i An-Najah National University Faculty of Graduates Studies Assessment of Household Hazardous Waste Management: A Comparative Study Between Nablus City and its Refugee Camps. By Ehab A. Mayyaleh Supervisors Dr. Amer M. El-Hamouz Dr. Issam A. Al-Khatib Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Water and Environment Engineering, Faculty of Graduate Studies at An-Najah National University, Nablus- Palestine 2008 iii I dedicate my thesis to my parents My brothers and sisters With all respect Ehab iv Acknowledgment I would like to express great thanks and sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Amer M. El-Hamouz Dr. Issam A. Al-Khatib For their guidance, suggestions and assistance during preparing this thesis v إقرار دراسة مقارنة بين : إدارة المخلفات المنزلية الخطرة: ناه مقدم الرسالة التي تحملدانا الموقع ا .مدينة نابلس ومخيماتھا ه ا تمت اإلشارة إلي أقر بان ما اشتمت عليه ھذه الرسالة إنما ھي نتاج جھدي الشخصي، باستثناء م ا لم يقدم من قبل لنيل أية درجة أو لقب علمي او وان ھذه الرسالة ككل، أو أي جزء منھ, حيثما ورد .بحثي لدى أية مؤسسة تعليمية او بحثية Declaration The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researchers own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree or qualification . Student Name: Ehab Mayyaleh ايھاب مياله : اسم الطالب Signature: التوقيع: Date: 30/3/2008 30/3/2008: التاريخ vi TABLE OF CONTENTS XList of Tables………………………………………………………... XIList of Figures……………………………………………………….. XIIList of Photos………………………………………………………... XIIIList of Abbreviations………………………………………………... XIV Abstract……………………………………………………………… Chapter One Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………… 4 1.2 Study Area Framework and Characteristics…………………….. 4 1.2.1 Localities and Population……………………………………… 4 1.2.2 Metrological Data……………………………………………... 6 1.2.3 Solid waste in Nablus…………………………………………. 7 1.3 Problem of the Study……………………………………………. 8 1.4 Objectives of the Study………………………………………….. 8 1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………... 9 1.6 Thesis Outline…………………………………………………… Chapter Two Literature Review 11 2.1 Characteristics of Hazardous Waste…………………………...... 11 2.1.1Corrosivity……………………………………………………... 11 2.1.2 Reactivity……………………………………………………… 12 2.1.3 Ignitability……………………………………………………... 13 2.1.4 Toxicity ……………………………………………………….. 15 2.1.5 Acute Toxicity……………………………………………….... 15 2.1.5 Infectious Property…………………………………………….. 15 2.2 Household Hazardous Waste Categories………………………... vii 17 2.3 Problems of Household Hazardous Products……………………. 17 2.3.1 Health Risks………………………………………………….... 19 2.3.2 Environmental Risks. ………………………………………..... 20 2.3.3 Reactivity Risks ………………………………………………. 21 2.4 Initial Steps in Establishing a HHW Collection Program……….. 21 2.4.1 Define Roles and Responsibilities…………………………….. 21 2.4.2 Establish a Planning Committee………………………………. 22 2.4.3 Establish Goals………………………………………………… 22 2.4.4 Determine Funding Availability……………………………..... 24 2.4.5 Gather Information…………………………………………….. 242.5 Types of HHW Collections……………………………………… 252.5.1 One –Day Collections…………………………………………. 262.5.2 Permanent Collections ………………………………………... 272.5.3 Door –to Door Collections …………………………………..... 292.5.4 Curbside Collections ………………………………………….. 302.5.5 Mobile collections …………………………………………….. 302.6 Household Hazardous Waste Stored and Segregated…………… 31 2.7 Disposal Methods………………………………………………... Chapter Three Methodology 34 3. 1 Household Comprehensive Survey……………………………... 35 3.1.1 Population of the Study………………………………………... 35 3.1.2 The Sample of the Study ……………………………………… 36 3.1.3The Questionnaire Design……………………………………… 36 3.1.3.1 Part One……………………………………………………... 36 3.1.3.2 Part Two……………………………………………………... 38 3.1.3.3 Part Three…………………………………………………... 38 3.1.4 Statistical Analysis…………………………………………….. viii 38 3.2 HHW Characterization…………………………………………... 40 3.3 Deep Personal Interview with the Head of the Health Section in the Municipality of Nablus City…………………………………….. 40 3.4 Procedure of the Study………………………………………….. Chapter Four Results and Discussions 42 4.1 Knowledge about the Meaning of HHW………………………... 44 4.2 Demographic Results……………………………………………. 46 4.3 Solid Waste Management……………………………………….. 48 4.4 Risk Assessment of HHW………………………………………. 52 4.5 Hypotheses Testing……………………………………………… 584.6 Household Hazardous Products Found ……………. …………... 64 4.7 Household Hazardous Waste Management………………….….. 67 4.7.1 Comparison Between Nablus City and its Refugee Camps to HHH Management………………………………………………….. 68 4.8 Characteristics of HHW………………………………………… 74 4.9 Functional Elements of HHW Management System……………. 75 4.9.1 HHW Generation……………………………………………… 76 4.9.2 HHW Handling, Separation and Storage at the Sources……… 84 4.9.3 HHW Collections……………………………………………… 844.9.3.1 Volume of HHW Collections……………………………….. 874.9.3.2 Distribution of HHW Collection Containers………………... 974.9.3.3 HHW Collections Time……………………………………... 99 4.9.4 Separation and Processing of HHW…………………………... 100 4.9.5 HHW Transfer and Transport…………………………………. 101 4.9.6 HHW Disposal………………………………………………… 101 4.9.6.1 Treatment……………………………………………………. 100 4.9.6.2 Landfill……………………………………………………… ix Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations 104 5.1 Conclusions……………………………………………………… 106 5.2 Recommendation………………………………………………... 108 References…………………………………………………………. Annexes 114 Annex (A) Description of Household Hazardous Waste Products...... 136 Annex (B) Methods For HHW Management at the Source in Nablus City………………………………………………….……………….. 138 Annex (C) Methods For HHW Management at the Source in Nablus Refugee Camps……………………………………………………… 140 Annex (D) Weight Components of HHW from the Solid Waste Samples……………………………………………………………… 155 Annex (E) GIS shapefile population and area name………………… 159 Annex (F) Questionnaire of the Study Arabic…………………......... 165Abstract Arabic……………………………………………………… x Lists of Tables 5 Table 1.1 Monthly mean temperature and evaporation quantities for Nablus………………………………………………………………… 7 Table 1.2 Solid waste quantities generated in the years 2002-2005 from Nablus municipality…………………………………………….. 7 Table 1.3 Daily MSW generation rate……………………………….. 13 Table 2.1 TCLP test Limits…………………………………………... 16 Table 2.2 Household hazardous waste categories……………………. 35 Table 3.1 Total population and families in Nablus city……………… 35 Table 3.2 Total population and families in Nablus camps……… …... 39 Table 3.3 Household hazardous waste categories……………………. 44 Table 4.1 Demographic description of the respondents…………….... 49 Table 4.2 Diagnostic results for risk assessment……………………... 52 Table 4.3 Test hypothesis according to region house………………... 56Table 4.4 Test hypothesis according to the presence of accidents from HHW in the households………………………………………... 69 Table 4.5 Weight components of HHW from the analyzed solid waste samples………………………………………………………… 70 Table 4.6 Weight percentages of HHW in Nablus city and its refugee camps…………………………………………………………………. 71Table 4.7 Monthly income for the family in Nablus ……………….... 71 Table 4.8 Percentages of HHW categories in Nablus city and its refugee camps……………………………………………………….... 74 Table 4.9 Household hazardous waste concentration reports……....... 75 Table 4.10 HHW generation in Nablus city and its refugee camps...... 77 Table 4.11 Methods For HHW Management at the source in Nablus………………………………………………………………… 81 Table 4.12 The best methods for HHW management at the source….. xi List of Figures 43 Figure 4.1 Most HHW produced in the homes………………………. 46 Figure 4.2 The person is responsible for transferring solid waste from home to container…………………………………………….............. 47 Figure 4.3 The disposal of solid waste from home to container……... 47 Figure 4.4 The time of transferring solid waste from the house to the container……………………………………………………………… 48 Figure 4.5 The distance of the nearest solid container for house…….. 50 Figure 4.6 Storage place of HHW…………………………………… 51 Figure 4.7 The major risks associated with HHW…………………… 51 Figure 4.8 Re-keeping and storage of hazardous waste materials…… 59 Figure 4.9 Automotive products found in the home………………... 60 Figure 4.10 Home products found in the homes…………………....... 61 Figure 4.11 Personal care products found in the home………………. 61 Figure 4.12 Healthcare products found in the home…………………. 62 Figure 4.13 Home improvements found in the home………………... 63 Figure 4.14 Indoor pesticides found in the home……………………. 63 Figure 4.15 Lawn and garden found in the home……………………. 64 Figure 4.16 Miscellaneous found in the home……………………….. 65 Figure 4.17 Percentage of HHW products which were thrown with the household solid wastes…………………………………………… 66 Figure 4.18 Percentage of HHW products which were separately saved but not reached it to save HHW collections…………………… 66 Figure 4.19 Percentage of HHW products which were reused………. 67 Figure 4.20 Comparative between Nablus city and its refuge camps according to HHW disposal method…………………………………. 72 Figure 4.21 Comparative figure of HHW related to the fraction of HHW between Naablus city and its refugee camps………………….. xii 73 Figure 4.22 Comparative figure of HHW related to the fraction of HHW between Mexicali city and Naablus city and its refugee camps. 80 Figure 4.23 Nablus city and its refuge camps according to HHW disposal method………………………………………………………. List of Photos 88Photo 4.1 Nablus areas………………………………………………. 89 Photo 4.2 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Old city and Raps Elein……………………………………………………… 90 Photo 4.3 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Khalet Al Amoud, North Mountain East and North Mountain Middle………… 91 Photo 4.4 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Al Dahyeh, Al Quds Street, Balata Camp and Kufr Kallel…………….. 92 Photo 4.5 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Al Makhfiya……………………………………………………………. 93 Photo 4.6 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Rafeedya……………………………………………………………. 94 Photo 4.7 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Al Masaken, Askar Area, AskarElbaled and Iraq El Tayeh, Der El Hatab, Industrial Area, New Asker Camp, Old Asker Camp and Rojeeb…………….............................................................................. 95 Photo 4.8 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Beit Eba, Beit Wazan, Zawata and Al Junaid…………………………………. 96 Photo 4.9 Recommend distribution of HHW containers in Ein Betelma and North Mountain West…………………………………. xiii List of Abbreviations DPPEA Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance EEA European Environment Agency EPA Environmental Protection Agency HHP Household Hazardous Product HHW Household Hazardous Waste HHWM Household Hazardous Waste Management HSW Household Solid Waste HW Hazardous Waste IEPA Illinois Environment Protection Agency MEnA Ministry of Environmental Affairs MSW Municipal Solid Waste PCBC Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistic pH Hydrogen Ion Concentration SWMD Solid Waste Management District TCLP Toxicity characteristic Leaching Procedure USEPA United Stated Environmental Protection Agency WHO World Health Organization xiv Assessment of Household Hazardous Waste Management: A Comparative Study Between Nablus City and its Refugee Camps By Ehab A. Mayyaleh Supervisors Dr. Amer M. El-Hamouz Dr. Issam A. Al-Khatib Abstract This thesis is about the “Assessment of Household Hazardous Waste Management: A comparative Study Between Nablus City and its Refugee Camps” and aims studying household hazardous waste (HHW) to determine the type and the quantity of hazardous materials most commonly used at homes, the level of awareness of household heads concerning the disposal of these substances, the extent of hazardous substance-related accidents and injuries occurring at homes. It also suggests an integrated management plan for HHW taking into consideration different engineering measures for managing the HHW from the point of generation to final disposal. Literature was collected and analyzed to identify the extent of the problem and its related issues. The questionnaire was distributed among 1300 households and a solid waste generation analysis was carried out during a 15 working days period with sorting 150 samples of 23 tons of municipality solid waste at Nablus solid waste transfer station. HHW concentrations of 2.89% and 1.88% were detected in the Nablus city and its refugee camps respectively in proportion to the family income. xv Findings indicate that home products and personal care products most commonly consumed hazardous substances at homes and 17.9% of the study households have injuries, poisons and burns from accidents resulted from the use of these substances. The study also found that the level of households' awareness of hazardous substances is generally low and is in need of continuous improvement. The results lead to many recommendations: a proposed management system for HHW management is needed that would help the Palestinian health to enhance and develop health and environmental services. A management system, including new approach for storage, collection, separation, transportation, treatment and disposal of HHW was proposed . This system will deal with at least 1600 tons/year of HHW in Nablus city and its refugee camps. 1 Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Introduction Solid wastes are all the waste arising from human and animal activities that are normally solid and that are discarded as useless or unwanted (Gerorge et.al, 1997). According to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) solid wastes mean (University of Central Florida, 2006): 1. mixed household wastes 2. recyclables 3. household hazardous waste 4. commercial waste 5. yard waste 6. litter 7. bulky items 8. Construction & demolitions waste. According to the EPA regulations, a solid waste means any garbage, or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities (UNEPA, 2006). 2 It is known that household waste has a wide range of waste and some of it could be of hazardous characteristic. Pesticides, paint products, household cleaners, hobby chemical and automotive products frequently contain hazardous waste from regulation (Michael et.al, 1994). Therefore, household hazardous waste (HHW) can be defined as that portion of a household product which is no longer usable, leftover or not wanted and has to be discarded or disposed (UNEPA, 1993 ). It could be solids, sludge's, liquids, containerized gases, radioactive and infectious wastes. Due to their chemical activity or toxicity, explosively or other characteristics, cause danger or likely will cause danger to health or the environment, whether alone or when coming into contact with other waste (Michael et.al, 1994). Based on above definitions some of the products used in the home, garage, workshop, yard and garden can be considered hazardous. These products can contain components which have corrosive/caustic, explosive/reactive, flammable, irritant, toxic or radioactive properties. These products include: paint and decorating supplies; solvents and cleaning products; herbicides and pesticides, lawn care products; and automotive products (Haas and Vamos, 1995). Many household products contain chemicals that are strictly regulated when disposed as industrial waste and pose similar environmental and health problems. Although the quantities of chemicals disposed of by individual households may be small, the number of households in large cities is many, and the amount of waste adds up (Kuhre, 1995; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2006). 3 Household hazardous waste (HHW) is subgroup of solid waste commonly found in MSW. Many products used in home, garden, garage and hobby shop contain hazardous ingredients and need to be used and stored safely. Once decided to discard these products they become household hazardous wastes (HHW) requiring proper disposal (George and Frank, 2002; Vesilind et.al , 2002). According to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act of 1960 (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2006), household products are hazardous if they are: 1. Ignitable - capable of burning or causing a fire. 2. Corrosive - capable of eating away materials and destroying living tissue when contact occurs. 3. Explosive and/or reactive - can cause an explosion or release poisonous fumes when exposed to air, water, or other chemicals. 4. Toxic - poisonous, either immediately (acutely toxic) or over a long period (chronically toxic). 5. Radioactive - can damage and destroy cells and chromosomal material (known to cause cancer, mutations, and fetal harm). Benefits of proper HHW Management (UNEPA, 2007): • Reduction and recycling of HHW conserves resources and energy that would be expended in the production of more products. • Reuse of hazardous household products can save money and reduce the need for generating hazardous substances. • Proper disposal prevents pollution that could endanger human health and the environment. 4 1.2 Study Area Framework and Characteristics In this part we are going to handle the specific characteristics of Nablus area in term of population, metrology of data and solid waste generation. 1.2.1 Localities and Population The city of Nablus is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been a place of habitation for 4000 years. Located 65 km north of Jerusalem, Nablus is considered as the main business and residential center of the northern West Bank. Its prime location also enhances its position in any future development plans, as it is located at the crossroads of the Jerusalem Jenin road running north to south, and the Tulkarm – Jordan Valley road running east to west (Abu Zahra, 2006). Nablus city is located in the northern part of the West Bank, with about 134,116 inhabitants as estimated in 2006. (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006) Nablus is situated between the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal and there are four refugee camps in Nablus (Balata, old Askar, new Askar and Ein beit Alma) with about 35,387 inhabitants as estimated in 2006 (PCBS, 2006). 1.2.2 Metrological Data For Nablus the monthly mean of air temperature and the evaporation quantity varies between months according to the following table: 5 Table 1.1 Monthly mean temperature and evaporation quantities for Nablus (Abu Zahra, 2006) Month Temperature o C Evaporation (mm) Relative humidity January 10.1 49.6 67 February 11.4 67.2 71 March 13.4 99.2 57 April 16.8 149.1 50 May 20.0 202.7 54 June 21.9 225.9 60 July 23.4 237.9 59 August 23.5 218.2 65 September 22.7 177.6 61 October 20.7 131.1 57 November 16.5 74.4 60 December 11.0 48.6 61 Average / Total 17.6 1,681 60.2 The annual average rainfall for Nablus is 663.5 mm. In the year 2005 the annual rainfall was 790.5 mm, and the average relative humidity was 60.2 (Abu Zahra, 2006). 6 1.2.3 Solid Waste in Nablus In the Nablus city and its refuge Camps, every home contains hazardous substances that have the potential for posing risk to life, health, property, or the environment, if improperly consumed, stored, or disposed. A review of the available literature indicates that no recent information exist on the extent of hazardous substances accidents at homes in Palestine, or on the level of awareness of households concerning these substances. Nablus is facing acute environmental and public health deterioration processes where hazardous waste (HW) production is considered to present one of the main causes (Hussein, 2006). Nablus City The solid waste collected by Nablus municipality, all the refuse produced in Nablus are discharged in a dump (as a transfer station) located near the industrial area at a distance of approximately 6 kilometers from the city center of Nablus (Abu Zahra, 2006). Nablus Refugee Camps The solid waste collected by the UNRWA is merged with the city waste. The municipality is negotiating with the UNRWA about the responsibility of disposal of these wastes after being collected from the refugee camps (Abu Zahra, 2006). 7 Table 1.2 Solid waste quantities generated in the years 2002-2005 from Nablus municipality (Abu Zahra, 2006) Year Quantity (tons/year) Population Mean generation rate(kg/cap/day) 2002 42,153 154,649 0.75 2003 59,284 159,753 1.02 2004 40,716 164,864 0.68 2005 51,160 169,975 0.82 Table 1.3 Daily MSW generation rate (Halawah, 2007) Region Daily MSW Generation rate Nablus City 1.0 Kg per capita Nablus refuge Camps 0.8 Kg per capita 1.3 Problem of the study The problem of this study can be summarized as follow: A lack of information about the quantities and characteristics of HHW exists. No information is available about the demographic effect (age, education level, the place of housing (city, camp) and monthly income) on HHW collected and disposed will be studied in this thesis. Information about sorting and disposal of household hazardous waste will be presented and discussed. 8 1.4 Objectives of the Study The objectives of this research study were to: Determine the components and the quantities of hazardous materials most commonly used or disposed at homes in Nablus city Determine the knowledge, attitudes, and perception of household heads concerning the handling of HHW. Determine the extent of hazardous substance-related accidents and injuries occurring at homes. Suggest an integrated management plan for household hazardous waste in Nablus City, including refugee camps taking into consideration different engineering measures for managing the HHW such as regulating the different engineering aspects of HHW facilities. 1.5 Significance of the Study The results of this research are fundamental to the design of appropriate management strategies, to avoid current mixing and co-disposal with non-hazardous waste. This includes suggesting proper activities associated with the management of the HHW from the point of generation to final disposal, and grouped into six functional elements: 9 1) HHW generation. 2) HHW handling and separation, storage and processing at the source. 3) HHW collections. 4) Separation and processing and transformation of HHW. 5) HHW transfer and transport. 6) HHW disposal. In addition, a strategy was suggested for HHW management that was taken into consideration reducing the quantities of HHW generated, reusing the materials, recycling and recovery of materials, and HHW landfilling. 1.6 Thesis Outline This thesis consists of five chapters: An overall introduction about the hazardous household waste, objective and hypotheses of the study are presented in chapter 1. A discussion of the characteristics and classifications of HHW, the problem of HHW, initial steps in establishing a HHW collection program and previous studies are outlined in chapter 2. A methodology Carried out in this study in three components: household comprehensive survey, HHW characterization and deep personal interview with the head of the health section in the municipality of Nablus city, all of them are presented in chapter 3. 10 Presents the status of HHW management in Nablus city and its refugee camps to diagnose the problem of HHW management, various steps and process in the management of HHW are presented and explained from generation to disposal, all of them are presented in chapter 4. Conclusions and recommendations of the household hazardous waste are outlined in chapter 5. 11 Chapter Two Literature Review 2.1 Characteristics of Hazardous Waste A waste can be classified as hazardous if it exhibits any of the following characteristics: 2.1.1Corrosivity A waste exhibits the characteristics of corrosively if a representative sample of the waste has either of the following properties (Harry, 1997; Charless, 1995): a. any liquid which has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 as determined by the standard test procedure; or b. a waste, which can corrode steel at a rate greater than 6.35 mm per year at a test temperature of 55 °C as determined by the standard test procedure. 2.1.2 Reactivity A waste exhibits the characteristics of reactivity if a representative sample of the waste has any of the following properties (Hasan, 1996): a. It is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change without detonating b. It reacts violently with water 12 c. It forms potentially explosive mixture with water d. It is Cyanide or Sulfide bearing waste which when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5 can generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to pose danger to human health or the environment. e. It is an explosive. 2.1.3 Ignitability A waste exhibits the characteristics of ignitability if a representative sample of the waste has any of the following properties (Harry, 1997; Charless, 1995): a. It is a liquid other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24% organic solvents by volume and has flash point less than 60 °C as determined by a Pensky Martins closed cup tester using the standard test method. Flash point is the lowest temperature at which sufficient vapors from a liquid are present that the air/vapor mixture will ignite when exposed to an ignition source (William et.al, 2001). b. It is not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes, and when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently that it creates a hazard. 13 2.1.4 Toxicity A solid waste exhibits the characteristics of toxicity if the leachates from the representative sample by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test method (as followed by USEPA, vide No: S.W 846 contains any of the contaminants listed in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 TCLP Test Limits (UNEPA, 1997) Contaminant TCLP Limit (mg/l) Arsenic 5.0 Barium 100 Benzene 0.5 Cadmium 1.0 Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 Chlordane 0.03 Chlorobenzene 100.0 Chloroform 6.0 Chromium 5.0 o-Cresol 200.0 m-Cresol 200.0 p-Cresol 200.0 Cresol 200.0 2,4-D 10.0 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.7 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13 Endrin 0.02 14 Table 2.1 Cont Contaminant TCLP Limit (mg/l) Heptachlor (and its epaoxide) 0.008 Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 Hexachloroethane 3.0 Lead 5.0 Lindane 0.4 MERCURY 0.2 Methoxychlor 10.0 Methyl ethyl ketone 200.0 Nitrobenzene 2.0 Pentachlorophenol 100.0 Pyridine 5.0 Selenium 1.0 Silver 5.0 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 Toxaphene 0.5 Trichloroethylene 0.5 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 400.0 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2.0 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1.0 Vinyl Chloride 0.2 15 2.1.5 Acute toxicity A waste exhibits the characteristics of being acutely hazardous if a representative sample contains any of the following (Central Pollution Control Board, 2006): a. Wastes generated in the manufacturing process of halogenated phenols and other halogenated compounds. b. Wastes generated in the manufacturing/formulating process of pesticides or pesticide derivatives. c. Wastes generated during the manufacturing process of halogenated benzene under alkaline conditions. d. off-specification or discarded products generated from the above processes, and e. Containers used for handling hazardous / toxic substances / wastes. 2.1.5 Infectious Property Wastes containing viable micro-organisms or their toxins which are known or suspected to cause disease in animal or humans fall under this category (Central Pollution Control Board, 2006). 2.2 Household Hazardous Waste Categories HHW are any household wastes which are generated from the disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household substances including but not limited to the following listed waste sources and types. 16 According to the classification proposed by Delgado et.al, (2007) and SWMD, (2004), HHW was classified according to eight categories, as shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Household hazardous waste categories (Delgado et.al, 2000; SWMD, 2004) 1 AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (ANTIFREEZE, AUTO BATTERY, AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION FLUID, BRAKE FLUID, CAR WAX WITH SOLVENT, CARBURETOR CLEANER (FUEL INJECTORS), DEGREASERS, DIESEL, FUEL OIL, KEROSENE, METAL POLISH WITH SOLVENT, MOTOR OIL, OIL FILTERS, WINDSHIELD WASHER SOLUTION 2 Home Products (Aerosol Products, Air Freshener, Batteries - Button, Rechargeable, Bleach , Cleaner - All Purpose, Cleaner - Ammonia-based, Cleaner - Bleach-based, Disinfectant, Drain Cleaner, Floor Care Products, (wax/stripper), Flourescent Lights, Furniture Polish with Solvents, Furniture Cleaner , Metal Polish with Solvents, Moth Balls, Oven Cleaner (lye based), Pet Supplies/Flea and Tick Control, Scouring Powder or Abrasive Cleaners, Shoe Polish, Smoke Detector, Spot Removers/Carpet, Thermometers and Thermostats, Toilet Bowl Cleaner, Upholstery and Rug Cleaner, Window/Glass Cleaner 3 Personal Care Products (Hair Spray, Hair Permanent Lotion, Hydrogen, Peroxide, Isopropyl Alcohol (rubbing alcohol), Nail Polish, Nail Polish Remover. 4 Home Improvements (Adhesives and Glues (solvent-based), Furniture Stripper, Latex Paint and Primer, Oil-based Paint and Primer, Paint Brush Cleaner, Paint Remover and Stripper, Paint 17 Thinner, Stain and Varnish, Wood Preservative. 5 Healthcare Waste(Medical waste products) Table 2.2 Cont. 6 INDOOR PESTICIDES (ANT/COCKROACH SPRAY AND BAIT, RODENT POISONS AND BAIT) 7 Lawn and Garden (Fertilizer with Weed Killer , Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide , Empty Pesticide Containers) 8 Miscellaneous (Ammunition, Art Supplies, Photographic Chemicals (diluted/undiluted), Pool Chemicals, Propane Gas Cylinders) 2.3 Problems of Household Hazardous Products Household hazardous products (HHP) pose risks to personal and environmental health through home use and storage, transport, and disposal. Adverse health effects are most likely to be caused by pesticides, oil-based paints, solvents, adhesives, automotive products, pool chemical, dugs, and corrosive cleaners. Adverse environmental effects are most likely to results from pesticides and fertilizers, automotive products, and solvent-containing products (George and Frank, 2002). 2.3.1 Health Risks Chemical in household products can enter the body and cause adverse health effects through ingestion, inhalation, or adsorption. Example of acute effects(felt soon after exposure) from HHP including poising from a toxic substance such as antifreeze; burns from an acidic product such as 18 battery acid; or injuries from an exploding aerosol can left too close to a stove. Some products emit toxic fumes that may produce acute reactions such as headaches, fatigue, burning eyes, runny noses, and skin rashes Chronic health effects may result from repeated, long-term exposure to highly toxic products such as automotive solvents, oil –based paints, or pesticides. Chemicals may be stored in the body's fatty tissues and accumulate over time, causing liver or kidney damage, central nervous system damage, cancer and birth defects, paralysis, sterility, and suppression of immune functions (George and Frank, 2002). Those that do have the potential to leach based on these characteristics, in most cases, do not represent a threat to human health based on toxicological considerations. However, compounds such as propoxur, which are very mobile and relatively persistent in soil and in addition have been associated with significant potential health effects, may be targeted by the screening process as described here and could be selected for further investigation as candidates for special waste management status (such as HHW). Gray et.al (1997) analysis and recommendations have not been extended to the many types of lawn and garden pesticides that are commonly used by homeowners and are frequently brought to HHW programs. However, their potential for groundwater contamination could also be judged using the same technical considerations as applied in this review to indoor household pesticides. In light of the very high costs of diverting wastes from the MSW stream and into HHW programs, it is recommended that, as a matter of public policy, all categories of household waste that might be considered as HHW be carefully and objectively evaluated for their potential to harm public health or the environment after disposal at MSW landfills (Gray et.al, 1997). 19 2.3.2 Environmental Risks Environmental risks depend on a particular products characteristics: its solubility and mobility (chance of moving into surface or groundwater), persistence and degradability (how long it stays hazardous), toxicity to nonhuman target species, potential for penetrating landfill liners, and potential for being broken down by sewage treatment processes. Chemical that persists in the environmental and bioaccumulation in food chain is of particular concern for environmental quality. Heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium build up in soils, water, and animal. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has called for elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative , toxic chemical from use and in the environmental (George and Frank, 2002). There are many reasons it makes sense to collect hazardous household wastes separately and keep them out of landfills. Some household hazardous wastes shouldn't be landfill because they can be recycled or used as an energy saving fuel. Less hazardous waste in the landfill means less hazardous leachate requiring expensive treatment. The risk of ground and water pollution should leachate leak from landfills is also reduced. Garbage collectors and landfill workers can be injured by exploding aerosol cans, splashing chemicals or poisonous fumes created by mixed chemicals. Chemical reactions can also cause fires in garbage collection trucks (Boulder County Colorado Government Online, 2006). 20 2.3.3 Reactivity Risks This section tells how the product will react under particular environmental conditions. The following provides definitions of the terms used to describe reactivity (William et.al, 2001). Stability indicates whether the product will decompose over time and the environmental conditions, such as heat or direct sunlight that may cause a dangerous reaction. Incompatibility indicates which chemicals should not come in contact with the product. Store and use separately any materials that are identified as incompatible. Hazardous decomposition products indicate which hazardous substances might be released during fires or from decomposition. Hazardous polymerization is a process by which the molecules of a chemical can combine to form larger molecules (polymerize). If this chemical reaction happens too quickly, it may produce a great amount of heat (especially when large quantities of materials are involved), which may result in a fire or explosion. This type of reaction, under controlled conditions, is commonly used to produce plastics and usually requires heat or a catalyst. If a polymerization hazard exists, specific storage instructions and the shelf life of the chemical should be listed (University of Missouri, 2001). 21 2.4 Initial Steps in Establishing a HHW Collection Program 2.4.1 Define Roles and Responsibilities. Although one person can be the main organizer, the success of the program depends on the involvement of a variety of individuals and organizations. Those individuals that have an on-going role in the program should be aware of their responsibilities (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2005). 2.4.2 Establish a Planning Committee Establish a planning committee Determine funding availability Establish goals of the HHW collection programs Gather information Define roles and responsibilities 22 A core group of people with the expertise needed to plan the HHW collection program should be established. Committee members should represent the local solid or hazardous waste planning program, local health program, city or county planning commissions, citizen groups, and emergency management. Planning for the first collection program should begin early, at least 6-18 months in advance of collection program date (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2005). 2.4.3 Establish Goals Identify the goals of the HHW collection program. While the overall goal is to keep HHW out of landfills, sewers, etc... These specific goals may be to provide the most convenient service, to include multi-family housing, or to maximize reuse and recycling. Establishing specific goals will help the planning committee and local officials determine the type of program to establish. It is also recommended that evaluation methods and the criteria to be used to measure the effectiveness of the program be developed (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2005) 2.4.4 Determine Funding Availability Potential funding sources can be general funds, tipping fees, parcel fees, and grants. (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2005). Funding for HHM programs is generally not available through normal environmental funding channels and funds are secured on an installation- by-installation basis. However, there are many ways to keep HHM program costs down, some of which are discussed below. 23 The cost of running a HHW management program will depend on the types and amounts of waste the facility accepts, and the manner in which materials that cannot be reused are disposed of. Recycling and reusing/exchanging as many of the turned-in products as possible is generally the least costly option. Some items that may be recycled include used batteries, oil, antifreeze, and used solvents; while good candidates for exchange include products such as unused solvents, paints, pesticides, motor oil, household cleaning products, and antifreeze. HHW not recycled or exchanged must be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. For example, in USA, federal regulations require different treatment and disposal methods for different types of waste. For example, some pesticides may require incineration, while other pesticides may be allowed in a hazardous waste landfill. Other hazardous wastes may be destroyed or detoxified through chemical or biological processes. The appropriate methods and resulting cost will be dictated by the types of waste, any applicable land disposal restrictions, and the proximity of the community/installation to treatment facilities (Harry, 1997). Americans generate 1.6 million tons of household hazardous waste per year. The average home can accumulate as much as 100 pounds of household hazardous waste in the basement or garage and in storage closets. When improperly disposed of, household hazardous waste can create a potential risk to people and the environment (UNEPA, 2006). Disposal costs are, by far, the greatest expense associated with a HHW management program. According to the EPA, the proper disposal of one 55-gallon drum of the most hazardous materials such as pesticides, dioxins, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can cost $850. 24 Transporting used oil and solvent-based paints to a facility to be used as supplemental fuel in an approved burner typically costs $175 to $250 per drum, while the cost of sending most other wastes to a hazardous waste incinerator or hazardous waste landfill ranges from $350 to $500 per drum (Carper, 2005). 2.4.5 Gather Information It is essential that the sponsor and the planning committee learn about local laws and regulations that apply to their program. It is also important to anticipate the types and quantities of wastes that may be collected through the programs. In addition, gather information about other jurisdictions' HHW collection programs (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2005). 2.5 Types of HHW Collections Many people understand that household hazardous waste should not be thrown away. The best disposal option for unwanted, If the products are no longer usable, but can be recycled, they should be taken to a recycling outlet. If these options are not possible, the products should be saved for a household hazardous waste collection program. There have been over 4,500 collection programs in the United States since the first one was held in 1980 (UNEPA, 2005). When a community holds a household hazardous waste collection, people are encouraged to bring unwanted and unusable household chemicals to a designated location. There, trained workers remove the products from the vehicles, sort them into types of waste, pack them in drums, and then dispose of the wastes, usually to a special hazardous waste incinerator or landfill 25 2.5.1 One –Day Collections One-day collections allow householders to bring their household hazardous waste to a designated location on a specified date. Wastes that are brought in are recycled if possible, and the rest are immediately packaged and sent to a hazardous waste treatment or disposal facility (Joan, 1997). Advantages of One –Day Collections programs: • Increases consumer awareness of environmental issues and the impact of consumer choices. • Leads to higher recycling/reuse rates, thereby conserving natural resources. • Can lead to new recycling/ reuse opportunities. • Prevents inappropriate disposal of hazardous and problematic wastes. • Can charge a fee from participants. Disadvantages of One –Day Collections programs: • Typically requires public funds. • Typically has higher per pound cost than manufactures’ take back programs or a permanent collection facility. • Time consuming to organize. • Not always convenient for public to participate, leading to low participation rates. 26 • Often has limited scope of acceptable waste products. • Public must transport hazardous wastes to collection, increasing health and environmental risks. • Does not encourage manufacturers to implement source reduction or design products for recycling and sustainability. • Does not share the waste responsibility with the manufacturer. • Can be weather dependent. • Tend to be sporadic, dependent on funds. • Difficult to distinguish household during collections. • Participants may show up with unknown or inappropriate wastes. • May rely on volunteers to do some part of the collection activities. 2.5.2 Permanent Collections Permanent collection facilities are designed to store household hazardous wastes for short periods of time. At a permanent collection facility, householders bring their hazardous waste by appointment or during open hours (Joan, 1997). Advantages of permanent collection facilities • Infrastructure may already be in place. • Convenient for consumers. • Can be open year round and is not typically weather dependent. • Increases participation rates, especially in rural communities. • Increases consumer awareness of environmental issues and the impact of consumer choices. • Leads to higher recycling/reuse rates, thereby conserving natural resources. 27 • Prevents inappropriate disposal of hazardous and problematic wastes. • Large quantities can be collected. • Leads to new recycling or reuse opportunities. • Does not rely upon volunteers. • Variety of funding options. • Same system of collection that resident may already use for MSW and recycling non hazardous wastes. Disadvantages of permanent collection facilities • May be hard to site if new. • Does not encourage manufacturers to design products for recycling and sustainability. • Requires public funds. • Responsible public entity assumes generator liability. • May be inconvenient for elderly, handicapped and very rural populations. • Public must transport hazardous wastes to collection, increasing health and environmental risks. • Does not always share the waste responsibility with the manufacturer. 2.5.3 Door –To Door Collections Some communities provide door-to-door collections where trained staff pick up materials in a retrofitted truck and sort, package, and store at a main facility until enough waste is collected to warrant disposing of it. Door-to-door is particularly helpful to elderly and/or disabled people. In 28 most areas this collection is done by appointment. This is a very expensive service and typically is provided in conjunction with other collection events (Joan, 1997). Advantages of door-to-door collection • No infrastructure needed. Government only provides funds and oversight. • Accessible to all, including elderly and handicapped. • Convenient for consumers. • Increases participation rates, especially in rural communities. • Increases consumer awareness of environmental issues and the impact of consumer choices. • Leads to higher recycling/reuse rates, thereby conserving natural resources. • Prevents inappropriate disposal of hazardous and problematic wastes. • Larger quantities can be collected. • The number of repeat users can be reduced or eliminated. • Hazardous waste is not transported by a resident. • Program can be available year-round. • Gives public entity the ability to set a budget and adhere to it. • Because routes are predetermined and pickups coordinated, door- to-door collection has been found to be less expensive per pound than periodic collections or operating some permanent facilities. • Does not rely upon volunteers. • Can charge a fee from resident. • All liability is on contractor who is the generator and provides insurance and indemnity. 29 Disadvantages of door-to-door collection • Does not encourage manufacturers to design products for recycling and sustainability. • Requires public funds. • Does not share the waste responsibility with the manufacturer. • Can make it too convenient for residents. There’s little incentive for source reduction or buying environmentally preferable products 2.5.4 Curbside Collections Some communities provide a curbside collection program where yellow boxes are set out at the curb for pickup of household hazardous wastes (Joan, 1997). Advantages of curbside collection • Same as those for door-to door collections. (See above). • No need for resident to make an appointment for pickup. • Same system of collection that resident may already use for MSW and for recycling non hazardous wastes. Disadvantages of curbside collection • Does not encourage manufacturers to design products for recycling and sustainability. • Requires public funds. 30 • Hazardous wastes are left unattended and available to children, animals and increased environmental risk. • Can be weather dependent. • Can make it too convenient for residents. There’s little incentive for source reduction or buying environmentally preferable products. • Does not share the waste responsibility with the manufacturer. 2.5.5 Mobile Collections Mobile sites stay in one location for a specific period and then move the whole operation to the next site in within the service area. At the end of the collection period at the site, the waste is placed on a truck and transported back to the main facility; or if the truck is not full, it moves on to the next site (Joan, 1997). Mobile sites typically follow a route within the service area, staying in place for a specified period and then moving the whole operation to the next site. Similar to one-day events, mobile units have set up at fairgrounds, parks, shopping malls, fire stations, schools, store parking lots, and other convenient locations. Wastes are transported to a main facility for processing and disposal. 2.6 Household Hazardous Waste Stored and Segregated HHW handling and separation involves the activities associated with management of wastes until they are placed in storage containers collection. Handling also encompasses the movement of loaded 31 containers to the point of collection. Separation of HHW from household waste is important step in the handling and storage of HHW. Rules for storing Hazardous Products (Hammet et.al, 2002): • Follow the directions for storage on the label. • Protect the original label. • Store hazardous household chemicals in the original container. • Keep containers dry to prevent corrosion. • Store similar products together to reduce any danger from reactions if containers should leak or contents should spill. • Store products in a well-ventilated area. • Store products away from children and pets. Generally high, locked shelves work best. • Store products away from any flammable materials or sources Reusable products are segregated from the waste stream and placed in the reuse room for customers to take, free of charge. Used oil, latex paint, car batteries and anti-freeze are segregated and packaged separately for recycling. Household hazardous waste that is not reusable or recyclable is sorted by compatible chemical properties and safely packaged into drums. These drums are then transferred to the storage bays in preparation for transport to recycle, treatment, or disposal facilities (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 2003). 2.7 Disposal Methods 32 Reuse means to use the product again. Household solvents, such as paint thinner and paint brush cleaner, can be used over and over. Let the used solvent sit undisturbed in a sealed container until the paint particles settle to the bottom. Carefully pour off the clean solvent and use it again. Since these solvents are flammable, this activity should be done outdoors or with plenty of fresh air and adequate ventilation, and away from sources of heat, spark, or flame. The sludge that remains after pouring off the clean solvent should be kept in the sealed container and saved for a household hazardous waste collection, or may be able to go to the landfill if it is completely dry (University of Missouri, 2005). Triple-rinse container is the prescribed treatment method for empty pesticide containers. To triple-rinse, fill the container 1/4 full with water (or the solvent recommended on the product label), close it tightly, and shake or invert so the rinse reaches all inside surfaces. Repeat this procedure two more times. Rinse water should be used to make up the pesticide mixture or applied to the area you are treating following the same precautions used with the full-strength pesticide. Plastic containers should be punctured to prevent reuse. Discard the rinsed container with the trash, or see if the local recycling center will accept triple-rinsed glass or plastic containers (University of Missouri, 2005). Recycle is the preferred option for any household hazardous product that can be recycled (University of Missouri, 2005). Paint cans, lead-acid batteries, many household batteries, mercury and some solvents are recycled into other useful products (IEPA, 2003). 33 Save for collection indicates those products that should be saved for a household hazardous waste collection (University of Missouri, 2005). Flush down drain indicates that a product can be poured down the drain with plenty of water (University of Missouri, 2005). Put in trash indicates that a product is suitable for landfill disposal. Generally speaking, empty containers can be thrown away. Liquids should never be disposed of in the trash. Some products are acceptable for landfill disposal if they are hardened or dried up (University of Missouri, 2005). Fuel blending latex and oil-based paints, motor oils, gasoline, kerosene, paint removers, thinners and other flammable or combustible liquids are blended with virgin fuels to be used as an alternative fuel source for permitted industrial boilers and cement kilns. Chemical treatment many household cleaners, swimming pool chemicals, cyanide and acids have their toxins neutralized or removed by various chemical processes and are rendered harmless (IEPA, 2003). Incineration insecticides, herbicides, waxes, adhesives, sealers, and flammable materials not suited for fuel blending or recycling are destroyed by incineration at high temperatures (IEPA, 2003). Hazardous waste landfill: asbestos tile and less than one percent of wastes collected are placed in hazardous waste landfills. Hazardous waste landfills are highly regulated, have polyliners and are continuously monitored for leakage (IEPA, 2003). 34 Chapter Three Methodology This chapter includes a description of the study criteria, population of the study, the research tool and the techniques. Also it includes the statistical analysis and sample analysis. The fieldwork in this study constituted of three components: 3. 1 Household Comprehensive Survey The first component is related to the knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of people towards household hazardous waste. This part is investigated through a comprehensive survey that covers the different aspects of people's knowledge, perceptions and attitude about household hazardous waste handling, including the socioeconomic parameters. The tool for that was structured questionnaire that was designed for that purpose. The questionnaire included different aspects such as educational level of housewife, type of housewife work, monthly income for the family and different aspects related to household hazardous waste handling (types, separation, storage, home accidents, disposal, etc.). A representative 35 sample from the whole population of Nablus city (City, Refugee camps), was chosen randomly from the households of the study population. 3.1.1 Population of the Study The population of the study consists of all households in Nablus City and its refuge camps. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show total population and the families in Nablus city and its refugee camps. Table 3.1 Total population and families in Nablus city (PCBS, 2006) population Total number of families Nablus city 134116 24101 Table 3.2 Total population and families in Nablus camps (PCBS, 2006) Camp name population Total number of families Balata camp 17645 2942 Askar camp 12706 2044 Ein Beit Alma camp 5036 840 Total 35387 5826 3.1.2 The Sample of the Study The Questionnaire was distributed among 1300 households in different socioeconomic regions in Nablus city and its Refugee Camps, 753 36 questionnaires were answered correctly by housewives and 547 questionnaires were incomplete or not returned, the percentage of those who answered the questionnaires correctly was 58%. 3.1.3 The Questionnaire Design The questionnaire consists of three basic parts: first part was about knowledge about the meaning of HHW and HHW produced, second part was about demographic (dependent) variables and diagnostic questions, and the third part deal with household hazardous waste management 3.1.3.1 Part One This part consisted of (2) questions, the first question was about knowledge of meaning of HHW. Second question was about the type of HHW produced in the homes. 3.1.3.2 Part Two This part consists of (21) demographic (dependent) variables and diagnostic questions: • Demographic (dependent ) variables: this sections consists of the following variables (region house , age of housewife ,educational level of housewife , type of work housewife, the number of individuals residing in the home, type of the house , monthly income for the family, presence of children of age range between 8 months to 10 years. 37 • Diagnostic questions In this section, direct diagnostic questions were asked to the housewife. 1. Does the house contain hazardous materials related to the work of the father? 2. Where are these hazardous materials kept? 3. Is the storage place with the others apartments? 4. Who is responsible for transferring solid waste from home to the container? 5. How often should waste disposal be done from the home to container? 6. At what period of the day is solid waste taken away from home to container? 7. How far is the nearest solid waste container from home? 8. Is the size of the solid waste container sufficient to waste? 9. Is there any industrial waste in or around the solid waste container? 10. If the answer to question (9) is yes, is this waste hazardous? 11. Is there any kind of inappropriate behavior of children near the solid waste container? 12. Do any of the family members suffer from any these hazardous materials (accidents)? 13. If the answer to question (12) is Yes, a. What type of suffering (accident)? b. How was the hazardous materials kept after the accident? c. Is there any negative psychological effect on infected person from HHW? 38 3.1.3.3 Part Three The part concern about the way people handle several HHW that may be found in home, this is mainly about the dispose of method of HHW. 3.1.4 Statistical Analysis Analysis of data was performed by the use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program version 11.0. Appropriate tests of significance (Chi-squre) was performed to determine the relationships between socio-economic variables and the respondents HHW knowledge, perceptions and attitudes. 3.2 HHW Characterization The second component of this research was related to household characterization. A solid waste generation analysis was carried out during 15 working days period at Nablus solid waste transfer station that serves Nablus city and the three refugee camps. The random representative samples of the disposed household waste in the transfer station have been analyzed. On each day 10 samples of 0.5m3 household wastes were emptied in a shallow tray band where the solid waste components were categorized manually by placing them in a pre – weighted and appropriately labeled trays (Once each part has been categorized it was weighted to record its percentage from the total 39 household solid waste. This step was repeated for 15 days and then followed by data analysis. The procedure to manually sort individual components is adapted from the Mexican Official Norm NOM-AA-22- 1985 (Buenrostro et.al, 2001; Delgado et.al, 2006. According to the classification proposed by Delgado et.al, (2007) and SWMD, (2004), HHW was classified according to eight categories, as shown in table 3.3. Table 3.3 Household hazardous waste categories 1 AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (ANTIFREEZE, AUTO BATTERY, AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION FLUID, BRAKE FLUID, CAR WAX WITH SOLVENT, CARBURETOR CLEANER (FUEL INJECTORS), DEGREASERS, DIESEL, FUEL OIL, KEROSENE, ,METAL POLISH WITH SOLVENT, MOTOR OIL, OIL FILTERS, WINDSHIELD WASHER SOLUTION 2 Home Products (Aerosol Products, Air Freshener, Batteries - Button, Rechargeable, Bleach , Cleaner - All Purpose, Cleaner - Ammonia-based, Cleaner - Bleach-based, Disinfectant, Drain Cleaner, Floor Care Products, (wax/stripper), Flourescent Lights, Furniture Polish with Solvents, Furniture Cleaner , Metal Polish with Solvents, Moth Balls, Oven Cleaner (lye based), Pet Supplies/Flea and Tick Control, Scouring Powder or Abrasive Cleaners, Shoe Polish, Smoke Detector, Spot Removers/Carpet, Thermometers and Thermostats, Toilet Bowl Cleaner, Upholstery and Rug Cleaner, Window/Glass Cleaner 3 Personal Care Products (Hair Spray, Hair Permanent Lotion, Hydrogen, Peroxide, Isopropyl Alcohol (rubbing alcohol), Nail Polish, Nail Polish Remover. 40 4 Home Improvements (Adhesives and Glues (solvent-based), Furniture Stripper, Latex Paint and Primer, Oil-based Paint and Primer, Paint Brush Cleaner, Paint Remover and Stripper, Paint Thinner, Stain and Varnish, Wood Preservative. Table 3.3 Cont. 5 HEALTHCARE WASTE (MEDICAL PRODUCTS) 6 Indoor Pesticides (Ant/Cockroach Spray and Bait, Rodent Poisons and Bait) 7 Lawn and Garden (Fertilizer with Weed Killer , Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide , Empty Pesticide Containers) 8 Miscellaneous (Ammunition, Art Supplies, Photographic Chemicals (diluted/undiluted), Pool Chemicals. 3.3 Personal Interview with the Head of the Health Section in the Municipality of Nablus The third component was a personal interview in the form of a deep discussion with the head of the health section in the municipality of Nablus who was in charge of the city's solid waste management system, was conducted. During this interview, issues such as the role of Nablus municipality in HHW control, problems facing the city in this regard, and the cooperation of residents in HHW control, was discussed. 3.4 Procedure of the Study The study was done according to the following steps: 41 1. A list of population and area name in Nablus city and its refuge camps was taken from Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. 2. The questionnaires were distributed among the sample study 3. The answered questionnaires were retrieved by the researcher 4. The questionnaires were analyzed statistically by SPSS program. 5. The Characteristics of HHW test was carried out on the selected study sample at Nablus solid waste transfer station. 6. The results from the characteristics of HHW test were analyzed. 7. Distribution of HHW containers in Nablus city and its refuge camps was performed by the use of Information Geographic System (GIS) computer program version ArcGIS 9.0. 42 Chapter Four Results and Discussions 4.1 Knowledge about the Meaning of HHW The majority of respondents (90%) stated that HHW was chemical substance and cleaners products and medical products as well as personal care products (cosmetics); the answers indicated 80% of respondents agreed that HHW was a real problem to both Environment and Public health. A product that is discarded from a home or a similar source that is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic (e.g. used motor oil, cleaning products, auto batteries, gasoline, pesticides, etc.) (Wolf et.al, 1997). HHW contain potentially dangerous chemicals that must be disposed of with special care (Kaufman et.al, 2005). Figure 4.1 shows the most HHW produced in Nablus City and its refugee camps according to respondent’s opinions. 43 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Clea ne r - B lea ch - b as ed To ile t B ow l C lea ne r Med ica l p rod uc ts Blea ch Clea ne r - A mmon ia- ba se d Disi nfe cta nt A br as ive C lea ne rs Hair P erm an en t L oti on ho us e A ir F res he ne r Figure 4.1 Most HHW produced in the homes Figure 4.1 shows that relatively large quantities of cleaners products and medical products as well as personal care products could be found in Nablus city and its refugee camps. Findings indicate that cleaner–bleach based, toilet bowl cleaner medical products, bleach and cleaner-ammonia based, where the top five most commonly consumed hazardous substances at homes in Nablus city and its refugee camps, compared with cleaner-ammonia based, cleaner– bleach based, glass/window cleaners, roach killers, oven cleaners, and , toilet bowl cleaner in Kuwait (Parviz et.al, 2002), this indicates that no difference between Palestine and the Kuwait. Cleaning products are used to provide cleaner and safer home. However, these products contain active ingredients that can cause different types of 44 toxicity upon mishandling, improper storage, or extensive daily use (Sawalha, 2007). 4.2 Demographic results This section consists of the following variables (region house, age of housewife, educational level of housewife, type of housewife work, the number of individuals residing in the home, the nature of housing, and monthly income for the family. Detailed demographic characteristics of the respondents are show in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Demographic description of the respondents Demographic characteristics % Region house City 55.6% Camp 44.4% Age of housewife Less than 25 12.1% 26-35 33.4% 36-45 37.6% More than 45 16.8% Educational level of housewife Illiteracy 5.5% School Certificate 58.5% University Certificate 32.6% Graduate Study Certificate 3.4% Housewife job Housewife only 70.3% Working in the government sector 11.3% Working in the private sector 18.4% 45 Table 4.1 Cont. Demographic characteristics % The number of individuals residing in the home (2-4 ) 27.2% (5-7) 47.4% More than 7 25.4% Type of the house A flat in apartment 38.8% House independent 61.2% Monthly income for the family(JD) Less than 300 51.8% 300-500 34.2% 500-1000 11.5% More than 1000 2.4% Presence of children of age range between 8 months to 10 years 62.4% Presence storage place with others apartments 18.4% Responses were received from both Nablus city and its refuge camps in proportions of 55.6% City and 44.4% camps. The age distribution of housewife was 37.6% in the 36 to 45 year old group, 33.4% in the 26 to the 35 year old group, 16.8% in the older than 25 group, 12.1% in the older less 25 groups. In this study, most of housewife’s have finished their school certificate and were only working as housewife with moderate income and lived in independent house. 46 4.3 Solid Waste Management The results of figure 4.2 show the responsibility the transfer of solid waste from home to the container. 40.1% of householder transferred solid waste, compared with 20.8% of the children and 13.5% of the housewife. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Householder Others Children Housewife Building guard Figure 4.2 the person is responsible for transferring solid waste from home to container Figure 4.3 shows that 77.7% of the households in Nablus city and its refugee camps dispose solid waste every day, compared with 14.7% of the homes dispose solid waste every two days. 47 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Every day Every two days Every three days Every week Accumulate without the transfer of solid waste Figure 4.3 the disposal of solid waste from home to container Figure 4.4 shows that 68.7% of the households transfer of the solid waste from the house to the container at morning, compared with 21.2% at evening and 10.1% at noon. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% AM PM At noon Figure 4.4 the time of transferring solid waste from the house to the container According to WHO the recommended distance between the containers is 150m (Abu Zahra, 2006). From figure 4.5 distance between the 48 containers is different from region to another region, 66.8% of respondents consider the solid container in their streets are at distance of less than 100 meters from their household and the others consider it to be more than 100 meters. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Less than 100 meters 100-300 meters 300-500 meters More than 500 meters Figure 4.5 the distance of the nearest solid container for house The residents mentioned that the solid waste containers in their streets are sufficient in the Nablus city and its refuge camps with a percent of 46.4% but 53.6% of them mentioned that the number was not sufficient. 4.4 Risk Assessment of HHW To determine awareness and risk of HHW and the potential health and environmental problem, residents were asked questions in table 4.2. 49 Table 4.2 Diagnostic results for risk assessment Percentage of risk The house containing hazardous materials related to the work of householder 19.0% Presence industrial waste in or around the solid waste container 51.2% Industrial waste in or around solid waste container is hazardous waste 44.5% Presence of inappropriate behavior of children near solid waste container 48.6% Presence accidents from HHW 17.9% HHW accidents resulted in a negative psychological effect on the person 46.6% 19% of the houses contains hazardous materials related to the work of the householder, 51.2% of respondents have industrial waste in or around the solid waste container and 44.4% of them considered it as a hazardous material. In Nablus city and its refugee camps Nearly 48.6% of the households have inappropriate behavior of children near solid waste container and 17.9% of the households had accidents( physical injury , poisoning and burning ) from HHW, compared with 15% of the households in Kuwait (Parviz et.al, 2002). This indicates that no difference between Palestine and the Kuwait according to HHW accident that involving the use of hazardous substances. 50 46.6% of the households in Nablus city and its refugee camps mentioned that a negative psychological effect on the person resulted in HHW accidents. Figure 4.6 shows that 54.7% of households in Nablus city and its refuge camps stored of hazardous materials mainly in special place which can not be reached by children. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Special place not accessible by children Cellar Inside bathroom Inside Kitchen In the garden- house Figure 4.6 Storage place of HHW The dangers of HHW may not be immediately obvious, but certain types of household hazardous waste have the potential to cause physical injury , poison and burns. Figure 4.7 shows type of accidents in Nablus city and its refugee camps, 40.6% injuries, 39.1% Poison and 20.3% burning were considered the major risks associated with HHW. 51 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Injuries Poison Burns Figure 4.7 the major risks associated with HHW Figure 4.8 shows that 63.2% of the households kept hazardous material in safe place after the accident. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Safe keeping No storge in the house No change Figure 4.8 Re-keeping and storage of hazardous waste materials 52 4.5 Hypotheses Testing Table 4.3 shows the results from the cross-tabulation analysis demonstrated difference in region house (City, Camps) according to statements in first column, there are significant relationship, in the significance level 0.05, between statements in first column and region house (City, Camps). Table 4.3 Test hypothesis according to region house City Camp D.F Chi-sq PValue Place of storage of hazardous materials 4 15.424 0.004 Inside Kitchen 8.6% 7.2% Inside bathroom 18.6% In the garden-house 2.9% 1.4% Cellar 24.3% 27.5% Special place not accessible by children 45.7% 63.8% Who is responsible for transferring solid waste from home to the container 4 74.675 0.0001 House holder 46.4% 32.1% House wife 13.5% 13.5% Children 25.6% 14.7% Building guard 3.6% 3.1% Others 10.9% 36.7% How often do you dispose solid waste from home to container? 4 18.181 0.001 Every day 72.2% 84.7% Every two days 18.6% 8.6% Every three days 5.3% 4.0% Every week 2.9% 2.1% Accumulate without transferring 1.0% .6% 53 Table 4.3 Cont. City Camp D.F Chi-sq PValue At what time of the day is waste taken away from home to container? 2 9.227 0.010 AM 64.2% 74.5% At noon 12.1% 7.5% PM 23.7% 18.1% How far is nearest solid waste container from home? 3 53.151 0.0001 Less than 100 meters 77.6% 53.0% 100-300 meters 17.3% 30.5% 300-500 meters 3.7% 10.9% More than 500 meters 1.5% 5.6% Is the size of solid waste container sufficient to waste? 1 6.959 0.008 Yes 49.3% 59.1% No 50.7% 40.9% Is there any industrial waste in or around the solid waste container? 1 10.990 0.001 Yes 37.2% 53.6% No 62.8% 46.4% Is there any kind of inappropriate behavior of children near solid waste container? 1 54.811 0.0001 Yes 36.6% 64.0% No 63.4% 36% Do any of the family members suffer from any hazardous material? 1 9.089 0.003 Yes 14.1% 22.6% No 85.9% 77.4% Note: The Pearson value (PValue) equals 0.05 or less than 0.05 which indicates that there is a significant relationship between cross tabulation statements, Degree of freedom (D.F) 54 • Approximately 45.7% of the households in Nablus city store hazardous materials mainly in special place which can not be reached by children, compared with 63. % in Nablus refugee camps. • 25.6% of children in Nablus city are responsible for transfer of solid waste from home to the solid waste container, compared with 14.7% in Nablus refugee camps. • 72.2% of households in the city have disposal of solid waste every day and 64.2% done that in the morning, compared with 84.7% in the refugee camps done that in every day, and 74.5% done that in the morning. • 77.6% of the households in Nablus city found solid waste container a less than 100 meters away, compared with 53% in the refugee camps. • 49.3% of households in Nablus city consider the size of solid waste container sufficient to solid waste, compared with 59.1% in the refugee camps. • 37.2% of households in Nablus city find industrial waste in or around the solid waste container, compared with 53.6% in refugee camps. 55 • 36.6% of households in Nablus city say that there is inappropriate behavior of children towards the solid waste container, compared with 64% in the refugee camps. • There is another difference between Nablus city and its refugee camps concerning HHW accidents, this indicates that the households in Nablus city have fewer accidents from HHW than Nablus refugee camps. As the percentage in the refugee camps are 22.6 % and in the Nablus city is 14.1%. Based on above results from the cross-tabulation analysis demonstrated in region house (City, Camps) according to diagnostic questions. Findings were significantly higher or lower between Nablus city and its refugee camps. Difference might be due to adverse socioeconomic parameters between Nablus city and its refugee Camps. Table 4.4 shows the results from the cross-tabulation analysis demonstrated difference in presence accidents from HHW (physical injury, poisoning and burning) according to statements in first column, there is significant relationship, in the significance level 0.05, between statements in first column and presence accidents from HHW. 56 Table 4.4 Test hypothesis according to the presence of accidents from HHW in the households % Presence accidents from HHW D.F Ch-sq PValue Educational level of housewife 3 18.65 0.001 Illiteracy 11.4% School Certificate 65.2% University Certificate 21.2% - Graduate Study Certificate 2.3% Housewife jobs 2 10.22 9 0.05 housewife only 81.4% Working in the government sector 8.5% Working in the private sector 10.1% Monthly income for the family (JD) 3 8.235 0.041 less than 300 62.6% 300-50 25.2% 500-1000 10.6% more than 1000 1.6% Who are responsible for transferring solid waste from home to the container 4 11.67 0 0.02 House holder 29.9% House wife 11.8% Children 26.0% Building guard 2.4% Others 29.9% The houses contain hazardous materials related to the work of the householder 28.7% 1 9.13 0.003 Presence children of age range from 8 months to 10 years 73.0% 1 7.194 0.008 57 Table 4.4 Cont. % Presence accidents from HHW D.F Ch-sq PValue Presence industrial waste in or around the solid waste container 62.5% 1 7.322 0.007 Industrial waste that around solid waste container is hazardous waste 67.8% 1 24.73 0.001 Presence of inappropriate behavior of children near solid waste container 65.4% 1 16.66 6 0.001 Note: The Pearson value (PValue) equals 0.05 or less than 0.05 which indicates that there is a significant relationship between cross tabulation statements, Degree of freedom (D.F) • 65.2% of school certificate holders have accidents from HHW. This indicates that educated families have fewer accidents from HHW than uneducated families. • 28.3% of houses that contain hazardous materials related to the work of the householder have accidents from HHW. • 73% of the households have children age range from 8 months to 10 years have accidents from HHW. • 62.6% of households who get lower monthly income have accidents from HHW. • 26.0% of children are responsible for transferring solid waste from home to the solid waste container have accidents from HHW. • 62.5% of presence industrial waste in or around the solid waste container causes accidents from HHW. • 67.8% of industrial hazardous waste causes accidents from HHW. 58 • 65.4% of the inappropriate behavior of children near solid waste container has accidents from HHW. Based on above results from the cross-tabulation analysis demonstrated in presence accidents from HHW according to diagnostic questions. Findings were significantly higher in presence accidents from HHW Nablus city and its refugee camps, difference might be due to: 1. school certificate holders 2. the households contain hazardous materials related to the work of the householder 3. the households had children age range from 8 months to 10 years 4. the households had lower monthly income 5. the children were responsible for transferring solid waste from home to the solid waste container 6. presence industrial waste in or around the solid waste container 7. presence industrial hazardous waste 8. presence inappropriate behavior of children near solid waste container 4.6 Household Hazardous Products Found 1. Automotive Products Results in figure 4.9 show that the kerosene and windshield washer solution products ranked as the first among the automotive products 59 found in the home, with a percent of 61.8% kerosene and 23.3% windshield washer solution. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Keros ene Windsh ield W ash er S olutio n Metal P olis h w ith Solve nt Car Wax w ith Solv ent Diese l Fuel O il Auto Batte ry Automatic Transm iss ion Fluid& M otor O il Antifr eeze Oil F ilte rs Deg rease rs Brake Fluid Carb uret or Cleane r (f ue l in jecto rs) Figure 4.9 automotive products found in the home 2. Home Products Results in figure 4.10 show that the cleaner –bleach Based, toilet Bowl cleaner, shoe polish, bleach and cleaner-ammonia-based ranked as the first home products found in the homes, with a percent of 93.9% cleaner –bleach based, 92% toilet bowl cleaner, 87.6% shoes polish ,83.4% bleach and 81.4 % cleaner-ammonia-based. 60 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cleane r - Bleach - b as ed Toile t B ow l C leaner Shoe Polish Blea ch Cleane r - Ammon ia-ba se d Floure sc ent Lights Disin fecta nt Windo w/G lass C leaner Sco uri ng P ow der o r A bras ive Cleane rs hou se Air F resh en er Cleane r - All P urpose Therm om eters and T herm osta ts Batte rie s - Butto n, R ech argea ble Furnitu re Polish w ith Solve nts & Furnitur e C lea ner Ove n C leane r (l ye based ) Drai n Cleaner Floor Care Produ cts (w ax/s trip per) Spot Rem ove rs/ Carp et & U ph olst ery and R ug C lean er Pet S uppli es /Flea and Tick C ontr ol Smoke D etecto r Figure 4.10 Home products found in the homes In report on HHW generation in Japan that the quantity of cleaners materials corresponded 35% of the total HHW (Masaru and Kenji, 2006). 3. Personal Care Products Results in figure 4.11 show that the isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol), hair permanent lotion, nail polish and nail polish remover ranked as the first personal care products found in the homes, with a percent of 93.6% isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol), 71.9% hair permanent lotion, 57.8% nail polish and 57.5% nail polish remover. 61 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Isopropyl Alcohol (rubbing alcohol) Hair Permanent Lotion Nail Polish Nail Polish Remover Hair Spray Hydrogen Peroxide Figure 4.11 Personal care products found in the home 4. Healthcare Products From figure 4.12 the results show that 90.3% of the houses contain medical products. Medical products 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 Figure 4.12 Healthcare products found in the home EPA concluded that the disease causing potential of medical waste is greatest at the point of generation and naturally tapers off after this point. Thus, risk to the general public of disease caused by exposure to medical waste is likely to be much lower than risk for the occupationally exposed individual (UNEPA, 2007). 62 5. Home Improvements Products Results in figure 4.13 show that the adhesives and glues (solvent-based), paint brushes cleaner and paint thinner ranked as the first home Improvements products found in the homes, with a percent of 68.8% adhesives and glues (solvent-based), 30.9% paint brush cleaner and 28.4% paint thinner. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Adhesives and Glues (solvent-based) Paint Brush Cleaner Paint Thinner Oil-based Paint and Primer Paint Remover and Stripper Wood Preservative Figure 4.13 Home improvements products found in the home 6. Indoor Pesticides Products Results in figure 4.14 show that the ant/cockroach spray and bait ranked as the first Indoor pesticides found in the homes, with a percent of 62.9% ant/cockroach spray and bait. 63 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Ant/Cockroach Spray and Bait Rodent Poisons and Bait Figure 4.14 Indoor pesticides products found in the home 7. Lawn and Garden Products Results in figure 4.15 show that the insecticide and fertilizer with Weed killer ranked as the first lawn and garden found in the homes, with a percent of 43.9% insecticide and 13.4% fertilizer with weed killer. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Insecticide Fertilizer with Weed Killer Herbicide Fungicide Figure 4.15 Lawn and garden found in the home 64 8. Miscellaneous Household Hazardous Products Results in figure 4.16 show that the art supplies ranked as the first miscellaneous products found in the homes, with a percent of 43.9% art s-supplies. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Art Supplies Ammunition Pool Chemicals Photographic Chemicals (diluted/undiluted) Figure 4.16 miscellaneous household hazardous products found in the home 4.7 Household Hazardous Waste Management HHW Management can be divided into four categories (MEnA, 2005). • Waste and materials which cannot be poured down the drain, but can be sent to a sanitary landfill if they are sealed in a closed container and identified. • Materials that should be saved for a community –wide collection program, or collection by a licensed hazardous wastes contactor 65 • Material which can be recycled or reused. • Wastes which can be poured down the drain and diluted with plenty of water. Results in figure 4.17 show that the personal care products and healthcare products ranked as the first HHW is thrown with the household solid wastes, with a percent of 43.9% personal care products and 58% healthcare products. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Pers on al Care P rod uc ts Hea lth ca re pro du cts Hom e P rod uc ts Hom e I mpro ve men ts Ind oo r P es tic ide s La wn a nd G ard en Misc ell an eo us Auto moti ve P rod uc ts Figure 4.17 Percentage of HHW products which were thrown with the household solid wastes Results in figure 4.18 show that the automotive products and indoor pesticides products ranked as the first HHW were separately saved at source (home), with a percent of 52% automotive products and 42% indoor pesticides 66 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Auto mot ive P rod uc ts Ind oo r P es tic ide s La wn an d Gar de n Misc ell an eo us Hea lth ca re pr od uc ts Hom e P ro du cts Hom e I mpr ov em en ts Per so na l C ar e P rod uc ts Figure 4.18 Percentage of HHW products which were separately saved Results in figure 4.19 show that the automotive products and home improvements products ranked as the first HHW are reused, with a percent of 15% automotive products and 12% home improvements products. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Auto moti ve P rod uc ts Hom e I mpro ve men ts Hom e P rod uc ts La wn a nd G ard en Misc ell an eo us Pers on al Care P rod uc ts Ind oo r P es tic ide s Hea lth ca re pro du cts Figure 4.19 Percentage of HHW products which were reused 67 4.7.1 Comparison Between Nablus City and its Refugee Camps to HHW Management Depend on annex (B) & (C): comparison between Nablus city and its refugee camps according to HHW management. It was found also that these were a variation among disposal methods of HHW in Nablus city and its refugee camps. In terms of household hazardous waste Management (HHWM). Figure 4.20 shows that 56% of households in Nablus city dispose the HHW by throwing it with the household solid waste , compared with 41% of the households in Nablus refugee camps. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% throwing with the household solid wastes Save to HHW at the source (special place) reuse throwing randomly City Camps Figure 4.20 Comparative between Nablus city and its refuge camps according to HHW disposal method. 68 On the other hand, figure 4.20 shows that 31% of households in Nablus city were separately saved at source (home) then throwing it with the household solid waste, compared with 40% of the households in Nablus refugee camps. Figure 4.20 shows also that reusing of HHW in Nablus refugee camps households are more than that in Nablus City, with a percent of 15% in Nablus refugee camps and 9% in Nablus City. 4.8 Characteristics of HHW HHW has attracted attention recently because of the steadily increasing levels of municipal solid waste (MSW) of which HHW forms a proportion. A lack of detailed information exists on specific waste types composing HHW and the volumes of HHW produced (Slack et.al, 2005). Solid waste generation analysis in Nablus city and its refugee camps covered of all houses. Table 4.5 shows the total components of the 150 analyzed samples. A solid waste generation analysis was carried out during a 15 working days period with sorting 150 samples of 22,372 Kg of municipality solid waste at Nablus solid waste transfer station 69 Table 4.5 Weight components of HHW from the analyzed solid waste samples Waste component Nablus city (weight Kg) Nablus Camps (weight Kg) Total (weight Kg) Total MSW 13601.0 8771.0 22372.0 Automotive Products 23.5 7.0 30.5 Home Products 231.1 125.9 357.0 Personal Care Products 37.4 16.4 53.7 healthcare waste 14.3 5.5 19.8 Home Improvements 25.7 2.7 28.3 Indoor Pesticides 12.7 2.1 14.7 Lawn and Garden 47.1 7.5 54.6 Miscellaneous 2.4 0.4 2.8 Total HHW 394.0 167.3 561.4 This table is used to calculate the bulk density of HHW and weight percentages of HHW categories in Nablus city and its refugee camps A sample calculation to compute solid waste density is as follows: Total volume of the sample in Nablus city = = (6 samples per day)*(0.5m3 volume of each sample)*(15 working days) = 45 m3 70 Total volume of the sample in Nablus refugee camps = = (4 samples per day)*(0.5m3 volume of each sample)*(15 working days) = 30 m3 Solid waste density = weight (Kg)/Volume (m3) Solid waste density (City) =13601 (Kg) /45(m3) =302.3kg/m3 Solid waste density (Camps) =8771 (Kg) /30(m3) =292. 4kg/m3 As an average the density of the solid waste in Nablus city and its refugee camps is 297.3 Kg/m3. This density shows a small variation between the two regions. Table 4.6 shows that HHW concentrations of 2.89% and 1.88% were detected in the Nablus city and its refugee camps, respectively. These percentages are in share to the total municipal solid waste stream. Table 4.6 Weight percentages of HHW in Nablus city and its refugee camps Community type % contribution of HHW to the total solid waste stream Nablus city 2.89% Nablus camps 1.88% Nablus city and its refugee camps 2.51% Table 4.7 shows monthly income for the family in Nablus city and its refugee camps. In this study it was found that HHW was proportional to the family income. 71 Table 4.7 Monthly income for the family in Nablus Monthly income for the family(JD) city Camp less than 300 41.5% 65.1% 300-500 38.2% 29.2% 500-1000 16.6% 5.1% More than 1000 3.8% 0.6% Table 4.8 shows the weight proportions of HHW found in Nablus city and its refugee camps. On the whole, the two major contributing categories where home products and personal care products. Table 4.8 Percentages of HHW categories in Nablus city and its refugee camps HHW (category) % HHW categories in Nablus city % HHW categories in Nablus refugee camps % HHW categories in Nablus city and refugee camps Home Products 59.3% 77.9% 63.6% Personal Care Products 9.5% 9.2% 9.7% Lawn and Garden 11.4% 3.5% 9.6% healthcare waste 6.0% 2.9% 5.4% Automotive Products 6.3% 1.6% 5.0% Home Improvements 3.6% 3.4% 3.5% Indoor Pesticides 3.3% 1.1% 2.6% Miscellaneous 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% Total 100% 100% 100% 72 In Nablus city, HHW comprised 2.9% of municipal solid waste, the largest categories in this fraction were home products 59.3%, and personal care products 9.5% and lawn and garden 11.4%. In Nablus refugee camps, HHW comprised 1.9% of municipal solid waste, the largest categories in this fraction were home products 77.9%, personal care products 9.2% , lawn and garden 3.5%. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Hom e P rod uc ts Pers on al Care P rod uc ts La wn a nd G ard en Auto moti ve P rod uc ts Hom e I mpro ve men ts he alt hc are w as te Ind oo r P es tic ide s Misc ell an eo us City Camps Figure 4.21 Comparative figure of HHW related to the fraction of HHW between Naablus city and its refugee camps Mexicali city in the north part of Mexico, household hazardous waste comprised 3.7% of municipal solid waste (Delgado et.al, 2007), compared with 2.51% in Nablus city and its refugee camps. Figure 4.22 shows the largest categories in this fraction were home products 35.2% in Mexicali city, compared with 14.7% in Nablus city and its refugee camps, home improvements, lawn and garden products 29.2% in 73 Mexicali city, compared with 63.6% in Nablus city and its refugee camps. Differences might be due to diverse methodologies, separation, collection processes and culture. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Home Produ cts Home Im pro ve men ts &(Law n an d G ard en) Pers on al C are Prod ucts Auto moti ve Prod ucts he alt hca re was te Ind oo r P esti cid es Misc ell an eo us Mexicali city Nablus city and its refugee camps Figure 4.22 Comparative figure of HHW related to the fraction of HHW between Mexicali city and Naablus city and its refugee camps Table 4.9 shows a list of several reports on the contribution of HHW to the total waste stream. Findings were significantly higher or lower than this study from others countries. Differences might be due to diverse methodologies, separation, collection processes and culture. Even more, our results correspond only to waste originated from households (residential source). 74 Table 4.9 Household hazardous waste concentration reports (Delgado et.al, 2007) and this report 4.9 Functional Elements of HHW Management System HHW poses challenges to human health and to the environment although it is a small portion of the total waste stream. It is important to manage this material in Nablus city and its Refugee Camps, to reduce the impacts of these materials. By offering collection methods for residents to easily and properly dispose of HHW. The interrelation between the functional elements is identified by considering each functional element separately, it is possible to: STUDY % CONTRIBUTION OF HHW TO THE TOTAL WASTE STREAM Nablus city 2.89% Nablus refugee camps 1.88% Mecicali, Mexico 3.70% Cuitzeo Basin, Mexico 1.01% Tijuana, Mexico 1.10% Argentina 1.00% New Mexico,USA 0.50% Massachussets, USA 4.00% UK 1.00% 75 • Identify the fundamental aspects and relationships involved in each element in Nablus city and its refugee camps. • Develop, where possible. Quantifiable relationships for the purpose of making engineering comparisons, analyses and evaluation in Nablus city and its refugee camps. 4.9.1 HHW Generation Many household products contain chemicals that when discarded contribute to the contamination of natural resources including water supplies. Table 4.10 shows HHW yearly generation produced typically by a family in Nablus city and its refugee camps. Table 4.10 HHW generation in Nablus city and its refugee camps HHW quantities (ton /year) HHW quantities (Kg/cap/year) Automotive Products 90.9 0.53 Home Products 992.9 5.84 Personal Care Products 152.8 0.90 healthcare waste 57.6 0.34 Home Improvements 92.6 0.54 Indoor Pesticides 48.3 0.28 Lawn and Garden 169.0 0.99 Miscellaneous 9.3 0.05 Total weight of HHW 1613.4 9.49 76 Samples of waste in Nablus city and its refuge camps indicated there was 1613.4 ton of HHW in the residential waste stream in Nablus city and its refugee camps. This represented less than three percent of the annual 59447 ton of residential waste generated in Nablus city and its refuge camps. These quantities distributed into 1418 ton in the Nablus City and 195 ton in Nablus refugee camps. Most of this quantity was produced from home products which amount 992 ton. Compared with 152 ton from personal care products. While this may seem like a minor amount, even a small amount of household hazardous waste can cause considerable damage. For example, just one liter of used oil can contaminate 1,000,000 liters of water. 4.9.2 HHW Handling, Separation and Storage at the Sources Table 4.11 shows results from survey analysis according to HHW management (handling, separation and storage) at the source in Nablus city and its refugee camps; this is mainly about the disposal method of HHW and divided into four categories: 1. HHW which are thrown with the household solid wastes. 2. HHW which are saved to HHW at the source (special place). 3. HHW which are reused. 4. HHW which are thrown randomly. 77 Table 4.11 Methods for HHW management at the source in Nablus Products throwing with the household solid wastes Save to HHW at source (special place) reusing throwing randomly Automotive Products 1 Antifreeze 27% 55% 9% 9% 2 Auto Battery 20% 55% 21% 4% 3 Automatic Transmission Fluid& Motor Oil 14% 62% 17% 7% 4 Brake Fluid 42% 53% 0% 5% 5 Car Wax with Solvent 45% 42% 9% 5% 6 Carburetor Cleaner (fuel injectors) 27% 73% 0% 0% 7 Degreasers 29% 54% 13% 4% 8 Diesel 16% 62% 19% 3% 9 Fuel Oil 16% 56% 25% 3% 10 Kerosene 20% 46% 32% 2% 11 Metal Polish with Solvent 38%