environment.* TOTAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND PER CAPITA DISPOSAL RATE IN TEXAS, 1986-2000 Disposal refers only to solid waste received by permitted landfills. Source: TNRCC, Annual Reporting Program for Permitted MSW Facilities: 1997 Data Report (November 30, 1998), Attachment 6. TNRCC, Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years, 2003-2007. Vol 2. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, in 2000,Texans disposed (only refers to landfill disposal) of approximately 28. 6 million tons of municipal solid waste and spent more than $1 billion for solid waste management.* MSW includes everyday items such as grass clippings, household garbage, newspapers, food scraps, clothing, bottles, paint, batteries, etc. Municipal solid waste, including household hazardous waste, is disposed of through landfills, incineration, waste-to-energy facilities, and land application (for sludge). Recycling and composting also are used to manage municipal solid waste.* In Texas, as in most other places in the United States, landfill disposal is still the predominant method of solid waste management. All of these methods, including illegal dumping, have accompanying environmental and/or financial issues. FYI To remove your name from most national catalog and other direct mailing lists, register with the Direct Marketing PreferenceService: http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/offmaili nglistdave or call DMA at 212/768-7277. In 1998 the municipal solid waste disposal rate for Texans was 6.5 pounds per person per day, and the rate stayed fairly steady between 1992 and 1998. This disposal rate is based on every item that goes into a landfill, including construction and demolition debris and sludge.*In 2000, the per capita disposal rate was 7.5 pounds per day based on the disposal of (refers to landfill disposal) 28.6 million tons of MSW (more than 2,700 pounds per person). This represents a 4.5 percent increase since 1990, and a 30 percent increase since 1998. In 2000 approximately 36,249 tons of the total waste received by municipal solid waste facilities in Texas came from bordering states and Mexico.* Texas exported approximately 464,212 tons of MSW, and recycled 15,676,863 tons of MSW* MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION IN TEXAS, 1999 Source: TNRCC, Annual Reporting Program for Permitted MSW Facilities: 1999 Data Report The amount of municipal solid waste that is diverted to incineration is quite small Texas and federal laws specify the following "hierarchy" from the most- to the least-preferred methods of management for municipal solid waste (excluding sludge):* source reduction; reuse or recycling; treatment to destroy or reprocess waste to recover energy or other beneficial resources if the treatment does not threaten public health, safety, or the environment; or land disposal, including landfills and sludge application. Each method has its costs and its benefits. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality oversaw the development and implementation of local and regional municipal solid waste plans that incorporate this hierarchy. To date, all 24 Councils of Governments have developed regional municipal solid waste plans. SOLID WASTE IN TEXAS, 2000 MANAGEMENT METHOD TONS Generation 44,791,043 Landfill 28,649,966 Combustion* 41,626 Recycling 15,676,865 Net exports 464,212 Per Capita Rate: 7.52 (lbs/person/day) *Solid waste combustion includes basic incineration as well as waste-to-energy conversion. Source: TNRCC, Annual Reporting Program for Permitted MSW Facilities, Austin, July 2001 Municipal waste, when properly managed, does not pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment. In Texas, however, there have been incidents where municipal solid waste has threatened both the public health and the environment: In 1994 at least 28 landfills were discovered to have caused groundwater pollution.* In 1994 methane gas had "migrated" beyond acceptable levels at 63 municipal landfills.* 1991 residents of an Austin apartment complex built on an old municipal landfill had to be evacuated due to methane accumulation in several apartment units. In 1992, 63 percent of the 420 landfills open in Texas were located within one mile of residential land uses.* GENERATORS OF SOLID WASTE IN TEXAS GENERATOR TONS Industry: Hazardous Waste 63 Million Industry, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development: Non-Hazardous Waste (Class 1 Waste) 82.9 Million Institutional, Residential, and Commercial: Municipal Waste 28.6 Million Institutional, Residential, and Commercial: Municipal Waste Recycling 15.7 million Municipal Wastewater Plant Sludge Municipal Waste includes residential, commercial and institutional waste, as well as a small percentage of non-hazardous industrial waste and construction debris. Sludge includes only sludge that is sent to sludge land- application sites, not sludge that goes directly to municipal waste landfills. Note: Hazardous waste figure is for 1999; Class I waste from 1997; and other waste from 2000. Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Trends in Hazardous Waste Management: 1999 Update (2002) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Needs Assessment for Industrial Class I Non-Hazardous Waste Commercial Disposal Capacity in Texas (2002). Industrial solid waste—which may be solid, or liquid or gas held in containers—is divided into hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Hazardous wastes may result from manufacturing or other industrial processes. Certain commercial products such as cleaning fluids, paints, or pesticides that are discarded by commercial establishments or individuals also can be defined as hazardous wastes. Wastes determined to be hazardous are regulated by hazardous waste rules established pursuant to Resource Conservation Recovery Act's Subtitle C requirements. Nonhazardous industrial wastes are those that do not meet the EPA's definition of hazardous waste—and are not municipal wastes. These nonhazardous wastes fall under RCRA's Subtitle D solid waste management requirements. Under Texas regulations, nonhazardous wastes generated by industrial facilities are categorized as Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 wastes. Class 2 and 3 wastes are considered less harmful to the environment and human health than Class 1 wastes. While industries must report the type of waste they produce and the amount of Class 1 waste they generate, they do not have to report how much Class 2 or Class 3 wastes they generate or how they dispose of these wastes. However, municipal solid waste landfills do have to report the receipt of all industrial waste, including Class 2 and 3 wastes. In the United States, the amount of hazardous waste generated by manufacturing industries in the country had increased from an estimated 4.5 million tons annually after World War II, to some 57 million tons by 1975.* By 1990 this total had shot up to approximately 265 million tons, although much of this increase was due to a rule change which required vast amounts of wastewater contaminated with toxics to GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY INDUSTRY IN TEXAS, 2001 Source: Joseph Walton, Waste Planning and Assessment, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, September 22, 2003. Note: Numbers are preliminary and subject to change. be reported as hazardous wastes.* In 1997, EPA changed its rules again, and reported most wastewaters separately. In 1999, the U.S. EPA estimated that total hazardous wastes generated by industrial plants in the U.S. total some 40 million tons, not including wastewaters. This total was nearly identical to the 1997 total.* These wastes are generated at every stage in the production, use, and disposal of manufactured products. Thus, the introduction of many new products for the home and office—computers and computer papers, drugs, textiles, paints and dyes, plastics—also introduced hazardous wastes—including toxic chemicals—into the environment. Historically, Texas has ranked first in the nation in total hazardous waste generated, due to the state's large size and industrial base. While measurements reported by the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality differ significantly due to differing definitions and reporting requirements, there is no doubt that industries in Texas have and continue to generate more hazardous waste than any other state. For example, in 1999, the EPA reported that Texas industries generated 14.9 million tons of hazardous wastes out of a total of 40 million tons – nearly 37% of all wastes generated throughout the U.S -- while the TCEQ reported Texas industries generated 63 million tons, although about 75 percent of these were wastewaters. * GENERATION OF RCRA DEFINED HAZARDOUS WASTE, 1999 (thousands of tons) US Total: 40,026,050 Source: U.S. EPA, The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1999 Data), June 2001, Exhibit 1 In 1993 state agency data showed that Texas industries generated about 181 million tons of hazardous waste, while in 1995 Texas industries generated 148 million tons.* By 1997, the state reported generation of nearly 70 million by Texas industrial facilities, a total which dropped to 63 million by 1999. Preliminary data from the TCEQ indicate that in 2001, the total dropped to 47.4 million tons, mainly due to a new process at two chemical plants which separated hazardous wastewater from nonhazardous wastewater, thus reducing the total volume*. It is important to note that it is not possible to compare 1995 to 1997, 1999 or 2001 numbers due to different reporting requirements which lowered the volume of wastewaters which had to be reported as hazardous wastes. Still, while some 20 million Texans, commercial businesses, and institutions, as well as some industries, discarded about 28.6 million tons of solid waste into municipal landfills, burned about 50,000 tons of solid waste in municipal incinerators, and recycled some 15.7 million tons of papers, plastics and cans, some 9,000 businesses, commercial institutions, and industries produced 63 million tons of hazardous waste. Industries—including the oil and gas exploration and development industry—also produced another 83 million tons of Class 1 nonhazardous wastes in 1997.* In 2001 Texas manufacturing facilities again led the nation in the amount of toxic chemicals released or transferred. When all industries are included -- such as mining operations and electric utilities -- Texas ranked fifth overall.* FLOW OF MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, AND SOLID WASTE Source: Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Environmental Trends (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 1981), 77.