the
Resource Recovery
a survey
of the industry
and its capacity
This report (SW-501c) was prepared under Contract No. 68-01-2647
for the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Richard Hopper served as project officer for the Agency
during the performance of the contract.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1976
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW 50 Ic) in the solid waste management series.
Mention of commercial products or firms does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
FOREWORD
Recent growth in demand in urban areas for large plants to recover energy
and materials from municipal solid waste has led the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate further the supply of goods and services
for such resource recovery facilities.
What constitutes a resource recovery industry has previously been
undefined; the backgrounds and objectives of firms supplying goods and services
for resource recovery are diverse. The industry is not a single entity and
consequently has no Standard Industrial Classification code designation, nor a
formal trade association, nor a central spokesman. Instead, it is an agglomeration
of fragments of large firms and small firms that all strive for a common
objective: to provide solutions to solid waste disposal problems where perceived
business opportunities permit them to do so. The industrial resource recovery
movement, as we know it today, is less than 5 years old and, indeed, is changing
day by day. Because much of the current information about the industry is
speculative or opinionated, incomplete, or erroneous, EPA contracted with The
Mitre Corporation (under Contract No. 68-01-2647) to conduct this preliminary
assessment of equipment, labor, and capital supply and has provided this
baseline information regarding the firms supplying resource recovery facilities
and services. Richard Hopper has served as Project Officer for EPA throughout
the project.
-SHELDON MEYERS
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
-------
-------
PREFRCE
In preparing this report, several approaches might have been used. One was
the development of an economic model such as an input-output analysis used by
the Commerce Department to show industry activities. This approach was
quickly dismissed because, for resource recovery, analysis of this type is believed
premature and probably beyond the needs of EPA at this time. A second
approach might have been to widely distribute detailed questionnaires to the
industry and subsequently collect and organize data. This approach was also
beyond the scope of the project.
Thus, the approach used in this study was first to make assumptions of
who the industry is and what its limiters might be and then to test the
assumptions by interviewing a representative sample of the industry. It was
believed that by contacting those firms which are most committed to resource
recovery, both financially and contractually, a representative point of view of
the industry could be obtained. This report therefore contains a profile of the
resource recovery industry and provides reference information concerning the
capacity of that industry to meet anticipated demand.
Results of sample interviews indicate that supply of equipment or labor
will not limit resource recovery growth but that the lack of clearcut mechanisms
for financing projects may impede the flow of capital. Several demand
projections suggest that about 100 resource recovery facilities will be demanded
by 1982. Representatives of the industry provide more pessimistic demand
projections which range from 30 to 65 facilities by 1982, although it is
estimated that the industry has the capacity to supply at least 200 facilities by
then.
Industry representatives quickly dismissed the notion that equipment,
labor, or capital supply would limit resource recovery growth. Rather, they
expressed the viewpoint that institutional problems are the most critical
constraint to the number of facilities to be constructed. Because planning for
and acquiring resource recovery generally requires about 4 years, equipment and
labor suppliers have ample time to overcome apparent shortages of necessary
items. Furthermore, contractors which are selected to construct facilities may
pre-order equipment during final negotiations. To a large degree, however, the
major resource recovery firms have little experience in working with local
governments while local governments have little experience in procuring risk
technologies.
In the aggregate the 20 largest public resource recovery firms had
revenues of about $23 billion and assets of $18 billion in 1973, as compared
with the estimated $6 to $8 billion capital requirements for resource recovery
facilities in the next 10 years and less than one-half billion already spent. This
suggests that the large firms have financial resources available to devote to
resource recovery if the investments justify an acceptable profit level. It appears
-------
that the rate of investment in resource recovery will be governed by two major
factors: the willingness of municipalities to acquire facilities and the potential
for profits in supplying them. Reportedly a minimal 15 percent return in equity
is expected to satisfy the private sector's profit incentive in resource recovery
projects. It is not yet clear whether this return is currently being obtained or will
be obtained in the future.
This study was an effort to collect data and to seek opinions and
perceptions from the resource recovery industry's point of view with respect to
its own present and future role. It is our opinion that this point of view may be
one of the important inputs in considering public policies regarding resource
recovery.
The study was conducted in parallel parts for 4 months beginning in March
1975. Part I is a profile of the resource recovery industry and includes
categorizations of firms and describes their roles and rationale for participation
in resource recovery. In addition, "Profile Data Sheets" which describe major
firms and highlight interview responses are contained in Appendix III. Part II
contains information about capacity limiters, including descriptions of
equipment and service availability and industry perceptions of supply and
growth. This information was obtained primarily by interviews (contacts listed
in Appendix I); interview questions are included in Appendix II.
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 1
Part I. THE INDUSTRY 5
I. Categorization of the Industry 5
II. The Activities of the Industry 13
Part II. INDUSTRY GROWTH AND CAPACITY LIMITERS 17
I. An Analysis of Projected Demand for Resource Recovery 18
II. Equipment Capacity Limiters 23
III. Labor Capacity Limiters 35
IV. Financial Limiters 38
V. Projections by the Industry 44
Part III. CONCLUSION 47
Appendix-List of Contacts Made for Industry Survey 49
Appendix—Questions to Prime Contractors and Manufacturers . 51
Appendix—Profile Data Sheets 53
Appendix—Listings of Equipment Suppliers for Current Re-
source Recovery Projects 89
vii
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000006Y0\tiff\2000PYG8.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000006Y0\tiff\2000PYG8.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY:
THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
THE GROWING INTEREST IN
RESOURCE RECOVERY, 1970-75
During the past 5 years in the United States,
interest in recovery of resources from municipal solid
waste has expanded considerably in both the public
and private sectors. In 1971, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency established the Resource Recovery
Division as part of the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. At the time, two federally
funded demonstration projects in resource recovery
technology were underway; no city was committed to
build a large-scale facility; only two cities had source
separation programs (separate collection of news-
paper and/or other recyclable materials that have
been separated out by residents); there were no
statewide resource recovery programs. Private indus-
try was not marketing large-scale resource recovery
systems and had barely begun to design or test
processes. Today, a number of demonstrations are
being carried out under Federal and private industry
auspices. More than 30 major firms are promoting
resource recovery systems (Table 1). Nineteen indus-
try/municipality combinations have committed them-
selves to large-scale resource recovery operations
(Table 2), and over 40 other cities are considering
such systems (Table 3). Some 135 cities have under-
taken source separation programs, and 12 States are
involved in planning or regulating resource recovery
activities on a statewide basis.
REASONS FOR INDUSTRY GROWTH
Several factors explain this tremendous growth.
The solid waste disposal crisis has prompted the
search for alternative disposal means. A National
League of Cities survey1 in 1974 concluded that at
least half of current urban land disposal sites would
be filled, inadequate, or obsolete within 1 to 5 years.
Because of the escalating costs of land and of meeting
environmental standards, new landfills and incinera-
tors are much more expensive to provide now than in
years past. Resource recovery is, therefore, becoming
competitive in price, as well as environmentally attrac-
tive.
Energy and materials shortages also improve the
desirability of resource recovery. The total energy
potential in solid wastes amounts to 1.5 percent of all
energy consumed in the United States.2 The potential
savings in raw materials are also significant: 7 percent
of the iron, 8 percent of the aluminum, 5 percent of
TABLE 1
PRIME CONTRACTORS PROMOTING RESOURCE
RECOVERY SYSTEMS*
(December 1975)
AENCO - Cargill
American Can Company, Americology Division
American Resource Recovery Corporation
Biocel Corporation
Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc.
Browning Ferris Industries
Canadian Industries Limited
Carborundum Company
Carrier Corporation
Clear Air, Inc.
Combustion Engineering Inc.
Combustion Equipment Associates
Combustion Power Company
Continental Can Company, Inc.
DEVCO Management Company
Ecologenics, Inc.
Environmental Control Sciences
Environmental Resources Corporation
Grumman Ecosystems Corporation
Heil Co.
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.
Occidental Research Corp.
Raytheon Service Company
Research Cottrell, Inc.
SCA Services, Inc.
Teledyne National
Titan Group, Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation
UOP, Inc.
Waste Control Science
Waste Management, Inc.
Wastes Resources Corp.
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
*This list may be incomplete as it is impossible for
EPA to be aware of all companies entering into this area. This
list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA as to either
the companies' financial reliability or the quality of their
systems.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE 2
COMMITMENTS BY INDUSTRY/PUBLIC SECTOR COMBINATIONS, PARTIAL LIST*
(January 1975)
City, county, or State
Firm
Role**
Ames, Iowa
Baltimore, Md.
Baltimore County, Md.
Bridgeport, Conn.
Chicago, 111.
East Bridgewater, Mass.
Franklin, Ohio
Hamilton, Ontario
Harrisburg, Pa.
Hempstead, N.Y.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Monroe County, N.Y.
Nashville, Tenn.
New Britain, Conn.
New Orleans, La.
Palmer Township, Pa.
Pompano Beach, Fla.
San Diego County, Calif.
Saugus, Mass.
St. Louis, Mo.
Gibbs, Hill, Durham & Richardson, Inc.
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.
Teledyne National
Occidental Research Corp.
Ralph M. Parsons
Combustion Equipment Assoc.
Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc.
Glass Container Mfg. Inst.
Canadian Industries Limited
Gannett, Flemming, Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc.
Americology
Raytheon Service Co.
I. C. Thomasson & Assoc.
Combustion Equipment Assoc.
Waste Management Inc.
Elo and Rhodes, Inc.
Waste Management Inc.
Occidental Research Corp.
RESCO (private venture), Wheelabrator-Frye
Union Electric Co., Horner & Schifrin
A&E
Prime
Prime
A&E
Private venture
Prime
A&E
Prime
Prime
Prime
A&E
Prime
A&E
Prime
Prime
A&E
*Reference: Hopper, R. E. A Nationwide Survey of Resource Recovery Activities. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-142. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan. 1975.
**A&E designates architectural and engineering consultants. Prime designates prime contractor.
TABLE 3
MUNICIPALITIES CONSIDERING RESOURCE RECOVERY, PARTIAL LIST
(December 1975)
Akron, Ohio
Albany, N.Y.
Allegheny County, Pa.
Auburn, Maine
Boston, Mass.
Braintree, Mass.
Brevard County, Fla.
Charlottesville, Va.
Chemung County, N.Y.
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Dade County, Fla.
Dayton, Ohio
De Kalb County, Ga.
Denver, Colo.
Detroit, Mich.
Dubuque, Iowa
Dutchess County, N.Y.
Erie County, N.Y.
Fairmont, Minn.
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Hackensack Meadowlands, N.J.
Hamilton County, Ohio
Hennepin County, Minn.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Houstatonic Valley, Conn.
Humbolt County, Calif.
Knoxville, Tenn.
Lane County, Oreg.
Lawrence, Mass.
Lexington, Ky.
Little Rock, Ark.
Madison, Wis.
Memphis, Tenn.
Middlesex County, N.J.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Monroe County, N.Y.
Montgomery County, Md.
Montgomery County, Ohio
Mt. Vernon, N.Y.
Newark, N.J.
New Haven, Conn.
Newton-Waltham, Mass.
New York City
Onondaga County, N.Y.
Palmer Township, Pa.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
Portland, Oreg.
Providence, R.I.
Richmond, Va.
Salt Lake County, Utah
San Juan, P.R.
Seattle, Wash.
Siloam Springs, Ark.
Springfield, 111.
Springfield, Mass.
Springfield, Mo.
Tampa, Fla.
Toledo, Ohio
Washington, D.C.
Westchester Co., N.Y.
Wilmington, Del.
the copper, 3 percent of the lead, 19 percent of the
tin, and 14 percent of the paper consumed can be
supplied from solid waste.2 Moreover, recycling of
materials, compared with manufacture from virgin
materials, generally requires less energy and also
creates less pollution.
Certain key pieces of Federal legislation have
helped to establish the increasing demand for re-
source recovery. The existing legislation and its
effects are summarized in Table 4. The major impacts
on resource recovery have been the creation of
enforcement powers, establishment of environmental
standards, setting of implementation guidelines, and
award of research and development grants. Other
legislative measures which have been contemplated
for the future at State, local, and Federal levels
-------
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 4
FEDERAL LEGISLATION IMPACTING ON RESOURCE RECOVERY
Legislation by category
Impacts
Air pollution control:
Clean Air Act of 1963
Air Quality Act of 1967
Clean Air Amendments of 1970
Water pollution control:
Water Quality Act of 1965
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
Solid waste management:
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the
Resource Recovery Act of 1970
Environmental impact:
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Materials management:
National Materials Policy Act of 1970
Energy:
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of
1974
Development and enforcement of standards for emissions
control; forced obsolescence of municipal incinerators
and burning dumps.
Initiated enforcement of effluent guidelines; established
effluent discharge limits, limited discharge of sludges
and harmful leachates.
Planning, research demonstration grants for resource
recovery; guidelines for solid waste disposal; incentives
for resource recovery development.
Required environmental impact assessments on major
projects; forced solid waste disposal impact planning.
Focused attention on materials conservation by developing
policy to use resources and technology more efficiently.
Established the Energy Research and Development
Administration to address energy use; directed ERDA
to conduct R&D in energy conservation by productive
use of wastes and technology development.
include powers for mandatory establishment of re-
source recovery, financial backing, more stringent
environmental regulations and expanded enforcement
powers, and regulations that would have the effect of
reducing the generation of waste.
REFERENCES
1. National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Cities and the nation's disposal crisis. Wash-
ington, Mar. 1973. 46 p. Reprinted, [Cincin-
nati] , U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, June 1973.
2. Lowe, R. A. Progress in resource recovery: or, technology
isn't everything. Presented at the Confer-
ence on Progress in Solid Waste Manage-
ment, Boston, June 5, 1974. [Washington],
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974. 17 p.
-------
-------
PART I.
THE INDUSTRY
Section I. Categorization of the Industry
The resource recovery industry may be categorized
in many ways. For purposes of this report three
categories are used to represent the firms within the
industry: prime contractors, architectural and engi-
n^ering consulting firms, and equipment manufac-
turers.
The prime contractors serve as general contractors
in the resource recovery implementation process by
supervising final technical designs, contractual agree-
ments, ordering of equipment, construction, schedul-
ing, and equipment testing. Many prime contractors
are also involved in development of resource recovery
technologies.
The architectural and engineering consulting firms
(A&E's) contribute well-established system-design
and engineering expertise in resource recovery plan-
ning and implementation.
The equipment manufacturers produce the numer-
ous equipment items and subsystems necessary for
resource recovery facilities.
This categorization is by no means an attempt to
provide a perfect representation of the industry. The
categories do overlap in some cases. Some elements of
the industry such as secondary materials handlers and
management consultants have not been included, nor
have the suppliers of small, modular recovery facili-
ties. This categorization does, however, facilitate an
examination of the industry's capacity; these three
categories most directly affect the availability of
resource recovery to the public sector.
PRIME CONTRACTORS
Fifteen to twenty firms have established them-
selves as the leading prime contractors. These com-
panies or their parents are generally large, with sales
ranging from $60 million to over $3 billion (Table 5).
As such, they have funds for diversification into
"public interest" efforts such as resource recovery. In
addition to these industry leaders there are a number
of smaller firms.
Prime contractors may be categorized by: (1) ma-
jor line of business, such as petrochemicals, packag-
ing, and pollution control, (2) resource recovery
process with which firms are affiliated, and (3) degree
of commitment to resource recovery activities.
Categorization by Line of Business
A review of some 30 major firms committed to
resource recovery has shown them to be representa-
tive of certain related businesses in the following
categories: pollution control, petrochemicals and oil,
aerospace diversification, solid waste collection and
disposal services, materials handling and equipment,
containers and packaging, and private entrepreneurial
ventures (Table 6). Each of these categories is
described below.
Pollution Control. A number of firms in the
industry view resource recovery as an extension of
their pollution control activities; they perceive fur-
ther pollution control business opportunities in the
establishment of resource recovery facilities. The
firms can also apply many existing design and
manufacturing capabilities to the new industry. Some
of the prime contractors most heavily involved in
pollution control are Wheelabrator-Frye Corp. (air
pollution controls), Research Cottrell (air pollution
controls), Union Carbide (water pollution controls),
and Combustion Equipment Associates.
Petrochemicals and Oil. Some firms in the re-
source recovery industry represent petrochemicals
and oil companies interested in developing alternative
energy sources. The leaders in this category are
Occidental Research Corp., a subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corp., Union Carbide Corp., Monsanto
Envirochem Systems Inc., and UOP, Inc.
Aerospace Diversification. Aerospace firms have
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE 5
TWENTY LARGEST PUBLICLY HELD FIRMS IN RESOURCE RECOVERY:*
RANKING BY SALES AND ASSETS, 1974
(In millions')
Firm
Union Carbide Corporation
Occidental Petroleum, parent of Occidental Research Corp.
Monsanto Company
Continental Can Company
American Can Company
Allis Chalmers Corporation
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Carrier Corporation
Raytheon Company
Carborundum Company
UOP, Inc.
Grumman Aircraft (Grumman Corp.)
Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
Waste Management, Inc.
Peabody Galion Corp.
SCA Services
Research Cottrell, Inc.
Combustion Equipment Associates
Titan Group, Inc.
Totals
Total assets
$ 4,162
2,871
2,545
1,753
1,544
916
815
731
705
416
396
353
262
207
170
'155
107
93
66
54
$18,321
Total
revenue
$ 3,900
3,500
2,647
2,540
2,181
1,166
1,273
876
1,590
557
418
1,082
264
257
132
183
123
140
63
62
$22,954
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
10
6
11
12
9
13
14
17
15
18
16
19
20
*Non-publicly-held firms are not listed because of the unavailability of 10-K reports to accurately describe their activities.
entered the industry in order to apply some of their
systems engineering expertise to public sector needs.
The leaders in this category are Raytheon Service
Corporation and Grumman Ecosystems Corp.
Solid Waste Collection/Disposal Services. Among
the various solid waste collection and disposal service
companies that have become involved as prime
contractors in resource recovery, the notable leaders
include Browning Ferris Industries, Waste Manage-
ment, Inc., and SCA Services, Inc. Resource recovery
is viewed by these firms as a natural extension of
disposal services and as a means of keeping abreast of
solid waste management technological trends being
established by other prime contractors.
Materials Handling and Processing Equip-
ment. Prime contractors currently involved in large-
scale handling of materials include Black Clawson
Fibreclaim, Inc., a subsidiary of Parsons and Whitte-
more Organization, AENCO, a newly acquired sub-
sidiary of Cargill; and Allis Chalmers and Heil
(equipment manufacturers).
Containers and Packaging. Several container and
packaging firms have entered the industry in order to
expand their raw material supplies. The two major
firms representing this category are Americology, a
subsidiary of American Can Co. and Continental Can
Co.
Private Entrepreneurial Ventures. In addition to
the large firms which have diversified into resource
recovery, a number of private ventures have been
formed whose major activity is resource recovery.
These include Environmental Control Science, Ameri-
can Resource Recovery Corporation, Clean Air, Inc.,
Ecologenics, Systems Associates, and DEVCO Man-
agement Co. In addition, a number of private
ventures have arisen as local efforts around the
country.
Categorization by Process Type
Four major types of processes are currently being
developed by prime contractors (Table 7). Some of
the larger firms associated with each are described
below.
Waterwall Incineration. Steam for heating and
cooling, running machinery, or generating electricity
can be produced through waterwall incineration.
Wheelabrator-Frye, Titan, UOP, Inc., and Carrier
-------
CATEGORIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY
TABLE 6
CATEGORIZATION OF PRIME CONTRACTORS BY
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS*
(December 1975)
Line of business
Example prime contractors
Pollution control
Petrochemicals and oil
Aerospace diversifica-
tion
Solid waste collection/
disposal
Materials handling and
equipment
Containers and
packaging
Private entrepreneurial
ventures
Energy-related business
Carborundum Company
Research Cottrell Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
Occidental Research Co.
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Sys-
tems, Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation
UOP, Inc.
Grumman Ecosystems Corp.
Raytheon Service Co.
Browning Ferris Industries,
Inc.
SCA Services, Inc.
Waste Management, Inc.
AENCO
Black Clawson Fibreclaim,
Inc.
Heil Co.
Americology
Continental Can Co.
American Resource Recovery
Corporation
Combusion Equipment
Associates
Clean Air, Inc.
DEVCO Management Co.
Ecologenics
Environmental Control Science
Systems Associates
Combustion Engineering
Carrier Corporation
*This list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA
as to either the companies' financial reliability or the quality
of their systems.
Corporation are the primary firms promoting this
process.
Shredded Fuel. There are a variety of shredded
fuel processes which produce fossil fuel supplements.
Black Clawson has developed a wet pulping process;
Combustion Equipment Associates is promoting a
proprietary chemical treatment which produces a fine
powder-like fuel. Other firms, such as Occidental,
Raytheon, SCA Services, AENCO, Waste Manage-
ment, Teledyne National, Browning Ferris, and Re-
TABLE 7
PARTIAL CATEGORIZATION OF PRIME
CONTRACTORS BY RESOURCE RECOVERY
PROCESS TYPE*
(December 1975)
Process
Prime contractors
Waterwall incineration
Shredded fuel
Pyrolysis
Materials recovery
Carrier Corporation
Titan Group
Ecologenics Corp.
Energy Conversion Systems
UOP, Inc.
Wheelabrator-Frye Inc.
AENCO
Americology
Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc.
Browning Ferris
Combustion Equipment
Associates
Grumman Ecosystems Corp.
Heil Co.
Occidental Research Corp.
Raytheon Service Company
Research Cottrell
SCA Services
Teledyne National
Carborundum Co.
DEVCO Management Co.
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems
Occidental Research Corp.
Union Carbide Corporation
Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc.
Environmental Resources Corp.
Occidental Research Corp.
Raytheon Service Co.
Waste Management, Inc.
*This list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA
as to either the companies' financial reliability or the quality
of their systems.
search Cottrell, have developed mechanical separation
and fuel production processes which expand upon the
St. Louis process.
Pyrolysis. Primarily two types of pyrolysis (i.e.,
gas and oil) processes are being developed. Gas
pyrolysis is currently being demonstrated and tested
at the 200-TPD (tons per day) scale by Union
Carbide. Monsanto Envirochem and Carborundum are
also developing gas pyrolysis processes. Monsanto is
currently completing construction of the first full-
scale (1,000 TPD) gas pyrolysis facility in the
country; it is expected to be fully operational in
1976. Oil pyrolysis is being developed by Occidental
Research Corp., which has a 200-TPD pilot facility
under construction.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
Materials Recovery. Although most energy re-
covery processes are compatible with some materials
recovery subsystems, relatively few complete mate-
rials recovery processes have been developed by the
large prime contractors. Black Clawson's Hydrasposal
process is designed primarily for fiber recovery. Major
contributions to materials recovery technology have
also been made by the Raytheon Service Co., and the
National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR).
Categorization by Degree of Commitment
Four categories have been defined which can be
used to classify the prime contractors by stages of
resource recovery participation (Table 8).
Category 1-Commitment to Major Resource Re-
covery Projects. Included are firms which are already
constructing or operating facilities and other firms
which have been selected to do so.
Category 2—Ongoing Demonstrations. This cate-
gory includes firms which are conducting demonstra-
tion projects of over 150 TPD (that is, somewhat
larger than pilot facilities) but have not yet con-
tracted for larger scale facilities.
Category 3-Proposals Submitted. Firms which
have submitted proposals for design, construction, or
operation of large-scale facilities but which have not
yet been selected to carry out the work comprise this
category.
Category 4-Involvement but No Proposals Sub-
mitted or Construction Commitments Made. All of
the remaining prime contractors (20 or more) are
included in this category (see Table 1).
ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING
CONSULTING SERVICES
The second industry group is the architectural and
engineering consultants (Table 9). A&E's have tradi-
tionally been retained by municipalities and by
industry to design and manage construction of solid
waste disposal facilites, primarily landfills and incin-
erators.
The traditional A&E approach is exemplified by
its role in the water pollution control industry.
Municipalities requiring water and wastewater treat-
ment facilities retain engineering consulting firms to
perform planning studies and to oversee design and
construction of the facilities. The A&E role in
TABLE 8
REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF PRIME CONTRACTOR
FIRMS*
(December 1975)
Category
Firm
Committed for Major
Resource Recovery
Projects
2. Ongoing Demonstrations
3. Proposals Submitted
4. Involvement But No
Proposals or
Commitments
Americology
Black Clawson Fibreclaim,
Inc.
Combustion Equipment
Associates
Monsanto Enviro-Chem
Systems, Inc.
Occidental Research Corp.
Raytheon Service
Company
RESCO
Waste Management, Inc.
Wheelabrator-Frye Inc.
AENCO - Cargill
Black Clawson
Carborundum
DEVCO
Ecologenics Corp.
Union Carbide
Wastes Resources
AENCO - Cargill
American Resource
Recovery
Black Clawson
Carrier Corporation
Clean Air, Inc.
Continental Can
Energy Conversion Systems
Environmental Control
Science
Environmental Recovery of
America
Heil Co.
Research Cottrell
Sira International
Union Carbide
UOP, Inc.
All prime contractors
*Categorized by greatest commitment to date, Mar.
1975.
resource recovery differs from this traditional ap-
proach in that:
• The prime contracting firms have emerged to
propose proprietary designs which are not yet
readily available to the A&E sector.
• Municipalities have requested operating con-
tracts in addition to design/construction con-
tracts. This is a role which A&E firms have not
-------
CATEGORIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY
TABLE 9
ENGINEERING CONSULTING FIRMS WITH
EXPERIENCE IN RESOURCE RECOVERY*
Bechtel Corporation
Black, Crow & Eidsness Inc. (subsidiary of Hercules Corpora-
tion)
Black & Veatch
C. E. Maguire, Inc. (subsidiary of Combustion Engineering
Inc.)
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Charles R. Velzy Associates, Inc.
Charles T. Main Engineers, Inc.
Consoer Townsend & Associates
Cunningham • Limp Co.
Day & Zimmerman Associates
Deleuw, Gather Organization
Flaherty - Giauara Associates
Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & Dehaven, Inc.
Henningson, Durham, & Richardson
Homer & Shifrin Inc.
I. C. Thomasson & Associates, Inc.
Leonard S. Wegman Company, Inc. (subsidiary of Peabody
Galion Corp.)
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, Douglas
Pope, Evans & Robbins Consulting Engineers
Proctor-Davis-Ray
Ralph M. Parsons Company
Ralph Woolpert, Inc.
Ray Weston, Inc.
Resource Planning Associates
Rust Engineering Company (subsidiary of Wheelabrator-
Frye Corporation)
SCS Engineers
Sunn, Low, Tom & Hara, Engineering Consultants (subsidiary
of Research Cottrell, Inc.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
*Compiled from Hopper, R.E. A nationwide survey of
resource recovery activities. Environmental Protection Publi-
cation SW-142. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Jan. 1975. This list does not constitute an
endorsement by EPA as to either the companies' financial
reliability or the quality of their systems.
played to any extent, and one which prime
contracting firms seem willing to accept.
• There is no Federal grant program similar to
that available for building wastewater treatment
facilities.
Some A&E firms have focused on design of
resource recovery facilities, especially those based on
steam recovery and solid fuel technologies. Some of
the major A&E projects currently underway are listed
in Table 10.
As experience in recovery technologies is gained,
the A&E's are expected to become more involved in:
• Standardization to off-the-shelf unit processes
as operating experience and data become avail-
able.
• Detailed site-specific design and plant optimiza-
tion for prime contractor's processes.
• Continued efforts in traditional solid waste
disposal processes, including preliminary feasi-
bility studies.
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
These are several hundred firms which manufac-
ture equipment used in resource recovery. They vary
in size, types of products manufactured, and commit-
ment to resource recovery. Among the most active
manufacturers are those listed in Table lla.
Many of the equipment items now used in
resource recovery processes were already being pro-
duced for use in other technologies. For instance:
• Boilers, turbines, switchgear, and transformers
have been borrowed from electric utility equip-
ment supply.
• Conveyors and trommels have been adapted
TABLE 10
CURRENT A&E PROJECTS
City
Firm
Project
Akron, Ohio
Ames, Iowa .
Braintree, Mass.
Chicago, 111.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Lexington, Ky.
Middlesex, N.J.
Montgomery County, Ohio
Nashville, Tenn.
Portsmouth, Va.
St. Louis, Mo.
Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & Dehaven, Inc.
Gibbs, Hill, Durham & Richardson, Inc.
Camp, Dresser and McKee
Ralph M. Parsons
Sun, Low, Tom & Hara
Proctor-Davis-Ray
Ray Weston, Inc.
Ralph Woolpert, Inc.
I. C. Thomasson Associates
Day & Zimmerman
Horner & Shifrin
Steam recovery
Shredded fuel
Steam recovery
Shredded fuel
Steam recovery
Steam recovery
Steam recovery
Shredded fuel
-------
10
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE 1 la
NUMBER OF MANUFACTURERS*
PRODUCING SELECTED EQUIPMENT TYPES
(December 1975)
Equipment type
Number of
manufacturers
Conveyors/conveyor systems
Electrostatic pretipitators
Stokers
Pneumatic systems
Magnetic separators
Air classifiers
Shredders/grinders
Steam turbines
Balers
25
8
3
6
3
14
20
23
16
*Adapted from table 10, p. 23.
from mining and materials handling processes.
• Shredders, balers, and mobile equipment are
being used in solid waste shredding and baling
facilities.
• Materials handling and slurry separation equip-
ment have been adapted from pulp and paper
processing.
• Storage containers have been borrowed from
agricultural processing.
Equipment manufacturers described in this report
have been classified in two ways: by equipment
types, and by component or subsystem supply.
Classification by Equipment Type
• General Equipment. This is equipment which is
common to virtually all of the resource re-
covery processes.
• Technology-Specific Equipment. This equip-
ment is required for specific processing tech-
nologies.
Table lib lists major equipment manufacturers which
supply each equipment category.
This categorization of equipment by general and
technology-specific types was used in a review of the
availability of specific equipment as described in Part
II of this report.
Classification by Component or
Subsystem Supply
Equipment manufacturers have begun to divide
themselves into equipment suppliers and systems
suppliers. As described in the company abstracts
(Appendix III), some prefer to manufacture equip-
ment components which can be provided to prime
contractors or to other subsystems assemblers. Others
have expanded their lines to supply entire subsystems
which can be used in resource recovery processes.
These subsystems include conveyor and materials
handling subsystems, or such subsystems as glass or
aluminum separation. Many are also involved in
supplying shredding systems for use in shred/landfill
operations. No clearcut trends have yet emerged as to
the future direction of component versus total
subsystem supply.
TABLE lib
PARTIAL LIST OF MAJOR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS*
(December 1975)
Equipment
Firm
Equipment
Firm
Air classifiers Allis Chalmers Aluminum
Americology separation
Bauer Brothers Company equipment
Buell Emission Control Div. Envirotech
Combustion Equipment Associates
Garbalizer Corporation of America
Occidental Research Co.
Rader
Scientific Separators, Inc.
SF Air Control, Inc. Boilers
Solids Conversion Systems Corp.
Sortex Company of North America
Triple/S Dynamics Systems, Inc.
Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer
Co.
American Zinc (Wilmont Engineering)
Black Clawson Fibreclaim
CARPOC, Inc.
Combustion Power Company, Inc.
McNally Pittsburgh
Raytheon Service Company
WEMCO Div., Envirotech
Babcock & Wilcox, Inc.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Erie City Boilers Div. of Zurn
Industries
Foster Wheeler Corp.
Riley Stoker Co.
-------
CATEGORIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY
11
TABLE lib
PARTIAL LIST OF MAJOR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS*-Con.
(December 1975)
Equipment
Firm
Equipment
Firm
Conveyors
Dewatering/drying
systems
Electrostatic
precipitators
Glass separation/
sorting/
recovery
equipment
Allis Chalmers
Bar her-Green
Beaumont Birch Company
Borg Warner Corp. Hydrapulpers
Fairfield Engineering Co.
FEECO International, Inc.
FMC Corporation
General Conveyor
General Kinematics Corp.
J. W. Greer Magnetic metal
Gruendler Crusher & Pulverizer Co. separation/
Hammermills ferrous metal
Heil Co. separators
Iron Hustler Corp.
Jeffrey Manufacturing Div. (Dresser Nonferrous
Ind.) separation
Mayfran, Inc. equipment
Montgomery Industries
Rader Densifiers
Rapistan
Rexnord
Rust Engineering, Inc.
Stephens-Adamson
Sullivan Co. FaPer balers and
Triple/S Dynamics systems
Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer
Co.
Black Clawson Fibreclaim
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
FEECO International, Inc.
FMC Corporation
Futoba Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Guaranty Performance Co., Inc.
Hazemag USA, Inc.
Heil Co.
Jeffrey Manufacturing Div. (Dresser
Ind.)
Kleen-Tainer Corp.
Permutit Co.
Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Pyrolysis systems
Co.
Carborundum Co.
Environmental Elements Corp.
Howe-Baher Engines, Inc.
Joy Manufacturing Pneumatic tube
Research Cottrell, Inc. systems
Trian, Inc.
U.S. Filter Corp.
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
American Zinc (Wilmont Engineering) Roll crushers
Denver Equipment
Garrett Research & Development
Geosource Inc. (Mandrel Products Div.)
Mandrel Products
McNally Pittsburgh
Raytheon
SF Air Control, Inc.
Sortex Company of North America
WEMCO Div. (Envirotech Corp.)
Beloit
Bird Manufacturing
Black Clawson
Garbalizer Corporation of America
Somat Corporation
Dings Company
Eriez Magnetics
Stearns Magnetics, Inc. (Ohio Magnetics)
CARPCO, Inc.
Combustion Power Company, Inc.
WEMCO Div. (Envirotech Corp.)
Carborundum Company
Gruendler Crusher & Pulverizer Co.
Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer
Co.
American Baler Company
American Environmental Products Co.
American Hoist & Derrick Co.
Challenger Industries
Economy-Lake
Enterprise Company
Environmental Resources Corporation
Hesston Corp.
Logemann Brothers Co.
Marathon Equipment Company, Inc.
McClain Industries
National Compactor & Technology
Systems, Inc.
Newell Manufacturing
Owatonna Tool Company
Peabody Solid Waste Management
Union Environmental Corp.
Carborundum Company
Monsanto
Occidental Research Corporation
Tech-Aire (Americology)
Union Carbide
CEA
Envirogenics Systems Co.
Keller & Knappich
Rader
SF Air Control, Inc.
Solids Conversion Systems Corp.
Allis Chalmers
Barber-Green
Denver Equipment
Gruendler Crusher & Pulverizer Co.
Hammermills, Inc.
Jeffrey Manufacturing Div. (Dresser
Ind.)
Komarek-Creaves
-------
12
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE lib
PARTIAL LIST OF MAJOR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS*-Con.
(December 1975)
Equipment
Firm
Equipment
Firm
Shear shredders Cumberland Engineering Co.
Jacksonville Blopipe
Rietz Manufacturing
Shredders Allis Chalmers
American Pulverizer Co.
Bryant-Poff, Inc.
Carborundum Company
Garbalizer Corporation of America
Gruendler Crusher & Pulverizer Co.
Hammermills, Inc.
Hazemag, U.S.A., Inc.
Heil Co.
Jeffrey Manufacturing Div. (Dresser
Ind.)
Longhorn Construction Co.
Marksman Corp.
Montgomery Industries
Newell Manufacturing Co.
Pennsylvania Crusher Corp.
Pettibone Companies
Saturn Manufacturing Co.
Scott Equipment, Inc.
Titan Engineering
Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer
Co.
Steam turbines AEG Telefunken Corp.
American M-A-N Corp.
ASEA Inc.
Belyea Co., Inc.
Brown Boveri Corp.
Chrome Alloy American Corp.
Commercial Machine Works
Coppus Engineering Corp.
Deltrak Corp.
Dresser Industries
Elliott Co.
General Electric Co.
Pacific Pumps
Precision Piston Rings, Inc.
Skinner Engine Co.
Studebaker Worthington, Inc.
Terry Corp.
Trane Co.
Turbine Div., Delaval Turbine, Inc.
Turbodyne Corp.
Stokers and grates
Storage bins
Supplemental fuel
densifier/
pelletizer
Trommels (rotary
screens)
Vibrating screens
Vibratory feeders
Energy conversion/
preparation
equipment
Wegner Machinery Corp.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Worthington Service Corp.
Detroit Stoker Co.
Martin (UOP, Inc.)
Von Roll (Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.)
Atlas Systems Corporation
Miller Hofft Company
S.W. Hooper Company
Wennberg Company
California Pellet Mill Company
Allis Chalmers
Beaumont Birch Company
Brodinson Manufacturing
Card Corporation
Gruendler Crusher & Pulverizer Co.
Montgomery Coal Washing
Pennsylvania Crushers Corporation
Triple/S Dynamics
WEMCO Div. (Envirotech Corp.)
Allis Chalmers
Barber-Green
Hammermills, Inc.
Hewlett-Robbins, Div., Litton Ind.
Link Belt Div., FMC Corp.
McNally Pittsburgh
Nordberg Manufacturing Company
Rader
Rex Chainbelt
Rotex, Inc.
Triple/S Dynamics
W. S. Tyler
Eriez Magnetics
Hammermills, Inc.
Jeffrey Manufacturing Div. (Dresser
Ind.)
Combustion Power Company, Inc.
Guaranty Performance Company, Inc.
*This list may be incomplete, as it is impossible for EPA to be aware of all companies in these areas. This list is not an
endorsement by EPA of these firms or their products.
-------
Section II. The Activities of the Industry
HOW THE INDUSTRY IS ORGANIZED
Because of the relative newness of the industry,
operating patterns are not yet well established.
Although some firms may be forming specific plans
with respect to preferred customers, partners, and
services, there still appears to be a good deal of
switching of partners and attempts at new customer
approaches. Some organizational patterns have been
identified, but it is not possible to predict whether
these are trends which the industry will continue to
follow as it grows. Three operating patterns that
appear to be emerging are discussed below.
Diversification
Most of the major firms have established new
divisions or subsidiaries to test the resource recovery
market. Many of these subdivisions are also con-
cerned with existing business interests such as sec-
ondary paper processing or pollution control equip-
ment. Notable examples of diversification into
resource recovery are:
• Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc., a subsidiary of
Black Clawson
• Refuse Processing Unit, a part of Research
Cottrell
• Americology, a subsidiary of American Can
• Teledyne National, a subsidiary of Teledyne
Merger, Acquisition, and Licensee Activity
A second emerging pattern in the resource re-
covery industry is that of mergers acquisitions and
licensees. In a number of cases, large system manage-
ment firms have merged with or acquired firms with
proprietary unit processes, or have obtained exclusive
licenses for their use. Some examples of merger,
acquisition, and licensee activity include:
• Americology's acquisition of proprietary air
classifier rights from Scientific Separators, Inc.
• Carborundum's acquisition of Eidal Shredders
• Wheelabrator-Frye, licensee of the Swiss Von
Roll incinerator/boiler design
• UOP, licensee of the Martin grate system, Jos.
Martin Co., Munich, Germany
It is expected that this pattern will continue at a
more rapid pace, particularly when certain unit
processes are integral parts of a vendor's package. The
unit processes which appear to fall into this pattern
most closely are materials recovery technologies and
pollution control equipment.
Another type of event occurring in the industry is
the establishment or acquisition by a large prime
contractor of engineering consulting firms as sub-
sidiaries. Among the prime contractor-A&E firm
combinations which already exist are:
• Research Cottrell and Metcalf & Eddy
• Combustion Engineering and C. E. McGuire
• UOP, Inc., and Procon
• Wheelabrator-Frye and Rust Engineering
Joint Ventures
An increasingly popular organizational arrange-
ment in the industry is the joint venture. Notable
examples include:
• Prime Contractor/Engineering Consultant Joint
Ventures
- Raytheon Service Company and Camp,
Dresser & McKee
- Americology and Bechtel
— Combustion Equipment Associates and
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
• Prime Contractor/Construction Firm
- Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., and Dematteo Con-
struction Co.
• Prime Contractor (major)/Prime Contractor
(sub)
- Combustion Equipment Associates and SCA
Services
• Prime Contractor (small)/Large Firm in unre-
lated field to provide financial support
- AENCO-Cargill
• Prime Contractor/Product Market
- Grumman Ecosystems and Reed Paper Co.
- Americology and M&T Chemicals
- UOP, Inc., and Haverhill Paperboard Corp.
13
-------
14
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
It has been observed that such joint ventures have
occurred somewhat randomly, depending on local
circumstances. Some large prime contracting firms
have formed joint ventures with different firms for
different bids. One expected trend is that the prime
contractor/engineering consultant joint venture will
become increasingly popular; this arrangement pro-
vides for the many and various skills needed in
resource recovery implementation and for sharing of
technical and financial risks among the firms.
Through the joint venture a prime contractor can
subcontract to other primes or A&E's to perform
elements (e.g., design, construction, testing) of imple-
mentation and receive performance guarantees from
them for those elements.
WHAT THE INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTES
The resource recovery companies operate pri-
marily in response to public demand. However, some
firms have been active in developing unsolicited
products and services, thereby shaping or attempting
to shape the public's demand.
Unit Processes Being Promoted
Through the corporate arrangements described
above, especially diversification, the resource re-
covery companies have been developing increasingly
refined and sophisticated unit processes in addition to
the overall process concepts of steam generation, gas
and oil pyrolysis, shredded fuel production, and fiber
recovery described below. Some of the unit processes
being demonstrated are:
Air Classification. Americology has acquired ex-
clusive rights to a proprietary zigzag air classification
system which it is testing.
Occidental Research Corp. is developing an im-
proved air classifier which is being tested at its
La Verne pilot test site.
Combustion Power Co. is continuing its air classifi-
cation research.
Dryers. Combustion Equipment Associates is test-
ing a dryer which will be used as an integral unit
process in their system.
Gas Cleaning. The major pyrolysis firms in the
industry are doing experimental work in gas cleaning.
Class Recovery. Experiments are being conducted
by Occidental Research Corp., Black Clawson Fibre-
claim, Inc., and Raytheon Service Co. towards the
development of improved froth flotation and electro-
magnetic separation of glass to produce quality cullet.
Aluminum Recovery. Occidental Research Corp.
and Combustion Power Co. are both developing
improved aluminum recovery unit processes, based
upon eddy current separation. Alcoa Aluminum and
Reynolds Aluminum are active in establishing alumi-
num recycling centers nationwide.
Fuel Improvements. A notable development in
this area is the preparation of pelletized and/or
powder-like solid fuels which result from chemical or
other treatment of the light air classified waste
fraction.
Energy Conservation. Many of the energy re-
covery technologies involve use of part of the fuel
produced as a process energy source. For example,
Occidental is developing a refuse-derived fuel to use
in its dryer; Carborundum is recirculating a portion of
its synthetic gas to heat combustion air; and Union
Carbide is using a portion of its synthetic gas to
maintain temperatures at its slagging tap.
Resource Recovery Services Being Promoted
The companies offer two basic kinds of services to
the public sector:
• The conventional architectural and engineering
service of process design and preparation of
specifications.
• Full service, which entails design, construction,
operation, and perhaps even preliminary plan-
ning, financing, and ownership.
Currently, the full service concept is attractive to
the public sector. The resource recovery technologies
are new and risky enough that some cities are hesitant
to write specifications or to purchase systems. The
full service concept places the burden of testing and
operating upon the contractor.
EVOLVING STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY
The resource recovery industry is relatively new
and is characterized by the following:
• To date, several firms have made substantial
investments in resource recovery research and
development, yet most have not yet recovered
their investments.
• The industry is not included as a category of
the Standard Industrial Classification.
• The industry consists of competing firms
whose main businesses are not in competition.
-------
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INDUSTRY
This is possible because resource recovery ex-
pansion is compatible with a variety of existing
businesses.
• No standard form of risk-sharing has been
developed for the construction, financing, and
operation of large-scale resource recovery facili-
ties.
The rapid growth of resource recovery, however,
will necessitate the development of firm public and
private resource recovery relationships. It is expected
that within the coming decade risk-sharing provisions
will be formalized and the industry will prune itself
through a process of natural selection: those which
are firmly committed will stay, the less committed
and less successful firms will leave.
WHY FIRMS HAVE ENTERED THE BUSINESS
It appears that there are three major reasons why
firms have entered the resource recovery business:
• They are seeking to expand existing product
lines. Pollution control equipment manufac
turers and materials handling and processing
equipment manufacturers fall into this cate-
gory.
• They are seeking to promote concomitant
services. The solid waste disposal firms and
consulting engineers best fit this category.
• They are seeking to broaden raw materials or
energy supply bases. Notable examples are the
oil companies and the container manufacturers
confronting current energy and materials short-
ages.
In all cases, however, the firms are looking for
business opportunities in the resource recovery
industry. In contrast to the public interest motives
which municipal officials may wish for, the firms are
stimulated by the profit incentive. It is the profit
opportunity which has attracted businesses to re-
source recovery services and only continued oppor-
tunities will keep them active.
-------
-------
PART II.
INDUSTRY GROWTH AND CAPACITY LlfTllTERS
The main purpose of this study was to determine
the impact of certain factors on resource recovery
growth in order to identify the potential barriers to
growth. Will supply of resource recovery equipment
and facilities be adequate to meet demand? Which
equipment items may pose supply problems? Will the
unavailability of labor or financing cause problems in
facility implementation? Will demand for resource
recovery continue to grow?
This part of the report assesses the impact of four
potential limiters of resource recovery capacity:
• Demand for Resource Recovery. The rate of
industry growth is limited by the demand for
resource recovery. Demand is contingent upon
a number of environmental, legal, technical,
and socioeconomic issues.
• Equipment Capacity Limiters. The availability
of equipment items will influence the rate at
which resource recovery facilities may be imple-
mented. Equipment availability may be limited
by long lead times, material shortages, labor
resources, high costs, and long construction or
installation times.
• Labor Capacity Limiters. Resource recovery
implementation depends upon the availability
of the specialized labor skills which are required
for planning, implementation, and operation.
• Financial Capacity Limiters. Resource recovery
implementation is also dependent upon the
availability of suitable financing mechanisms
for the large-scale, capital-intensive facilities.
Each of the potential limiters is discussed in-detail
in subsequent sections, followed by a summary of the
industry's own perceptions of resource recovery
growth.
SURVEY APPROACH
To gather information about capacity limiters,
interviews were conducted with equipment manufac-
turers, prime contractors, and architectural and engi-
neering consultants. A sample of 33 industry repre-
sentatives were asked to respond to questions about
potential capacity limiters and growth projections.
Among the 33 respondents were 12 equipment
manufacturers, 13 prime contractors, and 8 engineer-
ing consulting firms. A complete list of survey
contacts is provided in Appendix I.
Representatives from each industry category were
asked to comment only on their specific segment of
the industry; all equipment questions did not pertain
to all respondents. The following sections of Part II
summarize the responses. The questions which were
asked of the appropriate industry categories are listed
in Appendix II.
The objective of questioning was to focus only on
those critical areas with potential for limiting re-
source recovery growth. Responses with respect to
lead times of some noncritical equipment items are
therefore not included.
The responses reported in Part II have not been
identified by company or by industry category.
Company-specific perceptions are included in the
abstracts in Appendix III.
17
-------
Section I. fin Analysis of Projected Demand
for Resource Recovery
FACTORS WHICH CREATE DEMAND
The rate of increase in resource recovery facilities
will be affected by demand for those facilities. Major
factors influencing public demand include:
• Markets for energy products
• Solid waste disposal needs and enforcement of
environmental regulations
• Demonstration and testing of resource recovery
prototypes
• Costs of resource recovery and availability of
financing
Markets for Energy Products
The markets for energy products constitute the
most critical factor in resource recovery demand.
Without revenue from energy products to offset
processing costs, resource recovery plants cannot be
economically viable; energy products are expected to
account for over half of the revenues in current plant
cost estimates. Recovered product markets depend on
three elements: market price, cost of transportation
to the market, and willingness of customers to
purchase the secondary products.
Solid Waste Disposal Needs and Enforcement of
Environmental Regulations
The demand for resource recovery by munici-
palities will depend largely upon the cost and
availability of alternative refuse disposal methods.
Cheaper alternatives are rapidly being eliminated by
the enforcement of environmental regulations, land
costs, and citizen opposition to proposed disposal
sites. The increasing costs for new incinerators or
landfills, in other words, are making resource
recovery economically competitive.
Demonstration and Testing of Resource
Recovery Prototypes
The success of resource recovery marketing efforts
is largely dependent upon the reliability of the
technologies. At the current stage of development,
the track records of process prototypes have not fully
proven their reliability.
Costs of Resource Recovery and
Availability of Financing
The rate at which implementation proceeds is
affected by the availability of mechanisms to finance
capital-intensive resource recovery facilities. Not all
proposed financing methods have been fully ex-
amined or tested, although many areas have dis-
covered that the financing means currently available
to them are inadequate for long-term resource re-
covery operation. Availability of tax incentives,
revenue bonding, and other mechanisms should stim-
ulate demand for resource recovery.
INDUSTRY VERSUS PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
OF DEMAND
Because many environmental, market, financial,
technological, and political factors contribute to the
demand for a resource recovery facility, the amount
of demand that actually exists may be difficult to
determine. Municipalities and industry have, in fact,
very different perceptions of demand.
Many municipalities consider demand to exist
when they originally express an interest in resource
recovery, even before the preliminary feasibility
study has begun.
The industry, as a whole, is cautious about
responding to municipalities' perceived demands for
resource recovery. Industry is interested only in real
demand. It wants to be certain that the demand
expressed by a municipality represents a genuine
desire and ability on the part of the municipality to
proceed with implementation. To be perceived as
real, public demand must be evidenced at least in the
following ways:
• presence of a single public entity with which
industry can deal
• commitment of a specified quantity of refuse
by municipalities
18
-------
AN ANALYSIS OF PROJECTED DEMAND FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY
19
• a designated site
• a feasible financing mechanism
• a clear specification of public needs, such as a
request for proposals or a statement of detailed
specifications
Only if the demand is viewed as real can the
industry perceive the requests as a business oppor-
tunity, and only perceived business opportunities will
stimulate the industry to respond to the demand.
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Several projections of the demand for resource
recovery facilities have been made. These projections
have been made on the basis of different assumptions
of what resource recovery includes, of population and
waste generation trends, and of the extent to which
resource recovery is achievable. In this section an
attempt is made to compare these various projections.
Two types of demand projections are shown:
• Theoretical Demand. This is the extent to
which resource recovery would be practiced if
all municipal wastes, nationwide, were proc-
essed for recovery.
• Demand Based Upon Extrapolation of Present
Trends. This approach is based upon the as-
sumption that the entire theoretical demand
potential could not be realized because of
political, economic, transportation, and refuse
disposal constraints. The extrapolated demand
projections are more realistic because they are
generally based upon the number of communi-
ties with commitments to implement resource
recovery. In addition to the projections
presented below, other extrapolations, by the
industry, are presented in Section V.
Projections of Theoretical Demand
EPA Projections. EPA estimates show that "the
waste generated in all urban areas in the U.S. would
theoretically support 355 1,000-TPD resource re-
covery facilities by 1980 and 415 1,000-TPD facilities
by 1985. Of these, some 46 metropolitan areas, with
waste tonnage sufficient for 169 1,000-TPD plants,
have high implementation potential by 1980 based on
their disposal alternatives and disposal costs."* By
*Lingle, S., Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams. Unpublished data, 1974.
1985, waste tonnage in these areas would supply 260
1,000-TPD plants.
Franklin Associates Ltd. Projection. Franklin As-
sociates Ltd. has estimated future resource recovery
demand based upon full development of facilities in
the 150 largest metropolitan areas. * The projection is
based upon the following assumptions:
• 1985 population will be "uniformly 14 percent
above 1970 population."
• Processable waste is equal to 90 percent of total
municipal waste generated in each SMSA or
4.20 Ib per person per day.
• Plants will operate 260 days per year.
• Plant sizes are set by the largest plant size that
can be justified by total waste generation and
logistics.
The projection shows that by 1985, 146 million
people (62 percent of total projected U.S. popula-
tion) could be served by 226 facilities, at a capital
cost of $6.3 billion (1974 dollars), processing a total
of 103.9 million tons (57.6 percent of total U.S.
waste generation) of municipal solid waste annually.
Most of the facilities would process from 500 to
2,000 TPD, but others could range as high as 4,000
TPD. The number of equivalent 1,000-TPD facilities
which could be implemented by 1985 is 400.
Projections of Demand Based Upon
Present Trends
The first two projections presented below of
actual, rather than theoretical, potential for resource
recovery are based upon extrapolations of current
resource recovery activities. Following these are three
projections based on surveys of cities' plans and
intentions, and a Franklin Associates projection based
on taking a percentage of the estimated full potential.
The reader will note that each projection is based
upon very different assumptions.
Projection by Simple Extrapolation of Current
Activities. One method of prediction can be based
upon the number of municipalities which are now
actively acquiring or beginning construction of facil-
ities. Assumptions must first be made of the average
time required for implementation.
Typically, a period of about 7 years is required for
all the steps from planning through construction
-------
20
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
(Figure 1). Time requirements for each stage are as
follows:
Preliminary Planning. This includes the initiation
of feasibility studies, market investigations, system
design, and assessments of financing options in order
to establish a real demand to which industry will
respond. Time requirements for this phase range from
2 to 4 years, depending upon local circumstances,
region size, political jurisdictions involved, and ur-
gency of solid waste disposal needs.
Acquisition. Once the decision is made to proceed
with a resource recovery facility, the acquisition
process may require about 1 to 2 years to complete.
This period normally includes the preparation and
issuance of requests for proposals and the preliminary
financing plan, the acceptance and evaluation of
proposals, and the selection of a firm to construct the
facility.
Design, Construction, and Shakedown. Once the
contract to construct the facility has been agreed
upon, a facility can be constructed in about 3 years.
Barring major setbacks, a municipality initiating
resource recovery can have a major facility opera-
tional in 5 to 7 years from project inception. As
technology becomes more refined, a 5-year period
can be expected for resource recovery process imple-
mentation. Based upon these time requirements, it is
possible to project the number of major resource
recovery facilities through 1982, as described below.
Currently there are fewer than 10 large-scale re-
source recovery installations in operation, of which 2
are demonstration facilities (see Table 8). Approxi-
mately six resource recovery facilities which are
under construction should be operational by 1977. In
addition about seven facilities now in final design
should be operational in 1978. There are currently 14
municipalities in the acquisition process, thus an
additional 14 facilities should be complete by 1979
and 1980.
Finally, there are about 30 to 40 cities which are
actively investigating resource recovery. If they all
were to proceed to construction, we might expect
that by 1982 another 30 to 40 facilities would be
operational.
Consequently, a conservative estimate derived
from the extrapolation of current demand is that 65
major resource recovery facilities will be constructed
by 1982. In addition, private entrepreneurial con-
struction efforts could increase this number of
facilities significantly. And, as fossil fuel prices
continue to increase, private industry will be stimu-
lated to develop alternative fuels from wastes. For the
past 3 years, an average of two major resource
recovery projects per year were privately initiated. By
projection, 12 privately initiated projects would be
expected by 1982 in addition to the 65 plants
publicly demanded, giving a total of 77 major
operational plants.
OPERATE
ACQUISITION —^-CONSTRUCTION •^
J I I
OPERATION •
YEARS
Figure 1. Time Requirements for Project Implementation1
1 Adapted from The MITRE Corporation, "Practical Guidelines for Acquisition of Resource Recovery Systems," MTR-3001,
March 1975, p. 6.
-------
AN ANALYSIS OF PROJECTED DEMAND FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY
21
EPA Extrapolation of Current Activities. EPA has
also generated a projection based upon an extrapola-
tion of activities as of December 1974.* At that time
these were:
• 6 systems in operation
• 5 systems under construction
• 7 systems in final design stages
• 14 cities in the acquisition process
• 30-40 cities in active investigation
EPA estimates a total of 27 plants will be
implemented in the next 5 years, and its tentative
projection for 1985 is 50 to 70 resource recovery
facilities.
NCRR Projection. According to the National Cen-
ter for Resource Recovery, Inc., in 3 years 25 cities
will have full-scale mechanical systems in operation,
and another 25 will have them in the works.2
Waste Age Projection. In another survey, Waste
Age Magazine3 showed that 53 incinerators, some of
which will produce power, are planned for construc-
tion within the next 2 years. Also, 110 installations
will require shredders in the next 2 years. These
numbers suggest an increase in the activities of cities
and States in implementing solid waste disposal, and
most of this increase may be attributed to resource
recovery.
International City Management Association Projec-
tion. An ICMA projection based upon a survey of
cities shows that 166 of those responding have plans
to implement resource recovery within the next 5
years.4 Over half of these cities have initiated
feasibility studies. Only 4 percent have begun or
completed construction. Assuming a 7-year
implementation period, 166 facilities would be
operating in 1982.
Further detail in the ICMA projection shows that
"one-third of responding cities over 50,000 popula-
tion, and 45 percent of those over 100,000 have plans
for a recovery system by mid-1979." Ten percent of
smaller cities (10,000 to 25,000 population) also have
plans for capital-intensive systems. Extrapolation to
include all U.S. cities indicates that over 300 are
planning to implement facilities in the near future.
Achievable Demand Forecast by Franklin Associ-
ates Ltd. Franklin Associates Ltd. has calculated a
*Lingle, S. Unpublished data, 1974.
"most realistic" growth projection by assuming that
25 percent of the total theoretical demand would
materialize. The result would be implementation of
59 facilities, serving 36.5 million people and process-
ing 27.3 million tons per year by 1985. The number
of equivalent 1,000-TPD facilities would be 173 by
1985. Capital requirements would be $1.66 billion,
operating cost $403 million, revenue $305 million,
and net annual cost $98 million. New employees
needed to operate the systems would number 6,560.
Plant construction would employ 2,800 men in a
10-year period if the projected 59 plants were built.
Summary of Demand Projections
A gross comparison of projections of resource
recovery facilities reveals little agreement among
them (Figure 2). Because the assumptions of what
constitutes a resource recovery facility, of plant sizes,
and of level of implementation differ so greatly, the
projections really cannot be compared equitably in
this way.
A more useful comparison is obtained by convert-
ing the projections to the number of equivalent
1,000-TPD facilities which might be implemented
(Figure 3). A clearer distinction is then visible
between the theoretical and. realizable demand projec-
tion ranges.
Although no specific demand target is uniformly
indicated, a number of points can be made which
summarize the projections of demand for resource
recovery facilities:
• All projections indicate that demand for re-
source recovery will increase substantially in
the next 5 to 7 years.
• The projections of demand growth are highly
dependent upon assumptions of (1) types of
resource recovery demanded (e.g., shredding
facilities or full-scale facilities), (2) definition of
demand (e.g., theoretical demand or real de-
mand), and (3) level of commitment (e.g.,
signed contract versus fully operational facil-
ity).
• The most likely demand projection is that 50 to
100 facilities, of at least 1,000-TPD capacity,
will be operational by 1982 (Figure 2). This
range is based on a conservative estimate of the
demand projections described in this section.
-------
22
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
425
400
375
350
325
300
M 275
H
j 250
O
2 225
LL
0 200
DC
UJ
i 175
3
Z 150
125
100
-JC
/O
50
25
0
^ 500
T
to
UJ
THEORETICAL H
PROJECTIONS -i 400
* i
LL
Q
D.
h-
| 300
h-
• Z
UJ
^
> 200
0 5
a
Ml
EXTRAPOLATION „_
OF CURRENT O
ACTIVITIES a .„
LU 100
• D 5
Z
_
o
THEORETICAL
DEMAND
PROJECTIONS
»
^ — " o
^
,*
REALIZABLE
DEMAND
PROJECTIONS
,«
/ ^^^^^
/ .. —
/ ^^
' ^^r
' .* X
/ *
' +
' *
/ +
/ ^ + *
/ s*
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
I MOST
LIKELY YEA«
4h
DEMAND •
RANGE * Figure 3. Illustrative Projections of Demand for Equiv-
™ ,-'" alent 1 ,000-TPD Facilities
-S'''
*"",""" I i i i i i i | I REALIZABLE DEMAND EXTRAPOLATIONS
1975
1977
1983
1985
1979 1981
YEAR
Figure 2. Projections of Demand for Resource Re-
covery Facilities (of various capacities)
• The growth of demand appears to be deter-
mined by the public sector. That is, demand
must be generated by municipalities or regions
wishing to implement resource recovery. As the
public sector expresses a real demand for
resource recovery, the industry will respond to
it.
REFERENCES
1. Franklin, W. E. Potential for resource recovery in the
United States; a cost/benefit analysis of
resource recovery in the major metropolitan
areas. Prairie Village, Kan., Franklin Asso-
ciates, Ltd., Mar. 1975. 42 p.
2. Dale, J. C. Recovery of aluminum from solid waste.
' EPA projection of high implementation potential
• EPA extrapolation of current activities
A Extrapolation of current and planned activities
© NCRR projection of full-scale mechanical systems
H Waste Age projection of new incinerator facilities
D ICMA prediction of municipal implementation
X Franklin Associates Ltd. achievable demand forecast
THEORETICAL DEMAND PROJECTIONS
V EPA projection of total resource recovery potential
O Franklin Associates Ltd. theoretical demand projection
Resource Recovery, 1(1): 10-15, Jan.-Mar.
1974.
3. Exclusive Waste Age survey of the nation's disposal sites.
Waste Age, 6(1): 17-24, Jan. 1975.
4. National survey complete. Refuse Report, 1(1): 1-2, Jan./
Feb. 1975.
-------
Section II. Equipment Capacity Limiters
The supply of equipment was assumed to be a
major potential limiter to resource recovery facility
construction but one which could be avoided if
recognized in advance. The survey has shown, how-
ever, that problems in supply of equipment items
will not be a serious constraint to the industry.
OVERALL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
TO EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
Key points concerning equipment availability in-
clude the following:
• With only a few exceptions, industry represen-
tatives do not believe that equipment supply
problems will constrain the growth of resource
recovery facilities, especially since large num-
bers of suppliers are involved. (Tables lla and
12).
• Because of the relative newness of resource
recovery, equipment is generally specially fabri-
cated in job shop fashion. Very few items are
mass produced; that is, little off-the-shelf re-
source recovery equipment yet exists.
• As opposed to the situation in high-volume,
low-profit-margin manufacturing, limited orders
for specific resource recovery equipment dic-
tate that profit margins be high.
Equipment Surveyed
The two equipment categories, general equipment
and technology-specific equipment, which were estab-
lished in Part I, were used for an examination of
equipment availability. An attempt was made to
determine how critical the availability of particular
equipment items was to resource recovery implemen-
tation. An item was assumed to be critical if:
• it is common to virtually all resource recovery
processes, or
• it is a unique and integral part of the process, or
• it is on the critical construction path.
Factors Limiting Equipment Availability
Factors limiting equipment availability and there-
by contributing to long lead times include the
following:
• Backlogs in orders for some equipment such as
electrical components, boilers, turbine genera-
tors, and air pollution control equipment.
• Specific Fabrication requirements which neces-
sitate special production orders. These orders
are delayed until shop time is available.
• Continual Modification in Design of Equipment
- As technology develops, items such as air
classifiers, screens, and driers may undergo
frequent design changes.
• Availability of Materials - Short supplies of raw
materials such as steel (structural, plate, and
stainless) may delay equipment orders, especial-
ly when the equipment item requires extensive
fabrication.
• Availability of Labor Resources • In order to
provide certain equipment items, specialized
workers are required, ranging from design engi-
neers to plant supervisors to specialized equip-
ment fabricators such as boilermakers or mill-
wrights.
• Competing Industries for Materials and Equip-
ment - As described in Part I, Section I, much
of the equipment used in resource recovery is
borrowed from other technologies. Consequent-
ly, the resource recovery industry must com-
pete with others for the same equipment items
(Table 13).
Equipment items on the critical path in construc-
tion are particularly important since delays in their
delivery may delay an entire project. Sample critical
path schedules, shown in Figures 4 and 5, illustrate
this point. In Figure 4, for example, fabrication and
delivery of long lead items requires 67 weeks. In
Figure 5, the turbine generator, a technology-specific
item, is the most critical.
A summary of major equipment items, lead times,
and constraints to their supply is shown in Table 14.
A Note on Backlogs of
Equipment Orders
At the present time, a number of equipment
manufacturers intend to backlog new resource re-
covery equipment orders rather than expand capa-
city. The reasons are: capital for production expan-
sion is limited in the present economy and manu-
facturers are demonstrating a "wait and see"
approach until they can better assess the resource
recovery demand. They want more assurance that
23
-------
24
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE 12
EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY BY NUMBERS OF FIRMS* AND ASSETSt
(December 1975)
Equipment
Number of firms by asset size
4A
3A
2A
Total
Conveyors :
Vibrating
Material handling
PAN
Magnetic separators
Rotary kilns
Rotary dryers
Fans (induced draft)
Cranes (overhead)
Precipitators (electrostatic)
Shredders
Grates (incinerator)
Steam condensers
Clarifiers
Boilers (packaged units )
Tank (precipitating settling)
Turbines (steam)
Storage bins
Oxygen plants
21
10
32
21
15
42
7
24
8
1
1
33
45
33
28
23
72
4
10
6
11
9
4
15
2
3
-
3
—
7
12
12
7
-
28
2
6
6
5
4
3
11
2
11
3
—
2
10
4
8
10
-
32
—
6
10
9
9
1
9
3
8
3
_
—
10
8
8
5'
3
25
—
12
9
5
12
2
6
-
9
1
1
-
3
8
9
2
3
17
2
55
41
62
55
25
83
14
55
15
5
3
63
77
70
52
29
174
8
*Thomas Register of American Manufacturers, v. 1-7. New York, N.Y., Thomas Publishing Company, 1975. Compiled from
lists of firms for each equipment item, as indicated in this reference. Not all firms in this list at present supply equipment for
resource recovery, but all have the potential to do so.
tApproximate minimum total tangible assets: 4A, over $1 million; 3A, over 500,000; 2A, over 300,000; A, over 100,000; X,
no estimate.
TABLE 13
COMPETING INDUSTRIES FOR
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
Key items
Materials-handling
equipment
Pollution controls
Structural steel
Electrical switchgear
Boilers/turbines
Construction materials
Representative
competing industry
Mining
Heavy manufacturing
Pulp and paper
Agriculture
Chemicals
Pulp and paper
Electric utilities
Automobile
Heavy construction
Electric utility Companies
Construction
Electric utility Companies
Heavy construction
resource recovery growth will justify investments into
capacity expansion. They also want to know what
types of equipment and what quantities will be
demanded. One boiler manufacturer, for instance, is
waiting to see whether resource recovery emphasis
will be placed upon construction of new all refuse-
fired boilers, as opposed to conversion of existing
fossil fuel units. Until the equipment demand is clear,
increased equipment orders will result in greater
manufacturing backlogs.
GENERAL EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY
Conveyors/Conveyor Systems
Over 30 major firms offer conveyors and conveyor
systems vital to resource recovery facilities. Eight
conveyor system manufacturers were surveyed to
determine the availability of conveyors. They indicate
that conveyors are critical because they are the "life
blood" of a resource recovery system, but their
availability requires a lead time of about 6-8 months.'
Of the respondents questioned about conveyor avail-
ability, 63 percent indicated that conveyors are
deliverable in less than 12 months; 38 percent
indicated that they were generally available in just
over 12 months.
Conveyor availability is limited by supply of
materials, especially steel, by special fabrication
-------
EQUIPMENT CAPACITY LIMITERS
25
o
£
•3
•O
V
73
I
$
o
•
O
Q>
I
-------
26
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
t3 in
It
o >-
o jj
I w
S ~
C i_
— o
LU O
*
1
k.
"oi
Q
tfJ
s
(0
o
™
n
ra
LL
J
1 W
~&
O
•a
(V
LH
0)
C
'3
£
3
S
1^
•z
1
g
cd
Cn
CO
3
3
(d
OH
1
•£
U
0)
'o*
re
w
ui
-------
EQUIPMENT CAPACITY LIMITERS
27
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS, LEAD TIMES, AND MAJOR CONSTRAINTS TO SUPPLY
(December 1975)
Item
Leadtime
(in months)
Major constraints
General equipment:
Magnetic separators
Conveyors, conveyor systems
Shredders
Mobile equipment
Storage facilities
Electrical switchgear
Process-specific equipment:
Boilers
Turbine generators
Electrostatic pretipitators
Pyrolysis chambers
Air classifiers
<6
12
12
< 6
12
18
18
36
18
14
12
Fabrication, materials
Materials, components
Materials, components
Fabrication, backlogs
Fabrication, backlogs
Fabrication, backlogs
Fabrication
Fabrication
Further development required
requirements, and by supply of special components
such as drive motors.
The survey indicated that conveyor system manu-
facturers do not view conveyors as "off-the-shelf"
items; on the contrary, they must be produced on an
individual basis. The manufacturers also indicated
that conveyors and conveyor systems are undergoing
further development to better suit the needs of
handling solid waste, which poses unique materials
handling problems.
Electrical Switchgear
Like turbine generators (discussed below under
Process-Specific Equipment), electrical switchgear
must be specially fabricated for each resource re-
covery installation. In the survey, electrical switch-
gear was indicated unanimously as a highly critical
equipment item. Lead times for electrical swtichgear
were reported between the range of 12 to 24 months,
depending on process type. Switchgears for electric
power generation have lead times around 18 to 24
months.
Factors contributing to long lead times for electri-
cal switchgear include the need for special fabrication
and the limited number of manufacturers. The major
switchgear manufacturers are General Electric Co.,
Westinghouse Electric Co., and Allis Chalmers.
Because electrical switchgear is required in
virtually every type of manufacturing facility, general
changes in the economy can drastically impact on
lead times for delivery.
Other Electrical Equipment
In addition to switchgear and turbine generators,
other electrical equipment which have long lead times
and are critical include low-voltage items, circuit
breakers, and transformers. All of these items require
15 to 24 months for manufacture and delivery. (Such
items are listed later in this section in Table 18.)
Municipal Refuse Shredders
The use of shredders for volume reduction of
municipal refuse and oversize bulky wastes has
increased substantially over the past 5 years. Shred-
ders are also used in the majority of all resource
recovery processes to homogenize the waste stream to
make it more suitable for subsequent separation
processes.
Several emerging patterns are evident from exami-
nation of the shredder segment of the resource
recovery industry. First, the annual number of
shredders installed sharply increased from below 10
per year before 1971 to well over 20 in 1973 and
1974 (Table 15). About 18 shredders per year have
been installed between 1973 and 1975. The year
1971 showed a large influx of shredder installations,
and led to a peak of about 26 in 1973. Since then,
the yearly number has decreased to the 19 to 23
range. Although installations can be expected to level
off to the 18-25 range in the near term, the installed
capacity is rising quickly (Figure 6). For example, 12
shredders to be installed in 1975 have capacities of
over 50 tons per hour, whereas only two had such
high capacity in 1973, the year in which the number
of shredder installations peaked.
In addition, it can be expected that numerous
secondary shredders, in the 15-TPH range, will be
installed at those resource recovery facilities requiring
additional size reduction.
-------
28
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE 15
SHREDDERS INSTALLED, 1966-75*
(December 1975)
Municipal
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975f
Number
installed
3
2
—
6
2
1
9
22
14
17
Capacity
(TPH)
65
65
0
85
65
10
310
690
480
940
Oversized
bulky
Number
installed
1
2
3
6
3
9
4
4
9
2
Capacity
(TPH)
30
27
102
160
90
330
115
195
235
75
Total
Number
installed
4
4
3
12
5
10
13
26
23
19
Capacity
(TPH)
95
95
102
245
155
340
425
885
715
1,015
*Adapted from Greco, J.R. Shredding of municipal solid waste: An emerging technology. NSWAA Technical Bulletin,
5(ll):2-4, Dec. 1974.
|To date.
Lead times for shredders have varied from 6
months up to 20 months. During the peak 1973-74
period, lead times approached 20 months, since fewer
than eight manufacturers constructed the majority of
the large shredder installations. In the near future, it
can be expected that lead times will be below the
12-month level.
Another noteworthy pattern is that shredders are
being designed to handle a wide range of waste
materials. In the late 1960's, shredders were being
constructed to handle either packer-type refuse or
oversize bulky wastes. New designs incorporate ac-
ceptance of both types of waste, thereby reducing the
number of shredders required for bulky wastes alone.
As a general rule, a shredder is not sold alone, but
as a shredding system. This system generally includes:
• Electrical components, including large electric
motor
• Feed conveyor and pan conveyor
• Shredder housing
Limitations in the production of shredders can be
attributed to several factors. The nine major shredder
manufacturers contacted in this survey indicated that
shredder lead times were a function of availability of:
• Large, specially fabricated electric motors to
power the shredders. These are generally over
800 HP and require special production.
• Conveyors. Since materials must be fed into
and carried away from the shredders upon
specially designed and constructed conveyors,
the availability of conveyors is critical.
• Plate Steel. Although plate steel has been
generally readily available to shredder manufac-
turers, at times when the economy is booming,
steel orders increase dramatically and deliveries
may be delayed.
Results of this survey indicate that shredders are a
high priority equipment item because they are critical
to most facility operations for size reduction, because
their installation is on the critical path in construc-
tion, and because they are a major cost item. Over 50
percent of the respondents indicated that shredders
were high priority in their processes; another 33
percent indicated that they were of medium priority.
In addition, 60 percent of the sample of 12 respon-
dents indicated that normal delivery times were just
over 12 months. A typical delivery time was reported
as 12 to 14 months for a 50-TPH municipal refuse
shredder system.
The sample of manufacturers indicated unani-
mously that shredder availability would not constrain
construction of the resource recovery facilities. A
census of the sample indicates that shredder manufac-
turers collectively can produce between 60 to 75
large (over 40 TPH) municipal shredders annually
under normal operating conditions.
Storage Facilities
Storage facilities supplied to resource recovery
facilities are of two types: a storage pit, or a storage
bin which has been modified from use in the pulp and
paper and/or grain industry. Pits are generally used to
-------
EQUIPMENT CAPACITY LIMITERS
29
TOTAL INSTALLED
CAPACITY IN
TONS PER HOUR
TOTAL
NUMBER
INSTALLED
1967 1968 1969
1970 1971
f - 1000
- 900
-i 800
- 700
- 600 -
>•
- 500
- 400
- 300
- 200
- 100
2t
o
Q
111
v>
<
O
1972 1973 1974 1975
Figure 6. Shredder Installations, 1966-1975
accommodate raw refuse for processes such as incin-
eration, whereas bins are used to store shredded
refuse feedstock or fuel.
Storage pits are required early in plant construc-
tion. Their availability is linked with that of construc-
tion materials such as cement and reinforcement bars.
Any short-term shortages of these materials may
create a delay in project construction, primarily
because the storage pit (or tipping floor in some
facilities) is on the critical path schedule.
Storage bins pose a different supply problem than
do materials such as conveyors and plate steel. The
major limitation on storage bins is said to be the fact
that only a few manufacturers make them. The
leaders in this area include Miller Hofft Co. and Atlas
Systems Co. To date, these manufacturers have
supplied the bins for the majority of resource
recovery facilities (see Appendix IV).
Eighty percent of the respondents surveyed rated
storage bins as medium to low priority. Storage
facilities are reportedly available within 12 months.
Magnetic Separators
There are at least 11 firms which market magnetic
separators used by the resource recovery industry.
For the large systems being built, well over one-half
-------
30
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
of the magnetic separators are supplied by two
manufacturers: Dings Company, Magnetic Group;
and Eriez Manufacturing Company. Typically, mag-
netic separator systems used in large resource recov-
ery facilities require less than 6 months for delivery.
The use of magnetic separators is expected to
increase significantly because:
• Magnetic separators are being installed in shred/
landfill operations, especially in smaller com-
munities where only limited resource recovery
may be economically possible.
• Large-scale processing facilities include unit
process redundancy, and, typically, system de-
signs provide for two magnetic separators per
facility.
• Ferrous scrap markets are older and more
well-established than markets for other sec-
ondary materials.
• Ferrous recovery is economically justifiable in
most large-scale resource recovery facilities.
• Ferrous recovery is applicable to many resource
recovery technologies, including solid fuel
preparation, oil pyrolysis, and incinerator
residue reclamation.
Magnetic separators are a low criticality item
because:
• Magnetic separator design is well-proven.
• Suppliers can reportedly meet anticipated
demand.
In the survey, 86 percent of those questioned about
magnetic separators indicated that they were low-
priority items.
Mobile Equipment
Vehicles such as front loaders, utility vehicles,
transfer trailers, and compactors were indicated by a
sample survey to be of low criticality because of
widespread availability. For facilities requiring trans-
fer stations, some delay was experienced, but this
delay was well within the scheduled critical path in
total facility construction. Some major equipment
items in this category and the numbers of manufac-
turers offering them are:'
• Front loaders: 27 companies
• Rear loaders: 40 companies
• Transfer station push pits: 16 companies
• Transfer trailers: 30 companies
Associated equipment required:
• Scales: 7 companies
• Transfer station balers: 14 companies
• Transfer station compactors: 48 companies
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Electrostatic Precipitators. The major limitation
confronting availability of electrostatic precipitators
to the resource recovery industry is the extent to
which other industries, sue', as electric utilities,
cement, chemicals, and pulp and paper, order them.
Their orders, in turn, are governed partially by the
extent to which air pollution control regulations are
enforced by State environmental agencies.
There are 14 firms known to be providing electro-
static precipitators to the resource recovery industry.
Some of these firms, including Research Cottrell and
Wheelabrator-Frye, are prime contractors which also
supply precipitators.
In this sample survey, respondents unanimously
indicated that electrostatic precipitator lead times
range from 12 to 24 months, with an average of 18
months.
Seventy-five percent of the respondents indicated
that electrostatic precipitators were of medium criti-
cality. Precipitators can be installed concurrently
with boilers and, where applicable, turbine genera-
tors.
Other Air Pollution Control Equipment. Equip-
ment used for atmospheric emissions control at
resource recovery plants also include scrubbers and
baghouses. There was no consensus about criticality
with respect to these equipment items, but it was
indicated that gas-cleaning equipment, in general, had
medium criticality. Two-thirds of the sample indi-
cated that lead times were typically 12 to 14 months.
Water Pollution Control Equipment
Equipment required to treat liquid effluents from
resource recovery processing was determined by the
survey to be of medium to low priority. Those
processes which require on- or off-site wastewater
treatment include wet pulping, wet materials recovery
processing, pyrolysis, and incinerator quench-water
treatment.
A survey2, p. 307 performed in November 1974
by the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufac-
turers Association (WWEMA) indicated that main
causes in delivery schedule delays for wastewater
treatment equipment were lack of raw materials and
lack of equipment components. The WWEMA Survey
further indicated that no water and wastewater
equipment company surveyed operated at more than
76 percent of capacity, and, at unlimited supply
-------
EQUIPMENT CAPACITY LIMITERS
31
levels, their production would be between 72 and 119
percent of capacity. Additionally, 70 percent of the
respondents in the WWEMA Survey indicated that
they could double production within 10 months.
Table 16, from the WWEMA Survey, shows that
the most critical equipment items have delivery times
from 37 weeks for gear reducers to 13 weeks for
compressors. With respect to the resource recovery
industry, it should be noted that:
• Wastewater equipment (e.g., pumps, valves,
motors, etc.) compared with other equipment
used in resource recovery, is more standardized;
in some cases, it is manufactured in production
lots.
• Some equipment items with long lead times in
the wastewater industry are similar to other
equipment with long lead times in resource
recovery processing. Included in this category
are motors (34 weeks), fabricated steel (20
weeks), instruments and controls (23 weeks),
electrical components (25 weeks), and trans-
formers (30 weeks).
Directions In Wastewater Equipment Supply. Un-
like resource recovery, the water treatment industry
has construction funds available from the Federal
Government. The Construction Grant Program for
wastewater facilities currently has a total authoriza-
TABLE 16
CRITICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED LEADTIMES*
(December 1975)
Component
Leadtime
(in weeks)
Castings
Motors
Fabricated steel
Gear reducers
Pumps
Stainless steel
Instruments and controls
Plastic supplier
Electrical components
Blowers
Valves
Pipe fittings
Transformers
Compressors
30
34
20
37
28
22
23
15
25
20
20
15
30
13
Capabilities of equipment makers, Environmental
Science and Technology, 9(4):307, Apr. 1975. Items are
ranked in order beginning with the most critically needed as
shown by the WWEMA survey.
tion of $18 billion, of which $4 billion has been
obligated directly to projects as of January 31, 1975.
Consequently, some $14 billion in new project
construction will be undertaken.
Demand for wastewater equipment will subse-
quently increase sharply and lead times will increase
as a result of order backlogs. It is unclear at this time
how this situation will affect resource recovery, but it
is believed that wastewater treatment equipment lead
times by themselves will not constrain resource
recovery implementation.
PROCESS-SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis Reactors/Gasifiers. To firms promoting
pyrolysis processes the pyrolysis unit itself is of
course a critical equipment item. Lead times for
pyrolysis units vary with the type of process being
promoted. For example, Union Carbide reported a
13-month lead time for the pyrolysis chamber, while
Carborundum indicated a 14-month requirement. The
oil pyrolysis unit used in the Occidental system
requires 6 months. In each case, the lead time is a
function of both the degree of fabrication required
and the availability of materials. Other critical pyroly-
sis equipment includes the following:
• Oil Pyrolysis - Stainless steel and pyrolysis feed
equipment were singled out as critical items,
with lead times of 4 months and 15 months,
respectively.
• Gas Pyrolysis - In addition to the gasifier,
equipment reported as highly critical includes
oxygen plants and electrical components, both
with lead times of 18 months.
Shredded Fuel
Air Classification. Air classifiers are relatively new
in resource recovery processing. Of the 14 firms
which indicate that they can supply the item, only 3
have actually supplied air classifiers to operating
resource recovery plants. These are Radar Pneu-
matics, Triple/S Dynamics, and Americology. Other
experimental-type air classifiers are being developed
by Combustion Power Company, Garrett Research
and Development, Hammermills, Inc., and Allis Chal-
mers.
For the most part, the firms promoting air
classifier systems are selling prototypes. The most
widely recognized air classifier system is Rader
Pneumatics' "Air Density Separator" system in the
St. Louis/Union Electric/EPA Demonstration project.
-------
32
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
Other Rader units on order include a system for the
Ames, Iowa, refuse-derived-fuel project and 11 units
for the Union Electric Solid Waste Utilization System
Project in St. Louis.
Triple/S Dynamics has also marketed several sys-
tems in recent years. Their major order to date is for
the Chicago refuse-derived-fuel project. Americology
has a proprietary zigzag air classifier which it will be
promoting as part of its system. They have tested a
pilot model and are now operating a prototype in
Elmira, New York.
Availability of Air Classifiers: Survey Results. Of
eight representatives of prime contractors questioned
about air classifiers, five indicated high priority for
that equipment item. The lead time for air classifiers
was reported to be about 12 months. Respondents
indicated that the primary reason for the lead time
and criticality is that air classifiers are still develop-
mental and are undergoing improvements. The re-
spondents indicated that the technology may require
further testing and modification prior to industry-
wide acceptance.
Some firms indicated that they preferred alterna-
tives to the air classifiers being offered commercially.
For example, a combined shredder/classifier or
trommel/classifier might be a preferred design.
It is anticipated that enough air classification
systems for fuel preparation processes will be avail-
able to meet the demand in the next 5-7 years. At
least 25 new air classifier systems are estimated to be
available annually.
Waterwall Incineration
Boilers. Field-erected boilers are one of the most
critical equipment items used by the resource re-
covery industry. Several factors account for this
criticality, including:
• Special fabrication. Each boiler sold must be
individually fabricated and therefore requires a
long lead time.
• Few manufacturers. Fewer than six domestic
manufacturers construct virtually all the field-
erected boilers for resource recovery. These
manufacturers typically have backlogs of boiler
orders.
• Competitive needs for boilers. With the emer-
gence of the present energy situation, orders for
large boilers from electric utilities are likely to
have a strong effect on deliveries of smaller
boilers needed in resource recovery.
TABLE 17
CRITICAL EQUIPMENT LEADTIMES: WATERWALL
INCINERATION/ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION*
(December 1975)
Component
Manufacture/deliver
leadtime (in months)
Turbine generator
Field-erected boilers
Main transformer
Distribution transformers
Outdoor circuit breaker
Steam condenser
Bus duct
Conveyor system
Precipitator
Fans, ductwork, stack
Switchgear
Steam condenser
Low voltage items
Structural steel
Overhead crane
Shredder
Control panel
Boiler accessories
Pipes and valves
Stoker
30
24
24
22
20
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
16
16
16
14
14
14
12
12
*For a facility of at least a 2,000-TPD capacity.
In discussions with boiler manufacturers, two
trends in boiler availability were noted:
• Electric utility orders have shifted from nuclear
and gas-fired units to oil- and coal-fired units.
• Although boiler orders for nuclear and fossil
fuel boilers decreased in 1974, they were
expected to increase in late 1975, particularly
for oil- and coal-fired units.
In this sample survey, firms associated with water-
wall incineration technology indicated that boiler
availability was highly critical. Lead times ranged
between 12 and 24 months, as indicated by 80
percent of the sample. This was attributed to supplier
backlogs, special fabrication, and shortages in some
materials.
Turbine Generating Equipment. Turbine genera-
tors were reported to require the longest lead time of
any equipment item currently supplied to the re-
source recovery industry. A sample of firms which
include turbine generators in their bid packages
singled them out as the critical item in their process.
•Lead times were reported to be over 24 months and,
in some cases, nearly 40 months.
The criticality of turbine generator supply is
attributable to two major factors: the small number
-------
EQUIPMENT CAPACITY LIMITERS
33
of manufacturers results in backlogs, and special
fabrication is required.
The majority of domestic turbine generators are
produced by three major firms: General Electric
Company, Westinghouse Electric Company, and Allis
Chalmers. In their 1973 annual reports, General.
Electric reported a backlog of 130 million kw in
generators; Allis Chalmers, a backlog of 26 units; and
Westinghouse, a backlog of 90 million kw.
The electric utility industry, although currently
cutting back on expansion, is expected to once again
step up its requirements for turbine generators. (See
next section on electric utility industry.)
The second factor affecting turbine generator
supply for resource recovery is special fabrication.
Turbine generators supplied to the resource recovery
industry are very small in comparison to electric
utility requirements (less than 100 megawatts versus
several hundred megawatts). In order to justify
special fabrication of these units, turbine generator
suppliers must schedule them for off-peak production
cycles and may demand a premium for their produc-
tion to justify the expense of producing small units.
Turbine generators are manufactured to meet the
specific needs of a given facility. As such, their
manufacture is extremely time-consuming and com-
plex. They are extremely costly, accounting for about
15 to 20 percent of the total cost of a large
steam-generating resource recovery facility which
produces electricity.
ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABILITY OF
TECHNOLOGY
There are many factors other than equipment
availability which will influence how long it takes to
get a resource recovery facility on stream. Such
factors include developments in the state of the art,
siting, markets for recovered products, and, invari-
ably, institutional/political delays. Under normal cir-
cumstances, however, the time that will be required
can be determined.
In this survey, it was discovered that time require-
ments to make technologies available for service
varied from 18 months to 40 months. The 18-month
requirement would apply to materials recovery or
shredded fuel processes in which major equipment
items include shredders, trommels, screens, and vari-
ous materials separation unit processes; the 40-month
requirement would apply to a 30-100 megawatt
electric powerplant which utilizes waste as its pri-
mary fuel.
The availability of resource recovery processing
technology is summarized in Table 18. It should be
noted that only in a few cases do problems of supply
of equipment items such as electric power generators
or oxygen plants limit availability of the technology.
Finally, it should be noted that the implementa-
tion of these technologies will be governed by
demand for recovered materials and energy products,
as described in Part II, Section, I of this report.
The Effect of the Electric Utility
Industry Expansion on Resource Recovery
It is believed that the capital expansion activities
of electric utilities will have a major impact on the
resource recovery industry primarily because:
• In meeting capacity expansion needs, the elec-
tric utility industry demand for equipment such
as boilers, turbine generators, electrical switch-
gear, and electrostatic precipitators has resulted
in order backlogs, thereby increasing lead times
for these items when they are ordered for
resource recovery systems.
• In expanding its capacity in fossil-fuel-fired
facilities, the electric utility industry is develop-
ing a broader potential market for waste-based
fuels such as shredded fuel, pyrolysis gas, or
pyrolysis oil.
REFERENCES
1. 1975 buyers' guide. Solid Waste Management, 18(3):107-
125L, Mar. 1975.
2. Capabilities of equipment makers. Environmental Science
and Technology, 9(4):306-307, Apr. 1975.
-------
34
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE 18
AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCE-RECOVERY-PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES*
Technology
Estimated
construction Commercial
time availability
(in months)
Status of technology
Major limitations
Waterwall incineration/
electric power
generation
36-40
Waterwall incineration/ 24-36
steam
Oil pyrolysis
30-36
Gas Pyrolysis
High-nitrogen gas 30-36
Low-nitrogen gas 30-36
Refuse derived fuel 18-30
Materials recovery
18-24
On demand Proven extensively in Europe;
limited domestic applica-
tions.
On demand Proven extensively in Europe;
limited domestic applica-
tions.
Estimated Still in pilot demonstration
1977 phase.
On demand Pilot and demonstration
operational.
Late 1974 Demonstration operational.
On demand Demonstration operational,
unit processes under-
going extensive develop-
ment.
On demand Unit processes have been
treated, but complete
system still under
development.
Large-scale requirement. Site near
electric power tie-in. Turbine
generator backlogs. Electrical
equipments backlogs. Boiler
backlogs. Extensive air/water
pollution controls required.
Residue disposal.
Site near steam user. Boiler
backlogs. Extensive air/
water pollution controls
required. Residue disposal.
Feedstock preparation. Air/
water pollution controls.
Fuel storage and transport.
Site near gas customer. Gas
cleaning and utilization.
Oxygen plant availability. Site
near gas customer. Gas
cleaning and utilization.
Fuel customers. Provenness
of fuel use. Improved unit
processes. Improved
materials handling.
Materials customer. Improved
product quality. Improved
processing efficiency.
*Assumed capacity of at least 1,000 TPD.
-------
Section III. Labor Capacity Limiters
DEFINITION OF LABOR CATEGORIES
Resource recovery implementation depends on a
great number of specialized skills. Shortages of skilled
personnel could impede the implementation process,
but such shortages do not appear to be a serious
threat to the industry's growth at the present time.
The major skills required for resource recovery
implementation are:
• Planning - engineers, architects, marketing spe-
cialists, financial experts, systems engineers,
and other consultants
• Proposal preparation and facility design - mar-
keting representatives, project managers, drafts-
men, architects, civil and mechanical engineers,
environmental engineers, accountants and
financial staff, legal counsel, engineering con-
sultants, and estimators
• Construction - supervisors, operators, and
tradesmen
• Equipment design, manufacture, delivery, and
assembly • specially trained engineers and as-
semblers
• Operation - supervisors, maintenance personnel,
trainers, and special operators
One prime contractor's outline of the total labor
requirements for a 2,000-TPD facility indicates the
quantity and diversity of skills required for imple-
mentation:
Proposal-related skills:
4 marketing representatives
1 consultant
4 project managers/coordinators
12 draftsmen
1 architect
8 civil and mechanical engineers
1 environmental engineer
10 accountants and financial staff
1 legal counsel
1 engineering consultant
6 estimators
49 total
Construction-related skills:
2 project supervisors
30 equipment operators
25 trade skills
8 supervisory
65 total
Operating personnel:
5 supervisory
2 maintenance
50 equipment operators, including
4 mobile equipment operators
2 control room operators
40 unit process operators
4 specialized process operators
57 total
The full supply of labor is not always available
within one company, and A&E's or consultants may
frequently provide support for planning efforts. The
prime contracting firms, in most cases, maintain
diverse staffs capable of fulfilling the proposal prepa-
ration and facility design functions. They may also
have a division or subsidiary of trained operators.
Operators may also be hired directly by the prime
contractor or the municipality or by a separate
corporation which is formed specifically for the
management of the facility. The construction func-
tion, however, will frequently be subcontracted by
the prime contractor to a construction contractor
who may, in turn, subcontract certain specialized
functions, or an A&E may supervise the construction.
Standard equipment items will be purchased from
suppliers either as components or as subsystem units.
Certain proprietary equipment, however, may be
supplied by the prime contractor.
Industry's Perceptions of Labor
Limitations
In general, the industry members surveyed ex-
pressed little concern over labor availability. Five out
of 26 representatives interviewed indicated that labor
shortages were nonexistent. Others identified one or
35
-------
36
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
two categories that are currently unavailable. The
overall consensus was that personnel will become
available as demand develops, and therefore labor
shortages will not be a constraint to resource
recovery.
Table 19 shows the number of industry members
who noted current labor unavailability. In industry's
expressed opinion, the unavailability of labor is
largely due to the current absence of specialized
training or focus relating to resource recovery. It is
envisioned that the demand-pull effects in the indus-
try will cause the skilled categories to focus their
training and expertise on the functions required for
resource recovery implementation. The most limited
supplies of labor occur in:
Supervisory Skills, Managers trained in supervising
the operation of resource recovery facilities are
currently in short supply. Effective management
requires knowledge of the technology, materials
handling, contracting, transportation, community re-
lations, and accounting aspects of resource recovery.
Because the facilities will be both public service and
processing plants, the managers require a unique
combination of managerial skills. The demand for
these managers has not yet been high enough to
justify the training focus.
Operating Personnel. With the exception of the
large international waterwall incineration firms, most
prime contractors do not yet have forces of trained
facility or specialized equipment operators. It can be
expected, however, that such operators can be trained
during periods of facility construction and shake-
down.
Proposal Preparation Staffs. Resource recovery
marketing staffs employed by the prime contractors
are generally small. Staff sizes may be expanded,
however, when the industry becomes more firm and
companies are willing to make greater long-term
commitments to it.
Legal Advisors. Municipalities and firms require
legal counsel to assist in addressing procurement,
financial, contract, and regionalization issues in im-
plementation. There has been little precedent as yet
in these complex legal issues and so lawyers have not
developed these areas of focus.
Engineering Consultants. Engineering consultants
with knowledge of the technical design and opera-
tional aspects of certain resource recovery processes
are considered to be in short supply because of the
unique or proprietary nature of those technologies.
Both prime contractors and A&E's are likely to
develop process-specific engineers as demand for
resource recovery increases and the technologies
stabilize.
Environmental Specialists. There is a small supply
of scientists/technologists who are knowledgeable in
the environmental impacts of resource recovery facili-
ties. Such specialists may be demanded in the future
to help the industry to design facilities to meet
environmental standards, and to prepare environ-
mental impact reports.
Equipment-Related Design Engineers. Engineers
for design of specialized equipment are not in great
supply because of the special or proprietary or early
technological state of such equipment. Design engi-
neers are not yet fully familiar with the technologies
available to resource recovery.
TABLE 19
THE INDUSTRY'S PERCEPTORS OF REASONS FOR LABOR UNAVAILABILITY
Labor category
Number of responses,* by reason for unavailability
Lack of specially Have to use
trained/experienced laborers union labor
Proposal preparation labor
Environmental experts
Legal experts
Engineering consultants
Equipment-related design engineers
Welders
Boilermakers
Mechanical/electrical construction contractors
Operating/supervisory
Specialized equipment operators
Total
20
*Twenty-one companies expressed concern for labor shortages; five expressed no concern.
-------
LABOR CAPACITY LIMITERS 37
Welders. One firm stated that the supply of Mechanical/Electrical Construction Workers. To
welders is also limited because of lack of training for some extent, special labor categories required in
special equipment manufacture. facility construction may also be in short supply,
Boilermakers. One equipment manufacturer indi- because demand has not yet been strong enough to
cated that boilermakers were in short supply because cause laborers to learn the new mechanical and
of the necessity of using union laborers. electrical operations.
-------
Section IV. Financial Limiters
The third possible capacity limiter is the availa-
bility of financing for major resource recovery facili-
ties. Industry and financial representatives indicated
that the financial aspects of resource recovery were
the most critical limiters to implementation. This
section presents a discussion of the financing options
and their respective problems in resource recovery.
AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING METHODS
The choice of a financing method may be reduced
to a decision of who will accept financial risks. Unless
a facility can be financed by equity, and the recent
economic situation has lessened this possibility, it will
have to be financed through borrowing. The question
then is, Will the facility be financed publicly or
privately? Public financing of solid waste disposal
facilities has traditionally been the responsibility of
local government. Most municipalities have several
long-term borrowing options:
• General Obligation Bonds
• Revenue Bonds
• Industrial Revenue and Pollution Control Reve-
nue Bonds
• Leasing
• Leveraged Leasing
Each of these methods has associated advantages and
disadvantages as displayed in Table 20. An earlier
EPA paper outlines the key characteristics of the
financing methods.1
General Obligation Bond financing yields a low
interest rate and, at least until recently, provides
secure public backing. It does, however, require voter
approval, and citizens appear unwilling to approve
bond issues for highly risky, capital-intensive technol-
ogies. Debt ceilings may also be a constraint.
Revenue bond financing does not require voter
approval and debt ceilings, has higher interest rates
and is much more complex than GO Bonds. A major
problem with revenue bonds is that they require
revenue as security. Because of the risk surrounding
resource recovery facilities, there may not always be
sufficient revenue security to back the bonds.
Industrial revenue or pollution control revenue
bonds have added disadvantages. Their complexity
often requires Internal Revenue Service rulings, which
can cause delays for several months. They are also not
authorized in all States. Finally, they require long-
term solid waste disposal contract commitments as
security, but many communities are prevented by law
from entering into such contracts.
The leasing option may also be limited by the
inability of municipalities to enter into long-term
contracts. Another problem with leasing is that lease
rates can be as high as 18 percent of the capital
equipment cost. Also the leasing mechanism may be
legally incompatible with other financing methods, so
combination financing packages can be difficult.
The leverage lease package method provides a low
interest rate which aids the economic return of the
project. Also, although it is a form of public
financing, it does not require municipal credit for
backing. However, the method is legally complex and
virtually untested for resource recovery and will
require IRS rulings. It also creates a disadvantage in
some situations where the municipality wants to
retain ownership of the facility, because ownership is
held by the lessor.
Recently, States have become involved in solid
waste disposal/resource recovery financing. The eco-
nomic success of large facilities usually requires
regionalization, and State governments have found
the intercity arrangements to be within their jurisdic-
tion. A number of State financing methods have been
initiated:
• State Reserve Fund
• State Revenue Bonds
• State Grants
• State Planning Money.
The State reserve fund, which has been adopted by
the State of Connecticut, provides a fund which
backs the construction bond issue. This is a compli-
cated arrangement because the contractors back the
project to a certain debt limit and the reserve fund
backs the greater amount. The advantages of the
system are that the bond issue is backed by the joint
credit of the State and the private company involved.
An automatic risk-sharing is therefore provided. The
38
-------
FINANCIAL LIMITERS
39
TABLE 20
FINANCING OPTIONS
Financing method
Advantages
Problems and disadvantages
Municipal general obligation
bonds
Municipal revenue bonds
Industrial revenue or pollu-
tion control revenue
bonds
Leasing
Leveraged leasing
State reserve fund
State revenue bonds
State grants
State planning money
Federal construction grants
Federal loan guarantees
Private debt or equity
Low interest rates. Minimal financial analysis.
Voter approval not required. No municipal
debt ceiling. Financial responsibility en-
couraged. Tax exempt.
Voter approval not required. No municipal
debt ceiling. Financial responsibility en-
couraged. Tax exempt.
Third-party capital supplier. Rapid imple-
mentation.
Third-party capital supplier. Low interest
rates.
Automatic risk-sharing. Ease in obtaining
bonds.
State credibility. Regional approach.
Minimal financial risk.
State plan can be coordinated. Regional
implementation can be viewed as one
entity.
Reduction of private and local risk.
Reduction of private and local risk. Ease
in obtaining funds.
Little public risk.
Require rates approval. Debt ceiling.
Complex. Higher interest rates than
GO Bonds. Not available in all
communities. Guarantee of
revenue to bond holders.
Complex. Requires long-term com-
mitments. Not available in all
communities. Guarantee of
revenue to bond holders.
High lease rates. Requires long-term
commitments.
Legally complex. Untested. IRS
rulings required.
Not available in most States. Not
tested.
Not currently available in all States.
Establishment of risk-sharing is
complex. Guarantee of revenue
security.
Risk of mismanagement of funds.
Construction financing not pro-
vided.
Risk of mismanagement of funds.
Not currently available. Risk of
loss to Federal Government.
High interest rates. Alternative uses
' of private equity. Unwillingness
to solve a public problem.
private-public relationship will be fully tested, how-
ever, only after the facilities are operating.
Several States have proposed State revenue bond
mechanisms. The advantages would be similar to
those for municipal revenue bonds. In addition, the
State's participation would add credibility to the
project and would circumvent the institutional prob-
lems associated with single communities issuing bonds
for regional facilities.
Other States have proposed construction grant
programs. The major advantage here is that financial
risk is minimized. Also, the State could better ensure
that implementation was consistent with existing
State plans. However, mismanagement of funds and
cost overruns, as have occurred with Federal water
pollution control grants, are possible disadvantages.
Another option is for States to provide money for
initial planning and acquisition of facilities. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has such a program.
The State can thus coordinate the assembly of a
regional plan. However, financing of the facility's
construction still has to be resolved. The State's
planning effort can be directed toward developing a
feasible financial package.
-------
40
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
The Federal Government is a potential source of
financing. The major methods which have been
proposed are:
• Planning and Implementation Grants
• Demonstration Grants
• Federal Construction Grants
• Federal Loan Guarantees.
Thus far, only demonstration, planning, and imple-
mentation grants are being provided by the Federal
government.
The alternative to public financing is, of course,
private financing. This can be accomplished either
through debt or equity financing. Equity financing is
limited by alternative uses of funds. Private debt
financing results in higher interest rates than can be
obtained through public financing. A greater limita-
tion to private financing is that industry is unwilling
to pay for, (i.e., to take all the risks) the solution to a
public solid waste disposal problem. Industry is
willing to invest its own funds only if it is sure it will
receive a satisfactory return. A more detailed discus-
sion of the industry's point of view on financing is
provided in Section V.
Ease of Financing
The ease of financing through any of the above
methods remains dependent upon a number of
specific factors such as:
• The availability of capital.
• The interest rate.
• The ease of bond issue approvals.
• IRS rulings, such as tax-exempt status for solid
waste disposal plants.
It is anticipated that as demand for resource recovery
grows, financing possibilities will also grow.
PERCEPTIONS OF THE FINANCIAL
COMMUNITY
As part of this survey, discussions were held with
representatives from major investment banking firms
about the availability of financing for major resource
recovery facilities. Their opinions, which are based
upon experience in preparing resource recovery fi-
nancing packages, are paraphrased as follows.
The Bond Markets
There are several potential constraints to a success-
ful resource recovery bond issue:
• Credit may be difficult to obtain, especially if
four or five parties are required to back the
executory contract, or if a reliable source of
revenues is needed for collateral.
• The bond package must be specifically tailored
to the market.
• Legislative barriers exist such as competitive
bidding requirements, provisions against a city's
entering into long-term contracts, and ability to
engage in "friendly suits" to verify the legiti-
macy of procurement policies and bond issues.
• Cities are not always aware of risk-sharing
concepts and financing mechanisms.
The Funding Package
The chief problem in establishing a successful
financing package is attainment of backing. Backing
in the form of "moral obligation" is now question-
able because of recent situations such as that of the
New York Urban Development Corporation. Further-
more, the funding package itself is extremely com-
plex. For example, the procedure for developing
Industrial Development Revenue Bond financing in-
volves many steps and many participants, as shown in
Figure 7.
The Role of the Industry in
Financing Resource Recovery
Many firms have expended funds for research and
development in resource recovery. In some cases this
R&D includes pilot plant or larger scale plant
construction. In general, the firms will place limits on
risks and expect to recover their initial investments
from future plant operations. They expect to make
their profits on the efficient operation of facilities
and the sale of byproducts.
The expected return on equity varies with associ-
ated risks taken by each firm. As a minimum, a 15
percent return on equity after tax is reportedly
expected. With higher risks, the expected return will
rise. A 20 percent return on equity is not uncommon
for this type of investment.
There are too many variables and complexities to
predict how resource recovery will grow. The indus-
try's present intention is to provide a technology to
solve a problem and make money doing so, but it will
not take full responsibility for solving a major public
problem.
Grant Programs
Although grant programs are conceptually a rea-
sonable financing mechanism, they are successful
only if:
• Funds are spent only on items to which they
are allocated.
• They are properly administered. One possible
solution to the administrative problem is to
-------
FINANCIAL LIMITERS
41
INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT &
ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION
EQUITY PARTICIPATION
Private Sector
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
BONDHOLDERS
ENGINEERING &
CONSTRUCTION
Public Sector
Other
Figure 7. A Description of Participants and their Roles in Financing Resource Recovery by Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds*
*Reference: Robert H. Aldrich, L. F. Rothschild & Co. This diagram depicts a number of participants in the
financing package. The left side represents activities of the "contractor," i.e., the private firm, the center portion
represents the activities of the public sector, which includes a number of trusts which would be established as well
as the bonding authority. The right side represents other participants in the financing package.
require a sizable filing fee or equity participa-
tion which would weed out the less serious
applicants.
The complex issues pertaining to bonding,
procurements, and contracts are resolved. It
will take time, and perhaps experience, before
legal ramifications are fully understood.
Industry is willing to invest private money to
solve a public problem, even in view of alterna-
tive less risky uses for funds.
INDUSTRY PERCEPTIONS OF FINANCING
ISSUES
The responses of industry representatives inter-
viewed for this survey indicate that financing issues
are viewed as a major constraint to resource recovery
development.
Table 21 records the responses of a sample of
industry representatives to the question: What do you
view as the most critical industry growth inhibitors?
Respondents were asked to rank the criticality of
-------
42
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
TABLE 21
SUMMARY OF PERCEIVED GROWTH INHIBITORS
Number of responses, by degree of criticality (weighted score)
Obstacle
Equipment availability
Materials availability
Manpower skills
Capital/financing
Materials and energy markets
Procurement
Negotiation delays
Legislation
Technology
High (3)
5
8
4
2
1
Medium (2)
3
1
5
4
2
2
4
Low (1)
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
No response or not
viewed as critical
obstacle (0)
10
12
10
4
6
10
7
13
Total weighted
criticality score
7
3
4
25
34
18
6
15
3
Rank
5
8
7
2
. 1
3
6
4
8
resource recovery growth inhibitors. A weighted
criticality score was obtained by assigning numerical
weights of 3, 2, and 1 to high, medium, and low,
respectively, and summing numbers of responses
times corresponding weights. It can be noted in the
weighted criticality score that markets for materials
and energy were viewed as the single most critical
growth inhibitor. Availability of capital and financing
ranks second. However, procurement and legislative
obstacles, which greatly affect financing feasibilities,
rank third and fourth in criticality. Thus, the total
rating for criticality of financial obstacles shows that
they constitute the most serious growth inhibitor as
reported by the industry.
The response of the industry shown in Table 21
indicates that institutional factors, as related to
financing issues, are far more critical than technologi-
cal factors. The availability of financing depends
upon many institutional factors such as:
• The legality of Federal, State or local financing
mechanisms.
• The ability of public bodies to establish feasible
financing packages.
• The compatibility of existing public procure-
ment methods with alternatives for assigning or
sharing risk.
• The willingness of public bodies to address and
assist in financing issues.
• The willingness of public bodies to accept
financial risk.
Current Perceived Financing Difficulties
The industry members interviewed expressed opin-
ions as to why financing is so difficult at the current
time. Their comments can be reduced to four major
points:
• The current economy is exhibiting high costs of
capital as reflected in high interest rates. Funds
for investment in large expensive facilities are
generally available, but at a high cost.
• The bond market is very uncertain because
resource recovery technology is untested and
the contractual provisions necessary for bond
securities have not yet been well accepted.
• The legal issues pertaining to bonding, procure-
ments, and contracts are very complex. It will
take time, and perhaps experience, before legal
ramifications are fully understood.
• Industry is not willing to invest more private
money to solve a public problem. In addition,
industry has other, less risky uses for funds.
FINANCIAL LIMITERS: CONCLUSIONS
It is evident that neither the industry nor the
public sector is yet certain how large-scale resource
recovery facilities will be financed. The major ques-
tions which remain to be answered are:
• Who will pay for the facilities?
• How will the payment be made?
• Who will share the risks?
It appears that revenue bonding is the most viable
mechansim for financing of facilities in the short
term. General Obligation Bonds are not likely because
of their high risks. In any case, financing packages
will still have to be very specific to the locations
where implementation occurs.
In the longer term, it is likely that States will
establish more comprehensive grant or authority
-------
FINANCIAL LIMITERS
43
programs. Federal programs may also be established.
Potential Federal programs could focus on
• Supply incentives (e.g., tax exemption legisla-
tion)
• Demand incentives (construction grants)
• Regulation of solid waste facilities.
In short, the financing process can be the most
difficult and time-consuming process in resource
recovery implementation. The current economic situ-
ation makes equity financing almost impossible.
Public financing methods have so far been difficult
because of the many risks inherent in the recovery
technologies. As the technology improves, financing
will no doubt become easier; that is, if the industry
can continue to financially support technological
development without further public assistance. Until
it is proven that resource recovery can stand on its
own financial feet, through revenues from guaranteed
user fees and sale of recovered products, either public
or private finance authorities will have to be willing
to accept the risk.
-------
Section V. Projections by the Industry
WHAT IS INDUSTRY SAYING:
GENERAL COMMENTS
Perhaps the current thinking of the resource
recovery industry can best be summarized by a
statement by one of its members: "Invest to be
profitable without taking large risks." Resource re-
covery is in the formative stages and, as such, will
undergo many changes in the next few years. Many of
the large, diversified companies which are entering
resource recovery have so far done so from a research
and development perspective. That is, they have
invested research and development funds to test the
resource recovery system markets. Industry members
generally agree, however, that their participation will
continue only if resource recovery is profitable. Many
respondents have indicated that low margins will
drive them out of the resource recovery business.
The industry's message is quite clear. Many indus-
try spokesmen are making such statements as:
• "The industry will provide technology to help
solve a problem if it can make money doing
so." Industry spokesmen indicate that although
they are willing to provide a technology and
take some risks with its operation, they are not
offering a panacea for solid waste disposal.
Industry spokesmen were quite explicit in
stating that they will not fully assume the risks
and responsibilities of solving a public problem.
• "The industry will shake out to a small number
of companies because of required processing
sophistication and capital intensiveness." Be-
cause the capital costs of large, central resource
recovery facilities typically range from $20
million to as high as $80 million, only those
firms which have strong financial support can
assume the risks of constructing such facilities,
and they will remain in the leadership role in
the industry (unless projects are financed by
governments).
• "If resource recovery becomes a low margin
business (like wastewater), the customer will
lose." It was noted in conducting this survey
that any risks which industry members decide
to take are generally reflected in a higher
margin requirement to cover contingencies.
Reportedly, a minimal 15 percent return on
after-tax equity is required to attract firms to
bid on large facilities, and a 20 percent return
on after-tax equity is not believed to be
unrealistic. The return on equity, however, is
extremely difficult to explore further because
of circumstances unique to each firm and each
project. The unanswered question is, "What
contributions are assumed to be included as
equity in the calculation of return?"
The Resource Recovery System Bid/No
Bid Decision
One question asked of respondents in this survey
was "What influences the bid/no bid decision for a
particular area requesting proposals?" The succinct
answer was: the existence of a perceived business
opportunity. As indicated in the section on demand,
a perceived business opportunity generally requires
certain conditions from the public sector, namely,
• A committed site
• A committed guaranteed refuse supply in eco-
nomically processable quantity
• A financing approach
• A single bargaining entity
• A well-defined statement of needs in the
request for proposals
• Potential markets for reclaimed materials
If the public sector were to meet these criteria, the
RFP would generally attract the leaders in the
industry, as well as a series of smaller private
entrepreneurs.*
Following a bidder's briefing and issuance of the
RFP, each firm makes an internal bid/no bid decision,
based upon several key factors, including:
• Likelihood of markets for products
• Competition by other bidders
*In some cases commitments may be made by private
firms prior to RFP issuance. This approach is taken when a
firm perceives a business opportunity early in an area which
it believes will be promising in the future. See: Shilepsky,
A. Resource recovery plant implementation: guides for
municipal officials—procurement. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-157.5. Washington, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
44
-------
PROJECTIONS BY THE INDUSTRY
45
• Conditions/requirements of the RFP such as
length of contract, type of contract required,
etc.
• Method of project financing
• Other investment opportunities available to the
firm
A negative reading of any one of these key factors
may quickly lead to a "no-bid" decision. It is
therefore in the best interest of the community to
make the request for proposals as attractive a business
opportunity as possible.
Another factor which influences the bid deci-
sion is the competition of other less risky ventures in
which a firm may choose to invest. Thus resource
recovery efforts not only compete among themselves,
but also with other investment opportunities.
WHAT INDUSTRY IS SAYING ABOUT MEETING
PUBLIC SECTOR NEEDS
As indicated earlier, the industry has shown a
willingness to help solve a public sector problem if, in
doing so, a business opportunity results. The industry
indicates that it has the manufacturing and service
capabilities but they will be offered only to areas
where real demand for resource recovery growth
exists. The burden is therefore placed on the public
sector.
The resource recovery industry is quick to point
out that, to date, the dealings with municipalities
have been frustrating because of uncertainties sur-
rounding who should take what risks.* Industry
expects municipalities to provide a site, a guaranteed
tonnage of refuse, and a financing approach, at a
minimum.
Other issues, such as refuse composition and
quality, force majeure, cost escalation, or market
changes are reportedly negotiable.
WHAT INDUSTRY IS SAYING ABOUT DEMAND
FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
The response of industry representatives concern-
ing demand was varied. On one extreme, respondents
indicated that demand for resource recovery facilities
in the next 5 to 7 years would be for less than 30
resource recovery plants larger than 1,000 TPD. The
other extreme suggests that up to 100 facilities might
be constructed.
Further exploration of assumptions made with
respect to demand revealed a consensus that 30 to 40
*See: Randol, R. E. Resource recovery plant imple-
mentation: guides for municipal officials—risks and contracts.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-157.7. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (In preparation.)
facilities will probably be committed by 1982. This
number is based on responses by at least 12 prime
contractor firms, some of which indicated that this
number is based on their market research and/or
5-year plan.
Some large prime contractor firms indicated that,
on an average, they would bid on about 5-7 large
systems annually. In addition, they indicated that
they would average two new projects a year. If one
assumes that between 6 and 12 major firms will
remain in the industry for the next 5-7 years, and
that each firm will commit itself to two new projects
annually, the capacity of the prime contractor firms
alone might be at least 60 facilities, and possibly as
many as 168.* With the addition of two private
speculative ventures per year and architectural and
engineering firms' commitments (one project every
other year for each of 12 A&E's), it is estimated that
the industry has the capacity for at least 200 major
facilities in the next 7 years-a capacity at least twice
as great as the most likely level of demand.
WHAT THE INDUSTRY IS SAYING ABOUT
PUBLIC POLICY
In summary, firms in the resource recovery indus-
try are raising a number of public policy questions
and offering several suggestions. Generally speaking,
their comments focus on four central questions:
• What public sector capabilities need further
development?
• Which laws should be changed?
• How should resource recovery be financed?
• How should markets be developed'
Each of these is described below from the point of
view of industry, as indicated in the survey.
What Public Sector Capabilities Need
Further Development?
The resource recovery industry consensus is that
the public sector must further develop a number of
implementation-related skills. First, it must unite its
efforts within a single bargaining entity for a given
project. The industry indicated frustration in having
to deal with many voices from the public sector.
Second, the public sector must learn to articulate
its needs clearly in a request for proposals. Industry
representatives noted that requests for proposals have
often been inadequate in defining specific needs of
the municipality. Industry feels that municipalities
*MITRE-derived estimates, based upon plans which were
confidentially revealed by the firms during the survey.
-------
46
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
require technical assistance in preparation of the
request. RFP's must define specifically the commit-
ments made by the municipality, the potential
markets, the mode of financing for the project, and
the legal and environmental requirements which
pertain to the project.
Finally, because the industry responds to a per-
ceived business opportunity, it feels that public
policy could be directed towards translating a solid
waste disposal problem of a region or municipality
into a business opportunity.
Which Legal Provisions Should Be Changed?
Certain legal provisions, existing primarily at State
and local levels, may affect the resource recovery
industry's ability to provide long-term solutions to
solid waste disposal problems. Such legal constraints
include:
• Competitive bidding laws that require procure-
ments to be made on a cost basis alone
• Prohibition of cities from entering into long-
term contracts
• Ease of obtaining "friendly suits" or declara-
tory judgments
• Environmental impact requirements
The extent to which public policy addresses these
issues will play a major role in determining the rate at
which resource recovery is implemented.
How Should Resource Recovery Be Financed?
The resource recovery industry has indicated that
financing is of prime importance to system implemen-
tation. Firms indicate that they are willing to finance
resource recovery facilities via private financing only
to a limited degree. The majority of firms surveyed
indicated that resource recovery projects should be
publicly financed.
The contribution of equity by private firms in the
industry is dependent upon expected return on the
equity and payback. Respondents indicated unani-
mously that tax incentives (such as tax-exempt status
for resource recovery investment) or accelerated
depreciation of facilities will stimulate their interest
in resource recovery investment.
How Should Markets Be Developed?
The question of markets for reclaimed products
has generated considerable discussion among private
and public sector representatives. The private sector
indicates that without viable markets for products,
resource recovery is impractical. Furthermore, the
private sector views a "viable market" as a long-term
contractual commitment. Currently such commit-
ments are extremely difficult to obtain because
potential purchasers are uncertain about product
quality and quantity.
Respondents in the survey suggested that the
public sector explore approaches such as subsidies
and incentives to users of reclaimed products or
requirements for use of reclaimed materials in items
purchased by government. Also, generally industry
feels that they are more qualified to develop firm
market commitments than the public sector who has
had little or no experience in this area.
REFERENCES
1. Randol, R. E. Resource recovery plant implementation:
guides for municipal officials—financing. En-
vironmental Protection Publication SW-
157.4. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, [1975]. 20 p.
2. Randol, R. E. Resource recovery plant implementation:
guides for municipal officials—risks and con-
tracts. Environmental Protection Publica-
tion SW-157.7. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. (In preparation.)
-------
PART III. CONCLUSION
The resource recovery industry is going through
the transition period typical of an emerging industry
attempting to promote new technology. It is new; it
is dynamic; it is competitive. And it is characterized
by uncertainty, confusion, and apprehension. Indus-
trial representatives are quite frank in expressing this
point of view. As with burgeoning industries, several
early entrants in the industry will drop out or
potentially go bankrupt.
In this regard, there is general agreement that the
extent to which firms are successful will depend on a
number of factors both internal and external to the
industry. Clearly, one external factor is government
policy, which may have as great an impact in shaping
the industry's future as will the strategies and actions
of member firms. It is becoming apparent that the
industry must develop working relationships with
governments at the local, regional, and state levels.
The progress of the industry will, in part, depend on
how mutual needs and goals of both the public and
private sectors are understood.
Currently, the public sector appears apprehensive
because of the lack of some firms, proven processing
experience, setbacks in several new facilities, or
because of high costs and risks associated with
full-scale systems. A wait-and-see attitude appears
prevalent among municipal officials.
The private sector acknowledges this concern, but
also expresses apprehension of municipalities. Many
resource recovery firms are unaccustomed to the
seemingly endless stream of city council meetings or
public hearings that postpone political decisions. This
is perceived by the private sector as the failure of the
municipality to act, or even as disinterest on its part.
For the most part, industry agrees that there is hot
a problem of its capacity to respond to an increased
demand for resource recovery facilities with respect
to equipment, labor and capital. The industry as a
whole, however, is cautious about responding to
municipalities' perceived demands for resource recov-
ery. Industry is interested only in real demand as
evidenced by a number of prerequisites it considers
essential for a successful project (see section 1, Part 2,
discussion on demand).
In this regard, it has become clear in discussions
with the industry that problems in developing re-
source recovery are more institutional in nature than
technical or economic. To this end, additional work is
needed to overcome institutional barriers such as
jurisdictional disputes, limited financing alternatives,
market incentives, ownership and operation decisions,
risk-sharing provisions, acquisition procedures, or
limited legislation to stimulate resource recovery
development.
The industry has indicated a willingness to assist in
overcoming these barriers but maintains that, realis-
tically, the burden rests with the public sector.
Recent initiatives by the Federal government in its
technical assistance program and by States in their
Statewide planning programs are moving in this
direction. In the meantime, the resource recovery
industry has expressed a willingness to continue to
explore new opportunities for promoting its products
and services.
47
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
List of Contacts Made For Industry Survey1
Prime Contracting Firms Level of Contact2
AENCO, Subsidiary of Cargill Co. (M)
Americology, Div. of American Can Co. ( P)
Black Clawson Co., Subsidiary of Parsons & (M)
Whittimore
Browning Ferris Industries (M)
Carrier Corporation (M)
Carborundum Co. ( P)
Combustion Equipment Associates ( P)
Garrett Research and Development Co., ( P)
Subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum
Grumman Ecosystems Corp. (M)
Monsanto Envirochem Systems, Inc. ( P)
Raytheon Service Corporation ( P)
Research Cottrell, Inc. ( P)
SCA Services, Inc. ( P)
Titan Group ( P)
Union Carbide Corp. ( P)
UOP Inc. (P)
Waste Management Inc. (M)
Waste Resources Corp. (M)
Wheelabrator-Frye Corp. ( P)
Equipment Supply Firms
Allis Chalmers (T)
American Pulverizer Company (M)
Atlas Systems, Inc. ( T)
Babcock & Wilcox ( P)
Beloit Corp. (M)
Combustion Engineering, Inc. (T)
Dempster Bros., Inc., Division of Carrier (M)
Corp.
1. Prime contractor firms which also supply equipment items are listed as prime
contractors only.
2. Level of contact:
(P) denotes personal interview
(T) denotes telephone interview
(M) denotes mail correspondence
49
-------
50 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
Engineering Consulting Firms Level of Contact
Dings Company (M)
Eriez Magnetics Co. (M)
J. W. Greer ( T)
Gruendler Crusher and Pulverizer Co. (M)
Hammermills, Inc. ( P)
Heil Co. (T)
Jeffrey Manufacturing Division, Dresser (M)
Industries, Inc.
Mayfran Inc. (T)
Newell Manufacturing Co. (T)
Peabody Galion Corp. (M)
Pennsylvania Crusher Corp. (M)
Radar Pneumatics Co. (T)
Rexnord (T)
Stearns Magnetics, Inc., Subsidiary of (M)
Magnetics International, Inc.
Triple/S Dynamics Systems, Inc. ( T)
Williams Patent Crusher, Inc. ( P)
Bechtel Corporation (T)
Black, Crow, and Eidsness, Subsidiary of ( P)
Hercules Corporation
Camp, Dresser and McKee ( P)
National Center for Resource Recovery ( P)
Ralph M. Parsons Company ( P)
Joseph Post Associates ( P)
I. C. Thomasson Associates ( P)
Charles R. Velzey Associates, Inc. ( P)
-------
APPENDIX II
QUESTIONS TO PRIME CONTRACTORS
1. What unit processes or major equipment items do you view as most critical in resource
recovery facility implementation?
2. For those critical equipment items, what are the required lead times for delivery, and
what time requirements do you view as being lengthy?
3. Which labor items do you view as fundamental to your processes, and to what extent
are they available under normal economic conditions'
4. To what extent do you view availability of capital as a critical item in resource
recovery implementation?
5. How would you rank the following with respect to growth inhibitors of the industry?
A. Equipment B. Materials C. Manpower Skills
D. Capital E. Market for Material
6. How many resource recovery facilities do you feel your company can construct (or
will construct) in the next 5 to 7 years?
7. How many resource recovery facilities do you feel will be constructed by the industry
in the next 5 to 7 years?
8. How do you view your firm's role in relation to the industry?
9. What obstacles do you feel are most inhibiting to the resource recovery industry?
QUESTIONS TO EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
1. What equipment items do you view as being essential, both in lead time requirement
and cost, to resource recovery facility implementation?
2. What are major contributing factors that slow down the production of key
equipment items?
3. How many major equipment items do you feel your company can produce on an
annual basis?
4. How many major equipment items do you feel the industry can produce on an
annual basis?
51
-------
52 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
5. What limitations do you foresee with respect to meeting demand for resource
recovery systems?
6. Which labor items are critical to your equipment production and operation?
7. How would you rank the following with respect to inhibiting resource recovery
industry growth?
A. Equipment B. Materials
C. Manpower Skills D. Capital
8. How do you view your firm's role in relation to the resource recovery industry?
9. What obstacles do you feel are most inhibiting to the resource recovery industry?
10. What are the solid waste/resource recovery equipments which you produce? Are
these equipments sold as single components or as "systems"?
11. Does the company design D, manufacture D, install D, test D, operate D the
equipment?
12. Locations where your equipment is currently being operated for solid waste
handling/process:
13. If possible, indicate the annual sales volume in resource recovery equipment.
-------
flPPENDIX III
PROFILE DATA SHEETS*
Allis Chalmers Corp.
Americology
Atlas Systems, Inc.
Babcock & Wilcox
Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc.
Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.
Carborundum Co.
Carrier Corporation
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Combustion Equipment Associates
Detroit Stoker Company
Dings Magnetic Group
Gruendler Crusher and Pulverizer Company
Grumman Ecosystems Inc.
Hammermills, Inc.
Heil Co.
J. W. Greer, Inc.
Jeffrey Manufacturing Division
Mayfran Incorporated
Monsanto Enviro-Chem. Systems, Inc.
Occidental Research Co.
Peabody Galion: Solid Wastes Division
Raytheon Service Co.
Research Cottrell, Inc.
Rexnord; Material Handling Division
Riley Stoker Co.
SCA Services, Inc.
Teledyne National
Titan Environmental Services
Triple/S Dynamics Systems, Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation
UOP, Inc.
Waste Management, Inc.
Wheelabrator-Frye Corp.
Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co.
Information in these sheets was supplied by the companies themselves and
has been reviewed by them with respect to accuracy of contents. EPA has not
attempted to independently verify or edit the information in these sheets except
to delete obviously promotional statements.
53
-------
54 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: AUis-Chalmers Corporation
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Processing and Materials Handling Equipment, Elect
Equipment, Power Generation and Mobile Vehicles
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Solid Waste Processing Operation (Shredding Equipment and
Systems); Stansteel Corp. (Cyclones and Bag Houses); Stevens Adamson Division (Materials Handling)
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Process Systems-21% of sales; Power Generation & Delivery-12% of sales;
Materials Handling-8% of sales; Industrial Electrical-8% of sales; Agricultural Equipment-23% of sales
SALES: $1.2 billion (1973)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Outagamie Co., Wisconsin; Shredder/landfill;
Magnetic separation and pilot plant air classifier
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Allis Chalmers produces a wide range of resource recovery related equipment, including: crushers, grinding
mills, rotary kilns, screens, conveyors and compacting equipment for processing, power transformers, distribution
transformers, switches, substations, circuit breakers and voltage regulators for electrical transmission. Process
systems production also include bulk material conveyors and air pollution controls. Lift trucks and side loaders are
also produced. Allis is interested in designing and supplying refuse handling shredding systems for regional use.
The 1974 Annual Report indicates that 26 steam turbine generator units are on order, and the backlog for
steam turbine generators is $429 million. (Backlog ranges from 400-1300 MW sizes.)
Allis Chalmers is a key supplier of large electric motors (about 1000 HP) which are used on large shredders
(40-75 TPH). In addition, Allis Chalmers is a major supplier of electrical switch gear and motor controls which
must be fabricated for resource recovery facilities.
Research at Allis Chalmers includes work in anaerobic digestion of prepared refuse, in trommel screen design,
in air classification, in materials handling equipment design, in shredder development, and RDF preparation
including pelletizing and briquetting.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 55
NAME OF FIRM: Americology
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Shredded fuel, materials recovery
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: American Can Co./M & T Chemicals
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Packaging, chemicals, technology products & services
SALES: $2,182 million (1973, American Can)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Elizabeth, N.J.-15-ton Pilot; Elmira, N.Y.-Demon-
stration; Milwaukee, Wis.-Selected for 1,000 TPD
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Proposals have been submitted by Americology to a number of municipalities. Other processes under
development by Americology are pyrolysis, glass utilization, aluminum separation, fiber recovery, and composting.
In addition, Americology has a proprietary zigzag air classifier which it is testing in Elmira, N.Y.
Americology's entrance into resource recovery is spearheaded by its recent contract with Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, for a shredded-fuel resource recovery facility.
American Can Co.'s entry into the resource recovery field resulted from subsidiary M&T Chemical's
operations in processing scrap metals to recover tin which could be used as packaging material. Concern about
bottle bill potentials offered more incentive for the company to get involved in resource recovery.
-------
56 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Atlas Systems, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Manufacture
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Storage bins
CORPORATE FORM: N/A
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: N/A
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Supply of storage bins
SALES: N/A
LOCATION & STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Ames, Iowa-Storage bin; Baltimore, Md.-Storage bin;
Hamilton, Ontario-Storage bin; St. Louis, Mo.-Storage bin
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Atlas supplies bins for storage of refuse or shredded refuse materials. The company originally designed bins
for storage of wood, bark, and millwastes. Major design changes have been made to accommodate refuse.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 57
NAME OF FIRM: Babcock & Wilcox, Industrial and Maritime Division
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Steam generation components
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Babcock & Wilcox Construction Division and B&W affiliates
worldwide
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Power generation equipment
SALES: $1.28 billion (1974, Babcock & Wilcox); $125 million (1974, Industrial and Maritime Division)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Nashville, Tenn.-boilers; Hamilton, Ontario-boilers,
electrostatic precipitators
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
B&W is "firmly committed" to supplying refuse-fired boilers and other steam generation components. The
policy of the company is to design, deliver, and install system components, other than front-end processing and ash
handling equipment, and to train operators, but not to provide long-term operation or turn-key contract services.
B&W has supplied refuse-fired waterwall incinerator units to Nashville, Tenn., and Hamilton, Ontario, and has
participated with a number of utilities in examining conversion possibilities on its currently operating fossil-fired
units.
B&W believes that the market for refuse-fired boilers will grow, but that strong financial and political
limitations currently exist. The firm is not planning to expand capacity. Instead, resource recovery orders may be
backlogged beyond the normal 8-16 month lead time.
Before making future growth commitments, B&W may wait to see if capital availability improves and
whether demand will be for large regional refuse-fired units or conversion of existing utility boilers.
-------
58 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Wet pulping, Materials & Heat Energy Recovery
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary (approx. 80% ownership)
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Parsons & Whittemore Organization
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Pulp & Paper
SALES: Unknown; private company
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Franklin, Ohio-Demonstration since 1971; Tokyo,
Japan-Committed demonstration; Hempstead, N.Y.-Selected for full scale
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
P&W is very experienced in turn-key contracts. The resource recovery industry was entered as an expansion
of management and engineering activities in wastepaper fiber reclamation. Black Clawson has developed the
Hydrasposal process. Other technologies being developed are metal and glass recovery in conjunction with the Glass
Container Manufacturer's Institute and Garrett Research & Development at the Franklin, Ohio, demonstration
plant.
Plans for Black Clawson include the conversion of the pulp product into a fuel to ultimately produce electric
power.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 59
NAME OF FIRM: Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Owner/operator and prime contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Materials & energy recovery (dry fuel product trademarked
REF-FUEL)
CORPORATE FORM: Delaware corporation
NAME OF RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Environmental Equipment Corp.; Resource Recovery, Inc.; Consolidated
Fibres Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: 1974 Fiscal year: Waste Systems-74% of revenues; Resource Recovery-13%;
Chemical Services-13%
SALES: $312 million (1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: 40 Waste paper recovery facilities; Houston,
Texas-500 TPD shredding, ferrous metal/paper recovery; Holliston, Mass.-300 TPD shredding, ferrous
metal/paper recovery
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Through its subsidiary, Environmental Equipment Corp., BFI provides systems design, engineering,
construction management, and financing services and operates new waste processing and recovery facilities.
In Houston, Texas, the company owns and operates a recovery plant which processes up to 500 tons daily of
municipal refuse. Salvageable waste paper may be recovered for sale. The remaining refuse is shredded and run
through a magnetic separator for removal of ferrous metals. A pilot air-classifying system separates lighter density
refuse, which is being used in testing and developing potential customers for REF-FUEL material.
A similar operation conceived, constructed, and operated by BFI is located in Holliston, Massachusetts. This
facility is designed to handle 300 tons per day of incoming raw waste and, like the Houston facility, processes and
magnetically separates incoming waste. The facility also features a system for separation and baling of commercial
wastepaper.
While most of BFI's materials marketing experience to date has been in the wastepaper field, the company is,-
putting increasing emphasis on the marketing of ferrous metals and BFI's refuse-derived fuel product.
-------
60 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OP FIRM: The Carborundum Company
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime contractor & equipment supplier
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Torrax gas pyrolysis, Eidal shredders, electrostatic precipita-
tors
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: None
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Abrasives, Machinery Systems-21% of sales, 1974; Advanced Materials & Process
Systems-28% of sales, 1974; Pollution Controls & Filtration Systems-10% of sales, 1974; International
Operations-41% of sales, 1974
SALES: $556.8 million (1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Erie County, N.Y.-Torrax 75-TPD demonstration;
Luxembourg-Torrax Plant; Grasse, France-Torrax Plant; Onondaga County, N.Y.-Shredding Systems;
Dekalb County, N.Y.-Shredding System; Guilford County, N.C.-Shredding System; Monmouth County,
N.J.—Shredding Systems; Chicago, 111.—Secondary Fuel Shredding; St. Louis, Mo.—Ferrous Nuggetizer
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Carborundum began solid waste resource and energy recovery activities in the late 1960's by developing and
acquiring the technology which led to the Torrax pyrolysis process. An EPA grant was obtained through which the
process was demonstrated at nearly full scale starting in 1971. In 1973, the Eidal shredder product line was
acquired. These products are marketed through the Solid Waste Conversion Division and licensees in Japan,
Norway, Brazil, and Europe. Eidal shredders are offered separately or as part of integrated feeding, takeaway, and
ferrous separation systems. Torrax pyrolysis systems are offered as process equipment systems or in "full service"
packages. Carborundum will offer to operate and possibly finance Torrax plants where an acceptable business
arrangement can be negotiated.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 61
NAME OF FIRM: Carrier Corporation
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Waterwall incineration
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Dempster Bros., Inc., Elliott Company
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Air conditioning
SALES: $876 million (1973)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Knoxville, Ky.-transfer station; Nashville, Tenn.-
cooling equipment for Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp. project
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Carrier Corporation has entered the resource recovery industry through the supply of refrigeration
equipment to the Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp. project and the acquisition of Dempster Bros., Inc.
Carrier is the prime contractor of a proposed mid-town district heating and cooling system in Syracuse, N.Y.,
which will use refuse as its primary fuel.
In addition, Dempster Division has received a contract from the Union Electric Company to supply 450
refuse containers, and compactors and ejectors for the Solid Waste Utilization System in St. Louis.
-------
62 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Combustion Engineering, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime contractor/equipment supplier
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Steam generation
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: CE Lumnus, CE Maguire, CE Raymond/Bartlett Snow
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Steam generation systems and equipment
SALES: $1,273 million (1973)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: St. Louis, Meramec boiler modifications, Ames, Iowa,
boiler
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
CE's emphasis has been in fossil fuel steam generation systems for utilities and industries. Nuclear systems
facilities production has experienced recent slowdowns due to deferred delivery dates requested by utilities. Fossil
fuel units, especially coal-fired steam generation equipment, have been in high demand.
CE has R&D efforts primarily in coal gasification and coal liquefaction, but also has developed the use of 27
different waste materials - from carbon monoxide to paper liquor - as fuel products.
CE is most interested in providing equipment or design, management, and construction services for resource
recovery processes, particularly as they pertain to boiler operations.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 63
NAME OF FIRM: Combustion Equipment Associates
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Eco-Fuel and Eco-Fuel II, Double Vortex Burner
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Arnold M. Diamond, Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Industrial Pollution Control Systems-32.4% of sales, 1974; Environmental
Products-32.3% of sales, 1974; Combustion/Energy Systems-13.6% of sales, 1974; Agri-Division-16.1% of
sales, 1974; Misc.-5.6% of sales, 1974
SALES: $87 million (1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Cambridge, Mass.: Pilot plant; East Bridgewater,
Mass.: Demonstration; New Britain, Conn.; Housatonic Valley, Conn.: Selected for Full Scale; Hackensack
Meadowlands, N.J.: Recommended
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
CEA has experienced tremendous recent growth. Activities in resource recovery have greatly expanded,
although revenues have been minimal. An exclusive agreement has been made with Arthur D. Little, Inc., for
research and development assistance through the year 1987. As part of this agreement, CEA owns all patented
inventions developed by the venture.
CEA entered the industry as a result of its involvement with design and supply of environmental control
hardware, and the joint problems presented by environmental concerns and the energy crisis. CEA has contracted
to sell its fuel products to Weyerhauser Paper Co., Fitchburg, Mass., and Synthane Taylor Co., Valley Forge, Pa.
Proposals for full resource recovery services have been submitted to Cleveland, Ohio, Haverhill, Mass., and Dade
Co., Fla.
CEA estimates annual gross operating revenues from products and services of its resource recovery facilities
to be $35 million (excluding inflation) by 1978. Its 1974 R&D expenditure was $1.59 million (1.8 percent of
sales).
-------
64 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Detroit Stoker Company
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Refuse burning equipment
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: United Industrial Corporation
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Development and manufacture of solid fuel and refuse burning equipment
SALES: $76 million (1974, United Industrial Corp.)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Nashville, Tenn.-stoker/grate systems; Hamilton,
Ontario-fuel supply systems, traveling grates; Norfolk, Va.-stoker/grate systems; Portsmouth, Va.-stoker/
grate systems; Harrisburg, Pa.-crane grapples, many industrial refuse stokers
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Detroit Stoker Company has been involved in development and supply of refuse burning equipment,
especially stokers and grates, since the 1940's. Recently they have expanded into manufacture of related
components and systems for materials handling. Their expanded line of resource recovery related equipment
includes: reciprocating grates, feeding equipment, ash conveying systems and buckets and grapples.
In addition to their standard items, Detroit Stoker manufactures a number of specialty items such as valves,
spouts, and pumps, and also many specially fabricated components such as storage bins, hoppers, ducting, dampers
and grates.
Detroit Stoker equipment is available for either spreader firing or mass burning: Equipment is installed for
burning of bituminous and lignite, also industrial byproduct wastes such as bark, wood, bagasse, and furfural
residue in addition to municipal refuse. Oil can be co-fired in many models.
Detroit Stoker supplies equipment primarily to industrial refuse burning operations such as pulp and paper
mills.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 65
NAME OF FIRM: Dings Magnetic Group
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Manufacturer
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Magnetic separators
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Wehr Corporation
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Industrial Magnetic Systems; Power Transmission Equipment
SALES: $50 million (1974, Wehr Corp.)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: New Castle, Del.-shredding plant; Ames, Iowa-
magnetic separators; Toronto -shredding/benefication facility; Hamilton, Ontario-magnetic separators
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Dings has been developing magnetic equipment since 1899. Its main contribution to resource recovery
systems is a V-shaped magnetic separator with a Durabelt,* stainless steel belt. Such separators have operated in
New Castle, Delaware, and will be operated in Ames, Iowa, and Toronto, Canada.
-------
66 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: J. W. Greer toe.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Manufacturer
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Materials Handling System
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Australian and British affiliates
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Equipment design and manufacture
SALES: $15 million (1974 - Greer, Worldwide); $1 million from z-bar conveyor systems
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: 17 operating conveyor systems in the U.S.
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Greer manufactures Gifford-Wood materials handling systems, featuring z-bar conveyors. The systems are
designed to order for standard to heavy-duty specifications, and for a variety of speeds. Greer offers the z-bar
conveyors worldwide. The company also supplies shredders and compactors to the paper industry but has no
current plans for adapting these equipment items for solid waste handling.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 67
NAME OF FIRM: Gruendler Crusher and Pulverizer Company
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Material Handling and Reductive Equipment
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: N/A
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Engineering & Manufacture of Material Handling & Reduction Equipment
SALES: N/A
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: St. Louis Demonstration Project, shredder; New
Castle County, Delaware
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Gruendler has been manufacturing material handling and reduction equipment since 1885. They produce
shredding equipment for use in shred/landfill or front-end processing operations. Gruendler designs layouts for
reduction systems, either single-stage, two-stage or three-stage systems. Gruendler's components include heavy duty
refuse shredders, primary and secondary shredders, fine grinders, special materials grinders or chippers, screenings
shredders, screens, magnetic separators, and balers. Gruendler equipment is applicable to landfill, energy recovery,
materials recovery, sewage treatment, and compost processes.
-------
68 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Grumman Ecosystems Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Mechanical Separation
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Grumman Corporation
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Grumman: Aerospace; Ecosystems Group: Environmental Controls Design and
Construction
SALES: $3.7 million (1973, Grumman Ecosystems, Inc.)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Italy (2): Demonstration; Italy: Full Scale; Dade Co.:
Recommended for Full Scale (proposal was subsequently withdrawn by Grumman)
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Grumman's experience in environmental controls comes from design of incinerator liquid waste treatment
processes, and environmental mapping efforts. The Selectomatic Commest System, which operates in Italy, consists
of a classifying and processing system to produce ferrous metals, paper, glass scrap, and animal feed. New
developments are being made in plastics recovery, fiber utilization, and steam production.
Grumman's entry into the industry resulted from the 1973 acquisition of Scientific Ecology, Inc.
Grumman Ecosystems represents about 0.3 percent of total sales of the Corporation.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 69
NAME OF FIRM: Hamnwrmills, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Shredders
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: The Pettibone Corp.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Crushing, Grinding, Pulverizing Equipment
SALES: $187.9 million (1974; Pettibone Corp.)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Harrisburg, Pa.-bulky shredders; Saugus, Mass.-
bulky shredder
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Hammermills has 60 years' experience in supplying municipal and industrial shredding systems. Its shredders
are currently in operation in Eastern United States, Japan, and Northern Europe. Hammermills' patented Bulldog
Shredder features force feeders, hydraulic openings, staggered hammers, and reversible cutter bars. Hammermills
are designed for light or heavy material shredding. The firm also supplies conveyors, feeders, and hoppers.
-------
70 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: TheHeflCo.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Loading, Collection, Compaction, Driers and Shredding
Systems
CORPORATE FORM: Privately held company
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Licensee of Tollemache Company hammermill
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Truck equipment
SALES: $70 million (est. 1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Madison, Wise.-Shred, magnetic separation; Pueblo,
Colorado—shred, magnetic separation; Pompano Beach, Florida—shred, magnetic separation; Lament,
Illinois-shred, magnetic separation; New Orleans, La.-shred, magnetic separation; Great Falls, Montana-
shred, magnetic separation; Charleston, S.C.-shred, magnetic separation; Aberdeen, S.D.-shred, magnetic
separation
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
The Heil Co. has been manufacturing truck bodies and trailer equipment since the early 1900's. Product lines
include mechanical equipment for loading, transporting, and discharging liquid commodities, systems equipment
for collecting, storing, compacting and disposing of solid wastes, and machinery for handling and dehydrating
agricultural and industrial materials.
In recent years a new emphasis has been placed on solid waste disposal equipment, hence, the development
of a refuse disposal mill which sorts and pulverizes wastes. Such equipment is primarily used in preparation of
materials for landfilling, but pulverizing equipment and loading and compacting systems may also be adapted for
resource recovery needs.
Heil has built complete turnkey shredding plants and has made long-term financial arrangements for both
private and municipal sectors in this field. As a company policy the Heil Co. will not enter into operational
contracts but will construct and train operating personnel in both private and public sectors in the recovery field.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 71
NAME OF FIRM: Jeffrey Manufacturing Division
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Manufacturing
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Conveying and process equipment shredders
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Dresser Industries
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Processing equipment for energy, mining, industry, and construction
SALES: $1.4 million (1974, Dresser)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Norfolk, Va.-bulky shredder; Harrisburg, Pa.-refuse
cranes, belt conveyors, bucket elevators; Chicago NW—bulky shredders, pan conveyors
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Dresser Industries produces a wide array of equipment for industry and utilities including air pollution
controls, transmission equipment, cranes, and conveying equipment. Jeffrey's major resource recovery contribution
is shredding and pulverizing. Jeffrey was acquired by Dresser in 1974 and reportedly accounted for a substantial
portion of Dresser's 38 percent sales increase in that year.
Jeffrey provides equipment for complete municipal and industrial shredding systems, and technical assistance
erection services. Manufactured equipments include primary and secondary shredders, OBW shredders, belt
conveyors, steel apron conveyors, vibrating feeders, bucket elevators and other materials handling equipments.
Dresser's growth objectives are to broaden its current areas of expertise and to develop proprietary products.
-------
72 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Mayfran Incorporated
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Conveyor Systems
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Fischer Industries
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Material Handling Equipment
SALES: Unknown, Private Company
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Ames, Iowa-Conveyor; Willoughby, Ohio-Shredder
mill, conveyor system; Akron, Ohio-Transfer stations, Conveyors
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Mayfran supplies refuse conveyor systems appropriate to refuse processing, shredding, or transfer station
operations. It provides turnkey conveyor systems, but primarily supplies to other systems designers such as
Gruendler and American Hoist & Derrick Co. Mayfran has experienced very few problems in equipment supply
limitation.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 73
NAME OF FIRM: Monsanto Enviro-Chem. Systems, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor, turnkey
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Gas Pyrolysis
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Monsanto Corp.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Rubber, chemicals, synthetics, textile manufacturer
SALES: $3.4 billion (1974, Monsanto Corp.)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Baltimore, Md.: full scale, near completion
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
The Monsanto "Landgard" 1,000-TPD system is the first large-scale pyrolysis system to be constructed. An
EPA Grant was awarded to the City of Baltimore for 40 percent of the project cost. Construction began in early
1973; startup operation is scheduled in 1975.
Monsanto developed the proprietary "Landgard" gas pyrolysis process after a concentrated study of resource
recovery needs and technologies. After laboratory tests, a 35-TPD pilot plant was constructed in St. Louis. The
Baltimore gas pyrolysis/steam generation system is a direct scale-up of the pilot, a scale-up not uncommon to
petrochemical and materials processing industries.
The Baltimore system is to be sold to the City by Monsanto. Although Monsanto's original approach was to
promote turnkey facilities, they have changed their approach to adapt to the needs of potential customers.
According to the firm's 10K report, Enviro-Chem. Systems experienced cost difficulties in 1973 and, like many
firms in the industry, solid waste disposal/resource recovery systems are not yet profitable for the firm.
-------
74 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Occidental Research Corporation (ORC)
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor/System Designer
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Shredded fuel, oil pyrolysis, glass, non-ferrous metals
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Occidental Petroleum, Corporation
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: ORC: Energy and minerals research and development
SALES: $5.5 billion (1974, Occidental Petroleum)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: LaVerne, Calif.-4 TPD: Pilot; San Diego,
Calif.-Demonstration under construction, 200-TPD; Bridgeport, Conn.-l,800 TPD peak (9,000 TPW);
Japan-License for demonstration
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
ORC intends to supply design, construction, and operating services for resource recovery. ORC has signed a
contract for full-scale implementation and operation in Bridgeport, Conn., while it is currently constructing a 200
TPD demonstration plant funded by EPA in San Diego, Calif.
Resource recovery represents about one quarter of ORC's to effort. ORC's developmental efforts include air
classification, oil pyrolysis, and eddy current separation of aluminum (RECYC-AL), and froth flotation of glass.
The shredded fuel process which ORC has designed and proposed has the flexibility of being converted to the Flash
Pyrolysis (oil) process when it is fully developed.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 75
NAME OF FIRM: Peabody Gallon: Solid Wastes Division
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supplier
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Refuse Handling and Compaction Equipment/Trucks
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Peabody Galion Inc./Leonard S. Wegman, Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Refuse Handling Equipment/Compactors/Trucks
SALES: $183 million (1974, Peabody Gallon); $53 million (1974 Solid Wastes Division)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Nationwide sales
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
The division produces a wide range of E-Z Pack refuse handling equipment, including compaction vehicles,
stationary compactors, balers and containers, transfer stations, and transfer trailers and compactors. Recently their
volume was cut back in low-margin refuse container products in some areas. Volume was increased in mobile
compaction items. Profit increased greatly in 1974 but the sales growth rate slowed because of a slow rate of
shipments due to: 1) a shortage of steel and truck chassis, 2) a rise in costs, and 3) a shortage of capital among
refuse haulers, especially national agglomerates who slowed equipment buying programs. The group still attained a
strong position in solid waste and truck markets with the introduction of 23 new products, 2 new plants and
expansion of the sales and distribution organization. Peabody, through its subsidiary Leonard Wegman Engineers, is
currently designing large solid waste disposal plants for 16 localities, most with resource recovery activities.
Peabody expects a gain in solid waste equipment sales, due to the growth in solid wastes generation, and
because "the mass material handling concept is still in the early stages of growth."
-------
76 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Raytheon Service Co.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Shredded fuel, aluminum, glass recovery
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Raytheon Corp./Iowa Manufacturing Co.; Badger Co., United
Engineers & Constructors; Electronics, defense systems contractors
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Electronics, defense systems contractors
SALES: $415 million (1973, Raytheon Corp.)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Lowell, Mass.-Selected for demonstration; Monroe
Co., N.Y.-Selected for full scale; S. Essex, Mass.-Planning for full scale
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Raytheon Service Co. has been active in technological development of refuse front and backend processing.
It was selected by EPA for a grant to demonstrate the Bureau of Mines incinerator residue recovery process in
Lowell, Mass. It has been selected by Monroe Co. N.Y. for system management of a 2,000-TPD shredded fuel
facility. Proposals have also been submitted to Lawrence, Mass., and Montgomery Co., Ohio. It is currently
developing technology for combustion of refuse fuel in utility boilers. RSC also has a strong market development
program, particularly for secondary materials. RSC's approach is to provide samples of recoverables to potential
customers for their assessment of product value. The firm offers full resource recovery service, with or without
operation.
RSC indicates strong concern in entering into long-term (20-year) contracts because of uncertainties about
future refuse quantities and composition and markets for recovered products.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 77
NAME OF FIRM: Research Cottrell, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor/Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Shredded fuel, metals, aluminum separation, Electrostatic
precipitators, cooling towers
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Metcalf & Eddy, Consulting Engineers; Sunn, Low, Tom &
Hara, Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Air Pollution Controls-49.5% of sales, 1974; Chimneys-18.0% of sales, 1974;
Cooling Towers-18.4% of sales, 1974; Environmental Engineering-14.1% of sales, 1974
SALES: $165 million (1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Incinerator design-South Bronx, N.Y.; Feasibility
study-Honolulu, Hawaii; Dust collectors, electrostatic precipitator-Norfolk, Va.; Electrostatic precipita-
tors-Montreal & Quebec
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Research Cottrell's objective is to broaden its environmental management and facilities market share.
An RC representative identified the following as obstacles to the industry: municipal government's inability
to enter long-term disposal contracts, the overcautiousness of industry to use other than petroleum-based fuel, and
the lack of legal precedence in negotiation.
Capital availability is not viewed as a critical factor, but tax-exempt status will be required to attract bond
customers.
Research Cottrell recently established a new Refuse Processing Unit to provide planning and long-term
contract service to municipalities in conjunction with Metcalf and Eddy design services. Other RC environmental
efforts include wastewater treatment and air pollution control. RC offers engineering, construction, management,
and operation services. Resource recovery proposals have been submitted to Dade Co., Florida, and Lawrence,
Mass.
-------
78 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Rexnord; Material Handling Division
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Material handling, waste treatment equipment
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Rexnord, Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Power transmission and conveying components
SALES: $442 million (1973 Rexnord); $55.3 million (Material Handling)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Madison-Refuse Reduction Center; Toronto-
Shredding/Beneficiation facility; Ames, Iowa-conveyors; Saugus, Ma.-vibrating conveyors
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Rexnord, Inc. manufactures a number of solid waste handling equipments which may be used in resource
recovery processes: apron conveyors, vibrating conveyor feeds and scrub weigh scales, bucket elevators, jigs, and
various conveyor components, several of which have been installed in the Heil-designed, refuse reduction center in
Madison, Wisconsin.
In 1972, the division decided to discontinue large "turn-key" bulk material conveyor systems work in order
to concentrate on products and equipment for conveyor systems. Production capacities have not been expanded
although increasing demand for material handling equipment makes the division's outlook encouraging.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 79
NAME OF FIRM: Riley Stoker Co.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Manufacturing, Installation
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Steam generation equipment
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: The Riley Co.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Steam generation systems
SALES: $ 112 million (1973, Riley Co.); 68% from steam generation equipment
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Ames, Iowa-boiler; Braintree, Mass.-boilers, grates
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Riley Stoker was acquired by Riley Co. in 1970. Ninety percent of Riley Stoker's sales are related to
manufacturing and installing steam generating systems for public utilities. The other 10 percent is in smaller units
for municipal, investor-owned utilities and industrial power requirements. The large units are often produced to
custom specifications. RSC has entered into many long-term, fixed-price contracts. It considers its three major
competitors to have larger sales and financial resources than RSC, but Riley's wide customer base indicates that
competition is not dangerous. Riley has experienced little shortage of materials because it employs a number of
supplies sources.
A related subsidiary, Environeering, Inc., designs, manufactures, and installs scrubber systems.
-------
80 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: SCA Services, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Shredded fuel
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: N/A
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Refuse collection and disposal
SALES: $166 million (1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Detroit, Mich.-Industrial separation 14 paper
recovery facilities; Fort Wayne, Inc.-Pilot; New Britain, Conn.-Selected for Full Scale
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
SCA's major business is refuse handling services. It currently is expanding its resource recovery focus from
paper baling and recovery to dry fuel and metal recovery. It is also conducting research and development in
pyrolysis, fluidized bed, mechanical and pneumatic separation systems and test firing of the prepared fuel.
Proposals have been submitted to Hackensack Meadowlands, Montgomery Co., Maryland, Philadelphia, Milwaukee,
and Lawrence, Mass.
SCA perceives the following limiters to resource recovery: utility purchase of fuel, slow public sector
procurement, and limited abilities of industry to deal with municipalities. In view of these other delays, equipment
and labor limitations are of minor concern.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 81
NAME OF FIRM: Teledyne National
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Shredded fuel, cellulose, ferrous, aluminum and glass
recovery
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Teledyne, Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Heavy industrial machinery and related tooling, automated process lines,
engineering services, pollution monitoring and other instrumentation, specialty metals, electronics,
insurance, and finance
SALES: $2.4 billion (Teledyne, Inc. 1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Baltimore County, Md.-Full scale-near completion
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Teledyne National has been selected by the Maryland Environmental Service to design, build, and operate a
1,500 ton per day, fully-integrated, resource recovery and manufacturing facility in Baltimore County, scheduled
for start-up in 1975. The project includes recovery of ferrous, cellulosic light fraction, aluminum, and glass, and
manufacturing of refuse-derived fuel and other secondary products. Teledyne National emphasizes market and
product development, both in refuse-derived fuel and secondary cellulosic and glass products, as a complement to
final system design.
-------
82 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Titan Environmental Services
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Steam Recovery
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Titan Group, Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Construction and contracting services
SALES: $62 million (1973 Titan Group, Inc.)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS:
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
After a lengthy corporate study of solid waste systems and services in the nation, Titan created TES through
consolidation of Titan Thermogen Systems, Inc., Titan Resource Recovery Systems, Inc., and Titan Environmental
Operating Services, Inc. The firm is seeking to implement heat recovery by high temperature incineration, steam
recovery and electrical generation. Related technological developments are refuse fired suspension boilers and also
pyrolysis and package incineration, for which Titan is negotiating licenses. Steam recovery proposals have been
submitted to Dade Co., Florida and Lawrence, Mass. TES continues to closely follow Federal, State and local
program activities, focusing upon the institutional issues of implementation and operation.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 83
NAME OF FIRM: Triple/S Dynamics Systems, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Supply
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Conveyors, Separation equipment
CORPORATE FORM: Subsidiary
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Sutton Overstrom Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Separation/processing equipment
SALES: $3 million (est. 1974, Triple/S Dynamics)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Washington, D.C.; EPA/NCRR Pilot: Ft. Wayne, Ind.,
Chicago, 111.
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Triple/S Dynamics manufactures a variety of separation and conveying equipment for agricultural, industrial,
and mineral separation processes. Equipment applicable to solid waste separation processes include rotary screens,
vibrating screens, conveyors, fluidized bed air classifiers, gravity tables, stoners, and the "Vibrolutriator" which will
be demonstrated in the Washington, D.C., incinerator.
-------
84 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Union Carbide, Linde Division
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Gas Pyrolysis: Purox
CORPORATE FORM: Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Union Carbide Corporation
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Hydrocarbons
SALES: $3.9 billion (1973, Union Carbide Corporation)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: S. Charleston, W. Va.; Tarreytown, N.Y., Pilots
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Union Carbide has sponsored extensive development of the Purox oxygen-based has pyrolysis system. Careful
testing is being conducted in the S. Charleston pilot and the company has a conservative implementation effort.
Proposals have been submitted to Dade Co., Florida and Mt. Vernon, N.Y., Seattle, Dutchass County, Honolulu,
Hi., New York City. Other related business includes oxygen production, high temperature combustion and
pyrolysis furnace design, fuel gas treatment, and the Unox wastewater treatment process. Research is being
conducted in co-disposal of sludge and refuse.
U.C. perceives financing to be the most critical industry limiter, because of the high risks, the unwillingness
of cities or industry to extend credit, and the uniqueness of every area's financing options. Federal policies which
could help the industry are perceived as: standardization of State and municipal implementation behaviors, and
financing relief for municipalities.
Funds for development of the Purox process are drawn from Union Carbide's R&D budget of approximately
$77 million (1973).
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 85
NAME OF FIRM: UOP, Inc., formerly Universal Oil Products
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Waterwall Incinerator/Steam Generation/Electric
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: UOP, Procon, Inc.
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Energy, Chemical & Environmental Products
SALES: $418.9 million (1973, UOP)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: IBW Martin Systems-Chicago, Harrisburg, and
world-wide; Procon Construction-San Diego Demonstration
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
UOP's entry into the solid wastes/resource recovery field through Procon, Inc., a wholly owned engineering
and construction subsidiary is considered to be a "logical outgrowth of ecological concerns relating to the
refineries and petrochemical plants that have been Procon's business." The company feels that most resource
recovery work to date has been "consulting in nature," but is now being translated into construction and licensing
operations. Procon has been contracted to build the 200-TPD pyrolysis demonstration project in San Diego.
UOP historically had not sought government-sponsored research contracts, but has recently increased
research in all areas of energy sources, processing and utilization. Total 1973 R&D expenditures amounted to $19
million with R&D personnel equal to 7 percent of total employment.
UOP's offers its design, construction, and management capabilities to resource recovery projects. Although it
has developed no process, it has joined with International Environmental Systems Corporation and Josef Martin
Feuerungsbau G.m.b.H. to propose the Martin steam generation systems similar to the Chicago and Harrisburg
plants.
-------
86 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Waste Management, Inc.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Solid fuel
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: N/A
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Solid Waste Management
SALES: $132 million (1973)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Pompano Beach, Florida-Operational; Philadelphia-
Pilot; Demonstration agreement with Allis Chalmers; New Orleans, La.-Selected
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
WMI concentrates a solid waste management, collection, disposal, and processing, and "intends to be a major
contender for every attractive waste management opportunity that presents itself anywhere in the U.S." Current
recovery facilities include municipal and industrial waste processing, and waste paper processing. Waste gasification
and solid fuel supplements are being developed. A solid waste reduction center has been operational in Pompano
Beach for 3 years. In 1973 WMI entered a joint agreement with Allis Chalmers to demonstrate, construct, and
operate a facility for milling refuse and producing a pipeline quality gas.
The City of New Orleans has selected WMI for a 12-year, 650-TPD resource recovery and shredded waste
disposal contract. WMI will construct and operate a two-phase solid waste reduction and ferrous, aluminum,
color-sorted glass, and fiber recovery plant which is scheduled for completion in early 1976. The facility Recovery
I will be capable of handling up to 750 tons per day. WMI is participating with NRG, Inc. a developmental program
for conversion of methane extracted from a sanitary landfill pipeline quality gas. WMI is also exploring other fuel
recovery technologies, but believes that fuel gas recovery is most promising because expensive modifications in user
boilers are unnecessary.
WMI has been involved in industrial waste separation and processing for a number of years, and although
municipal wastes processing requires different technologies, WMI can use its experience and existing marketing
channels for sale of recovered products.
-------
PROFILE DATA SHEETS 87
NAME OF FIRM: Wheelabrator-Frye Corp.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Prime Contractor
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS/EQUIPMENT: Waterwall Incineration/Steam Generation/Electric Power
CORPORATE FORM: Parent Company with Energy Systems Division
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: Rust Engineering
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Environmental Controls, Graphics
SALES: $257 million (1974, Wheelabrator-Frye Corp.); $132 million (Environmental Systems)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: Saugus, Mass.-1200 TPD under construction;
Braintree, Mass.-electrostatic precipitator; New Jersey Central Power-contract for electric power
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Wheelabrator-Frye views resource recovery as a natural extension of its pollution control business.
Wheelabrator is licensee for the proprietary Van Roll Std. technology for waterwall incineration and steam
generation. A number of subsidiaries add to Wheelabrator's strengths in growing with the industry. These are:
• Ruse Engineering - Design and Engineering
• Lurgi licensee for Electrostatic precipitators
• Wheelabrator Financial Corp.
Wheelabrator-Frye is fully committed to steam or electric energy recovery of solid waste. It will provide
operation services in addition to design and construction.
Wheelabrator's marketing philosophy is to concentrate on high population density metropolitan areas in the
East. It further believes that a market for energy must be committed prior to construction. Finally, Wheelabrator
has been willing to provide private financing in a number of areas.
Proposal efforts by Wheelabrator-Frye, Energy Systems Division, include Dade County, Florida; New Haven,
Connecticut; Pittsburg, Pa.; Central New Jersey; and Philadelphia, Pa.
-------
88 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM: Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Co.
TYPE OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICE: Equipment Manufacturer
CORPORATE FORM: Parent
NAME OF PARENT/RELATED SUBSIDIARIES: N/A
MAJOR LINE OF BUSINESS: Manufacture of size reduction equipment
SALES: $8 million (est., 1974)
LOCATION AND STATUS OF COMMITTED PROJECTS: St. Louis, Mo.-shredders
DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITY
Williams promotes design and manufacture of shredders for solid waste processing. About 20 current orders
for large (50 TPH) shredders are indicated, including 14 for the Union Electric S.W.U.S. project.
-------
APPENDIX IV
LISTINGS OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS FOR CURRENT
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS1
Solid Waste Recovery System, Ames, Iowa
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Primary-shredder feed conveyor
Shredders, 2
Shredder discharge conveyors, 2
Second stage feed conveyor
Magnetic-metal separators, 3
Air classification system
Pneumatic conveying systems, 5
Refuse storage bin
Noncombustibles separation system
Separation-system conveyors, 12
Separation-system bucket elevators, 5
Boilers (existing), 3
Gibbs, Hill, Durham & Richardson, Inc.
Mayfran, Inc.
American Pulverizer, Co.
Rexnord, Carrier Division
Rexnord, Carrier Division
Dings, Co.
Radar Pneumatics, Inc.
Pneumatic Systems, Inc.
Atlas Systems, Corp.
Combustion Power, Co.
Fairfield Engineering, Co.
Fairfield Engineering, Co.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Riley Stoker, Corp.
Union Iron Works, Co.
Solid Waste Utilization System, St. Louis, MO.
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Raw-refuse receiving conveyor
Belt conveyors
Vibrating feeders & conveyors
Shredder
Air classification system
Pneumatic transport equipment
Storage bin
Nuggetizer
Receiving bin
Pneumatic transport equipment
Storage bin
Boilers (existing), 2
Homer & Shifrin, Inc.
Le-Co, Inc.
Continental Conveyor, Co.
Borg-Warner Corp., Stephens-Adamson
Div.
Gruendler Crusher & Pulverizer, Co.
Radar Pneumatics, Inc.
Radar Pneumatics, Inc.
Miller Hofft, Inc.
Eidal, Corp.
Miller Hofft, Inc.
Radar Pneumatics, Inc.
Atlas Systems, Corp.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
*Schwieger, R. G. Power from waste; special report. Power, 119(2):22-23, Feb. 1975.
89
-------
90
RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
RESCO North Shore Facility, Saugus, MA
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Refuse-pit cranes, 2
Bulky-refuse shredder
Stoker/grate systems, 2
Boilers, 2
Electrostatic precipitators, 2
Drag conveyors, 2
Trommel screens, 2
Magnetic-metal separators, 2
Vibrating conveyors, 2
Belt conveyors, 2
Rust Engineering, Co.
Harnischfeger, Corp.
Hammermills, Inc.
Von Roll AG
Dominion Bridge, Co.
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
Rust Engineering, Co.
Beaumont Birch, Co.
Eriez Magnetics
Rexnord Carrier Div.
Rust Engineering, Co.
Thermal Transfer Plant, Nashville, TN
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Stoker/grate systems, 2
Boilers, 2
I. C. Thomasson & Associates, Inc.
Detroit Stoker, Co.
Babcock & Wilcox, Co.
Salvage Fuel Boiler Plant, Norfolk, VA
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Refuse-pit crane
Bulky-refuse shredder
Stoker/grate systems, 2
Boilers, 2
Dust collectors, 2
Electrostatic precipitators, 2
Drag conveyors
Metcalf & Eddy Construction Engineers
Harnischfeger, Corp.
Jeffrey Manufacturing, Co.
Detroit Stoker, Co.
Foster-Wheeler, Corp.
Research-Cottrell, Inc.
Research-Cottrell, Inc.
Beaumont Birch, Co.
Refuse Disposal Boiler Plant, Portsmouth, VA
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Stoker/grate systems, 2
Boilers, 2
Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
Detroit Stoker, Co.
E. Keeler, Co.
-------
EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS FOR CURRENT RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
91
Harrisburg Incinerator, Harrisburg, PA
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Refuse-pit cranes, 2
Crane grapples, 2
Bulky-refuse shredder
Refuse-shredder turbine drive
Stoker/grate systems
Boilers, 2
Electrostatic precipitators, 2
Water-bath ash dischargers, 2
Belt conveyors for ash, 2
Bucket elevators for ash, 2
Magnetic-metal separators, 2
Air-cooled condensers
Gamnett, Fleming, Corddry & Carpenter,
Inc.
Dresser Industries, Inc.
Dresser Stoker, Co.
Hammermills, Inc.
Elliott, Co.
Josef Martin GmbH
Walther GmbH
Rothemuehle-Walther GmbH
Josef Martin GmbH
Jeffrey Manufacturing, Co.
Jeffrey Manufacturing, Co.
Eriez Magnetics
Marley, Co.
Northwest Incinerator, Chicago, IL
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Refuse-pit cranes, 3
Bulky-refuse shredder
Stoker/grate systems, 4
Boilers, 4
Electrostatic precipitators, 4
Water-bath ash dischargers, 4
Pan conveyors, 2
Metcalf & Eddy Construction Engineers
Harnischfeger, Corp.
Jeffrey Manufacturing, Co.
Josef Martin GmbH
Walther GmbH
Rothemuehle-Walther GmbH
Josef Martin GmbH
Jeffrey Manufacturing, Co.
Thermal Waste Conversion Station, Braintree, MA
Equipment Item
Supplier
Consulting Engineer
Refuse-pit crane
Stoker/grate systems, 2
Boilers, 2
Electrostatic precipitators, 2
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Harnischfeger, Corp.
Riley Stoker, Co.
Riley Stoker, Co.
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
-------
92 RESOURCE RECOVERY: THE INDUSTRY AND ITS CAPACITY
Incinerator-3, Montreal, Ont., Canada
Equipment Item Supplier
Refuse-pit cranes, 2 Dominion Bridge, Co.
Bulky-refuse crusher Von Roll AG
Vibrating feeders, 4 Schneck AG
Stoker/grate systems, 4 Von Roll AG
Boilers, 4 Dominion Bridge, Co.
Electrostatic precipitators, 4 Research-Cottrell, Ltd.
Drag conveyors, 2 Dominion Bridge, Co.
Trommel screens, 2 Beaumont Birch, Co.
Air-cooled condensers, 7 Trane, Co.
Incinerator Plant, Quebec City, Que., Canada
Equipment Item Supplier
Consulting Engineer Surveyor, Nenniger & Chenevert
Stoker/grate systems, 2 Von Roll AG
Boilers, 2 Dominion Bridge, Co.
Electrostatic precipitators, 2 Research-Cottrell, Ltd.
Canadian Facilities, Hamilton, Ont., Canada
Equipment Item Supplier
Consulting Engineer Gordon L. Sutin & Associates, Ltd.
Refuse-pit apron conveyors, 4 Rex Chainbelt, Ltd.
Pulverizers, 4 Heil, Co.
Belt conveyors Rex Chainbelt, Ltd.
Magnetic-metal separators, 2 Eriez Magnetics, Dings, Co.
Shredded-refuse storage bin Atlas Systems, Corp.
Shredded refuse fuel-supply systems, 4 Detroit Stoker, Co.
Traveling grates, 2 Detroit Stoker, Co.
Boilers, 2 Babcock & Wilcox, Ltd.
Electrostatic precipitators, 4 Babcock & Wilcox, Ltd.
ua!293
SW-501c
------- |