:•-:: "•
                                       r*Y\&a£ ,-«, ,; "-""iiHi..! •L^*»i%w*!-L1!:'1'- "W'i'.V'!».:. -i1'1 '^jw.w^sii^i-.a 1
awiyiil?

-------
r

-------
                                           Preface
        Solid waste issues are moving to the forefront of public attention.  In one city in the Northeast,
 controversy over a proposed waste-to-energy plant led to delays in developing a response to their solid
 waste crisis.  As options run out, the city faces dramatically rising costs to ship its waste out of state.
 The daily cost increase for waste management during the period of this controversy now rivals the
 annual salary of a teacher or police officer.  In a city on the West Coast, the costs of closing a
 substandard landfill are now estimated to approach $50  million;  in another West Coast city, the cost of
 closing a landfill (now  a Superfund site)  may reach $90  million.

        But cities are finding solutions.   For instance, one of the towns in Long Island whose waste
 ended up on the ill-fated garbage barge of 1988 now boasts  a curbside recycling program with a high
 citizen  participation rate.  The amount of waste destined for disposal has been dramatically cut.  The
 two West Coast cities described above have also implemented aggressive recycling programs, to  lessen
 their future dependance on landfills.  A city in the Midwest was able to reach an agreement among its
 citizens, following extensive public involvement in planning decisions, to build a state-of-the-art  waste
 combustion plant with  stringent environmental safeguards.  Similarly, a city in the Rocky Mountain West
 was recently able to work with its citizens to site  a modern landfill whose design and operation
 addressed environmental and other public concerns.

        As the examples indicate, management of municipal solid waste is changing dramatically in the
 United States.  Landfills are filling up, new sites for combustion plants and landfills are getting harder
 and harder to find, and disposal costs are rising significantly. In response to  these challenges, more and
 more communities are  adding alternative management techniques that do not rely solely on disposal of
 the waste.  As the management of our nation's waste becomes increasingly complex, decision makers
 need a  more thorough  understanding of the  options available to  them and the interrelationship  of these
 options. To provide local officials with up-to-date information about waste management, the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Solid Waste is publishing this new edition of its
Decision Maker's Guide  to Solid Waste Management.

        The first edition of the Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management was published in
 1976.  It successfully aided many communities in the management of their wastes.  We are hopeful that
this update will be as beneficial to local decision makers as was the early edition.   This revised edition
provides information on topics covered in the earlier edition as well as new topics  applicable to today's
waste management needs.  Because of the complexity of the  issues, this edition will be published in two
volumes.  This volume,  Volume I, is designed to help policy makers understand their present waste
management problems,  possible techniques for solving them, and how these solutions influence each
other.  Volume II will contain more technical information for those managers responsible for
implementing the chosen management approaches. We plan to issue Volume n next year.

        Local decision makers are charged with the task of instituting an overall framework for
managing the wastes generated by their community.  They must cultivate a dedicated staff and establish
a well-defined structure within which  the  local government can effectively manage municipal solid waste.
However, local decision makers cannot be successful by themselves.  The responsibility for improving
waste management practices, especially source reduction  and  recycling, ultimately rests with the waste
generators.  These individuals, businesses, manufacturers, and institutions also comprise the tax base that
bears the financial burden for managing their wastes. So that they can better assume responsibility for
their wastes, all wastes generators  must understand how  their wastes are managed, the need for waste
management facilities, and, especially, the full costs of managing the wastes they produce.

-------
       Integrated waste management may require local governments to take on what for them may be
new functions.  Some of these include working with the community  to plan for waste management,
educating the community to participate in specific programs, learning about the  markets for recyclable
materials, and working with individuals and the commercial sector to reduce the amount of waste
generated.  The Decision Maker's Guide explains these activities and presents many more opportunities
that will  help you and your community meet these pressing challenges.
                                                    Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
                                                    Office of Solid Waste
                                                    November, 1989
 ii

-------
             Integrated  Solid  Waste  Management
        In February of 1989, the Office of Solid Waste published the Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda
for Action. The Agenda lays out EPA's strategy for dealing with municipal solid waste. It identifies the
roles of the many players in solving the waste management problems, and the specific activities EPA is
committed to conducting.  This Decision Maker's Guide is a very important part of the EPA's agenda for
solving the nation's garbage problems.

       As explained in the Agenda for Action and today's Decision Maker's Guide, EPA encourages
municipalities to use a mix of solutions to handle waste,  since there is no single management approach
that will serve as a panacea for our waste problems. Within the range of management options, EPA
suggests a hierarchy for decision makers to consider when planning and implementing integrated waste
management.  The first level of  the hierarchy is source reduction, which is reducing the amount and/or
the toxicity of waste we generate.  Individuals, government,  commercial establishments and industries can
all participate in source reduction. Their contributions can be as simple as photocopying on both sides
of the page or as complex as modifying manufacturing processes.

       Recycling is the second level of the hierarchy.  Recycling is collecting, reprocessing, marketing,
and using  materials that were once considered trash. Many of the components of our waste stream can
be recycled - from metals and plastics  to used oil and yard waste.  Today we are recycling about  10%
of the 160 million tons of municipal solid waste generated every year.  EPA has  set a goal for the
nation to achieve 25% source reduction and recycling by  1992.  We are hopeful that this document will
help the nation reach this goal.

       Finally in EPA's hierarchy comes waste combustion and landfilling.  Combustion can be used to
reduce the volume of. the waste stream  and to recover energy.  Landfilling is the only true disposal
option.  It is a necessary component  of waste management,  since all management options  produce some
residue that must be disposed of through landfilling. EPA and State and local governments are working
hard to improve the safety of both combustion and  landfilling, through new regulatory controls, design
and operational practices, training, and  careful monitoring.
                                                                                           Ill

-------
iv

-------
                              Acknowledgements
        The Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management was developed by ICF Incorporated for
EPA's Municipal Solid Waste Program under the direction of Sarah Carney and Terry Grogan of the
Office of Solid Waste.  In addition, Bruce Weddle, Truett DeGeare, and Bob Bellinger of the Office of
Solid Waste were influential in the development of the Guide.  The Guide also benefited from
comments by other EPA Offices, including the Pollution Prevention Office, Office of Research and
Development, and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.

        EPA would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of a group of municipal solid waste
experts that served as a peer review team during the development of the Guide.  The team commented
extensively on drafts of this document and provided suggestions for improvements at two peer review
team meetings.  These individuals include:
       John Abernethy
       Jenny Bagby
       Victor Bell
       Cathy Berg-Moeger
       William Carter
       Marian Chertow
       Paul Davis
       Richard Denison
       Dale Gubbels
       Sara Guss
       H. Lanier Hickman, Jr.
       Janet Keller
       Dannel McCollum
       Gary Olson
       Lorie Parker
       William D. Robinson
       Dave Wagaman

       Pete Watson
       George Winfield
Assistant Public Works Director, Merced County, California
Seattle Solid Waste Utility
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ecology Action, Austin, Texas
National Resource Recovery Association
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, Houston, Texas
Environmental Defense Fund
Resource Integration Systems
Department of Public Works, Indianapolis, Indiana
Government Refuse Collection and Disposal Association
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Mayor, City of Champaign, Illinois
New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association
Seattle Solid Waste Utility
Consulting Engineer, Trumbull, Connecticut
Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Environmental
Protection
Browning-Ferris Industries, Boston, Massachusetts
Department of Public Works, Baltimore, Maryland
       Draft copies of the Guide were sent to several other groups:  Aluminum Association, American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, American Paper Institute, American Petroleum
Institute, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Battery Council
International, Council for Solid Waste Solutions (Society of the Plastics Industry), Glass Packaging
Institute, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., International City Managers Association, Keep
America Beautiful, Inc., National Association of County Officials, National Association of Regional
Councils, National Association of Towns and Townships, National Electrical Manufacturers Association,
National League of Cities, National Soft Drink Association, Natural Resources Defense Coundl, Public
Technology, Inc., and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.  EPA would like to thank the groups that
commented on these drafts.

       At ICF, acknowledgements go to Frank Arnold, Andrew Barnsdale, Mike Lochhead, Alison Orr,
and Jean Tilly, who were responsible for drafting the Guide, incorporating various sets  of edits, and
producing the final document.

-------
r
                         EPA would like to emphasize that any of the views or opinions that appear in this Guide are
                 those of the Environmental Protection Agency, and do  not necessarily reflect the views of the various
                 peer reviewers.

-------
                                                                          Contents
                              Contents
Chapter One:  Integrated Waste Management	   i

          Municipal Solid Waste Dilemma	   1
          Integrated Solid Waste Management	   3
          Hierarchy of Integrated Waste Management	   3
          Strategic Planning	   4

Chapter Two:  Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management
               Decision-Making  	   9

          Local Factors	   9
          Multi-Jurisdictional Factors   . . .	13
          State and Federal Factors	16

Chapter Three:  The Local Municipal Waste Management System	23

          Waste Stream Assessment		i . . . .  23
          Assessing the Current Waste Stream		26
          Assessing the Future Waste Stream	 .  30
          Evaluating the Waste Problem in Your Community		32
          Establishing Waste Management Objectives  .	33

Chapter Four: Collection and Transfer	37

          Collection of Municipal Solid Waste	37
          Transfer Stations	45

Chapter Five:  Source Reduction 		si

          What Is Source Reduction?  	,	51
          Source Reduction Programs	  52
          Implementing a Source Reduction Program  	52
          Overcoming Obstacles to Source Reduction	55
                                                                              vii

-------
Contents
Chapter Six:  Recycling .;	.	59

           Planning for Recycling	59
           Recycling Program Management  	61
           Commonly Recycled Materials	62
           Recycling Program Elements	65
           Storage and Collection  of Recyclables	 . 67
           Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs)  	69
           Full Stream Processing	71
           Developing a Recycling Program	 71
           Costs and Benefits of Recycling	74
           Environmental Effects of Recycling	74
           Integration with Other  Waste Management Options   	75

Chapter Seven:  Composting	81

           Backyard Composting  	82
           Centralized Yard Waste Composting  . . . . .	82
           Yard Waste Composting Technologies	83
           Developing a Centralized Yard Waste Composting Program  	85
           Marketing the Yard Waste Compost Product  . . . .	87
           Municipal Solid Waste  Composting	88
           Other Types of Composting		89
           Environmental Effects of Composting  	90
           Integrating composting  with Other Waste Management Options   	91

Chapter Eight: Municipal Waste Combustion —....	95

           Planning  a Combustion Facility  	95
           Types of Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities	 100
           Air Emissions: Regulation and Control	 102
           Ash Management  	 103
           Combustion Facility Costs and Revenues  	 105

Chapter Nine:  Land Disposal	 107

           Regulatory Approval and Compliance  .	 108
           Leachate Formation and Control	 110
           Methane Formation and Control  	 Ill
           Closure and Post-Closure Care  	 112
           Siting a New Landfill   	 113
           Landfill Costs	 113
VJUI

-------
                                                                               Contents
Chapter Ten:  Special Wastes	  117

           Household Hazardous Wastes	  117
           Used Oil	 .  119
           Tires	  121
           Construction/Demolition Debris  	  121
           Wood Wastes	  122
           White Goods	  122

Chapter Eleven:  Public Education and Involvement  	  125

           Planning a Public Education and Involvement Program  	  126
           Meeting Public Education and Public involvement Challenges	  128
           Successful Public Education and Involvement Programs	  130

Chapter Twelve:  Financing and Revenues  	  131

           Understanding the Full Costs of Waste Management  .	  131
           Operating Revenue  	  132
           Capital Financing	  135

Chapter Thirteen:  Conclusions  on Integrated Waste Management  ...  143

           Planning an Integrated System  	,	  143
           Interaction of Waste Management Alternatives  	  144
           Flexibility of Waste Management Systems  	  146
           Monitoring and Evaluating Programs 	  147
           Conclusion	  147

Glossary				149

Acronyms  	155
                                                                                    IX

-------
Contents

-------
                                                               Integrated Waste Management
Chapter One

      Integrated  Waste   Management
    MAJOR MESSAGES
              •*'"   '"- :' 41, \
    * iJwsjafrposeofVofottiei
   ;   Decision Makers Guide to Solid
                         to introduce
                           : waste-
      management by providing an
     " ayej*view of major municipal waste
     - management issues while highlighting
      plofeaitt ofttoB/asd listing criteda
      for evaluating alternatives.  ..

    » Many parts of the tlnited States are
      currently facing a municipal solid
      * waste dilemma, for which all
    v elements of society are responsible.
           [decisionwaSrs mast--
   '  ^^'responsibility of managing the
   - "•'. local w»$te

    * Integrated waste management
               several techniques to
             distinct elements of the
      waste stream mo$£ effectively.
              j$»»»ing fey decision
      , makers allows the community to
      ' meet short-term needs while building
      ' a framework for working towards
      long-term goals.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
DILEMMA

Over 160 million tons of municipal solid waste
will be generated in the United States in 1989.
In every year since 1960, we have witnessed a
rise in both the total tons of waste generated
and pounds generated per person.  Adverse
environmental and  public health impacts have
been linked to past disposal practices. State
and local officials and private companies are
finding it increasingly difficult to site new
facilities. And in many parts of the country,
existing landfills are reaching or have reached
capacity, with the costs associated with
municipal waste management skyrocketing.
These are a few of the trends and  symptoms of
what is being called the solid waste dilemma.

Taking Responsibility

The root cause of the solid waste dilemma lies
in the fact that all  levels of society have
underestimated the significance of proper
municipal solid waste management. We are all
responsible for the municipal solid waste dilemma:

•      Local, state, and federal governments
       have all underestimated the importance
       of providing safe and effective waste
       management;

•      Industry has designed, manufactured,
       and packaged products with little regard
       of how they eventually will be disposed;

•      Individuals  consume products and
       generate  waste (approximately 3.6
       pounds per person per day) with little
       thought of  disposal issues;  and

•      Disposal  facility owners and operators
       have historically considered
       environmental issues to be of secondary
       concern.

-------
Chapter One
      We are all responsible for the municipal
      solid waste dilemma.  Consequently, we
      are all part of the solution.
All elements of society are learning that the
public good is best served by the,organized and
controlled management of municipal solid
waste. Although we all play a role in solving
the dilemma, local governments are in the best
position to decide ?how a  community's municipal
waste will be managed. Of course, the overall
success of a waste management system will also
depend on external influences such as state and
federal government support,  public participation
and involvement, and initiatives and cooperation
by the private sector.  Local government,
however,  can have an immediate and long-
lasting impact by assuming responsibility for the
local waste stream.

This is not to say that local  governments must
deliver all waste management services.  Their
responsibility lies in determining how service is
provided,  who provides the service, and under
what conditions this takes place.  Coordinating
the waste management  system, while fostering
the idea that proper municipal waste
management is fundamentally the responsibility
of all elements of society, will have the most
positive impact on the solid  waste dilemma.

Environmental Awareness

The general failure to assume full responsibility
for proper municipal waste management has
resulted in adverse environmental impacts that
have been associated with past disposal
practices.  Improperly operated landfills have
been  linked to soil, surface, and  ground water
contamination.  Insufficient pollution control on
incinerators has led to  air quality problems.
Many communities know this all too well, as
large chunks of municipal waste  management
budgets are used to clean up the effects of past
disposal practices.  Consequently, decision
makers must now operate within an atmosphere
of increased environmental awareness among
citizens, government, and facility operators.  Not
only are many landfills and incinerators being
closed due to environmental concerns, new.
facilities are becoming increasingly harder to
site because of public opposition.  In addition,
stricter regulations are expected to close many
existing facilities, and required environmental
controls are making new facilities more costly
to build and operate.

Capacity Crisis

Because all landfills have a finite lifetime, and
because many are expected to close due to
stricter regulation, communities are necessarily
faced with the need to site new landfills.   But
considering the environmental concerns
mentioned above, as well as the fact that in
more densely populated areas space is  not
readily available, siting new landfills has become
extremely difficult in many parts of the country
(in part because of public opposition to
proposed sites).

These siting difficulties have resulted in what is
being called a landfill "capacity crisis."  The
capacity crisis is indicated by the sharp rise in
tipping fees (the amount charged to dispose of
a ton of waste) around the country.  In the not-
so-distant past,  tipping fees were in the ballpark
of a few dollars a ton. Now the national
average is near $26, and in some areas the
average tipping fee is more than six times that
amount.

Consequently, decision makers across the
country are looking to alternative waste
management practices that are environmentally
sound,  economically viable, and that conserve
precious landfill space.
         Tile Necessity of Landfills
       Despite the difficulties associated with landfills,
       they will necessarily be a part of any municipal
       waste management system because portions of
       the/waste stream cannot be handled in any
       other way.  l^mdfi'Bs should not be considered a
       "necessary «*fl,*  Due to technology
                  feopaets 
-------
                                                                    Integrated Waste Management
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT

Integrated solid waste management involves
using a combination of techniques and programs
to manage the municipal waste stream. It is
based on the fact that the waste stream is made
up of distinct components that can be managed
and disposed of separately.  An integrated
system is designed to address a specific set of
local solid waste management problems, and its
operation is based on local resources,
economics, and environmental impacts.

The idea behind integrated solid waste
management is that a combination of
approaches can be used to handle targeted
portions of the waste stream.  Instead of
immediately driving the development of big,
high-technology programs, or setting unrealistic
expectations as to what portion of the waste
stream can be recycled,  decision makers
implement a series  of programs, each of which
is designed to complement the others. Source
reduction, recycling, combustion, and landfilling
can all have a positive impact on the local
municipal waste management problem.

This Decision Makers Guide to Solid Waste
Management is designed to assist in the
understanding and development of an integrated
solid waste management plan.   It shows that a
well-designed plan can improve
system economics and reduce environmental
impacts while fostering public support and
involvement in municipal solid waste
management.

There is no universal, step-by-step method for
selecting and developing integrated waste
management components and systems.  The
success of integrated solid waste management
depends largely on the dedication and expertise
of local decision  makers.  The purpose of this
Guide is not to provide a blueprint of what to
do. Instead, the  purpose is to provide a list of
factors that should be considered in framing
municipal  solid waste decisions.  In addition,
the Guide  also presents information and data
helpful in  making these difficult decisions.

HIERARCHY OF INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT

Consistent with the principles described in
EPA's Agenda for Action, to reduce our waste
management problem at the national level most
effectively, states, municipalities, and the waste
management industry should use the hierarchy
described in Figure 1.1 for evaluating the
components of integrated waste management
against the community's needs.  Although each
community will choose a mix  of alternatives
that most effectively meets its needs, the
hierarchy is a useful conceptual tool for goal-
setting and planning.
                      SOURCE
                      REDUCE

-------
Chapter One
The elements of the hierarchy are all
interrelated and can be designed to complement
each other.  For example, a recycling program
can have a positive impact on the development
of a waste-to-energy facility.   One purpose of
this  Guide is to show how municipal waste
management alternatives can positively affect
each other.
                             Li
                                 .
          Hierarchy of Integrated
             Waste Management
                      •,           %       f
                            toji J0l(?1ie hierarchy
      and is discussed In more
      Source reduction programs' ale designed to
      reduce both, )ife teo&s eottsHlwenfe te psocfocte
                                 , Source
       approach that may occur through the design
       and manufacture  sna»y
       wanHtttnJttes att?3fejjting 00 ibis waste
       taattdgeatent altetnafitve;    ' , T    ,
             ng^ aisotssed in Chagier J^Sa«» is.'
                 manage nto-iecytlablB andS,, „„
       nOncOmbuSIiblii wastes, and Is the only actual
       Waste "disposal" mclhod. Modern landfiEs are
       tnOrC secure and have more elaborate pollutioa
       control and monitoring devices than in the past
       Jjuvjrpnmental concerns at properfy managed  ••
       landfills are greatfy reduced,. Alsb, many new  ''
       L-ffldQl|s are utilizing methane tecoveiy
            No Miracle Solutions
                                       in
    ,                   tMr jwaste "
      E0.ana|eiiiejit system W acoipiflplishL  A
    /ml^Jpai wasit& •biajaageinent planning
      wiltr^quife'^e dedicadoft^f decisioa
      jnakejsj ,a6 mifaCle solutjons ejfidt.
      example/iaatty people ar& qtoc^ to
      'point dai that waste~t0-ener|)? fe'M&t' a.
             e. respon$e,to a &$M waste
                     the'ieed'fbir
               o js not a complete answer?
     ^neither is ffcydfei aloiie going to solve
     x.thjB problem* )&?&$• the niost susjc^SsM
      programs have ts> dispose pf a
                poftioti of the waste stream*
                      jfsst be realistic m
                     Answers  won't cta»&
 STRATEGIC PLANNING

 Strategic planning is a concept that is reiterated
 throughout this Guide.  It refers to the concept
 that decision makers must plan for the  long-
 term, and that the planning process should
 involve anticipating the changes that are likely
 to occur in the future.  It is crucial to build
flexibility into all elements of the waste
 management system.  Strategic planning
 demands a dedicated staff and leadership at the
 local level that must assume the responsibility of
 managing the community's municipal waste.

 The accompanying flowchart (Figure 1.2)
 provides some structure to the planning process
 by highlighting key stages.  These steps should be
followed only as an outline! Municipal waste
 management is an ongoing process that has no
 set beginning or conclusion.  Review of new
 alternatives and evaluation of operations should
 be performed continually.  Although a flowchart
 is provided here, it should be noted that all
 stages of the process are  interrelated.  Decision
 makers should not put part of the process on
 hold while developing a particular option or
 working on a particular activity.  Planning,
 development, monitoring, and evaluation of,
^options  take place simultaneously.

-------
                                                                      Integrated Waste Management
FIGURE 1.2
Integrated Solid Waste
Management Planning

Organize the Local l_
Decision-Making Framework F


Understand the Institutional 1
and Regulatory Climate I

,
Address Local Waste Management
Issues:
• Assess Current and Future Waste
Streams
• Assess Current Waste Management
Practices
• Determine Disposal Capacity and
Identify Problems
• Set Goals and Objectives to Address
Problems



Evaluate Waste Management 1
Alternatives and 'Understand I
the Integration of Alternatives |


Foster Public Education I
and Involvement 1
•

Understand 1
Project Financing 1


Develop, Implement, and
Monitor the Integrated
Waste Management Plan


Evaluate New Waste I
Management Alternatives 1
'



Organize the Local Decision Making
Framework

By establishing a dedicated staff and framework
within the local government, decision making is
internalized and local knowledge and experience
build with time.  Building local expertise is a
main waste management goal.  Many local
decision makers are unfamiliar with the details
of the various waste management alternatives,  *
                                                              Municipal  Solid Waste
                                                                     Task
                                                          A par? of orgamlrtg a local
                                                          making framework can fee the
                                                          establishment of a municipal solid
                                                          waste tasfe force,  Mamy decision
                                                          makers  have found: this to be helpful
                                                          m providing a forum for a variety of
                                                          opinions aa& for ta|>j> ing t&e expertise
                                                          of the local waste management
                                                                    Orowps t&at may be
                                                                  , on such a task force
                                                             Local elected officials;
                                                             Comatunity/aesighbofliood groups
                                                             Regulatory agencies;
                                                             Municipal employees^
         Cofieetion
         Recycling industry;,,
         .Resource recovesy !n<3da$«y; and
         Environmental
                                                          ft
                                                          m.
                                                          Decision, makers design *he task fotce/
                                                          and decide what role ft plays in the
                                                          process,  It cam serve as aa advisory
                                                          cointttittee to local deeisiofi makers or
                                                          a fiitk to key local forces.
even though these issues may not be technical
or complex in nature. As a result, local
officials often rely on outside experts as sources
of information on what are essentially local
problems. By investigating and initiating some
low-technology waste management options  such
as source reduction education programs,
neighborhood yard waste composting projects,
and pilot-scale recycling, local officials can
develop their own expertise in areas that may
have previously been unfamiliar. For example,
a pilot scale curbside recycling program that
collects one or two  different recyclables will aid
in developing an organizational framework for
recycling within the entire community, and will
familiarize local officials with such issues as
public outreach and marketing.  Building
expertise will better prepare local officials to
implement larger  programs and will lower the
risk of making costly planning mistakes.

-------
Chapter One
Innovative waste management alternatives will
be unfamiliar to many people within the
community.  In many cases, the costs and
benefits will not be fully understood.  Decision
makers must, therefore, serve as advocates for
new programs.  Once a level of expertise is
established, decision makers are in a position to
promote programs aggressively to local
government and citizens.

Understand the Institutional and
Regulatory Climate

This is one of the first activities decision
makers should undertake during the planning
process.  Federal, state, and local opportunities
and constraints can all have major impacts on
how a system is run.  Guidance on these issues
is provided in Chapter Two.

Address Local Waste Management
Issues

Perhaps the most fundamental planning factor
decision makers should understand is the nature
of municipal solid waste and solid waste
management in the community.  This involves
understanding what and how much waste is
generated now and will be generated in the
future, how it is currently managed, and what
problems  may be anticipated.   Once these
factors are understood, decision makers must set
goals and objectives for addressing local
problems.  Chapter Three discusses the
importance of assessing the waste stream,
characterizing local operations, recognizing
capacity and management problems, and setting
goals and objectives.

Evaluate Waste Management
Alternatives

Evaluating alternatives is the most time
consuming activity decision makers undertake
when developing waste management plans.
Dozens of options  must be compared and
evaluated, and the  feasibility of each option
within local constraints must be determined.
Chapters Four through Ten identify the major
waste management options and give criteria  for
evaluating each option.
          Atmosphere of Change

      The phrase "undergoing rapid change" could be
      used f o describe nearly every aspect of
      municipal solid waste management as we head
      into the 1990's:
                      W
-------
                                                                     Integrated Waste Management
Each public education and public involvement
program needs to be specific to the community
and its unique solid waste challenge.  There are
two key elements, however,  that can strengthen
any program. First, opportunities for
communicating with and involving the public
should be established early on in the planning
process — the public hearing for an incinerator
permit is not the starting point  for listening to
and addressing public concerns.  Second, public
education and involvement efforts should be
ongoing — a one-time media blitz announcing a
new recycling program will not result in long-
term participation.

Public education and public involvement
programs  provide decision makers with a unique
opportunity to establish two-way communication
with the community. By building a
communication bridge with citizens, special
interest groups, and the business community,
decision makers can share valuable information
while  also learning specific concerns and issues.
Through public education and involvement,
decision makers can create opportunities for
community members to be part of the solution
to this nation's solid waste dilemma.  Chapter
Eleven of this Guide addresses these issues in
more  detail.

Understand Project Financing

Project financing can be performed in a variety
of ways within the community, many of which
are discussed in Chapter Twelve.
Selecting a financing method is based largely on
the degree of risk that the community is willing
to take, as the financing method selected can
significantly impact the costs incurred by the
community.
Develop, Monitor, and Implement an
Integrated Waste Management Plan

Developing and implementing the plan is
essentially a local activity that involves
assimilating all of the issues covered in this
Guide. Chapter Thirteen highlights some of the
major issues that go into plan development,
including timing issues, building flexibility into
the system, and monitoring programs.
Evaluate New Waste Management
Alternatives

By constantly evaluating new waste management
alternatives, the decision maker returns to the
start of the strategic planning process.
Evaluating new alternatives is necessary to
ensure that the local system is as successful as
possible.  Even the most successful and
innovative waste management programs
experiment with new techniques and
technologies.  Integrated waste management is
an ongoing process that will require continuous
attention.

-------
Chapter One
                                Chapter One Bibliography
Chertow, Marian, Garbage Solutions: A Public Official's Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid. Waste
       Management Technologies, National Resource Recovery Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors,
       1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.  Tel:  (202) 293-7330, 1989.

EPA, Bibliography of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives, Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
       D.C., August 1989. Available through RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

EPA, Report to Congress on Solid Waste Disposal, EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C,
       October  1988.. Available through:  National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
       22161, Tel: (703) 487-4650.  Doc: PB89-110381 and PB89-110399.

EPA, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action,  Final Report of the Municipal Solid Waste
       Task Force, EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., February 1989. Available through
       RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

Keep America Beautiful, Inc., Overview:  Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives, KAB, Inc.,  Mill River Plaza,
       9 West Broad Street, Stamford, CT 06902, Tel: (203) 323-8987, April 1989.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, The Commonwealth Solid Waste
       Masterplan: Toward a System of Integrated Solid Waste Management, DEQE, Bureau of Solid
       Waste, Boston, MA, December 1988.  Available through State House Book Store, Boston, MA
       02133. Tel: (617) 727-2934.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Risk Discussion of Solid Waste Management
       Systems,  MPCA, 520 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155,  Tel: (612) 296-8439, April 1987.

Moeger, Cathy Berg, Solid Waste Management Planning Guidebook (Minnesota), Minnesota Pollution
       Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155,  Tel: (612) 296-8439, June 1986.

Relis, Paul and Anthony Dominski,  Beyond the  Crisis: Integrated Solid  Waste Management, Community
       Environmental Council, 930 Miramonte  Drive,  Santa Barbara, CA 93109, Tel: (805) 963-0583,
       September 1987.

Robinson, William, Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide, John Wiley and Sons, 605 Third Avenue,
       New York, NY 10158, Tel:  (212) 850-6000, 1986.

Underwood, Joana and Allen Hershkowitz, Garbage Practices, Problems and Remedies,   Inform, Inc.,
       381 Park Avenue S., Suite 1201, New York, NY  10016,  Tel:  (212) 689-4040,  1987.
8

-------
                                Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management Decision Making
Chapter  Two

 Factors  Affecting  Municipal Waste
     Management  Decision  Making
    MAJOR

    « Decision maters wast understand
      apdi eomij^ini wJfoa glajuiing a
     '-- municipal waste management system.
       fty f      ^ f  — _  -
     * MukiUjurisdictional factors will affect
    /operation of a mmite!|»»l waste
      management system, and
      cooperation should be considered.
      "*  ~ **   1-     '
                                 ,  -
      i prcigf ams constitute a framework for
      municipal waste management
        ":'r   ff    -, f ,         •-
    ..• Decision makers should be aware of
      tt«s Wleiy of F<«fef al Um a«d
      guidelines that affect municipal waste
LOCAL FACTORS

One of the first steps decision makers should
take in developing an integrated system is to
frame the planning process according to the
political, institutional, and economic realities of
both their own community and neighboring
political jurisdictions.

Political Setting

The political setting in which decision makers
operate can be extremely complicated:

•  A number of parties who  have an interest
   in local municipal waste management
   decisions, including elected officials, the
   news media, and citizen organizations, have
   access to the political process.  These
   groups also have the ability to generate
   community support.

•  Business and political interests, as well as
   community, environmental, and
   neighborhood groups, will all have
   particular points of view during the
   development of a municipal waste plan.

•  Entities within the solid waste management
   industry (e.g., haulers, recyclers, facility
   vendors) will also play an important role in
   the municipal waste planning process.

•  An extensive agenda of other  local issues
   and programs compete for scarce resources.

•  The local electoral cycle may affect waste
   management priorities.

-------
Chapter Two
This complicated political setting, however,
should not be seen as an insurmountable
obstacle.  A primary goal of decision makers
should be to  make the best use of all available
community resources. All relevant parties,
organizations, interest groups, and individuals
need to be enlisted to help, or at least
considered, in the municipal waste planning
process.  To do this, decision makers should
take an "inventory" of the possible resources
available in the community, whether public or
private, and identify groups whose efforts may
be assisted, encouraged, used as examples, and
whose assistance in planning and implementing
an integrated program for the community would
be invaluable.
This inventory should also include those groups
or factors that may constitute constraints on the
system, so as to anticipate problems early.  By
understanding all of the "players"  early in the
process, planning can be more efficient and
effective.  By integrating public concerns into
the planning process,  long-term success is more
likely.

Economic and Fiscal Concerns

Planning for municipal solid waste management
will require  a careful analysis of budgetary
constraints and the potential economic impacts
of new alternatives.  In addition, the ability to
obtain necessary financing for proposed program
                             Key Factors and Participants in
                         Municipal Solid Waste  Decision Making
                                Local Municipal Waste Problem
                    Key Factors
            Assistance
Iftcat: "
* Political Setting
* Institutional Factors •
•EcanorriteaictFfecai
cattt&ms ,_ v .1
,, ^
s , $

MtHti*Jt>ri$dictianaf
'
State find Federal:
•State ftegulatians •
• County Requirements
• Federal Rules •



                                             tocat
                                        Municipal Waste
                                           Planning
          Federal, State,
          Locat;

         • Gi-ant Funding

         • Community Resources

         •Technical Assistance -

         •Other Solid Waste
          frpgrams
                                                               Program Management
                                                               and Coordinator*
                                      Technical Options
                                      Program Elements
10

-------
                                       Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management Decision Making
         Considering Community
                  Concerns  ' '
      Xxtcat <«)iattui% andl
      groups can Ibe expected to express
      s&flag views o» issues related to t
      perceptioBS of traffic, nuisance
      factory pftfi& health cpricer^ lack
      of perceived benefits, inadequate
      environmental standards and
      enforcement, and ofhet issues-
      affecting the value of jprojserfy and
      Quality of neighborhood! i
              > local
      commercial groups, and commercial
      waste management interest way &
      strong positions OH ^togranWi
      requiring them to recycle office paper,
      corrugated paper, and otner
      materials,                ,,
approaches or technical alternatives will have to
be assessed early in the planning process.

To do this, decision makers must first review
current outlays for municipal waste management
and analyze the sources of current funding. For
example, the degree to which user fees, special
assessments, and the general fund are used to
finance the system should be determined.  Later
in the planning process, the level and stability
of future program funding must be reconciled
with estimates of future requirements. These
will have to be developed for each mix of
program approaches and technical options.

Longer-term initiatives may require new sources
of funding.  Decision makers will have to  review
the feasibility of user-charges, tipping fees, and
tax assessments to finance the operation and
maintenance of future program costs.
Depending on the specific mix of waste
management practices under consideration, this
process may require an analysis of local  (or
regional) markets for selling recyclables,
compost, and energy.  In addition, the
availability of private waste management services
and the potential for private competition or
lack of competition in these markets must be
considered.
Financing future programs will be affected by
factors such as the supply of wastes for fuel, the
market for recovered materials and energy, the
number of jurisdictions participating in the
project, and the way these jurisdictions are
organized with respect to  ultimate
administrative, legal, and financial responsibility;
Again, by identifying and integrating these
issues into the overall planning process, the
likelihood of long-term success is enhanced.
                  Economic and
             Fiscal Concerns
      * Ibe fiscal impact of proposed municipal
        waste programs and practices must be
        anticipated.

            Renew current and projected
             jgvalusfe ih$ stability «£ currer*
             joevettws sad tbe potent for tta»
        Accessary to evaluate the feasibility oE
        potential technical alternatives and
       * Einancing options including state and
        federal incentives and eiemplkms must be
 Institutional Factors

 When developing  an integrated waste
 management plan, decision makers will have to
 weigh carefully the ability of the current
 collection/processing/disposal system to
 accommodate any proposed changes in solid
 waste management techniques. Examining the
 existing institutional infrastructure will
 determine if staff, resources, and technical
 expertise are available to implement and
 administer new solid waste programs or adjust
 to changes in existing programs.   Institutional
 barriers to improved solid waste management
 exist at both the state and local levels. These
 barriers can be identified and solutions
 implemented.
                                                                                                11

-------
Chapter Two
Liter-Governmental Conflicts

It is not uncommon for the administrative tasks
associated with waste management (permitting,
enforcement, collection, processing, disposal,
recycling, contracting, etc.) to be divided among
several agencies, such as the Division of Public
Works and the Department of Public Health.
Indeed, solid waste programs at  the local level
may be administered by more than one level of
government (cities, counties, state, and regional
authorities) across several jurisdictions.

In planning for an integrated solid waste
management program, communities may
discover that they wish to change aspects of the
current solid waste management system,
including the division of administrative
responsibility for the local program.  This may
be due to perceived problems with the lines of
authority or structure of the current system, or
it may be due to the types of technologies and
programs the community chooses to adopt and
the degree to which they differ from the current
system.   Decision makers may find it worthwhile
to incorporate into the solid waste management
planning process an assessment of the roles and
responsibilities of all concerned  public and
private agencies  to determine whether the
management of the solid waste program resides
within the appropriate agency or office.

Local solid waste programs are often
administered by particular offices or agencies
because of fairly rigid legislative, contractual, or
cooperative agreements as well as for strictly
functional reasons.  Nonetheless, the local
community may be unrestricted in its ability to
change the focus of responsibility for solid
waste management. In this circumstance,
decision makers  should evaluate the current
system, determine which aspects  of the system,
if any, may be feasibly and legally altered, in a
manner that best serves the community's current
and future needs.  This process will identify the
possible administrative alternatives for a
community-based, integrated solid waste
management program.
Local Public Bidding and the
Procurement Process

Most states have public bidding laws that
constrain local government purchasing.  These
bidding procedures require that the individual
components of a procurement be bid separately.
Thus, rather than issuing a procurement using
an integrated service approach (e.g., a
combination of recycling, waste-to-energy, and
landfilling), local governments generally break a
procurement into discrete packages.  A public
works project typically has a design and
engineering package, a construction package,
and sometimes an operational package for each
of the waste management options.  Bidders on
one package may be excluded from bidding on
others.  This precludes vendors who are fully
capable of integrating waste management
techniques from participating on each project.

In the past, many communities have found
themselves contracting with a private firm for
programs, designs, and technologies that may be
beyond  the financial means of the community,
do not meet the goals and objectives of the
community, or cannot accommodate changing
circumstances. Decision makers  need to draw
upon all available expertise and advice before
committing the community to any particular
technology, program approach, or contractual
arrangement. These constraints can present
significant hurdles to decision makers in
obtaining the optimum services via procurement
and consequently can seriously affect the
program planning process.

Liability Factors

Financial, legal, and environmental liabilities are
concerns that affect all municipal waste
collection, processing, and disposal programs.
Decision makers must assess the amount of risk
they are willing to take  in each area and plan
accordingly. For example, a  municipally owned
and operated waste-to-energy facility may be a
significant financial risk to the community.  If
the plant is developed and operated by a full-
service,  private firm, the financial risk is
lowered. But by reducing the risk, the
community also sacrifices some control over
plant design as well as a portion of the
revenues.
12

-------
                                       Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management Decision Making
Legal and environmental liabilities are also
considerations in the planning process.
Landfills, for example, have uncertain liabilities
attached.  For example, ground water and
surface water contamination or methane gas
migration could remain undetected during site
operation or for years after facility closure.

Public/Private Cooperation

State and local governments should work closely
with private collectors, haulers, processors, the
secondary materials industry, and local utilities
in designing integrated waste management
approaches.  This is especially true for new or
expanded recycling programs because of the
number of waste management components a
recycling program will affect.  State and local
government planners do not always consider the
existing collection, processing, and marketing
industries, often because the existing industry
has not shown substantial interest in helping to
solve local waste management problems.  In this
respect, successful decision makers often take a
broad approach and view all concerned parties
(public and private) as part of a comprehensive
waste management solution.

MULTI-JUMSDICrnONAL
FACTORS

Increasingly, many communities are turning to
regional approaches to solid waste management
to accomplish together what they cannot attain
alone. Regionalization offers  both large and
small communities a number of potential
advantages in the areas of procurement,
environmental protection, financing, and
management.

The regional approach allows  communities to
achieve economies of scale through better
utilization of capital and more efficient
management. The  approach enables member
communities to provide large-scale services not
otherwise financially possible,  to centralize
waste processing and disposal, and to reduce the
number of small, inefficient, environmentally
suboptimal systems operating in the area.

In the past, local jurisdictions have often had
difficulty cooperating on joint waste
management projects.  One way of insulating
integrated waste management  projects from the
political arena is to establish quasi-governmental
authorities or similar agencies with independent
bonding authority. .Another option is to make
a larger regional jurisdiction, such as a county
or even a state, responsible for waste disposal.
Each state has a unique system of local      ,
jurisdictions and powers. Decision makers
should review their state laws and solid waste
plans and work to adapt these to encourage
state, county, municipal, or regional projects, as
appropriate.

Multi-jurisdictional issues can be crucial to
integrated solid waste management at the local
level for two reasons.  First, many issues, such
as waste-flow control, sales of recovered
resources, and permitting of new facilities, are
easily derailed if affected parties from outside
the community are not included in the planning
and  implementation process.  Second, planning
for an  integrated approach to waste
management may involve technologies and
program approaches whose economies of scale,
financing, and ease of implementation dictate a
broader, or multi-jurisdictional, approach.

The regional approach to municipal solid waste
management may be appropriate for a  number
of local program elements and technical
alternatives.  For example,  the planning and
development of a waste-to-energy,facility of
economical size often requires
intergovernmental agreements; regional
management of solid waste may be necessary to
ensure an adequate supply of waste to  the plant
and  to design the most efficient transportation
routes  throughout the  area.

Because of rising costs, operating
environmentally acceptable landfills is another
activity that may be better met by regional
facilities which can tap the resources of several
communities.  Multi-jurisdictional approaches
also may benefit alternative management
programs.  For example, composting and
recycling programs may require a fairly large
waste generation and collection base in order to
generate a marketable product.  This is
especially true of small-scale  recycling programs,
which  can benefit from combining with other
programs to develop a larger, more consistent
supply of post-consumer materials.
                                                                                               13

-------
 Chapter Two
 Capital financing for municipal waste disposal
 facilities usually involves a major expenditure of
 funds.  A larger population and revenue base
 will generally make financing easier.  There are
 several types of regional organizations created
 for financing and managing solid waste systems.
 These are discussed here, and the advantages
 and disadvantages of each are outlined in
 Figure 2.2.

Authorities

 An authority is usually a corporate body with a
 charter authorized by the state legislature.  It
 can be established by municipalities and
 counties to  operate outside the regular structure
 of government; it can finance, construct, and
 operate revenue-producing public enterprises;
 and it may have regulatory powers within the
 scope of its operations.

 Special Districts

 A special district operates as  an agency of
 government outside of the regular structure,
 usually performing  a single function,  and relying
 primarily on special tax levies for financial
 support.  To be successful, special-purpose
 districts must  respond to local needs and
 cooperate with local jurisdictions. In some
 states, special districts can regulate, levy
 assessments, operate, contract, or do  whatever is
necessary to perform their single function.
 Nonprofit Public Corporations

 Similar in many respects to the authority as a
 means of financing and managing a solid waste
 system, this corporate entity requires approval
 or articles of incorporation by member
 jurisdictions and by the secretary of state or
 other officials as designated by law.  One
 community or a group of communities create
 nonprofit corporations to shift financing
 requirements to an organization outside the
 immediate municipal bureaucracy, to ease
 administrative and .legal  approval of activities,
 and to capitalize on the presence of a long-term
 commercial interest in the services rendered.
 The important feature is that the organization
 is tax exempt and can issue tax-exempt bonds
 after satisfying the following Internal Revenue
 Service criteria:

 •   The city council must  approve the project
     and accept the assets after bonds are paid;

 •   The corporation must  agree to give its
     assets to the city after bonds are paid;

 •   The city must provide  all easements to the
     corporation at no cost;

 •   The directors  of the corporation must be
     city or State officials; and

 •   The corporation must  provide a public
     service.

Multi-Community Cooperatives

The multi-community cooperative seeks to
achieve the same objectives as Authorities,
Special Districts, and Nonprofit Public
Corporations, without  the degree of legal
formality and institutional structure.  The multi-
community cooperative need not  have a  charter
or articles  of incorporation, however, its ability
to raise funds, determine policy, and execute
projects is limited to the powers of the
individual member governments acting in
congruence.  The multi-community approach
obviously depends  largely on the willingness of
independent communities to work together and,
in particular, to let one community take a
dominant role.  The concept of the multi-
community cooperative is similar to  a network
of intergovernmental agreements between
several governments  actively working toward a
14

-------
                                                  Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management Decision Making
OPTION
                                                       FIGURE 2.2              .                        .

          Multt-Jnrisdictional Organizations: Some Advantages and Disadvantages

                                           ADVANTAGES                                DISADVANTAGES
Authorities
Ability to finance without regard to local debt ceiling
and without obtaining voter approval;

Service less likely to be hampered by local political
activity because board members are usually private
citizens;

Autonomy and freedom from municipal budgetary and
administrative control may mean more efficient
delivery of service; and
Financing can be administratively complex;

Can become remote from government or public
control; and

Can compete with private industry in some areas
of operation, reducing the efficiency of both.
                            supporting, and capital financing is tax-exempt
 Special Districts
 The district has a distinct constituency of residents,
 not merely a group of bondholders living in scattered
 places; and

 Governments can be protected by having elected
 county officials serve as governing body of district
 Powers are limited by State statute;

 Must rely on special tax levies requiring voter
 approval; and      •  .      '             .

 Creates an additional governmental entity
 removed from the electorate and thus less
 responsive to citizens than directly-elected
 entities.
 Nonprofit Public
 Corporations
 Financing is outside government debt limits and can
 be obtained without voter approval;

 Corporation gives its assets to cities after bonds are
 paid; and

 No real estate or Federal taxes, and capital financing
 is tax exempt
 Political influence may be exerted and flexibility
 lost because board members are city, county, and
 State officials;

 Difficult to dismantle even if better service'
 becomes available; and

 Does not have full faith and credit of the taxing
 power of the communities behind the financing.
 Multi-Community
 Cooperatives
 Less restrictive in legal and institutional structure than
 Authorities, Special Districts, and Public Corporations;
 and;

 Enables member communities to provide services not
 otherwise financially or administratively feasible and
 provides for more effective contractual agreements.
 Member communities lose autonomy in locating
 waste disposal sites, setting charges for use of
 system, and other decisions;

 Increased interest costs when leading community
 is less creditworthy than other members; and

 Leader community may require ffaatiraai
 assurances through contractual arrangements with
 member communities.
  later-Governmental
  Agreements
  The most widely used method of cooperation between
  governments in the United States;

  Contracts offer flexibility, while being both predictable
  and enforceable;

  Basic governmental structures and organizations are
  not affected; and

  Since no reorganization is required, much time can be
  saved.
  It may be difficult to obtain capital financing
  since each of the communities, rather than a
  single unit, must borrow money;

  IX agreements are not formalized in detail
  through a contract or other mechanism,
                                                                                  Since there is no single corporate body, all
                                                                                  participants must reach agreement each time a
                                                                                  new issue arises.
                                                                                                                      15

-------
  Chapter Two
  common goal. Tax exempt status is available
  for financing multi-community cooperatives.

  Inter-Governmental Agreements

  Local governments can engage in both informal
  and formal agreements, although formal
  contracts are usually the only instruments that
  are predictable, and enforceable.  Transfer of
  function is also a very common arrangement,
  whereby one level of government delegates
  responsibility for a function to another level  or
  jurisdiction.

  Even though a technical analysis  may indicate
  that a multiple-jurisdiction project is the
  effective solution to the solid waste problem,
  this approach can introduce new  obstacles to
  implementation, focusing primarily on equitable
  sharing  of risks, costs, and benefits. For
  example, if one jurisdiction is  the host
  community for a facility, what constitutes
  equitable sharing for the other jurisdictions?
  Can  the host community be compensated
 adequately? Compensation alternatives do exist,
 including reduced tipping fees  for host
 community residents, cash payments, free
 electricity if neighbors of a municipal waste
 combustion facility, or the construction of local
 improvement  projects.  However,  negotiating
 these agreements can be difficult.

 Nevertheless, once  a multi-jurisdictional
 approach is implemented, the benefits accruing
 to all parties are usually significant. Regional
 approaches  can be  used to focus management
 resources, to spread unit  costs  over a larger
 population base, and to avoid costly duplication
 of services.  Technical alternatives, management
 practices, and program approaches previously
 unavailable  individually to any  of the
 participants are at once possible, providing a
 number of environmental, economic, financial,
 political, and administrative rewards.
STATE AND FEDERAL FACTORS

SoW Waste Plans
  I
         Municipal

                   Flaws

      " Every community generating and disposing
       wastes should tiave a. solid wasle
       management plan.

      * States and counties may regulate and
       perform a number of activities that will
                                   my
                   SC&MS er pograats &»»'
       provide grant or matching aasss fora
       number o£ activities.*
           and consteucfion;
           Technical assistance and training
           programs;
                  development and     •>
                                                                supportjaad
                                                            local resources and programs.
16

-------
                                         Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management Decision Making
Some states have solid waste plans in effect that
define the goals and agenda for statewide waste
management action.  These plans often place
requirements on the resources and programs of
the local community.  Local decision makers
must understand and anticipate state
requirements and be  able to determine what
those requirements will imply for the local solid
waste program.  State solid waste policy  or law
often defines the limits of local initiatives and
suggests appropriate program approaches for
communities. States may adopt a variety *of
different approaches to foster state-wide  solid
waste management at the local level, including
either mandatory or incentive-based approaches.
One common mechanism used by states  to
ensure that these issues receive attention at the
local level is to require all levels of government
beneath the state level to  develop, adopt, and
implement a solid waste management plan.

State plans should emphasize integrated  solid
waste management as a "hierarchy of
approaches" yielding  an integrated solid waste
program based on some combination of
reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, energy
recovery, incineration, and landfilling.

Congress and many states have endorsed a
hierarchy of approaches, including Oregon,
Washington,  Vermont, Michigan, and
Connecticut  Many states also have developed
specific plans for each particular program
approach (e.g., mandatory yard-waste
composting, recycling plans).  These plans are
usually sub-parts of a broader, comprehensive
state solid waste management plan.  The State
of Connecticut, for example, has adopted a
Regional Solid Waste Recycling Plan as a part
of its State Solid Waste Management Plan.

 State Legislation

Regardless of the type of plan, a state will
typically undertake a number of regulatory
activities and require actions on the part of the
 community through legislation.  Some state laws
 require local governments to set up recycling
 centers or programs that will achieve certain
 levels of recycling.  Other laws impose recycling
 responsibilities on industries and businesses.
 States also encourage local waste management
 approaches by making solid waste grant funding
 contingent upon indicators of program activity,
                      Slate Plan
          Solid Waste Recycling Flan

      i Priority for regional approaches to
       recycHngj

      • Grants to establish recycling programs;

      i Standards to encourage maximum
      * Fiaaneia! ineenifives for
       recycling programs with energy recovery
       eieiUty coatiaets; and

      a. A Hierarchy of techniques including waste
       reduction, recycling, composting, waste-lo-
       cnergy, and landfllling to achieve a 20-
      .• 25% reduction (byr weight) of the
       municipal solid waste stream.

      (State of Connecticut, 1586)
              .- A      f f
such as yard-waste and recycling programs.
Many states encourage local awareness of waste
management efforts through neighborhood
groups and support them with public education
campaigns.  Additionally, states have created
various economic incentives to encourage
recycling in the private sector.  Some states
require local governments and waste disposal
facilities to recycle (e.g., Connecticut,  Oregon,
Rhode Island, Washington,  and Wisconsin).

State solid waste legislation can provide
assistance through state-wide legislative
initiatives or grants for local solid waste
programs.  Legislation may contain provisions
for grants or matching funds  for feasibility
studies, technical assistance, program
development and implementation, training
programs, public education, educational
curriculum materials, household hazardous  waste
and special waste programs (e.g., used oil, tires,
and lead-acid batteries), marketing and service
directories, and information networks for both
public and private solid waste managers.  States
also may provide funding for state-wide program
support activities, such as state-wide
coordination of local and regional  programs.
                                                                                                   17

-------
  Chapter Two
  State grants can boost capital and staff when
  programs need to expand; even small grants can
  help local community-based programs get off
  the ground. Minnesota, for example, has a
  statewide grant program to help fund planning
  and start-up of alternative disposal programs.
  Many states fund local waste management
  through outright program or project grants.
  Connecticut, for  example, plans to provide
  substantial program, technical, and financial
  assistance to local levels of government.
  Connecticut also will make a substantial
  investment in the state-wide recycling effort in
  terms of program resources, planning, and fixed
  capital expenditures for plants and equipment.
                 / f otential ^  j   7
           State ^ranj Allies  1',
         Improving Sites
                             < '• ' •• •-  V '"'  «•
                             stni& antf

         separation,
        PttXriffiug tatfit
              "  * s

        SProvidSijg ojpccating subsidies for rwydmg '
        jprograai development and csgaasloa,
        including ptirchaiscs. of teiiidlngs, l
                 mathaiiay, fami^ and
  Federal  Statutes and Regulations

  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

  In 1965, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SDWA)
  was passed to improve solid waste disposal
  methods.  It was amended in 1970 by the
  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
  (RCRA).  The Act is amended by Congress to
  reflect changing needs.  It has been amended
  twice since 1976; once in 1980 and most
  recently in November, 1984.  The 1984
  amendments, called the Hazardous and Solid
  Waste Amendments (HSWA), significantly
  expand both the scope and detailed
 requirements of RCRA. Municipal solid waste
 is regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA

 RCRA - Subtitle D

 The primary goal of the Subtitle D program is
 to encourage solid waste management practices
 that promote environmentally sound disposal
 methods, maximize the reuse of recoverable
 resources, and foster resource conservation.  To
 achieve these goals, EPA established both
 technical standards for solid waste management
 facilities and a program under which states may
 develop and implement solid waste management
 plans.

 Technical Standards.  RCRA Subtitle D
 establishes technical standards for the
 environmentally safe operation of solid waste
 disposal facilities.  In 1984, HSWA made these
 standards even more stringent.  At a minimum,
 waste disposal facilities must comply with the
 federal standards, although  states may adopt
 more stringent  standards.  Commonly called the
 Subtitle D Criteria, the EPA standards set out
 mandatory, minimum technical requirements for
 environmentally acceptable  facilities.  HSWA
requires EPA to revise the  Subtitle D  landfill
criteria.
                                                                 .
                                                                                  1
                                                                                   o
18

-------
                                       Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management Decision Making
EPA is expected to finalize the revised landfill
standards in early 1990. These revised
standards will require, at a minimum, ground-
water and gas monitoring, establish criteria on
the acceptable location of new or existing
facilities, address other landfill design and
operating issues, and provide for corrective
action, as appropriate.  The revised rule also
will set performance standards for closure and
post-closure care, and also will require financial
assurance for closure, post-closure, and
corrective action costs for known releases.  In
addition to revising the standards, HSWA
requires that the states establish a permit or
prior approval program for facilities receiving
small amounts of hazardous waste.

State Plans.  The RCRA Subtitle D legislation
seeks to encourage state solid waste
management plans. Solid waste management
plans are an excellent planning and resource
management tool; all states, counties, and local
governments are strongly encouraged by EPA to
adopt them.  Although this portion of Subtitle
D is voluntary, many states have waste
management plans in place and have submitted
them for approval to EPA

EPA's role has been limited to setting the
minimum regulatory requirements that states
must follow in designing their plans, and
approving plans that comply with these
requirements. Responsibility for developing and
implementing the plan lies with each state, and
states continue to develop and implement solid
waste management plans that go well beyond
the current  federal requirements.  EPA is now
pursuing a renewed federal emphasis on solid
waste and Subtitle D programs.

The recent trend has been for states to require
local governments to adopt plans of their own
to foster better solid waste management at the
local level.  Moreover, states may require local
governments to comply with a variety of waste
management practices and develop programs to
achieve specific targets. As discussed earlier in
this chapter, decision makers should be aware
of the wide variety of approaches and
requirements these plans can include.  Grants
also may be available at the state level to help
local decision makers develop and implement
solid waste  plans.
RCRA Subtitle F - Government Procurement

Subtitle F of RCRA, also known as Section
6002, requires the federal government to
participate actively in procurement programs
fostering the recovery and use of recycled
materials and energy.  This not only serves as
an example for similar programs at the state
and local level, but is, in fact, required of
governments and  contractors  receiving federal
funding for a variety of programs. Section 6002
of RCRA requires federal agencies and other
applicable groups receiving federal funds to
procure items composed of the highest
percentage of recovered materials practicable
and to delete requirements that products be
made from virgin materials or that prohibited
the use of recycled materials.  Section 6002 also
directs EPA to prepare guidelines for procuring
products made from recovered materials.  EPA
issued four guidelines in 1988 and 1989 for
paper and  paper products, refined lubricating
oil, retread tires,  and building insulation
products.  Among other things, these guidelines
recommend minimum recovered material
content standards.

RCRA Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste

Subtitle C of RCRA regulates the generation,
transportation, and  treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste.  Wastes designated
as hazardous under RCRA Subtitle C are
legally excluded from Subtitle D incinerator and
landfill facilities and must be disposed of at
facilities permitted under the Subtitle C
regulations.  Subtitle C becomes important to
decision makers when planning for the disposal
of hazardous elements of the municipal waste
stream and when planning for the disposal of
hazardous  residues, fractions, or wastes
generated by processing, or treatment of
municipal solid waste.

Clean Air Act (CAA)

Combustion facilities must meet source
performance standards that limit emissions of
individual pollutants to the air.  In addition,
facilities must meet these standards by using  the
best available technology. Although guidance
for Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
was published in  1986, local decision makers
should note that  the definition of BACT may
be subject to change as EPA evaluates both
                                                                                               19

-------
Chapter Two
new control technologies and new information
on specific toxics.

Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Clean Water Act affects waste disposal
facilities generating ash-quench water, landfill
leachate, and surface water discharges.  Disposal
of ash-quench water and landfill leachate can
present problems for solid waste facilities
because many wastewater treatment plants
cannot accept these discharges. Facilities
generating surface water discharges must use the
best available technology to control these
discharges and obtain a permit to  discharge.  If
a facility discharges to a sewer system rather
than directly to surface waters, the facility must
meet pre-treatment standards.   Furthermore, the
1987 reauthorization of the Clean Water Act,
called the Water Quality Act,  mandates site-
specific requirements for facilities  that discharge
to streams where the best available technology
still fails to meet the standards. One additional
element of the Water Quality Act concerns
storm water runoff, requiring storm water
management plans for facilities whose storm
runoff volume exceeds specified limits.  Finally,
a facility within a wetlands area, needs  a Section
404 permit under the Clean Water Act.
              1986 Tax Reform

       DecisJou waters shoiM fee swai»'of some of   ,
       the aspects o£ fte 1S86 ISax StefQHta <&et tiat
       m^ alfeet toimicipal waste jnaaagein'eat. Qa
       the one band, tte tax irefoaa removed me? state
       caps- oa prtsate activity bond* fot «unicipaHy-
       has, hOWfiVfir, left vety few tax incentives for
       Integrated S<5lid waste management. Because of
       cftaages to the investment tax credit, the
       aqw3erat
-------
                                        Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Management Decision Making
waste-to-energy projects due to the role
revenues play in long-term financing. Although
state policies vary, many states set attractive
rates for waste-to energy facilities as part of a
state policy to encourage municipal solid waste
combustion and allow this  critical market to
remain available.

Decision makers considering waste-to-energy
facilities must review Federal and especially
state legislation governing resource recovery and
cogeneration when determining whether  waste-
to-energy is a viable option for the community.

Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

CERCLA (i.e., Superfund) concerns decision
makers for two reasons.  First, decision  makers
must consider the potential for long-term
liability under Superfund for current and past
waste disposal practices. Careful planning may
lead decision-makers to incorporate financial
assurance mechanisms into their  long-term
waste disposal strategy, in addition to more
stringent design and operating requirements for
their program's facilities. Second, the Act
applies to any environmental cleanup, and a
substantial number of the sites currently listed
as Superfund sites are municipal landfills.
Therefore, decision makers may have to assess
carefully the overall program impact of
Superfund requirements on current landfill
activity.

New Rules

Local decision makers also should be aware of
new federal and/or state regulations governing
the generation, processing, treatment, and
disposal of solid waste and processing by-
products.  EPA is presently developing
regulations for new and existing  municipal waste
combustor air emissions under the Clean Air
Act.  These are scheduled for proposal  in
November 1989 and promulgation in December
1990.  These EPA guidelines  are likely  to
require regular testing and continuous
monitoring of specific operating  parameters.  In
the interim, EPA has issued a set of combustion
guidelines termed "good combustion practices,"
reflecting the advances made  in emissions
control  in facilities worldwide.
Also of note, EPA is using both the Clean Air
Act and RCRA to  develop its regulatory
program for municipal solid waste landfills.
Consequently, EPA's Air Office is developing
regulations for new and existing landfills under
the Clean Air Act.  These regulations are
scheduled for proposal in the spring of 1990.

Also, legislation is  pending in Congress for
special RCRA standards under Subtitle D
requiring EPA to develop regulations for ash
management and reuse.  The controversy over
the safe handling and disposal of ash has
resulted in a number of legislative initiatives at
both the federal and state levels. Several states,
including Washington and New York, are
developing ash testing and management
regulations.

Conclusion

Decisions made today will have to provide for
safe, cost-effective, and adequate management of
solid waste well into the future.  Long-term
solutions to managing solid waste are often
expensive and require extensive program
development and community support.  Decisions
in solid waste management must be made   •
carefully; opportunities, constraints, and
alternatives must be developed thoroughly.
Communities can ill-afford the costs and long-
term effects of unsound decisions and untenable
solutions.  Prior to expending resources on
potentially unnecessary studies, analyses, and
technical proposals, decision makers must
explore the arena within which solid waste
management decisions are made. Decision
makers must develop, for the community, the
best possible alternatives for local solid waste
management by ensuring that all local,
institutional, multi-jurisdictional, state, and
federal factors are accounted for in the planning
process; concerned members of the larger
community (decision makers from other
jurisdictions) are included in the decision-
making process from the beginning; and the
broadest possible approach is adopted in
, pursuing opportunities, resources, incentives,
and assistance.  This is the first step in
developing ah integrated solid waste
management program.
                                                                                                 21

-------
 Chapter Two
                                 Chapter Two Bibliography
 Chertow, Marian, Garbage Solutions: A Public Official's Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid Waste
    Management Technologies, National Resource Recovery Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors,
    1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.  Tel: (202) 293-7330, 1989.

 Environmental Defense Fund, Coming Full Circle:  Successful Recycling Today, 1616 P St., N.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20036, September 1988.

 EPA, Decision Maker's Guide in Solid Waste Management, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.,
    1976

 EPA, Report to Congress on Solid Waste Disposal, EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C,
    October 1988. Available through:  National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161,
    Tel: (703) 487-4650.  Doc: PB89-110381 and PB89-110399.

 EPA, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action, Final Report of the Municipal Solid Waste
    Task Force, EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., February 1989. Available through
    RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

 EPA, RCRA Orientation Manual, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C, EPA/530-SW-86-001, January
    1986.  Available through RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

 State Of Connecticut, Solid Waste Management Plan, Volume II: Regional Solid Waste Recycling Plan,
    Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, December 1986.
22

-------
                                                     The Local Waste Management System
Chapter Three
         The  Local  Municipal  Waste
                 Management  System
              r

    MAJOR MESSAGES -
     -rV- ";',', f /*-    '',-'';"  ""/ ~
   \ * 'A. wastfe s:tr^am a^sessinen| provides
   ~;
       planning^ design, contractual,
                  wgbtotoicy
     * JJecJsIon m^ers must careftiily
     *-w$jfafa"$MO& ana long-term
       problems within the local municipal
      ^
    ,   management olgectives is an  '"
   ^ -Jmjieai^ft pr^flniiintary step^ Jin tne'
   '!  ftianningprocess.    """, '
          f  •# \    - -,,   , ,  ,
WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT

Regardless of the complexity of the community's
current waste management plan, some type of
assessment of the local waste stream is
necessary to provide the basic information for
making decisions regarding future waste
management.  Waste stream assessment is
defined in this Guide as  a procedure designed to
determine some basic aspects of the local waste
stream: quantity, composition, and sources of
waste. Quantity refers to the amount of waste
generated in the community, both  in terms of
weight and volume.  Waste generation,
expressed in tons per year  or pounds per capita
per year, helps determine landfill capacity and
aids in equipment design.  Composition refers to
the relative amounts of different waste stream
components, expressed in pounds or tons per
year, or as a percentage of the overall waste
stream, In addition to quantity and
composition, municipal waste stream studies
also look at sources of waste. This links certain
portions  of the waste stream to specific
generators in the'community. This is
particularly important for targeting waste
management activities and setting  goals for
different elements of a waste management plan.

Why Assess the Local Waste
Stream?

In the past, waste stream assessment was not a
fundamental aspect of municipal waste
management, as  most of the waste stream was
disposed of at the local  landfill. But because of
diminishing landfill space,  environmental
concerns, and economics, communities are being
forced to consider alternative waste management
techniques.  Many of these alternatives are
more complex than the  traditional landfilling
option, and an unprecedented amount of
                                                                                23

-------
Chapter Three
information on the local waste stream is
needed.  In an integrated waste management
system, prpgram planning, facility design,
regulatory development, and financial decision-
making all require a knowledge of waste stream
quantities and composition.  The implications  of
decisions in these areas can be significant, so
the value of an accurate assessment of the waste
stream cannot be  overemphasized.
          Example Applications «f
            Waste Stream Data
                    "                     •
        quantit
               rccjt^g Mi t%e place, the size and
        number d: iSteJ&at win jbe needed;; ami
        whether atediattsaia «aJecfe«> win. tejoane.
                   '   --- -  ••- "    -
        Doting the dCVtlopnient of transfer stations,
        sizing Ibefacfliiy: wili depend on waste steam
        estiuiales are often inaccurate, resulting jn
                  flpSeiB!zei|adEftes^feoed wifi*
        interested to a «onstant and rellabll^ snjpyV of
        rwycJablennateriafe, Waste iSte^m^ "
        assessfnents can be 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 .1 1 1 1 1 i 1 & §1 §

24

-------
                                                               The Local Waste Management System
           Materials Discarded into the Municipal Waste Stream in 1986
                                         (Percent of Total)
                                          Paperand paperboard
                                               41.0%
                                                                   Misc. inorganic
                                                                     wastes
                                                                M*U  1.6%
                                 Rubber, leather,
                                 textiles, wood
                                    8.1%
Residential and Commercial Waste
The distinction between residential and
commercial generation can significantly affect
the design of a waste management program.
The relative amounts of residential and
commercial waste will depend on the particular
community. Some suburban and rural locales
may have little commercial activity generating
waste, while in a city like Los Angeles, nearly
two thirds of the municipal solid waste comes
from commercial sources (City of Los Angeles,
1989).  The local residential/commercial
distribution plays a significant role hi targeting
specific waste  management programs. In
particular, many communities with a large
amount of commercial activity are discovering
the benefits of developing commercial waste
recycling programs, as commercial sources often
generate large amounts of easily separated
materials.

Demographics

Population variations may also have a
significant impact on the municipal waste
stream, as demographic data may show certain
behavioral patterns affecting waste generation or
participation in waste management activities.  A
study of waste generation in several  Milwaukee,
Wisconsin neighborhoods showed, among other
things, that yard waste constituted approximately
1.5 to 8.2 percent of the waste stream from low
income households, while the range  was 8.8 to
16.0 percent for middle income households
(McCamic, 1985).
                   (Source: Franklin Associates, 1988)

Urban/Rural and Industrial/Agricultural
Distinctions

The urban/rural and industrial/agricultural
components of the local waste stream will also
vary from area to area.  Because these sources
generate very different types of waste, their
relative amounts should be determined.

State of the Economy

The economic well-being of a community is a
factor that may cause long-term variations in
waste generation. For example, the increase in
consumption that may be associated with good
economic tunes may be reflected in the waste
stream.       .

Deposit Laws,  Recycling Programs, Composting,
and Source Reduction

These programs can all significantly affect the
local waste stream,  depending on public
participation, types  of materials affected by the
programs, and overall success.

Process Residuals

Wastewater  treatment sludge, ash from
combustion  facilities,  and processing residuals
(e.g., processing at refuse-derived fuel (RDF)
and composting facilities) are all items that are
disposed of  in landfills, and, therefore, can be
considered part of the municipal waste stream.
                                                                                               25

-------
Chapter Three
              .  s Sources of

          Municipal Solid Waste
              ,  i  , ' s xv,> % ,-.•:• ^ "••, •.-."/ '

      * Residential

       -  Single a&tf mtdtipfe  estst)l!sW».g
                                                                                           data
For example, the
design of a waste-to-
energy facility will
require detailed
information on the
amount and
composition (e.g.,
heating value) of the
waste to be handled.
The community will
thus want a waste
stream assessment
that provides data  on
the quantity and
relative amounts of
combustibles and
noncombustibles in        ,-«..•.,
the waste  stream.
Information on the sources of waste could also
be used to target areas where separation of
materials will benefit facility operation.

Similarly, waste stream assessment to support
the development of a major recycling program
should also deliver specific information, such as
the quantities of recyclable materials arid their
sources.  In this case, a preliminary review of
secondary materials markets could be used to
target the study.
                                                                                    nien( options
                                                                                     •*.'-  "•"?< / :-
                            Bracess
                              f
     fdentii)1ng tte quantify, composition^
                '
    • waste streain is not a one-time activity^
     As^ prograias are SmplemeiBtetlji waste
     stream asSessiherit will be requireti to
     identify successful components as well
     as areas needing improvement,
ASSESSING THE CURRENT
WASTE  STREAM

Two basic methods of current waste stream
assessment exist.  The first method involves
actually performing a local waste
characterization study.  The second method
involves using existing data to characterize the
local waste stream.
26

-------
                                                               The Local Waste Management System
Performing a Local Waste  Stream
Assessment Study

Analyzing the local waste stream by actually
separating and sampling the waste  produced can
be the most accurate means of developing data
on the local waste stream.  Sampling can take
place at the landfill, incinerator, or curbside..
During the sampling program waste samples are
extracted and the contents separated, identified,
and weighed.  Samples are  taken systematically
(usually all day for a week  during each season),
depending on the precision and accuracy
demanded of the results. Provided sufficient
samples are taken, this manual separation and
assessment method provides the most accurate
and reliable information possible, because the
data are unique to the waste shed  being studied
(the waste shed is  a defined area in which the
local waste stream is generated). This method
also involves significant monetary and time
commitments.  Although the details will be
covered in Volume II of this Guide, Figure 3.2
outlines the methodology used to perform a
waste stream study.

Several points in the flowchart may need
clarification.  The waste shed is a defined
geographical area serviced by specific disposal
facilities or agreements. It is the area within
which the decision maker is responsible for
waste management operations.  Developing
communication within the waste management
system is meant to encourage participation of all
those influenced by waste management activities.
In particular, facility operators and haulers
should be kept informed of study activities,
mainly because performing the study will disrupt
their normal operations.  Decision makers
should also respect the fact that these
individuals are operating a business,  and that
some information may be considered
confidential.  Good relations between
participants will also lead to better study results
(more access to information).  The sampling
program is discussed in detail in Volume II of
the Guide.

Sort Categories

Both waste stream assessment methods also
require designating sort categories, which are
the specific waste stream components to be
identified and quantified.  Sort categories
FIGURE 3.2
Setting Up A Waste Stream
Quantity and Composition
Study
Define Purpose 1

'


Estimate Costs and 1
Understand 1
Budget Constraints 1
'
.

Define the 1
Waste Shed 1



Develop Communication I
Within the Waste I
Management System 1


Define Sort
Categories

-
Develop Sampling
Program
• Sampling Techniques
• Avoiding Bias
• Desired Precision
• Sample Size
• Statistical Analysis
• Confidence of Results
.
I


Conduct the Study 1



should be selected according to the purpose of
the study. For example, recycling markets may
be used to define sort categories  for a study in
support of recycling program development.
Figure 3.3 provides some example sort
categories.

Using Existing Data

This second method of waste stream assessment
involves using the information  in existing waste
stream assessments combined with local
knowledge of the waste stream to estimate local
municipal waste generation.  Information from
communities with similar demographic
characteristics and waste sources  can be
extrapolated to fit the local waste shed.  Also,
                                                                                               27

-------
 Chapter Three
                            5  ',,VtJ""


          Example $ori Categories
       • Bwlfc.
        ~   I
        -
        -   MoaaJ PJssttcs
        — ,  3?t%
        - N  O)

       « Metal*  ..-
                  s
        —    Otbcr DOK
        ~  " LeaEvraste
                                jsv.-,   , ,;,' ,,, ,,
                               -~,A  t,1' '   "'
                            v     ,
        TCttfles (dothin^ rags, etc.)
 local collection services and facility operators
 are excellent sources of information on the local
 waste stream, and in some cases, will have
 written records.  This method is less expensive
 and less time consuming than the first method,
 so it may be especially appealing to smaller
 communities or those with severe financial
 constraints.  There are a variety of factors,
 however, that affect waste composition, so this
 method should be used with caution.

 Waste stream data represent only a snapshot -
 data depend on the particular-waste shed and the
 time at which they are collected.  Any
 extrapolation or reinterpretation of the data
 may produce misleading results.

 Waste stream studies have been conducted
 primarily for state and county solid waste
 management planning, resource recovery facility
 planning, and recycling feasibility studies (EPA's
 Bibliography of Municipal Solid  Waste
Alternatives provides a list of several existing..
 waste characterization studies; it should be
 noted, however, that waste stream assessments
 are being performed fairly frequently and the
 data pool is expanding).

 Reports  based on these studies vary both in
 content and presentation, and are in many
 respects  difficult to compare.  When deciding
 which existing characterization studies might be
 applicable  to the local waste stream, priority
 should be given to information from studies
 conducted  for communities most similar in size,
 population, income distribution, urban/rural
 distribution, and economic base.  Although no
 two communities have exactly the  same
 demographics, some reports address areas whose
 characteristics mirror the local waste shed more
 than others.  Decision makers should also
 consider how old the studies are, as waste
 generation  changes with time.

 Choosing a Method for Assessing the
Waste  Stream

Whether communities decide to perform their
own study or rely on information provided in
existing studies depends on the type of
information needed and available resources.

Many communities electuto use existing data  to
obtain "ballpark" figures on waste stream
28

-------
                                                                The Local Waste Management System
           Sample Waste  Stream
      The fallowing data are actual figures developed
      during waste stream studies at Ingbam County,
      Michigan a&d ^Ulantic County, New Jersey,
      These case- studies not only provide examples of
      may vary for different localities.  Note, for
           '  '    "               The
                                     Jibe
      seas  ..
                     County
       Newspaper
       Corrugated
     '"' Mixed pape?
      Tofai Paper
              \v
      Ferrous Metals '
 4.74-
28.74
          5.4
      Plastic
      Food waste  "
      Wood.
                               4.0'
      Other inorganics
quantities and composition.  This is often done
when decision makers are in the early stages of

the planning process, when small programs are
being implemented, and when more elaborate
waste management programs are in the early
planning stages. It is often  the most
economical way of generating information to
make preliminary planning decisions.  For
example, if a community is contemplating a
pilot-scale curbside recycling program, then
existing waste stream data combined with local
knowledge may be sufficient.

Communities that are implementing more
comprehensive municipal waste management
options tend to use data generated by an actual
waste stream assessment performed in the
community. Large-scale materials recovery
facilities, recycling programs, and waste-to-
energy facilities usually demand detailed
information to ensure proper design. Although
these are all high capital investment options,
many decision makers feel that the cost of the
waste stream assessment is justified by the
resulting risk minimization.

In general, decision makers will have to weigh
the costs and benefits of performing an actual
waste stream assessment study. One factor to
consider is that, as more and more communities
perform their own studies, the data pool gets
larger, which reduces the probability of large
errors in an analysis based on analogous  studies.
Computer models are also available that
compile large amounts of waste stream data.
Some of these programs can be adapted  to
generate data corresponding to the local  waste
stream.

Costs of Waste {Stream Assessment

The cost of performing  a waste stream
assessment varies from community to
community. Costs associated with waste  stream
assessment studies include:

•   One time planning  cost
•   Field sampling cost
     ~  Labor
     -  Equipment
•   Data analysis cost

The actual costs of performing the study depend
on the type and quality of information needed.
On one hand, smaller communities looking for
general waste stream information may be able
to perform a study for $35,000 to $65,000 (refer
to Solid Waste Stream Assessment Guidebook put
out by The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources in 1986).  On the other hand, larger,
full-scale studies can cost as much as $400,000.
                                                                                               29

-------
Chapter Three
      Ix>cal Sources ot Information
             s ' .   . . . ^. v  . '  . . t   .  ""   ^V^  '••
     Regardless of i%e type of s-f
   ~ conducted, a large knMSunYof local
   ** infOjffljatlQB will J>e\ requirexf. W#ste
   ^ generation estimates^ source^ of waste,
   *" demograpMclnfoflttattort^ types, of
   f ~coinrfl.etcjai facilities, and employment
   «% data are "all examples  dftfee^ types of
     local infoi'ma
-------
                                                                The Local Waste Management System
example, generate large amounts of various
grade paper.  One advantage of many
commercial wastes is that they are easily
separated and recycled.  So, aside from the
quantity and composition changes that will be
experienced, introduction of these new
generators into the community will also create
new opportunities for commercial recycling and
source reduction.

Industrial Growth

Industrial growth will also affect the waste
stream, as these facilities produce significant
quantities of municipal solid waste in  addition
to industrial waste.  Decision makers must be
aware of the quantities and types of wastes
these sources produce, as they are likely to
affect the community's disposal capacity.

Par Capita Generation

It is generally assumed that the trend  of
increasing annual waste generation per capita
will continue into the future.  That is, in the
absence of changes to counter these trends,
                                     decision makers should anticipate a rise in the
                                     pounds of waste produced by an individual or
                                     household per year.  Education and
                                     implementation of source reduction will be
                                     helpful in reversing this trend.

                                     A good source of per capita projections is the
                                     EPA report entitled Characterization of
                                     Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960-
                                     2000 (EPA, 1988), which contains  estimates of
                                     future waste quantities and composition.

                                     The Effect of Waste Management Practices

                                     Accurate waste stream projections  will be
                                     difficult to make considering the rapid change
                                     in the way waste is handled.  It will  be difficult
                                     to assess the impact that future source
                                     reduction, recycling, and composting activities
                                     will have on the amount of waste requiring
                                     disposal.  But this should not discourage
                                     decision makers from making projections; rather
                                     it should encourage them.  An important result
                                     of assessing the future waste stream  is that
                                     areas of concern  may become apparent,
                                     highlighting areas where future waste
                                     management programs can be targeted.
            Gross Discards into the Municipal Waste Stream,  1960 - 2000
    1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
         1995      2000

(Source: Franklin Associates, 1988)
                                                                                               31

-------
Chapter Three
EVALUATING CURRENT WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN YOUR
COMMUNITY

After assessing the waste stream, it is important
to understand how waste is currently being
managed in the community. With this
information, the decision maker will then be
equipped to define problems in solid waste
management and set objectives for solving these
problems.

This section should assist decision makers in
answering two questions:

• How are the major components of the waste
   stream currently managed?

» If current waste management operations
   remain unchanged, what problems  may arise
   in five years? Ten years? Twenty years?

Local decision makers, planners, and public
works officials know much more about the local
system and its operation than this  Guide can
hope to address.  Therefore, the purpose of this
section is to prompt the decision maker into
asking the right questions about the local
system, perhaps indicating aspects they may not
have previously considered.

Landfill Capacity

One of the  first activities the decision maker
should undertake in assessing the current waste
management system is to evaluate the remaining
life of the local landfill(s).  In many cases,
because of the difficulty in  siting a new landfill,
this could be the most acute problem a
community is facing. It is a problem that could
drive all future waste management decisions.
Directly linked to the landfill capacity issue is
the cost of land disposal. As full capacity is
approached  and new landfills are not sited, the
demand for  the remaining landfill space
increases, which usually results in increased
tipping fees. The decision maker must ask:  if
disposal in the current landfill is to continue,
will the current waste management budget be
able to handle the increased costs?

Still another consideration that must be taken
seriously is the environmental integrity of the
current landfill.  A number of landfills have
been linked to ground water contamination.  In
many communities, the costs of cleaning up
contamination due to past disposal practices are
quite significant.  Decision makers should
determine the environmental integrity of the
local landfill and evaluate whether the landfill
should continue  to be used.  Clean up of an old
landfill can significantly limit the resources a
community can spend on new waste
management technologies.

Many communities ship their municipal waste
out of the local waste shed for disposal at a
distant facility.  It may be more difficult to
obtain information on these facilities, but it is
important to determine the same information
(e.g., projected capacity, costs, environmental
risks) if these facilities are expected to be used
into the future.  Also, decision makers should
note that growing concerns about cross
boundary shipments in receiving states and
communities could limit this option in the
future.

Collection and Transfer Activities

Decision makers should have an accurate
inventory of all collection vehicles and
equipment under the municipality's control.
They should also account for private collection
services and the  types and quantities  of wastes
they handle.  Furthermore, they should
understand collection factors such as  the labor
force, frequency of collection, point of
collection, etc. (see Chapter Four).

Most decision makers already have a clear idea
of how collection operates.  Future waste
management scenarios, however, will  probably
involve very different collection demands (e.g.,
curbside collection of recyclables, mechanized
collection vehicles, etc.).  When evaluating
waste management alternatives, decision makers
must determine if waste management options
are compatible with existing equipment and
personnel skills to determine whether new
equipment, employee skill mix, or programs will
be needed.

Existing transfer  stations should also  be
evaluated in terms of future changes  in the
waste stream and waste management  system.
The same capacity questions that applied to
landfills apply to transfer  stations.  Decision
32

-------
                                                                The Local Waste Management System
makers should also account for any recycling
activities that take place at local transfer
stations, and begin developing ideas on how
new programs may be implemented at transfer
stations in the future.

Combustion Facilities

Approximately 10 percent of the nation's
municipal solid waste is currently handled at
combustion facilities (i.e., incinerators or waste-
to-energy). These facilities may be in the
community or operated at a regional level.
Again, the main question to consider is
capacity.  How much of the future waste stream
can be handled at the facility?

In addition to the capacity question, decision
makers should also look at the potential for
materials  recovery and how future recycling or
materials  recovery programs may affect facility
operation. Combustion facilities are designed
to handle a certain composition and quantity of
waste. Some may even require that a certain
portion of the community's waste stream be
handled at the facility (flow control ordinances).
Decision makers should evaluate what
constraints current facility operation may place
on future waste management decisions, and how
they can be reconciled.

Another factor to consider with these facilities
is environmental compliance.  Regulations on
air emissions and ash disposal are expected to
change significantly in the coming years.
Decision makers should determine whether the
facility is currently in compliance, and whether
it will be in compliance if regulations become
stricter (i.e., can the facility be upgraded or
retrofitted with pollution control equipment).
Decision  makers will also want to assess the
costs of future compliance.

Recycling  Activities

Existing recycling and composting programs
should be evaluated in terms of who operates
them, what materials are involved, the status of
materials markets, the degree of public
participation, and the percentage of materials
recovered. By doing this, decision makers will
identify areas where more comprehensive
programs can be developed.
Source Reduction

Programs promoting source reduction by
individuals, businesses, and industry are
becoming more and more common. These
programs assist in decreasing the amount and
toxicity of material that is discarded.  Effects of
these programs may be difficult to  quantify, but
do have an impact on the waste stream.
ESTABLISHING WASTE
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Municipal solid waste management and planning
will involve long-term, expensive choices. Prior
to expending resources on potentially
unnecessary studies, analyses, and technical
proposals, it is important to develop a
comprehensive plan including goals and
objectives based upon external constraints, local
and multi-jurisdictional issues, waste
characteristics and waste management  systems,
and future waste patterns.  Chapters One, Two,
and Three of this Guide have provided
information that should assist decision makers
in identifying long-term goals and developing
planning objectives to meet these goals.

One of the decision maker's key functions is to
serve as the focal point for the decision-making
process. A number of people will be  involved
in the decision-making process, including
members of community groups, public officials,
technical staff, solid waste managers, and private
groups, including business and commercial
interests.  Decision makers must ensure that,
despite the number of groups or individuals
involved in the complexities of the decision-
making process, each  issue is addressed, every
major approach is examined, and that a broad
perspective is maintained throughout the
process.

Figure 3.4 provides a few sample planning
objectives. Note, they are not intended to serve
as models for any particular community; rather,
their purpose is to serve as examples  of how a
decision maker might integrate the concepts
discussed thus far in the  Guide, and come up
with objectives that give direction to the
decision-making process.
                                                                                               33

-------
Chapter Three
                                             FIGURE 3.4

                                  Sample Planning Objectives

      Some example objectives for meeting these goals are provided here.  Note, they are not
      intended to serve as models for any particular community; rather, their purpose is to serve as
      examples of how a decision maker might integrate the concepts discussed thus far in this
      Guide, and come up with objectives  that give direction to the decision making process.

      »  Local plans will include provisions for compliance of new and existing facilities with
          federal and state standards.

      •  The community will develop a strong community involvement program to enhance
          reduction, separation, recycling, composting, and facility siting programs,  in an effort to
          meet EPA's goal of 25% waste reduction and recycling by 1992.

      «  The community will apply for grant funding for program development, feasibility and
          design studies, and  technical assistance, in return for maintaining detailed records of waste
          characteristics and waste management system performance measures and  providing these
          records  to the state on a quarterly basis.

      •  Public participation will be strongly encouraged throughout the planning and decision
          making  process. Regularly scheduled public meetings will be well-publicized and held.

      •  The community will join in regional approaches for technical assistance to local programs,
          public education and information campaigns, and to assist in developing  stable markets for
          recycled materials and products.  Regional cooperation in sharing technical and managerial
          expertise and in technology transfer will be sought from neighboring communities.

      •  New programs for source reduction, separation, and drop-off of compostable organics and
          recyclables  will be pursued.

      •  An analysis of the impact of transfer stations with larger vehicles en-route to final disposal
          and smaller vehicles for pre-transfer collection will be conducted.

      •  The community will maintain the current waste disposal system, taking advantage of the
          county waste-to-energy facility.  The community will join with a state-run regional
          recycling program and contribute to the public education components of that program in
          return for processing recyclables at the regional recycling facility.
34

-------
                                                             The Local Waste Management System
                               Chapter Three Bibliography
Child, David, G.A. Pollette, H.W. Flosdorf, ''Waste Stream Analysis," Waste Age, November 1986, p. 183-
   192.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Determining the Feasibility of Resource Recovery - Guide #3 in a Series
   of Municipal Solid Waste Planning Guides, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Waste
   Management.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Estimating Composition and Quantities of Solid Waste Generation -
   Guide. #1 in a Series of Municipal Solid Waste Planning Guides, Department of Environmental
   Resources, Bureau of Waste Management

Environmental Defense Fund, Coming Full Circle: Successful Recycling Today,  Environmental Defense
   Fund, 1616 P St., N.W., Washington, D.C 20036, 1988.

EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 - 2000
   (Update 1988), Final Report, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Franklin
   Associates,  Ltd.,  March 30, 1988.

EPA, Decision-Maker's Guide in Solid Waste Management, Office of Solid Waste Management
   Programs (SW-500), 1976.

McCamic, Frederick W., Waste Composition Studies: Literature Review and Protocol, Massachusetts
   Department of Environmental Management, Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal, October, 1985.

METRO, Basic Data for Solid Waste Management, Portland, Oregon, June, 1988.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Stream Assessment Guidebook, June, 1986.

Robinson, William D., ed., The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide, New York: John Wiley and
   Sons, 1986.
                                                                                             35

-------
 Chapter Three
36

-------
                                                                       Collection and Transfer
Chapter  Four
               Collection  and  Transfer
     MAJOR MESSAGES
       -^*,        - M--"  'A
* Cpllection programs are often the
  taost; wsily coMpo«i«*tt of (he jtecirt
' waste management system; proper
  collection system fieslgtt antf
"  management can result in significant
  eost savings,
   ,••  ,         '  -•# -• - •• ' <.,. r*f,
      ", ;,\ ' "- ,„ 'lys*    % £<^* ~
« Siting difficulties in populated areas
< - " from waste sources.an^ increasuig

     Transfer stations can potentially
   , > jreduce these costs Jby increasing
 ,  ;'" Overall tioilection ^tem elficientcy.  ,
    " ? 
-------
Chapter Four
communities find this type of system more
efficient and less costly than a public system.
Privatized collection can take several forms,
depending on the needs ,of the community.
Contract and franchise are terms often used to
describe types of privatized systems.  The
definitions of these terms vary from community
to community.  Contracts often refer to
agreements (resulting from a public bidding
process) between the community and  a vendor
in which the private firm agrees to collect
refuse for a pre-specified amount of money.
Hie local government or waste management
authority is usually responsible for setting fees
and billing customers in such a system.
Franchises involve  a specified area of the
community for which the private firm is
'responsible.  Again, these agreements usually
result from a public bidding process.  With a
franchise, the private firm often directly bills
the customer at rates, that are set by the local
government.  Variations and combinations of
these systems are used throughout the country.
 Another collection option is the completely
 privatized, or private subscription system, in
 which residents choose between competing
 collection companies and subscribe to their
 service.  Refuse is collected for a fee set by the
 private company, and local governments exercise
•little control. The advantages and disadvantages
 of privatized collection are also outlined in
 Figure 4.1.
      In 1988 private collection systems
      handled 60 percent of the household
      waste and 90 percent of the commercial
      waste generated in the United States
      (Wingerter, 1988).
                                              FIGURE 4.1
                                  Public Vs. Private Collection
Public Collection
                   Advantages

    Non-profit, so no additional revenues have to be
    raised for profits;                     •
    Government operation results in purchasing advantage^
    Centralized operation allows for standardization of
    procedures;
    System flexibility is more easily designed.
                  Disadvantages

     Susceptible to political interferences;
     Short-term politics may favor cheapness instead of
     long-term economics;
     Capital expenditures take longer to process; ,
     Personnel efficiency may be lower than that of private
     firms.
Private or Contract Collection
    May be less susceptible to political interference;
    Competition can increase system efficiency and improve
    service; •
    More flexibility in establishing management structure;
    Can involve less strain on municipal budget (e.g., capital
    expenditures internal to private firm);
    Fiscal and administrative consistency.
     Profit structure and taxation costs may be passed on
     to customers;
     Community dependence on one contractor may occur
     minimigang advantages accruing from competition;
     Third party administration (requires municipal
     oversight);
     Accountability (e.g., financial difficulties and contract
     problems can hinder service).
                                                                          (Derived from: OSCAR, March 19S9)
38

-------
                                                                              Collection and Transfer
When planning the local waste management
system, decision makers should consider both
the public and private collection approaches.
The final decision will ultimately depend on
local conditions and the opinions of local
decision makers.  Both approaches have
advantages and disadvantages.  It is up to the
decision maker to determine which system best
fits the community's needs.
                     a Public Service
           palpating inonicipal solid ivaste
   ' ' collection alternatives, decision makers
     mm %&% J& miiitii the Idea <*f cnstoraeir
    •; Service.  Jn particular^ decision makers
   /f must evaluate services in terms of each
     of tne following areas;
        • -* ';  ,  ,   - --A,^
             •'          •
    .•      f ff f f  '  -    V'z-t              •.
     •  ' Efiffle&eyi minimize the cost per
         household;
          , •• A, '•  '  '    v
     *      ''/ >^fStf$   t&     te  f''f f   ' — •"
     ••       'l / *4 f < 'J  r~*-  :           ',
     f^, Ejjectivenessi satfe^- the
     "  '
     Vj'•'' J #11 social aa4 demographic groupsi
         'ensure worker safety and the
         '                    health
Standardizing Procedures

The standardization of collection procedures
within the community's decision-making
framework can provide substantial benefits to
the entire municipal waste management system.
Standardization of procedures does not
necessarily imply that the local government
delivers all collection services.  Privatization of
portions of the system is still a viable
alternative.  What it does imply is that local
government takes responsibility for the delivery
of services, and ensures that it is done in an
equitable, efficient, and cost-effective way.
 Some of the advantages of collection system
 standardization are listed here:

 •   Economies of scale; financing, purchase of
      equipment, and development of recycling
      markets can all benefit from a large,
      standardized system;

 •   Flexibility; in case of breakdown or other
      problems, standardized control over the
      system will allow alternative procedures to
      be implemented;

 •   Ability to experiment; new technologies and
      programs can be tested in a system where
      all other factors can be held constant.

 Decision makers should continually explore and
 consider methods of standardization that will
 benefit  the delivery of services.

 The remainder of this Chapter examines the
/ more specific elements  of a municipal waste
 collection system.

 Point of Collection

 The point of collection affects collection system
 elements such as crew size and storage, and
 ultimately controls the cost of collection.

 Residential Collection Point Alternatives

 Residential collection point alternatives include:

 •   Curbside/Alley;
 •   Backyard/On-property; and
 •   Drop-off Centers.

 Curbside and alley collection requires the
 resident to place the waste containers at the
 curb or alley for collection. The resident must
 then retrieve the containers from the curb.

 Backyard collection can take several forms, but
 basically involves retrieving containers from in,
 at, or behind the home.

 Drop-off centers are used in areas where
 individual collection  is impractical and in
 communities where cost savings are more
 important than service provision. These usually
 involve  regularly-emptied dumpsters or other
 containers where residents drop off their waste.
                                                                                                39

-------
Chapter Four
Evaluating Residential Collection Point
Alternatives

Curbside or alley collection is generally more
economical than the backyard system, which is
more time consuming.  Backyard collection
involves more truck idling time and more
wasted driver time.

The point of collection, however, may depend
largely on historical precedent in many
communities. Residents may demand specific
services. In  some cases, communities provide a
choice of curbside or backyard service and
charge a different price for each.

Commercial Collection Points

Commercial  waste collection usually takes place
at dumpsters located  at the establishment.
Commercial  generators often hire a collection
company to handle their waste, but some
municipalities take this responsibility. If the
municipality is responsible for commercial waste
collection, some type of standardized containers
will be most efficient, as dumpsters or other
containers must be compatible with the various
collection vehicles.
      Decision makers are encouraged to
      refer to EPA's 1976 Decision Makers'
      Guide in Solid Waste Management and
      the forthcoming Volume II of this
      Guide, which cover collection system
      design in more detail.
 Frequency of Collection

 Collection frequency is based on cost factors as
 well as customer service. More frequent
 collection is generally more costly.  A collection
 frequency of at least once a week is usually
 required for aesthetic and health reasons, as
 residential wastes usually contain food wastes
 and other putrescible material.  In more densely
 populated areas, more frequent collection may
 be required because of limited storage space in
 households and at businesses.
Evaluating Frequency Alternatives

Collection frequency largely depends on the
demographics of the area where collection takes
place and the service  demanded by residents.
Factors to consider include:

•   Costs.  Fewer trucks, employees, and total
     route miles result from less frequent
     collection.

•   Storage Space.  Less frequent collection
     may require more storage space at the
     household.

•   Sanitation.  More frequent collection
     reduces health, safety, and nuisance
     concerns associated with stored  refuse.

Storage Containers

Proper container selection can save collectors'
energy, increase the speed  of collection, and
reduce crew size.  In  general, the types of
containers used should be  defined by ordinance
or regulation, and citizens  should be informed
of what is expected of them and why.  The
various containers currently used for the storage
of household waste are described in Figure 4.2.

Evaluating Container Alternatives

When evaluating residential waste containers,
the following factors  should be considered:

•   Efficiency.  Containers -should help
     maximize overall collection efficiency.

•   Convenience.  Containers must be
     manageable for both residents and
     collection crews  -- some communities set
     maximum weight limitations.

•   Compatibility.  Containers must be
     compatible with  collection equipment.

•   Public Health and Safety.  Containers
     should be securely closed and stored.

•   Ownership. Municipal ownership  can
     guarantee compatibility with collection
     equipment, as well as symbolize a service
     to residents.
 40

-------
                                                                                   Collection and Transfer
              Residential Waste
             Storage Containers

      Containers for mechanized collection.
      Meetonfeed cotteeHoa front bvMed by me at«M<%aiay to
      compatibility with collection equipment.
      Metal or plastic cans.  Ihese common
      containers ace designed with tight-fitting lids
      anil made from galvanized metal or plastic,
      Sizes vary from 20 to $2 gallons.  Residents
      usually own this type of container,
      efScibtf laei&xfe ojf storing wsteStn. (j
             £Jsaidva»tag Variable, user fee* involve bjEBiag
      residences according to the amount of waste
      they produce in an. effort to -correlate costs with
      services, "Has system may involve charging on a
      pec-container basis, or setting a minimum fee
      for a certain number of containers with, an extra
      charge far additional containers.

      In addition to the- basic user fee methods, a
      wieJy of: pogtessive laxes or fees 
-------
Chapter Four
types of wastes collected, and union contracts
also come into play.  Decision makers should
carefully analyze the existing collection system
in an effort to optimize collection crew size.
This may involve examining the feasibility of
instituting mechanized collection vehicles, which
are more cost-efficient.

Personnel Management

Because of the repetitive nature and perceived
lack of opportunities for advancement, job
satisfaction is often low among municipal waste
collection crews.  Crew productivity, therefore,
depends directly on management effort.  This
may involve creative worker incentive systems or
innovative approaches to routing, collection
frequency, etc. Municipal managers can help
facilitate change by working cooperatively with
employees and any unions, through such
policies as advanced notice of^proposed changes,
meaningful consultation and joint planning, and
trial periods followed by mutual consideration
of initial results and new implementation
proposals.

Training is also an important aspect of any
personnel management program. It will help
collectors, drivers, equipment operators,
mechanics, and other employees to understand
both their jobs and the system better.  Training
in basic public relations, work rules, unit
operations, safety, and equipment use and care
should be scheduled at regular  intervals.

Safety is another important  consideration.  Solid
waste collection workers have an extremely high
injury rate and injury severity rate.   This injury
problem results in both direct and indirect
human  and  financial costs.  Dramatic cost
savings  can  be realized by implementing safety
training programs and providing safety
equipment such as gloves, safety glasses,
respirators,  and special footwear. In addition,
personnel managers  may find it  beneficial to
provide vaccinations to workers, especially for
exposure to hepatitis and other transmittable
diseases.

Collection Routes

Proper  routing can have major impacts on
collection system efficiency.   Not only can
person-hours and vehicle mileage be minimized,
energy can be conserved and collection crew
safety can be maximized.  As new programs
such as recycling and composting are
implemented, the waste stream may decrease.
The collection program must take this into
consideration to make collection for disposal
more efficient (Schuster and Schur, 1974).

Residential Collection Vehicles

Vehicle selection is critical to the productivity
and cost-effectiveness of waste management.
Collection vehicles come in a variety of sizes
and shapes, and are  selected based on specific
local needs. A trend that has emerged in
recent years is the move towards automated
collection vehicles.  Mechanized tipping
equipment  is rapidly gaining popularity. Instead
of hand-loading  the refuse, workers use
mechanized "arms" to lift and tilt the containers.
Mechanized collection increases worker safety
and productivity.

A number of truck types are currently used:
    Rear loaders;
    Side loaders;
    Front loaders;
    Roll-off and tilt-frames;
    Transfer trailers; and
    Vehicles designed for recyclables.
Collection vehicle bodies are usually sold as
units that are mounted on a chassis (the frame
and working parts of the vehicle, as opposed to
the body). Vendors will quote prices of the
vehicles either as "mounted" (including the
chassis) or "unmounted."  In many cases, the
municipality or private collector will purchase
the chassis separately.  Figure 4.3 outlines some
of the  trends, options, and prices associated
with collection vehicles.
42

-------
                                                                                              Collection and Transfer
                                                     FIGURE 4.3
                                             Collection Vehicles:
                                       Trends, Options,  and Prices
              Collection Vehicle  Trends

Trends in solid waste management affect all aspects of
future systems, including collection. Some of the trends in
truck design and performance are outlined here.

•    Recycling could extend the capacity of regular refuse
     collection, but will demand additional or modified
     vehicles.

•    Federal air pollution regulations (expected hi 1991 and
     1994) could affect the entire trucking industry, as
     increased pollution control will increase vehicle costs.
     Noncompliance fines associated with older vehicles
     could also affect overall collection costs.

•    Industry indicators (including the Federal Highway
     Administration) suggest that  a shortage of skilled truck
     drivers has begun in the United  States.  Labor
     forecasters are anticipating up to a 25 percent shortage
     in qualified operators of large (greater than 26,000 Ib)
     trucks, hi addition, national driver's licensing and
     testing standards are being considered.  The driver
     shortfall could impact  collection system personnel
     across the country.  Not only may salaries rise
     (increasing collection costs), filling positions could also
     become difficult, as in some cases, drivers also serve as
     part of the collection crew.

•    A national plan to overhaul truck weight laws and
     enforcement is under consideration.  Because of the
     high weights and short wheel base associated with
     collection vehicles, these laws could have a major
     impact on collection, as many existing trucks may not
     meet future requirements.

•    Another trend in truck design coincides with
     anticipated standards from the National Highway
     Traffic Safety Administration. Safety equipment could
     add over $29,000 to the cost of a state-of-the-art truck.

(Source: Waste Age. August 1988)
        Options and  Prices  (1989)

When purchasing refuse collection vehicles, buyers look at
body, hydraulic, and chassis specifications.  In particular,
bodies should meet all American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) safely standards with standard equipment.

•    Chassis.  Chassis prices vary greatly, depending on the
     body design desired. The ballpark for chassis prices is
     in the range of $74,000 to $82,000.  Mounting charges
     are in the range of $3,000 to $5,000.

•    Rear Loaders.  These units can be loaded by hand or
     automatically.  The trucks are usually grouped into
     categories based on the rated compaction pressure of
     the truck.  The different categories are heavy-duty,
     medium-duty, and light-duty. Unmounted heavy-duty
     (20-31 yd.) rear loaders range from $45,000 to
     $48,000. Medium-duty (16-25 yd.) prices are $35,000
     to $40,000.

•    Side Loaders.  These units also come in hand loading
     and automatic loading versions (some of the automatic
     loading vehicles can be operated from inside the cab).
     Unmounted, hand loading units (10-32 yd.) range from
     $40,000 to $45,000.   Mounted, the hand-loading units
     are $70,000 to $90,000, and the mechanized systems
     are $110,000 to $120,000.

•    Front Loaders. Front loaders are used to pick up
     dumpster-type containers.  One person usually both
     drives and operates  the collection device.  Front
     loading vehicle prices range from $50,000 to $55,000.

•    Roll-Off Containers. The price of cable systems range
     from $15,000 to $20,000, while hydraulic systems are
     in the $24,000 to $56,000 range.

•    Transfer Trailer.  Transfer trailers come in two basic
     varieties: open-top and enclosed. Standard open-top
     trailers (45 ft, 115 cu. yd.) cost from $45,000 to
     $50,000. 6 axle trailer: $50,000 to $70,000.  8 axle
     trailer: $60,000 to $80,000. Enclosed: $40,000 to
     $50,000. Multi-axle units: $25,000 to $75,000.

•    Vehicles for the Collection of Recyclables.  These
     vehicles are discussed in Chapter Six of this Guide.
                                                                (Prices based on contacts with vendors and industry
                                                                representatives)
                                                                                                                    43

-------
Chapter Four
Evaluating Collection Vehicle Alternatives

Decision makers will want to consider several
factors when selecting collection vehicles.  In
terms of personnel, the ease of entry and exit
and the materials loading efficiency should be
considered.  In terms of the vehicle, storage
capacity and fuel efficiency are important
considerations. Capital, operating, and
maintenance costs should also be  part of the
evaluation.

Factors related to the local system will also play
a role in vehicle selection.  Housing density and
the number and configuration of one-way and
dead end streets place constraints of vehicle
maneuverability, as do traffic conditions and
topography.  Road and bridge conditions and
vehicle weight limits are also important factors.
The distance from the route to the unloading
point is also important.

One additional consideration is the flexibility of
equipment to adapt to changing collection
demands. Long-term goals, plans, and
anticipated changes should be part of the
evaluation process.

Planned Preventive Maintenance

A standardized, planned preventative
maintenance program  can provide long-term
benefits to the collection system.  Fewer
emergency failures and road calls  will occur
when vehicles are well maintained. Also,
maintenance costs can be reduced, as problems
are detected early in a system that regularly
checks equipment.  In addition, when deciding
on new vehicles and equipment, decision makers
and local collection staff can  rely  on the
increased experience and knowledge when
making decisions (Hickman, 1986).
Rural Collection

Although many of the collection factors that
apply to municipal collection also apply to rural
collection, sparse population creates some
unique planning considerations.  For example,
in large areas with low population density, the
benefits of cooperative, regional approaches can
be substantial.  This is true for financing the
system,  purchasing equipment, and hiring
personnel.  Also, when planning a rural
collection system, decision makers should  allow
the flexibility to accommodate growth and
expansion.  Another planning consideration is
the ability to integrate the town's system with
collection systems currently existing throughout
the region;

Rural Collection Alternatives

A traditional method of rural waste
management  has been disposal  on one's own
property. Although this method can be
convenient for homeowners, local officials may
find the need to exercise more  control over
waste disposal in order to avoid adverse
environmental impacts.

Aside from disposal on one's own property, four
basic rural collection alternatives are used:

•   Direct haul by residents to disposal site;
•   Centrally located bulk containers ("Green
     Box" containers);
•   Roll-off containers; and
•   "Mail Box" collection of solid waste.

The options are outlined in more detail In
Figure 4.4.

-------
                                                                                Collection and Transfer
                        4,4
    Rural Collection Options

 Direct haul by residents ia a disposal fatality is
 generally used in sparsely populated, areas where
 a collection system Is impractical.  This method
 does involve Inconvenience to the resident, and
 may ajso be difficult to «osttoL
       box peters to the use of 8 to l£ 6 made to
 powjde for eustoajer s«fe(35 for example, the
 cottfaMer should Tx? ^s% loaded by .re$&te»t$,
 ]p»s0e
-------
Chapter Four
Transfer  Station Planning

As with other municipal waste management
facilities and programs, there exists a need for
public responsibility at transfer stations, whether
they are municipally or privately operated. The
primary reason for this is to ensure that the
waste is managed according to local goals and
objectives.  This may involve keeping waste
streams segregated in conjunction with disposal
or recovery programs.  For example:

"    In-state and out-of-state waste may be
     accepted at the facility. Accounting for the
     flows of these waste streams requires
     monitoring to ensure that all waste received
     is identified.

•    Hazardous and non-hazardous waste must
     be segregated.  Most municipal waste
     transfer stations will not accept hazardous
     waste unless designated handling areas
     exist.

•    Commercial and residential waste may T)e
     kept separate for the purpose of recovering
     material.  Many commercial waste loads
     contain large amounts of recyclable
     materials, such as  office paper.

Transfer  Station Design

Transfer station categories are briefly outlined
in Figure 4.5 and some of the associated
advantages and disadvantages are included.

Transfer Vehicles

Transfer vehicles come in two basic varieties:

•    Open-top trailers, and
"    Enclosed trailers.

Open-top, noncompaction trailers are lighter
than their compactor counterparts and,
consequently, a larger payload can usually be
loaded in these vehicles before weight limits are
reached, unless the waste has  been previously '; ;.
compacted.  There are difficulties, however,
associated with covering the trailer (usually
requires more than one person to pull the
canvas tarp over).
Compaction trailers are enclosed vehicles that
are loaded by some type of stationary
compactor.  This type of trailer is easy to
unload (they are usually equipped with some
type of hydraulic blade) and problems associated
with canvas tops are avoided.  The compaction
or ejection equipment, however, constitutes
"dead-weight"  in the vehicle so waste payloads
are smaller due to  legal weight limitations.

Transfer trailer options and prices were
presented in Figure 4.4.

Factors Affecting Transfer Vehicle Selection

Decision makers should consider:
     Capital costs;
     Capacity of the trailers;
     Type of station;
     Length of haul to disposal site;
     Hours of haul/day;
   .., Quantity of waste; and
     Weight limits.
Transfer Station Costs and Benefits

Developing and operating transfer stations
involves significant capital costs, including land
acquisition, buildings, equipment, and haul
vehicles.   Costs of design, site preparation, and
construction are also significant,

Substantial benefits, however, can also be
realized.   Cost savings resulting from transfer
station implementation may include:

•    Reduced  nonproductive time of collection
     crews;
•    Reduced  truck mileage;
•    Reduced  maintenance costs (smaller
.     collection vehicles stay on paved roads,
     Limiting the suspension and drivetrain
     problems associated with driving at
     landfills); and
•    Increased use of lighter duty collection
     vehicles.                  '"""
46

-------
                                                                                                Collection  and Transfer
                                                      FIGURE 4.5
                                  Transfer  Station Design  Alternatives
          Design Option
            Advantages
          Disadvantages
Tipping floor, open-top trailer

•    Large tipping floor where
     collection vehicles unload
•    Dozers organize and push waste
     into openrtop trailers

Pit. Open-Top Trailer

•    Collection vehicles unload directly
     into a large pit
•    Tractor with dozer or landfill-type
     blade organizes the waste and
     pushes loads into open-top
     transfer trailers
Direct dump, open-top trailer

•    Collection vehicles dump loads
     directly into open-top trailers via
     large hoppers
•    Stationary or mobile clamshell
     equipment can be used to
     distribute the waste in trailer
Hopper-type compaction

•    Waste is gravity-fed via hopper
     into a stationary compactor that
     compacts the waste  before or
     while entering the trailer.
Push-pit compaction

•    Collection vehicles dump their
     loads into large steel or concrete
     pits    '
•    Large hydraulic blade moves the
     waste to compactor charging box
•    Compactor packs the waste into
     the trailer

Stationary compactor, roll-off container

•    Low-volume operations such as
     rural drop-off centers
•    Refuse unloaded directly into
     container

Track and top-load

•    Tracked compactor followed by
     loading in open-top trailers
•   Requires little site work
•   Involves relatively low building
    costs
•   Can separate recyclables
    Collection vehicles unload while
    loading and transfer operations are
    still going on, reducing transfer.
    time.
    Pit serves as storage area
    Efficient system for high volumes
    , of waste
    Can separate recyclables
    No intermediate handling of the
    waste involved, increasing
    efficiency
    Facility shutdown rare because no
    complicated equipment involved
•   Not as efficient as other systems
    for large volumes of waste
•   Requires three-level facility
    (considerable amount of site work
    and capital investment)
•   Efficient for small capacity
    demands
    Large compactor can usually
    handle all types of wastes,
    including large and bulky wastes
    Pit acts as storage area during
    peak arrival
•   Container may be equipped with
    compactor to handle lighter
    materials.
•   Efficient for larger facilities
    (over 300 tons per day)
    If large amounts of uncompacted
    wastes received, difficult to attain
    maximum payloads (operation may
    require separate trailer-packing
    machines)
    Collection vehicle unloading not
    independent of transfer vehicle
    loading (additional tipping
    floor/storage space may be
    required)
    If compactor fails, no alternative
    method of loading
    Trucks may line up waiting to
    unload because of limited hopper
    size.
    Large capital investment
    Facility operation depends on
    operation of the compactor
    Bulky and large materials may
    create problems with small
    compactor
    Operation depends on functioning
    compactor
                                                                                                                      47

-------
Chapter Four
Evaluating Transfer Station Options

In addition to costs, decision makers should
also address these important questions when
investigating the feasibility or appropriateness of
transfer stations:

"   Will a short haul to the existing landfill
    remain so in the future  (i.e., is a new, more
    remote landfill expected to open)?

»   Is the current collection system large
    enough to make a transfer station
    economically feasible?

•   Is less traffic to the landfill desired?

•   How strong is public opposition to siting a
    new facility?

"   Can an existing landfill site be used as  the
    transfer station site?

Another factor to consider in transfer station
planning is the demands of the local disposal
facility.  For example, waste-to-energy facilities
will not usually accept baled wastes.  Prior  to
designing the transfer station, it is necessary to
identify all specification  demands that are in
place at these facilities.
         Smng Transfer Stations

      A fundamental transfer station design
      factor is tttfe community's vraste
      volume estimate.  History shows that
      estimates are ofte» l«tacc«itate>
      resulting in oversized or undersized
      facilities faced witb operating losses
      and high tipping fees,  Acciwate waste
      stream assessment data and
      estimating the changes iit fiie waste
      Stream due to recycling or other
      programs (discussed $» Copter
      Three) ai;e the'Only ,way to-avoid this
      problem. ^,"  -- -"-  s-
          Of her Transfer Station
              Design Elements

      Modem transfer stations are usually
      equipped with the following:
       Office space;
       Employee facilities;
       ¥ael depot;
       Fences?
       Landscaping and berms;
       Maintenance shop.
Siting Issues

Several criteria determine where a transfer
station should be located. Some of these are
more obvious than others.  First of all, the
transfer station should be near the collection
area, since minimization of travel distances  is
the whole purpose of the transfer station.  In
addition to proximity to the collection routes,
access to major haul routes is also important in
optimizing transfer vehicle productivity.  Access
roads must be able to handle heavy truck traffic,
and truck routes should be designed to
minimize the impact of the vehicles on
neighborhoods. Aside from the routing issues,
the land on which the facility is built needs to
be zoned for industrial purposes, and the area
used should provide  adequate isolation.  Siting
the facility will also involve garnering
neighborhood and community acceptance, which
in many cases is the  most difficult task.  Some
communities have had success using closed
landfill sites as sites  for new transfer stations.

Integration With Other Waste
Management  Options

Operating a transfer  station can have significant
impacts on other  elements of an integrated
solid waste management system and, if properly
planned, these impacts can be extremely
positive.
48

-------
                                                                               Collection and Transfer
Recycling

Recovering materials for recycling at transfer
stations is not a new activity.  Private facilities
receiving loads with large quantities of
recyclables (i.e., corrugated cardboard) have
taken advantage of selling these easily separated
materials for years.  This practice of recovering
recyclables at transfer stations is becoming more
widespread.  Corrugated cardboard, paper,
wood, metals, plastics, waste oil, glass, and
household hazardous wastes are all currently
collected.  Not only are portions of the
incoming waste stream marketable, recycling
removes materials that would otherwise be
disposed of. This creates transport and disposal
cost savings.

Developing a more comprehensive recycling
program at a transfer station may involve
significant planning on the part of the decision
maker. For example, equipment and employees
to separate the materials are likely to be
required, as may be processing equipment.
Incoming vehicles will have to be monitored, as
some contain large amounts of recyclables which
may become useless if mixed with other refuse.
The benefits of recycling programs often
outweigh these planning, monitoring, and cost
concerns.
                      «ajft fcffily serre as
     drop-off centers for recyelables, as long
     a£ *»jtotte«s «r specific areas aa*
     designaieil for this purpose.  Aluminum,
                          are often delivered
     by residents to specific areas at transfer
     stations" _   ,  ,
Landfill Operations

Transfer stations will also have a positive
impact on landfill operation, as less traffic in
and out of the facility and less on-site
congestion can be expected to  result.
                                                                                                  49

-------
Chapter Four
                                Chapter Four Bibliography
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Health and Safety in the Workplace,
    AFSCME, 1625 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Tel: (202) 429-1000.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Estimating Transportation Costs:  Guide #2 in a Series of Municipal Solid
    Waste Management Guides, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Solid Waste
    Management.                                       .

Davis, Ed, Is Resource Recovery for You?, Arkansas Energy Office, Arkansas Industrial Development
    Commission, June,  1986.

"Designing the Truck of the Nineties," Waste Age, August 1988, p. 57.

Hickman, H.L., "Collection of Residential Solid Waste," in The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical
    Guide, ed., William D. Robinson, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986, p. 191.

Legler, John A., "Regulations May Dictate Smaller Route Trucks," Waste Age, August 1988, p. 68.

Moeger, Cathy Berg, Solid Waste Management Planning Guidebook, Minnesota Pollution Control
    Agency, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, June 1986.

OSCAR, City ofPawtucket Planning Study, State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental
    Management, Providence, RI, March 1989.

Peluso, Richard A and Ernest  H. Ruckert III, "Waste Transfer: The Basics," Waste Age, December
    1988, p. 88.

Resource Integration Systems Ltd., Collection Cost Savings Study, Phase III, State of Rhode Island
    Department of Environmental Management, Providence, RI, May 1988.

Schuster, Kenneth A, A Five-Stage Improvement Process for Solid Waste Collection  Systems, EPA,
    Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., 1974.  Document No. SW-131.

Schuster, Kenneth A, and Dennis A Schur, Heuristic Routing for Solid  Waste Collection Vehicles,
    EPA, Office of Solid  Waste, Washington, D.C,  1974.  Document No. SW-113.

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Residential Waste Collection: Hazard
    Recognition and Prevention, Public Health Service, National Institute for Occupational Safely and
    Health, Washington, D.C.,  1982.

Wingerter, EJ., "The Role of Privatization," Waste Age, September 1988,  p. 210.         -
50

-------
                                                                             Source Reduction
Chapter  Five
                       Source   Reduction
    .... «v Source reduction is aa approach that

       addresses $t0w products art?
       mamaffacturedj purchased, and used*

    vf' Source redaction technical options

       material volume, reduced toxicity,
       increased product lifetime^ «r
     ,  decreased consumption.

    ,/« Source redHCtion prograii
     ', approaches can be implemented
        financial incentives and disincentives-,
        developments^
      "• f  v" "•" f •,ns*\^  -. ".
     f '  *   •* '
WHAT IS SOURCE REDUCTION?

EP A's Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for
Action, defines source reduction as "the design,
manufacture, and use of products so as to  ,
reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste
produced when the products reach the end of
their useful lives." Source reduction is not a
waste management tool, although it can have a
positive impact on waste management systems.
It involves considering the ultimate destiny of
products when making decisions on how the
products are made and which products or
materials are used.

Source reduction may occur through the design,
manufacture, and packaging of products with
minimum toxic content, minimum volume of
material, and/or a longer useful life.  Source
reduction may also be practiced at the
corporate or household level through selective
buying patterns and reuse of products and
materials.

Implementing a source reduction program
involves changes in the way products are made
and used.  It is an ethic that is applied
throughout a product's life  cycle (design,
manufacture, sale, purchase, and use). It is a
non-traditional approach to the municipal solid
waste management dilemma in that it addresses
the waste problem prior to  generation.
Historically, waste management has been an
"end-of-pipe" (after the product becomes waste)
activity.

Source reduction as waste reduction is not
currently a widely applied concept, so it is
difficult to estimate the actual  impact that
source reduction programs have had  (or will
have) on the waste stream.  Although the exact
benefits of source reduction are difficult to
quantify, the benefits are conceptually clear.
For example, through the implementation of
source reduction activities,  landfill capacity and
                                                                                         51

-------
 Chapter Five
natural resources are conserved, less energy is
used during product manufacture, and air,
water, and land pollution are reduced.
 SOURCE REDUCTION
 PROGRAMS

 Source reduction activities fall into some basic
 categories.  Examples are provided here to
 clarify the categories.

 Product reuse

 An example of product reuse is the reusable
 shopping bag.  Rather than taking a bag from
 the store after each trip, a reusable  bag could
 be used several times.  Using reusable products
 instead of their disposable equivalents reduces
 the amount of materials that must be managed
 as waste.

 Seduced material volume

 Larger food containers can reduce the amount
 of packaging used (provided the larger size does
 not lead to  food spoilage).  For example, a
 single  16-ounce can uses  68 grams of metal, or
 40 percent less  than the 95.4 grams  used in two
 8-ounce cans (Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
 1989).  Lighter aluminum cans and glass, buying
 in bulk, and using concentrates are other
 examples.
Reduced tcadcity

In an effort to reduce adverse environmental
impacts from recycling and other waste
management alternatives, source reduction
programs encourage reducing the amount of
toxic constituents in products entering the waste
stream. Less problematic substitutes for the
toxic constituents need to be developed and
used.  For example, substitution for lead and
cadmium  in inks and paints is a source
reduction activity.

Increased product lifetime

Products with longer lifetimes can be used over
short-lived alternatives that are designed to be
discarded  at the end of their useful  lives.
Technical gains, as  hi the manufacture of longer
lasting tires, is a good example of where this
has been successfully applied.  Source reduction
policies also encourage a design that allows for
repairs and continued use rather than disposal.

Decreased consumption

Consumers can be educated on what materials
are difficult to dispose of or are harmful to the
environment.  Buying practices can be altered
(e.g., buying in bulk) to reflect this
environmental consciousness.  Retail purchasers
should also be given the opportunity to alter
buying practices with respect to source
reduction.
             -^VOLj/VV  :^j'^'&y-
                                       OH
           '   "V^  * 1;, J; "  % » ,,  ^^ t'^'-
      Source re
-------
                                                                                   Source Reduction
         Citizen-Based Activities
    to Encourage Source Reduction
     Everyday activities <5an encourage source
     reductipn and citizens can Ije taught to become
     "environmental poppers/ Consumer activities
     that encourage 'source reduction can include:

     »  Buying in bulk;
     »  Avowing disposable items such as razors
         and batteries when reusable alternatives are
                                    ,
         Jtewslsg eoattnoa products, such, as jjfestte
                ,
                 88 fctads 
-------
 Chapter Five
 Examples of financial incentives and
 disincentives include:

 Tax Credits/Exemptions.  These may be given to
 companies and institutions that follow specific
 source reduction procedures for manufacturing
 or consuming.

 Variable Waste Disposal Charges for Garbage
 Collection.  A number of localities have
 instituted variable waste disposal charges (also
 known as per-container rates, local user fees,
 and volume-based pricing). These charges are
 variable fees, rather than a flat fee, for
 collection or disposal  of post-consumer solid
 wastes.  The fee can be based on the number of
 garbage cans used, the number of bags
 collected, or the frequency of collection.  This is
 the same type of charge system that is used  for
 other utilities, such as water and electricity.
 With this system, disposers are directly affected
 by disposal  costs and have the opportunity to
 do something about reducing costs.

 Product Disposal Charges.  These charges are
 either assessed on product or packaging
 producers at the time of manufacture, or on the
 consumer at the time  of purchase.  These
 charges differ from deposits, because they are
 non-refundable; instead the cost  of the product's
 eventual disposal is incorporated into the
 charge.  Although these charges  can encourage
 source reduction on economic grounds and the
 funds generated from the charges can be used
 to correct and reduce  impacts of product
 disposal, it is difficult  to assess such charges
 effectively and efficiently.   Different product
 disposal charges include:

 •  Per-Unit Taxes establish different rates
    according to category,  material composition,
    or product size. Taxes on products that use
    excessive packaging are an example.  These
    taxes affect manufacturer and consumer
    behavior by influencing choices of packaging
    materials produced, utilized,  and purchased.

 •  A Product Value Tax, based  on the cost of
    the product, encourages both reduction in
    materials used to manufacture products and
    their substitution by less expensive
    materials. It can also discourage expensive,
    excessive packaging used solely for
    marketing (e.g., packaging for cosmetics and
    toiletries).
 Regulation

 Although most regulation occurs at the state
 and federal level, local authorities can
 participate in legislative activities, including:

 •  Declaring source reduction to be a top
    priority in solid waste management.

 •  Establishing a program to inform consumers
    about a product's environmental impacts,
    durability, reusability, and recyclability.

 •  Participating in the development of
    regulations that affect municipal solid waste
    management.

 Regulatory options for source control include:

 Quantify Control Regulations.  These include
 restrictions and bans to encourage substitution
 of products that have the same function, but
 that pose less threat to human health and the
 environment.  This is an area that must be
 considered cautiously; bans can unintentionally
 shift production to even less desirable
 substitutes; they might also require
 manufacturers and regulators to commit
 extensive resources to changing a product or to
 administration and enforcement, with limited
 effect on source reduction.  The idea is for
 environmental results, not just transferring a
 problem between environmental media or taking
 action to satisfy a perception rather than a fact.

Product Design Regulations.  Products that do
 not meet certain design criteria (some examples
 of which are outlined in Figure 5.1) could be
subject to quality control by sales taxes or
 restrictions.

Evaluating Source Reduction Options

Before source reduction policies can be
adopted, decision makers must first develop a
framework for evaluating policy options, using
criteria such as:

 •  Social and economic equity;

•  Economic and administrative feasibility,
   efficiency, and cost;
54

-------
                                                                                 Source Reduction
                              ,  „
         Designing Products for
             Source Reduction
               aa4 y*ans«me$ to tomase the life
     fesauet Ttestepi caangmg design to limit
     hazardous constittteats and products in
                     c o£ Environmental Impact:
      Requiting industry to provide consumers with
      information on the environinental impact Of
      products; and

     .. Pnrchasing Requirements for Government
      Agencies:  Mandating source reduction
      I>r0ettrea»en|; poeeduses to setvfc ss a good
•   Volume requirement and scarcity of  ,
    materials  and natural resources used in a
    product's  manufacture;

•   Volume of a product and its manufacturing
    by-products that eventually must be
    disposed;

•   Useful life, reusability, or readability, of  .
    the product;  and

•   Priority of source reduction of products,
    from products more hazardous to those less
    hazardous to human health and the
    environment.

Economic  and Environmental Effects
of  Source Reduction

Source reduction activities vary widely, and thus
create many factors to consider when evaluating
economic and environmental effects. .Some
factors require careful analysis, while  others may
only need a good dose of common sense.  ,
Source reduction practices can save disposal
costs, as  a smaller waste stream means there is
less waste to  transport and manage.   Reduction
of the waste stream may reduce the less
quantifiable costs of pollution  (e.g., less landfill
       Procurement Procedures to
      Encourage Source Red uction

                                ,-•    ••
      Local governments and businesses can have a
      positive impact on the local waste stream, by
      adopting procurement procedures that
      encourage source reduction.  Some examples
      'include:
               •*'       '  ,' "  ,
      «  Using: two-sided copiers;.
      »  Using toager-life tires on vehicles;
             s
         Buying
leachate, less ash to dispose of, fewer ecological
impacts, fewer aesthetic problems, etc.).

Before source reduction programs are ;
implemented, the decision maker should
research the potential environmental impacts of
the program to ensure that source reduction
measures address, the environmental problem at
hand and do  not have  side effects more harmful
than the current practice.  The program,should ,
not simply transfer an  environmental problem
from one medium to another.  The decision
maker will also want to evaluate how a source
reduction program will affect the economics of  ,
the local waste management system, mainly
because some programs may involve new costs
to local industry, businesses, and residents.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO
SOURCE  REDUCTION

Source reduction programs have been difficult
to establish for a variety of reasons, some of
which are listed here.  Decision makers should
not be intimidated by this list.  Creativity and
commitment  at local, state, and national levels
will  produce  positive results.       ,

» Current social and  cultural values seem to
   favor convenience,  time savings, and newness
   in consumer products.   However, the
   'development of a new environmental ethic,
   which is already taking place, can displace
   these old values.
                                                                                              55

-------
Chapter Five
    A change in attitude and behavior is
    required to reduce waste before it is
    produced. Many source reduction activities,
    such as buying reusable goods or goods in
    bulk, require both a conscious decision to
    reduce waste and a pre-purchase
    comparison of the waste implications of
    each product considered.  An
    environmentally conscious public will
    assume these tasks if offered opportunities
    to do so.

    Measuring source reduction effects is
    extremely difficult; without short-term
    evidence of the benefits of source reduction,
    gaining government and public support and
    funding is often difficult.  As the costs of
    municipal solid waste management continue
    to rise, however, local governments will be
    forced into investigating alternative
    approaches to waste management.
•  For industry, there may be high initial costs
    for planning and capital investments to
    minimize raw material and energy use in
    order to achieve source reduction goals.  The
    implementation of a national source
    reduction program, however, will require the
    commitment of industry, which will involve
    considering disposal costs.

»  For a number of reasons (e.g., less
    disruptive of manufacturing process),
    industries tend to concentrate on treatment
    technologies in response to pollution
    abatement regulations rather than to work
    on source reduction.  As the environmental
    and economic benefits of source reduction
    become more quantifiable, however, this
    trend may be changed.

The United States will witness more source
reduction activity in the next few years and  into
the future.   Local decision  makers can
participate  in these activities while developing
positive impacts on the local waste management
system.

-------
                                                                                 Source Reduction
                                 Chapter Five Bibliography
CONEG, Interim Report of the Source Reduction Task Force, Council of Northeastern Governors, 400
    North Capitol NW, Suite 382, Washington, D.C.  20001, Tel: (202) 783-6674, April 1989.

CONEG, Final Report of the Source Reduction Task Force, Council of Northeastern Governors, 400
    North Capitol NW, Suite 382, Washington, D.C.  20001, Tel: (202) 783-6674, 1989.

EPA, The Solid Waste Dilemma:  An Agenda For Action, Final Report of the Municipal Solid Waste
    Task Force, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C, February 1989.  Available through
    the RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

EPA, First Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction,  Office of Solid Waste
    Management Programs, Washington, D.C., 1974.

Hurst, Karen, Paul Relis, and Joan Melcher, The Next Frontier: Solid Waste Source Reduction,
    Community Environmental Council, 930 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93109, Tel: (805)
    963-0583, October 1988.

Keep America Beautiful, Inc., Overview: Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives, KAB, Inc., Mill River Plaza,
    9 West Broad Street, Stamford, CT 06902. Tel:  (203) 323-8987, April 1989.

Lauer, Pam Winthrop, State Solid.Waste Policy Report, A Focus on Greater Minnesota - Background
    Paper X:  Waste Reduction (Draft),  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Office of Waste
    Management Grants and Assistance, 1350 Energy Lane, Suite 201, St.  Paul, MN  55108.  Tel:  (612)
    649-57437(800) 652-9747, December 1988.

OSCAR, Source Reduction Task Force Report, Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling, Rhode Island
    Department of Environmental Management, 9 Hayes St., Providence, RI 02908.  Tel: (401) 277-3434,
    November 1987.

Zimmerman, Elliot, Solid Waste Management Alternatives: Review of Policy  Options to Encourage Waste
    Reduction, Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Available at Illinois Depository
    Libraries or through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, Tel: (703)
    487-4650, February 1988.
                                                                                              57

-------
Chapter Five
58

-------
                                                                                    Recycling
Chapter  Six
                                  Recycling
     MAJOR MESSAGES
   ''-' •••  understanding materials markets,,
     "\  |»ulldllag local expertise, setting
       rustic goals, and fostering public
   0 '2 participation,
     '/,<-'   L,   \£,,   '  -'-'   ""-
     »  Elements of ^ recycling program
     £^«o»Id iiflode scpep sepratioa>
     V^C&riteMti collection, materials
               facilities, awd Sail
                           '
      ,„      ..    .,,,    v    ^,
       Reeling >vllt have a positive ioipad
       oil other municipal waste
      "
Although it is not a new technique, recycling is
becoming increasingly important in municipal
solid waste management, as communities,
businesses, and industry battle the rising costs
and environmental impacts of waste disposal.

Recycling is more than the separation and
collection of post-consumer materials.  These
are only the first steps; post-consumer materials
must also be reprocessed or remanufactured,
and only when the materials are reused is the
recycling loop complete.

Recycling will be a fundamental part of any
integrated waste management plan. Recycling
alone cannot solve a community's municipal
solid waste management problem, but it can
divert a significant portion of the waste stream
from disposal in landfills or combustion
facilities. EPA has set a national goal  of 25
percent reduction of the waste stream through
source reduction and recycling by 1992  (EPA,
Agenda for Action).  Currently, only 10  percent
of products discarded are recycled, so significant
progress needs to be made.  Some existing
programs, however, have already achieved or, in
fact, exceeded this 25 percent goal. As new
post-consumer materials markets, programs, and
processing equipment develop, the nation will
move  towards this and higher goals.

PLANNING FOR RECYCLING

Dozens of different recycling options are
available, and recycling program development
will require strategic planning.  When properly
implemented, a recycling program can become a
popular municipal waste management activity
among citizens.

Start Small and Build Local
Expertise

For many decision makers, recycling is a new
waste  management option and, as with  any new
                                                                                         59

-------
Giapter Six
program, mistakes are bound to be made. An
important factor to understand during the
planning process is that many of the most
successful recycling programs across the country
began as small or even pilot-scale programs  in
neighborhoods or specific areas of the  ,
community.  By starting small, decision  makers
can build local expertise in recycling while
minimizing the problems caused by planning
mistakes.  With small-scale programs, decision
makers are able to compare and evaluate which
programs and techniques are most successful
within the community.  When the time  comes
to develop large-scale programs, decision makers  ,
will have practical experience and an established
decision-making framework which will enhance
the likelihood of program  success.

Understand and Develop Recycling
Markets

One of the most difficult yet fundamentally
important tasks decision makers must deal with
is finding an outlet for the recyclable materials
collected. Identifying markets, securing
agreements with materials  brokers and end-
users, and meeting buyer specifications are all
part of this task.  Recycling programs must  be
designed with the flexibility to handle
fluctuating markets and uncertain outlets for
materials. Consequently, market analysis will be
both a planning and  ongoing activity, as even
the most successful recycling programs can be
severely affected by market oscillations.

Decision makers can also play an important
role in recycling by working to build local
markets for recyclables in  the community. This
can be done by encouraging businesses  and
industries that use recycled materials to come to
your community or by expanding the local use
of recyclables that is already taking place.
These businesses will provide a reliable market
for recyclables and increase jobs.

Foster Public Education and
Involvement

Public participation in recycling programs is one
of the most important factors deciding a
program's success. A well-planned public
education and involvement program will foster
participation in recycling.  See Chapter Eleven
for more information.
Assess the Local Waste Stream

Planning any waste management program
requires a knowledge of the local waste stream.
This is true  of recycling.  Choosing which
materials to  recycle and designing the logistics
of the program are important parts of the
planning process that require local waste stream
information. Waste stream assessments in
support of recycling programs can be targeted
by analyzing post-consumer materials markets to
determine which materials have potential
outlets.

Augment  Existing Programs

Many recycling programs have been operated
for years by private entities such as
manufacturing facilities, waste haulers, scrap
dealers, transfer station operators, and landfill
operators.  In  most cases, these groups
recognized the revenues that could  be generated
by selling  secondary materials.  Other programs
are run by local volunteer organizations as a
community service and to raise funds.  These
programs  are important planning considerations;
the community's recycling program  should
augment the success that has been attained by
these other groups.

Local Government as an Advocate

Decision makers must play an advocacy role in
promoting recycling.  In many communities,
recycling represents  a new waste management
option that  is  unfamiliar to many people.
Recycling, however,  can be a popular activity.
Decision makers should tap into the desire
among citizens and businesses to "do the right
thing," should  design programs that make it
easy to recycle, and  then should aggressively
promote plans and programs to all members of
the community.

Set Realistic Goals and Objectives

Part of the planning process involves setting
goals and  objectives. For example, after
evaluating remaining landfill capacity and
performing a preliminary assessment of the local
waste stream, decision makers may find it
helpful to set long-term goals for the
community.  For example, a community may set
a goal of  recycling 30 percent of the residential
60

-------
                                                                                        Recycling
waste stream within the next five years.
Specific planning objectives in support of this
goal will also be helpful.  Planning objectives
may include determining which waste stream
components should be part of the program
(based on market analysis and the make up of
the local waste stream), investigating the
feasibility of a comprehensive curbside
collection program, developing  a pilot-scale
curbside program, investigating public outreach
avenues, etc.  When a plan is decided and a
program is being implemented, new, more
specific objectives should be set.  An example
could be working towards 90 percent
participation.

Decision makers should be  as realistic as
possible when setting goals  and objectives.
Recycling is not a "miracle  solution" any more
than waste-to-energy or landfilling. The
community will benefit from carefully developed,
achievable goals and objectives and an
integrated approach to waste management.

Program Evaluation

Planning for recycling is never  actually
completed; it is an ongoing process. Because
new programs and technologies are developing
continuously, decision makers should experiment
with and evaluate new options.  Even the best
recycling programs experiment with new
techniques  to improve on their current efforts.

RECYCLING PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT

Several aspects of recycling program
management should be rally understood during
the planning process.

Municipal Coordination

As discussed in Chapter One, it is important
that decision makers assume the responsibility
for managing the local waste stream.  Again,
this is not  to say that the local government
must provide all services; its role is to assure
that all services are provided properly.

Many communities choose to operate recycling
systems as  another public service. For  example,
programs are operated in conjunction with the
regular refuse collection system, including
financing programs
and raising revenues.
An advantage of
municipally-operated
systems is that the
benefits of recycling
(e.g., revenues from
the sale of materials)
are internalized
within the waste
management system.

Municipal
Corporations  or
Utilities
„  Fablie Service
 <• fir '"
  "    "*#•    *  ., r
 A recycling program
 should be seen as a
 jniblic service, and
 customer service should
 be a normal evaluation
 *
 * ,
 *
'•'••• ,
      Efficient*
              aad
An alternative to
direct local government operation is the
creation of a municipal corporation to operate
the recycling center or program.  This allows
financing from the tax base while separating
recycling from normal municipal functions.  In
such a system, the recycling program has
independent budgeting and money-raising
powers.

Regional Approaches

Regional approaches to recycling program
development are particularly important in areas
with sparse populations.  Regional systems
allow collected materials to be pooled, creating
a larger, more marketable supply for buyers.  In
addition, large scale options  such as materials
recovery facilities (MRFs, explained later in this
chapter) may be more economical at the
regional level, where economies of scale can be
significant. Economies of scale may also be
realized when purchasing collection vehicles and
equipment and financing programs.

Private  Recycling Programs

Until recently, the majority of recycling was
done through private entities such as industry,
waste management firms, and non-profit
organizations. For example, the aluminum
industry recognized the benefit of recovering
post-consumer aluminum, and set up a network
of aluminum collection and processing centers.
Similarly,  many transfer station operators
recognized that particular waste loads contain
large amounts of recyclable materials.  By

-------
Chapter Six
separating and selling these materials, transfer
station operators generate income from the sale
of goods while also creating an avoided disposal
cost savings.

In addition to these larger-scale operations,
most communities  are familiar with the
recycling drives of volunteer organizations,
which are often run as fundraising or public
service activities.  Newspaper collection and
aluminum can programs associated with
elementary schools or scouting  groups are
examples. These programs are  often operated
in conjunction with the local government, which
may supply buildings, equipment, and staff.

In many cases, private recycling programs are
well-organized and have a history of successful
operation.  A municipally-run recycling program
should augment  the success of existing private
programs.  Decision makers may find it
beneficial to tap into this experienced recycling
network.

When planning a municipal recycling program
in conjunction with existing private operations,
decision makers  should be aware that most
private programs tend to focus  on the high-
revenue, steady market materials such as
aluminum and glass. Because recycling is
essentially a money-making operation in many
of these cases, low-value  materials (such as
mixed paper and mixed plastics) are usually
avoided. This is an important consideration
when determining  the economic feasibility of
the local program.
COMMONLY RECYCLED
MATERIALS

This section briefly addresses some commonly
recycled materials and their markets.

Paper

Waste paper recycling has several advantages: it
provides mills with a valuable fiber source, it
provides income to recyclers, and it reduces
municipal disposal costs. According to the
American Paper Institute, in  1986, 200 of the
nation's 600 pulp,  paper, paperboard, and
building products mills relied almost exclusively
on waste paper for raw material, and another
300 used at least some waste paper in their
operations (API, 1986; note:  a large  amount of
this waste paper used was industrial scrap rather
than post-consumer paper).  As more recycling
programs come on line and the supply of scrap
paper increases, the paper industry  is  expected
to respond by developing more facilities that
handle secondary fiber.  The following
discussion looks more specifically at the issues
associated with recycling paper, including
market status and program considerations.

Old Newspaper (ONP). Most recycling programs
have provisions for the collection of old
newspaper, which is not only one of the most
prevalent materials in the municipal solid waste
stream, it has historically been one  of the most
commonly recycled materials.  Many volunteer
and private programs started as single material
programs, collecting only newspapers for resale.

It should be noted that old newspaper and
mixed paper markets can fluctuate greatly, and
that the market is currently down in parts of
the country (summer 1989).  One of the main
reasons for this down market is that waste
paper recovery has exceeded domestic mill
capacity.  This is especially true as more states
pass mandatory recycling laws.  With the
domestic oversupply, many ONP brokers have
turned to  foreign markets, especially in Pacific
Rim countries such as Korea.  Although the
demand is currently stronger in these  countries,
many foreign brokers are also holding out
because of oversupply.  Foreign markets can .
also present significant transport costs.

Corrugated Cardboard.  According to the
American Paper Institute, corrugated cardboard
is the largest single source of waste paper for
recycling (API, 1985). Many commercial
generators, such as supermarkets and  retail
stores, have in-house balers for preparing
corrugated for mills. Markets for good quality,
baled cardboard have historically been steady.

High-Grade Paper. High-grade papers include
computer paper, white ledger paper, key punch
cards, and trim cuttings from industrial paper
manufacturers.  The market for this material
has historically remained steady, as  good quality
product (e.g., few colored paper mixtures,
binders, plastics, etc.) can be used as a direct
substitute for wood pulp.
62

-------
                                                                                           Recycling
Mixed Paper. Mixed paper is usually collected
from office buildings and industrial plants, but
can also be collected in municipal programs.
Segregation is a key to successful paper
recycling programs. Mixed paper often contains
significant quantities of high quality paper,
which can be valuable if separated.  Also,
"contaminant" materials,  such as rubber bands,
inks, and coatings decrease mixed paper value,
as they must be removed during intermediate
processing.

Like the newspaper market, the mixed paper
market is currently soft, and the revenues may
not  outweigh the cost to collect, process, and
transport mixed paper. However, this does not
consider the benefit of avoided disposal costs.
      Baled Corrugated Cardboard, Portland, Oregon

 Aluminum

 42.5 billion of the 77.9 billion aluminum cans
 produced in 1988 were recycled (Salimando,
 1989).  The demand for recycled aluminum is
 high, as it is estimated that it takes 95 percent
 less energy to produce an aluminum can from
 an existing can than from ore (Keep American
 Beautiful, Inc., 1989).   Consequently, aluminum
 is a high-value product that is the greatest
 revenue generator of many recycling programs.

 In addition to aluminum cans, window frames,
 storm doors, siding, and gutters are all sources
of jrecyclable aluminum.  Because these material
are of different grades, recycling programs
should check with the buyer to determine
specific separation requirements.

Glass

Glass is also one of the most commonly
recycled materials and the market for post-
consumer glass has historically been steady.
Glass if often separated by color to be
reprocessed, and three categories are used:
clear, green, and brown.   Separation can take
place in the household, at the drop-off center,
or by hand-pickers or optical separators at
materials  recovery facilities.  After collection (or
drop-off)  and separation,  glass recycling involves
crushing used bottles and jars into small pieces,
forming a material called cullet that is sold to
end-users who mix the cullet  with sand, soda
ash, and limestone to form new glass containers.
Glass crushing can take place at recycling
centers, intermediate processing centers, or
material recovery facilities.  Most glass brokers
require that the glass be clean and free of
contaminants such as metal caps, ceramics,
rocks, and dirt.

Ferrous Metals  (Iron  and Steel)

According to the Steel Can Recycling Institute,
steel is the number-one recycled material in the
world,  as over 55 million tons of iron and steel
were recycled hi the U.S. and Canada alone in
 1987 (Steel Can Recycling Institute).  The
 largest amount of recycled steel has traditionally
 come from large items such as cars and
 appliances.  Many communities have large scrap
 metal piles at the local landfill or transfer
 station.  In many cases, the  piles are
 unorganized and different metals are mixed
 together, making them unattractive to scrap
 metal buyers.  Recycling programs will benefit
 from procedures keeping scrap metal piles
 orderly and free of contaminants.

 Steel can recycling is also becoming more
 popular. Steel cans are used as juice and food
 containers, and are easily separated from mixed
 recyclables or municipal  solid waste using large
 magnets (which also separate other ferrous
 metals).
                                                                                                  63

-------
 Chapter Six
 The overall market for ferrous metals is well
 established, and the demand for scrap metal is
 expected to remain steady or increase as
 processing  technologies develop.

 Plastics

 Plastics recycling is a relatively young industry,
 and only one percent of plastics are currently
 recycled.  But as processing technologies are
 developed,  plastics recycling is expected to
 expand.   The availability of materials has
 spawned  the search for new processing
 techniques  and product uses, and new markets
 are expected to develop in the near future.
 Although plastics recycling is not an established
 money-maker in many areas, the plastics
 recycling  industry is in a stage of rapid growth.
       materials, .Because^ t&e 4sag£ ^%
       tend e as ",-•-•' .,  f  ••    _.        r
      Because piastres recycling is Such, 4
      field,, tfee recycling loop is not yet
      coaiplete itt many parts of the country
    -- Significant progress must Stjli
      in the €DflecJc% separate,
     'ttocessing'of piasitesL     ,,'
        -*"*-"' »*   *.  .-'.-
Batteries

Battery recycling is not only a response to
market conditions (i.e., the price of lead), it is
also attractive due to concern over the toxic
components found in many batteries, including
lead, cadmium, and mercury.   These metals are
contaminants  in incinerator air emissions and
ash, and can cause ground water contamination
through leaching at landfills and composting
facilities.  Pressure to remove them from the
waste stream is becoming more intense.
Collection of  batteries, however, does not
constitute recycling ~ it is only the first step.
Like other materials, battery recycling depends
largely on market conditions, and requires
consistent collection and processing.  It can be
argued, however, that even when markets are
down, batteries should be separated and
collected, because disposal as hazardous waste is
more environmentally sound than landfilling as
municipal solid waste.

Lead-Acid, Batteries.  Automobiles use lead-acid
batteries, each of which contain  approximately
18 pounds of  lead and a gallon of sulfuric acid,
both hazardous materials.  Automotive batteries

-------
                                                                                          Recycling
are the largest source of lead in the municipal
solid waste stream.  Battery reprocessing
involves breaking open the batteries,
neutralizing the acid, chipping the
polypropylene containers for recycling, and
smelting the lead and lead oxides, to produce
reusable lead. Recycled lead must compete
with virgin lead suppliers and markets, which
can fluctuate greatly.  When virgin lead prices
are low, less recycling takes place.  Another
consideration in lead-acid battery recycling is
potential liability associated with the storage
and processing of hazardous materials.

Household batteries.  Household batteries come
in a variety of types, including: alkaline, carbon
zinc, mercury, silver, zinc, and nickel cadmium.
Not all household batteries are recyclable and,.
in fact, only those containing mercury and silver
are usually marketed to end users who extract
the metals. Most batteries are handled as
hazardous wastes once they are segregated from
the waste stream. The metals found in
household batteries can contaminate incinerator
air emissions and ash and cause ground water
contamination through leachate, so removal
from the waste stream  is environmentally sound,
regardless of the market value.
      Used oil and tires are also recyclable
      materials.  These are discussed in more
      detail in the Special Wastes chapter of
      this Guide (Chapter Ten).
 RECYCLING PROGRAM
 ELEMENTS

 Recycling programs are designed according to
 the needs and priorities of communities.  They
 may include a mix of strategies, ranging from
 simple, single material drop-off centers to large-
 scale, centralized processing facilities.

 Source Separation

 Source separation refers to the segregation of
 recyclable materials at the point of generation
 (e.g., the household, business, or apartment
 building).  Some source separation programs
 require that several designated materials  (e.g.,
       Recycling Program Options
       that Increase Participation
     The following program, options .have been shown
     to increase participation In recycling:
      »  Jdandatory participation

      *  CurbsMe collection (rather than.

      »  Provision of special containers
         comprenfcfls&fe aa
-------
  Chapter Six
 collection centers, which can be moved to new
 locations periodically, also increase convenience.
 Other incentives, such as  donating portions of
 proceeds to a local charity, can also foster
 greater participation.

 Buy-back refers to a drop-off program that
 provides a monetary incentive to participate.  In
 this type of program, the  residents are paid for
 their recyclables either directly (e.g., price per
 pound) or indirectly through a reduction in
 monthly collection and disposal fees.  Other
 incentive systems include contests or lotteries.
     "Igloo" Drop-Off Containers, San Jose, California
 Cnrbside Programs

 In a curbside system, source separated
 recyclables are collected separately from regular
 refuse at the curbside, alley, or commercial
 facility.  Because residents and businesses do
 not have to transport the recyclables any further
 than the curb, participation  in curbside
 programs is typically much higher than for
 drop-off programs.

 Curbside programs vary greatly from community
 to community.  Some programs require
 residents to separate several different materials
 (e.g., glass, plastic, metals, and newspaper) that
 are stored in their own containers and collected
 separately.  Other programs  use only one
 container to store commingled recyclables or
 two containers, one for paper and the other for
 "heavy" recyclables, such as glass, aluminum, etc.
 Commingled recyclables are separated by the
 collection crew or at some type of processing
 center.  Collection and processing of recyclables
 are discussed later in this chapter.
                Bay vs. Different Day
          Collection of BecyelaWes

       Stadia* have shown that when the '
       icdftection of recyclables is on. the
       same «lav «s" sepia* garbage
       sotlectlcai, particijs&iDtt rates ate
       laghfiif, fceca:«$e residents da not have
       to leans new
 Commercial Recycling

 Many communities and businesses are just
 beginning to realize the benefits of commercial
 recycling, while others have been enjoying the
 benefits of recycling such items as corrugated
 cardboard and office paper for years.
 Commercial recycling is responsible waste
 management, not necessarily a profit-making
 venture.  Businesses do, however, realize
 avoided disposal costs, a benefit that is
 becoming more significant as the costs of waste
 management rise.

 Materials recovered in commercial recycling
 programs include office paper, corrugated
 cardboard, sorted ledger paper, newspaper,
 aluminum cans, glass, steel containers, and
 plastic.  Commercial recycling programs can
 target office buildings, restaurants, schools,
 supermarkets, and hospitals.

 Community  decision makers should encourage
 commercial recycling aggressively, especially if
 commercial sources contribute significantly to
 the local waste stream.  Figure 6.1 outlines the
 basic elements of a commercial recycling
 program.

 Multi-Family Dwellings

Apartment buildings and condominium
complexes generate large amounts of recyclable
materials. Because of the large quantity of
66

-------
                                                                                          Recycling
                Recycling at
          Commercial Facilities
          Qbtak approval aotf support for tie
          reeycttog program feota tie «hk£
                 , owner, or business j
  ' select A
 •.        '
<3}
          Deteewiae the  pes aad 
-------
 Chapter Six
    possible.  Also, collection crews should be
    trained in proper handling.

 Storage in the Household

 How residents store recyclables in the
 household and at the curb has a direct impact
 on the success of a recycling program. In the
 past, storage was primarily the responsibility of
 each residence.  But  in an effort to increase
 convenience (and encourage participation), most
 successful recycling programs have turned to
 providing households with special, standardized
 containers for storing materials.  This has
 directly increased participation .rates.

 Providing containers allows residents to feel
 that they are "getting something back" from the
 municipal government (or private recycling
 firm), which can foster positive attitudes toward
 program organizers.  In addition, the containers
 serve as a constant reminder to recycle.

 Some dedicated recycling vehicles  have
 automatic container-tipping devices. With such
 systems, compatible containers are usually
 required. In this case, providing residents with
 the appropriate  containers standardizes the
collection system.
      Household Storage Containers
              containers and special
      recycling markets' serve" several
      importantfiirtctions:    ""'  --'>
        f   •    '«'   ..«      if    •••.
       Providing a handy my' f
             als until collected;  '
              '  "              -
                   ,                 .ff
        „         -  s        , • "•* >.V""'< >£&*M
        Serving as a constant reminde* ia
        r0le$ jjom garbage.
                    -. ^ •.    %             ssf   lV
     	\- *     -   ^   &<*9\f -,.,?/""
  A wide variety of special recycling containers
  are available. Some common options include:

     •   Baskets,
     •   Sacks,
     •   Buckets or boxes, and
     •   Stacking pan carts.

  Studies show that the use of a single (i.e.,
  commingled  recyclables) special container
  significantly increases participation.

  Recycling Collection Vehicles

  The dramatic increase in the number of
  comprehensive curbside recycling programs that
  has been witnessed in the last few years has
 brought with it a new generation of collection
 Vehicles designed specifically for collecting
 recyclables.  These vehicles have several storage
 bins, are easily loaded, and are often equipped
 with automatic container-tipping devices.

 Before this line of vehicles became available,
 recycling programs usually relied on modified or
 additional collection vehicles. These included
 racks attached to compactor  trucks, trailers, and
 perhaps the use of pick up trucks or dump
 trucks.

 Although these modified vehicles may still be
 considered options, a dedicated, closed-body
 recycling collection vehicle with sufficient
 capacity offers significant advantages that can
 warrant the initial investment:

 •  Easy loading and unloading;
 •  Flexible compartments; and
 •  Protection from weather.

 Vehicles designed specifically for the collection
 of recyclables come in a variety of shapes and
 sizes.  Both side-loading and  rear-loading closed
 body trucks are used, as are  compartmentalized
 trailers and flat-bed trucks.

 Decision makers are  encouraged to refer to
 current trade  journals (e.g., Waste Age, Resource
Recycling, Recycling Today), which publish
 equipment guides  regularly.  Volume II of this
Decision Maker's Guide addresses collection
vehicles and equipment in more detail.

-------
                                                                                           Recycling
          Processing Equipment
                 '
                   a vafietp&f processing
             , some of tsMcb. te^uiie spedal
     '•• Balers. Newspapers, cardboard, ami plastics
       are often baled to achieve larger transport
       payktads, reducing transportation costs.

     . + Camfensifiers. Can crushers are used to
       density aluminum and: steel cans prior to
       transport.
       feactfott separated ty cofor* wishes tweak
       glass JMto small pieces- Tbe materM is then
       called wdtefcawl wa te HJjprocess^ tato aew
       Maifttetic SetMrators. TSese die used to
       'KdddON* fisBKnw metals ftsoat a awttume o£
       materials.
                        '/''
       Wood grinders. Wood grinders am chippers
       used to shred large pieces of wood (e.g.,
       pallets^ branches) into chips that can be used
       as mulch or as fuel (see "Wood Wastes* in
       Chapter 1%         ',         '
                                   sold.
      Most B»4e joaonato publfetx eq«J|roeat go}
-------
 Chapter Six
 transportation costs.  Again, the avoided cost of
 landfilling must be taken into account when
 evaluating the integrated waste management
 system.

 Capital Costs

 Existing MRFs have had total capital costs of
 $10,000  to $22,000 per daily ton of input
 (Chertow, 1989).  A 100 tpd facility, therefore,
 would have capital costs ranging from $1 to
 $2.2 million.  Capital costs for equipment alone
 can range from $4,000 to $8,000 per design ton.

 Operating Costs

 Primary operating costs include labor,
 equipment operation and maintenance, and the
 cost of disposing residuals (approximately 25
 percent of the incoming material at a MRF will
 eventually be disposed of as residual).
 Operating costs will vary from facility to facility,
 but have been estimated to range from $20 to
 $60 per  incoming ton, prior to the sale of
 materials and capital cost considerations
 (Chertow, 1989).
         Transfer Station
       Recycling Programs
 Owe oJ the simplest ty$m of recycling
 programs involves designating areas
 w «0)dtai»,ers at transfer stations "",
 where recyclable materials can be
 dropped off.  Methods range from
 using several dedicated bins to
 constructing simple concrete slabs
 where material)* a«* piled, These
 separated materials are taken directly
 to prwessiag tociltttes,
.•     -•                   ^ ""  •"      "*
 At ttttstajHted faculties, product qwafify
 jnay be difficuSlt to control.  Materials
 specifications must be made dear to
 the participants,
                         Drop-Off Containers at Wellesley, Massachusetts Transfer Station ,
70

-------
                                                                                         Recycling
FULL STREAM PROCESSING

Pull stream processing technologies have
developed largely in Europe and are just
beginning to be used more frequently in the
United States.  Initially developed to prepare
refuse-derived fuel, these technologies are now
also considered materials recovery operations.
Unlike MRFs, which accept mixed recyclables,
full stream processing units accept mixed
municipal solid waste (i.e., the full waste
stream).

These systems produce a combustible fraction, a
compostable fraction, recovered materials, and
residuals. In general, the materials recovered
from this process are of lower quality than the
materials that are source separated or separated
at MRFs, mainly because they have been mixed
with other types of refuse. To achieve higher
quality, materials must be cleaned, which can be
costly.  As full steam processing technologies
develop, however, product quality of recovered
materials is expected to increase.
          Wi Stream Processing
                      ' '/•  4-    -      '
      Fvtt stream prvcessifig is a high?
      technology j^pat atio» teetasifu* that
      processes all components of municipal
       stream processing 'dpenrttons are
       in several applications:
       *&DF preparation^ fall stream
        jtfofiessiag is used to extract the
        combustible portion of municipal
       ^ waste Itx the p*#a«Mla» of refuse-
        derived fuels.
                ^        <
                      - •• '        f  ''
       •Municipal waste composting, used to
        eoi»ce»trate the «ojjijpostaJjle jwwrtl&tt
        of municipal solid wastej sometimes
        performed as part of RDF ..
        preparation.

       •Materials nxov&y, certain materials
        can be recovered tod resold, making
        (his a ri^cifoig technology as
Full stream processing is attractive because no
source separation of materials is required.
Participation could effectively be 100 percent.

Materials are separated at full stream processing
facilities both mechanically and  by hand.
Depending on the facility design, different
amounts of hand and  mechanical technologies
would be used.

Size and weight are the main characteristics
used to separate materials:

•   When the material is first dumped, oversized
    materials such as white goods and furniture
    are removed;

•   Rotating screens called trommels are used to
    create two waste fractions:   a large-sized
    materials fraction that includes combustibles
    and metals, and a  small-sized materials (e.g.,
    pass through three inch screen) fraction,
    which is comprised largely of compostable
    materials;

•   Ferrous metals are extracted from the large
    materials fraction  using magnet systems;

•   Air classification can be used to separate the
    lighter materials in the large materials
    fraction from the heavies:

•   Light materials include plastic and paper,
    and can be further processed into RDF;

•   The heavy fraction can be mechanically or
    hand sorted further to recover salable
    materials such as corrugated cardboard; and

 •   Disposal of residuals is required.
 DEVELOPING A RECYCLING
 PROGRAM

 There is no "boiler plate" methodology for
 developing recycling programs. A variety of
 different approaches have been used
 successfully.  Local recycling programs must be
 crafted to  the needs of the community.  The
 following discussion highlights some of the
 program development issues decision makers
 should consider when developing a local
 recycling program.
                                                                                               71

-------
Chapter Six
Materials Markets

Understanding post-consumer materials markets
is one of the most important responsibilities
municipal solid waste decision makers have.

Assess Materials Markets and
Select Materials to be Recycled

A preliminary market analysis will show
decision makers what markets are currently
available or may be available in the future.
National and some regional market information
is available in the trade publications (e.g.,
Recycling Times includes a markets page with
current prices for  post-consumer materials).
Decision makers should also directly identify
local, national, and international buyers with
which the community will actually deal.  With
this information, materials to be recycled can be
targeted within the local waste stream.

Locating and Choosing a Buyer

Three general "outlets" for secondary materials
exist: brokers  (or dealers), end-users, and
internal markets.

Brokers purchase particular materials and sell
them to end-users.  Brokers accumulate  an
amount of material, guarantee that it meets
certain specifications, and then, provide it to
end-users as a  "raw" material feedstock  Most
end-users prefer secondary materials obtained
through brokers because a large quantity of
uniform quality product can be guaranteed.
Brokers are reliable buyers, as they often
purchase materials even when the market is
down, stockpiling in anticipation of higher
prices.  Many transport materials and also
require little processing (usually, a clean
product is all that is demanded).

End-users are the facilities that actually
reprocess or remanufacture the post-consumer
materials. For example, a paper mill accepting
post-consumer scrap paper is an end-user.
Selling directly to  the end-user may result  in a
better price, but could also include meeting
more stringent product specifications (e.g.,  the
waste may have to be baled).  Many end-users
also require the supplier (i.e., the recycling
program) to deliver the materials, which adds
transportation costs.
Internal markets such as municipal government
agencies not only provide an outlet for some
materials, they promote a recycling "awareness"
within the government. Examples might include
using tires to build playground equipment or
using newspapers for animal bedding.

Contract vs. Open Market

Secondary materials are usually sold either on
the open or "spot" market or through some type
of contract arrangement.  On the open market,
decision makers must locate a buyer each time
enough material has been accumulated to be
sold.  By selling materials in this manner, the
community can get the best price for the
materials at the time.  When the markets are
down, however, the community may be faced
with low prices or no buyers at all.  With a
contract, a deal is made between the community
and a broker or end-user  involving the delivery
of a certain amount of material at a certain
price for a specified amount of time.  A
contract helps protect  the community from
market  fluctuations and ensures an outlet for
materials. The agreed price, however,  may end
up below  the actual market price for the
material.

When possible, many decision makers choose to
develop contracts with buyers, mainly because it
reduces the risk of having no outlet for
materials. Post-consumer materials markets
fluctuate greatly, and many programs are not
equipped to handle flat markets (for example,
material may have to be stored sent to a landfill
if no buyers are available).  A contract will
guarantee a buyer for a specific amount of time.
                  Stockpiling

      Because post-consumer materials markets
      fluctuate so greatly, recycling programs may be
             ti no *wrttet for a»atetfei& 
-------
                                                                                          Recycling
Cooperative Marketing: An Option for Small
Communities and Generators

Cooperative marketing involves combining
materials and resources from different groups
into a larger pool that may be more marketable.
Small communities and businesses have
traditionally had little success in establishing
lasting relationships with secondary materials
brokers and end-users, mainly because smaller
communities neither have the resources to
perform market research nor a significant
enough amount of materials to garner the
attention of brokers.  Combining materials and
using a cooperative marketing strategy can bring
materials from these communities  into the
marketplace.

Cooperative marketing can be developed within
existing management structures. For example, a
county or state government or regional council
of governments may do market research and
make arrangements for the collection and
delivery of recyclables to a broker. Another
option would be for an independent
organization to serve as the link between small
towns and brokers or end-users.  An excellent
example of such a group is the New Hampshire
Resource Recovery Association, a non-profit
organization that serves as a link to secondary
materials markets for many of New Hampshire
municipalities.

Aside from regional arrangements, cooperative
marketing can take several other forms,
including:

•   Drop-off centers using a centralized
     recycling center for marketing;

•   Different recycling centers combining
     materials;  and

•   Recycling centers or communities
     exchanging marketing ideas and
     information.

Local Recycling Legislation and
Guidelines

Several types  of legislation and guidelines to
support recycling programs have been enacted
in different locations across the country.
              State Incentives

      States may provide financial or
      technical assisfoaee to local programs
      M need of resources Attd stable
      markets,'laclyd|rig grant fnoaey for
      equipment aM publicity,  Stales may
      even undertake construction of
      *eevclng  and/&£ processing facilities,
      Technical assistance and support ats  "
      the State level may include identifying
      joeal jtaatiets,. attracting ^end-asea*,
      jadastfleslcs the $tat«jTfcr developing'
      a statewide marketing cooperative.
      The. State may also be a gao$ S&MX& •.
      of iitfoiitnation on recycling methods
      and.
Mandatory Source Separation

Legally requiring residents and businesses to
separate recyclable materials from their waste
has proven to be an effective way of increasing
public participation in recycling programs.
Mandatory source separation can be enforced in
several ways, including the use of citations,
fines, or refusal to collect unseparated garbage.

Disposal Bans

Disposal bans are applied to certain recyclable
materials.  Yard wastes, newspapers, glass
bottles, lead-acid batteries, used oil, and
household hazardous wastes are examples of
materials  that are sometimes banned from
landfills or incinerators.

Variable Disposal Rates

Adjusting disposal fees at landfills, composting
facilities, or combustion facilities provides an
economic incentive to recycle.  For example,
landfills may charge higher tipping fees for
loads containing large amounts of recyclables.
This would encourage the generator or the
collection firm to keep these materials separate.

Pay-Per-Container Charges

In order to encourage recycling at the
residential level, communities may charge for
                                                                                                73

-------
 Chapter Six
 services on a pay-per-container basis. For
 example, a flat rate could be charged for the
 first two containers, with an extra charge for
 each additional container.

 Flow Control Ordinances

 Flow control ordinances can be designed to
 encourage recycling and to ensure a steady flow
 of materials to municipal solid waste
 combustion facilities.  Municipalities can direct
 certain materials to recycling or energy recovery
 facilities to ensure  proper operation.

Anti-Scavenging Ordinances

 These  ordinances deter individuals from
 removing recyclable materials before they are
 picked up  by the selected hauler,  which is
 important  when haulers, recycling facilities, or
 residents depend on recycling revenues to
 operate programs.

 Public Education and Involvement

 The entire recycling program must be designed
 to maximize participation.  This involves making
 participation as convenient as possible for
 residents and businesses. An integrated,
 comprehensive public outreach  program will be
 one of the keys to  a recycling program's success.
 The public must know the importance of
recycling, the nature of the local waste problem,
and how they can get involved.
Procedures for curbside and drop-off programs
will have to be publicized, and  participation and
materials recovery rates will have  to be
monitored.  Chapter Eleven of this  Guide
covers  public education and involvement in
more detail.

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF
RECYCLING

Costs

The costs of recycling programs vary greatly
because the economics are specific for each   «
local area and a wide variety of program
structures are used.

Start up costs are one-time costs to initiate the
program.  These include:
 •  Planning costs for activities such as market
    assessments, waste stream assessments, re-
    routing collection vehicles, planning any new
    facilities, and negotiating contracts;

 •  Publicity costs to develop, print, and
    distribute information (this will also be an
    ongoing cost); and

 »  Capital costs if additional collection and/or
    processing equipment is needed.

 Operating costs are usually addressed in normal
 accounting procedures.  These include:
    Annual costs for labor;
    Equipment operation and maintenance;
    Fuel;
    Supplies;
    Debt service;
    Administrative and overhead costs; and
    Marketing costs.
Benefits

Economic analysis should also include potential
revenues and benefits of recycling.  The most
obvious source of revenues is from the sale of
recovered materials.  These revenues are often
less than the costs of operating the program.

Disposal cost savings, which are increasingly
important, are equivalent to how much it would
have cost to dispose of the recyclables at the
local disposal facility.  Disposal cost savings may
be  calculated by estimating the total tipping fee
avoided through diverting waste from  disposal.
In some communities, the funds saved through
avoided costs are returned to the specific
recycling programs.  These "refunds" are called
cost-avoidance credits or diversion credits.

Recycling programs can also be a source of
local economic stimulus,  especially if there  is
growth in local business handling or processing
collected materials.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
RECYCLING

Recycling is not a "risk free" option in terms of
environmental impacts.  Recycling involves
reprocessing or remanufacturing materials,
which may have environmental impacts.
74

-------
                                                                                          Recycling
Processing and Remanufacturing Recyclables

Many people do not realize that recycling is not
necessarily environmentally benign.  From an
environmental standpoint, the recycling loop is
complete only when proper pollution control
and waste management practices are employed
at remanufacturing facilities.  In addition to
proper facility operation, Federal and State
regulations are designed to protect the
environment and public health from potentially
adverse impacts.  When these standards of
operation are followed, public health and the
environment are protected.

An example of how recycling carries potential
environmental impacts is the de-inking of waste
paper.  Colored inks used in magazines and
color inserts in newspapers may contain
hazardous heavy metals such as lead and
cadmium.  After  the de-inking process, these
constituents may be found in high
concentrations in de-inking wastewater
treatment sludge.  If improperly disposed of,
these metals could eventually leach from the
sludge into ground water.  De-inking facilities
must follow all mandated management
procedures to ensure protection of the
environment.

In addition, municipal and commercial
employees engaged in collecting and sorting
recyclables may be subject to repetitive motion
injuries, a phenomenon of growing concern in
the workplace.

Increased Traffic

 Collection of recyclables usually involves
 additional collection vehicles that could
 potentially affect air quality, especially in urban
 areas.  The proposed Los  Angeles recycling
 system had to take into consideration the
 addition of two collection vehicles to each
 route.  Since, in Los Angeles, air quality is a
 significant consideration, the environmental
 impact was assessed during the planning
 process.  Because the new vehicles would be
 automated (requiring less time per stop) and
 because not every residence would require pick-
 up by all three collection trucks each collection
 day,  the city concluded that truck congestion
 and air pollution would not be significantly
 different from the previous system.  State-of-
 the-art collection vehicles are also  more fuel
efficient and may use alternative fuels or have
more elaborate pollution control systems.

Storing and Cleaning Recyclables

Since some recycling centers may handle
hazardous materials  (e.g., household hazardous
wastes, batteries, waste oil), there is the
potential for harmful water runoff from
stockpiles.  Procedures and facilities should be
designed to minimize this risk. For example,
storing materials in closed  containers  (or inside)
and moving materials quickly to final  processing
centers quickly can minimize this risk. Also,
water used during materials processing must be
disposed of properly.
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER
WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Recycling programs vary greatly, as can the
amount of materials removed from the waste
stream.  In the more comprehensive recycling
programs, significant quantities of waste can be
diverted from ultimate disposal.  Recycling is,
therefore, one of the first options selected by
communities faced with an impending landfill
capacity shortfall.

Recycling impacts on waste-to-energy facilities
can be equally beneficial, despite the historical
tension that exists between the supporters of
the two  options.  Decision makers should
recognize the benefits associated with combining
recycling with energy recovery.  The two
alternatives can, in fact,  complement each other:

 •  Recycling  programs can reduce the overall
    waste stream, which means a smaller
    capacity municipal waste  combustion facility.
    Capital and operating costs are directly
    linked to the capacity of the facility.

 •  Recycling  can have a direct effect on the
    environmental impact of  municipal waste
    combustion (MWC).   Air emissions and
    MWC ash are the main environmental
    concerns at these facilities.  Many of these
    possible problems can be removed from the
    MWC feed stream by recycling programs.
    For example, lead is of major concern in air
    emissions  and ash. Lead in the waste
    stream can be found in automotive batteries
                                                                                                75

-------
                 Chapter Six
                    and steel cans and electronics equipment
                    that use lead solder.  By recycling these
                    non-combustible materials, lead problems
                    can be reduced.

                     A more positive public reaction can result
                     from  combining an extensive recycling
                     program with a municipal waste combustion
                     facility.  New MWC facilities have met
                     public opposition; decision makers may find
                     that a facility that is developed after a
                     recycling plan has been implemented may
                     be more acceptable to the public.
•  Recycling diverts non-combustibles (e.g.,
   glass, aluminum, and ferrous metals),
   reducing wear and tear on MWC facilities.

Recycling can also have a positive impact on
composting operations. Like combustion
facilities, recycling can remove harmful
constituents (e.g., metals) from the material to
be composted.  In fact, many commonly recycled
materials are non-compostable (e.g., glass,
aluminum, ferrous metals), and are actually
contaminants in the compost product.
                                                  Chapter Six Bibliography
                Recycling (general)
                 Carlson, R., The Impact of Source Separation Plans on Resource Recovery Facilities Economics, Center
                    for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College of the State University of New York, Flushing,
                    NY 11367.  Tel: (718) 670-4180, October 1985.

                 Chertow, Marian, Garbage Solutions: A Public Officials Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid Waste
                    Management Technologies, National Resource Recovery Association, United States Conference of
                    Mayors, 1620 Eye  Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.  Tel: (202) 293-7330,  1989.

                 Cointreau, Gunnerson, Huls, and Seldman, Recycling From Municipal Refuse: A State-of-the-Art Review
                    and Annotated Bibliography, World Bank Publications, P.O. Box 37525, Washington, D.C. 20013,
                    1985.

                 Commoner, Barry, et al., Development and Pilot Test of an Intensive Municipal Solid  Waste Recycling
                    System for the Town of East Hampton, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College of
                    the State University of New York, Flushing, NY  11367-0904.  Tel:  (718)  670-4180, December 1988.

                 Commoner, Barry, et al., Intensive Recycling Feasibility Study for the City of Buffalo, Center for the
                    Biology of Natural Systems,  Queens College of the University of New York, Flushing, NY
                    11367-0904, Tel: (718)  670-4180, April 1988.

                 Engelhardt, Anna L., How to Run a Community Recycling Center: A Resource Guide to
                    Low-Technology Recycling in Illinois, Illinois Department of Energy and Natural  Resources, 325 West
                    Adams St., Room 300, Springfield, IL 62704-1892.  Tel: (217) 785-2800.  Doc. # 82/17, August
                    1982.

                Environmental Defense Fund;  Nevin Cohen, Michael Herz, John  Rustun, Coming Full Circle, Successful
                    Recycling Today,  Environmental Information Exchange, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 1616 P
                    SL NW, Washington D.C, Tel:  (202) 387-3500, 1988.

                EPA, Recycling Works!  State and Local Solutions to Solid Waste Management Problems, Office of Solid
                    Waste, Washington, D.C, January 1989.  Available through RCRA Hotline:  1-800-424-9346.
-
                76

-------
                                                                                        Recycling
EPA, The Solid Waste Dilemma:  An Agenda for Action, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.,
    February 1989.  Available through RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

Glass Packaging Institute, The Complete Guide to Planning, Building and Operating a Multi-Material
    Theme Center, Glass Packaging Institute, 1801 K St., N.W., Suite 1105-L, Washington, D.C. 20006.
    Tel:  (202) 887-4850, 1984.

Hickman, Doug, Designing for Profit in Recycling, RowanTree Enterprises, Box 1613, StoufMlle,
    Ontario, Canada L4A 8A4, 1985.

Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Feasibility of Tax Incentives for Purchases of
    Recycling Equipment or Recycled Products,  Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources,
    Energy and Environmental Affairs Division, 325 West Adams, Room 300, Springfield, IL
    62704-1892.  Tel: (217) 785-2800, May 1987.

Keep America Beautiful, Inc., Multi-Material Recycling Manual, Keep America Beautiful, Inc., 9 West
    Broad St., Stamford, CT 06902. Tel: (203) 323-8987, 1987, update expected mid-1989.

Keep America Beautiful, Inc., Overview:  Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives, Keep America Beautiful, Inc.,
    9 West Broad St., Stamford, CT 06902. Tel: (203) 323-8987.  1989.

Knaus, Lois, Waste: Choices for Communities,  Concern, Inc., 1794 Columbia Rd., NW, Washington,
    D.C.  20009, Tel: (202) 328-8160, September 1988.           '       -

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Options to Overcome Barriers to Recycling, Michigan
    Department of  Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Section, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909.
    Tel:  (517) 373-0540, February 1987.                                                        6

Mielke, Gary and David Walters, A Planning Guide for Residential Recycling Programs in Illinois:
    Drop-Off, Curbside, and Yard Waste Composting, Office of Solid Waste and Renewable Resources,
    Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 325 West Adams St., Room 300, Springfield, Illinois
    62704-1892. Tel: (217) 785-2800. Doc: ILNER/RR-87/02, May 1988.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Steps  in Organizing a Municipal Recycling
    Program, Division of Solid Waste Management, Office of Recycling, 401 East State Street, CN 414,
    Trenton, NJ 08625.  Tel: (609) 292-0331, 1988.

State of  New York, Incentives for Recycling, New York State Legislative Commission on Solid Waste
    Management, 150 State Street, 5th Floor, Albany NY 12207.  Tel: (518) 455-4436; New York State,
    Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid Waste, Room 208, 50 Wolf Rd.,
    Albany, NY 12233-4010, January 1988.

OSCAR, Phase I and II Master Recycling Planning Study: State of Rhode Island and Providence
    Plantations, Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling, Rhode Island Department of Environmental
    Management, 9 Hayes St., Providence, RI 02908, Tel: (401) 277-6012, February 1988.

OSCAR, Recycling in Rhode Island: A Blueprint for Success, Rhode Island Department of
    Environmental  Management, Ocean State Cleanup and  Recycling (OSCAR) Program, 83 Park St.,
    Providence, RI 02903-1037.  Tel: (401) 277-6012, January 1989.

Pollock,  Cynthia, Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential for Recycling; WorldWatch Paper 76, WorldWatch
    Institute, 1776  Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.  Tel: (202) 452-1999, April 1987.
                                                                                              77

-------
Chapter Six
Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Virginia Recycling Guide:
    Establishing a Recycling Collection Center, Division of Litter Control, 1215 Washington Building,
    Richmond, VA 23219. Tel: (804) 786-8679, 1982 (update expected 1989).

Commercial Recycling

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, A Guide to Recycling Commercial Waste, Office
    of Recycling, 401 East State Street, CN 414, Trenton, NJ 08625. Tel: (609) 292-0331.

OSCAR, Guide for Preparing Commercial Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Plans, Rhode Island
    Department of Environmental Management, 83 Park St., Providence, RI 02903-1037, Tel: (401)
    277-6012, 1988.

OSCAR, Handbook for the Reduction and Recycling of Commercial Solid Waste, Rhode  Island
    Department of Environmental Management, 83 Park St., Providence, RI 02903-1037.  Tel: (401)
    277-6012, 1988.

Multi-Family Residences

Batty, Sandy, Strength in Numbers: A Manual for Recycling in Multifamify Housing, Association of New
    Jersey Environmental Commissions  (ANJEC), 300 Mendham Road, P.O. Box 157, Mendham, NJ
    07945, 1988.

OSCAR, Guide for Preparing Solid  Waste Recycling Plans for Multi-Family Residence Units, Rhode
    Island Dept. of Environmental Management, 83  Park Street, Providence, RI 02903-1037, May 1989.

Rural and Small Town Recycling

Brown,  Hamilton, et. al., Why Waste a Second Chance? A Small Town Guide to Recycling, National
    Center for Small Communities, National Association of Towns and Townships, 1522 K Street, N.W.,
    Suite 730, Washington, D.C. 20005. Tel: (202) 737-5200, 1989.

The Minnesota Project, Case Studies in Rural Solid Waste Recycling, The Minnesota Project, 2222 Elm
    St., SE,  Minneapolis, MN 55414.  Tel:  (612) 378-2142, November 1987.

New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association, Recycling in New Hampshire: An Implementation
    Guide, NHRRA, 105 Loudon Rd., Building #3,  Concord, NH 03302-0721.

Markets and Market Development

American Recycling Market Annual Directory/Reference Manual, Recoup Publishing Limited, P.O. Box
    577, Ogdensburg, NY 13669.  Tel: 1-800-267-0707, 1989 (published yearly).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Secondary Market Development Strategy, MDNR,
    Resource Recovery Section, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909. Tel: (517) 373-0540, February
    1987.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Statewide Materials Market Studies (Michigan series),
    MDNR, Resource Recovery Section, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909.  Tel: (517) 373-0540,
    February 1987.

The Official Recycled Products Guide, Recoup Publishing Limited, P.O. Box 577, Ogdensburg, NY
    13669.  Tel: 1-800-267-0707, published quarterly.
78

-------
                                                                                         Recycling
Recycling Specific Materials

American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling and Its Role in Solid Waste Management, Paper Recycling,
    API, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, NY  10016,1987.

Brewer, Gretchen, Plastics Recycling: Action Plan for Massachusetts, Massachusetts Department of
    Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Solid Waste Management, available through the
    State Bookstore, Room 116, State House, Boston, MA  02133, July 1988.

Brewer, Gretchen, State Planning for Post-Consumer Plastics Recycling, Massachusetts Department of
    Environmental Quality Engineering, 1 Winter Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02108. Tel: (617)
    292-5856, May 1987.

Burgess & Niple, Limited and Waste Recovery, Incorporated, Used Tire Recovery and Disposal in Ohio
    Final Report, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
    Management, Columbus, OH.  Tel:  (614) 644-3020, March 1987.

Curlee, Randall T., The Economic Feasibility of Recycling: A Case Study of Plastic Wastes, Praeger
    Publishers/Greenwood Press,  88 Post Road West, Box 5007, Westport, CT 06881.  Tel: (203)
    226-3571, November 1986.

EPA, The Impacts of Lead Industry  Economics and Hazardous Waste Regulations on Lead-Acid Battery
    Recycling:  Revision and Update, EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, D.C., September 1987.

McManus, Frank (ed.),  Tire Recovery and Disposal: A National Problem  With New Solutions, available
    through: Resource Recovery  Report, 5313 38th St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20015. Tel: (202).
    362-6034, 1988.

NH/VT Solid Waste Project, Household Battery Collection Program, NH/VT Solid Waste Project, Room
    336 Moody Bunding, Claremont, New Hampshire 03743.  Tel: (603) 543-1201, September 1988.

Nolan, Harris, and Cavanaugh, Used Oil: Disposal Options, Management Practices, and Potential
    Liability, Second Edition, Government Institutes, Inc., 966 Hungerford Dr. #24, Rockville, MD
    20805.  Tel: (301) 251-9250,  March 1989.

Plastic Bottle Institute, Plastic Bottle Recycling Directory and Reference Guide 1989, Plastic Bottle
    Institute, Division of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., 1275 K St., N.W. -Suite 400,
    Washington, D.C. 20005. Tel:  (202) 371-5200,  1989.

Plastic Bottle Institute, Plastic Bottle Recycling Today, Plastic Bottle Institute, The Society of the
    Plastics Industry, Inc., 1275 K  Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington,  DC  20005.  Tel: (202) 371-5200,
    August 1988.

Public Technology, Inc., Asphalt Pavement .Recycling Alternatives, PTI, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
    Washington D.C. 20004.  Tel:  (202) 626-2400;  Public  Technology, Inc., Center for Public Policy,
     California State University, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840.  Tel: (213) 498-6541,
     1981.                                                                      ,

 Salimando, Joe, "Major Increase  in Aluminum Cans Recycled," Recycling Times, April 11, 1989.

 Steel  Can Recycling Institute, Steel:  The Better Deal, brochure published by the American Iron and
     Steel Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Tel:  1-800-876-7274.
                                                                                                79

-------
Chapter Six
80

-------
                                                                                    Composting
Chapter  Seven
                                Composting
     MAJOR MESSAGES
          "    '   ""
                  fe becoming am ; '
   / :: ,", increasingly popular municipal waste
      •• management alternative,, as
       communities fooic for ways to divert
       significant amounts of organic wastes
            from rapidly Ming landfills,
            , '..  ,  , ',   •_'  ,':'"  "•    "  •
            Tpste^owpostitag is a law»
     ;' -technology., low cost operation that
       {can jtandle large portions of the
       municipal solid waste stream
    •> -,    v f. "J i-sv, f s   _. — f      f, s s   s* "f  f
       MQitidpal solid waste
       composting is a developing
       technology that fe «xpe<*ed to see
       increased use in fhe future,  MSW
                     with rec^cMng and
      •• refuse-derived fuel operations.
       f>*ff-trff   '*   **             **
       Composting programs can
      ^^0cam^ be»elit other wa$te
      '" management operations, both
Composting is becoming an increasingly popular
waste management option, as communities look
for ways to divert portions of the local waste
stream away from rapidly filling landfills.
Composting is an aerobic (oxygen-dependent)
degradation process by which plant and other
organic wastes decompose under controlled
conditions. As a result of the composting
process, the compostable waste volume can be
reduced 50 to 85 percent (Taylor and
Kashmanian, 1988).  The finished product is a
dark-brown substance referred to  as humus or
compost.

Composting programs can be designed to
handle yard wastes (e.g., leaves and grass
clippings)  or the compostable portion of a
municipal  solid waste stream (e.g., yard wastes,
food wastes, or other degradable organics).
Composting programs have also been designed
for agricultural wastes, wastewater treatment
sludge, or  mixtures of all of the above.
         The Composting Process

      T3»0 composting pwwss jlsvolve$ $Jte action o
             Oipnio materials are placed fat a pUs
      or TvJwJiw (etoagsted pite), wte»
      4ecoffl.positjoa lakes £&<», 
-------
Chapter Seven
            Factors Affecting the

               Compost Process


       Moisture, Improper raofetiwe content {too
       much or too little) slows down flie composting
       process, especially in. the early stages of
       Operation.  Propel aiioistnre: levels, optimize
       decomposition. Most yard -wastes contain
       sufficient amounts of moisture, but moisture
       addition, Way be foeneEc]aI vejth certain
       composing approaches/'

       Oxygen.  Composting'^ an Qjtygen-dependent
       process,  Turning or fbxeed ae*stio» aid the
       composting process,
                   .,*    •, v  ••••.      ..    ••
       Nutrients. Nutrient Jewels cab be deBned in
       terms o£ the nitrogen; ito- eae&sn tario.  The
       higher the tatio, the fester the, decomposition. "
       <3ras$ dippings coataiBf higher amounts of
       aftrogen than, leaves* so grass clipping tend to
       decompose more rapkHg. Nitrogen is
       sometimes added to.compost piles to foster
       decomposition. In general, nitrogen occurs in
       Sufficient quantities within the material to be
       Other naturally occurring nutrients, such 35
       potassium and phosphorus, wilt also encourage
                      "
      pUes natwalfy rise due to the metaboJfc acMtf
      of the fflietooigafljfem  IwfeJjas' the positive
      impact: o£ Jilllin^: a Jatge amOtUli Of haraaful
      pthogens that taay be present to the material
      to be somposted, but too much heat can be
      detrimental to the tOmposting pipcessj A&^ilh
      moiiture, proper pile temperatures will optimize
      the decomposition process, and temperature
      Control ZS a part of high-lechnolt^r composting
      approaches,           <.  ,
BACKYARD COMPOSTING

Backyard composting involves individual
homeowners installing the "traditional" compost
pile on their own property, where yard wastes
and degradable household wastes  (especially
food wastes) are composted.

Backyard composting is a source reduction
activity in that materials composted in backyard
operations do not have to be managed as
municipal waste.  Collection costs and the cost
of disposal are therefore eliminated for all
materials that are composted in a backyard.
Consequently, decision makers should encourage
backyard composting as a source reduction
activity and may choose to provide residents
with guidance and technical assistance on
proper backyard composting methods.

The number of backyard systems available is
limited only by the imagination of individual
homeowners.  Some commonly used  methods
include:

•    Windrows.  Windrows are  elongated  piles 2
     to 5 feet high constructed by layering the
     raw materials.  Windrows  are turned
     periodically to  expose more of the material
     to the air. To protect  the material from
     excessive moisture during  rainy seasons,
     piles are sometimes  covered with a tarp.

•    Cylindrical pen.  The cylindrical pen  method
     of composting involves  building  a compost
     pile within a disconnectable cylindrical pen
     of woven wire (e.g.,  chicken wire).  This
     type of system  is easily moved and the wire
     allows for increased  air circulation.

•    Perforated steel drum. The perforated steel
     drum is a large, 55-gallon drum  punctured
     with holes and partially filled with
     compostable material.   To turn the
     material for aeration, the drum is simply
     rolled (METRO).
         MnleMng  Grass
      Leavtog grass, clippings en a ftesluy mown lawn
      (instead of tagging;) is » scarce reduction
      activity. If grass clippings are short enough^
      they will EaB through the grass to the ground
      'where they will be assimilated into the soil,
      Decision makers should encourage grass
      •mutching as. a source reduction, activity^
CENTRAIJZED YARD WASTE
COMPOSTING

Over 650 yard waste composting facilities are
currently in operation in the United States
(Glenn and Riggle, 1989).  Composting is likely
to become a more widely used waste

-------
                                                                                     Composting
management alternative, as yard waste
comprised approximately 20 percent of the total
discards into the municipal waste stream
(national average) in 1986 (EPA, 1988).  During
peak seasons, this percentage can rise up to 35
percent and higher in differing climates.

Commonly Composted Yard Wastes

Leaves, collected in the fall and spring, are the
easiest material to  compost  and are the most
common materials  handled at yard waste
facilities.

Grass clippings are  also compostable, but require
more attention than leaves alone.  Grass
clippings are higher in nitrogen and moisture
than leaves and, when left in bags or  large piles,
they can become odorous. Daily (or even more
frequent) and thorough mixing of incoming
grass with existing  leaf piles can limit these
problems.

Brush,  stumps and wood are compostable only if
they are chipped, but the costs of chipping for
compost are usually high, and the time needed
to decompose  is longer than for other yard
wastes. These materials are often chipped and
sold as bark mulch, or may even be used as
firewood without chipping.

YARD WASTE COMPOSTING
TECHNOLOGIES

Centralized yard waste composting faculties
operated by municipalities or private companies
are becoming a more common response to local
municipal waste management problems. Strom
and Finstein (1986) have developed categories
of yard waste composting that decision makers
may find useful. Figure 7.1 outlines several
compost facility site factors  that apply to the
various approaches discussed here.

Minimal Technology

The minimal technology approach involves
forming large windrows (12 feet high  by 24 feet
wide) that are turned only once a year with a
front-end loader.  Because of infrequent turning,
decomposition will take longer in the minimal
technology approach than in the other, more
advanced approaches. The material is usually
   Composting Site factors

Several site-specific factors must be
considered when looking at the
various centralized yatd waste
composting approaches*

Suffer zone,  A buffet zone refers to
the area between the composting
facility am4 neighboring residences
and badnesses which -serves to
minimise the impacts of composting
operations OB neighbors {odor, aoise,
dust, and visual impacts}.  Buffer zone
requirements vary for the different
composting technology apptoacB.es>
* Stream. encioaoJimeBt - composting
 facilities Should not be Sited in a
 flood plain?

* Slope and grading -- steep slopes
 are 4if$cu& to access and drainage
 has ,to be carefully designed;

* Percolation. ** high soil percolation.
 tates are desirable far limiting T&ater
 and leachate run-off;

« Water table -- a high water table is
 generally wadesfrabte at a
 composting sitej

* Water supply «* operation, of the
 pile may require occasional wetting
 of the leaves, so some supply of
 water (ie.* fire hydrant, pumping
 station) is desirable*
       and safety. Security
safely are also important factors ai
lacility 4esiga>  Measures should be
taken at the site So prohibit illegal "
Dumping and vandalism. In general,
fuWe access should' be restricted.
Fencing, gates, berms and existing
natwtat barriers can help secure the
                                                                                             83

-------
Chapter Seven
suitable for use as compost after one to three
years, depending on the region of the country.

The obvious advantage of this approach is that
it is relatively inexpensive and requires little
attention.  The space required to actually
compost the material is also relatively small,
because the windrows are so large (a single
windrow 60 yards long would contain 3000 cubic
yards of leaves.

The compost facility, however, will have to be
relatively large, because a large buffer zone
between the facility and neighboring residences
is needed.  This is due to the considerable odor
problems that result from infrequent turning.
In areas where a facility can easily be sited away
from residences, this is an attractive option.

Low-Level Technology

To  limit odor problems, smaller windrows and
more frequent turning are required.  Piles 6 feet
high and 12 to 14 feet wide are a moderate
enough size to allow sufficient composting while
limiting overheating and odors.  In addition,,
two piles can be combined after the first "burst"
of microbial activity (approximately one month).
After 10 to 11 months and additional windrow
turning, the piles can be formed into "curing"
piles around the perimeter of the site, where
the final stage of the  composting process
(stabilization) takes place.  This frees area for
the formation of new piles.  The composting
process with the low-level technology approach
is approximately 16 to 18 months.

The low-level technology approach is still
relatively inexpensive, because only a few
operations are involved: forming the piles,
combining the piles, turning, and curing pile
formation.  Although more actual composting
space is required  (smaller windrows), the facility
itself is smaller because of reduced buffer zone
requirements.

Intermediate-Level Technology

The intermediate-level technology approach is
similar to the low-level technology approach
except that windrow turning machines are used
weekly. With this approach, the compost
product is ready in 4  to 6 months.          ,
                          Windrows at a Composting Facility in Sumter County, Florida
84

-------
                                                                                       Composting
Capital and operating costs for the
intermediate-level approach are higher because
of the more frequent operations and the higher
capital costs associated with the windrow
turning machines, which are more expensive
than front-end loaders.  Windrow turning
machines also limit the size of the piles, which
may increase composting area  requirements
(more, smaller piles may be required).

The advantage of this approach is that greater
volume reductions are achieved and the
composting process takes place more rapidly.
This may be more attractive for large facilities.

High-Level Technology

The high-technology approach involves using
forced aeration to optimize composting
conditions with the piles.  This is done using a
blower controlled by a temperature feedback
system. When the temperature within the pile
reaches some pre-determined value, the  blower
turns on, cooling the pile and  removing  water
vapor. This method aerates the pile while
optimizing  temperatures.

Forced aeration usually takes  place for 2 to  10
weeks, at which time the blowers are removed
and the piles are turned periodically. The
composting process can be completed within
one year using the high-level technology
approach.
            Area Requirements

      A generally accepted tnle of thumb is tfcat one
      acts of Jaad & jisjufred for evay 3,ow to
      '
-------
Chapter Seven
             IfaeMfy
            .' . , and Finaneing
                                 *
                                  any waste
         agemettt fetifijy. ,-Coapier Foxa: of Ibis
      Guide 
-------
                                                                                       Composting
          Composting Equipment
       and Approximate 1988 Prices

       Vacuum leaf collectors

           Trailer mounted: $14,00$ - $21,500
      Front end loaders:
           Lease*

         mtlng
                        $30,000 -
      Separating and          .• %        /•*  '
      shredding equipments  $17,66<5 - $15ft,«»
      Tub
      (Soujccer "University of Connecticut Cooperative
      Extension Seivjce, 198^'aimois DEMR, 1989)
MARKETING THE YARD WASTE
COMPOST PRODUCT

Decision makers must investigate end-uses for
the compost product as part of the program
planning process.
Unlike recyclable
items such as
aluminum and glass,
no national markets
for compost product
are available.
Compost product
                             Marketing
                        '" ' -- Costs
                                   / *
                        ,, Mat&eting the compost
                        product may involve
                        additional costs:
outlets, however, do
exist in many
locations throughout
the country.
                            Laboratory
                            analysis;
                            Packaging
                            equipment;
Although the            , „
compost product can      »
generate revenues,        *
these revenues may     ,  *
not outweigh the
cost of collecting,               ;
processing, and
distributing compost.  Decision makers,
however, must also account for avoided disposal
 costs and the environmental benefits of the
 composting program when evaluating feasibility.

 Obstacles to Compost Marketing

 The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
 Resources (1989) has outlined some of the
 obstacles  decision makers  must consider when
 evaluating markets for yard waste compost.

 Costs

 Costs of composting operations will vary
 depending on the approach selected.
 Regardless of the technology, the compost ,
 product must have the proper purity,
 appearance, porosity, texture, consistency, and
 chemical balance.  Consequently, maintaining a
 quality product will include certain monitoring
 and control costs.

 Supply of Materials
                                            9
 The composting facility must provide potential
 buyers with a consistent supply of product.
 Assurance of a consistent  supply of materials is
 one of the key  elements of developing new
 markets.

 Soil Quality

 Because one of the main uses  for the compost
 product is as a  soil amendment, decision makers
 should assess the-need for quality soil
 amendment within the local region.

 Contamination

 Perhaps the most important factor in marketing
 the compost product is assurance of a
 contaminant-free product  Various lawn and
 tree chemicals and auto exhaust could
 potentially contaminate incoming yard wastes.
 Decision makers should monitor incoming yard
wastes as well as product quality to assure a
 high-value product.  (Note: the composting
process will degrade many commonly used
pesticides  that may be present  in the material
being composted, limiting  their impact on the
final product).
                                                                                              87

-------
Chapter Seven
Consumer Reluctance to Change

In developing compost product markets,
decision makers will have to develop strategies
to overcome a natural reluctance to change
among potential end-users.  Assuring a quality
product is the first step in this process, which
can be supplemented by public education
programs outlining the value of the compost
product as well as the role composting plays in
addressing local municipal waste management
problems.

Marketing Strategies

    t
Figure 7.2 outlines some of the typical compost
markets used in regions across the country.  A
general approach for marketing the yard waste
composting product may involve:

•   Requiring compost use by government
    entities and specifying its use by private
    contractors performing land maintenance
    activities for those entities.

•   Direct-retail sale or free distribution  of
    bulk compost by truck-load or in small
    quantities on-site.

•   Direct sale or free distribution of bagged
    compost on site or at special distribution
    centers.

•   Direct sale or free distribution to
    wholesalers for processing in bulk or bags
    to retailers (Illinois DENR, 1989).

These are general marketing procedures that
can be adapted to local markets and conditions.
                          ?2&
        Typical Compost Markets
      » Food! Garden Application
      * JUasti and Howcr Garcfen AgpKcatioa
      • Greenhouses
      « Nurseries
      « <3all Courses
      • Landscape Contractors
      • 'Turtgrass Farmers
      « Industrial Park Grounds
      - Cemeteries
       Public Parks
      * Roads ide and Median Strips
      * Military Installations

      l_and Reclamation

      - Tandfifl Cqwpr
      » Strip Mined: Lands
      m Sand and Gravel J*itS(
      » Derelict Urban. Land
             JfflaoJs
      Kettral Resource^ f^)
                       f$f fff.  ••
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
COMPOSTING

Municipal solid waste (MSW) composting is a
developing waste management technology in the
United States.  Unlike yard waste composting, a
large amount of pre-processing of incoming
materials is required prior to composting.  Pre-
processing is performed to isolate the
compostable portion of the municipal solid
waste stream (yard wastes, food wastes, and
organic fractions such as paper). These
materials can constitute anywhere from 30 to 60
percent of the municipal waste stream
(Chertow, 1989).
                Compost Product
88

-------
                                                                                      Composting
Processing MSW for Composting

Pre-processing municipal solid waste prior to
composting is largely a separation task.  Both
manual and mechanical separation techniques
are available  to remove bulky items (e.g., white
goods, furniture), metals, glass, plastic, and
other non-compostables. These technologies are
addressed in Chapter Six (Recycling) of this
Guide where they are referred to as "Full
Stream Processing." As discussed in that
section, full stream processing can take place as
part of composting operations, recycling
programs, and the preparation of refuse-derived
fuel.  In fact, all of these operations can take
place simultaneously, as each demands a
different portion of the waste stream:  the
smaller-sized  fraction (yard waste, food waste,
some paper) are generally sent to the
composting facility, materials such as ferrous
metals and aluminum can be recovered for
recycling, and the remainder can be processed
into RDF.

Separation of the compostable portion of MSW
is usually performed using a rotating screen
called a trommel.  Once separated, these
materials are  usually shredded to reduce  the
particle size and moisture may be added  to aid
the composting process.         ,

Composting MSW

The compostable fraction of MSW is usually
composted in a manner similar to the high-level
technology approach for yard wastes.  Forced
aeration and frequent turning are used to foster
optimum composting conditions.

Li-Vessel Systems                        -   _

Sometimes called "digesters," in-vessel systems
use forced aeration and turning in large,
enclosed chambers to produce the compost
product.  These systems .claim to provide a
more consistent product and have fewer odor
problems than the windrow  or static pile
variety. In-vessel composting is  sometimes
followed by a windrow step  to further compost
the materials.  In-vessel systems are more
expensive than windrow operations, due to the
facility and technology requirements.  Operating
costs for these facilities range from $100 to
$380 per dry ton in 1988 (Johnston, 1989).
 Preparation of the  MSW Compost
 Product

 After the initial composting process is complete,
 the materials are stored in piles for stabilization
 (curing).  In windrow MSW composting
 operations, initial composting takes
 approximately six weeks, and curing takes an
 additional two  weeks.  In vessel systems digest
 material for two days to  four weeks, and curing
 usually takes another four weeks (Chertow,
 1989).

 Marketing the MSW Compost
 Product

 The major obstacle to marketing the MSW'
"compost product is that of product quality.
 Because of the processing technologies used and
 the variety of materials composted, MSW
 compost is likely to contain larger amounts of
 contaminants (e.g., glass, plastic, metals) than
 the yard waste  compost product.  For this
 reason, MSW composting 'operations must have
 well-established procedures for removing
 contaminants from the incoming waste stream,
 as well as for assuring product quality.   Post-
 processing may be required to remove
 contaminants after the composting operation is
 complete.          .'-   ,.'.        ' -,,'

 One advantage of MSW compost is that it is
 expected to be  produced in large quantities at
 MSW composting facilities.  The large
 quantities available may make the product more
 attractive to potential buyers.
 OTHER TYPES OF COMPOSTING

 Sludge Composting

 Sludge composting is also becoming an
 increasingly popular waste management practice.
 The process involves mixing sludge with some
 bulking agent (e.g., sawdust, wood chips, leaves
 or recycled compost) to increase airflow and,
 absorb moisture.  Sludge composting facilities
 miay be static piles, windrows, or in-vessel. In
 the static piles, the material is aerated using
 perforated pipes and blowers.  For
 environmental and public health'reasons, sludge
 piles are often built on some type of pad (e.g.,
                                                                                             89

-------
Chapter Seven
concrete) and, ideally, should be enclosed.
In-vessel operations are similar to those
described in the MSW composting section
above. These facilities are usually easier to site
because of reduced area requirements and odor
problems.

The sludge compost product is high in nutrients
(especially nitrogen) and is a valuable product
•when sufficient quality is assured.

Co-Composting

Co-composting refers to the simultaneous
composting of two or more diverse waste
streams with sludge or some other nitrogen-rich
material.  Sludge provides moisture and
nutrients to the compost, while municipal solid
waste acts as a bulking agent, adding porosity
and absorbing water. Combining sludge
composting with municipal solid waste
composting is planned at some facilities in an
effort to generate a more valuable product and
to combine operations. Again, the success of
these operations will depend on the quality of
the final product.  Because several waste
streams are involved in co-composting, testing
the compost product for contaminants will be
necessary.

AgricidturaVAnimal Waste
Composting

This process involves mixing animal manures
with bulking agents (i.e., hay,  bedding, leaves,
brush, food waste, or shredded paper) and then
composting it in windrows or static piles. This '
is usually undertaken by small, private entities
such as farms or nurseries.  In some cases, the
composting product is sold as a high quality soil
amendment  Some large zoos collect and
compost animal wastes and market the product
as "zoo doo."

ENVmONMENTAL EFFECTS  OF
COMPOSTING

Because the compost product is often used as a
soil amendment in a variety of applications, the
quality of the product must be monitored
before being used.  In particular, MSW
composting facilities and facilities co-composting
municipal solid waste with manure, septage,
sewage sludge, fish wastes, or residuals from
RDF processing create some significant
environmental considerations.

Odors are one of the most frequent problems at
composting facilities.  Frequent turning of
compost piles has proven to be effective in
limiting odor problems.  When in-vessel systems
are used, odor control devices (e.g., air
scrubbers) can minimize these problems.

Pathogens (found in manure, sewage sludge, or
municipal waste).; are usually destroyed by the
high temperatures achieved during normal
composting operations.   Nevertheless, the
compost product should be tested for the
presence  of pathogens.
         „' V Monitoring the
           **."^   •'  **->A£:'"J*',
         .:» A Compost Process
   -M0.njtpj.ltg both, the material to be
   vfcbajgpsted and the compost product ace
   ' important aspects of the overall
            ling process, Because t&e end
             is used for a variety "of
            »/ cpnidmination could have
                en^ojmenta! effects.  This
   i% Is especially true when one considers
   "-'•'	'     '     	'-"	'- -- easally
    " (waste segregation, proper turning, and
     sufficient compostmg time).'
Water Impacts

Water runoff from yard waste composting
facilities could contain large concentrations of
nutrients (i.e., nitrates and phosphorus) that
could cause algal blooms in nearby surface
waters. Retention basins or berms may be used
at faculties to limit water runoff.  Facilities
constructed on highly permeable soils may
require liners or pads.  Water impacts are not
generally expected to be serious at yard waste
composting facilities.

Because municipal waste composting, sludge
composting, and co-composting involve a large
amount of potential contaminants, water
 90

-------
                                                                                        Composting
, impacts could be greater at these facilities.
 Leachate from MSW compost facilities can
 contain high concentrations of nutrients (such
 as nitrates  and phosphorus) and perhaps volatile
 organics and metals. Leachate could affect both
 surface and ground water. Retention basins to
 capture storm water runoff are good practice, as
 are liners or pads.  Enclosing the composting
 operation will also minimize leachate formation.

 Land Impacts

 At yard waste composting facilities, soil may
 become more acidic because of the presence of
 certain leaves and pine needles in the compost
 pile.  Nitrogen depletion may also occur. Proper
 turning of compost piles can limit these effects.

 MSW and co-composting facilities carry the
 potentially  harmful impacts of acid, organic, and
 metal contamination. Again, careful pre-
 processing to divert as much of the potentially
 hazardous materials from the compost facility is
 an important quality control procedure.

 Health Impacts

 The primary public health concerns associated
 with composting  operations result from:

 •   Drinking water contamination;
 •   Toxics  in the finished product (applied on
     land); and
 •   Pathogens.

 Nitrate contamination of drinking water can
 affect  the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood in
 infants and  in the elderly, but again, under
 proper composting conditions, this risk is
 minimal. Pathogens can be spread by insects
 and vermin. Worker risks include respiratory
 problem aggravation. Worker training and
 health monitoring can minimize these risks, as
 can proper  apparel and equipment.
 INTEGRATING COMPOSTING
 WITH OTHER WASTE
 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

 Composting programs can be designed to
 complement or augment most other waste
 management activities.  Preserving landfill space
 is the most obvious example, and this factor is
 often the driving force behind a composting
 operation.

 Composting can also complement the operation
 of a municipal waste combustion facility.
 Because yard wastes have high moisture content,
 they do not burn as well as some of the other
 waste stream components.  Also, yard wastes
 have high seasonal fluctuations which  could lead
 to an oversized combustion facility. Diverting
 yard wastes to a composting'facility can increase
 the heating value of the waste entering the
 combustion facility and reduce extreme volume
 fluctuations (improving combustion).
In addition, nitrogen oxides (NOx) are air
pollutants at municipal waste combustion
facilities.  NOx result primarily from the
combustion of nitrogen-rich grass clippings.
removing grass  clippings from the stream
entering the combustion facility, overall
environmental benefits can be realized.
By
As discussed earlier, municipal solid waste
composting operations can effectively be
combined with recycling programs and/or the
preparation of refuse-derived fuels. The
processing technologies used separate a
compostable fraction, a fraction of materials
suitable for •recycling,- and a stream that can be
processed further into RDF. As these
technologies develop, the benefit of combining
all three operations is expected to become even
more attractive.
                                                                                              91

-------
Chapter Seven
                                Chapter Seven Bibliography
Appelhof, Maiy and Jim McNelly, Yard Waste Composting: Guidebook for Michigan Communities,
    Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Waste Management Division, Resource Recovery
    Section, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909.  Tel: (517) 373-0540.

The BioCyde Guide to Composting Municipal Wastes, BioCycle, Box 351, Emmaus, PA  18041.  Tel:
    (215) 967-4135, January 1989.

Chertow, Marian, Garbage Solutions:  A Public Official's Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid
    Waste Management Technologies, National Resource Recovery Association, U.S. Conference of
    Mayors, Washington, D.C., 1989.                   .      ,     ,

Gommunily Compost Education Program, Master Composter Training Manual, Community Compost
    Education Program, 4649 Sunnyside Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 89103.  Tel: (206)
    633-0224, updated yearly.

Connecticut Department  of Environmental Protection, Leaf Composting - A Guide for Municipalities,
    DEP, Local Assistance and Program Coordination Unit, Recycling Program, 165 Capitol Avenue,
    Hartford, CT 06106.  Tel:  (203) 566-5599, January 1989.

Derr, Donn A. and Pritam A Dhillon, "Minimizing the Cost of Leaf Composting," BioCycle, April,   .
    1989, p. 45.

EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960-2000 (Update 1988),
    Franklin Associates,  Ltd., EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., 1988.  Available through
    National Technical Information Service,  Springfield,  VA 22161.  Tel:  (703) 487-4650.

Fliesler, Nancy, Agricultural, Sludge, and Solid Waste Composting: Introductory Profiles, Massachusetts,
    Department  of Environmental Quality Engineering,  1 Winter Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
    Tel: (617) 292-5856, June 1987.

 Glenn, Jim and David Riggle, "Where Does  the Waste Go?" BioCycle, April, 1989, p.  38.

 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Economics and Feasibility of Co-Composting
    Solid Wastes in McHenry County  (Illinois), Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources
     Clearinghouse, 325 West Adams St., Room 300, Springfield, IL 62704-1892. Tel: (217) 785-2800.
     Doc: ILENR/RE-EA-78-12, July 1987.

 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Landscape Waste Compost: Distribution and
    Marketing Strategies for Centralized Municipal Composting Operations,, ffiNR, Springfield, IL 62704-
     1892. Tel:  (217) 785-2800, March 1989.                                          .  .          •

 Johnston, John, John F. Donovan, and  Albert B. Pincince, "Operating and Cost Data for In-VeSb.l
     Composting," BioCycle, April 1989, p. 40.

 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Leaf Composting Guidance
     Document, DEQE, 1 Winter Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA  02108.  Tel: (617) 292-5856, June 1988.
 92

-------
                                                                                     Composting
METRO, The Art of Composting, Solid Waste Department, Metropolitan Service District and the Bureau
    of Environmental Services, 2000 S.W. First Ave., Portland, OR  97201-5398.  Tel:  (503)221-1646.

Middlesex County (Minnesota) Department of Solid Waste Management, A Guide for Municipal Leaf
    Composting Operations, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Resource Information Center, 520
    Lafeyette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155. Tel: (612) 296-8439, 1983.

Strom, Peter and Melvin Finstein, Leaf Composting Manual for New Jersey Municipalities, New Jersey
    Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Solid Waste Management, Office of Recycling,
    401 East State St., CN 414, Trenton, NJ 08625.  Tel: (609) 292-0331, 1986.    .

Taylor, Alison, and Richard Kashmanian, Study and Assessment of Eight Yard Waste Composting Programs
    Across the United States, EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, D.C. 20460,
    December 1988.  Available through RCRA Hotline:  1-800-424-9346.
                                                                                              93

-------
Chapter Seven
94

-------
                                                               Municipal Waste Combustion
Chapter Eight

       Municipal  Waste  Combustion
            «<•
           '",
          <,    -''' ^- 0, IT- -r ^-
     MAJOR 'MESSAGES
     •¥ 3U>Bg-t«nn planning is ihe key to
       municipal waste $0ittbuMt»i&*$%
             •
       sneers-.
          ••'f'
             corabiisti6k"technologjeg
                s$^rn> m<>dttJatv and , '
     '-' JRBF-fir-fel %$&«&   '       '"' ""
     "'""  ''-'   -'  ."  .''"'*"   ~    "'
       emissions and ash manageinent ar e
    ''; x important iE»spect$ ofleoiabBSJioft v -  •
       facility pJanning and operation.
      ^  ••?'{'•.-. •••••<• .*•     Mrn- *"„   fv ft        "

    .. i^'JPrppe/asli flaan^eiaent'Is Becess' "
    " ""'**« Itroteet human health a»d the
                   *  " '""     """
State-of-the-art municipal waste combustion
(MWC) has two functions:  reduction in the
quantity of waste subject to final: disposal and
recovery of energy.  Modern combustion   ;
facilities are no longer simple "garbage burners."
Instead, waste-to-energy units -are designed to
produce steam and electricity, and can be used
in conjunction with (or as a complement to)
source reduction, recycling, and composting
programs.

Combustion of solid waste  is becoming an
increasingly important aspect of integrated solid
waste management,  as communities look for
alternatives to rapidly filling landfills.
It is estimated that  nearly 75 percent (by
weight) of the municipal solid waste stream is
combustible, and that combustion  of solid waste
can reduce its volume by 70 to 90 percent
(Hershkowitz, 1986).

PIANNING A COMBUSTION
Strategic, long-term planning is essential for
developing a successful municipal waste
combustion facility. Decision makers must
develop an understanding of a variety of issues
in the planning process:

•  Facility ownership and risk;

•  Engineering and legal decisions;

•  Contractor selection and coordination;

•  Marketing a product (steam or electricity);
                                               •  Generation of capital.

                                               Long-term planning within local government is
                                               the key to successful facility design and
                                               operation. By understanding all issues and
                                               developing a dedicated staff, municipal waste
                                                                                    95

-------
 Chapter Eight
 combustion can become a positive component
 of the local waste management system.

 Facility Ownership and Operation

 One of the first planning decisions faced by
 local officials is what entity will actually own
 the  facility and who will oversee its operation.
 This decision will be based  largely on the
 amount of financial risk the community is
 willing to assume and the time and resources
 available. Several procurement options are
 available:

 Full Service Approach

 This is the most common approach. In this
 system, the community hires a single firm to
 design, construct, and operate the plant.  The
 community specifies only the process type and
 performance requirements.   In this case, the
 facility may be owned by the vendor, owned by
 the community,  or a shared equity.

 Merchant Plants

 With these facilities, all implementation
 decisions are left to the private sector.
A private firm designs, construct, owns, and
operates the facility.  Waste is accepted on a
dollars per ton basis, and agreements may be
made to give tipping fee discounts to the "host"
community or the communities that commit to
long-term contracts.

Besides Full Service and Merchant Plants Other
procurement approaches are available, but are
less widely used.  These include:

Architectural and Engineering (A/E) Approach.
In this system the community first contracts an
A/E firm to design the facility and then enlists
a construction firm (usually through a bidding
process)  to build  the facility.  The community
owns and operates the plant or contracts its
operation.

Turnkey Approach.  With turnkey, a single
company designs and builds the plant according
to the community's specifications.  More of the
development authority is delegated to the
contractor than in the A/E approach.  The
community or a different contractor owns and
operates  the plant.
i
                                Waste-to-Energy Facility, Baltimore, Maryland
96

-------
                                                                        Municipal Waste Combustion
Energy Markets

Municipal waste combustion facilities differ
from most  government services in that they   •
generate a  product, energy, that is sold for
revenue. Decision makers must, therefore, be
prepared to market the product and secure
buyers.

Steam or electricity are the  energy products at
combustion facilities, depending on the
particular design.

Marketing Steam

The primary end uses for steam from municipal
waste combustion facilities are industrial and
institutional heating and cooling systems, many
of which use forced steam in their process.

Marketing  the steam product will involve
identifying  these industries and institutions
within the  region.  Once identified, agreements
on prices, steam delivery, and product
specifications will have to be made.
Industrial steam users that should be explored
include: textile, lumber, paper and pulp, food
processing, rubber, leather, and chemical
producers. Institutional heating and cooling
systems using steam  are located at:  hospitals,
colleges, arid public buildings and services.
Many cities also have commercial steam
distribution utilities.

Marketing steam as a product involves some
important considerations:

•  Consistent supply.  Energy users do not
   usually accept disruptions in service.  For
   this reason, municipal waste combustion
   facilities may have to be equipped with a
   back-up boiler to guarantee a ^consistent
   supply.

•  Consistent demand.  Municipal waste
   combustion facility operators must be
   prepared for steam demand variations (often
   caused by changing seasons).  Under these
   conditions, the combustion facility may have
   to be equipped with a boiler by-pass flue
   that allows the steam generating process to
   be  halted temporarily.
                                                STEAM'

                                                    GENERATOR
                                                                  ELECTRICITY
                              COMBUSTION
                              AIR SYSTEM
                                                                                    STACK-
                                        BOTTOM ASH
                                        COLLECTION
                         Typical Mass Bum Municipal Waste Combustion Facility Schematic
                                                                                                 97

-------
Chapter Eight
Marketing Electricity

Municipal waste combustion facilities generating
electricity are referred to as  "cogenerators," as
they provide electricity in addition to that
generated by the local electric utility.'  In
addition to possibly using electricity generated
by combustion internally to operate the plant,
customers for electricity from municipal waste
combustion facilities include nearby industries
and public and private utilities.

When marketing electricity, some important
factors must be considered:

•   Consistent supply.  As with steam users,
    electricity users do not accept disruptions in
    service.   Again, municipal waste combustion
    facilities may have to be equipped with a
    back-up boiler to guarantee a consistent
    supply.

•   Competitive price.  The municipal waste
    combustion facility will be competing with
    other cogenerators in selling energy.

PURPA. The Public Utilities Regulatory and
Policy Act was developed as a way of
encouraging  regeneration to supplement existing
electrical utility capacity. The Act basically
requires investor-owned  utilities to purchase
electricity from cogenerators at "avoided cost".
rates (interpreted as the cost of building
another power plant or the cost  of operating at
a higher capacity). Rates are developed under
state boards  or commissions of public utilities,
and  overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.

Avoided cost rates and the utility's willingness
to purchase electricity vary from state to state.
Some states set attractive rates for waste-to-
energy facilities as part of a  policy to encourage
municipal solid waste  combustion. Decision
makers  must review Federal  and State
legislation governing regeneration when
determining whether municipal waste
combustion will be economically viable.
Sizing the Facility

Proper  plant sizing results from carefully
evaluating a wide variety of criteria:

Waste Supply

Waste supply is the most fundamental sizing
factor.  Not only will the facility's capacity
reflect the expected amount and heat-value of
the waste, a steady stream of waste close to the
design capacity is the only assurance of proper
facility operation.

Measures are usually taken to guarantee a waste
supply for the facility. Waste flow control
ordinances are often used to ensure a certain
quantity of waste.  In some cases creditors may
require  such ordinances before a facility can  be
financed. Waste flow control ordinances usually
require  that all or a defined portion of the local
waste stream be delivered to the combustion
facility.   One type of waste supply agreement is
known as "put-or-pay,"  which guarantees the
facility operator a certain amount of waste.  If
the community does not supply this amount, it
is responsible for reimbursing the facility.

Waste flow control will have to be carefully
planned within the community.  Many recycling
program coordinators see waste flow control as
a hindrance to their operations because it
reduces their supply of materials.  Any current
or future source reduction, recycling,  or
composting programs, therefore will have to  be
accounted for in the waste flow agreement.
When properly planned, waste flow control can
benefit  both the combustion facility and the  .
alternative waste ^management programs by
diverting the relevant portions of the waste
stream  to each (e.g., recyclables to the recycling
program and combustibles to the MWC facility).

Alternative Waste Management Programs

In addition to waste flow control agreements,
future source reduction, recycling, and
composting programs are directly related to
facility design.  When sizing the combustion
facility,  decision makers will have to account for
the types and amounts of materials that will be
diverted from the facility, as these programs  will
affect the quantity and heating value of the
combustor feed stream.
98

-------
                                                                           Municipal Waste Combustion
Many decision makers feel that source
reduction, recycling, and composting programs
should be developed before or while a
combustion facility is planned. They generally
take less  time and resources to implement.
They also will give decision makers a  better
idea of the future waste stream and the
resulting  waste stream reduction will allow for  a
smaller capacity and, therefore, less expensive
facility.

Waste Stream Characteristics

Good combustion depends on the  accuracy of
waste stream data.  Most communities planning
a combustion facility, therefore, perform their
own waste stream assessment to develop an
accurate  picture of the  quantity and
composition of the local waste stream.
Resources committed at this stage can prevent
costly mistakes later in the project.

From a technical standpoint, the waste stream
data will be used to ascertain the heating value
of the waste (technical  details regarding  the
heat-value of specific components will be
discussed in Volume II of this Guide').
Information on amounts of materials  to  be
recycled will also assist in planning for heating
values.  Waste stream heating values  may»
actually be higher or lower than anticipated,
both of which could be detrimental to plant
operation.         '

Planning for Facility Disruptions

Accounting for down-time is also an  important
facility planning criterion.  Most combustion
facilities  are designed to operate continuously
 (i.e., 24 hours a day), but both scheduled  (e.g.,
maintenance) and unscheduled (e.g., equipment
failure) down-time are  likely to occur.  Storage
 space must be available for the waste that
 continues to arrive during down-time, and the
 unit must have the  capacity to "catch-up"  to
 normal levels. If these capabilities are not built
 into the system, provisions must be made to
 send waste to a landfill or alternative facility.

 Facility Financing

 Depending on the procurement approach
 selected, municipal waste  combustion facilities
 will require extensive financing agreements.
 Chapter Twelve of this Guide discusses
financing waste management alternatives in
detail.

Time Frame

The time required to plan, develop, and
construct a facility will vary, but at least 5 to 8
years are required to bring a new facility from
the earliest planning stages  to in-service.
                 Facility Siting
                         - owe *>f toe awst
      4jfi5caft j&te flecteioa i»afcers will
      Awfety of social a»d teehmScal hroates witt
      lave to T« negotiated for a suceessBtf sittogs

      » Effect On residsatS. Residents wffl be '
        <*a«*tt<5
-------
 Chapter Eight
 TYPES OF MUNICIPAL WASTE
 COMBUSTION FACILITIES

 Municipal waste combustion facilities are
 designed to meet specific local needs, so there
 are variations in actual designs.  There are,
 however, some basic categories.

 Mass Burn Facilities

 Mass burn systems combust municipal waste
 without any preprocessing other than removal
 of items too large to be fed into the unit.
 Mass burn facilities usually have two or three
 combustor units, which can range in capacity
 from 50 to 1,000 tons per day (tpd).  Plant
 capacities, therefore, range from  100 to 3,000
 tpd.  These facilities are erected  at the site, and
 all new systems have waterwall combustion
 chambers designed for energy recovery. Older
 facilities may have refractory-lined combustion
 chambers with no energy recovery.
            MWC Facility Tipping Floor
Modular Combustors

Modular combustors are small mass burn units
(i.e., no preprocessing of the waste) with
capacities of 5 to 120 tpd. Modular combustion
plants usually have one to four combustor units,
so plant capacity is 15 to 400 tpd. These units
are usually fabricated at a plant and  transported
to the facility site.
             Wateirwiall Boilers

      Host new municipal waste
      coinbus!tton facilities are designed
      with VaterwalT combustion
      furnaces^ waterwall unite are lined .,
      vrtth steel tabes MteA wMfe circulating
      water.  Heat from the combustion
      gases Is transferred to the water.
      TJie resultant steam is either sold or
      used to drive turbines for the ,,
      generation ot? electricity,
Most modular units operate with a two stage
process:

(1) Partial combustion.  Waste is initially
   combusted under starved-air conditions;  the
   lack of sufficient air leads to the formation
   of combustible gases and ash.

(2) Secondary combustion.   The partially
   combusted gases produced in the first
   chamber are fired with an auxiliary fuel and
   excess air in what is called the thermal
   reactor (or afterburner). The auxiliary fuel
   is often used only during start-up to insure
   proper combustion temperatures.  The hot
   gases are first directed to a heat recovery
   boiler, then cleaned and discharged.

All new modular combustion facilities for
municipal waste combustion are expected to
have energy recovery.

Refuse-Derived Fuel-Fired  Facilities

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) refers to a wide
range of pre-processed municipal solid waste.
A variety of RDF-fired combustors are used,
depending on the degree of pre-processing:

•  Dedicated RDF boilers:  burn RDF only;

•  Co-fired boilers:  highly processed RDF co-
   fired with coal in coal burners; and

•  Mixed waste firing:  RDF fired with other
   wastes such as wood or coal.
100

-------
                                                                       Municipal Waste Combustion
Individual RDF combustors range from 300 to
1,000 tpd capacity.  Plants typically have two to
four combustion units, so plant capacities range
from 600 to 4,000 tpd.

Types of RDF

Several different types of RDF exist.
Definitions of the types vary, but can generally
be classified as:
        Coarse;
        Prepared;
        Recovery Prepared;
        Fluff; and
        Densified;
RDF also comes in powdered, liquified, gaseous,
and wet-dry forms, but few municipal solid
waste boilers use these technologies and they
are generally considered unavailable.

Coarse RDF.  Coarse RDF results from minimal
processing (i.e., shredding); materials that pass
through a six-inch screen are considered coarse
RDF.  No materials separation by type occurs.
Coarse  RDF is used in dedicated. RDF boilers.

Prepared RDF.  This type of RDF refers to
coarse RDF that has been  processed further by
removing ferrous metals, fine materials, glass,
ceramics, sand, and grit.  This reduces wear and
clogging of the moving equipment in the unit
and increase heating values of the RDF.
Prepared RDF is used in dedicated RDF
boilers.

Recovery Prepared RDF.  This material is similar
to the prepared RDF except that a larger
portion of the metallic constituents are removed
(i.e.j aluminum, zinc, copper, brass, and ferrous
metals) as are greater glass fractions.   Recovery
prepared RDF has less ash per pound and more
Btu's per pound.  Recovery prepared RDF is
used  in a dedicated RDF boiler.

Fluff RDF.  Fluff RDF is a shredded material,
, 95 percent by weight of which passes through a
2-inch square mesh screen.  Several processing
units are used to produce fluff.  Primary
shredding is used for homogenization and size
reduction of the waste; air classification is used
to separate light from heavy materials (most
combustibles are light, most non-combustibles
are heavy); magnetic separation is used to
remove the ferrous metal (which can be resold);
a screening process is performed on the light
(combustible) fraction of the stream to remove
dirt, glass, grit; and finally, secondary shredding
is used to further reduce the combustion     ,
fraction.  Ruff can be co-fired with coal in
suspension-fired or fluidized bed boilers, as well
as dedicated boilers.

Densified  (Pellet) RDF (d-RDF).  Densified RDF
is produced through the compaction of fluff
material into cubes, pellets, briquettes, buttons,
or similar forms. Densified RDF is less costly
t6 transport over long distances, and can be
fired in stoker-fired industrial boilers designed
for coal (Blue).

Each of the RDF categories have different
amounts of residuals, with  d-RDF producing the
most.  Full stream  processing technologies that
may be used at RDF plants were described in
Chapter Six of this Guide.

Fluidized-Bed Combustion Facilities

This is largely a developing technology that
burns  processed, municipal  solid waste in a   ,
heated bed of non-combustible material (such as
sand).  Existing and planned fluidized bed
combustors have capacities ranging from 200  to
-500 tpd.  Plant capacity is  estimated to be 300
to 1,000 tpd.
               Densified RDF Pellets
                                                                                             101

-------
Chapter Eight
AIR EMISSIONS:
REGULATION AND CONTROL

Emissions from municipal waste combustion,
facilities are a mixture of pollutants with health-
related risks.  Of particular concern are:

•   Participates;
•   Acid gases (sulfur oxides, hydrogen chloride,
    hydrogen fluoride);           ,
•   Nitrogen oxides;
•   Trace metals  (lead, cadmium, mercury, etc.);
•   Dioxins and furans.

Most siting difficulties for municipal waste
combustion result from concerns over the
environmental impact of air emissions.
Regulations will soon be in place to address
these concerns. Decision makers must fully
understand these  regulations and plan pollution
control  accordingly.

Regulation of Air Emissions

In 1986, EPA issued operational guidance on
control  technology for new and modified
municipal waste combustors (MWC).  This
guidance was issued to make best available
control  technology (BACT) determinations
consistent and to  reduce delay and confusion in
the permitting process.  EPA also issued an
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in 1986
which explains EPA's intent to regulate MWC
emissions for new or modified MWC under
lll(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
intent to regulate existing facilities under lll(d)
of the CAA. New and modified MWC are built
•with the prescribed pollution control devices
and existing facilities are being retrofitted to
also meet the guidance for BACT.

The regulations under lll(b) for new and
modified MWC will set limits for MWC
emissions and NOx.  These emissions  are
composed of:

•   Particulate matter containing various metals;
•   Acid gases; and
•   Organic emissions.

In addition, these regulations will contain
requirements for some form of source
separation of recyclables before the waste is
burned.
 The proposed regulations are expected in
 November of 1989 and the final regulations are
 expected to be issued in December of 1990.
 These regulations will contain guidelines for
 new, modified, and existing sources.

 Air Pollution Control

 State-of-the-art  combustion facilities are
 equipped with pollution control equipment that
 greatly reduce air emissions and any adverse
 environmental and public health impacts.
 Emission controls can take several forms:

 Combustion Control

 The proper design, construction, operation,  and
 maintenance ("good combustion practices") are a
 fundamental aspect of controlling  air emissions.
 In particular, proper combustion conditions can
 limit the formation of dioxins and fijrans.
 Continuous monitoring and control, both
 computerized and manual, are key "good
 combustion practices."  Operator training can
 thus be considered basic to preventing
 pollution.

 Dioxins and furans also form after discharge
 from the combustion chamber.  Exhaust gas
 cooling is the control method which successfully
 limits this secondary formation.

 Particulate Matter Control

 Fabric filters (referred to as the "baghouse"  in
 the facility) and electrostatic precipitators
 (ESPs) control particulate emissions.

 Bughouses are designed with long, heat  resistant
 fabric bags that capture fine particles (referred
 to as "flyash").  The dust and particles are
 collected and disposed.

 Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)  treat emissions
 by applying a voltage to incoming particles to
 give them a negative charge.  The particles are
 then removed on positively charged plates.
 ESPs use multiple electrostatic fields to achieve
 maximum particulate collection.

, Acid Gas Control

 Acid gas control units are sometimes referred to
 as scrubbers.  Lime spray scrubbers followed by
102

-------
                                                                        Municipal Waste Combustion
      " , ;  , Monitoring and

             Automatic Control

      Twt> recent developments that have had a great
      impact on combustion facility operation are
      monitoring technologies: arid automatic control.
      Nearly ail aspects of; the combustion! process
      can now be monitored; continuously, from
      combustion chamber temperature to stack gas.
      composition.  Expanding on ihis^ computer-
                            llwse
                         
-------
Chapter Eight
      Bottom ash is comprised ojf the
      noncombusfible material that passes
      through the combustion chamber*
      The bottom ash is usually tooled 6y
      some <^e of water quench'and
      collected by cowveyo^      \
                 -  - c-    '     ',   ,<   ,„"'""
      Ffy ash is a lighter materM that i$
      suspended in the floe gas amd    ,
      collected in, theTair goJtotioin cotttrof^
      eepipnteat* The <:ort<^»» associated  "
      with fly ash comes from the metal
      and organic compound components
      that are sometimes attached to the
      particles.  It Is important: to atrte that
      as pollution control devices'become
      mows efficient, larger amcttwts of
      flyashj including its harmful
      constituents, will he removed*,
Of particular concern in MWC ash is the  '
presence of heavy metals, especially lead and
cadmium, which are present in such materials as
lead-acid batteries, electronic equipment, and
some plastics.  Because of the potentially
harmful effects of ash disposal, decision makers
must address ash disposal early in the decision-
making process.  Leaching at landfills is the
main concern, as soluble metals may
contaminate ground water.  Dioxins associated
with the flyash can largely be controlled through
good combustion practices. If present, however,
they are  not mobile in a land disposal unit.
Fugitive  dust emissions should also be
controlled through proper handling. In addition
to proper handling and disposal, decision
makers will also have liability concerns
associated with potential contamination.

There has been considerable controversy over
whether MWC ash is subject to RCRA Subtitle
C regulations, which govern the management of
hazardous waste.   The EPA stated, in the July
15, 1985 Federal  Register (50 FR 28725-26),
that ash  generated from the combustion of non-
hazardous waste that exhibits a characteristic of
a hazardous waste needs to be managed
accordingly. The U.S. Congress, however, is
considering legislation that would create a
special waste category for ash and require EPA
to develop special management standards for
ash as a non-hazardous waste.

Proper Ash Management

Proper ash management involves properly
handling the ash from its  generation in the
combustion process to its  ultimate disposal.
Because  of the potential harmful effects of
contacting of breathing MWC ash or ash dust,
worker safety must be ensured when loading
vehicles or transporting the ash within the
facility.   If the  MWC ash  is to be  transported
to an off-site disposal facility, closed body
vehicles should be used and unloading
procedures should be established to minimize
fugitive dust  and protect workers.

Appropriate MWC ash testing should take place
to determine its regulatory status.  Disposal of
non-hazardous  MWC ash  may take place at a
municipal solid waste landfill, ash  monofill
(facility that accepts  only  ash; may be located at
the combustion facility), or co-fill (facility that
accepts several diverse waste streams).  Because
of the potentially hazardous nature of the ash,
the landfill used should be equipped with a
liner/leachate collection system, and ground
water monitoring should take place.  Not only
is this type of landfill more protective of the
environment, it will also reduce the liability
risks associated with Superfund.
      Leachate Collection at an MWC Ash Monofill
104

-------
                                                                        Municipal Waste Combustion
                Liquid Wastes
           quantities of industrial liquid wastes aiay
      De geaetated at maiud]pal waste comeustiott
      * Bofler blow-down;
      * floor cleaning;
      « Equipment cleaning; dud
                      *
      at incinerator facilities during tbe flue gas
      cleaning and ash quenching processes. State-ofr
isjigteeas antf water
                          gteatty
      t&eamosnt of water discharged,  Medera
      &cJ&ty defers «*« cwffotfly strfvtog far "SKR*,;
 the RDF processing facility.  These figures are
 based on national averages.  Actual costs will
 vary considerably depending on site specific
 conditions.

 Operating Costs

 Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs will
• also vary considerably, based on the size,
 location, and technologies used. Labor costs
 are among the largest operating costs, and
 depend on the local economy.  Total  operating
 and maintenance costs for a 2,000 tpd facility
 have been estimated at $20 per ton on an
 annual basis (National League of Cities, 1988).
 O&M costs increase slowly as the size of the
 facility decreases.

 Revenues
COMBUSTION FACILITY COSTS
AND REVENUES

Cost factors vary considerably from facility to
facility, so specific cost estimates are difficult to
determine; Variable factors include:
    Size (tons per day);
    Technology;
    Location (labor and construction costs can
    vary significantly);
    Type of financing;
    Ownership;
    Pollution control technology; and
    Cost of ash disposal.
Capital Costs

Some ballpark figures have been developed
(National League of Cities, 1988) to assist in
making preliminary estimates of facility costs.
Modular incinerators (less than 400 tons per
day) have capital costs in the range of $80,000
to $90,000 per ton of rated capacity (economies
of scale are reflected in the smaller figure).
Larger, field erected facilities will cost in the
ballpark of $90,000 to $100,000 per ton of
capacity.  Capital costs for RDF-burning
facilities will generally be lower than for mass
burn facilities because of the more
homogeneous fuel source. These costs,
however, may be offset by the capital  costs  of
                                                Combustion facility revenues result from:

                                                •  Sale of energy;
                                                »  Interest from reserve funds required with
                                                   revenue bonds; and
                                                •  Tipping fees at the facility.
                                                •  Sales of ferrous metals recovered from the
                                                   ash and other materials recovered at the
                                                   RDF preparation facility.

                                                According to a sample facility survey performed
                                                by the National Solid Wastes Management
                                                Association, the average municipal waste
                                                combustion facility tip fee in  1988 was $39.86
                                                (Pettit, 1989).  In some areas of the country,
                                                the MWC facility tip fee was  as high as  $65.
                                                                                               105

-------
Chapter Eight
                                Chapter Eight Bibliography
1988-89 Resource Recovery Yearbook. Directory and Guide, Governmental Advisory Associates, 177
    East 87th Street, New York, NY 10128, 1988.

Blue, J.D., et. al., Babcock and Wilcox, Waste Fuels:  Their Preparation, Handling, and'Firing,
    Babcock and Wilcox, Barberton, Ohio.

Boley, G.L. and M.L. Smith, Start-up and Operations of the Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery
    Project, presented at International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, Hollywood, Florida,
    April 1989.                                  -     .

Brna, T.G., State-of-the Art Flue Gas Cleaning Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Combustion,
    EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Lab, Research Triangle Park, NC, available through:
    National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.  Tel: (703) 487-4650.  Doc:
    PB88-184601/XAB, March 1988.

Denison, 'Richard A and Ellen K. Silbergeld, Comprehensive Management of Municipal Solid Waste
    Incineration:  Understanding the Risks, Toxic Chemicals Program, Environmental Defense Fund,
    Washington, D.C., 1989.

EPA, Background Paper:  Municipal Waste Combustors Air Emission Standards, Office of Air
    Quality Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C., April ,1989.

EPA, Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustor Ashes and Leachates form Municipal Solid Waste
    Landfills, Monofills, and Co-disposal Sites, Office of Solid Waste, October 1987.  Available through:
    National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.  Tel: (703) 487-4650.  Doc: PB88-
    127980/XAB.
t
EPA, Sites for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement, Office of Solid Waste,
    Preliminary Draft, July, 1989.  Final scheduled for November,  1989.

Hershkowitz, Allen, Garbage Burning - Lessons from Europe, Inform, Inc., 381 Park Avenue S., Suite
    1201, New  York,  NY 10016.  Tel: (212) 689-4040, 1986.

'National League of Cities, Municipal Incinerators: 50 Questions Every Local Government Should Ask,
    Publications Department, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,  Washington,
    D.C. 20004. Tel: (202) 626-3000, December 1988.

National League of Cities, Waste-to-Energy Facilities: A Decision Maker's Guide, National League of
    Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.  (202) 626-3030, 1986.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Determining the Economic Feasibility of a Solid
    Waste Boiler, Guide #4 of Municipal Solid Waste Planning Guides, PADER, Bureau of Solid Waste
    Management, Division of Municipal Services, P. O. Box 2063,  Harrisburg, PA 17120.  Tel: (717)
    787-7382, January 1987.

Pettit, C.L., "Tip Fees Up More than 30% in Annual NSWMA Survey," Waste Age, March 1989, p. 101.

Robinson, William D., ed., The Solid Waste Handbook:  A Practical Guide, John  Wiley and Sons,
    New York, 1986.
 106

-------
                                                                                  Land Disposal
Chapter  Nine
                            Land   Disposal
    •  Landfills a*e a necessary component
    <•  of any muiilcipal solid waste  "„"
    * A -twrjjte^ of Stafcs jptf f «
-------
Chapter Nine
variety of specific technologies are associated
with a state-of-the-art landfill:
   Liner systems (clay and/or synthetic);
   Leachate collection systems;
   Leachate "treatment;
   Landfill gas control and recovery;
   Improved closure techniques;
   Provisions for post closure care and
   maintenance;
   Monitoring systems; and
   Control of materials entering  the site.
     The
     defineS insanitary landfill as *a method
             sfeig of refuse o» lajta
              nwlsances- y tttitizfng the
               cfj»g|ttefetia& to conRne the
         se to!th^$ma:Hest jiractfcid area, to
             ft to flie smallest pacUcal
             ^ftnfi. to cdvtr Jt^afli a  layer *f
           at flw «onclttsi<«t^ eaeBt day»$
   ^ 6p£r&tiGn Or attach more fifequeni
   i*"?LJ>  F       v^-^iX                .-
                      be
               LandGll Design
                  J.  v  •*         *
       Cdfe ii* thd^bagip bUBding btafe
       laadHllS,* During daily operafioiK, stiBA waste is
       ttftfitebd: jb deEJned areas wh.eite.il is spread iSnd
       tompacted flu»Ushcfllt|he ^day. jAtthe'endof "
       Jjy « thw layer of gqij, wp* js, also compacted,
       "Has unft af-oompacltfd and «preH3$3 •waste is. " "
       cajjed fte odL "Sewe^al adjacent cells j|alL ibe
REGULATORY APPROVAL AND
COMPLIANCE

State Regulations

State or, other local or regional regulatory
agencies will have specific requirements for the
design, operation, and closure of municipal solid
waste landfills.  These requirements vary from
state to state, so decision makers  should consult
with the appropriate regulatory agency to
determine relevant standards.  State
requirements are likely to cover:
   Siting;
   Design;
   Operation;
   Monitoring;
   Closure and post-closure care; and
   Financial assurance.
Federal Regulations

In September 1979, EPA issued criteria
providing general environmental performance
standards that apply to all solid waste disposal
facilities with certain limited exceptions.  In the
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA), Congress mandated revisions to these
criteria.

In August 1988, EPA proposed revised criteria
for new and existing municipal solid waste
landfills (including those that receive sewage
sludge and combustion ash).  The following is a
brief summary of the proposal.  EPA is
currently evaluating  extensive public comments
and developing the final rule, which is expected
to be issued in early 1990.

Location Restrictions

The proposed regulations contained specific
restrictions on locating landfills at, on, or near:
                                                         Airports,
                                                         Floodplains,
                                                         Wetlands,
                                                         Fault areas,
                                                         Seismic impact zones, and
                                                         Unstable areas.
 108

-------
                                                                                     Land Disposal
Operating Criteria

Landfill operating requirements were proposed
in each of the following areas:
   Procedures for excluding hazardous waste,
   Daily cover,
   Disease vector control,
   Explosive gases,
   Air criteria,
   Access control,
   Run-on and run-off control,
   Surface water requirements,
   Liquids management, and
   Recordkeeping.
Design Criteria

The proposed criteria established a risk-based
performance standard based on lifetime cancer
risks.  New units would be required to be
designed with liners, leachate collection systems,
and final cover systems as necessary to meet
this standard, while existing units would be
required to use final covers.  Retrofitting of
existing units with, liners and leachate, collection
systems would not be required.  The proposed
point of compliance would be at the waste
management unit boundary or a State-
established alternative boundary.

Ground Water Monitoring

The proposed municipal solid waste landfill
regulations specified ground-water monitoring to
detect releases at landfills and determine, if
corrective action is needed.  New landfills would
be required to comply with the ground-water
monitoring regulations prior to accepting
wastes. Existing landfill  units would need to
comply with a State established schedule or a
Federal fall-back schedule.

The proposed rule specified that the ground-
water monitoring system must:

•   Be approved by the State;
•   Be installed at unit boundary or alternative
    boundary;
•   Yield representative samples of the
    uppermost aquifer;
•   Have well casings; and
•   Perform throughout the life of the
    monitoring program.
The ground water monitoring program is
performed in two phases under the proposed
rule:

•   Phase I: detect changes in ground water
    chemistry (performed semiannually on a
    limited number of parameters); and

•   Phase II: identify hazardous constituents
    released and to monitor hazardous
    constituents detected (State establishes
    monitoring frequency).

Corrective Action Program

The proposed rule establishes specific corrective
action plans, including assessment of corrective
measures, remedy selection, and corrective
action program implementation.

Closure and Post-Closure Care

The proposed rule required that closure  must
occur in a manner that:

•   Minimizes post-closure  release of leachate
    and explosive gases;
•   Minimizes the need for further maintenance;
    and
•   Ensures protection of human health and the
    environment.

The proposed requirements include post-closure
care:

•   Maintenance of the final cover and
    containment  system;
•   Leachate collection (when a leachate  system
    exists);
•   Ground water monitoring; and
•   Gas monitoring.

Post-closure care must continue for a minimum
of 30 years. Additional time periods may be
added by the State as necessary to protect
human health and the  environment.

Financial Assurance

Financial assurance was proposed for  closure,
post-closure care, and corrective action for
known releases.
                                                                                              109

-------
Chapter Nine
LEACHATE FORMATION AND
CONTROL

The term "leachate" refers to liquids that
migrate from the waste carrying dissolved or
suspended contaminants.  Leachate results from
precipitation entering the landfill and from
moisture that exists in the waste when it is
disposed.  Contaminants in the buried refuse
may result from the disposal of industrial
wastes, ash, waste treatment sludge, household
hazardous wastes, or from normal waste
decomposition.  If uncontrolled, landfill  leachate
can be responsible for contaminating ground
water and surface water.

The composition of leachate varies greatly from
site to site, and can vary within a particular site.
Some of the factors affecting composition
include:

•  Age of landfill;
•  Types of waste;
•  Degree of decomposition that has taken
   place; and
•  Physical modification of the waste (e.g.,
   shredding).
Once ground water is contaminated, it is very
costly to clean up. Today's landfills, therefore,
undergo rigorous  siting, design, and construction
procedures that provide many safeguards for the
control of leachate migration.

Liners

Liners are low-permeability membranes designed
to limit leachate movement into ground water.
Liners are made of low-permeability soils
(typically clays) or synthetic materials (e.g.,
plastic). Landfills can be designed with more
than one liner, and a mix of liner types may be
used.

Leachate collection systems are installed above
the liner and usually consist of a piping system
sloped to drain to a  central collection point
where a pump is-located.

Leachate Treatment or Disposal

Once the leachate has been collected and
removed from the landfill, it "must undergo
some type of treatment and disposal.  The most
common methods of management are:
                                      Installation of Synthetic Liner
110

-------
                                                                                     Land Disposal
 •  Discharge to publicly-owned treatment works
    (POTWs);

 •  On-site treatment followed by discharge; and

 •  Recirculation back into the landfill.

 Treatment in a POTW.  In some cases, landfill
 leachate can be added into incoming wastewater
 stream at a POTW, where it is biologically,
 physically, and/or chemically treated.  Discharge
 to a POTW, however, is not an option in all
 cases.  Care must be  taken not to interfere with
 operations at the POTW. The contaminants in
 leachate can sometimes upset POTW
 operations.

 On-Site Treatment. When discharge to a POTW
 is not feasible, constructing wastewater
 treatment facilities on-site with the sole purpose
 of treating leachate may be necessary. These
 facilities will add to the cost of a new facility,
 but may be required  to meet environmental
 regulations.   '

Recirculation.  Recirculation is another
 management technique for leachate.  When
 leachate  is recirculated through the waste pile,
 the decomposition process in the landfill speeds
 up, resulting in a shorter time for the landfill to
stabilize. The technique, however, does  not
eliminate the leachate.  Ultimately, the leachate
will have to be treated by one of the above
methods.  Certain restrictions on recirculation,
however, will probably be imposed by the new
landfill rules.
 Other leachate management options have been
 used in the past, but are not very common,
 primarily due to economic factors.  These
 include deep well injection, natural evaporation,
 and mechanical evaporation.

 Ground Water Monitoring

 To ensure that all of these  technologies are
 performing their designed function, and that
 compliance with all applicable regulations and
 permits is being maintained, surface water and
 ground water monitoring should be included at
 all new landfills.  By sampling from ground
 water wells located near the solid waste disposal
 facility, the presence, degree, and migration of
 any leachate can be detected.

 Proposed ground water monitoring  requirements
 were discussed under the "Federal Regulations"
 section of this Chapter.

 Surface  Water Pollution and  Control

 Surface water can also become contaminated at
 or near a landfill,  especially if ground water
 contamination is present (ground water often
 migrates towards, and may be the source of,
 surface water). Runoff from the landfill can
 contaminate surface waters at or near the "site.

 Berms and grading both are used to control
 runoff and surface water contamination. .
 Surface water monitoring should also take place
 to detect any contamination  as quickly as
 possible.

 METHANE FORMATION AND
 CONTROL

 Methane gas is a product of the anaerobic
 (absence of air) decomposition of organic
 refuse.  At and around municipal  solid waste
 landfills, methane can migrate through  soil and
 accumulate in closed areas (e.g., building
 basements) where it can present significant  '
 explosion dangers if not properly controlled.
 (methane is explosive in confined spaces when
found in concentrations between 5 and 15
percent).
        Clay Liner Installation and Compaction
                                                                                            111

-------
Chapter Nine
            Pipes for Leachate Collection
Landfill gas emissions are comprised of a
mixture of carbon dioxide and methane, of
which methane comprises 50 to 60 percent.  A
normal landfill will generate methane at these
concentrations for 10 to 20 years as waste
decomposition takes place, although methane
generation can continue for over 100 years.

Methane Control

Due to the inherent danger, methods of
controlling landfill gas have been developed.
Once methane is collected, it is usually vented
into the atmosphere, flared (burned), or
recovered as an energy source.

Both passive and active methane control systems
can be used at landfill sites. In passive systems,
trenches are dug around the perimeter of the
landfill and are filled with gravel and perforated
piping. As methane is formed in the landfill, it
migrates to the perimeter trenches where it  •
travels  up the piping system and is eventually
vented or flared.  In some instances, a
membrane liner is added to the outside walls of
the trenches to further inhibit gas migration
beyond the site.

Active systems use blowers to extract landfill gas
from the landfill.
                                                    Methane Recover?

                                                    In addition to controlling methane to reduce
                                                    explosion risks, recovering methane for fuel may
                                                    also be a viable option at landfills generating
                                                    sufficient quantities of gas.  Methane can be
                                                    cleaned (remove impurities) and sold as a low-
                                                    grade fuel or it  can be purified and upgraded to
                                                    pipeline-quality  methane. The economics of
                                                    these options depend largely on current natural
                                                    gas prices.

                                                    The gas-to-energy industry is growing, as 155
                                                    landfills in the United States recover or plan to
                                                    recover methane gas (Berenyi, 1989).
                                                    Approximately 50 percent of these are currently
                                                    operational. Methane recovery is expected to
                                                    become an important aspect of municipal solid
                                                    waste landfill operation in the future.
            :  Volatile Organic
      Compound (VOX?) Emissions

      In addition ID methane and carbon dioxide,
      landfill gas usually contains small; quantifies o£
      volatile organic compounds. VOCs are often.
      toxic and sometimes carcinogenic, sad may
      •present an environmental risk at landfills.
      YOCs Steve also been, flfltea to tow-level ossoae
                    BPA's Office. 
-------
                                                                                      Land Disposal
environmental impacts. Post-closure costs are
also discussed in the next section.

Potential new Federal requirements for closure
and post-closure care were discussed earlier in
this chapter.

SITING A NEW LANDFILL
Siting a new landfill involves analyzing the
scientific, logistical, and societal factors
associated with location alternatives.

Design Factors

Because of strict legal and environmental
regulations, careful scientific and engineering
analysis must take place during potential site
evaluation.  Surface and subsurface geology,
hydrogeology, and the environmental nature of
surrounding areas must be evaluated for
potential impacts.  Ground-water resources  and
flow must be protected, and the integrity of
soils must be preserved.  A substantial
hydrogeological  investigation and the prediction
of leachate quantities are usually performed
early in the planning stages.

Logistical Factors

Because of siting difficulties, new landfills are
being built further and further from waste
generation points.  This has a significant impact
on collection and transport operations.  When
siting a new facility, decision makers will have
to consider logistical factors such as access
roads,  travel distance, and travel time.

Community Factors

Community residents have very real concerns
regarding potential health and  environmental
impacts, decreased property values, and
increased traffic. Decision makers will benefit
from addressing these concerns as early in the
planning stages  as possible.  EPA is currently
preparing a facility siting guide entitled Sites for
Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective
Public Involvement.
 tear

 1982
s 1983
 1984
 1985
,198$
Tip Fee

$10.80
LANDFILL COSTS

Diminished capacities and increased
environmental
concerns have
directly led to             ,f   ftp feeS
increased landfill
costs and tipping
fees.  According to a
survey by the
National Solid
Wastes Management
Association, average
landfill tipping fees
(for a  national
sample) increased        ,198$  '  $13.43'
over 30 percent         'l987,v     $20,36
between 1987 and
1988 (Pettit, 1989).
Tipping fees vary         (Source; fettit,
significantly from        ' I9g9)
region to region.                 -  '"     '

Factors contributing
to the rising landfill costs include:

•   Stricter, more comprehensive environmental
    regulations;

•   Increased public awareness and demand for
    environmental protection;

•   Time delays in obtaining permits;

•   Compensation to local parties (those who
    are affected by a new site);  and

•   State fee assessments for recycling, refuse-to-
    energy,  environmental restoration, ground
    water protection, etc. (Glebs, 1988).

Pre-Development Costs

Pre-development costs are usually associated
with site selection, investigation, and permitting
costs.  Land prices are" directly  linked to local
economics, and can vary greatly from place to
place.  Landfills located in remote areas
generally have lower land costs but higher
transportation costs.  As environmental  and/-   '
legal requirements become more stringent,
permitting  and licensing also become more
complex. The cost of obtaining a permit or
license (and the cost of the engineering or legal
                                                                                               113

-------
Chapter Nine
support associated with permitting) depend on
the requirements of the particular state.

Construction Costs
These factors vary from location to location, so
operating costs are site-specific.  Some example
operating costs are outlined in Figure 9.4.  Note
that these are in 1986 dollars.
Several factors contribute to the overall cost of
landfill construction:
   General excavation;
   Liner construction;
   Leachate collection/extraction system design;
   Leachate treatment system;
   Ground water monitoring system;
   Surface water drainage controls; and
   Other facilities and equipment (scales,
   maintenance building, access roads, fencing).
The impact of these factors can vary
considerably from site to site.   The liner and
leachate collection/treatment system is generally
the most expensive component of the landfill.
Figure 9.3 provides some general construction
cost information.  These costs are only
examples, actual costs could be very different.
             Construction Cpsts
      Construction oasis fora stat«H)£-the-att toaasa<
      Total;
                        $4.00
      Peitientof Totfcl "„
      Lwffijl Costs  -,    355%
          Typical Operating Costs   *

                  $986 Dollars)
                                     '
      Operation Costs
        {For a 606-756 -1PD site, ineiudin|: personnel/
                                           '
                           ^
      Leacfcat«: collecticm, treatmeiit
        fay tpfdfc JO -mile tffxi?>' '
                               a» etttatent
        liner and coliectiou system vvitfi
        4rainsge, a typical tatft of generatiott
        10,000 gs
        about io>flOO gallott* $&; 
-------
                                                                                       Land Disposal
                       9,5
     Typical Closure Costs

             098* Dollars)

Item          Range of pnit Prices
              $2,20" to $2-50 per ou y4,
              $2,00 to $2.50 per cnt y4<
  £850 per acre


to $s,
                                                                                                 115

-------
 Chapter Nine
                                Chapter Nine Bibliography
Berenyi, Eileen, and Robert Gould, 1988-89 Methane Recovery From Landfill Yearbook: Directory and
    Guide, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc., 177 East 87th St., New York, NY 10128.  Tel:  (212)
    410-4165, 1989.

Dwyer, J.R. et al., Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Cover Designs, EPA, Hazardous Waste
    Engineering Lab., Cincinnati, OH ,December 1986. Available through:  National Technical
    Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. Tel: (703) 487-4650.  Doc: PB88-171327,

EPA, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258). Updated Provisions of State
    Solid Waste Regulations, Office of Solid Waste, July 1988.  Available through: National Technical
    Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161  Tel:  (703) 487-4650 Doc:  PB88-242458/XAB.

EPA, Critical Review and Summary ofLeachate and  Gas Production from Landfills, August 1986.
    Available through:  National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.  Tel: (703)
    487-4650. Doc:  PB86-240181/XAB.

EPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ground-Water Monitoring Technical
    Enforcement Guidance Document, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, September 1986. Available
    through National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. Tel: (703) 487-4650.  Doc:
    PB87-107751/XAB.

EPA, Sites for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement (Preliminary Draft), Office
    of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., 1989.

EPA, The Solid Waste Dilemma:  An Agenda for Action, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.,
    January 1989.

EPA, 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Proposed Rule, Federal Register,
    Tuesday, August 30, 1988, p. 33314.

Glebs, R.T., "Landfill Costs Continue to Rise," Waste Age, March  1988, p. 84.

Glebs, R.T., "Estimating Landfill Costs: Environmental Control, Planning  to Post-Closure Care,"
proceedings, GRCDA Conference, August 1987. Cited in  GRCDA, May  1989.

GRCDA, GRCDA Training Course Manual: Managing Sanitary Landfill Operations, Government Refuse
    Collection and Disposal Association, P.O. Box 7219, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.  Tel:  (301) 585-
    2898, May 1989.

Merry, William, A Comprehensive Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program at a Municipal Solid Waste
   Landfill, Government Refuse Collection and Disposal Association, P.O. Box 7219,  Silver Spring, MD
    20910.  Tel: (301) 585-2898,  August 1987.

O'Leary, Philip, Larry Canter, William D. Robinson, "Land Disposal," in The Solid Waste Handbook:  A
   Practical Guide, William D. Robinson, ed., New York:  John Wiley and Sons, 1986.

Pettit, C.L., "Tip Fees Up More Than 30% in Annual NSWMA Survey,"  Waste Age, March 1989, p.
    101.
116

-------
                                                                              Special Wastes
Chapter  Ten
                           Special  Wastes
     , •               .. ,   ,    ,
     * Proper management ol foo
       hazardous wastes will have positive
        f            • T •   „    •" •• •"*•
      ,: environmental effects and
       operation*
    -  ',"''-  '/? ",' js- -y  "" ,  ^ _   ,„ s  s
   ..  * . :;Used oil should be seen as a valuable
                           -
      Jett residing 'can have significant
   ''••  senvironjnental ^4 ecottowle benefits,
   - '; ¥' Tires cause problems in landfills and
              s» HevFoSes for used, tires
     * \ Construction and demolition debris,
                     d KWtft goods all
                     elements,
Special wastes, such as household hazardous
wastes, used oil, and tires are not normally
collected with other municipal solid waste and
require special handling practices.  These wastes
present unique problems and opportunities for
decision makers.

HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE (HHW)

Many products used for everyday household
cleaning and upkeep contain substances that can
threaten human  health and the environment if
they are disposed of improperly. Common
detergents, cleaners, and furniture polishes, as
well as pesticides, paints, thinners,  solvents, and
do-it-yourself automotive materials are just a
few examples of these "household hazardous
wastes."

The disposal of household hazardous waste is
unregulated in most states. Therefore, people
typically dispose of it by pouring it down drains
or storm sewers, burning or burying it in the ,
backyard,  or  mixing it in with non-hazardous
household waste that is .collected by the  city or
a waste management company.  Unfortunately,
many people either do not realize  that
household hazardous waste should  be disposed
of in a special manner, or they find it too
inconvenient or  costly to do so.  Decision
makers must be  aware of this problem and seek
to educate citizens about household hazardous
waste as well as  provide them with
opportunities to dispose of it properly.

Improper  Disposal of HHW

Although improperly disposed of household
hazardous waste makes up only a very small
percentage (less  than one percent) of the
municipal solid waste stream, it can pose
serious problems for any type of waste
management effort.  Even small amounts of
some substances can cause fires and explosions,
                                                                                       117

-------
                Chapter Ten
                release toxic fumes, contaminate soil and
                ground water, and harm those who handle them
                unknowingly.

                Quantifying the precise risks and effects of
                improper household hazardous waste disposal is
                difficult for several reasons.  First, it is almost
                impossible  to determine how much of the waste
                stream household hazardous wastes make up.
                The composition of this fraction is  also very
                difficult to  determine.  In addition, many
                common methods of household hazardous waste
                disposal (pouring down the drain, backyard
                burning, etc.) are very  difficult  to track.
                Researchers have also had difficulty
                distinguishing the damage resulting from
                household hazardous waste from the damage
                attributable to illegally deposited  hazardous
                waste from other sources.
                           Improper Disposal of
                      Household Hazardous Wastes
                      Improper disposal of household hazardous
                     ^wastes can .lead to a variety of problems;
                       materials,
                       systems and at wstewater treatment plants,
                       ground and stttfeee water pollution, tceac
                       accumulation in food chains,   :
                                    ••            st
                      » jfedncratlom Sites and fcaglostott*, tesfe
                       emissions, concentrated toxic ash. "

                      • Burial: Soil and ground water contamination,
                       fires and explosions, toxic fumes.

                      " Miring with non-hazardous wastes  ijann to
                       workers during handling.
               Special HHW Collection Programs

               In the past, efforts to rninimize improper
               household hazardous waste disposal have
               included public education programs, toll-free
               information "hot-lines", special collection days,
               recycling of certain wastes, and permanent waste
               collection sites.
 Collection Days

 One of the most common approaches to
 household hazardous waste management is to
 hold a community waste collection day.  On
 collection days, community members are invited
 to bring their household hazardous wastes, at
 little or no charge, to a specified location for
 recycling, treatment, or disposal by professional
 waste  handlers. Promotion and education for
 these events are very important.

 A great deal of advanced planning and
 coordination is required to make these events
 successful and  cost-effective. Persons familiar
 with HHW must be on hand to direct people to
 the  proper storage area or container.  Chemists
 may also  be required, especially if any mixing
 ("bulking") of materials will take place.

 Participation in collection  days is usually less
 than one  percent, which makes the cost per
 person quite high. The cost of collection day
 programs can range from $30 to $300 per
 participant (Conn, 1989).   It is important to
 remember, however, that even if households  do
 not  participate directly in a collection day, the
 publicity surrounding the event will  raise
 awareness about the household hazardous waste
 problems.  This will encourage people to use
 proper disposal methods in the future and
 participate in the next collection day.

Permanent Collection Sites

 To increase the convenience of the program
 and, therefore, increase participation, more and
 more communities are establishing permanent
 collection sites (e.g. fire stations, landfill, county
 property)  to collect HHW.  Programs involving
 permanent collection facilities allow citizens  to
 drop off wastes at their own convenience.
 Thus, permanent collection sites can be more
 effective for collecting HHW than one day
collections.

HHW Exchanges

Waste  exchanges are programs that allow
community members to "recycle" household
products,  such  as cleaners, paints, batteries, and
some kinds of pesticides, that have been
brought to a waste  collection site by others.
Household hazardous waste exchanges are not
common activities, however, mainly due to the
_

-------
                                                                                    Special Wastes
risk of distributing incorrectly labeled or
contaminated products.  Sponsors could be held
liable for injury or damage resulting from the
use of the "recycled" HHW.

HHW Management and Disposal

EPA suggests that program sponsors follow the
waste management hierarchy for managing
collected HHW.  This means reusing and
recycling as much as possible, then  treating
waste in a hazardous waste treatment facility
and finally, disposing of the remaining waste in
a hazardous waste landfill.

Household hazardous waste is exempt by
definition from the Federal hazardous waste
regulations of RCRA  All household wastes are
exempt, including HHW that has been
accumulated in HHW collection programs.
State and local requirements may differ, so
decision makers should review both.

Although HHW is exempt  from RCRA Subtitle
C hazardous waste regulations, EPA
recommends that sponsors  of HHW collection
programs manage the collected HHW as a
hazardous waste.  When a  community has
already gone to the effort and expense of
collecting these materials, Subtitle C controls
provide a greater level of human health and
environmental protection and reduce potential
CERCLA liability (CERCLA does not exempt
household hazardous waste from liability).

Benefits of Removing HHW From
the Municipal Waste Stream

It is important to keep in mind that the chief
goal of any program that addresses household
hazardous waste is to reduce the amount of this
waste that is being added to the everyday
municipal solid waste stream.  The benefits
from diverting HHW from the waste stream are
immediate.  In addition to potential damage to
drainpipes  and water supplies, HHW can lead
to ground water contamination at landfills and
composting facilities, and hazardous air
emissions and contaminated ash at  municipal
waste combustion facilities. Decision makers
should carefully balance the costs and benefits
of any special household hazardous waste
program. A well  planned HHW program can
create significant environmental benefits.
USED OIL

Used oil is a valuable resource that should be
recycled for several reasons.  One of the main
concerns associated with used oil is that it can
contain a number of materials that can cause
harm to human health and the environment if
disposed of improperly. For instance, pouring
oil down storm drains, onto the  ground, or into
the trash, can contaminate ground water, surface
water, and  soils.  It only takes one gallon of oil
to ruin one million gallons of water.

Recycling used oil saves energy and natural
resources.  Used oil can be rerefined into
lubricating  oil and used again as motor oil or
reprocessed and used as fuel in industrial
burners and boilers.

EPA estimates that do-it-yourselfers.(DIY),
those who  change their own oil, generate 200
million gallons of used oil per year.  Of this, it
is estimated that only 10 percent Js recycled.
That means 180 million gallons per year are
poured onto the ground, down sewers,- or into
the trash, contaminating surface  and ground
water as well as soil.  Clearly, greater efforts
should be made by decision makers to increase
the level of used  oil recycling in communities
throughout the country.

Used oil is not currently a federally listed
hazardous waste.  As with household hazardous
waste, DIY used oil collected in local recycling
programs is not exempt from CERCLA liability.
For this reason, it is important that the
program sponsor  be sure the DIY used  oil is
      Benefits of Used Oil Recycling


      « It tsflcea onfy one gaJhm of usefl *sl t# wafce
        the Z5 quarts of lubricating Oil that it takes
        42 gallons Of crude oil to maka

      • Re-refining oil takes Only about one-third tbe
        energy required to refine crude 08. to
        lubricant quality.

      • If aU of the used oil m the 0^. were
        recycled^ it would save the XL&. 1.3 miffloa
        barrels oE oil per day.

      »- One gallon of used oil used as fuel contains
        alxn* 140,000 Sttt of ensuf.
                                                                                              119

-------
 Chapter Ten
being recycled by a reputable company. It is
also important that individuals who contribute
oil for recycling, do not mix the used oil with
any other substances, (e.g., gasoline, paint
thinner).  Mixing can contaminate the oil and
make it unfit for recycling.

Decision makers should also investigate State
and local regulations for used oil, since these
are often more stringent than the Federal
regulations.

Used Oil Collection  Programs

In the past few years, efforts to initiate used oil
recycling programs have been successful. As of
1988, over half of the States either had or were
planning to start used oil recycling programs.
Many of these programs are joint efforts
between local governments and private or semi-
private sponsors.  Local sponsors often design,
organize, and promote the program, while local
governments collect the  used oil at central
collection centers or by means of curbside
pickups. As with any type of recycling program,
it is important to provide  convenient collection
service and maintain high  levels of education
and promotion of the program.

Curbside Collection Prog/rams

In a curbside collection program, used oil is
picked up at a designated  time along with
regular trash or other recyclables.  Normally,
the used oil is then transferred to a holding
tank where it is picked up by a used oil hauler. '
If this kind of collection program is
implemented, it is very important to coordinate
closely with the local waste haulers and
recycling collection crews so that collection
trucks are equipped with temporary holding
tanks or storage space for the used oil.

A variation on this type of program is periodic
curbside collection.  Ideally, periodic collections
occur during peak oil-changing seasons,  in the
late spring and early fall.  Continual public
promotion is crucial to the success of both
regular and periodic curbside collection
programs.

Designated Collection Sites

Designated collection sites are drums or tanks
set up in established private or public locations
for the collection of used oil.  It is very
important that the location of such a site be
both convenient and accessible. Locations that
are frequently chosen include stores selling
discount oil, fire stations, service stations, and
landfills.  These sites must be well marked and
frequently maintained in order to minimize the
risk of contamination.  In addition, they should
be serviced regularly to make sure that there is
always sufficient room in the collection
containers for more oil.

Businesses With Established Oil Collection Tanks

Many businesses that regularly use oil
themselves, such as service stations, car
dealerships, and taxi or rental car garages,
already have tanks installed for used oil
collection. When the price of virgin oil was
high, many of these groups accepted used oil
from DIYers.  Today, fewer will take the oil
because of increased costs and confusion over
the regulatory status of used oil.   Decision
makers should encourage these businesses to
accept used oil and should make their services
known to the community.

Special Drop-off Days

Used oil can also be collected on special drop-
off days such as community household
hazardous waste collection days.  It is important
to publicize these special collection days
throughout the community in order to ensure
high rates of participation.  (These programs
are similar to the HHW collection days
described  above.)
120

-------
                                                                                      Special Wastes
 TIKES

 Over 200 million tires are disposed of annually,
 primarily in landfills or tire piles.  Landfilling
 or stockpiling tires, however, are not the "best"
 management options.  Tires are large volume
 wastes that take up a significant amount of
 space at landfills.  As landfill space becomes
 more scarce, this becomes an increasingly
 expensive option.

 Besides the valuable space they use, tires placed
 in landfills pose other "burial" problems. Not
 only do they cause uneven settling, they tend to
 rise in landfills  and can break landfill covers.

 Stockpiling of tires also presents problems.
 Large tire piles are a potential source of large,
 difficult-to-extinguish fires which emit noxious
 fumes.  The stockpiles also provide an ideal
 habitat for breeding mosquitos and vermin that
 can spread disease.

 Tire manufacturers have worked hard to make
 their products more durable.  Today's passenger
 car  tire has an average life of 40,000 miles,
 while tires during the World War II era lasted
 only 10,000 miles.  Unfortunately, the
 availability of inexpensive natural and synthetic
 rubber has decreased the number .of tires which
 are  retreaded.  In addition, the durability and
.the  complex mixture of ingredients in radial
 tires make them a challenge to recycle.

 Tire Recycling

 Despite the disposal problems associated with
 tires, they are only beginning to be recognized
 as a valuable resource.  For several reasons,
 used tires are well-suited to recycling or reuse.
 Because used tires are often stored in
 stockpiles, or are disposed of in large quantities
 by retailers who haul them by the truckload,
 used tires are a particularly accessible material
 for recycling or reuse. Also, tire components are
 fairly standard making them particularly suitable
 for recycling.  Tire recycling  options include:

 •   Retreading or recapping decent-quality used
     tires for reuse;

 •   Using whole tires for playground equipment
     or in reef construction;
•   Chopping, shredding, or grinding used tires
    and reusing the rubber in smaller rubber
    parts such as rubber mats and molded
    rubber objects; and

•   Mixing ground rubber from tires with
    asphalt to produce rubberized paving
    materials.

Tire-Derived  Fuel

The energy .value of tires  is high (comparable to
high grade coal)  so reuse as fuel may be an
option. Tire-derived fuel (TDF) refers to tires
that have been shredded into small rubber chips
that are burned in dedicated TDF boilers or
used as a replacement for high grade
bituminous coal.  Facilities  that may use TDF
as a fuel include cement kilns,  pulp and paper
facilities, and electric power plants.

CONSTRUCTION / DEMOLITION
WASTE

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris  is
made up of a variety of waste materials from
building and demolition sites.  These materials
include:  steel, asphalt,  concrete, brick, plaster,
wallboard, and piping.

Most construction/demolition debris is currently
disposed of in landfills. It is usually separated
from other solid  waste since its contents are
relatively inert and the  requirements for the
disposal of such wastes are  not as stringent as
the requirements for the disposal of standard
municipal solid waste.

However, some construction/demolition debris
contains toxic substances such as asbestos, an
insulating material that has  been determined to
be a carcinogen associated with lung cancer.
Other  hazardous materials that may be found in
this waste include lead pipes, PCBs in
transformers  and capacitors, and toxics  in paints
and treated lumber.   If hazardous materials are
found  in construction/demolition debris, they
must be removed and handled separately.

Recyclable Materials in C&D waste

Much  construction/demolition debris contains
recyclable materials.  For  instance, asphalt can
be reused in  road repair,  and bricks and
                                                                                               121

-------
Chapter Ten
cinderblocks make good fill material.
Unfortunately, these materials are often difficult
to recycle because they are combined in the
construction process and are not easy to
separate.  Economical ways to separate these
materials must be found before their full
recycling potential will be realized.
WOOD WASTES

About four percent of what EPA defines as the
solid waste stream (excluding construction/
demolition wastes) consists of wood (EPA,
1988). Nearly half of this wood is wood
packaging such as shipping pallets and boxes.

Processing Wood Wastes

Ideally, wood wastes are processed at materials
recovery facilities (MRFs) or transfer stations
rather than being sent to landfills. Wood waste
can then be separated for recycling. Removing
wood from the waste stream conserves landfill
space and saves energy and natural resources.

When wood is sent to a MRF or a transfer
station, it is hand inspected and processed until
an acceptable level of purity is  reached.  It is
then sent through  large chippers, magnetic
separators to remove metal debris such as nails
and staples, and screens to remove undersize
chips and residue.  The final product consists of
wood chips 1/2 to  3  inches in size.

Uses of Processed Wood

Where markets are available, use as an
industrial fuel constitutes the best outlet for
processed wood, mainly because it can currently
be sold at higher prices.  Processed wood is also
sold as mulch or used for landfill cover.
Waste wood is turning into a business, as
recycling facilities that accept only wood are
generating fair amounts of revenue.  Tipping
fees at these facilities are lower than those at
general waste disposal sites when the wood has
already been separated from the waste stream.
Both  the recycling facility, which gets  its raw
material, and the generator, who saves money
through lower disposal costs, benefit from this
arrangement.  Like all recycling operations,
however, waste wood recycling will be
economically feasible only if a steady supply and
a steady market  are available.
WHITE GOODS

White goods are large, worn-out or broken
household and industrial appliances such as
stoves, refrigerators, and clothes dryers.  These
wastes are usually handled by scrap processors
who use shredders to  recover the metal
components of the appliances for reuse in mills
and foundries to produce new steel.  There is
some concern over the presence of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the
electrical components used in, some white goods.
Many scrap  metal dealers and brokers require
that PCB-containing components be removed
before the appliances  are processed.  Most
municipalities currently pay to have their white
goods disposed.
122

-------
                                                                                   Special Wastes
                                 Chapter Ten Bibliography
Chertow, Marian, Garbage Solutions: A Public Official's Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid Waste "
    Management Technologies, National Resource Recovery Association, United States Conference of
    Mayors, 1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, B.C. 20006.  Tel: (202) 293-7330, 1989.

Conn, David W., "Managing Household Hazardous Waste," Journal of the American Planning
    Association, Volume 55, No. 2, Spring 1989, p. 192.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Household Hazardous Wastes: Feasibility of Operating a
    Collection Disposal Assistance Program, IEPA, Springfield, Illinois, February 1989.

EPA, The Solid Waste Dilemma:  An Agenda for Action, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.,
    January 1989.

EPA, How to Set Up a Local Used Oil Recycling Program, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.,
    EPA/530-SW-89-039A,  1989. Available through RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

EPA, Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs, Office of Solid Waste
    and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., October 1986.  Available through the National
    Technical Information Service,  Springfield,  VA 22161.  Tel: (703) 487-4650.   Doc: PB87-
    108072/XAB.

EPA, Used Oil Recycling:  10 Steps to Change Your Oil, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., 1989.
    Available through RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

EPA, Used Oil Recycling:  What  Can You Do?, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., 1989.
    Available through RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

EPA, Used Oil Recycling:  For Service Stations and Other Vehicle Service Facilities,  Office of Solid Waste,
    Washington, D.C., 1989. Available through RCRA Hotline: 1-800-424-9346.

United States Department of Energy, Waste Tire Utilization, U.S. DOE, Washington, D.C., March 1987.
                                                                                            123

-------
 Chapter Ten
124

-------
                                                            Public Education and Involvement
Chapter Eleven

 Public  Education  and   Involvement
    MAJOR MESSAGES
    ; "'-: >"--   '^>~   -, /
    y Dwisioa wafcgp s&wld S&voh?e the „,
      public early in ffre waste '
    ? management planning
                       "
              ^          f
    « Promotibn and educsitloQ programs
     / $li^1dWtt^«4^^aeee(sr<>f
     " eadi community and maintained
     -           '        ""
              for
'  ! involvement requires tihat decision
;'  makers understand their andienee,
Vy^eiau^a fonttal j^3laji, aaift establish
 1 a method for evaluating programs.
    .' 8tio»v
     , and funding activities are challenges
      implement education and involvement
      programs.  "*','_,       ' \ '..',
         e puTblie b«s a rght and a
   w "costs and liabilities of managing the
     '       , they produce,  '          ^
Whether decision makers are considering
mandatory recycling, organizing a household
hazardous waste collection program, or
developing a source reduction campaign for
industries, public education and involvement
will play a significant role before a program is
chosen as well as after.  Public recognition and
concern regarding solid waste management
issues has increased tremendously in the last
several years and will continue to increase into
the 1990s.  Public education efforts result in a
more informed citizenry that can actively
participate in solving  its community's solid
waste problems.

The terms public education and public
involvement encompass a broad scope of
activities and techniques designed to help
citizens participate in decisions, convey
information, solicit citizen concerns, heighten
public awareness, and motivate participation in
programs.  A comprehensive solid waste
management education and  involvement
program makes  use of civic groups, businesses,
schools, churches, and the media to participate
in decision making and to promote a positive
solid waste ethic through meetings, special
events, lectures, promotional materials,
newsletters, displays, contests, and collection
activities.

Public Involvement in Decision
Making

Decision makers should strive to involve the
public in decision making throughout the solid
waste management planning process.  It is
particularly important for decision makers to
work with the community in the initial  planning
process. An advisory  council or task force can
be established to provide an organizational
framework for citizen  participation.  This group
could include citizens, business people, members
of local environmental groups, community
neighborhood groups,  and church organizations.
                                                                                   125

-------
Chapter Eleven
The advisory group can be educated about the
local waste management situation, the full costs
and liabilities associated with managing the
waste, and the management and disposal
options which are available.  The community
group can identify concerns and assist the
decision makers in integrating solutions into the
plan for the management of waste. This type of
input can build community support for  the
chosen management scenario and can increase
its success.

Management of municipal waste requires
flexibility in program design; for this reason, it
is helpful to maintain the citizen advisory group
even after initial planning.  The advisory group
can provide feedback on chosen options and
make recommendations about changes and
additions to the program.

Key to Effective Public Education
and Participation

Implementing new waste management programs
requires education of the public, especially for
programs where citizen participation is  needed.
Education information for the public should
answer the questions of "where?, when?, why?,
and how?".  The education program should be
positive,  and provide simple instructions on how
to participate. Opportunities for
communicating with and involving the public
should be established early in the planning
process.  For example, if a neighborhood drop-
off site for recyclables is going to  be
established, the decision maker should promote
it to build  citizen interest and support, even
before it is in place. Communication with the
public and promotion of the program should be
ongoing. Media events, posters, newsletters, are
all  good tools to use in a continuing education
program.

An effective education and promotion program
should be planned with the community's needs
in mind. But it is not necessary to "reinvent
the wheel." A significant amount of time and
energy can be saved by examining the public
education activities that other communities have
initiated — borrowing from their successes and
learning from their failures.  Decision makers
can review activities and educational materials
used in other public awareness programs, such
as  seat belt safety campaigns. Techniques used
in these campaigns to promote an idea or
suggest a new behavior can be modified to
express a municipal solid waste management
theme.

Building a successful  public participation
program will be assisted by explaining to the
public how the parts  of the integrated plan were
decided upon, who participated in the decision
making and what was taken into consideration.
Also, the public has a right and responsibility to
understand the full costs and liabilities
associated with management of the waste they
generate.  This information will help the public
understand the importance of the municipal
waste management issues, assist in gaining
community support and help individuals take
responsibility for the  waste they generate.
PLANNING A PUBLIC
EDUCATION PROGRAM

Successful public education programs are the
result of careful planning.  By developing a
realistic education and involvement plan,
decision makers can assess the situation and
know where best to direct their  efforts and
resources.

Decision makers will benefit from taking
advantage of all opportunities to work with the
community.  The process of developing an
education  and involvement plan provides an
opportunity  to involve the community in the
planning process at an early  point. The
previously described citizens  advisory council or
other groups like environmental education
subcommittees of local organizations can
provide valuable input and assistance in
developing the plan.

Understanding Your Audiences

The first step in public education planning is to
understand the different audiences that exist
within the community and determine how these
diverse groups receive information.  What are
some of the sub-groups within the community?
Should public awareness materials be bilingual?
What are  citizens concerned about? What local
radio news programs and talk shows do
residents listen to?  Do  citizens respond well to
public notices included in their county or city
 126

-------
                                                                   Public Education and Involvement
bills? Are posters at local stores an effective
method of getting across a message?  Are civic
groups already conducting recycling or litter
education campaigns?  Answering these kinds of
questions will ensure that the appropriate
messages, activities, and media are used in the
plan. Decision makers can conduct interviews
with community leaders,  administer public
opinion surveys, and work with existing citizen
advisory groups to gather this information.

Preparing A Plan

The second step in public education planning is
to prepare a formal plan.  The program should
be broken down into one-year increments so
that its goals are manageable.  Decision makers
should include the following in their plans:

•      Main issues or challenges to be
        addressed;

•      Goals to be reached;

•      Activities and events to accomplish  each
        goal;

•      Resources (funding, volunteers, and
        community support) available  for each
        activity and event; and

 •      Timeline that coordinates'public
        education efforts with program
        implementation  and takes into account
      « seasonal activities  and events.

There is  a broad range of possible activities or
events that can be included in a public
education plan.   The activities chosen should
promote and complement  the specific waste
 management options being considered or
 implemented as part of  the community's solid
waste management program.  For example,  if a
 community's first priority is  to reduce wastes
 from businesses and industries, then education
 programs targeted  toward  business associations
 need to be emphasized.

 Proposed activities should also satisfy the
 information needs  of the community and be
 within a community's budget and resource
 limits.  In some instances, decision makers
 should consider conducting smaller-scale pilot
 public education projects.  Such efforts can
     / — -FaeiHtF Siting
           ,  , /  , , v  ,  i  '       '  '
    As a tesalt of developing: a new waste
    management plaut decision, makers may
    find: themselves ia the position of
    having to site aew'%aste management
    facilities (e\g, landfills, incinerators,
    , recycling, and compost facilities), an
    %aetivity that is often met with great
    community opposition.  Without  a
    comprehensive process 'for Identifying.
    coflt^urMty concern! ari<3 integrating
    t&ern.' into toe 'deeiislo^maklBf process,
    dedsio» makers caa 6e &ce$ with costly
    project delays and even eaneellatioris.
          has fur epared a
     guide for decision makers to assist them
     ia. CQmmuHicattog ^titi and itiwlviag
    " the public &ir mg the siting #f waste
     management facilities, This document
     is entitled Sites for Our Solid Waste:  A
                 la addMOtt to discussing
    'risk communication, "mitigating impacts,
     aad bi*ip&g crMblity for technical    '
     infoanation, ihe guidebook describes, a
     variety of pijbHe involvemenj a'ctivities
     that can be^sect Co Improve eoaunonity
    'relations at a new waste management,
     site,  Decision, rflaken ^1 t?e»eflt Srom
     reading this guide tegasflless
     ax not taey are involved to. a siting
     effort  TM fablic"particij}afion
     tecttalques described can be used
     all phases of solid waste management
provide a perfect testing ground for new ideas.
Lessons learned  from these projects can be
incorporated into larger, more visible projects
as the program gains public support.

Evaluating Activities

The final step in public education planning is to
establish a method for  evaluating each of the
program activities. Evaluating each activity will
provide decision makers with the information
needed  to refine and modify the plan over time.
For example, if a community has a goal of
                                                                                              127

-------
Chapter Eleven
reducing the amount of household hazardous
waste going to its landfill, its public education
plan could include periodic household
hazardous waste collection events.  Decision
makers could set participation and collection
goals for each event.  Tallies of the number of
actual participants  and the amount and types of
household hazardous wastes  collected could be
kept to determine if goals were achieved.  In
addition, a simple survey form could be passed
out to participants to solicit comments on the
event's logistics, advertising,  and overall
effectiveness.

The data gathered  to evaluate an activity, such
as the number of participants, should be
communicated to the community.  Feedback on
the accomplishments of the program will serve
as positive reinforcement for the community.
MEETING PUBLIC EDUCATION
AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
CHALLENGES

Many public education and involvement efforts
that address waste management issues face
similar challenges. Three of the more common
challenges include successfully delivering
educational messages, maintaining program
participation, and funding activities or a
program.

Successfully Delivering Educational
Messages

Budget constraints all too often restrain
decision makers from hiring solid waste public
education specialists.  Some states, such as Ohio
and Virginia, have established county grants for
litter control  and recycling programs that have
enabled local communities to hire education
personnel.  However, one or two people cannot
effectively visit every classroom, or talk at every
civic organization meeting.  As a result, decision
makers need to be resourceful when deciding
upon the best approach for delivering their
education programs.
Educating Young People

Teaching young people about solid waste
management — about the value of recycling and
reducing litter and household hazardous wastes
and the need for properly operated waste
management facilities ~ is essential for
developing  a  responsible solid waste ethic
among a community's future residents. In
addition to future benefits, youth-oriented
programs can have an immediate pay-off by
bringing recycling and other waste management
messages home to parents.  It is important to
remember that schools and educators are
already overwhelmed by "Fire Prevention Week,"
"Dental Care Week," and a variety of other    .
important issues such as drug abuse that take
time away from required studies.  Therefore,
when developing in-school education programs,
decision makers should use interdisciplinary
activities that can be integrated into teacher's
lesson plans throughout the year.  For example,
math problems that use recycling statistics, short
stories or plays about conservation issues,
science experiments that deal with waste
disposal, or word puzzles that use solid waste
management terms, can be part of a waste
awareness curriculum.

Many states, communities, and non-profit
organizations have already developed effective
curricula covering recycling, litter control, and
waste management.  (EPA has a national solid
waste curriculum entitled Let's Recycle:
Curriculum for Solid Waste Awareness). IJy
using these materials, decision makers can
minimize high development costs.
Interdisciplinary curricula, complemented by
special events, such as recycling drives or waste
management science fair projects, allow for
maximum teacher and student participation,
flexibility, and creativity.

In-school education programs are not the only
avenue through which children can be reached.
Decision makers should consider developing
programs that can be integrated with activities
that are already organized at the local level
such as reading programs at libraries and after-
school programs at boys and girls clubs.  Other
youth-oriented organizations, such as church
youth groups, 4-H clubs, and Junior
Achievement clubs, should also be explored.
For example,  Girl Scouts  and Boy Scouts have
merit badges that focus on ecology, recycling,
128

-------
                                                                   Public Education and Involvement
litter clean-up, and civic pride.  One way to
educate Scouts about solid waste management is
to conduct workshops for their Troop Leaders.
At a workshop, Troop  Leaders can learn about
local solid waste management operations,
potential field trip opportunities, and specific
projects that their Scouts  can undertake to earn
related badges.  This type of "targeted"
approach to public education is cost-effective
since the Troop Leaders will end up sharing
their new knowledge with hundreds of
youngsters year after year.
                       i
Encouraging Program Participation

Establishing and maintaining participation in a
solid waste program  can be a perpetual
challenge for any decision maker.  This
challenge is complicated by the addition of new
program elements, such as source reduction and
recycling, which require a change in citizen
attitude and action.  For example, attention to
the separation and non-contamination of certain
wastes may be required.  One key to this
challenge is to implement activities that
promote a sense of community pride and
ownership.  Neighborhood recycling drop-off
centers are an excellent example of an activity
that can foster a sense of community pride.
People develop a sense of pride by playing an
active role in the development of a recycling
drop-off center and in  participating in
collection.  Decision makers  can solicit youth
groups or civic organizations to paint the
center's collection bins or landscape the
surrounding grounds. A contest to name the
local drop-off center will enable neighbors to
develop a sense of ownership for the facility.
Neighborhood drop-off centers can also become
social places where people see their neighbors
and can enjoy participation together. If several
drop-off centers exist in a community,  contests
measuring  the amount of recyclables collected
during a certain period of tune can be held
between neighboring centers.  This type of
activity builds a sense of friendly rivalry and a
spirit of competition that attracts new
participants and increases existing involvement.

The citizen advisory group and community in
general need to be encouraged, reinforced, and
recognized for their efforts.   For example,
newspaper articles about members or activities
of the citizen advisory group can be featured.
Articles about recyclers in the community and
awards for residents or groups that regularly
volunteer for household hazardous waste
collections can also encourage active citizens to
continue their efforts as well as motivate other
members of the community to take part in
waste management activities.  A personalized
thank you note or a letter to the  editor goes a
long way toward building positive community
spirit and encouraging continued participation.

Funding Activities  or a Program

Public education and public involvement
programs for municipal solid waste management
do not have to be extremely costly. They do,
however, require a definite commitment from
decision makers for the  funds as well as staff
time necessary to plan and coordinate a
successful program. This cost is small when
one considers the benefits that a community
will receive from public input on  decisions and
public education programs that promote
integrated solid waste management - averted
disposal costs, a cleaner environment, and
longer landfill life, as well as the  prospect of
better community relations.

While the .competition for cash contributions is
steep, whenever possible, decision makers
should look to the community for assistance.
With innovative ideas and strategic planning, a
little money and a lot of in-kind services can go
a long way.   For example, printing grocery bags
with a civic message such as an announcement
for a household hazardous waste collection day
is a community service frequently provided by
local grocery stores.  A  high school or local
college class  can take on the challenge of
producing a video that shows residents how to
source separate their household waste.   This
same video could be shown to civic groups by
members  of a volunteer speakers  bureau.  Many
clubs and organizations  have newsletters and
welcome noteworthy information on community
events such as source reduction or recycling
programs in schools. Businesses with marquees
and reader boards are often willing to announce
special events and display promotional messages.

Media coverage, such as newspaper articles,
radio interviews, and public service
announcements, are low-cost ways to
communicate with hundreds to thousands of
                                                                                              129

-------
Chapter Eleven
community members about planning special
collection events and project milestones.
Advertising space can also be purchased.
Although this is a more expensive route,
carefully designed and well-placed
advertisements can be well worth the cost.  In
some cases, local businesses will underwrite
advertising costs, if appropriate credit is given.

SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC
EDUCATION AND  INVOLVEMENT
PROGRAMS

Decision makers should keep in mind that each
community's municipal solid waste plan is
different, and what constitutes a successful
public education and involvement program in
one case may not be what is needed in another.
It is  critical that decision  makers involve
citizens  in the waste management planning
process  and that they educate the citizenry of
the full  costs and liabilities of managing the
waste they produce.  This, combined with broad
and ongoing education on how to participate,
will lead to public support of and participation
in waste management programs.
                               Chapter Eleven Bibliography
Brown, Hamilton, et. al., Why Waste a Second Chance? A Small Town Guide to Recycling, National
       Center for Small Communities, National Association of Towns and Townships, 1522 K Street,
       N.W., Suite 730, Washington, D.C. 20005.  Tel:  (202) 737-5200, 1989.

EPA, Bibliography of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives, Office of Solid Waste,
       Washington, D.C., August 1989. Available through the RCRA Hotline:  1-800-424-9346.

EPA, Environmental Education Materials For Teachers and Young People (Grades K-12), Office of Solid
       Waste, Washington, D.C., August 1988.

EPA, Recycling Works! State and Local Solutions to Solid Waste Management Problems, Office of Solid
       Waste, Washington, D.C., January 1988.

EPA, Sites for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement (Preliminary Draft), Office
       of Solid Waste, 1989.

Massachusetts Recycling Program, Public Education, Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal, Department of
       Environmental Quality Engineering, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston.

Rickmers-Skislak, Tanis, Publicity and Education For Recycling:  An Informative Guide, 3319 Willow
       Crescent Dr.  #32, Fairfax, Virginia, Second Edition 1987.
130

-------
                                                                     Financing and Revenues
Chapter Twelve
              Financing   and  Revenues
    MAJOR MESSAGES
     *  Sound financial management of the
       proposed waste jwaaagement systext*
       will require decision malcers to toaow
       the operating and capital costs and
       projected revenues Bleach waste
     ••  management alternative,
           -,-.„       m_,',
     «  .Waste generators, tioth corporate and
       individual, xte&Tfo- iwideristand the
       full costs and liabilities associated
       with the management of their wastes,
    /f so that they ««n understand the
       current waste management system
     , and, how waste reduction and
       recycling can he beneficial to them.

     •  Operating revenues may be generated
       by a tttoaber of options, including
       taxes, user fees, and revenues from
       recovered materials.

     «  Capital financing may be
      ' accomplished  using a  number of
       "alternatives, including borrowing,
       current revetfttg^ aftd private
       financing.
Once a number of alternatives for managing the
community's solid waste have been identified,
the financial impact of each of these
alternatives must be carefully considered. The
costs of collecting and disposing of solid waste
have Increased substantially for most
communities over the past ten years.  In many
cases the operating cost of solid waste
collection and disposal has been the fastest
growing budget item. This trend can  be
attributed to a number of factors, including
rising wages, equipment costs, waste volume,
and increasingly stringent environmental
standards.  Similarly, the capital cost of
financing solid waste programs and systems also
has become a problem for many communities
due to the need to construct new faculties or
maintain and upgrade existing ones at a time
when other community programs are competing
for scarce resources.

Partly responsible for this  trend is the need to
conform to new federal and state regulations,
the development of highly capital-intensive
waste management systems, and the need to
respond to public demands for safe and clean
waste management.  Additionally, many
communities are finding their financing
decisions constrained by the need to pay for
past disposal practices, including  corrective
action costs at older landfills.

UNDERSTANDING THE FULL
COSTS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

It is very important for decision makers and
waste generators to understand the full cost of
municipal solid waste management. Commonly,
waste generators, both individual and  corporate,
aren't aware of the full costs and liabilities
associated with the management of their wastes
because the fees they pay are subsidized by
general revenue or other funds.  Individuals,
                                                                                     131

-------
Chapter Twelve
businesses, etc. never, receive a bill reflecting the
full costs of their waste production practices
including closure, any cleanup, or replacement
of waste management facilities. This makes it
impossible for them to understand the
operation of the current waste management
system and how waste reduction and recycling
can be financially beneficial to them on an
individual or corporate basis.  Waste
management accounting and billing systems
need to be revised to provide this information
on the full cost of management.
OPERATING REVENUE

Constraints on the budgets of many local
governments have increased dramatically in
recent years.  This trend has been compounded
by the rising cost of solid waste collection and
disposal, including the costs of current systems
and the added costs  of closure, post-closure, and
remediation.  Many communities, therefore, are
looking for new sources of funding through a
variety of taxes and revenues.

Tax Financing

Traditionally, funding for community solid waste
systems comes from  a general fund, whose
primary source of revenue is the property tax.
A growing trend toward tax reform in recent
years, however, often coupled with falling
revenues due to regional economic problems,
has led  many communities to seek alternative
taxes to fund solid waste programs.

Property Tax.

Many communities have successfully used a
portion of the property tax to support the solid
waste management system. This tax is easy to
administer since no separate billing or
collection system is needed and payment is
virtually guaranteed  (many citizens prefer this
method of financing since the tax is deductible
on federal and state income tax returns). The
primary disadvantage is that solid waste is often
considered a low-priority item and must
compete with other municipal budget items.
Second, since solid waste operating costs often
are not broken out from other costs, there is
less incentive for efficient operation of the
system.  K cost savings are instituted, the
savings usually accrue to the general fund rather
than the solid waste system.

Sales Tax

The sales tax appears particularly attractive in
regions with high recreational and tourist trade.
The revenue stream is usually seasonal and
often inadequate, however, and voter approval
may need to be obtained before
implementation.   Sales taxes are often
considered regressive in their relatively larger
impact on low-income people.

Municipal Utmty Tax

This tax  may be levied on some or all of the
utilities in a community, whether municipally or
privately owned.  Utilities commonly subject to
a municipal tax are the telephone, electricity,
gas, water, and cable television  franchises. This
tax eliminates individual billing problems, and
usually can be set by ordinance without
referendum.  The revenue stream may be too
limited and variable, however, and commercial
establishments who must contract with private
haulers still may pay the tax, although they do
not receive the service.

Special Tax Levies

Some state statutes give communities or
counties  authority to levy special taxes  other
than those already mentioned.   Usually, the
amount is limited by statute and is based on the
assessed  valuation of property.  A referendum
of the citizens is usually not required.  It is
often the case, however, that many special tax
levy statutes already have been  instituted to
cover non-budgeted items such  as hospitals,
parks, playgrounds, and museums, and the solid
waste system  has to compete with these projects
for funds.

User  Fees

User fees can be an equitable means of funding
solid waste management services if properly
administered.  The  community can establish fees
on the basis of actual costs of collection and
disposal.  The user fee can be assessed at a
uniform  or variable rate, depending on the
amount and kind of services provided.
132

-------
                                                                               Financing and Revenues
Uniform Fees

A straight user charge allocates an equal share
of the costs to all users within a service-level
group.  A user receiving backyard collection
may pay more than a user receiving  curbside
service, but all backyard users are charged the
same fee, regardless of the amount of waste
they generate. This type of user charge can be
collected by adding a  separate solid waste
charge to a periodic utility bill or the yearly
property tax bill, or through a separate billing
system. To avoid added overhead costs and to
facilitate collection of bills, it is usually
preferable to  attach the charge to an already
existing billing system. This type of user charge
is efficient and the least costly to administer.

Variable Fees

A progressive user charge represents an attempt
to correlate costs and service by charging the
resident according to the amount of waste
generated. The assessment can be calculated in
two ways:  1) a charge for each container
collected, or 2) a minimum charge that would
cover collection of a certain number of
containers plus an extra charge for each
additional container.

Controlling variable user fees so that customers
are billed only for the containers they are using
and collectors know how many containers are
supposed to be collected from each customer
can be difficult.  An increasing number of
communities are turning to this kind of system,
however, and a variety of methods for
identifying, collecting, and charging for waste
container pickup are being used throughout the
country. These include using specially marked
containers or providing, for a fee, either special
bags or special container stickers  and tags.

Some communities are combining user fee
systems, which provide an incentive to reduce
waste, with free pickup of recyclables, which
encourages recycling because it saves households
waste removal charges. The City of  Seattle has
successfully incorporated both variable user fees
and free collection of recyclables into its waste
collection and disposal system.  The  City offers
both backyard and curb/alley collection, with a
40% rate incentive for customers  choosing the
curb/alley system. Seattle also uses a variable
rate structure for collecting containers ranging
from a 1/2 can to 3 cans.  Since 1981, the
average waste services subscription for
residential ratepayers has dropped from 3.5 cans
to 1.4 cans per household.

One problem that is often raised concerning
user fees is that residents charged on a volume
or container basis might have a tendency to
overfill their containers  or engage in illegal
dumping when they have more  trash than will
fit in the can.  This could result in loose litter,
higher street cleaning costs,  and public
dissatisfaction. Seattle has approached this
problem by providing standardized containers to
households and selling pre-paid trash tags
(available from local grocery and convenience
stores)  for bulky waste items. Waste that is
either not in a container or  not tagged for
pickup  is clearly identifiable as  being in
violation.

Traditionally, user charges have seldom covered
the total cost of operating a  municipal solid
waste system. Solid waste services usually are
paid for partially out of funds raised from
property taxes. As a result,  the public often
becomes accustomed to  a nominal service
charge and some city officials feel the  public
would raise strong objections to a service charge
that actually reflects total operating costs.
Decision makers can take advantage of the
planning process  in this instance by using public
education and involvement programs to discuss
increased waste generation, shrinking disposal
capacity, and rising system costs.  The public's
increased awareness of solid waste issues
coupled with a sense of their own role in the
decision making process, may provide the
opportunity to adjust user fees  to reflect the
real cost of providing solid waste services.

User fees foster citizen awareness of waste
collection, processing, and disposal costs and
provide an impetus for more efficient consumer
behavior. User fees are an excellent means of
placing explicit costs  on each household's
contribution to the waste stream and are an
incentive to reduce waste generation and
encourage recycling.  Primary problems with
user charges  are billing,  difficulties in
administration, and the fact that if they truly
reflect costs,  they may be too high for low-
income or fixed-income persons.
                                                                                                 133

-------
Chapter Twelve
Disposal Site Fees

Disposal costs historically have not been the
most expensive component of solid waste
systems. Although disposal costs are rising
rapidly in some communities, collection is
generally the most costly component of the
waste management system.  This is the case
because often tipping fees at MWC or landfills
do not accurately reflect true operating costs,
especially the costs of environmental controls,
closure, post-closure maintenance, and liability.
All haulers, large trucks, and industrial users
should be charged a tipping fee that takes into
consideration total system costs, scaled
according to the amount of waste dumped.
Fees  can also depend on the type of refuse
received.  For example, fees may be charged for
stumps, tires, and building and demolition
refuse, because these materials are more
difficult to compact and cover.

Decision makers must consider three factors
when determining tipping fees at facilities:  1)
total  disposal costs, including ash disposal for
combustion facilities and closure and post-
closure costs for landfills, 2) the need for
resources to plan, site, and operate replacement
facilities in the future, and 3) using part of the
tipping fee as a source of funds for other
components of the solid waste program such as
recycling, composting, and source reduction
programs.

Tipping fees should reflect the full cost of
facilities, including compliance with more
stringent environmental controls than in the
past.  Also, some jurisdictions (such as New
Jersey)  have added surcharge to landfills, as a
way of discouraging disposal and thus
encouraging waste management alternatives and
preserving landfill capacity.

Decision makers should note that  because of
the many factors affecting solid waste
management costs, none of the methods
described above can be precisely equitable nor
would some communities desire them to be.  In
many cases, one sector of the population
subsidizes service to another sector by paying a
price higher than the actual cost of the service.
Revenues From Recovery Programs

Financial planning for a waste management
system should account for the operating
revenues that may be generated  by recycling,
composting, waste-to-energy, and methane gas
recovery programs.  Decision makers should
carefully consider the impact of  all of these
program revenues and expenses  on the balance
sheet of the overall solid waste system.  These
programs can provide tangible financial benefits
associated with recovered materials and
conserved energy.  While markets for recovered
materials can be volatile and regionally
underdeveloped, revenues can be gained
nonetheless from the sale of recycled materials.
The long-term presence of a concerted local
and/or regional recycling program, combined
with the efforts of community groups and public
officials, can serve to stabilize and broaden the
Ideal market for these recycled materials.  The
provision of a constant supply of quality
materials to the market is important in
establishing revenues for the community's
recovery programs.

Additionally, the cost savings realized by not
landfilling wastes that are reduced at the source,
recycled, or composted also can  be partially
captured by the community solid waste system.
These savings, either as direct pay-backs or as
avoided costs, can be realized through
contractual arrangements with private waste
haulers, processors, and recyclers or with the
disposal facilities themselves. For example,
incentives for recycling can be provided to these
parties by apportioning the cost-savings through
avoided tipping fees between the community
solid waste system and the private waste
management firms.  Many communities use such
a system both to increase the capture rate for
recycled materials and to provide additional
revenues to the community recycling program.
Finally, cost savings also may be realized from
the decreased volume of waste by the redesign
of waste collection systems, with the  savings
captured through new rate structures and
modified collection contracts.
134

-------
                                                                              Financing and Revenues
 CAPITAL FINANCING

 There are three basic sources of capital:
 borrowed funds, current revenues, and private
 financing.

 Borrowing

 General Obligation Bonds

 Among  all public borrowing mechanisms
 available, general  obligation (GO) bonds are
 usually the most flexible and least costly
 alternative.  The issuing municipality guarantees
 a (GO)  bond with its full faith and credit based
 on its ability to levy on all taxable real property
 such ad valorem taxes as  may be necessary to
 pay the  principal and interest on the bonds.
 Because general obligation bonds  are considered
 to be the safest of all municipal securities, they
 tend to carry lower  interest rates than  other
 forms of municipal debt having similar maturity.
 Most states require  voter approval before state
 or local general obligation bonds can be issued.

 A GO bond issuance may not require direct
 technical or  economic analysis of particular
 projects  to be funded.  Small projects may be
 grouped to obtain capital, making GO  bonds an
 ideal funding mechanism for solid waste
 facilities in small and medium-sized
 communities. The transaction costs for issuing
 GO bonds impose a benchmark minimum on
 debt issuance below which the "effective interest
 rate" increases prohibitively.  The, minimum
 issuance will probably fall within the range of
 $500,000 to $1 million.

 If total capital requirements of a small or
 medium-sized community  are less than  $500,000,
 the community might adopt an alternative
 financing mechanism, such as borrowing from a
 bank, leasing equipment and facilities, or
 contracting for the service from the private
 sector.

Municipal Revenue Bonds

 One mechanism that is often used to
 circumvent the constraints  associated with  GO
bond issuance is the municipal  revenue bond.
Revenue bonds do not require voter approval
and  do not affect a city's legal debt limits.  A
revenue bond is issued to  finance a single
 project with revenue-producing services.
 Revenue bonds do not have the full faith and
 credit of the community; rather, they pledge the
 net revenue generated by the project to
 guarantee payment. The increased risk
 associated with revenue bonds yields a
 correspondingly higher interest rate.  The
 coupon rates on revenue bonds depend strictly
 on the revenue-generating capacity of the
 project being financed.

 Revenue bonds require extensive bond circulars
 describing the  economics of the project, and
 there may be limitations on the volume of the
 bonds which can be sold or outstanding at any
 one time.

 Bank Loans

 A municipal bank loan is not a viable
 alternative to long-term bond financing.
 Relatively small-scale capital requirements j
 however,  may be met in the short run (five
 years or less) at a low cost by securing a bank
 loan.  Typical use of bank loans in the solid
 waste field has been to supply short-term
 funding for rolling stock (vehicles, trailers, etc.).
 Since interest on a loan to  a municipality is tax
 free to the bank, the corresponding interest will
 compare favorably with the coupon on a GO
 bond.

 Municipalities often use bank loans to stabilize
 cash flow, and  occasionally large cities use bank
 notes in  anticipation of a bond issue.  The
 notes,  often substantial if arranged with a large
 bank, are refinanced as they expire.  A medium-
 term loan source of funding is thus provided.

Leasing

 In lease agreements, the leasing company (the
 lessor) usually purchases and holds title to the
asset and  the municipality (the lessee)  pays rent
for using  it during the lease term, generally not
more than five  years for equipment.  Longer
leases are often executed for land. Occasionally
the municipality will hold title  from the outset
to avoid sales taxes incurred during the eventual
title transfer. Lease agreements in the solid
waste area are usually arranged by local
equipment representatives, who place the
financing with either a bank or leasing
company.  Often, stipulations are included in
the contract agreement which allow the
                                                                                              135

-------
Chapter Twelve
community to purchase the equipment at "fair
market value" at the end of the lease.

The use of leasing by private solid waste
companies is quite prevalent  Small private
collection companies that are trying to expand
their business often encounter cash flow
limitations and turn to this type of financing.
Leasing is often worthwhile because the cost of
leasing can be deducted as  a business expense
for tax purposes.

Other Debt Instruments

Within the broad categories of general
obligation and revenue bonds, there are a wide
variety of individual debt instruments.

•   Tax Increment and Tax Allocation Bonds.
    These bonds are secured by the "additional"
    or "incremental" tax revenues which new
    capital projects financed by the bonds
    generate.  They are often issued by local
    governments to finance redevelopment
    projects.

•   Lease-Purchase Bonds. These bonds, which
    are also referred to as  lease-revenue or
    lease-rental bonds, usually are issued by
    public, private, or nonprofit leaseback
    corporations which use the bond proceeds
    to construct facilities that are then leased to
    governmental entities.  The lessee makes
    payments to the lessor sufficient to pay for
    debt servicing and corporate  operating
    expenses. At the end of the lease period,
    the title covering the facility  is transferred
    to the lessee government.

State and local governments also issue a variety
of short-term tax-exempt financial instruments
which, although not technically bonds, are a
form of municipal debt (State of California,
1982).

 •   Tax Anticipation Notes (TANs) and
    Revenue Anticipation Notes  (RANsV  these
    notes are issued in anticipation of receiving
    tax revenues or other income in the future.

 •   Bond Anticipation Notes (BANsX These
    notes are issued with the expectation  that
    financial market conditions will permit the
    issuance of long-term debt at lower interest
    costs in the future.  Thus, BANs provide
   temporary financing for capital projects until
   long-term bonds are marketed.

•  Tax-Exempt Commercial Paper.  Municipal
   commercial paper is an extremely short-term,
   unsecured debt obligation  issued by a state
   or local government, similar in principle to
   the short-term, unsecured  taxable
   commercial paper issued by corporations.
   Municipal commercial paper is a far more
   flexible financial instrument than
   conventional municipal notes or bonds,
   partly because issues can be easily structured
   to mature on the exact day that an investor
   requests.  Most tax-exempt municipal paper
   is purchased  by tax-exempt money market
   funds,  and municipalities frequently must
   show evidence of some sort of bank
   agreement in order to ensure that their
   unsecured issues will be liquid in the
   financial marketplace.

Current Revenue  Capital Financing

The  most common method for obtaining capital
equipment for a municipal solid waste program
has been to buy it as needed.  The principal
advantage is simplicity:  no institutional,
informational, analytical, or legal  arrangements
are required. This method, however, depends
on the ability of the community to generate
surplus capital.

In the solid waste area, current revenue
financing  has been used mainly for collection
vehicles and selected landfill disposal systems.
Municipalities that dispose of solid waste using
landfills are usually able to maintain the system
with current revenue.  Equipment replacement
is not likely to be a major expense and can be
addressed periodically through reserve  funds
dedicated for that purpose. Land can  be leased
or purchased as an investment.  On the other
hand, municipalities requiring either extensive
upgrading of their systems in the short run or a
capital-intensive solution to their solid waste
problem will have to raise capital by borrowing
or contracting with a private  firm.

Private Financing

A third alternative is to contract with  a private
firm for waste management services and thereby
transfer to it the process of raising capital.
 136

-------
                                                                              Financing and Revenues
Generally, the private firm will then raise the
capital, purchase the equipment,  and operate
the system. There are a range of options for
implementing private financing alternatives.
The differences between these options concern
the procurement, management, and degree of
ownership and control of the facilities and
systems, as well  as alternatives in the design,
construction, and performance of the facilities.
These options are "packaged" using a variety of
terms including full service, merchant plant,
architectural engineering, and turnkey
approaches, and are discussed in  more detail in
Chapter 8 under the section on Combustion,
although they apply to all facilities.  These
approaches relieve the municipality from having
to devote capital funds to solid waste
management and presumably provide the most
long-term flexibility, although the effective
financing  rate will be higher.

Industrial Revenue Bonds and Pollution Control
Revenue Bonds

Industrial revenue bonds (IRBs) and pollution
control revenue bonds (PCRBs) are issued by a
municipality for, or on behalf of, a private
enterprise. The municipality technically owns
the facility and equipment, which it leases to
the private firm.  The lease payments are
specified to meet the scheduled payments of
debt and interest on the bond. The
municipality thus acts as a vehicle through
which a corporation may obtain low-cost
financing.  If payment arrangements between
the corporation and the municipality are
structured as an installment sale,  the
corporation may claim ownership for  tax
purposes.   This gives the corporation a tax
benefit  in the form of depreciation, which
should be reflected in lower service fees charged
to the municipality.

There are two major distinctions  between the
IRBs and PCRBs.  First, IRBs are limited to $5
million in the amount of capital that  they can
raise, while PCRBs have no such limit
(although volume limits on debt per capita
and/or on the total tax-exempt  allowable debt in
a state were included in the 1986 Tax Reform
Act). Second, capital raised through IRBs must
be for industrial development while PCRBs
must finance pollution control equipment.
 In the solid waste field, PCRBs have seldom
 been used.  In addition to the administrative
 complexities, broadly defined tax guidelines
 frequently require IRS rulings which can delay
 financing by up to six months.  Solid waste
 disposal and resource recovery facilities
 generally qualify as pollution control projects
 under section 103c of the IRS regulations, but
 at this time it is not clear whether entire
 systems of certain types will qualify.  This
'ambiguity may discourage the broadest
 application of PCRBs to finance resource
 recovery systems.

 Another major stumbling block for PCRBs
 concerns  a community's ability to sign long-term
 contracts with corporations, guaranteeing a
 minimum supply of solid waste.  Additionally,
 while the security of these issues requires long-
 term agreements, many states prohibit
 communities from entering into long-term
 service contracts.

 Leveraged Leasing

 Leveraged leasing is technically  not a financial
 instrument. Rather it is a financial package
 that combines several financial options.  The
 concept is based upon the benefits (lower long-
 term capital and interest costs)  that accrue to a
 city if a financial intermediary, a corporation or
 individual, is interposed between a long-term
 source of capital and the municipality.

 Leveraged leasing is a complex mechanism' to
 initiate.  It involves two major participants, a
 financial intermediary (lessor) and a city
 (lessee).   It differs from traditional leasing in
 that both the lessor and the city provide capital
 funds to purchase the asset.  Usually, the lessor
 puts up 20 to 30 percent of the cost of the
 asset, and the city finances the remaining
 portion through a typical borrowing method.

 The financial intermediary acquires the tax
 advantages of ownership, and therefore can pass
 on to the city a very  low interest rate because it
 is the owner of the entire facility from a tax
 standpoint and can therefore depreciate the
 investment.  Essentially, the depreciation and
 tax credit act to shelter the  financial
intermediary's other income, allowing the
intermediary to receive an adequate after-tax
return on its initial investment in the asset.
                                                                                               137

-------
Chapter Twelve
Private financing can be an attractive alternative
for a community because a private firm
essentially conducts the entire operation, saving
the community both staff time and direct
outlays of resources.  Obviously, the community
will be charged for all services rendered and
these charges may be higher than if the
community had undertaken the task in-house.
Nonetheless, private financing may be an option
if the firm can provide services at a lower cost
than the community could provide on its own
and/or if the administrative savings in staff time
and resources  are  important to the community.

Regardless of  the  choice of financing options,
technologies, and management and service
delivery systems chosen for the community,
decision makers must constantly remain aware
of their role in the solid waste management
process.  Decision makers and other public
leaders are always ultimately responsible for the
choices they make in selecting waste
management alternatives and for the
performance of the system once it is in place.
Decision makers always must remain ultimately
in control  of the waste management system
serving the community.

Issuing And Marketing A Bond

This section briefly outlines the major issues
associated with "floating" a bond. The
information provided here applies to both  the
general obligation bonds and the municipal
revenue bonds discussed in the previous
sections.

Bond ratings

To provide reliable information on the quality
of different investments, a municipal bond
rating system  has  been developed.   Since 1950,
two private rating agencies -- Moody's Investors
Services, Inc.  and  Standard and Poor's
Corporation — have issued municipal bond
ratings on a nationwide scale.

There are four general categories of variables
used in determining a community's bond rating:
1) economic base; 2) financial factors;  3) debt
factors; and 4) administrative factors.
Measures of economic base reflect the
community's ability to pay.  Important factors
are the size of the population, income levels
and income growth, the employment mix and
the number of leading employers, and measures
of the age and composition of the community's
housing stock.  Financial factors are the
revenue structure, the balance among different
types of taxes, and the relationship between
expenditures and revenues. Debt factors include
the nature  of the debt issue and measures of
total debt burden relative to budgetary
resources and the community's tax base.  Both
the community's debt history and the plans for
the retirement of the current debt are examined.

Variables in the administrative category relate
to the form of government and the degree 'of
professionalism shown in carrying  out ordinary
governmental functions (obtained to a large
extent subjectively through meetings between
rating agency analysts and local officials). With
respect to bond ratings, many communities will
find themselves falling into the pattern shown
for a survey of cities in Minnesota (see Figure
12.1).  While not all communities  will qualify
for a rating by either agency, the majority of
smaller communities will find themselves with
bond ratings on the lower end of the spectrum
while the medium to  large communities will
achieve the higher ratings.

Rating Fees

Standard and Poor's generally bases its rating
fee on the time and expense involved in
determining and monitoring the rating.   The
fees for domestic long-term bond issues occupy
a fairly wide range from $2,500 to $50,000 (S&P
Credit Week, July 17, 1989).  For
municipalities, Moody's fees for rating general
obligation  bonds generally are based on the
latest officially recorded population of the issuer
under consideration.  The fees of  the two
agencies are, however, generally comparable in
dollar terms (State of California, 1982).
Decision makers should note that it is not
always necessary to obtain a rating prior to
raising capital through a debt issue. Hence, the
community should weigh the reduced interest
costs derived from obtaining a rating against the
rating fee.                      ;

Municipal Bond Insurance

Government officials increasingly are taking
advantage  of credit enhancement provided by
services such as letters of credit and municipal
 138

-------
                                                                             Financing and Revenues
bond insurance to lower borrowing costs and
increase the marketability of their bond issues.
Insured bonds carry a Triple-A rating from
Moody's and Standard & Poor's.  This generally
results in a lower interest cost over the life of
the bonds and can reduce an issuer's borrowing
costs by as much as 50 basis points or more.
Investors who buy insured bonds  benefit from
knowing that interest and principal will be paid
on time until the bonds mature.

Significant cost savings can be realized from
insuring a bond issue, although the savings will
depend on many factors, including the size of
       GENERAL QJSJGATtQN BQ&BS
          $20*000,000 {3,8 pmr Issoe)
Rating
                  A/A
      Set Bit, Cost

      O>s! of Ins. '  -
Aaa/AAA

7.14

10,524,750

131,000
      Net Savings
the issue, geographic location, and the issuer's
underlying credit worthiness. While market
conditions and interest rates can and will
change, normally there will be a spread, between
insured and uninsured interest rates that will
determine the net  savings if insurance is used.

•   Qualifying for  Insurance. Eligibility for
    insurance depends on the issuer's financial
    history, legal status, economic condition,
    demographics,  debt load, and ability to pay.
    The information needed to review a
    potential issuer's eligibility varies according
    to the type of issue, but is generally similar
    to that required by the credit rating
    agencies, including basic financial, economic,
    and demographic information.
                                               •  Paying the Premium.  Premiums for bond
                                                  insurance generally range from
                                                  approximately four-tenths of one percent to
                                                  nine-tenths of one percent of the total debt
                                                  service due over the life of the bonds.

                                               Generally the best course for an issuer of bonds
                                               is  to secure a commitment from an insurer in
                                               advance in order to advertise the bond sale as
                                               Triple-A insured.  This requires the issuing
                                               community to pay the premium directly and
                                               allows it to  sele'ct the insurer.  Normally this
                                               step produces the greatest interest cost savings,
                                               because all parties know in  advance that the
                                               bonds will be insured.
When the community cannot pay the premium
directly, other alternatives are available which
can shift both the cost and the selection of the
insurer to the underwriter of the bonds.

•  Selling Insured Bonds.  The market for
   insured issues is currently very strong for
   several reasons. First, after the Tax Reform
   Act of 1986, municipal bonds have become
   one of the few investments left for investors
   offering tax-free income.  Second, because of
   the fiscal difficulties experienced  by many
   municipal issuers in the mid-1970's, the
   combination of Federal cutbacks  in revenue
   sharing and economic recession in the early
   1980's, and the number of recent defaults,
   investor demand for municipal bond
   insurance has grown dramatically over the
   past few years. Third, the volatility of the
   stock market has made many investors much
   more concerned about the safely of their
   investments. This makes insured bonds
   particularly attractive because of  the safety
   of principal and interest payments.

Issuing, Marketing, and Trading Municipal Bonds

The  primary  marketing advantage  to issuers of
municipal bonds is that the interest  earned on
the bonds is  exempt from federal income
taxation. For this reason, municipal bonds are
commonly referred to as tax-exempt  bonds.  The
interest on municipal bonds is also exempt from
income taxation in most states, at least in the
state where the bond was issued.   The
immediate practical effect of the tax exemption
is that state and local governments can sell
                                                                                               139

-------
Chapter Twelve
bonds that provide a lower interest yield when
borrowing to finance capital outlays (State of
California, 1982).

State and local governments must follow
numerous steps when issuing and marketing
municipal bonds:

•   Securing specialized bond-related services,
    such as fiscal advisors, bond counsel,
    auditors, and paying agents;

•   Obtaining public approval if the bonds are
    to be sold as a, general obligation issue;
•  Designing the bond issue's features, such as
   its maturity schedule, the denominations of
   individual bonds, the coupon interest rates
   for bonds of differing maturities, and call
   privileges or options and the premiums
   which must be paid to exercise them;

•  Drafting a bond security agreement if the
   bond issue is a revenue or limited liability
   (as opposed to general obligation) bond
   issue;
       A  COMPARISON  OF  MUNICIPAL  BOND  RATINGS AND  CITY SIZE  IN  MINNESOTA

                                 Bond Rating vs.  Population


      Population      <2,soo      2,500 -     10,000 -   20,000      >ioo.,ooo    Total
                                 10,000      20,000    100,000                '# of Cities
    Bond  Rating

      Aaa

      Aa1

      Aa

      A1
      Baa-l

      Baa

      Ba

      NR

      Total
     # of Cities
                          1

                          891

                          065
                                           FIGURE 12.1
                                                                  (Source:  State of California, 1982)
 140

-------
                                                                             Financing and Revenues
 •   Marketing the bonds, either by public or
     private sale.  In the case of public
     marketing, this includes  preparing certain
     documents necessary to sell the bonds,
     obtaining a bond rating, selecting a sales
     date, advertising the bonds and accepting
     bids, awarding winning bids, printing  and
     delivering bonds, and closing the bond sale,
     including issuance of debt records; and

 •   Administering outstanding debt, including
     maintaining debt-related accounting records.

 Financial Issues Concerning
 Expected Landfill Requirements

 EPA's proposed rules for landfill closure
 include specific requirements for financial
 assurance for the  maximum cost of closing a
. landfill based on site-specific factors.  The
 purpose of financial assurance is to ensure that
 the owner or operator adequately plans for the
 future costs of closure, post-closure care,  and
 corrective action for known releases,  and  to
 ensure that adequate funds will be available
 when needed to cover these  costs if the owner
 or operator is unable or unwilling to do so.
 One of the benefits of the proposed financial
 assurance requirements is that local
governments may use it as a tool to induce
advanced planning for future environmental
costs.  Moreover, demonstrating financial
assurance may help the  community to raise
funds for costs that will ultimately have to be
covered.  To demonstrate that it has planned
for future costs,  the owner or 'operator must
prepare written cost estimates  according to
specific guidelines.

The proposed rule parallels the closure and
financial assurance requirements for hazardous
waste/Subtitle C facilities, which allows the use
of a trust fund, letter of credit, surety bond,
insurance, financial test, corporate guarantee,
state-required mechanism, state assumption of
responsibility, or a combination or certain
mechanisms to demonstrate financial assurance
for closure and post-closure. Additionally, the
Agency will be exploring a financial test that
can be used by municipal governments to
demonstrate adequate financial assurance.  EPA
is not proposing the types of mechanisms that
may be used to demonstrate financial  assurance.
Rather, EPA proposes to establish performance
standards that specifies a set of criteria that
must be satisfied by any mechanism  that is used.
Regardless  of the mechanism chosen, it must
ensure that adequate funds are available in a
timely manner whenever they are needed.
                                Chapter Twelve Bibliography
 Ciuff, George S., and Paul G. Farnham, "Standard and Poor's vs. Moody's: Which City Characteristics
     Influence Municipal Bond Ratings?" Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, Vol. 24, No. 3
     (Autumn 1984), Board of Trustees  of the University of Illinois.

 EPA, Decision Maker's Guide in Solid Waste Management, Office of Solid Waste Management, 1976.

 Municipal Bond Investors Assurance Corporation, "Investor Facts,"  White Plains,  New York.

 Municipal Bond Investors Assurance Corporation, "Issuer Facts,"  White Plains, New York.

 Office of the Legislative Analyst, State  of California, 'The Use of Tax-Exempt Bonds in California:
     Policy Issues and Recommendations,  1982.

 Peterson, John E., The Rating Game,  1974.
                                                                                              141

-------
                                                Conclusions on Integrated Waste Management
Chapter  Thirteen

                        Conclusions   on
     Integrated  Waste   Management
    MAJOR MESSAGES
                        •*   t      "*
     •  Integrated jmtaicipal waste t
       management programs use a mix of
       alternatives to manage specific
       components Of the waste ^stream.
       These alternatives can be combined
       and designed to complement each'
       other.                |
                          -.1  \
     •  Integrated waste management
       systems must be designed with the
       flexibility to handle future changes in
       the local waste management system,
     « Program monitoring and
       are important, ongoing activities,
As discussed throughout the Guide, integrated
solid waste management is the use of specific
management and disposal programs and
techniques to handle distinct components of the
waste stream. Programs are designed to
complement each other, both environmentally
and economically.

PLANNING AN INTEGRATED
SYSTEM

Selecting waste management alternatives is
essentially a local activity performed in response
to local waste management needs. No "boiler
plate" exists for indicating which alternatives
should be used when and where — it varies
from community to community.

In the past, many local officials have looked for
easy answers, only to find themselves locked
into an expensive and perhaps unpopular
program.

Modern landfills and combustion facilities are
high-technology, and consequently high capital
investment waste management options. Because
of the time frame and technical demands
involved, these options are the most difficult to
implement.  Further complications arise when
considering siting and public opposition.

This is not to say that these so called "large"
facilities are not necessary.  Every waste
management system must have access to a
landfill, and a properly operated energy recovery
facility can be extremely beneficial to handle
large amounts of waste and produce steam or
electricity.  Many decision makers, however, are
only beginning to comprehend the benefits that
can be realized when other waste management
techniques (e.g. source reduction, recycling,
cbmpdsting) are integrated into the local waste
 142

-------
Chapter Thirteen
management system.  Not only are these
options beneficial from an environmental and a
public perception standpoint, when implemented
properly they can improve overall system
economics.
     Decision makers must be realistic in.
     planning their ivaste, nmnagemenj
     system, Jost as waste-to-energy is not a
     "'miracle solution," neither is recycling.
     There will % Acuities, trade-offs, and
     hard decisions associated with alt waste
    , management" options. By recognizing
     "this uacettaitxties and limitations
     inherent in solid waste .management, the
   - decision jna&er wfll"% better prepared
     to develop a sound integrated waste
     management plan.
INTERACTION OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
 Reducing the quantities of materials in the
 waste stream can result in a reduced number of
 waste handling vehicles and equipment and
 smaller management and disposal facilities.
 Collection costs, for example, can be reduced if
 there is less waste  to be collected. Also, the
 costs of constructing and operating facilities
, such as transfer stations, material recovery
 facilities, and waste-to-energy plants will be
 lower with a smaller waste stream. In addition,
 landfill capacity is  preserved through effective
 quantity reduction  programs.

 The removal or reduction of products with toxic
 components  will also improve the operation and
 environmental impacts of waste management
 facilities. For example, heavy metals such as
 lead and cadmium  can be found in printing inks
 and household batteries.  When these materials
 are buried at a landfill  or burned at a
 combustion facility, these constituents require
 control of leachate at the landfill and air
 emissions at the combustion facility. A source
 reduction program  that minimizes the use of
 these materials can reduce environmental risks.
If designed properly, waste management
alternatives can be designed  to complement
each other environmentally and economically.
Source Reduction

Source reduction programs are designed to
reduce the quantity and toxicity of materials
entering the municipal waste stream. Both
goals, if reached, could have significant impacts
on the operation of other waste management
alternatives.
 Recycling

 Recycling programs vary in degrees of
 aggressiveness; some may be simple, low-
 technology drop-off centers, while others may
 involve comprehensive source separation and
 curbside collection or complex separation
 technologies at material recovery facilities.
 Because recycling can divert significant
 quantities of materials from ultimate disposal, it
 is usually one of the first options selected by
 communities faced with an impending landfill
 capacity shortfall.
                                                                                             143

-------
                                                         Conclusions on Integrated Waste Management
The impact of recycling on combustion facility
operation can also be beneficial:

•   Recycling programs divert materials from
    combustion facilities.  As a result, smaller
    facilities  can be designed.

•   Recycling can remove materials that may be.
    noncombustible, like glass or metal, or
    sources of contamination in the ash (e.g.,
    lead and cadmium in inks and batteries).

•   More positive public attitudes can result
    from combining a recycling program with
    an energy recovery facility. Although
    energy recovery facilities are generally met
    with public opposition, one that is
    developed along with or after a recycling
    plan has been implemented may be more
    acceptable.

Despite the obvious benefits that can be
realized through the combination of recycling
and combustion programs, a historical tension
exists between the supporters of each. Much of
the tension results from flow control ordinances
that are designed to guarantee that a certain
quantity of waste is sent to  the energy recovery
facility (these facilities are designed to a specific
capacity that is sensitive to the amount of waste
that enters).  Flow control,  however,  can be
designed to provide materials both for recycling
programs and energy recovery facilities.
Planning and evaluation during program design
can simplify  the task of deciding where wastes
should go.

In addition to landfills and  combustion facilities,
recycling programs can also have a positive
impact  on composting operations.  Many
commonly recycled materials (e.g., glass,
aluminum, plastic) are not easily composted,
and are generally considered contaminants in
the compost product.  Similarly, the removal of
toxic constituents (e.g., lead and cadmium from
inks and batteries) in the waste stream will also
result in a higher quality product.

Composting

A variety of composting programs exist, ranging
from simple backyard systems to in-vessel
digesters handling municipal solid waste.
 Composting can divert significant quantities of
materials from disposal.  Composting programs,
therefore, can play a fundamental role in the
conservation of landfill space.

Backyard composting is often considered a
source reduction activity, as materials handled
in this manner never actually appear in the
municipal waste stream.  The benefits of waste
stream reduction have been discussed
throughout this section.

Centralized yard waste composting facilities are
becoming more popular as a waste management
tool, and their operation can directly benefit
other alternatives.  First, composting can divert
a significant amount of material from the
stream entering combustion facilities or landfills.
A smaller waste stream means a smaller facility
(which is less expensive to build and operate).
Second, because yard wastes do not burn as well
as some of the other waste stream components,
diversion of yard wastes from a combustion
facility to a composting facility can increase the
heating value of the remaining waste stream
entering  the combustion facility.  A  higher
heating value means that more steam or
electricity can be produced per pound of waste
burned.

Municipal waste composting is a developing
technology.  Composting possesses great
potential for reducing the amount of material
that must be otherwise managed or landfilled.
 144

-------
Chapter Thirteen
Combustion of Solid Waste

The impacts of alternative management options
on combustion facility design and operation
have been described above.  To summarize, the
reduction in the size, non-combustibility, and
toxicity of the waste stream that results from
source reduction, recycling, and composting
programs can significantly lower costs and
improve the operation of future combustion
facilities.  Combustion plays an important role
in waste management because it not only
reduces the volume of material requiring
disposal, it also produces a revenue-generating
product.
Land Disposal

Landfills are necessary components of waste
management systems, and complement the other
waste management alternatives by providing
disposal capacity for the various residuals.  For
example, processing recyclajbles generates
residuals that cannot be sold, reprocessed or
reused.  Similarly, non-compostable and non-
combustible (i.e., ash) materials require disposal.
In addition, disposal capacity is often needed
during planned or unanticipated facility shut-
downs.
               liming Issues

      A good integrated solid waste
      management plan should focus not"
      Only on what specific programs will
      be undertaken, but also on when, and
      how they will be implemented

      This Guide has toed to show the
      advantages of implementing low-
      fechnology, perhaps' pilot-scale
      programs, Among the advantages
      associated with these programs is the
      fact that most take relatively little
      time to implement  For example, a
      waste-to-£nergy facility will take
      literally years to 'design, site, w&  -
      construe^ while a pilot-scale,
      neighborhood drop-off recycling
      program wjjl tale much less, time,
      The point made in comparing these
      time frames is that decision makers
      should realize thai all planning and
      management does not have to be put
      on hold while a certain program or.
      facility is being developed.  Integrated
     ^ waste management is an ongoing
      process,
FLEXIBILITY OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The flexibility of the set of options is also an
important consideration that must be built into
the local waste management system.  The ability
to adapt waste management practices to
changing conditions is important for a variety of
reasons:

•   Projections of waste quantities and
    characteristics are not always exact, and
    decision makers may be faced with a future
   waste stream that is different from what
   was predicted;

•  Markets for recycled materials can rise and
   fall for reasons beyond the control of the
   locality (some recycling programs have been
   forced to store or landfill recyclables, or
                                                                                           145

-------
                                                        Conclusions on Integrated Waste Management
    even terminate operations because of
    unexpected declines in materials markets;
    others have quickly added new materials as
    the local market expanded); and

»   Opportunities and problems cannot always
    be anticipated; the  field is simply changing
    too quickly.
Because of potential changes, it is best to
examine the economics of investments under a
number of possible outcomes and conditions.
For example, mechanical separation facilities
may be economically justified investments under
one set of prices for separated secondary
materials, but may not be under alternative
scenarios. Waste management components that
are more flexible serve to insulate the locality
from unexpected changes in local and larger-
scale conditions.

Flexibility to expand is also beneficial. Many
large-scale capital projects (such as energy
recovery facilities) have inherent maximum
capacities.  Should the community reach these
limits earlier than anticipated, the solutions may
be very expensive.  Thus, ease of expansion of
waste management components, individually and
in concert, is a significant consideration  in the
planning and implementation process.

MONITORING AND EVALUATING
PROGRAMS

Integrated solid waste decision making is an
ongoing process.  Monitoring and evaluating
program performance  allows decision makers to
determine whether objectives are being met and
whether goals will be  reached.  Areas that may
not have been considered potential trouble
spots during the planning process may be
identified, and monitoring and evaluation can
also provide insight into possible ways of
improving the system.
CONCLUSION

There is no universal, step-by-step method for
selecting and developing integrated waste
management components and systems. The
success of integrated solid waste management
depends largely on the expertise and dedication
of local decision makers.  As the Foreword of
the Guide indicated, the purpose of Volume I
was not to provide a blueprint of what to do.
Instead, the Guide's purpose is to provide a
discussion of factors that should be considered
in framing local decisions.  The Guide also
presents information and data helpful in making
the decisions.

It is hoped that the information presented in
this Guide will be helpful  to solid waste
decision makers at the local level.  To that end,
feedback from reviewers and users  of this
document will be useful in the continuing
process of updating this material.   Users are
encouraged to send comments and suggestions
to Decision Maker's Guide, Municipal Solid
Waste Program, OS-301, United States
Environmental Protection Agency,  401 M St.,
S.W., Washington,  D.C. 20460.
146

-------
                                                                                           Glossary
                                      Glossary
 [Several of the definitions included here are
 drawn from Garbage Solutions: A Public
 Official's Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid
 Waste Management Technologies, by Marian
 Chertow (1989)]
Aeration - The process of exposing bulk
material, such as compost, to air.  Forced
aeration refers to the use of blowers in compost
piles.

Aerobic - A biochemical process or condition
occurring in the presence of oxygen.

Air Classification - A process in which a  stream
of air is used to separate mixed material
according to the size, density, and aerodynamic
drag of the pieces.

Algal Bloom - Population explosion of algae
(simple one-celled or many-celled, usually
aquatic, plants) in surface waters.  Algal  blooms
are associated with nutrient-rich run-off from
composting facilities or landfills.

Anaerobic - A biochemical process or condition
occurring in the absence of oxygen.

Baghouse - An municipal waste combustion
facility air emission control device consisting of
a series of fabric filters through which MWC
flue gases are passed to remove particulates
prior to atmospheric dispersion.

Baler - A machine used to compress recyclables
into bundles to reduce volume. Balers are
often used on newspaper, plastics, and
corrugated cardboard.

Biodegradable Material - Waste  material which is
capable of being broken down by
microorganisms into simple, stable compounds
such as carbon dioxide and water.  Most  organic
wastes, such as food wastes and paper, are
biodegradable.
 Bottle Bill - A law requiring deposits on
 beverage  containers  (see Container Deposit
 Legislation).

 Broker - An individual or group of individuals
 that act as an agent or intermediary between
 the sellers and buyers of recyclable materials.

 Btu (British Thermal Unit) - Used as a unit of
 measure for the amount of energy a given
 material contains (e.g., energy released as heat
 during combustion is measured in Btu's.
 Technically, one Btu is  the quantity of heat
 required to raise the temperature of one pound
 of water one degree Fahrenheit.

 Buffer Tone - Neutral area which acts as a
 protective barrier separating two conflicting
 forces.  An area which acts  to minimize the
 impact of pollutants on the environment or
 public welfare. For  example, a buffer zone is
 established between a composting facility and
 neighboring residents to minimize odor
 problems.

 Bulking Agent - A material used to add volume
 to another material to make it more porous to
 air flow.   For example, municipal solid waste
 may act as a bulking agent when mixed with
 water treatment sludge.

Bulky Waste - Large  items of refuse including,
 but not limited to, appliances, furniture, large
 auto parts, non-hazardous construction and
 demolition materials, trees, branches and stumps
which cannot be handled by normal solid waste
 processing, collection and disposal methods.

Buy-Back  Center - A facility where individuals
bring recyclables in exchange for payment.

Centralized Yard Waste Composting - System
utilizing a central facility within a politically
defined area with the purpose of composting
yard wastes.
                                                                                              147

-------
                                                                                           Glossary
Clean Air Act - Act passed by Congress to have
the air "safe enough to protect the public's
health" by May 31, 1975.  Required the setting
of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for major primary air pollutants.

Clean Water Act - Act passed by congress to
protect the nation's water resources. Requires
EPA to establish a system of national effluent
standards for major water pollutants, requires
all municipalities to use secondary sewage
treatment by 1988, sets interim goals of making
all U.S. waters safe for fishing and swimming,
allows point source discharges of pollutants into
waterways only with a permit from EPA,
requires  all industries to  use the best
practicable technology (BPT) for control of
conventional and non-conventional pollutants
and to use the best available technology (BAT)
that is reasonable or affordable.

Co-composting - Simultaneous composting of
two or more diverse waste streams.

Commercial Waste - Waste materials originating
in wholesale,  retail, institutional, or service
establishments such as office buildings, stores,
markets, theaters, hotels  and warehouses.

Commingled Recyclables - A mixture of several
recyclable materials into  one containers.

Compactor - Power-driven device used to
compress materials to a smaller volume.

Compost - The relatively stable decomposed
organic  material resulting from the composting
process. Also referred to as humus.  ,

 Composting - The controlled biological
 decomposition of organic solid waste under
 aerobic  conditions.

 Construction and Demolition Waste - Materials
 resulting from the construction, remodeling,
 repair or demolition of buildings, bridges,
 pavements and other structures.

 Container Deposit Legislation - Laws that require
 monetary  deposits to be levied on beverage
 containers.  The money  is returned to the
 consumer when the containers are returned to
 the retailer.  Also called "Bottle  Bills."
Corrugated Paper - Paper or cardboard
manufactured in a series of wrinkles or folds, or
into alternating ridges and grooves.

Gullet - Clean, generally color-sorted, crushed
glass used to make new glass products.

Curbside Collection - Programs where recyclable
materials are collected at the curb, often from
special containers, to be brought to various
processing facilities.

Decomposition - Breaking down into component
parts or basic elements.

Densiped Refuse-Derived Fuel (d-RDF)  - A
refuse-derived fuel that has been processed to
produce briquettes, pellets, or cubes.

Detaining - Recovering  tin from "tin" cans by a
chemical process which makes the remaining
steel more easily recycled.

Diaans - Heterocyclic hydrocarbons that occur
as toxic impurities, especially in herbicides.

Diversion Rate - A measure of the amount of
waste material being diverted for recycling
compared with the total amount that was
previously thrown away.

Drop-off Center - A method of collecting
recyclable or compostible materials in which the
materials are taken by individuals to collection
sites and deposited into designated containers.

Electrostatic Precipitator - Device for removing
particulate matter from MWC facility air
emissions.  It works by causing the particles to
become electrostatically charged and then
 attracting them to an oppositely charged plate,
where they are precipitated out of the air.

Emission - Discharge of a gas into atmospheric
 circulation.

Energy Recovery - Conversion of waste energy,
 generally through the combustion  of processed
 or raw refuse to produce steam. See also
 "Municipal Waste Combustion," and
 Incineration.
 148

-------
                                                                                            Glossary
Enterprise Fund - A fund for a specific purpose
that is seltsupporting from the revenue it
generates.

Ferrous Metals - Metals that are derived from
iron. They can be removed using large magnets
at separation facilities.

FfyAsh (flyash) - Small, solid particles of ash
and soot generated when coal, oil, or waste
materials are burned.  Fly ash is suspended in
the flue gas  after combustion and is removed by
the pollution control equipment.

Flaw Control - A legal or economic means by
which waste  is directed to particular
destinations.  For example, an ordinance
requiring that certain wastes be sent to a
combustion facility is waste flow control.

Garbage - Spoiled or waste food that is thrown
away, generally defined as wet food waste.  It is
used as a general term for all products
discarded.

Ground water - Water beneath the earth's
surface that fills underground pockets (known
as aquifers) and moves between soil particles
and rock, supplying wells and springs.

HammermUl  - A type of crusher or shredder
used to break up waste materials into smaller
pieces.

Hazardous Waste - Waste material that may
pose a threat to human health or  the
environment, the disposal and handling of which
is regulated by federal law.

Heavy Metals - Hazardous elements including
cadmium, mercury, and lead which may be
found in the waste stream as part  of discarded
items such as batteries, lighting fixtures,
colorants and inks.

High Grade Paper - Relatively valuable types of
paper such as computer printout, white ledger,
and tab cards.  Also used to refer to  industrial
trimmings at paper mills that are recycled.

Humus - Organic materials resulting from decay
of plant or animal matter. Also referred to as
compost.
 Hydrogeology - The study of surface and
 subsurface water.

 Incinerator - Facility in which the combustion of
 solid waste takes place.

 Incinerator Ash - The remnants of solid waste
 after combustion, including non-combustibles
 (e.g., metals) and soot.

 Industrial Waste - Materials discarded from
 industrial operations or  derived from
 manufacturing processes.

 Inorganic waste - Waste  composed of matter
 other than plant or animal (i.e., contains no
 carbon).

 Institutional Waste - Waste materials originating
 in schools, hospitals, prisons, research
 institutions and other public buildings.

 Integrated Solid Waste Management - A practice
 of using several alternative waste management
 techniques to manage and dispose of specific
 components  of the municipal solid waste
 stream.  Waste  management alternatives include
 source reduction, recycling,  composting, energy
 recovery and landfilling.

 In-Vessel Composting - A composting method in
 which the compost is  continuously and
 mechanically mixed and  aerated in a large,
 contained area.

 IPC - Intermediate Processing Center  - usually
 refers to the type of materials recovery facility
 (MRF)  that processes residentially collected
 mixed recyclables into new products available
 for market;  often used interchangeably with
 MRF.

 Leachate - Liquid that has percolated through
 solid waste or another medium and  has
 extracted, dissolved, or suspended materials
 from it, which may include potentially harmful
 materials. Leachate collection and treatment  is
 of primary concern at municipal waste landfills.

Magnetic Separation - A  system to remove
 ferrous metals from other materials  in a mixed
 municipal waste stream.  Magnets  are used to
 attract the ferrous metals.
                                                                                              149

-------
                                                                                           Glossary
Mandatory Recycling - Programs which by law
require consumers to separate trash so that
some or all recyclable materials are not burned
or dumped in landfills.

Manual Separation - The separation of
recyclable or compostible materials from waste
by hand sorting.

Mass Sum - A municipal waste combustion
technology in which solid waste is burned in a
controlled system without prior sorting or
processing.

Mechanical Separatum - The separation of waste
into various components using mechanical
means, such as cyclones, trommels, and screens.

Methane - An odorless, colorless, flammable,
and explosive gas produced by municipal solid
waste undergoing anaerobic decomposition.
Methane is emitted  from municipal solid waste
landfills. .

Microorganisms - Microscopically small living
organisms that digest decomposable materials
through metabolic activity.   Microorganisms are
active in the composting process.

Modular Incinerator - Smaller-scale waste
combustion units prefabricated at a
manufacturing facility and transported to the
MWC facility site.

MSW Composting -  Municipal Solid Waste
Composting - The controlled degradation of
municipal solid waste including after some form
of preprocessing to  remove non-compostible
inorganic materials.

Mulch - Ground or mixed yard wastes placed
around plants to prevent evaporation of
moisture and freezing of roots and to nourish
the soil.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) - Includes  non-
hazardous waste generated in households,
commercial and business establishments,
Institutions, and light industrial process  wastes,
agricultural wastes,  mining waste and sewage
sludge.  In practice, specific definitions vary
 across jurisdictions.
NIMBY- Acronym for "Not In My Back Yard" -
expression of resident opposition to the siting
of a solid waste facility based on the particular
location proposed.

Organic Waste - Waste material containing
carbon. The organic fraction of municipal solid
waste includes paper, wood, food wastes,
plastics, and yard wastes.

Paniculate Matter (PM) - Tiny pieces of matter
resulting from the combustion process  that can
have harmful health effects on those who breath
them.  Pollution control at MWC facilities  is
designed to limit particulate emissions.

Participation Rate - A measure of the number of
people participating in a recycling program
compared to the total  number that could be
participating.

Pathogen - An organism capable of causing
disease.

Percolate - To ooze or trickle through a
permeable  substance.   Ground water may
percolate into the bottom of an unlined landfill.

Permeable - Having pores or openings that
permit liquids or gasses to pass  through.

Post-Consumer Recycling - The reuse of
materials generated from residential  and
commercial waste, excluding recycling of
material from industrial processes that has not
reached the consumer, such as glass  broken in
the manufacturing process.

Recyclables - Materials that still have useful
physical or chemical properties after serving
their original purpose  and that can,  therefore,
be reused or remanufactured into additional
products.

Recycling - The process by which materials
otherwise destined for disposal are collected,
reprocessed or remanufactured,  and  reused.

Refractory  - A material that can withstand
dramatic heat variations.  Used  to construct
conventional combustion chambers in
incinerators.  Currently, waterwall systems are
becoming more common.
 150

-------
                                                                                            Glossary
 Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) - Product of a mixed
 waste processing system in which certain
 recyclable and non-combustible materials are
 removed, and the remaining combustible
 material is converted for use as a fuel to create
 energy.

 Residential Waste - Waste materials generated in
 single and multiple-family homes.

 Residue - Materials remaining after processing,
 incineration, composting, or recycling have been
 completed.  Residues are usually disposed of in
 landfills..

 Resource Recovery - A term describing the
 extraction and utilization of materials and
 energy from the waste stream.   The term is
 sometimes used synonymously with energy
 recovery.

 Retention Basin - An area designed to retain
 runoff and prevent erosion and pollution.

 Reuse - The use of a product more than once in
 its same form for the same purpose;  e.g., a soft-
 drink bottle is reused when it is refined to the
 bottling company for refilling.

Roll-off Container - A large waste container that
 fits onto a tractor trailer that can be dropped
 off and picked up hydraulically.

 Sanitary Landfill - Land waste disposal site that
 is located to minimize water pollution from
 runoff and leaching. Waste is spread in thin
 layers, compacted, and covered with a fresh
 layer of soil each day to minimize pest,
aesthetic, disease, air pollution,  and water
pollution problems.

Scavenger - One who illegally removes materials
at any point in the solid waste  management
system.

Scrap - Discarded or rejected industrial waste
material  often suitable for recycling.

Scrubber - Common anti-pollution device that
uses a liquid or slurry spray to  remove acid
gases and particulates from municipal waste
combustion facility flue gases.
 Secondary Material - A material that is used in
 place of a primary or raw material in
 manufacturing a product.

 Sludge - A semi-liquid residue remaining from
 the treatment of municipal and industrial water
 and wastewater.

 Soil Liner - Landfill liner composed of
 compacted soil used for the containment of
 leachate.

 Source Reduction - The design, manufacture,
 acquisition, and reuse of materials so as to
 minimize the quantity and/or toxicity of waste
 produced. Source reduction prevents waste
 either by redesigning products  or by otherwise
 changing  societal patterns of consumption, use,
 and waste generation.

 Source Separation - The segregation  of specific
 materials at the point of generation  for separate
 collection. Residences source separate
 recyclables as part of a curbside recycling
 program.

 Special Waste - Refers to items that  require
 special or separate handling, such as  household
 hazardous wastes, bulky wastes, tires, and used
 oil.

 Stack Emissions - Air emissions from a
 combustion facility stacks.

 Subtitle C - The hazardous waste section of the
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 (RCRA).

 Subtitle D - The solid, non-hazardous waste
 section of the Resource Conservation and
 Recovery  Act (RCRA).

Subtitle F - Section of the Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
requiring  the federal government to actively
participate in procurement programs fostering
the recovery and use of recycled materials and
energy.

Superfund - Common name for the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to
clean up  abandoned or inactive hazardous waste
dump sites.
                                                                                              151

-------
                                                                                           Glossary
Tipping Fee - A fee, usually dollars per ton, for
the unloading or dumping of waste at a landfill,
transfer station, recycling  center, or waste-to-
energy facility, usually stated in dollars per ton;
also called a disposal or service fee.

Tipping Floor - Unloading area for vehicles that
are delivering municipal solid waste to a
transfer station or municipal waste combustion
facility.

Transfer Station - A permanent where waste
materials  are taken from  smaller collection
vehicles and placed in larger vehicles for
transport, including truck trailers, railroad cars,
or barges. Recycling and some processing may
also take  place at transfer stations.

Trash - Material considered worthless,
unnecessary or offensive that  is usually thrown
away. Generally defined  as dry waste material,
but in common usage it is a synonym for
garbage, rubbish, or refuse.

Tub Grinder - Machine to grind or chip wood
wastes for mulching, composting or size
reduction.

Variable Container Bate - A charge for solid
waste services based on the volume of waste
generated measured by the number of
containers set out for collection.

Volume Reduction - The processing of waste
materials so as to decrease the amount of space
the materials occupy, usually by compacting or
shredding (mechanical), incineration  (thermal),
or composting (biological).

Waste Exchange - A computer and catalog
network that redirects waste  materials back into
the manufacturing or reuse process by matching
 companies generating specific wastes with
 companies that use those wastes as
 manufacturing inputs.

 Waste Reduction - Reducing the amount or type
 of waste generated.  Sometimes  used
 synonymously with Source  Reduction.
Waste Stream - A term describing the total flow
of solid waste from homes, businesses,
institutions and manufacturing plants that must
be recycled, burned, or disposed of in landfills;
or any segment thereof, such as the "residential
waste stream" or the "recyclable waste stream."

Water Table - Level below the earth's surface at
which the ground becomes saturated with water.
Landfills and composting facilities are designed
with respect to the water table in order to
minimize potential contamination.

WaterwaU Incinerator - Waste combustion facility
utilizing lined steel tubes filled with circulating
water to cool the combustion chamber.  Heat
from the combustion  gases is transferred to the
water.  The resultant steam is sold or used to
generate electricity.

Wetland - Area that is regularly wet or flooded
and has a water table that stands at or above
the land surface for at least part of the year.
Coastal wetlands extend back from estuaries and
include salt marshes,  tidal basins, marshes, and
mangrove swamps. Inland freshwater wetlands
consist of swamps, marshes, and bogs.  Federal
regulations apply to landfills sited at or near
wetlands.

Wet Scrubber - Anti-pollution device in which a
lime slurry (dry lime mixed with water) is
injected into the flue gas stream to remove acid
gases and particulates.

White Goods - Large household appliances such
as refrigerators, stoves, air conditioners, and
washing machines.

 Windrow - A large, elongated pile  of composting
 material.

 Yard Waste - Leaves, grass clippings, prunings,
 and other natural organic matter discarded from
 yards  and gardens. Yard wastes may also
 include stumps and brush, but these materials
 are not normally handled at composting
 facilities.
  152

-------
                                                                               Acronyms
                                Acronyms
           ANSI         American National Standards Institute
           BAN          Bond Anticipation Note
           CERCLA      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
           CSWMP       County Solid Waste Management Plan
           EIS           Environmental Impact Statement
           EPA          (United States) Environmental Protection Agency
           ESP           Electrostatic Precipitator
           GO bond      General Obligation Bond
           HDPE         High Density Polyethylene
           HHW         Household Hazardous Waste
           HSWA        Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
           IRB           Industrial Revenue Bond
           IPC           Intermediate Processing Center
           LDPE         Low-Density Polyethylene
           MRF         Materials Recovery Facility
           MSW         Municipal Solid Waste
           MWC         Municipal Waste Combustor
           NAAQS       National Ambient Air Quality Standards
           NESHAP      National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
           NIMBY       Not In My Back Yard
           NSPS         New Source Performance Standards
           NSWMA      National Solid Wastes Management Association
           ONP          Old Newspaper
           PCB          Polychlorinated Biphenyl
           PCRB         Pollution Control Revenue Bond
           PET          Polyethylene Terephthalate
           PP            Polypropylene
           PSD          Prevention of Significant Deterioration
           PVC          Polyvinyl Chloride
           RAN         Revenue Anticipation Note
           RCRA        Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
           RDF          Refused-Derived Fuels
           SQG          Small Quantity Generator
           SWDA        Solid Waste Disposal Act
           TAN          Tax Anticipation Note
           VOC         Volatile Organic Compound
* U.S. G.P.O.:1991-524-858:40575
153

-------

-------

-------

-------