-------
- 27 -
423
EirV/VMP/78.5
Second, the city authorities buy recoverable waste from
citizen groups at a higher price than the market price, which
means that the citizen groups are able to make better deals.
The categories of waste purchased by the city authorities
are: waste paper (newspapers, magazines, cardboard;, reusable
bottles, cans, ferrous metals and clothes.
Frequencies of collection depend on the situation of each
group - 4/'x-'5 times a year in the active groups.
The collection and transportation of recoverable wastes
are conducted by commercial recycling dealers.
The flow chart of the procedure of this scheme is given
in Figure V.
1.
(iv) Costs and effects of group collection of recoverable
waste
Effects
The amount recovered between April 1977 to 1-Tovember 1977
(nine months) was 770 tons.
I • • •' *
i
I Paper
Magazines
j Bottles
j Ferrous
| metal
Clothes
Total
Amount Purchased
(kg)
402,323
107,699
94,012
123,395
42,794
770,228
Percentage
I
!
52#
14^
12^
I6?o
6$
100# \
139 groups participated
2§0 collections made
2.
.Costs for resource, recovery
(a) Cost of purchasing recoverable waste
The city paid 8 yen/leg (£.40/ton) for the purchase of
recove'rable waste from citizen groups irrespective of the con-
tents. The city then sold the recoverable waste to the dealers
the current market pric
betv:ee:: July and September 1977 was:
The current ui~.it market price
-------
424
ENY/WMP/78.5
- 28 -
FIGURE V : -FLOW CHART OF GROUP COLLECTION OF R5COV5RABL3 WASTES
Local
Citizens'
GrouD
Public
Relations
Decide the place
for collection
e.g.
Municipal Group
P.T.A.
Senior Citizens'
Grout)
In order to get
better understanding
and cooperation of
as many people as
possible, they ask
for the cooperation
of such organisations
as local community
groups
City Authority
Pay on the y&asis
of estimated price
or standarA price
(which ev/r is
higher)
Local
Citizens'
Groups
Pay on the
basis of
estimated
price
Dealers
The group ir.fonns
city authority of
the date and place
of collection
'City, dealers
local groups {
Measurement
of Waste
City authority informs
dealers' association
of the time and Dlace
-------
- 29 -
425
EiTV/l/MP/78.5
Cardboard, newspapers
Magazines
Reusable bottles
Ferrous metals
Clothes
8 yen/kg
4
3
3
15
The flow of money for purchasing recoverable waste between
April 1977 to November 1977 is shown below:
Local citizen
Groups
Recoverable waste 770 tons
' —--—""Y476"35","2
(523,176)
-j i x >jt—M.--*»ym, • i .» i •—*_u
¥^,16TTS24
(§•30,809)
(¥8,000/ton)r«-
(320/ton)
(¥6,018/ton)
(830/ton)
Secondary
Material
Dealers
City authorities paid the difference of ¥1,526,593 (^7,633)
or ¥1,982/ton (.^9.9/ton).
(b) Costs for disposing of waste
1976
Collection and
Transportation
Incineration
Crushing
; landfill
,
(ton)
Amount Treated
54,980
54,668
9,031
17,464
(thousand yen)
Costs for
Treatment
1
538,079
(32,690)
146,266
(0731)
65,060
($325)
22,590
(;,113)
Costs for I
Treatment/ton
Yen U)
9,787
($48.9)
2,^676
7,163
(i35.8)
J''233)
V. it1 « -? /
3.
Evaluation of costs and effects
(a) The city authorities paid 1,932 yen (09.9)/ton for
purchasing recoverable wcste. However, at the same tine, they
saved the costs of collection, transportation, incineration and
landfill for combustible waste, i.e. 13,756 yen (C.68.8)/tor
(= 9,737 yen + 2,676 yen + 1,293 yen). For non-combustible
waste they saved the costs of collection transportation, crushing
and landfill, i.e. 10,244 (091)/ton (= 9,737 + 7,163 + 1,295).
The weight reduction of waste in the incineration
process has not been taken, into account. Cost savings have been
calculated as if all the ucste collected had gor.e directly for
landfill. Although this is conewhct overestimated , the over-
estimation does not affect the overall evaluation very Liueh.
-------
426
ENV/UMP/78.5 - .30 -
The actual amount of recoverable waste purchased in
FY 1977 was 1,204 ton and of that 70 per cent was combustible,
the rest was non-combustible, thus the total saving would amount
to 18,183,283 yen ($90,916).
Note; 1,204 tona x 0.7 x ¥13,756 = ¥11,593,556
1,204 tons x 0.3 x ¥18,244 = ¥^£
¥18,183,288
The net saving would be ¥15,796,960 (£78,953).
.Note: 18,183,288 - 1,982 x 1,204 = 15,796,960
(78,935)
(b) Effects on waste 'reduction
Since the total weight of waste collected in FY 1977 is
56,167 tons, the ratio of waste recovered by this group collec- •
tion scheme is 2.1 per cent. This does not seem very much.
However, we have to note that this has been conducted by the
activity of voluntary groups. (Other than this group collection
scheme, 1',016 tons of ferrous metal is recovered at the muni-
cipally owned crushing facility.)
(c) The city authorities give an economic incentive
for group collection of recoverable waste by purchas-
ing it at a price somewhat higher than the market price,
The local citizen groups benefit by this scheme
as they can get the difference between the price
offered by the city and the existing market price.
Between April to ITovember 1977, about 1,500,000 yen
(07,500) was redistributed to the local citizen-
groups , the resource for which is of course tax
collected from residents.
How to evaruate this income redistribution effect? If
we consider the activities carried out by the local citizen
groups simply as discharge of waste, then it would not be
acceptable to give economic incentives. However, since their
activities contribute to the reduction of waste and consequently
saving of municipal expenditure for waste disposal, it would be
Appropriate to regard their activitias as pollution abatement
activities, so that subsidies to these local citizen groups
would be justifiable.
(v) Evaluation of the scheme
In this scheme, the role played by voluntary groups should
be highly evaluated.
Secondly, by the co-operation of voluntary citizen groups
and the association of recycling dealers, this scheme, to date
succeeded in saving municipal expenditure for waste management.
-------
427
EI7V/WMP/78.5
III. COITCLUSIOTTR
In principle, recycling should be promoted. In practice,
however, there are differences in its logic for residents, pri-
vate firms, municipalities and the national government. What
role should each participant play and what kind of economic
system should "be sought? Japanese municipal experiences,
although recent phenomena, give some -insight to these questions.
(i) Introduction of various resource recovery schemes
started in response to crisis situations rather than
as a considered response to cost reduction possi-
bilities. However, some cities achieved modest, if
not dramatic, cost savings as a result of the schemes.
(llote here that there are difficulties in cost com-
parisons as municipal budget and expenditure data
do not represent,the full economic cost of resources
devoted to waste management due to the accounting
practices).
Introduction of various schemes stimulated overall
reassessment of waste management administration as
well as reorientation of environmental administration
as a whole. It is also reported that the conscious-
ness of civil servants engaged in waste collection
and management is seen as well as the increased
awareness of citizens concerning resource reoovery.
(ii) The schemes employed, vary from one city to another
depending on local circui-istances. Factors which
might affect the schemes and the choice of organi-
sation as well as economic viability of these schemes
are:
(a) the availability and competence of recycling
dealers;
(b) the level of public participation, especially
voluntary activities from citisen groups;
(c) the level of source segregation;
(d) the availability of landfill sites;
(e) secondary material marlcet situation.
(iii) The utilisation of expertise of private recycling
firms should be er.couraged. The choice of the scheme
or the choice of the organisation depends on local
circumstances. It is reported that in Ilatano city
an innovative recycling dealer, without any help
from city authorities v/as very successful in collect-
ing and recycling recoverable waste. They have
collected and recovered about 10 per cent of
the total amount of waste collected in the city.
Therefore, whether subsidy of any form is necessary or
not depends on the local situation.
-------
428
EH7/WMP/78.5 - 32 -
(iv) All the successful experiences found v/ere in the
medium or small sized cities. The applicability
of the experiences into big cities should be con-
sidered, together with its possible impact on secon-
dary material markets.
(v) The role of central government in encouraging these
schemes should be sought. Information and experience
could be collected and disseminated by setting up a
model city and undertaking a pilot project.
(vi) Japanese experiences heavily depend on unique
Japanese circumstances such as shortage of landfill
sites and severe pollution regulations. However,
other Member countries may face similar situations
in the near future as we have seen in California,
In that sense there are lessons to be learnt from
Japanese experiences.
-------
429
- 33 - ENV/WIP/7S.5
1. . Brief Report of Source Separation in Japan, Eiji Tanaka.
• Do Tank Dynacs Co. Ltd., Tokyo. June 1973.
2. Shigenlca Handbook (Handbook for Resource Recovery).
Haikibutsu Shigenka Kenkyukai (Stud3>- Group for the
Resource Recovery from Waste). Tokyo. March 1978.
3. The Privatisation of Public Services: Solid Waste and
Waste Water Disposal, Suraner Myers et al.,
El-nr/URB-US/78.104.
4. Financing of Municipal Services Collecting Household and
Allied Types of Waste, Alain Chambournier,
E1TV/ZJRB-US/107.
5. Municipal Waste: Economic Aspects of Technological
Alternatives, Joan Wilcox in Resource Convervation,
Social and Economic Dimensions of Recycling, edited by
David W. Pearce and Ingo Walter, Hev.r York, 1977.
6. The Economics of Refuse Collection, P. Semper and
J.M. Quigley, Cambridge, Mass. 1976.
7. Resource Recovery from Post-consumer Waste in Japan,
Kunitoshi Sakurai. Paper presented to the third
Ja nan -U.S. Conference on Solid Waste Management, May
1976, Tokyo.
8. The Report to the Japan Industrial Technique Promotion
Co-operation, S. Goto and E. Tanaka, 1976.*
-------
430
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 'PLANS
Georcje A. Garland
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
The following paper is excerpted from the U.S.-EPA
Guidelines for Development and Implementation of State Solid
Waste Management Plans proposed in the Federal Register
August 28, 1978 (copy enclosed). Public comments were
solicitated throughout the nation and the final guidelines will
be published in June 1979 We welcome any comments and
discussion by the Japanese government on the scope, definitions
and management aspects of the proposed rules. There are» a number
of important issues raised by these proposed guidelines. Three
of these issues, discussed below, are abandoned sites, State
and substate agency roles in facility planning and implementation,
and resource conservation and recovery.
Abandoned facilities. Abandoned, inactive disposal
facilities have caused significant adverse health and
environmental effects. Therefore, these guidelines state
that abandoned facilities that continue to produce such effects
are subject to State regulation and corrective action. The
State plan need not provide for Statewide surveillance and
monitoring to determine locations of all abandoned facilities;
rather, the investifation of abandoned facilities should be
directed at those sites with a high potential for causing severe
health or environmental problems, such as leachate contamination
-------
431
of drinking water supplies and explosions from accumlated
gases.
It is recognized that it may be very difficult to take
enforcement action with respect to abandoned facilities
because ownership may have been transferred or relinquished,
and legal liability and financial responsibility may be
difficult to establish. Therefore, if corrective actions by
facility owners or operators cannot be brought about, public
agencies should take necessary measures to protect public
health and safety. This should include, as a minimum,
notification* of adjacent residents and other affected parties
of the potential health or environmental hazards.
Recognizing the difficulties of correcting or upgrading
abandoned facilities, preventive measures should be taken
before facilities become inactive. The guidelines require
the State plan to provide* for facility closure procedures to
eliminate or minimize adverse health or environmental effects.
Facility owners or operators should be required to comply
with such procedures through the facility permit or registration.
State and substate agency responsibilities for facility
planning and implementation. These guidelines require that
the State plan provide for adequate resource recovery and
disposal facilities and practices necessary to use or dispose
of solid waste in an environmentally sound manner. These
-------
432
guidelines also recommend a number of actions that could be
undertaken to help assure that the necessary facilities and
services are in fact provided for.
In complying with this requirement, it is important to
strike an appropriate balence between public and private
sector activities. These guidelines do not favor one over
the other. In some parts of the country, private sector
initiatives may be sufficient to insure that the needed
facilities are available. However, in other instances,
there may be a need for greater involvement should include
an awareness of private sector activities in order to determine
whether public sector involvement in facility planning and
implementation is necessary.
EPA 'recognizes that there is an established solid waste
management industry offering a wide range of services,
including the design, construction, and operation of processing,
treatment, transport, disposal, and recovery facilities. It
is not the intent of these guidelines that teh public sector
needlessly supplant or duplicate activities of the private
sector. State and substate agencies are encouraged to establish
policies for free and unrestricted movement of solid waste across
jurisdictional boundaries and procedures for sharing information
useful to prospective and established entrepreneurs, as well as
to provide relevant planning information to industry regarding
population and waste generation trends, environmental conditions
-------
433
and other topics that would assist in the establishment of
financially and environmentally sound facilities.
The guidelines recommend a Statewide assessment of the
adequacy of existing facilities and an evaluation of the need
for new or expanded facilities. The guidelines purposely leave
it up to State discretion whether this needs assessment is to
be conducted by State or substate agencies or by a combination
of the two. Where facilities and practices are found to be
inadequate, actions should be taken to help ensure that needed
facilities are developed by State or substate agencies or by
the private sector. For areas found to have five or fewer years
of capacity remaining, more detailed planned should be carried
out, including evaluation of technologies and site locations.
Implementation schedules also should be developed.
Where there is less than two years' projected capacity,
teh State should have the authority to acquire facilities or
cause facilities to be acquired.. It is recognized that facility
acquisition activities have traditionally been the responsibility
of regional and local governments. However, recent experience
indicates that it is becoming more and more difficult for
substate governments to obtain sites for solid waste disposal
facilities. This is especially true for facilities that store,
treat, or dispose of hazardous wastes. Therefore, it is
important for the State plan to explore options for more direct
State control over siting and facility development if local
-------
434
government and private sector initiatives fail. EPA invites
comment on methods .for the State to obtain greater control
over facility acquisition; such methods could include obtaining
the authority to override local zoning law's or to contract
directly for facilities and services, requiring facility
permits to conform to regional plans developed under the
State plan, or instituting a public utility agency to regulate
the supply of services.
Resource conservation and recovery. One of the major
objectives of the guidelines is to encourage resource recovery
and resource conservation. These terms are defined as
follows:
Resource recovery: The recovery of material' and energy
from solid waste.
Resource conservation: The reduction of the amounts of
solid waste that are generated, the reduction of overall
resource consumption, and the utilization of recovered
resources.
These guidelines establish several requirements for State plans
directed toward achieving this objective.
The guidelines require the State plan to provide for the
development of a policy and strategy to encourage resource
recovery and resource conservation. This strategy should focus
on removing existing technical, economic, and institutional
constraints that impede increased resource recovery and conservation
State activities in this area could include technical assistance,
training, information development and dissemination, financial
-------
435
support programs, and programs to develop markets for recovered
materials and energy.
The Act requires State plans to ensure that local
governments are not prohibited under State or local law from
entering into long-term contracts for supplying solid waste
to resource recovery facilities. This section reflects the
concern that the development of resource recovery facilities
has been hindered by restrictive procurement laws. The
guidelines recommend that the State plan provide for State
agency review of pertinent State and local statutes, and for
the development of a strategy for eliminating the long-term
contracting restrictions. It is recognized that States and
State agencies may have limited ability to modify local
procurement laws. Therefore, cooperation of local governments
and public education and participation are important in
meeting this requirement.
The guidelines require State agencies to purchase items
composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials
practicable, whenever Federal funds are used for such purchases.
These guidelines allow States to delay in complying with
this requirement until EPA issues additional guidelines
which will recommend procedures for purchasing recovered
materials and provide information on their availability and
uses. These guidelines also recommend that the State plan
provide for the development of a policy to encourage procurement
. of recovered materials and examination of potential uses of
-------
436
recovered materials by State purchasing agencies.
It is recognized that State solid waste management
agencies are generally not involved in procurement practices
and policies. Therefore, the State plan should indentify the
agencies with responsibility in this area and provide for
the necessary actions by such agencies in order to meet this
requirement.
The guidelines recommend resource recovery and resource
conservation as the preferred methods of solidwaste management
whenever technically and economically feasible. While
resource recovery and conservation may reduce land disposal
needs, however, these methods will not eliminate the need
for land disposal. It is expected that in the near future,
resource recovery and conservation will have only a limited
impact on the solid waste generated nationwide. Therefore,
there will continue to be a need for environmentally sound
land disposal facilities in order to meet the objectives of
the Act.
-------
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
PART IV
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STATE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Guidelines for
Development and
Implementation
-------
38534
PROPOSED RULES
[6560-01J
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 256]
[FRL 922-1]
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLE-
MENTATION OF STATE SOLID WASTE MAN-
AGEMENT PLANS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This proposed regulation
contains guidelines for the develop-
ment and implementation of State
solid waste management plans. These
guidelines are required by section
4002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976
(the "Act"). States are eligible to re-
ceive financial assistance under subti-
tle D of the Act if the State plan has
been approved by EPA. This proposed
regulation establishes the require-
ments for State plans and recom-
mends methods and procedures to
meet those requirements. As set forth
in the Act, the State plan must pro-
vide for the identification of State,
local, and regional responsibilities for
solid waste management, the encour-
agement of resource recovery and con-
servation and the application and en-
forcement of environmentally sound
disposal practices.
DATE: Comments must be received on
or before November 27,1978.
ADDRESS: The mailing address for
all comments is Office of Solid Waste
(WH-564), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20460, Attention: Mr. George
Garland, docket 4002(b).
Public hearing and meetings: A
public hearing will be held on October
26, 1978, at the Main Auditorium,
General Services Administration
Building, 18th and P Streets NW.,
Washington, D.C., from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.; registration at 8:30 a.m.
. Ten public meetings will be held on
the dates and at the locations shown
below. The public meetings will consist
of a presentation on the proposed
guidelines, followed by a discussion
session.
Date, time, and location
September 13, 1978, 1 to 5 p.m. and 7 to 9
p.m.. Radisson Muehlebach Hotel, Towers
Room 22, 12th and Baltimore Streets,
Kansas City, Mo.
September 18, 1978, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EPA
Regional Office, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Room 12-A, Seattle, Wash.
September 19. 1978, 1 to 5 p.m. and 7 to 9
p.m., EPA Regional Office, 215 Fremont
Street, Sixth Floor, Nevada Conference
Room, San Francisco, Calif.
September 21, 1978. 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EPA
Regional Office, 1860 Lincoln Street, Elm
Room, Ninth Floor. Denver, Colo.
September 26, 1978, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Shera-
ton Biltmore, 817 West Peachtree Street
NE., Atlanta, Ga.
October 4, 1978. 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Conti-
nental Plaza Hotel, 909 North Michigan
Avenue, Windsor Room, Chicago, 111.
October 5, 1978, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.. Ford Foun-
dation, 320 East 43d Street, New York,
N.Y.
October 11, 1978, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EPA Re-
gional Office, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, Room 2003, Boston, Mass.
October 13, 1978, 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., An-
napolis Hilton, Compromise and St.
Mary's Streets, Annapolis, Md.
October 24, 1978, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EPA Re-
gional Office, 1201 Elm Street, First Inter-
national Building, 28th Floor, Dallas, Tex.
Oral or written comments may be
submitted at the public hearing and
meetings. Requests to participate in
the publil* hearing should be directed
to Ms. Gerri Wyer, Public Participa-
tion Officer, Office of Solid Waste
(WH-562), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 401 M Street SW., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460. Persons interested
in attending only the public meetings
need not make a request to partici-
pate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Mr. George Garland at
the above address, 202-755-9125. The
official record of rulemaking (docket
4002(b)) is located in Room 2107, EPA
(WH-564), 401 M Street SW., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460, and is available for
viewing 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays.
All comments received will be filed in
try's docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT AND
REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE PLANS
The objectives of the Act are to pro-
mote the protection of health and the
environment and to conserve valuable
material and energy resources. In
order to accomplish this, the Act sets
forth a national program to improve
solid waste management, including
control of hazardous wastes, resource
conservation, resource recovery, and
establishment of environmentally
sound disposal practices. This is to be
carried out through a cooperative
effort among Federal, State, and sub-
state governments and private enter-
prise.
The' broad scope of this program is
exemplified by the definitions of
"solid was^e," "solid waste manage-
ment," and "disposal" in section 1004
of the Act:
Solid waste: Any garbage, refuse, sludge
from a waste treatment plant, water supply
treatment plant, or air pollution control fa-
cility and other discarded material, includ-
ing solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gas-
eous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural oper-
ations, and from community activities, but
does not include solid or dissolved material
in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved ma-
terials in irrigation return flows or industri-
al discharges which are point sources sub-
ject to permits under section 402 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as amend-
ed (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear,
or byproduct material as defined by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68
Stat. 923).
Solid waste management: "The systematic
administration of activities which provide
for the collection, source separation, stor-
age, transportation, transfer, processing,
treatment, and disposal of solid waste, in-
cluding planning and management respect-
ing resource recovery and resource conser-
vation.
Disposal: The discharge, deposit, injec-
tion, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing
of any solid waste or hazardous waste into
or on any land or water so that such solid
waste or hazardous waste or any constituent
thereof may enter the environment or be
emitted into the air or discharged into any
waters including ground waters.
Section 4002(b) requires the Admin-
istrator to promulgate guidelines for
the development and implementation
of State solid waste management
plans. States are eligible for financial
assistance under subtitle D if the
State plan has been approved by EPA.
Section 4003 establishes the minimum
requirements for approval of State
plans. These requirements include: (1)
The identification of the responsibil-
ities of State, local, and regional au-
thorities in the development and im-
plementation of the State plan; (2) the
prohibition of new open dumps, and
the requirement that all solid waste be
utilized for resource recovery or dis-'
posed of in an environmentally sound
manner; (3) the closing or upgrading
of existing open dumps; (4) the estab-
lishment of State regulatory powers
necessary to implement the State
plan; (5) the elimination of State or
local prohibitions of long-term con-
tracts for the supply of solid waste to
resource recovery facilities; and (6) the
provision of resource conservation, re-
source recovery, or environmentally
sound disposal practices.
Regulations to be promulgated
under sections 4004 and 1008(a)(3) will
provide criteria to be used by the
States in defining those solid waste
disposal practices that constitute open
dumping and are to be prohibited
under the State plan according to sec-
tions 4003 (2) and (3). Section 4005(b)
requires EPA to publish an inventory
of all disposal facilities in the United
States which are open dumps within
the meaning of the Act. Section
4005(c) provides that any facility
listed in the inventory as an open
dump must be closed or upgraded
within 5 years according to a State-es-
tablished schedule containing an en-
forceable sequence of actions leading
to compliance.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY. AUGUST 28. 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
38535
GUIDELINES ORGANIZATION
The guidelines contain seven sub-
parts (A-G). Subpart A presents the
purpose and scope, of the guidelines
and the State plan. It also contains
the procedures for State adoption and
revision and EPA approval of the
State plan. In addition, important
terms are defined.
Subparts B, C, D, and E discuss, re-
spectively, (1) the identification of
State, local, and regional responsibil-
ities, (2) the development of the State
disposal program, (3) the development
of the State resource conservation and
recovery program, and (4) facility
planning and development.
Each of these subparts lists the over-
all requirements for plan approval,
which are based upon the require-
ments of the Act. The requirements
sections are followed by a discussion of
recommended procedures. The re-
quirements use the term "shall." The
recommendations, which are advisory,
use the term "should." The recom-
mendations are provided to assist the
States in developing and implementing
the State plan. Any process which
complies with the requirements of
these guidelines will be acceptable to
EPA for purposes of approval of the
State plan.
Subpart F discusses coordination
with other programs. The broad defi-
nitions of solid waste and disposal
make this coordination especially im-
portant. Subpart P emphasizes coordi-
nation with planning for residuals
management under section 208 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1288), with the National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), under section 402 of that
Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), and with the sur-
face impoundments assessment and
State underground injection control
program under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq.).
Subpart G lists the requirements for
public participation in the develop-
ment and implementation of State and
substate plans.
SCOPE OF STATE PLANS
These guidelines propose that the
State plan address all solid wastes in
the State that pose potential adverse.
effects on health or the environment
or provide opportunity for resource
conservation or recovery. .The plan
should address residential, commer-
cial, and institutional solid waste, haz-
ardous, industrial, mining, and agricul-
tural wates, waste water and treat-
ment sludges, septic tank pumpings,
and other pollution control residues. It
should explore the nature and severity
of these categories of solid wastes and
establish priorities for their manage-
ment.
The State plan should set forth
planning and implementation activi-
ties to be carried out by State and sub-
state agencies.
Planning. Planning is defined in
these guidelines as the process of
"identifying problems, defining objec-
tives, collecting information, analyzing
alternatives, and determining the nec-
essary activities and courses of
action." The includes analysis of solid
waste generation rates and assessment
of the adequacy of existing resource
recovery and disposal facilities and the
need for new or expanded facilities. It
also includes setting priorities for the
management of different wastes, iden-
tifying responsibilities, developing the
necessary legislation and administra-
tive powers to implement the plan,
and planning for State resource con-
servation, recovery, and disposal pro-
grams.
Many of these planning activities
will be carried out by State agencies.
However, substate agencies may need
to conduct specific types of planning
concerning the number and kinds of
facilities needed in particular areas
and the different institutions needed
(e.g., solid waste authorities or dis-
tricts) for managing solid wastes. Sub-
state planning may also be necessary
for establishing coordinated manage-
ment of different waste streams (e.g.,
coincineration of residential solid
waste and municipal sewage sludge) or
for establishing disposal or recovery
facilities for new waste streams (e.g.,
industrial pretreatment residues).1
Substate agencies may need to devel-
op more detailed plans for resource re-
covery and disposal facilities. .These
could include technology assessments,
analysis of markets for recovered re-
sources, economic feasibility studies,
evaluation of alternative sites, geologi-
cal and hydrogeological investigation,
and preliminary engineering and
design studies.
Implementation. Implementation is
defined in these guidelines as "putting.
the plan into practice by carrying out
planned activities or insuring such ac-
tivities are carried out." One aspect of
plan implementation is carrying out
the necessary regulatory activities to
insure that solid wastes are managed
and disposed of in a manner that is
protective of public health and the en-
vironment. This includes developing
health or environmental standards for
facilities, assessing and inspecting fa-
cilities, conducting a permit or regis-
tration program, and carrying out the
necessary enforcement activities. For
the most part, such programs have
been conducted by State agencies, al-
though certain responsibilities (such
as inspections) are sometimes delegat-
ed to local public health agencies.
The State plan will also result in ac-
tivities to encourage resource conser-
vation and resource recovery. This will
include activities to eliminate institu-
tional barriers to recovery facilities
(such as prohibitions to long-term con-
tracts for supplying wastes); activities
to develop markets for recovered ma-
terials (such as State procurement of
products composed of such materials);
and other technical assistance, train-
ing, information development, and fi-
nancial assistance activities. Such ac-
tivities require State, substate, and
private sector involvement.
State plan implementation will also
include actual site preparation and the
construction and operation- of resource
recovery and disposal facilities. In
many parts of the country, these ser-
vices are provided entirely by the pri-
vate sector. However, there are also
substate and State agencies that are
involved in aspects of facility imple-
mentation.
Given the broad scope of the State
plan and the necessary involvement of
a number of agencies and parties, it is
expected that planning and implemen-
tation will be time-phased over a
number of years.
TIME-PHASING OF PLANNING AND IMPLE-
MENTATION .UNDER THE STATE PLAN;
PLAN APPROVAL
These guidelines require that the
State plan be developed within 18
months, that it cover a minimum of a.
5-year time period, and that it be
adopted by the State. (Comment is in-
vited on whether State administrative
procedures adequately address adop-
tion procedures for State plans or
whether approval should be by the
Governor or State legislature.) The
State is to review the plan and, where
necessary, revise and readopt it at
least every 3 years. EPA is to approve
or disapprove State plans and to pro-
vide financial assistance to States if
the State plan has been approved, con-
tinues to be eligible for approval, and
is being implemented by the State.
It will be difficult to completely ful-
fill the requirements of the guidelines
in the near term, given the broad defi-
nitions of disposal and solid waste and
the ambitious goals of insuring envi-
ronmentally sound solid waste disposal
and encouraging resource recovery
and conservation. Time-phasing in-
volves setting priorities among waste
categories and making decisions con-
cerning activities within a category.
Time-phasing should provide for co-
- ordination of planning, regulatory pro-
gram implementation, and facility im-
plementation.
These guidelines require the State
plan to describe the activities to be un-
dertaken within the 5-year period.
Those activities are to be set forth as
specifically as possible and are to in-
clude detailed schedules and miles-
tones.
The overall, goal of the State plan-
ning process is to address planning
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY. AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
38536
PROPOSED RULES
and implementation activities for all
waste categories that pose potential
adverse effects on health or the envi-
ronment or provide opportunity for re-
source conservation or recovery. How-
ever, the plan may postpone planning
and implementation activities for cer-
tain waste categories due to the need
to focus resources on higher priority
categories. The State should deter-
mine which waste categories and activ-
ities have high priority based on: The
current level of management, plan-
ning, and implementation within the
State; the extent of the solid,waste
management problem; the known
health, evnironmental, and economic
impacts; and the resources and man-
agement approaches available. The
State plan may initially concentrate
planning and implementation activi-
ties on the high priority waste catego-
ries.
EPA may approve a State plan
which provides for time-phasing of ac-
tivities in this manner, and which pro-
poses less than full development of
State planning and implementation
activities over the 5-year period, pro-
viding satisfactory justification is • in-
cluded in the State plan.
ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM
The annual work program, submit-
ted with a State's application for fi-
nancial assistance under section
4008(a)(l) of the Act, will provide a
basis for .determining whether the
State plan continues to be eligible for
approval and is being implemented by
the State. The annual work program
(which is described in the grant regu-
lations (40 CFR Part 35)) summarizes
the current year's program and sets
forth activities for the coming year.
Each yea,r, a State's priorities and ac-
tivities should be examined to insure
that the program is directed at achiev-
ing the desired health, enviornmental,
and resource conservation results.
The annual work program repre-
sents a joint agreement between EPA
and the State and presents a mutually
satisfactory statement of reasonable
progress in meeting the requirements
of the Act as expressed in these guide-
lines. It represents a State's obligation
incurred by acceptance of financial as-
sistance and must be developed in con-
sultation with local elected officials
and with public participation.
In order to demonstrate that the
State plan is being implemented, a
number of items developed under the
State plan are to be included by refer-
ence in the annual work program.
These include substate plans, plans for
the development of facilities, and com-
pliance schedules for upgrading or
closing open dumps. Such items are to
be individually listed in the annual
work program and be made available
for review by EPA and by the public.
EPA is considering consolidation of
State work program submissions for
various environmental programs into a
single State/EPA agreement. Com-
ment is invited on the concept of in-
cluding the State solid waste work pro-
gram submission in such a consolidat-
ed agreement.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Sections 4008 and 4009 of the Act
provide for financial assistance under
subtitle D (funding of authorized
•State hazardous waste regulatory pro-
grams is provided under subtitle C of
the Act). Section 4008(a)(l) authorizes
financial assistance for the develop-
ment and implementation of State
plans. The Act states that for this pur-
pose, implementation does not include
the acquisition, leasing, construction
or modification of equipment or facili-
ties, or the acquisition, leasing, or im-
provement of land. Funds appropri-
ated under this section are to be allot-
ted to the States in proportion -to pop-
ulation and are to be distributed by
States to State and substate agencies
based-upon the responsibilities of the
respective parties.
Section 4008(aX2) authorizes finan-
cial assistance to public solid waste
management agencies and authorities
for implementation of programs to
provide solid waste management, re-
source recovery and resource conserva-
tion services and hazardous waste
management. This assistance also does
not cover construction, equipment or
land. Assistance is authorized for
items such as facility planning and
feasibility studies, consultation, sur-
veys, and analyses, technology assess-
ments, legal expenses, construction
feasibility studies, and economic stud-
ies. These grants may be provided
either directly to substate agencies or
through the State. Financial assist-
ance under section 4008(a)(2) may
only be provided for programs certi-
fied by the State as consistent with
the State of substate solid waste man-
agement plan.
Section 4009 authorizes grants to
certain rural communities based upon
population and income. Such funds
may be provided only to communities
that cannot comply with the open
dumping prohibition and cannot feasi-
bly be included in a regional solid
waste management facility. These
funds may be used for construction
and equipment. Section 4008(e) ;also
authorizes financial assistance for im-
provement, conversion or construction
of disposal facilities for communities
having disposal facilities in which
more than 75 percent of the solid
waste disposal is from areas outside of
the jurisdiction of the community.
The Act limits the latter assistance
program to not more than one commu-
nity in every State.
In summary, the Act authorizes fi-
nancial assistance for public agencies
to improve the management of solid
wastes through the development and
implementation of programs to regu-
late solid waste disposal and hazard-
ous waste management, programs to
encourage resource recovery and con-
servation, and programs to plan for
solid waste processing, disposal or re-
covery facilities. Except for a limited
number of communities and in special
circumstances, the Act does not autho-
rize financial assistance for construc-
tion and equipment. There are no
funds authorized for acquisition of
land or for the operation or mainte-
nance of facilities. These costs will
have to be borne directly by State and
substate governments and by solid
waste generators and facility users.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
There are a number of important
issues raised by these proposed guide-
lines that require further elaboration
and explanation. These issues, dis:
cussed below, are the open dump in-
ventory, abandoned sites, State, and
substate agency roles in facility plan-
ning and' implementation, hazardous
waste management and resource con-
servation and recovery.
THE OPEN DUMP INVENTORY AS PART OF
THE STATE PLAN
These guidelines require the State
plan to provide for the classification of
disposal facilities according to the cri-
teria for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities (the criteria; 40 CFR
Part 257) and provide this information
to EPA for publication "in the inven-
tory of'open dumps. Section 4005(b)
requires EPA to publish an inventory
of disposal facilities that are open
dumps but does not specify who is to
conduct the analysis, evaluation and
classification of facilities for that'pur-
pose. However, section 1008(a)(3)
states that the criteria are to be used
by the States to define practices which
constitute open dumping. Further-
more, section 4003 requires State plans
to provide for the closing or upgrading
of open dumps under the require-
ments of 4005. Therefore, in order for
States to comply with the minimum
requirements for State- plan approval,
they must classify facilities in accord-
ance with the criteria. Such classifica-
tions are a necessary precursor to
State compliance schedules • and other
enforcement activities. The grant reg-
ulations (40 CFR Part 35) provide for
financial assistance of up to 100 per-
cent of the allowable costs of conduct-
ing the inventory of open dumps.
Since the listing of a facility in the
open dump inventory will mean that
the facility is in violation of Federal
criteria, adequate evidence, documen-
tation, and due process are necessary.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
PROPOSED .RULES
38537
Therefore, EPA will develop guidance
for conducting facility classifications.
This guidance will attempt to utilize
existing State regulatory approaches
and inspection procedures whenever
feasible.
While the Act calls for publication
of the inventory within 1 year, the
complexity of the effort and the time
required to carry it out make it neces-
sary to time-phase the classification of
facilities and the publication of the in-
ventory. These guidelines establish
procedures for such phasing. The clas-
sification of facilities should be coordi-
nated with the development of regula-
tory powers needed for taking enforce-
ment actions and with the facility
planning needed for replacement ca-
pacity for open dumps. The State plan
should provide for time-phasing of fa-
cility classifications in a manner so as
to assert State control over all solid
wastes and disposal categories within
the shortest-practicable time, and in a
manner which provides for health and
environmental protection.
ABANDONED FACILITIES
Abandoned, inactive disposal facili-
ties have caused significant adverse
health and environmental effects.
Therefore, these guidelines state that
abandoned facilities that continue to
produce such effects are subject to
classification as open dumps and pub-
lication in the inventory. The State
plan need not provide for statewide
surveillance and monitoring to deter-
mine locations of all abandoned facili-
ties; rather the investigation of aban-
doned facilities should be directed at
those sites with a high potential for
causing severe health or environmen-
tal problems, such as leachate con-
tamination of drinking water supplies
and explosions for accumulated gases.
It is recognized that it may be very
difficult to take enforcement action
with respect to abandoned facilities
because ownership may have been
transferred or relinquished, and legal
liability and financial responsibility
may be difficult to establish. There-
fore, if corrective actions by facility
owners or operators cannot be brought
about, public agencies should take the
necessary measures to protect public
health and safety. This should in-
clude, as a minimum, notification of
adjacent residents and other affected
parties of the potential health or envi-
ronmental hazards.
Recognizing the difficulties of cor-
recting or upgrading abandoned facili-
ties, preventive measures should be
taken before facilities become inactive.
The guidelines require the State plan
to provide for facility closure proce-
dures to eliminate or minimize adverse
health or environmental effects. Fa-
cility owners or operators should be
required to comply with such proce-
dures through the facility permit or
registration.
STATE AND SUBSTATE AGENCY RESPONSI-
BILITIES FOR FACILITY PLANNING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
These guidelines require that the
State plan provide for adequate re-
source recovery and disposal facilities
and practices necessary to use or dis-
pose of solid waste in an environmen-
tally sound manner. These guidlines
also recommend a number of actions
that could be undertaken to help
assure that the necessary facilities and
services are in fact provided for.
In complying with this requirement,
it is important to strike an appropriate
balance between public and private
sector activities. These guidelines do
not favor one over the other. In some
parts of the country, private sector ini-
tiatives may be sufficient to insure
that the needed facilities are available.
However, in other instances, there
may be a need for greater involvement
of State or substate governments. This
involvement should include an aware-
ness of private sector activities in
order to determine whether public
sector involvement in facility planning
and implementation is necessary.
EPA recognizes that there is an es-
tablished solid waste management in-
dustry offering a wide range of ser-
vices, including the design, construc-
tion, and operation of processing,
treatment, transport, disposal, and re-
covery facilities. It is not the intent of
these guidelines that the public sector
needlessly supplant or duplicate activi-
ties of the private sector. State and
substate agencies are encouraged to
establish policies for free and unres-
tricted movement of solid waste across
jurisdictional boundaries and proce-
dures for sharing information useful
to prospective and established entre-
preneurs, as well as to provide relevant
planning information to industry re-
garding population and waste genera-
tion trends, environmental conditions
and other topics that would assist in
the establishment of financially and
environmentally sound facilities.
The. guidelines recommend a state-
wide assessment of the adequacy of
existing facilities and .an evaluation of
the need for new or expanded facili-
ties. The guidelines purposely leave it
up to State discretion whether this
needs assessment is to be conducted by
State or substate agencies or by a com-
bination of the two. Where facilities
and practices are found to be inad-
equate, actions should be taken to
help insure that needed facilities are
developed by State or substate agen-
cies or by the private sector. For areas
found to have 5 or fewer years of ca-
pacity remaining, more detailed plan-
ning should be carried out, including
evaluation of technologies and site lo-
cations. Implementation schedules
also should be developed.
Where there is less than 2 years'
projected capacity, the 'State should
have the authority to acquire facilities
or cause facilities to be acquired. It is
recognized that facility acquisition ac-
tivities have,traditionally been theNre-
sponsibility of regional and local gov-
ernments. However, recent experience
indicates that it is becoming more and
more difficult for substate govern-
ments to obtain sites for solid waste
disposal facilities. This is especially
true for facilities that store, treat, or
dispose of hazardous wastes. There-
fore, it is important for the State plan
to explore options for more direct
State control over siting and facility
development if local government and
private sector initiatives fail. EPA in-
vites comment on methods for the
State to obtain greater control aver fa-
cility acquisition; such methods could
include obtaining the authority to
override local zoning laws or to con-
tract directly for facilities and ser-
vices, requiring facility permits to con-
form . to regional plans 'developed
under the State plan, or instituting a
public utility agency to regulate the
supply of services.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Subtitle C of the Act provides foi
the authorization of State programs
for regulating hazardous waste man
agement and for financial assistance
for such programs. Guidelines for the
development and implementation ol
hazardous waste programs are to b«
promulgated under section 3006 of th<
Act. Therefore, the guidelines pro
posed in this rulemaking defer to the
section 3006 guidelines for the require
ments for authorized State hazardous
waste regulatory programs. However
there are a number of hazardous
waste management activities that an
not regulatory in nature and, thus, no
covered by the section 3006 guidelines
Such activities are to be carried ou
under the authorities of subtitle D an<
are, subject to these guidelines fo
State plans. In general, the State plai
is to describe how hazardous waste
will be managed in the State includinj
identification of responsibilities fo
that management and provision o
necessary hazardous waste treatment
storage, and disposal facilities.
With regard to hazardous waste fs
cility planning, there are certain spt
cial factors to be considered. Most ha:
ardous waste recovery, treatment
storage, and disposal facilities are pr
vately operated. Hazardous waste ger
erators are often large industries wit
heavy capital investments in plant an
equipment into which onsite hazarc
ous waste management facilities hav
been integrated. In addition, there ai
over 100 private offsite hazardov
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
38538
PROPOSED RULES
waste management facilities which
provide service to many industries.
The State plan should provide' for
adequate hazardous waste recovery,
treatment, storage, and disposal facili-
ties, including public facilities where
necessary. States should develop im-
plementation schedules which will
insure siting of the necessary hazard-
ous waste management facilities
within the State borders. State plans
should also encourage waste ex-
changes and other waste utilization
practices for hazardous wastes.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
One of the major objectives of the
Act is to encourage resource recovery
and resource conservation. These
terms are defined in the Act as fol-
lows:
Resource recovery: The recovery of mate-
rial an'd energy from solid waste.
Resource conservation: The reduction of
the amounts of solid waste that are generat-
ed, ' the reduction of overall resource con-
sumption, and the utilization of recovered
resources.
These guidelines establish several re-
quirements for State1 plans directed
toward achieving this objective.
The guidelines require the State
plan to provide for the development of
a policy and strategy to encourage re-
source recovery and resource conserva-
tion. This strategy should focus on re-
moving existing technical, economic,
and institutional constraints that
impede increased resource recovery
and conservation. State activities in
this area could include technical as-
sistance, training, information devel-
opment and dissemination, financial
support programs, and programs to de-
velop markets for recovered materials
• and energy.
The Act requires State plans to
Insure that local governments are not
prohibited under State or local law
from entering into long-term contracts
for supplying solid wastes to resource
recovery facilities. This section re-
flects the concern that the develop-
ment of resource recovery facilities
has been hindered by restrictive pro-
curement laws. The guidelines recom-
mend that the State plan provide for
State agency review of pertinent State
and local statutes, and for the develop-
ment of a strategy for eliminating the
long-term contracting restrictions. It is
recognized that States and State agen-
cies may have limited ability to modify
local procurement laws. Therefore, co-
operation of local governments and
public education and participation are
important in meeting this require-
ment.
Section 6002 of the Act requires
State agencies to purchase items com-
posed of the highest percentage of re-
covered materials practicable, when-
ever Federal funds are used for such
purchases. Although section 6002 is
entitled "Federal Procurement," the
requirement in section 6002(c) applies
to State procuring agencies by virtue
of definition (17) in section 1004.
These guidelines allow States to delay
in complying with the requirement
until EPA issues additional guidelines
under section 6002(e) which will rec-
ommend procedures for purchasing re-
covered materials and provide infor-
mation on their availability and uses.
These guidelines also recommend that
the State plan provide for the develop-
ment of a policy to encourage procure-
ment of recovered materials and exam-
ination of potential uses of recovered
materials by State purchasing agen-
cies.
It is recognized that State solid
waste management agencies are gener-
ally not involved in procurement prac-
tices and policies. Therefore, the State
plan should identify the agencies with
responsibility in this area and provide
for the necessary actions by such
agencies in order to meet this require-
ment.
The guidelines recommend resource
recovery and resource conservation as
the preferred methods of solid waste
management whenever technically
and economically feasible. While re-
source recovery and conservation may
reduce land disposal needs, however,
these methods will not eliminate the
need for land disposal. It is expected
that in the near future, resource re-
covery and conservation will have only
a limited impact on the solid waste
generated nationwide. Therefore,
there will continue to be a need for en-
vironmentally sound land disposal fa-
cilities in order to meet the objectives
of the Act.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTS,
GUIDELINES, AND REGULATIONS
These guidelines should be consid-
ered along with certain other guide-
lines and regulations being promulgat-
ed under the Act and with the provi-
sions of several other Acts.
COORDINATION WITH WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
Subpart F of these guidelines ad-
dresses the requirements for coordi-
nating the State plan with programs
under section 208 of the Clean Water
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1288). Sec-
tion 208 provides for the identification
of complex water quality problem
areas and for the designation of
areawide agencies in those areas to
conduct water quality management
planning. The State is responsible for
such planning in all areas of the State
for which an areawide agency has not
been identified and for coordination of
all water quality management activi-
ties within the State. As part of this
effort, State and areawide agencies are
to identify a process to control the dis-
position of all residual (solid) waste
which affects water quality. After
completion of such planning, the Gov-
ernor is to designate agencies to imple-
ment various elements of the plan.
Subpart F discusses the need to con-
sider water quality management agen-
cies when making agency identifica-
tions for solid waste planning and im-
plementation. It also discusses the
need to establish coordination proce-
dures when separate agencies are iden-
tified. The following types of coordina-
tion should take place:
1. Use of a common data base (e.g.
demographic and population projec-
tions and geographic boundaries);
2. Use of compatible report formats,
maps, scales, legends, and so forth;
3. Formulation of consistent policies
for a sludge and residuals manage-
ment;
4. Coordinated identification of
State legislative changes needed for
implementation; and
5. Coordination of program develop-
ment, implementation strategies, and
public participation programs.
COORDINATION WITH SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT STUDIES
Section 1442(a)(8)(C) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act," as amended
(SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300J-1) requires a
study of the nature and extent of the
impact on underground water of
ponds, pools, lagoons, pits, or other
surface disposal of contaminants in
underground water recharge areas. In
partial fulfillment of this requirement,
EPA intends to conduct, through
grants to State agencies, an assess-
ment of surface impoundments and
their effects on ground water.
There is the potential for confusion
and duplication of effort between the
studies of surface impoundments to be
conducted under the SDWA and the
inventory of open dumps to be con-
ducted under the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. Therefore, the State financial as-
sistance programs under both Acts
must be closely coordinated. The stud-
ies and assessments planned under the
SDWA should be used as the basis for
identifying those surface impound-
ments that have thejjreatest potential
for adverse effects and should be used
by the States in developing the open
dump inventory. Those impoundments
which are identified as having the
greatest potential for serious impact
on ground water quality should be
considered high priority for develop-
ment of the inventory. Such impound-
ments which are found to violate the
criteria should be listed in the inven-
tory and be liable for closure or up-
grading. Those surface impoundments
that receive hazardous wastes are sub-
ject to the regulations for hazardous
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
38539
waste disposal facilities promulgated
under subtitle C of the Act.
While the inventory process and
subtitle C regulations will begin to
bring such facilities under State cop-
trol under the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, EPA has not yet determined the
best regulatory approach to the con-
trol of surface impoundments. EPA
will continue to explore and reeval-
uate its authorities under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and
the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) in order to deter-
mine the best regulatory approach
under any or a combination of these
various authorities. If these authori-
ties are not sufficient to assure the
•adequate control of the disposal of
wastes through surface impound-
ments, EPA will seek additional legis-
lative authority. States and the gener-
al public will be allowed ample oppor-
tunity to comment on the most effec-
tive means of regulating surface im-
poundments such as pits, ponds, arid
lagoons.
COORDINATION WITH THE NATIONAL POL-
LUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES)
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342) describes
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) govern-
ing discharge of pollutants into navi-
gable waters. Permits issued under sec-
tion 402 should be coordinated with
hazardous waste and solid waste man-
agement permits, where applicable.
The following aspects of the NPDES
system should be taken into account:
1. State or Federal issuance of
NPDES permits for facilities disposing
or utilizing municipal waste water
treatment sludge, including new facili-
ty permits and compliance schedules
under existing permits.
2. State or Federal issuance of
NPDES permits for facilities disposing
or utilizing industrial pollution control
sludges, including hew and existing fa-
cilities.
3. State or Federal supervision of
pretreatment programs requiring fa-
cilities to comply with requirements
and compliance schedules before dis-
charging into municipal sewer sys-
tems.
COORDINATION WITH MINING
REGULATORY AGENCIES
Title IV of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1231) provides for the establish-
ment of a fund for reclamation of
abandoned mining lands. To be eligi-
ble to receive this funding, States
must first develop an enforcement
program for wastes from active mines,
subject to Department of the Interior
and EPA approval (title V). All mine
wastes must be disposed in accordance'
with performance standards to be pro-
mulgated by the Office of Surface
Mining, Department of the Interior.
Coordination between these EPA and
Department of the Interior programs
will facilitate the inventory of mining
wastes and may increase the beneficial
use of sludge as a soil conditioner in
reclamation of abandoned lands.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER GUIDELINES
AND REGULATIONS '
Other guidelines and regulations de-
veloped under the Act which should
be considered in conjunction with
these guidelines ^tor State plans in-
clude:
1. Interim regulations to implement
the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act of 1976 (40 CFR Part 35).
These regulations establish procedures
and policies for grants and financial
assistance programs.
2. Identification of regions and agen-
cies for solid waste management, Inter-
im guidelines (40 CFR Part 255).
These guidelines present criteria and
procedures for identification of region-
al boundaries and responsible agencies
for solid waste planning and imple-
mentation.
3. Proposed regulations for public
participation (40 CFR Part 25). Sec-
tion 7004(b) of the Act requires EPA
and the States to provide for, encour-
age, and assist public participation in
the" development, revision, implemen-
tation, or enforcement of any regula-
tion, guideline, information, or pro-
gram under the Act. The current
guidelines for public participation in
solid waste management (40 CFR Part
249) will be superseded by a new EPA
regulation, to be codified as 40 CFR
Part 25. The proposed part 25 cpntains
general public participation require-
ments for programs under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
RCRA, as well as for the programs
under the Clean Water Act, as amend-
ed (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.). Since part 25 does
not contain public participation re-
quirements .specific to solid waste
plans, subpart G of- this part addresses
public participation in the develop-
ment and implementation of State and
substate, plans. Subpart G references
the proposed part 25 requirements. If
part 25 is not promulgated as a final
rule prior to this part 256, part 249
will take precedence until part 25 is
promulgated.
4. Solid waste disposal facilities, pro-
posed criteria for classification (40
CFR Part 257). This regulation pro-
poses minimum criteria for determin-
ing which solid waste land disposal fa-
cilities shall be classified as posing no
reasonable probability of adverse ef-
fects on health or the environment.
5. State hazardous waste programs,
proposed guidelines (40 CFR -Part
250). This rule describes the various
provisions and capabilities a State haz-
ardous waste program must have in
order to qualify for authorization
under the Act. Other regulations for
hazardous waste management devel-
oped under subtitle C of the Act
should also be considered.
6. Resource recovery facility guide-
lines <4D CFR Part 245). These guide-
lines apply to Federal agencies' plan-
ning and establishment of resburce^re-
covery facilities.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
NOTE.—EPA has determined that this doc-
ument does not require an economic impact
analysis statement under Executive Order
12044 and OMB Circular A-107.
Djated: August 23, 1978.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
Title 40 CFR is proposed to be
amended to add a new part 256 read-
ing as follows:
PART 256—GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF .STATE SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Subpart A—Purpose, G«*ral R*auir*rMnt«,
0»finitioni
Sec.
256.01 Purpose and scope of the guidelines.
256.02 Scope of the State solid waste man-
agement plan.
2S6.03 State plan submission, 'adoption,
and revision.
256.04 State plan approval, financial assist-
ance.
256.05 Annual work program.
256.06 Definitions.
Subpart B—Identification of R«poa»ibilrH*»;
Di.tribution of Funding
256.10
256.11
Requirements.
Recommendations.
Subpait C—Solid Watt* Disposal Program*
256.20 Requirements for the State regula-
tory powers.
256.21 Recommendations for State regula-
troy powers.
2S6.22 Requirements for closing or upgrad-
ing open dumps.
256.23 Recommendations for closing or up-
grading open dumps.
256.24 Requirements to prohibit the estab-
lishment of new open dumps.
Subpart D—Reiaurc* Conservation and Rmoure*
Recovery Programs
256.30 Requirements.
256.31 Recommendations for developing
and Implementing resource conservation
and recovery programs.
Subpart E—Facility Planning and Implementation
256.40 Requirements.
256.41 Recommendations for assessing the
need for resource recovery and disposal
facilities.
256.42 Recommendations for assuring fa-
cility development.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
38540
PROPOSED RULES
Sec.
256.43 Recommendations for hazardous
waste facility planning and develop-
ment.
Subport f—Coordination With Other Programs
256.50 Requirements.
Support G—Public Participation
256.60* Requirements for public participa-
tion in State and substate plans.
256.61 Requirements for public participa-
tion in the annual State work program.
256.62 Requirements for public (jarticipa-
tion in State regulatory development.
256.63 Requirements for public participa-
tion in the permitting of facilities.
AT/THORITY: Sees. 4002(b) and 4003 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, Pub.
L. 94-580; 90 Stat. 2813, 2814; 42 U.S.C.
6942(b), 6943. *
Subpart A—Purpose, General Requirements,
Definitions
§ 256.01 Purpose and scope of the guide-
lines.
(a) The purpose of these guidelines
is to assist in the development and im-
plementation of State solid waste
management plans, in accordance with
section 4002(b) of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservatign and Recovery Act of
1976 (42 U.S.C. 6942(b)) (the "Act").
These guidelines contain methods for
achieving the objectives of envirbmen-
tally sound management and disposal
of solid and hazardous waste, resource
conservation, and maximum utiliza-
tion of valuable resources.
(b) These guidelinges address the
minimum requirements for approval
of State plans as set forth in section
4003 of the Act. These are:
(1) The plan shall identify, in ac-
cordance with section 4006(b), (i) the
responsibilities of State, local, and re-
gional authorities in the implementa-
tion of the State plan, (ii) the distribu-
tion of Federal funds to the authori-
ties responsible for development and
implementation of the State plan, and
(iii) the means for coordinating region-
al planning and implementation under
the State plan.
(2) The plan shall, in accordance
with section 4005(c), prohibit the es-
tablishment of new open dumps
within the State, and contain require-
ments that all solid waste (including
solid waste originating in other States,
but not including hazardous waste)
shall be (i) utilized for resource recov-
ery or (ii) disposed of in sanitary land-
fills (within the meaning of section
4004(a)) or otherwise disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner.
(3) The plan shall provide for the
closing or upgrading of all existing
open dumps within the State pursuant
to the requirements of section 4005.
(4) The plan shall provide for the es-
tablishment of such State regulatory
powers as may be necessary to imple-
ment the plan.
(5) The plan shall provide that no
local government within the State
shall be prohibited under State or
local law from entering into long-term
contracts for the supply of solid waste
to resource recovery facilities.
• (6)' The plan shall provide for re-
source conservation or recovery and
for the disposal of solid waste in sani-
tary landfills or for any combination
of practices so as may be necessary to
use that is environmentally sound.
(c) These guidelines address the re-
quirement of section 4005(c) that a
State.plan:
shall establish, for any entity which demon-
strates that it has considered other public
or private alternatives for solid waste man-
agement to comply with the prohibition on
open dumping and is unable to utilize such
alternatives to so comply, a timetable or
schedule of compliance for such practice or
disposal of solid waste which specifies a
schedule of remedial measures, including an
enforceable sequence of actions or oper-
ations leading to compliance with the prohi-
bition on open dumping of solid waste
within a reasonable time (not to exceed 5
years from the date of publication of the in-
ventory).
(d) These guidelines also describe
certain hazardous waste planning ac-
tivities not included in the section
3006 guidelines for authorized State
hazardous waste programs. The plan-
ning activities described in these
guidelines are to be included in the
State plan.
§256.02 Scope of the State solid waste
management plan.
(aXl) The State plan shall address
all solid waste in the State that poses
potential adverse effects on health or
the environment or provides opportu-
nity for resources conservation or re-
source ^recovery. The plan shall consid-
er:
(i) Hazardous wastes; (ii) Residen-
tial, commercial, and institutional
solid waste; (iii) Wastewater treatment
sludge; (iv) Pollution control residuals;
(v) Industrial wastes; (vi) Mining
wastes; (vii) Agricultural wastes; (viii)
Water treatment sludge; and (ix)
Septic tank pumpings.
(2) The State plan shall consider the
following aspects of solid waste man-
agement:
(i) Collection; (ii) Source separation;
(iii) Storage; (iv) Transportation; (v)
Transfer; (vi) Processing; (vii) Treat-
ment; (viii) Resource conservation; (ix)
Resource recovery; and (x) Disposal.
(b) The State plan shall establish
and justify priorities and timing for
actions. These priorities shall be based
on the current level of solid waste
management planning and implemen-
tation within the State, the extent of
the solid waste management problem,
the health, environmental and eco-
nomic impacts of this problem, and
the resources and management ap-
proaches available.
(c) The State plan shall set forth an
orderly and manageable process for
achieving the objectives .of the Act and
meeting the requirements of these
guide- lines. This "process shall de-
scribe as specifically as possible ,the ac-
tivities to be undertaken, including de-
tailed schedules and milestones.
(d) The State plan shall cover a
minimum of a 5-year time period from
the date submitted to EPA for approv-
al.
(e) The State plan shall identify ex-
isting.State legislative authorities for
solid waste management and shall pro-
vide for the identification and acquisi-
tion of additional legislative authori-
ties and regulatory, administrative*-
and judicial powers as may be neces-
sary to meet the requirements of these
guidelines. The plan shall contain a
schedule for obtaining these authori-
ties and powers.
§256.03 State plan submission, adoption,
and revision.
(a) To be considered for approval,
the State plan shall be submitted to
EPA within 18 months after final pro-
mulgation of these guidelines.
(b) Prior to submission to EPA, the
plan shall be adopted by the State
pursuant to State administrative pro-
cedures.
(c) The plan shall be developed in
accord with public participation proce-
dures required by 40 CPR Part 25 and
other guidance for public participation
that may be issued by EPA.
(d) The plan shall contain proce-
dures for revision. The State plan
shall be revised by the State, after
notice and public hearings, when the
Administrator, by regulation, or the
State determines, that:
(1) The State plan is not in compli-
ance with the requirements of these
guidelines;
(2) Information has become availa-
ble which demonstrates the inadequa-
cy of the plan; or
(3) Such revision is-otherwise neces-
sary.
(e) The State plan shall be reviewed
by the State and, where necessary, re-
vised and readopted not less frequent-
ly than every 3 years.
§ 256.04 State plan approval, financial as-
sistance.
(a) The Administrator shall, within 6
months after a State plan has been
submitted for approval, approve or dis-
approve the plan. The Administrator
shall approve a plan if he determines
that:'
(1) It meets the requirements of
these guidelines which address sec-
tions 4Q03 (1), (2), (3), and (5), and
(2) It contains provisions for revision
pursuant to § 256.03.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
38541
(b) The Administrator shall review
approved plans from time to time, and
if he determines that revisions or cor-
rections are necessary to bring such
j>lan into compliance with all of the
requirements of these guidelines, in-
cluding the requirements which ad-
dress sections 4003 (4) and (6) and any
new or revised requirement estab-
lished by amendment to this part, he
shall notify the State and provide an
opportunity for such revisions and cor-
rections and for an appeal and public
hearing. If the plan continues to
remain out of compliance, he shall
withdraw his approval of such plan.
(c) Such withdrawal of approval
shall cease to be effective upon the
Administrator's determination that
the State plan complies with the re-
quirements of. these guidelines.
(d) The Administrator shall approve
a State application for financial assist-
ance under subtitle D of the Act, and
make grants to such State, if the Ad-
ministrator determines that the State
plan continues to be eligible for ap-
proval and is being implemented by
the State.
(e) Upon withdrawal of approval of a
State plan, the Administrator shall
withhold Federal financial and techni-
cal assistance under subtitle D (other
than such technical assistance as may
be necessary to assist in obtaining re-
instatement of approval) until such
time as approval is reinstated. (Proce-
dures for termination of financial as-
sistance and for settlement of disputes
are contained in 40 CPR 30, appendix
A, articles 7 and 8.)
§ 256.05 Annual work program.
(a) The annual work program sub-
mitted for financial assistance under
section 4008(a)(l) and described in the
grant regulations (40 CFB Part 35)
shall be reviewed by the Administrator
Mn order to determine whether the
State plan is being implemented by
the State.
(b) The Administrator and the State
shall agree on the contents of the
annual work program. The Adminis-
trator will consider State initiatives
and priorities, in light of the goals of
the Act, in determining annual work
programs for each State. The annual
work program represents a State's ob-
ligation incurred by acceptance of fi-
nancial assistance.
(c) Annual guidance for the develop-
ment of State work programs will be
issued by EPA. While this guidance
will establish annual national prior-
ities, flexibility will be provided in
order to accommodate differing State
priorities,
(d) The following items developed
under the "State plan shall be included
by reference in the annual work pro-
gram:
(1) Substate, regional, and local solid
waste management plans,
(2) Plans for the development of fa-
cilities and services, including hazard-
ous waste management facilities and
services,
(3) Compliance schedules for up-
grading or closing open dumps neces-
sary to meet- the requirements of sec-
tions 4003(3) and 4005(c).
(e) The annual work program shall
itemize the distribution of Federal
funds to agencies responsible for the
development and implementation of
the State plan.
§ 256.06 Definitions.
Terms not defined below have the
meanings assigned them by section
1004 of the Act.
"Abandoned facility" means an inac-
tive solid waste disposal facility which
poses a reasonable probability of ad-
verse effects on health or the environ-
ment.
"The Act" means the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
"Closed facility" means a facility
which has been properly closed so as
to eliminate or minimize adverse ef-
fects on health or the environment.
"Criteria" means the "Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities," 40 CFR part 257, promul-
gated under section 4004(a) of the Act.
"Facility" refers to a solid waste
proc- essing or disposal facility or a re-
source recovery facility, including land
used for solid waste disposal within
the meaning of the Act. Examples in-
clude sanitary landfills, surface im-
poundments, landspreading oper-
ations, incinerators, transfer stations,
pyrolysis plants, refuse fired boilers, et
cetera.
"Implementation" means putting
the plan into practice by carrying out
planned activities, including compli-
ance and enforcement activities, or in-
suring such activities are carried out.
"Inventory of open dumps" means
the inventory required under section
4005(b) and is defined as the list pub-
lished by EPA of those disposal facili-
ties which do not meet the criteria.
"Operator" includes facility owners
and operators.
A "permit" is an entitlement to com-
mence and continue operation of a fa-
cility as long as both pr6cedural and
performance standards are met. The
term "permit" includes any functional
equivalent such as a registration or li-
cense.
"Planning" includes identifying
problems, defining objectives, collect-
ing information, analyzing alternatives
and determining necessary activities
and courses of action.
"Provide for" in the phrase "the
plan shall (should) provide for" means
explain, establish or set forth steps or
courses of action.
The term "shall" denotes require-
ments for the development and imple-
mentation of the State plan.
The term "should" denotes recom-
mendations for the development and
implementation of the State plan.
"Substate" refers to any public re-
gional, local, county, municipal, or in-
termunicipal agency, or regional or
local public (including interstate) solid
or hazardous waste management au-
thority, or other public agency below
the State level.
Subpart B—Identification of Responsibilities;
Distribution of Funding
§ 256.10 Requirements.
(a) In accordance with sections
4003(1) and 4006 and the guidelines
for identification of regions and agen-
cies for solid waste management (40
CFR Part 255), the State plan shall
provide for:
(1) The identification of the respon-
sibilities of State and substate (regio.n-
al, local and interstate) authorities in
the development and implementation
of the State plan;
(2) The means of distribution of Fed-
eral funds to the authorities responsi-
ble for development and implementa-
tion of the State plan; and
(3) The means for coordinating sub-
state planning and implementation.
(b) Responsibilities shall be identi-
fied for the classification of disposal
facilities for the inventory of open
dumps.
(c) Responsibilities shall be identi-
fied for development and implementa-
tion of the State regulatory program
describes in subpart C of this part.
(d) Responsibilities shall be identi-
fied for the development and imple-
mentation of the State resource con-
servation and resource recovery pro-
gram described in Subpart D of this
part.
(e) State, substate and private sector
responsibilities shall be identified for
the planning and implementation of
solid and hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities and services.
(f) Financial assistance under sec-
tion 4Q08(a)(l) shall be allocated by
the State to State and substate au-
thorities carrying out planning and
implementation of the State plan.
Such allocation shall be based on the
responsibilities of the respective par-
ties as determined under section
4006(b).
§ 256.11 Recommendations.
(a) Responsibilities should be identi-
fied for each of the solid waste types
listed in §256.02(a)(l). ,
(b) Responsibilities should be identi-
fied for each of the aspects of solid
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
38542
PROPOSED RULES
waste management listed in § 256.02
(c) Responsibilities should be identi-
fied for planning and designation of
ground water use as provided for in
the criteria for classification of solid
waste disposal facilities (40 CFR Part
257) and for assessing other factors
critical to Criteria classifications.
(d) Responsibilities should be identi-
fied for the development and imple-
mentation of the authorized State
hazardous waste management pro-
gram under subtitle C of the Act.
(e) The State plan should include a
schedule and procedure for the con-
tinuing review, reassessment and reas-
signment of responsibilities.
Subpart C — Solid Waste Disposal Programs
NOTE.— This Subpart addresses the re-
quirements contained in sections 4003 (2),
(3) and (4) of the Act. Section 4003(4),
which covers the establishment of State reg-
ulatory powers necessary to implement the
plan, is addressed first. The requirement of
section 4003(3), that the plan provide for
the closing or upgrading of open dumps, is
addressed as one application of those regu-
latory powers. The requirement in section
4003(2), that the plan prohibit the estab-
lishment of new open dumps, is addressed as
the second application of those powers.
§ 256.20 Requirements for the State regu-
latory powers.
The State plan shall provide for the
establishment of such State regula-
tory powers as may be necessary to
prohibit new open dumps and close or
upgrade all existing open dumps.
These regulatory powers:
(a) Shall be based on solid waste dis-
posal standards which are equivalent
to or more stringent than the criteria
for classification of solid waste dispos-
al facilities (40 CFR Part 257). Such
standards shall be determinate,
achievable and enforceable^ and the
methodology for establishing compli-
ance shall be specified.
(b) Shall -include surveillance capa-
bilities necessary to detect adverse en-
vironmental effects from solid waste
disposal facilities. Such capabilities
shall include access for inspection and
monitoring by regulatory officials and
the authority to establish operator
monitoring and reporting require-
ments.
(c) Shall utilize assessment proce-
dures for the evaluation of facilities
which compare the surveillance find-
ings to the standards, note all discrep-
ancies, and prescribe satisfactory re-
medial measures.
(d) Shall make use of a permit or
registration program which ensures
that the establishment of new open
dumps is prohibited.
(e) Shall have administrative and ju-
dicial enforcement capabilities, includ-
ing enforceable orders, fines and other
administrative procedures, as neces-
sary to achieve compliance with stand-
ards including closure or upgrading of
all open dumps. The enforcement ca-
pabilities shall insure expeditious clo-
sure or upgrading of the facilities in a
manner so as to minimize or bring
under control adverse environmental
or health effects.
§ 256.21 Recommendations for State regu-
latory powers.
The following are recommendations
for State regulatory powers as may be
necessary to prohibit new open dumps
and close or upgrade all existing open
dumps.
(a) Solid waste disposal standards:
(1) Should be based on the health
and environmental impacts of disposal
facilities.
(2) Should specify design and oper-
ational standards.
(3) Should take into account the cli-
matic, geologic and other relevant
characteristics of the State.
(b) Surveillance systems should es-
tablish monitoring requirements for
facilities.
(1) Every facility should be evaluat-
ed for potential adverse health and en-
vironmental effects. Based on this
evaluation, instrumentation, sampling,
monitoring, and inspection require-
ments should be established.
(2) Inspectors should be trained and
provided detailed instructions for
checking on'the procedures and condi-
tions that are specified in the engi-
neering plan and site permit. Provi-
sions should be made to insure chain
of custody for evidence.
(c) Facility assessment and prescrip-
tion of remedial measures should be
carried out by adequately trained or
experienced professional staff, includ-
ing engineers and geologists.
(d) The State permit system should
provide the administrative control to
prohibit the establishment of new
open dumps and to assist in meeting
the requirement that all wastes be
used or disposed in an environmental-
ly sound manner.
(1) Permitting procedures for new
facilities should require applicants to
demonstrate that the facility will
comply with the criteria.
(2) The permit system should speci-
fy, for the facility operator, the loca-
tion, design, construction, operational,
monitoring, reporting, completion and
maintenance requirements.
(3) Administrative procedures should
be adequate for assuring due process
of law and withstanding judicial
review.
(4) Permits should only be issued to
facilities that are consistent with the
State plan, or with substate plans de-
veloped under the State plan.
(e) The enforcement system should
provide both administrative proce-
dures and judicial remedies to enforce
the prohibition of open dumping and
the compliance schedules and closure
procedures for open dumps.
(1) Procedures should be established
to facilitate court access, and to obtain
court orders and other rulings. Per-
mits, surveillance, and enforcement
system capabilities should be designed
for supporting court action.
(2) Detection capabilities and penal-
ties for false reporting should be pro-
vided for.
§ 256.22 Requirements for closing or up-
grading open dumps.
In meeting the requirement of sec-
tion 4003(3) for closing or upgrading
open dumps:
(a) The State plan shall provide for
the classification of existing solid
waste disposal facilities according to
the Criteria. This classification shall
be submitted to EPA, and facilities
classified as open dumps shall be pub-
lished in the inventory.
(b) The classification of facilities as
open dumps shall be sufficiently docu-
mented to withstand judicial review.
(c) Each operator shall (1) be noti-
fied of the State's intent to submit the
name of the facility to EPA for publi-
cation as an open dump in the inven-
tory, (2) be provided a summary of the
evidence upon which the classification
is based, and (3) be provided with an
opportunity to appeal in accordance
with State laws and regulations.
(d) The State plan shall provide that
any facility classified as an open dump
is prohibited except in the case of a fa-
cility under a timetable or schedule of
compliance as established in para-
graph (e) of this section.
(e) The State plan shall provide for
the establishement of a procedure by
which any entity which demonstrates
that it has considered other public or
private alternatives to comply with
the prohibition on open dumping and
is unable to utilize such alternatives to
so comply, may obtain a timetable or
schedule for compliance which speci-
fies a schedule of remedial measures,
and an enforceable sequence of ac-
tions, leading to compliance within a
reasonable time (not to exceed 5 years
from the date of publication of that
facility in the inventory.)
(f) The State plan shall provide for
an orderly time-phasing of the dispos-
al facility classifications described in
paragraph (a) of this section. The de-
termination of priorities for the classi-
fication of disposal facilities shall be
based upon:
(1) The potential. health and envi-
ronmental impact of the solid waste or
disposal facility;
(2) The availability of State regula-
tory and enforcement powers; and
(3) The availability of Federal and
State resources for this purpose.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
38543
(g) Each facility classified as an open
dump shall be issued a schedule for
closure or upgrading which shall be in-
corporated by reference into the
annual work program and be made
publicly available. The schedule may
be revised in accord with State proce-
dures and without prior notification of
EPA. Schedule revisions shall be refer-
enced in subsequent annual work pro-
grams.
(h) For each open dump to be closed,
the State plan shall provide for clo-
sure procedures to eliminate or mini-
mize adverse health or environmental
effects.
(i) Provisions for long-term monitor-
ing and contingency plans for correc-
tive actions shall be instituted where
necessary.
(j) Planning for. new facilities and
services as described in subpart E of
this part shall give priority to estab-
lishing replacement capacity for open
dumps.
(k) Abandoned facilities that contin-
ue to produce adverse health or envi-
ronmental effects shall be subject to
classification according to the criteria
and publication in the inventory of
open dumps. The State plan shall pro-
vide for measures to insure that ad-
verse health of environmental effects
from abandoned facilities are mini-
mized or eliminated. Such measures
may include actions by" disposal facili-
ty owners and operators, notification
of the general public, adjacent resi-
dents and other affected parties, and
notification of agencies responsible for
public health and safety. Paragraphs
(d), (e), (g), (h), and (j) of this section
do not apply to abandoned facilities.
§ 256.23 Recommendations for closing or
upgrading open dumps.
(a) Each disposal facility in the
State should be considered to deter-
mine the potential for non-compliance
with the criteria. All facilities with a
reasonable probability for non-compli-
ance should be evaluated in detail and
classified according to the criteria.
(b) All sources of information availa-
ble to the State should be used to aid
in the classification of facilities. Rec-
ords of previous inspections and moni-
toring, as well as new inspections and'
new monitoring, should be considered.
(c) For each facility classified as an
open dump, a determination should be
made whether there are any alterna-
tives which could be utilized for all or
part of the solid waste volume. Such
alternatives should include processing
and disposal at other facilities, up-
grading the open dump, resource re-
covery and resource conservation. This
determination should be based on
damages from allowing continued
open dump operation, the cost of al-
ternatives, and the ability of the oper-
ator of or the entity served by an open
dump to utilize the alternative. The
assessment of alternatives should be
coordinated with the facility needs as-
sessment described in § 256.41.
(d) A determination should be made
of the feasibility of resource recovery
or resource conservation to reduce the
solid waste volume entering a facility
classified as an open dump; and, feasi-
ble measures to achieve that reduction
should be implemented.
§ 256.24 Requirements to prohibit the es-
tablishment of new open dumps.
In meeting the requirements of sec-
tion 4003(2) the State plan shall pro-
vide that:
(a) The necessary State legislative or
administrative authorities are ob-
tained to prohibit the establishment
of new open dumps and require that
all solid waste disposal be carried out
in compliance with the criteria.
(b) The State regulatory powers nec-
essary to control the disposal of solid
waste (as described in § 256.20) are em-
ployed to insure that this requirement
is complied with.
(c) The identification of responsibil-
ities, (as described in subpart B of this
part) and the planning for new facili-
ties and practices (as described in sub-
part E of this part) are carried out as
necessary to support this requirement.
Subpart D—Resource Conservation and
Raiource Recovery Program*
NOTE.—This subpart-, addresses require-
ment (5) of section 4003 and the require-
ment in section 6002 for the procurement of
products containing materials recovered
from solid waste. This subpart also address-
es requirements (2) and (6) of section 4003
as they pertain to resource conservation and
recovery.
§ 256.30 Requirements.
(a) In order to comply with sections
4003 (2) and (6), the State plan shall
provide for a policy and strategy for
encouragement of resource recovery
and conservation activities.
(b) In order to comply with section
4003(5), the State plan shall provide
that no local Government within the
State is prohibited under State or
local law from entering into long-term
contracts for the supply of solid waste
to resource recovery facilities.
(c) In order to comply with section
4003(6) and section 6002, the State
plan shall provide that State procure-
ment practices require the purchase of
items composed of the highest per-
centage of recovered materials practi-
cable, consistent with satisfactory
levels of competition, availability, per-
formance standards and cost, when-
ever Federal funds are used for such
purchase. This requirement is subject
to the exclusions and conditions of
section 6002 of the Act, and compli-
ance with this requirement may be de-
layed until after the Administrator
issues guidelines for procuring agen-
cies under section 6002(e).
§256.31 Recommendations for developing
and implementing resource conserva-
tion and recovery programs.
(a) In order to encourage resource
recovery and conservation, the State
plan should provide for technical as-
sistance, training, information devel-
opment and dissemination, financial
support programs, market studies and
market development programs.
(b) In order to comply with the re-
quirement of § 256.30(b) regarding
long-term contract prohibitions, the
State plan should provide for:
(1) Review of existing State and
local laws and regulations pertinent to
contracting for resource recovery ser-
vices or facilities.
(2) Reporting of all laws and regula-
tions found to be in violation of this
requirement to the executive officer of
the governing body responsible for the
statute.
(3) Development of an administra-
tive order or a revised law or regula-
tion or any other preliminary step for
the removal or amending of a law or
regulation in violation of this require-
ment.
(4) Development of a strategy- for
passage of legislation, execution of an
administrative order, or other action
that would prohibit and/or remove
from State or local law provisions in
violation of this requirement.
(c) In meeting the requirement of
§ 256.30(c) concerning procurement of
products containing recovered materi-
als the State plan should provide for:
(1) The development of a policy
statement encouraging the procure-
ment of recovered materials, wherever
feasible:
(2) The identification of the key pur-
chasing agencies of the State, along
with potential uses of recovered mate-
rials by these agencies;
(3) The development of a plan of
action to promote the use of recovered
materials through executive order, leg-
islative initiative, or other action that
the Sta'te deems necessary.
(d) In order to encourage resource
recovery and conservation, the.State
plan should provide for the elimina-
tion, to the extent possible, of restric-
tions on the purchases-of goods or ser-
vices, especially negotiated procure-
ments, for resource recovery facilities.
This should include:
(1) Review of existing State and
local laws pertinent to the procure-
ment of equipment and services for
the design, construction and operation
of resource recovery facilities;
(2) Listing of all laws that limit the
ability of Jocalities to negotiate for the
procurement of the design, construc-
tion, or operation of resource recovery
facilities.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
! < •.Yk-nment of administrative
. ; jr l-gisiation or other action
tst,i;id eliminate these restric-
• T)-" •'lopment of a strategy and
f action for the execution of ad-
•..r.itivc orders, the enactment of
1.1' i-m, or other actions that would
1 Hi these restrictions.
i'; •-> Plate plan should encourage
-. ••'." ''lopiPciit of resource recovery
' r ^ource conservation facilities
. !->-: i»roverab]e industrial wastes;
! ~i.ors; ferrous and nonferrous
p,laas; solid, liquid, or gaseous
',- -i'idges; and Lires. The following
••' ! N: evaluated: Location and
1 '.'irtntion requirements, materi-
•u! • nergy specifications of user
:". '?-;•;;, minimum quantity require-
rrir-ing mechanisms and long-
;•- "-(.tract availability.
•, ' R.-source recovery feasibility
'i.>s should be conducted in regions
n-'' State in which uses or markets
• ;< <"0'. ered materials or energy are
jiu'ipd. These studies should review
/ion? technological approaches, en-
• ,nfr<.°nta) considerations, institu-
" --si and financial constraints, and
onoivjif- feasibility.
' < • Source separation, recycling and
• '.'!>'re conservation should be uti-
"<-v 'Mi' recovery of energy and materi-
!•- i.-i ikl be utilized whenever techni-
•ii. and economically feasible.-
<"> Source separation, resource con-
-, (\anon and mixed waste processing
•nicii; should be combined to
•h.F.-i-f- the most effective resource
:<>. ;-t Cation and economic balance.
• .;'i»tirl E—Facility Planning and
implementation
'IOTK -This subpart addresses require-
.cm (6) of section 4003 as it pertains to fa-
,- f, planning and implementation.
•'• i;1 Requirements.
a1 In order to comply with section
'•'..KG), the State plan shall provide
• adequate disposal facilities and for
• :'i-e recovery and conservation fa-
,'•; and practices necessary to Use
or dispose of solid waste in an environ-
mentally sound manner.
(b) The State plan shall provide for
adequate and appropriate recovery,
storage, treatment and disposal capac-
ity for any wastes determined to be
hazardous wastes.
§ 256.41 Recommendations for assessing
the need for resource recovery and dis-
posal facilities.
(a) In meeting the requirement for
adequate disposal and resource recov-
ery facilities, the State plan should
provide for an assessment of the ade-
quacy of existing facilities for recovery
and disposal and the need for new or
expanded facilities.
(b) The needs assessment should be
based on current and projected waste
generation rates and on the capacities
of presently operating and planned fa-
cilities.
(c) Special handling needs should be
determined for all solid waste catego-
ries.
(d) Impact on facility capacities due
to predictable changes in waste quan-
tities and characteristics should be es-
timated.
(e) Environmental, economic, and
other constraints on continued oper-
ation of facilities should be assessed.
(f) Diversion of wastes due to closure
of open dumps should be anticipated.
(g) Facilities and practices planned
or provided for by the private sector
should be assessed.
(h) The State plan should provide
for the identification of areas which
require new capacity development.
§ 256.42 Recommendations for assuring
facility development.
(a) The State plan should address fa-
cility planning and acquisition for all
areas which are determined to Have in-
sufficient recovery and disposal capac-
ity in the assessment of facility needs.
(b) Where facilities and practices are
found to be inadequate, the State plan
should provide for the necessary facili-
ties and practices to be developed by
responsible State and substate agen-
cies or by the private sector.
(c) For all areas found to have five
or fewer years of capacity remaining,
the State plan should provide for (1)
the development of estimates of waste
generation by type and characteristic,
(2) the evaluation and selection of re-
source recovery, conservation or dis-
posal methods, (3) selection of sites f6r
facilities and, (4) development of
schedules of implementation.
(d).The State plan should encourage
private sector initiatives in order to
meet the identified facility needs.
(e) The State plan should provide
for the State to acquire facilities or
cause facilities to be acquired in any
area having fewer than 2 years' of pro-
jected capacity.
(f) The State plan should provide for
the initiation and development of en-
vironmentally sound facilities (includ-
ing resource recovery facilities) as
soon as practicable to replace all open
dumps found to be without alterna-
tives.
(g) The State plan should provide
for the State, in cooperation with sub-
state or regional agencies, to establish
procedures for choosing which facili-
ties will get priority for technical or fi-
nancial assistance or other emphasis.
Highest priority should be given to fa-
cilities developed to replace or upgrade
open dumps.
(h) The State plan should provide
for substate or regional cooperation
and policies for free and unrestricted
movement of solid waste across State
and local boundaries.
§256.43 Recommendations for hazardous
waste facility planning and develop-
ment.
(a) The State plan should provide
that facilities are available for the re-
covery, treatment, storage or disposal
of all hazardous wastes generated or
disposed of in the State.
(b) Upon determination of the exis-
tence of markets for hazardous waste
materials or energy usage, the State
plan should contain a strategy for en-
couraging such utilization of hazard-
ous wastes.
Subpart F—Coordination With Other Program*
§256.50 Requirements.
Section 4003(1) requires the State
solid waste management plan to iden-
tify means for coordinating regional
planning and implementation under
the' State plan. Section 1006 requires
the Administrator to integrate all pro-
visions of this Act (including approval
of State plans) with other Acts that
grant regulatory authority to the Ad-
ministrator in order to prevent dupli-
cation of administrative and enforce-
ment efforts. In order to meet these
requirements:'«.
(a) The State solid waste manage-
ment plan shall be developed in co-
ordination with Federal, State, and
substate programs for air quality,
water quality, water supply, waste
water treatment, pesticides, ocean pro-
tection, toxic substances control, noise
control, and radiation control.
(b) The State plan shall provide for
coordination with programs under sec-
tion 208 of the Clean Water Act, As
amended (33 U;S.C. 1288). In identify-
ing agencies for solid waste manage-
ment planning and implementation,
the State shall review the solid waste
management activities being conduct-
ed by water quality planning and man-
agement agencies designated under
section 208 of the Clean Water Act.
Where feasible, identification of such
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. J 67—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 197«
-------
PROPOSED RULES
38545
agencies should be considered in the
identification process subpart B of this
part. Where solid waste'management
.and water quality agencies are sepa-
rate entities, necessary coordination
procedures shall be established.
(c) The State plan shall provide for
coordination with the National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) established under section
402 of the Clean Water Act, as amend-
ed (33 U.S.C. 1342). The classification
of a facility for purposes of the open
dump inventory and the issuance of
State compliance schedules for closing
or upgrading of a facility classified as
an open dump shall be timed,' where
practicable, to coordinate closely with
the issuance of a new or revised
NPDES permit for such facility.
(d) The State plan shall provide for
coordination with activities for munic-
ipal sewage sludge disposal and utiliza-
tion conducted under the authority of
section 405 of the Clean Water Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1345), and with
the program for construction grants
for publicly owned, treatment works
under section 201 of the Clean Water
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1281).
(e) The State plan shall provide for
coordination with State .pretreatment
activities under section 307 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1317).
(f) The State plan shall provide for
coordination with agencies conducting
assessrhents of the impact of surface
impoundments on underground
sources of drinking water under the
authority of section 1442(a)(8XC) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 300j-1).
(g) The State plan shall provide for
coordination with State underground
injection control programs (40 CFR
Part 146) carried out under the au-
thority of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) and with
the designation of sole source aquifers
under section 1424 of that Act.
(h) The State plan shall provide for
coordination, where practicable, with
programs under:
'(1) The Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
(2) The Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.
1362 et seq.).
(3) The Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) (incineration
and open burning limitations under
State implementation plans).
(4) The Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1420 et
seq.).
(i) The State plan shall provide for
coordination, where practicable, with
programs of other Federal agencies,
including:
(1) Army Corps of Engineers
(NPDES permits, wetlands, flood
plains);
(2) Department of the Interior
(i) Fish and Wildlife Service (wet-
lands),
(ii) Office of Endangered Species
and Fish and Wildlife Service (solid
waste disposal in critical habitats),
(hi) Bureau of Mines and Office of
Surface Mining (mining waste disposal
and use of sludge in reclamation),
(iv) U.S. Geological Survey (wet-
lands, floodplains, ground water);
"K3) Department of Commerce,
NOAA (coastal zone management
plans);
(4) Water Resources Council (flood
plains, surface and ground waters);
(5) Department of Agriculture, in-
cluding Soil Conservation Service
(land spreading solid waste on food
chain croplands);
(6) Federal Aviation Administration
(locating landfills near airports);
(7) Department of Housing and
Urban Development (701 comprehen-
sive planning program, flqod plains
mapping);
(8) Department of Defense (resource
recovery and solid waste disposal pro-
grams at various installations); and
(9) Department of Energy (State
energy conservation plans under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6321)).
Subpart G—Public Participation
§ 256.60 Requirements for public partici-
pation in State and substate plans.
Ca) Public participation in the devel-
opment and implementation of State
and substate plans shall be in accord
with 40 CFR Part 25i
(b) State and substate planning
agencies shall:
(1) Maintain a current list of agen-
cies, organizations, and individuals af-
fected by or interested in the plan,
(2) Establish an advisory group, in
accord with 40 CFR 25.3(d)(4), to
make recommendations on major
policy and program decisions to offi-
cials responsible for plan development,
and
(3) Provide depositories of relevant
information in one or more locations
convenient to the interested or affect-
ed public.
(c) State and substate planning
agencies shall provide information and
consult with the public and the adviso-
ry group, established under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, on plan develop-
ment and implementation. Provision
of information and consultation shall
occur both early in the planning proc-
ess (including the preparation and dis-
tribution of a summary of the pro-
posed plan) and on major policy "deci-
sions made during the course of plan
development, revision and implemen-
tation. Planning agencies shall:
(1) Publicize information in news
media having broad audiences in the
geographic area,
(2) Place information in depositories
maintained under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section,
(3) Send information directly to
agencies, organizations and individuals
on the list maintained under para-
graph (b)(l) of this section, and
(4) Prepare and-make available to
the public a summary of public partici-
pation in the planjn accord with 40
CFR 25.15.
(d) State and substate planning
agencies shall conduct public hearings
(and public meetings, where the
agency determines there is sufficient
interest) in accord with 40 CFR 25.3(d)
(2) and (3) and all applicable State ad-
ministrative procedures. The purpose
of the hearings and meetings is to so-
licit reactions and recommendations
from interested or affected parties and
to explain major issues within the pro-
posed plan. Following the public hear-
ings, a summary of agency response to
public views shall be prepared and
made available to the public in accord
with 40 CFR 25.15.
§ 256.61 Requirements for public partici-
pation in- (he annual State work pro-
gram.
(a) Public participation in the devel-
opment of the annual State work pro-
gram shall be in accord with 40 CFR
Part 25.
(b) A public participation work plan
developed in accord with 40 CFR
25.11(b) shall be included in the
annual State work program.
(c) The State shall consult with the
public, including the advisory group
established under § 256.60(b)(2), in the
development of the annual work pro-
gram. One month, prior to submission
of the draft work program to the Re-
gional Administrator, as required by
40 CFR Part 35, the draft work pro-
gram shall be made available to the
public at the State information depdsi-
tories maintained under §256.60(b)(3).
The public shall be notified of the
availability of the draft work program,
and a public meeting shall be held if
the planning agency determines there
is sufficient interest.
(d) The State shall comply with the
requirements of Office of Manage-
ment and Budget Circular No. A-95.
(e) Copies of the final work program
shall be placed in the State informa-
tion depositories maintained' under
§256.60(b)(3).
§ 256.62 Requirements for public partici-
pation in State regulatory development.
(a) Public participation in the devel-
opment of State regulatory powers
shall be in accord with 40 CFR Part
25.
(b) The State shall conduct public
hearings (and public meetings where
the State determines there is suffi-
cient interest) on all proposed State
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
38546
PROPOSED RULES
legislation and regulations, in accord
with 40 CFR 25.3(d) (2) and (3) and all
applicable State administrative proce-
dures, to solicit reactions and recom-
mendations. Following the public
hearings, a summary of agency re-
sponse to public views shall be pre-
pared and made available to the public
in accord with 40 CFR 25.15.
(c) In advance of the hearings and.
meetings required by paragraph (b) of
this section, the State shall prepare a
fact sheet on proposed regulations or
legislation, mail the fact sheet to agen-
cies, organizations and individuals on
the list maintained under
§ 256.60(b)(l), and place the fact sheet
in the State information depositories
maintained under § 256.60(b)(3).
§ 256.63 Requirements for public partici-
pation in the permitting of facilities.
(a) Before a permit application for a
resource recovery or disposal facility is
approved by the State, a public hear-
ing shall be conducted to solicit public
reaction and recommendations on the
proposed permit application.
(b) This hearing shall be held in
accord with 40 CFR 25.3(d)(2) and all
applicable State and local administra-
tive procedures.
[PR Doc. 78-24166 Piled 8-25-78; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 167—MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978
-------
would you
like to know
if any changes have-been made in
certain titles of the CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATIONS without
reading the Federal Register every
day? If so, you may wish to subscribe
to the LSA (List of CFR
Sections Affected) the "Federal
Register Index," or both.
LSA (List of CFR Sections Affected)
$10.00
per year
The LSA (List of CFR Sections
Affected) is designed to lead users of
-the Code of Federal Regulations to
amendatory actions published in the
Federal Register, and is issued
monthly in cumulative form. Entries
indicate the nature of the changes
Federal Register Index $8.00
per year
indexes covering the
contents of the daily Federal Register are
issued monthly, quarterly, and annually.
•Entries are carried primarily under the
names of the issuing agencies Significant
subjects are carried as cross references
A finding aid is .included in each publication which lists
Federal Register page numbers with the date of publication
in the Federal Register
Note to FR Subscribers: FR Indexes and the
LSA (List of CFR Sections Affected) will continue
to be mailed free of charge to regular FR subscribers.
MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIHIIMIIIIIIIMIMIIIII
Mail order form to.
Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, t> C. 20402
There is enclosed $-
. for.
. subscription(s) to the publications checked below:
LSA (LIST OF CFR SECTIONS AFFECTED) ($10.00 a year domestic, $12.50 foreign)
._- FEDERAL REGISTER INDEX ($8.00 a year domestic. $10 00 foreign)
Name
Street Address
City'
State
ZIP
Make check payable to the Superintendent of Documents
-------
-------
437
State Solid Waste Management Plans
Discussion Leader: Mr. George A. Garland
Question: As abandoned facilities, not only landfill sites but also other
solid waste management facilities should be considered. For
example, refuse collection carriers, incinerators, leachate
treatment facilities and composting plants may be important
to be considered. These should not create new solid waste
problems.
Answer: We recognize that there are a number of other types of solid
waste management facilities. By and large, the environmental
effects from these facilities are handled under other environ-
mental acts such as the Clean Air Act for incinerators and
the Clean Water Act for effluent from leachate treatment facili-
ties. For refuse collection we do have a focus on productivity
and safety because we recognize that there is bulk in the
system. However, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, we do focus primarily on the environemntal effects from
land disposal.
Question: We may introduce a Government Plan to prepare final disposal
sites (Phoenix Plan to obtain large scale landfill sites).
In the future, regional, national or international cooperation
for solid waste management in siting and facility development
is more essential.
Answer: In this country, we have had a policy of relying on the private
sector and not encouraging federal interference in final disposal
-------
438
sites. However, we are recognizing that because of severe
difficulties, especially with hazardous waste facilities,
we have to give more consideration in this direction. We
definitely are in agreement that in the future, regional,
national and international cooperation in siting and facility
development is essential. The public is insisting-on better
technology and information about what we are doing. Sites
are becoming fewer and fewer so we are going to have to cooper-
ate more. Many resource recovery facilities are now being
built in this country and we are anxious to learn from the
experience with these facilities. But because the federal
government is not in a position of paying for these facilities
we have to wait for this experience before requiring that
others follow suit. I would like to defer to Mr. Peter who
is Director of the Resource Recovery Division for any further
remarks on our overall policy on resource recovery.
Comment by Mr. Peter: I'll touch on many of these issues when I present
my paper later this morning, but one of the difficulties of
getting more of these plants on line is economics. The posture
of this government is that, unlike the sewage treatment facilities
where there is assistance from the federal government for
construction, we believe that industry has a major role in
working with communities in arriving at solutions. There is
an economic incentive in that direction. We do provide a
considerable amount of planning assistance and information
-------
439
dissemination to the states and local governments. But we
recognize that one of the major problems we have is the
difficulty of the planning process. And that is the major
effort of the federal government at the moment—providing
that kind of planning assistance to the states. We do not
have authority under RCRA to provide financial assistance
for either the acquisition of sites or for construction
of these facilities.
-------
440
MARKETS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS
A Current Overview
ALBERT A. PETER, JR.
Prepared for the
Fourth Japanese-American Conference
on Solid Waste Management
Washington, D.C.,
March 1979
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
-------
441
MARKETS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS
A Current Overview
by Albert A. Peter, Jr.
For the past half-century, this country has experienced
unprecedented industrial growth, punctuated by sometimes
unbelievable technological achievements. From this period,
and from the pioneer spirit which preceded, an American
ethic evolved which demanded that we be the first and the
best.
More than a decade has passed since the ecological .
movement in America cried out for a change in the primitive
practices by which the Nation was handling its mounting
solid waste problems. Aside from the problems, however, the
oil crisis of the early 1970's created an awareness of vast
resources which were going to waste in the countless "mountains"
of garbage around the country. In spite of these motivations
and the "American ethic," nothing much has happened in the
way of tangible change. And for many it is bewildering to
realize that at this rather late date, the Nation which put
men on the moon has less than ten operating resource recovery
Mr. Peter is Director, Resource Recovery Division, Office
of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
-------
442
2
plants, while European and Far Eastern countries boast more
than 200 such plants. Although this observation has been
made many times, it should be understood that the complexi-
ties of differing institutional and political systems, and
underlying economic conditions rather than technology, are
the principal factors which steer nations in different
directions as they search for solutions and the paths for
some are simpler than for others.
The fact remains, however, that progress in resource
recovery has been disturbingly slow in this country; that
.Americans seem to perceive little economic advantage to
conserving their natural resources by reusing their waste
materials. Of the 148 million tons of municipal solid waste
generated in 1977 in this country, only 11 million tons, or
7.5 percent, were reclaimed for use by industry.
At a recent conference cosponsored by the U.S.
L,ii\•'T ronmental Protection Agency and the Brookings Institution
Washington, D.C., scholars from the academic fields met
v-* !i high-ranking representatives from government and industry,
;.;:g with public-interest groups with a deep sensitivity to
environmental concerns. The conference dealt with very
fundamental issues and questions, some of which included:
o Is there a real need to conserve?
o Are the sources of raw materials being depleted?
-------
443
3
o What are the worldwide implications of an aggressive
conservation program?
o What is the role of'the Federal government?
o Is sufficient information available to the
policymakers?
It is interesting to note that such broadly based questions
are being discussed some ten years after the national
awakening mentioned above.
While many of these questions will be debated for quite
some time, come, the conferees did identify certain areas of
general agreement:
o That with the exception of three particular materials,
namely cobalt, platinum, and chromium, and setting
aside the issues of economics and world politics,
there is an abundant supply of known reserves of
virtually all nonfuel minerals and timber to meet
worldwide requirements well into the next century;
o That there is no "scarcity crisis" around which a
nation must build a dynamic conservation program;
o That there is no system of "absolutes" which would
either justify a total disregard for the need to
-------
444
4
conserve, or a use of every measure of conserva-
tion, regardless of cost.
Despite favorable economics and abundant supplies of
raw materials, a good case for conservation was advanced
with the recognition that land itself is a resource to be
considered in the disposal process. Today, close to 95
percent of the Nation's annual municipal refuse burden of
148 million tons is going directly to the land for disposal.
While evidently not a universal problem, landfill siting is
a geographically sensitive issue because the availability of
land is dwindling at a rapid rate in many parts of the
country. A case for conservation and recycling was also
supported by recbgnizing that our heavy dependency on energy
imports (some 80 percent of our domestic petroleum needs)
could be reduced considerably by better management and by
capturing the vast energy potential in the Nation's municipal
waste stream.
The environmental movement of the mid-1960's focused
much of its attention on what was perceived as a moral
issue relating to the American lifestyle of waste, the
almost wanton consumption of natural resources, and the
fast-growing generation of staggering volumes of solid
waste.
-------
5
There evolved from that period a government respor -•
the form of several pieces of environmental legislation, :
first of which, passed in 1970, was the Resource Recovj -
Act (RRA) . That Act gave the Environmental Protection
Agency a broad mandate to study the problem of solid war-.
and to undertake a number of pilot^ projects to demonstrate
technologies which might possibly contribute to the sol ••
Contrary to most environmental legislation of that, PCM, !."•>:,
the RRA did not contain any regulatory provisions de;> i . ;u,
directly with municipal waste. The years between Lhe pa-.::,
of RRA and the passage of the Resource Conservation a:,:i
covery Act of 1976 were devoted primarily to basic rese.-j; ..
as well as full scale demonstrations, both technical aii;.:
economic, by which materials and energy could be recox .v, I
from the municipal aste stream.
That chapter in our history is closed and this Kt,:_'-.•
is now facing a second generation of activities in i c;:. ^.;; - •
recovery. We now have some 25 major new mixed waste i i. , !
ties well along in the planning stages, and 10 others .,.-
into the construction phase. It is further estimate] th ,i
by 1985 about 40 to 50 energy-related resource recovery
plants will be in operation. Municipal separate coll o<,r i _,
programs which recover materials for recycling have 11; •. :
from 2 in 1972 to 220 in 1978.
-------
446
6
Even with this apparent upsurge in activities, one of
the most serious and perplexing problems hampering our
efforts to reduce the volume of waste by source separation
programs, or by recovering materials through processing
plants, is the absence of viable markets for some of the
materials thus produced. Looking back over the last decade,
the technologies and techniques employed to retrieve materials
from the waste stream were widely tested, and much progress
was made refining those methods which appeared to produce
marketable products. But, in a business sense, while signi-
ficant progress has been made on the supply side of the
resource recovery equation, virtually nothing has appeared
to change the demand side.
STATUS OF MARKETS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS
Paper
Paper is the largest single segment of the waste stream,
constituting between 30 and 45 percent of the average commu-
nity's waste collections. Paper is also the most commonly
recycled material. Of the 11 million tons of materials
reclaimed annually, 93 percent is paper. The national
recovery rate for post-consumer paper, 16 percent (excluding
export), has remained virtually unchanged over the last ten
-------
447
7
years. Although that in itself may appear to be discouraging,
it must be pointed out that the years before 1968 witnessed
a steady and sometimes precipitous decline. The arresting
of that decline was a significant step forward.
The recyclability of wastepaper is determined first by
its grade. Paper is recovered at the point of generation,
usually the home, in the case of newspapers; the office, in
the case of high-grade pulp substitutes, and commercial
facilities such as grocery and department stores, in the
case of corrugated paper. Present recovery rates for the
major paper grades and the products in which they are used
vary from 8 to 21 percent (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
WASTE-PAPER RECYCLING RATES AND END PRODUCTS (1977)
Waste-Paper Grade Recycling Rate Final Destination
Newspaper 21% Boxboard
Newsprint
Cellulose Insulation
Office paper 13% Tissue
Boxboard
Printing/Writing
Corrugated 26% Corrugated Medium
Boxboard
Other 8% Boxboard
-------
448
8
Obviously, an established market for wastepaper exists
and has existed for years. Some 16.3 million tons of indus-
trial capacity are dedicated to the production of products
from wastepaper. Unfortunately, the existence of an estab-
lished market with established buyers, standard specifications,
and committed manufacturing capacity does not assure a
stable market for post-consumer waste.
The used corrugated, newsprint, and, to a lesser extent,
the high-grade ledger and pulp substitute grades are all
extremely sensitive to fluctuations in the Nation's economy.
To quote a 1976 EPA publication:
Prices of wastepaper have historically been
unstable. Figure 2 illustrates the wastepaper price
index over the period 1950 to 1975. The two major
anomalies correspond to very dramatic periods in recent
economic history—the Korean War and the short-lived
1973-74 economic boom. On such occasions, demand
momentarily spurts ahead of installed capacity.
Capacity utilization rates approach 100 percent and
industries become willing to use secondary materials
as the input of last resort. This, in turn, creates
a sharp increase in the price of secondary material.
The correction—increased supplies of wastepaper,
-------
449
9
increased virgin material availability, or downturn
in the economy—results in an equally rapid drop in
prices.
The primary cause for this sensitivity to overall
economic pressures relates to the two major markets for
wastepaper, namely, boxboard and construction materials. In
an expansionary economy, housing starts (construction material)
generally rise and more products are sold (requiring more
boxes); conversely, in a recessionary economy, consumer
products and construction materials are usually the first
areas to feel the economic slowdown.
The general state of the economy is not the only factor
influencing wastepaper prices. Part of the reason for the
dramatic upturn of prices and tonnage of recycled paper in
1973-74 was the Canadian paper unions strike which lasted
for many months. The dramatic downturn of prices in Sep-
tember 1978 was caused because the cellulosic insulation
industry vastly overestimated the potential demand for home
insulation, in spite of the growing national concern for
energy.
The capacity decisions of foreign governments and
industries have a large effect on domestic paper prices,
and wastepaper export tonnages have varied widely (Figure 3).
-------
450
-------
451
11
FIGURE 3
Year Tonnage
1972 415,000
1973 683,500
1974 1,300,000
1975 861,000
1976 1,273,000
1977 1,500,000
Tonnages are expected to rise significantly after 1980 when
announced new capacity will be in place in the Far East.
The effect could also be negative, of course, if there is a
repeat of the situation in 1977 when the Swiss government
decided to dump thousands of tons of market pulp on the
world market. With that decision, white ledger prices went
from an average of $120 per ton to $95 per ton in two months.
The volatility of the paper market is probably the
major inhibitor to expanded paper recycling in the United
States. Manufacturers are most reluctant to commit to new
capacity when raw material input cost may be a money-making
$20 per ton in June and a money-losing $45 per ton in
September.
-------
452
12
In 1970, there were two major arguments against
recycling put forth by virgin fiber-paper manufacturers:
The first argument suggested that all the paper that is
recoverable is being recovered, and that the paper which
remains in the waste stream is too contaminated to be used
in manufacturing processes. This argument was largely
disproved in 1974 when recovered wastepaper tonnages
doubled and, in some cases, tripled from month to month.
It is clear, therefore, that when the price is right, the
paper will come out of the waste stream and be used.
The second argument contended that the paper market is
too volatile, and the level of risk too high to justify
investment. Today, for most paper grades, there is clear
evidence to support this argument.
Glass
Glass constitutes approximately 9 percent by weight of
the municipal waste stream. About 90 percent of this fraction
is container glass, approximately half of which is beverage
containers.
Since 1960, the amount and relative percentage of glass
in the waste stream has risen rapidly due to the introduction
-------
453
13
of the one-way beverage container. One of the major motiva-
tions of the returnable beverage container movement in this
country has been to reduce this fraction of waste.
Efforts to recover post-consumer glass containers began
in 1970 as a part of the overall environmental movement-
Consumers were asked to bring glass containers and sometimes
cans along with their paper to "reclamation centers." At
the present time, it is estimated that these centers recover
approximately 1 to 2 percent of all waste glass. Curbside
collection of glass, again along with other material, is
being practiced in 23 communities in California and the
northeast.
Mechanical recovery of glass in mixed-waste processing
facilities has been tried in pilot plant operations using the
froth flotation method. The color-mixed cullet product
("cullet" is the glass industry's term for crushed glass)
produced by this system does not consistently meet the very
stringent specifications required by the industry. Because
of this issue and the costs of recovery, mechanical recovery
of glass for use in the container industry is not feasible
at this time. Furthermore, markets for mixed-color glass
are very limited. Lower grade uses of this material in such
products as brick., concrete block, or paving materials appear
to be technically feasible, but there has been little or no
-------
454
14
interest on the part of manufacturers due to the ready availa-
bility of the inexpensive virgin materials traditionally
used in those products.
At present, the only viable waste-glass market is with
the glass container manufacturers. While the industry as a
whole expresses interest in cullet as a source of raw material,
in only two sections of the country is there truly a demand
for waste glass.
In California, glass is recovered for use in the
manufacture of wine bottles. Mixed-color cullet is suitable
for these bottles because they are either green (the color
best able to absorb cullet variations) or so-called "eco-
color," a clear but slightly greenish color. Although there
is a strong market, it is saturated by the present supply,
and opportunity for expanded glass recycling in California
seems limited.
Glass is also in demand in the northeastern States,
largely because of the air pollution problems of the largest
glass manufacturer in the area. The use of cullet in large
quantities (40 to 60 percent of the mix) significantly
reduces stack emissions from glass furnaces. Faced with an
-------
455
15
enforcement order from the State of Connecticut environmental
protection agency, the manufacturer agreed to the purchase
and use of 6,500 tons per month of cullet to lower its emissions,
As a result, the price for waste glass in the northeastern
States has risen from $20 in 1975, to $35 or $40 per ton
today. Much of the cullet received is glass returned through
bottle deposits in Vermont and Maine. Again, the saturation
point has been reached, and little expansion is expected. A
major New York and New Jersey manufacturer is now seriously
considering following the previous example to solve its air
pollution problems.
Aluminum
According to aluminum association figures, 25 percent
of all aluminum containers are recovered from the waste
stream. In 1977, some 140,000 tons of aluminum were re-
covered (mainly cans), and the amount of waste aluminum
flowing back to the aluminum industry is startling con-
sidering that almost none was recovered ten years ago.
At the present time, aluminum is recovered only through
source separation. Individuals and groups are paid $.17 per
pound (up from $.10 in 1970) for post-consumer aluminum
scrap at industry redemption centers all across the country.
-------
456
16
The high value of aluminum cans stems from several facts.
First, the various types of ferrous cans, the aluminum can
is a high quality alloy aluminum and directly replaces
virgin aluminum for cans with almost no processing. Economics
strongly favor aluminum can recycling with virgin aluminum
alloy for cans valued at well over $1,000 per ton. The
second, and perhaps a more important reason for the growing
value of aluminum scrap is that recycling aluminum consumes
95 percent less energy than producing it from virgin bauxite.
Efforts have been made to develop mechanical aluminum
recovery systems for use in mixed-waste processing plants.
The most hopeful of these, the eddy-current separator, appears
to recover an acceptable grade of aluminum or mixed non-
ferrous metals. Unfortunately, only 30 to 50 percent of the
available aluminum is recovered, and the cost of operating
the system appears to outweigh the revenue received for the
very small amount recovered.
While aluminum must be considered the biggest recovery
success story of the past decade, it must be noted that this
material constitutes only about 1 percent of the municipal
waste stream, making its relatively high recovery rate
comparatively unimportant to the local public works director.
-------
457
17
Ferrous Materials
Ferrous materials recovered from municipal waste consist
almost entirely of "bi-metal" beverage container cans or
"tin" food cans. The so-called bi-metal can actually con-
sists of four metals: steel, tin, lead, and aluminum, and
the "tin" can is actually a steel can with a thin tin coating,
In the early 1970's, the recovery of steel products was
considered to have great potential, largely because of the
magnetic property of the material. Experiments with various
industrial magnets were conducted at landfill sites and in
mixed-waste processing plants. By 1976, 36 ferrous recovery
facilities were in operation. The quality of the material
recovered varied widely from facility to facility, but the
more sophisticated units produced a comparatively clean
grade of scrap.
The markets for this post-consumer can scrap were the
copper precipitation mines in the southwest and steel mills
and detinning plants around the country. Unfortunately,
problems have developed in all three markets.
o Copper Precipitation; Ferrous cans, even highly
contaminated ferrous cans, meet all quality
specifications for the copper precipitation
-------
458
18
specifications for the copper precipitation
industry. Unfortunately, the demand for copper
has been declining since 1974. The need for
precipitation iron has, of course, declined
with it. The largest recoverer of ferrous cans in
the United States, Los Angeles Bi-Products, with
four plants in California has gone out of business
and the market for ferrous cans has almost com-
pletely dried up in the west. In addition, the
copper precipitation industry is gradually shifting
to the liquid ion exchange technology, which does
not use cans at all.
Detinning Industry; Detinners are found in cities
where there are major can manufacturers and steel
.mills. The steel mills produce tin plate which
goes to the can manufacturer. The can manufacturer
produces cans and large amounts of tin-plate scrap,
which it sells to the detinner. The detinner
removes the tin from the steel and sells both to
the steel mill. At first, this appeared to be the
perfect market for post-consumer ferrous cans.
Unlike the industrial scrap product from the can
manufacturer, however, the municipal scrap con-
-------
459
19
tained in the bi-metal can. Both the lead and the
aluminum contained in the bi-metal can are con-
taminants to the detinning process. A number of
detinners have experimented with this scrap but
almost none are now interested in purchasing the
material.
° Steel Mills: Both aluminum and tin are contaminants
in steel making. Thus the bi-metal can is also
unwanted in this market. At the present time, a
few steel mills accept scrap cans from small
recycling centers and four mixed-waste processing
plants. Confronted with large amounts of this
material, the mills would have to refuse to accept
it since only miniscule amounts are needed.
Of the 36 magnetic separators operating in 1976, only
10 remain, and the vast majority of source separation programs
have stopped attempting to recover these scrap materials.
It would appear that little will occur to enhance the
prospects for the recovery of ferrous cans unless the bi-
metal can is removed from the marketplace, or until the
steel industry undergoes technical changes enabling it to
accommodate larger quantities at higher prices to suppliers.
-------
460
20
SUMMARY
Today, the markets for recovered municipal scrap are at
various stages of development, and the future is very uncertain,
EPA believes the following synopsis to be reasonable.
o Paper; Most major grades of scrap paper will
continue to be volatile in price. The early
1980's will see increased demand for newsprint,
due to the opening of a new 325 ton-per-day
secondary newsprint mill in Georgia and new
capacity in the Far East. There will probably be
much pressure from domestic manufacturers to
impose export quotas should decreased supplies
cause prices to rise rapidly.
o Aluminum; Prices received for scrap aluminum
will probably continue to rise, as will the
recovery rate. National beverage container
legislation, should it pass, will dramatically
increase the amount of aluminum recovered from
the waste stream.
o Glass; There has been much hope over the last
decade that the glass-container industry would
-------
461
21
find true economic value in the use of cullet
from the municipal waste stream. To date, this
happened in only two instances. There is little
indication of rapid progress in this area.
Ferrous; As long as the bi-metal can remains a
part of the ferrous fraction of solid waste,
there will be little or no potential for expanded
recovery of this material under present user-
industry technologies.
CONCLUSIONS
In the last decade, we have learned that most major
materials in the waste stream can be recovered and processed
to meet industry specification. Unfortunately, we have also
learned that, in almost every case, the use of virgin materials
is more economical for industry. Industry will retain the
principal role of developing the technology for materials
separation from mixed waste. The Federal government will
continue a modest program of basic research, principally
related to the environmental aspects of that effort. The
Federal government will also continue its major programs to
assist State and local governments in their difficult and
complex plans for resource recovery programs.
-------
462
22
There is a possibility that U.S. Federal government
policies could considerably alter the economic prospects for
some recyclable materials over the next decade. For example,
a nationwide system of beverage container deposits could
have the almost automatic effect of source separating 90 per-
cent of the aluminum cans, steel beverage containers, and
nonrefillable glass and plastic beverage bottles from the
Nation's waste stream.
There is no guarantee that all these materials would,
in fact, be purchased under today's markets, particularly by
the steel and glass industries. However, it is not unlikely
that steel and glass manufacturers would seriously rethink
their raw materials procurement policies, as a competitive
strategy in maintaining container market shares versus the
highly recyclable aluminum can. The latter would receive an
undeniable boost by a deposit law. In the absence of national
legislation, a further proliferation of State-level deposit
laws would have substantially the same effect.
In addition, there are a host of other policy changes,
either recently enacted or currently under consideration by
the Federal government. These include:
o reducing the favorable tax-subsidy position of
virgin domestic raw materials;
-------
463
23
o improving the railroad freight-rate position of
recycled materials by prohibiting discriminatorily
high rates for them;
o sharply curbing environmentally unsound landfill
practices through Federal guidelines;
o providing investment tax credits for equipment
used in recycling operations;
o encouraging local user fees for solid waste
management services;
o providing continued Federal research and development
programs to encourage technology changes;
o expanding Federal technical assistance to State and
local governments as well as the private sector to
stimulate the transfer of information;
o instituting Federal procurement policies designed
to demonstrate the feasibility of using products
with higher secondary material content.
While none of these changes alone is going to have a
very large impact on United States material use policy or
-------
464
24
material recovery statistics, several of them taken together
may well provide the needed stimulus to turn the flat curve
I
of material recovery upward during the coming decade.
-------
465
Markets for Recovered Materials, A Current Overview
Discussion Leader: Mr. Albert A. Peter, Jr.
Comment: From the questions that have been prepared in response to my
paper, I gather that there is a concern in Japan for bulk
material (refrigerators, etc.)
Comment: Sulky waste is a difficult problem in Japan. Under our laws
municipalities are supposed to pick up the bulky waste. But
because of the high volume, they have some difficulty. The
private sector is also supposed to be handling bulky
waste but they have the same problems.
Question: In Japan, the disposal of domestic bulky refuse (for example,
TV's, washers, etc.) is the responsibility of municipalities
in general. However, it is becoming a burden to them year
after year from the viewpoint of disposal cost. We would
like to know about the following matters in the U.S.: How
is the flow of domestic bulky refuse? If municipalities
have a charge system,, do they collect any charge to dispose
of domestic bulky refuse? If they collect some charge, is
there any difference in charge by the weight of refuse or
by the type of refuse? Is there any other way to recover
such bulky refuse by manufacturers or recycling agents? If
there is, how is the charge system?
Answer: Most of the municipalities in this country do not collect those
bulky items as a matter of routine. If you place these items
out by the trash cans, they will not pick them up. For the
-------
466
most part, the homeowner must call a private hauler for
collection of the bulky items; or in some cases, the
municipalities will pick them up for a special fee. Or,
the bulky item can be taken to the nearby disposal facility.
There they are either placed in the landfill or set aside
and later sold to perhaps a scrap dealer. Many of these
old items are disposed of by the purchase of the new item—
where the supplier of the new refrigerator, for example,
will pick up the old one when he delivers the new refrigerator.
The supplier will then hold it in his store until he has
accumulated enough to sell the items to the scrap dealer.
The private hauler will charge a fee generally based on the
weight of the object—ranging anywhere from two to fifteen
dollars. Occasionally a city will have to accommodate
community practice. We still have some minor midnight dump-
ing going on; you will find stoves and refrigerators dumped
along the roadside or in empty lots. So, some communities
have periodic clean up campaigns at which time they will
send trucks to pick up these items. There is one other
activity in this country which is quite common but I don't
have any statistics as to what impact it has on the waste
stream. This activity is conducted by volunteer groups.
They rework used machines, repair them and resell them.
Although I don't know statistically how large this operation
is, they are quite prominent in major cities across this
country.
-------
467
Question: Do other sections of the U.S. Federal Government (for example,
the Department of Commerce) have any program to expand
recycling markets for recovery materials? In Japan, there
is hardly any effort.
Answer: They are supposed to. Under the RCRA law, the Commerce
Department is instructed to encourage the commercialization
of proven—and the work proven is significant—resource
recovery technology by doing four things: (1) develop and
supply accurate specifications for recovered materials; (2)
stimulate the development of markets for recovered materials;
(3) promote proven technologies; and (4) provide a forum
for the exchange of technical and economic data that relates
to resource recovery facilities. The Bureau of Standards,
which is part of the Department of Commerce, has been work-
ing on the specifications but progress has been slow because
this is a highly complex subject. The Department of Commerce,
like most other agencies, has the problem of inadequate
resources to accomplish everything for which they are respons-
ible. So, thus far, we have not seen much come out of these
four programs. There is, however, within the Department of
Energy, two mandates that were included in the recent energy
legislation. One has to do with an additional 10% tax invest-
ment credit for equipment that is purchased for resource
recovery; this means that they deduct considerably more from
their income tax on that equipment. And the second requires
-------
468
the Department of Energy to set what they call "voluntary
targets" for various industries for the use of recovered
materials. But we don't hold out too much expectation at
this point as to whether this latter effort will have a
significant impact on resource recovery.
-------
469
RECOVERING ENERGY
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
A Review of Activity in the United States
Interest in recovering energy from municipal solid
waste has increased tremendously over .the past several
years. Processes which were originally developed to ease
the environmental burden of waste disposal have suddenly
become sought after as a source of relief for increasingly
scarce energy shortages. The escalating demand for systems
to convert waste to energy has stimulated such a rapid pace
in developing new technology that it has become very difficult,
if not impossible, to keep informed. Techniques which were
unpopular in 1970 are being vigorously pursued in 1977. And
other techniques which were only concepts on paper in 1970
are already being built on large scale in facilities perceived
as second- and third-generation designs. "New and improved"
designs are being built even before tests are completed on
earlier designs.
A Paper by David B» Sussman and Steven J. Levy
Environmental Protection Specialists
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
-------
470
From all this frenzied activity/ several concepts have
emerged that seem to be the most promising. This paper will
review those various alternatives and attempt to place them
in perspective with regard to their status in the United
States. The four alternatives for energy recovery of utmost
current interest are:
1. mass burning of unprocessed waste in heat recovery
furnaces (waterwall combustion units);
2. mass burning of unprocessed waste in small, modular
starved-air, two-chamber incinerators;
3. the mechanical conversion of the organic portion
of municipal solid waste into a refuse-derived
fuel (RDF) that is combusted as a primary fuel in
a dedicated boiler or as a supplemental fuel along
with coal in an existing boiler; and
4. the conversion of solid waste to other fuel forms
through pyrolysis.
-------
471
tfc
o
Q
111
w •
O
CL
CO
5
w
t-
3
3:
Q
O
CO
f- «-
Z ^
S>
u "1
ii
OT C£
§s
9 u
TABLE
ND COMMERCIAL POST
AL AND PRODUCT CAT
< 5
IS
a >.
Q n
M
a
U*
o
CO
u
2
P
en
u
5
O
-I
x
j
5
u
<
2
-g
0
f-
4+
*^
I
V
S
«>
%
Product category
ions of tons, as generated •
S
S
J2
C
Iff" O
^ — >" *•
If 4
O. u
3 | 8 «
^ s 1 1
*
w
c
•e ••*• u
£2 5
« -5, a.
S |
v * e
9" »• O *>
jS
**
J §
•S -o
° 2
M
•o T3
o a
O T!
U. 0
.5 *
j£ J*
O 0
0 £
Major
... Furniture,
household
furnishings
appliances
«•" o>
S =
-1 «
S -8
a a
S M
3. | S
5 o Si
* S
2
1
V
3
•3
'S
tl
i
ox in co co -0 > co
IT O OX IO CM — 10
to —
ox m >o ox * n ox
*r to es TT n M v
j*^ *~. ^*
o «p^'0c'*ro ^r o«coo
OX 0 ox fflO.0. M (S - 10
MM— S'i>"~ V 10 — OX
> JO M 0^<= •»• W « •*
^rf - fc-»
(O O O P% *-• CS U) "tf ffx U?
« - i1 J2.2-S — r4 o o
II 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1
i i tii . P* tn .
II 1 1 1 w ' ' I
— — o o -• «• o — o «'
* °' N c. 2- S ° ** *" **
- N 0> N? > _
** *" — — '
* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
o S
5 1
18 -
3 1 8 1
o | 5 « ^
Sa3£55'53^f
t S 2 s ^ £ f
tO O
^ ^*
in —
CO —
in co
o r-'
in oo
f* fi
c^
eo' '
03
;*)
<^ ,
^ 1
H '
|
|
«
^
i
0.
I
s
o
e
~ «
? 1
•3
0
0
u»
CM tO ^ O
CS ^ — O
CO •— O
^
i/i o cs oo
O 04 CM
S
10 IN tn o
CQ b — 6
t- CM 0
(O : i
e "2 •*"
« Jo
W W ^*
S. * s
^" ^
">. "6
? "So"
.. U (N
5 T5 fC,
^5 v "™
u o* ^
c* *c 2
Ju "* ^5
Tt J §
s *» *s
A £ S
2 |0
Q '5 V
e *" c ^
Sf "o S
a 3 • si
V % S _0 0
S o -K 5 ^
s r o = °
£ .M — t-
O 1- - — V
£ Q. c g c
rj -o S 8 -g 1
"Hi" f c
Jo « C ^
C ^ •- T3 3 Z
" 'E ^ » J
"1 «J .5 — - Q
n Associates, Lid., revised
counting for recycled mat
ilure content of material
nd yard categories, estima
s in collection and storage
fuse. In Proceedings; I97i
— o .2 " •= a
3 " 0 -3 ~ "
S • e g • -s
"t-l'S.Eg t
•o -3 5 .£ o. 2 5
C -r- o ^ c fl e
"» V C 3 5 C S
e ™ -o "o £ « 2
•S "3 1 •>" 5 ^ "
•- 3 M — T; >« »
O -O £ n C Ji 3
| t o 1 S§ ^1
tt S S '- 'S = 2 5
*•* C e« • * ^ 4"
u 4) k> y e y
3 •— .— v ^ £ 9» **
83 <3 £*!§§!
K^-"^ 2 3 ~T -• • *
^5™* 41 H t*^
s|l :|*| J
1 1 1 1 :| | !|
•35 5s !g £l
V *0 w "* -5 '•" T*
£Sc2'3l<|M"
? 5^- | L» I g z
1 5s
' =1
C 3 <
2(a!
-------
472
Before examining the individual systems it is important
to first understand the nature of the material they will be •
handling. Unfortunately, very little waste characterization
information is available for the specific citites included in
this paper. In lieu of this, the following is based upon
the average American waste stream.
Waste Quantity and Composition
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated
that about 115.4 million tonnes (128.2 million tons) of
municipal wastes were generated from residential and commercial
sources in the United States in 1975 (1.45 kilograms or 3.2
pounds per person per day). The quantities of particular
wastes found in these waste streams were determined (see
Table). Quantities were also determined for the total
weight of the material "as generated," i.e., the weight of
the material before it was mixed with other wastes and "as-
disposed," the weight of the material after it was mixed in
trash cans and collection trucks. The difference between
the two is the result of the migration of moisture from the
wetter materials (food and yard wastes) to materials that
absorb moisture (such as paper) and to products to whose
surface the moisture adheres (such as glass and metals).
Excluded from the study were industrial and agricultural
wastes, sewage sludge, animal wastes, abandoned automobiles,
ashes, street sweepings, and construction and demolition
debris.
-------
473
Background
The primary motivation for burning solid waste in the
United States has been, until recently, volume reduction, to
ease the burden of solid waste disposal. In contrast to
most European countries, where both power generation and
waste disposal are managed by local governments, the waste
disposal function in the United States has been managed
almost exclusively by local governments and has been dis-
tinctly separate from the power-generating function, which
generally has been in the domain of investor-owned utilities.
Many small communities generate their own electricity; but
their electric utility departments are operated separately
from their waste management departments. Consequently,
unlike the European experience, energy recovery from waste
in the United States has evolved within the waste management
sector; the conventional energy-producing sector has begun
to accept solid waste as an energy source only recently and
rather cautiously.
Until 1967, all incinerators operating in the United
States were refractory-lined units (a few had waste-heat
boilers, but very little energy was recovered). The passage
of stricter air pollution control laws in the late 1960's
made refractory-lined incinerators prohibitively expensive
and led to cautious experimentation with waterwall furnaces,
a technology which was already gaining widespread acceptance
in Europe.
-------
474
The first waterwall combustion unit was built in the
United States in 1967 and is owned and operated by the U.S.
Navy at the Norfolk, (Virginia) Navy Base. Designed much
like a refractory furnace, except that it is flitted with
water tubes, this unit is a typical of modern waterwall
combustors.
The first sophisticated U.S. system, patterned after
the European designs, was constructed in 1971 at Braintree,
Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, systems were built at
Chicago, Illinois, and at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, that
utilized the Martin (Munich, West Germany) design. Although
all were designed with the possibility of selling the steam,
generated, none of these plants did so until after the 1974
oil embargo. More recently, however, waterwall combustion
units have been constructed at Nashville, Tennessee, and
Saugus, Massachusetts. Unlike their American predecessors,
markets for the recovered steam (and chilled water at Nashville)
were secured prior to construction, assuring sale of their
products. Brief descriptions of these systems are included
in this report.
A second approach to recovering energy from unprocessed
municipal solid waste is through the use of small two-
chamber, modular incinerators. These shop-fabricated units
have been in widespread use for many years; but only recently
have they been adapted to heat recovery or municipal operation.
-------
475
Ranging in size from 1 to 20 tons per day, they were histor-
ically used in industrial, commercial, or institutional
applications. More recently, they have been used in municipal
operations; by installing multiple units the plants range in
\
capacity from 20 to 100 tons per day. These units have been
operated as steam producers with the total steam production
being utilized by a single, adjacent industrial facility.
Because they are shop-fabricated, construction is quick and
simple, requiring only a minimum of skilled labor. Their
capital and operating costs make them feasible in some
instances for communities as small as 10,000 to 15,000
people. Even smaller communities might find them practical
in situations where a facility can dispose of both municipal
waste and plant waste generated by the steam-using industry.
At the same time that waterwall combustion technology
was gaining widespread acceptance in Europe, a different
concept was being pursued in the United States. Whereas the
waterwall concept attempts to design the best possible
combuster to accommodate the difficult fuel called solid
waste, the American concept was to transform the solid waste
into a fuel that could be burned in existing fossil fuel
combustors. Thus, the European approach adapts the combustor
to the fuel while the American approach adapts the fuel to
the combustor. This concept is commonly referred to as
"refuse-derived fuel (RDF)"; the RDF can be burned in a
dedicated spreader-stoker furnace or as a supplement to coal
in a suspension-fired boiler.
6
-------
476
The concept of direct combustion of solid waste in
combination with a fossil fuel in an existing boiler was
originally proposed in 1968. The Union Electric Company of
St. Louis, Missouri, encouraged the City of St,. Louis to
apply to the Office of Solid Waste of the EPA for a grant to
demonstrate the use of prepared solid waste as a supplement
to pulverized coal in an existing suspension-fired, steam-
electric boiler. Construction of the first test facility
was completed in 1972 and evaluations were completed in
1976. Even before the evaluations were complete, several
other cities began constructing similar facilities. Plants
are currently in operation in Ames, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
and Baltimore County, Maryland. Other plants are under
construction in Bridgeport, Connecticut; Chicago, Illinois;
and Monroe County, New York.
Pyrolysis of municipal solid waste has largely been an
American concept, and it was developed as an effort to
convert solid waste into a more readily marketable fuel.
Ideally, this fuel, produced from solid waste, would be
easily transported to distant users, would be easily stored
for use when needed (as opposed to having to be used as soon
as it is produced), and would be compatible with other
conventional fuels. In essence, the fuel user would think
of this fuel as being interchangeable with other fossil
fuels.
-------
477
Efforts to develop this system have met with only
limited success, and consequently, despite 10 years of
extensive developmental activity, the concept is still not
ready for widespread commercial use. Although there are 50
or more organizations working on different pyrolysis systems,
only 4 have evolved to the "full-scale" demonstration stage.
The largest of these is the 900 tonne (1,000 ton)-per-day,
rotary-kiln pyrolysis reactor built in Baltimore, Maryland,
with financial assistance from EPA. Although it has operated
intermittently since 1975, the plant has been plagued with
a number of mechanical problems. At present, the city of
Baltimore is in the midst of a major program of modifications
in order to improve plant performance.
Another plant was built with EPA assistance in San
Diego County, California. This 180 tonne (200 ton)-per-day
facility was designed and built by the Occidental Research
Corporation. Two other 180 tonne (200 ton)-per-day plants
are undergoing testing. One is the Union Carbide test
facility built, owned, and operated by them at their S.
Charleston, West Virginia, industrial complex. The other
plant is in Luxemburg, where it was built by Andco, Incorporated,
as a commercial facility. This plant uses the Torrax process,
which was originally developed by the Carborundum Corporation
in Erie County, New York.
-------
478
Mass Burning of Unprocessed Waste
Waterwall Combustion
Process Description
Municipal solid waste is deposited on a tipping floor
or in a large storage pit from which it is transferred to
the furnace feed hopper. From the feed hopper, the waste is
fed onto mechanical grates, where it burns as it moves con-
tinuously through the furnace. Noncombustible material
falls off the end of the grate, where it is quenched with
water and then conveyed to trucks or a temporary storage
pit. Ferrous metal is routinely recovered from the residue,
and in Europe the ash is often used as a road building
material.
The furnaces are enclosed by closely spaced water-
filled tubes. Water circulating through the tubes recovers
heat radiated from the burning waste. Some solid-waste-
fired steam generators employ refractory walls. Integrally
constructed (attached) heat recovery boilers generate steam
while reducing the temperature (and the volume) of the
exhaust gases. The boilers,consist of various zones or tube
packages referred to as superheaters, economizers, reheaters,
etc., depending upon the function of the particular zone.
A marketable product (steam) is created while permitting the
use of smaller gas-cleaning equipment (gas volume is pro-
portional to absolute temperature).
-------
479
In the combustion process, oxygen (air) is required to
burn the fuel and release heat. Air is introduced above and
below the fuel bed (overfire air-underfire air) to promote
mixing of the gases (turbulence) and to complete combustion
\
in the furnace. The combustion gases, after being cooled
as they pass through the various boiler sections are passed
through air pollution control devices (generally electrostatic
precipitators) and are then vented to the atmosphere through
a stack.
Status of Major Projects
Braintree, Massachusetts. In September 1971, the Town
of Braintree began to operate its two independent waterwall
furnaces equipped with Riley traveling grates. The furnaces
were constructed by Antonellis-Pyro Furnace Contractors.
Each furnace is designed to burn 108 tonnes (120 tons) per
day of municipal solid waste with a higher heating value of
11.5 kilojoules per kilogram (5,000 British thermal units
per pound). The solid waste is not processed before combustion,
The plant's two steam generating boilers are designed
to produce a total of 27,000 kg (60,000 Ibs) per hour of
steam at 1,700 kPa (250 pounds per square inch gauge).
Actual, output of steam is somewhat lower—23,000 to 25,000
kg/hr (52,000 to 56,000 Ib/hr) because of condenser capacity
limitations.
10
-------
480
The plant was built at an initial cost of $2.5 million,
excluding land. However, the plant has recently undergone
extensive rebuilding, including replacement of the original
electrostatic precipatator with new high efficiency units.
Chicago (Northwest), Illinois. In December 1971, the
City of Chicago began to operate its northwest plant, which
has four independent waterwall furnaces with Martin reverse
reciprocating grates. Each of the four furnaces is designed
to burn 360 tonnes (400 tons) per 24-hour day. Three units
are always in use; one is reserved for standby capacity.
The plant was built at a cost of $23 million, including
land.
A shredder was installed to reduce oversized bulky
waste, but it has not been used because of excessive amounts
of dust and noise. (The shredder would have been powered by
steam generated on-site.) Consequently, no solid waste is
processed prior to combustion.
The plant's four steam-generating boilers are designed
to produce a total of 198,000 kg/hr of steam at 1,700 kPa
(440,000 Ibs/hr at 250 psig-) . Some of the steam is used to
heat the maintenance garage; the rest was condensed. In
addition, a steam line to a nearby industrial customer is
being installed, and steam sales are anticipated to start in
1979.
11
-------
481
All four furnaces have electrostatic precipitators to
control particulate emissions. Fly ash, bottom residue, and
grate siftings are dropped into a quench trough and are
conveyed to a separate building.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The city of Harrisburg's
waterwall combustion unit was completed in June 1972. Its
two independent waterwall furnaces have Martin reverse
reciprocating grates and boilers designed by the IBW-Martin
Group. Each furnace is designed to burn 324 tonnes (360
tons) per 24-hour day, 5 days per week. A shredder reduces
oversized bulky wastes to particles of less than 15 cm (6
in.). The shredder is driven by steam generated on-site.
There is no other pretreatment of the solid waste.
The plant's two steam-generating boilers are designed
to produce a total of 108,000 kg/hr of steam at 2000 kPa
(240,000 Ibs/hr at 300 psig). About 20 percent of the steam
is used to heat the building and maintenance garage and to
power the shredder. A 2-mile steam line was completed in
1978 to tie this plant into an existing downtown steam loop.
Sales of steam started in late 1978.
In addition, the Harrisburg plant is being modified to
burn dryed sewage sludge along with the solid waste. Sludge
from a wastewater treatment plant at 5 percent solids will
be pumped to the waterwall combustion unit where it will be
12
-------
48^
dewatered in vacuum filters to 20 percent solids and then
dried to 10 percent moisture in a steam-heated "porcupine"
dryer. The dry sludge will then be introduced into the
furnace and burned.
The two furnaces have electrostatic precipitators to
control particulate emissions. Fly ash, bottom ash residue,
and grate siftings are dropped into a quench tank and conveyed
under a magnet to a storage hopper for loading into trucks,
which haul the residue to an adjacent site. Magnetically
separated ferrous metals are being sold to a local scrap
dealer.
The plant was built at a cost of $8.3 million, excluding
land, new steam line, and sludge systems.
Nashville, Tennessee. The Nashville Thermal Transfer
Corporation, a nonprofit authority created by the State of
Tennessee, began operating the facility in June 1974.
Unlike other installations, the system was originally conceived
as a fossil-fuel-fired district heating and cooling system.
Later, but still in the planning stages, it was decided to
use solid waste instead of fossil fuel as the primary energy
source.
13
-------
483
The two furnaces are equipped with Detroit Stoker
Company agitating grates and each is designed to burn 324
tonnes (360 tons) per 24-hour day. Eventually, the plant
will be expanded to include one additional 324-tonne (360
ton) unit. A package-type boiler, which can be fired by oil
or gas, serves in a standby capacity. This is necessary
because some of Thermal's customers have no alternative
means of heating or cooling their buildings.
The boilers are designed to produce a total of 177,750
kg/hr of steam at 3,000 kPa (395,000 Ibs/hr at 400 psig).
Heat is distributed directly as 316-C (600 F) steam. For
cooling, steam turbine-driven chillers, rated at 12,600
tonnes (14,000 tons) of cooling capacity, provide water at 5
C (41 F) for piping to customers.
The two furnaces were originally equipped with low-
energy scrubbers (water spray chambers). This equipment
controlled particulate emissions to a level of 0.19 grains
per cubic foot (corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide);
this is significantly higher than the Federal New Source
Performance Standard of 0.08 gr/scf. Consequently, the
corporation had to replace the scrubbers with electrostatic
precipitators. The new units have been found to maintain
emissions at 0.024 gr/scf, well below the Federal standard.
14
-------
484
Saugus, Massachusetts. RESCO, Incorporated, a joint
venture of Wheelabrator-Frye, Incorporated (the U.S. licensee
of the Von Roll incinerator), and a local construction and
landfill company, is now operating a facility designed to
burn 1,100 tonnes (1,200 tons) per 24-hour day of solid
waste. In operation since April 1975, the facility produces'
steam for a large General Electric Company industrial plant
for use in processing, power generation, and testing of
steam turbines and jet engines produced at the plant.
Two 540-tonne (600 ton) furnaces of Von Roll design
generate steam at the rate of 83.9 t/hr (185,000 Ibs/hr)
each. Total maximum demand is 158.7 t/hr (350,000 Ibs/hr);
average demand is 102.0 to 113.4 t/hr (225,000 to 250,000
Ibs/hr). Steam is used at three different pressures:
10,342.5, 4,481.8, and 1,379.0 kPa (1,500, 650, and 200
psig).
Oceanside, New York. This 750-TPD plant was built in
1965. It originally had three batch-feed refractory furnaces,
two with waste-heat boilers. The two units with heat recovery
have been replaced with waterwall units with continuous
feed. The saturated steam ,is ude for in-plant electricity
generation. The plant uses electrostatic precipitators as
the emissions control devices and is meeting required standards,
15
-------
435
Hampton, Virginia. This 400-TPD unit is under construction.
It will consist of two 200-TPD furnaces and will supply
steam for a Federal government complex.
Small Two-Chamber, Modular Combustion Units
The use of small modular combustion units as a means of
recovering energy from municipal solid waste is an excellent
example of modifing and adapting an established technology
to a new prupose. Virtually thousands of these units exist
in the United States where some 20 companies manufacture
them. Their greatest use in the past has been exclusively
for volume reduction—generally in large retail or commercial
complexes, apartment houses, institutions, and industrial
sites. The addition of heat-recovery units to recover
energy either as hot water, steam, or heated air has only
been incorporated during the past few years. There are
currently about 20 such heat-recovery units in operation and
most of these are in industrial sites. The several municipal
operations range in size from 15 to 100 tonnes-per-day
capacity. At least one industrial site is burning municipal
waste 1 day a week and industrial waste during the remaining
time.
16
-------
486
Process Description
A key objective of this type of system is to keep the
total capital cost as low as possible and the systems as
simple as possible, from a viewpoint of design, construction,
operation, and maintenance. The units are shop fabricated
and shipped to the site ready for placement on a concrete
foundation. All instrumentation and controls are ussually
installed at the factory.
The facility is typically a preengineered metal-skinned
building enclosing a concrete pad. Waste is simply dumped
on the pad and then pushed by a small front-end loader into
a hydraulically operated ram-feeder. The front-eiid loader
operator typically serves as the plant operator. Thermocouples
inside the primary combustion chamber automatically control
the cycling of the ram feeder. While designs vary among
manufacturers, the two-chamber, starved-air incinerator
appears to be the most popular unit for heat recovery. In
this type of unit the primary chamber accepts waste on a
refractory floor equipped with air pipes and burns the waste
on an unagitated fixed bed. The units are frequently operated
substoichiometrically which results in the pyrolysis of the
feed stock. They operate as a fixed-bed pyrolysis system
because air is fed into the bottom of the fuel bed through a
bed of ash, charcoal, and fresh fuel, where the products of
combustion devolatilize the raw waste and exit the primary
17
-------
487
chamber. The off-gases are consumed in an afterburner,
where they are mixed with air and ignited. Normally, some
fossil fuel is burned to sustain the afterburner temperature
because the heating value of the primary chamber off-gas is
too low to sustain combustion. The afterburner is generally
the only air pollution control device employed in these
units. The hot products of combustion from the afterburner
are passed through a heat exchanger to generate hot air,
water, or steam. These units are prevalent because of
mechanical simplicity and low cost. They also have inherently
low fly ash emission characteristics, which lend them to
serving as a heat exchanger heat source withour undue fouling
potential. The ash is frequently allowed to accumulate
until the unit is full and then the unit is cooled and
manually de-ashed. Modern units employ ash-handling systems
of various designs, including an air-lock guillotine door
opposite the feed opening and a secondary ram which advances
the ash into a closed, spray-equipped ash discharge hopper
incorporating a water spray dust suppressions system.
Status
Blytheville, Arkansas., This is the first small modular
combustion unit to burn municipal solid waste for energy
recovery. As such it has experienced numerous problems
typical of a first generation plant. The plant is 4 years
old and consists of four Consumat starved-air furnaces with
18
-------
480
a total capacity of 45 tonnes (50 tons) per day. Built at
an initial cost of $800,000, it operates 10 hours per day
and supplies 24,000 pounds of steam per day to a nearby
chrome-plating industry.
Groveton, New Hampshire. This unit was purchased in
1975 by the Groveton Paper Products Division of Diamond
International at a cost of $250,000 and is designed to
handle 27 tonnes (30 tons) of mill waste and municipal solid
waste per day. This unit,, built by the Environmental Control
Products Corporation, has automatic ash removal, allowing
continuous operation. The unit burns primarily dirt from
the papermill's wood chip feedstock; mill waste; and, 1 day
per week, the waste collected from the town's 1,600 residents
The unit provides 4,000 to 6,000 pounds of steam per hour—a
small percentage of the plant's total steam load.
Siloam Springs, Arkansas. The plant consists of two
Consumat units with a combined capacity of 18 tonnes (20
tons) per day. Like Blytheville, this plant does not have
automatic ash removal so it can be operated only until the
ash depth builds up to a certain point. Thus, a 24-hour
operating cycle consists of 10 hours of burning followed by
burndown, cooldown, and ash removal. The plant has operated
with a minimum of maintenance expense.
19
-------
489
The plant was built in 1975 at a total capital cost of
$375,000. Four thousand five hundred (4,500) pounds of
steam per hour are supplied to an adjacent canning plant.
North Little Rock, Arkansas. This plant began operating
in September 1977 and, in addition to being the newest heat-
recovery modular combustion unit, it is also the largest.
The plant has a total capacity of 90 tonnes (100 tons) per
day. Four combustion units serve two waste-heat boilers.
Total steam output is 15,000 pounds per hour at 750 to 790
kPa (110 to 115 psig). The plant is located on the property
of a creosoting plant which uses the steam. The facility
cost, excluding land, was approximately $1.5 million.
Crossville, Tennessee. This 60-TPD plant went into
operation in 1978 and supplies steam to a rubber-tire plant.
In addition to municipal solid waste, this plant burns some
scrap rubber. The two continuous-feed units were supplied
by the Farrier Corporation.
Salem, Virginia. This is a 100-TPD plant based on the
design at North Little Rock. The plant started operation in
late 1978 and is basically a later version of the units in
Arkansas.
Genesee County, Michigan. This 100-TPD plant is under
construction. The two 50-TPD units are being supplied by
Consumat. These units, at 2 TPD, are the largest built to
date. 20
-------
49O
Mechanical Processing of Solid Waste
Refuse-Derived Fuel
Process Description
The production of refuse-derived fuel can be done in
many different ways and most plants built to date exhibit
different philosophies as to design. In general, however,
the process entails primary shredding to reduce the nominal
particle size of the waste to about 10 cm (4 inches). At
this point, ferrous metal is usually removed and the remaining
material is separated into a lighter, mostly combustible
fraction and a heavier, mostly noncombustible fraction.
This separation is done using an "air classifier" in which
the shredded waste stream is injected into a strong, vertically
rising airstream. Lighter materials are carried up through
the device by the air current. Heavier materials are pulled
by gravity down through the airstream where they drop from
the bottom of the classifier. The light fraction is then
further processed to improve its fuel characteristics. This
further processing generally consists of a second shredding
step but can also entail screening to remove fine inorganic
particles. Modified supplementary fuels can also be produced
by treating the organics with a chemical embrittling agent
and then grinding them to a powder-like consistency or by
densifying the organics in a pellet mill. This latter
variation then produces a small, dense fuel pellet very
21
-------
491
similar to coal nuggets which are suitable as a fuel in a
stoker-fired boiler equipped with a grate.
The RDF that is produced can be burned as a supplement
to coal or can be burned in a dedicated spreader-stoker
boiler as a primary fuel. Both approaches are being implemented.
This technology, although new, does have application, and as
more systems are implemented the technical uncertainties of
the processing and combustion systems can be reduced, eliminated,
or at least identified.
Status of Major Projects
St. Louis, Missouri. Although this test facility is no
longer in operation, it is important to review the experience
gained since the facility served as a model for most of the
later implementations. Therefore, the results of this
project will be discussed in greater detail.
The city of St. Louis, Missouri, with demonstration
grant support from the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and with the cooperation and investment
of the Union Electric Company, began preparing solid waste
for use as a supplementary boiler fuel in April 1972. The
plant was closed for extensive modifications from May to
November 1973 and was shut down permanently in 1976, following
completion of the evalution program.
22
-------
49Z
Design Capacity. The plant was designed to process 270
tonnes (300 tons) per operating day. Processing was con-
fined to one 8-hour-shift per day with firing into the
boiler on a 24-hour-per-day basis. The processing line was
designed to handle 40.5 tonnes (45 tons) per hour and included
a shredder for size reduction, an air classifier to separate
the fuel fraction, a magnet to separate ferrous metals, and
a densifier to upgrade the quality of the ferrous product.
As would be expected of a prototype, the facility encountered
many operating problems. In addition, the plant had only
one processing line and no redundancy. However, the plant
processed about 52,000 tonnes (60,000 tons) of waste
throughout the demonstration period. The plant normally
processed 135 tonnes (150 tons) per day when the power plant
could accept waste on a 24-hour basis.
Waste Characteristics. An1analysis of the input waste
streams, on the average indicates the following:
As received (wet weight) Basis
Heating value 10.0 MJ/kg (4675 Btu/lb)
Moisture content 30 percent
Sulfur 0.11 percent
Chlorine 0.33 percent
Sodium Chloride 1.27 percent
Ash 20 percent
23
-------
493*
Only residential wastes were processed at the facility.
Products. The air classified fuel fraction represented
about 74 percent of the input waste. About 98 percent of
the fuel was less than 3.15 cm (1.5 inches) in size (any
dimension). Analysis of the fuel fraction, on the average,
indicated the following:
As Fired (wet weight) Basis
Heating value 11.6 MJ/kg (5,006 Btu/lb)
Moisture 27.5 percent
Sulfur 0.11 percent
Chlorine 0.34 percent
Sodium Chloride 0.27 percent
Ash 18.5 percent
Power Plant Experience. Test firing rates at the power
plant varied from 5 to 27 percent of the total heat load of
the boiler. However, because the RDF was not fired con-
tinuously, the RDF provided only 3 percent of the heat input
to the boiler over the life of the project. There was no
•
measurable physical effect of the RDF on the boiler.
Bottom ash did increase significantly, but did not exceed
the capability of the existing bottom-ash handling equipment.
A major maintenance problem was found to be abrasive wearing
of the elbows in the pnuematic transport lines. This prob-
lem was addressed by additional processing of the waste
24
-------
494
stream to reduce the inorganics and by installing abrasive
resistant wear plates in the critical locations.
Particulate emissions were found to increase when RDF
was burned with coal, but only when the boiler was operating
at its maximum capacity of 140 megawatts (MW). At its
design capacity of 125 MW, there was no significant change.
It is felt that at the larger boiler load the design capacity
of the electrostatic precipitator was exceeded. This is a
site-specific phenomenon which is a function of the actual
capacities of the various system components, and as such
cannot be used to predict the performance of any other
system.
Ames, Iowa. This municipally owned facility is the
first commercial RDF plant to be built. It was patterned
after the St. Louis demonstration facility. The plant,
which has been operating since November 1975, was built at a
cost of $5.6 million and is designed to process 36 tonnes
(40 tons) of waste per hour. However, the plant has required
about 7 hours to process the 150 tons of waste brought to
the plant each day. In this facility two stages of shredding
precede the air classification step, recovering about 80
percent of this incoming waste as 4 cm (1 1/2 inch) fluff
RDF. The RDF is transported pnuematically to the adjacent,
city-owned power plant. The power plant is outfitted with a
small (33 MW) suspension-fired boiler and two 20 MW spreader-
stoker (grate-equipped) boilers. It has been found that the
25
-------
495
suspension fired boiler is too small to provide sufficient
retention time for the heavier organic particles to completely
combust. Because of this the city has been burning the RDF
in less efficient stoker-fired units. These units have been
able to burn RDF at rates up to 50 percent (on a heat-input-
basis). However, these units are not as efficient as the
suspension-fired boiler so it power plant incurs an economic
penalty by using them instead of the suspension-fired unit.
Therefore, the city is installing a burnout grate in the
suspension-fired unit so it can go back to the more efficient
boiler.
Milwaukee,Wisconsin. This RDF facility is owned and
operated by the Americology Division of American Can Company
under contract to the city of Milwaukee. The 1,100-tonnes
(1,200 tons)-per-day facility was built at a reported cost
of approximately $18 million, including $4 million in modifi-
cations at the Wisconsin Electric Power Company power plant.
Waste is first shredded to 10 cm (4 inches) and then separated
in a zig-zag air classifier. The light fraction representing
about 60 percent of the input waste stream is then reshredded
to about 4 cm (1 1/2 inches). The RDF is transported to the
power plant in 57-cu m (75 cubic yard) transfer trailers.
The plant has been in operation for about 1 year and is
currently processing about 600 tons per day. The RDF is
being burned in a 300 MW suspension-fired boiler. Inexplicably,
the fuel product has been of much lower qulaity than expected.
26
-------
496
Ash content has been 33 percent and moisture has been running
34 percent. As a consequence/ they have experienced severe
slagging in the boiler. Americology is modifying the processing
plant in an effort to improve the quality of the RDF.
The following plants are under construction or in
various stages of start-up.
Chicago, Illinois. This 1,000 TPD plant, which consists
of two processing lines, will produce an RDF product that
can be used supplement coal at Commonwealth Edison's Crawford
electric generating plant.
Bridgeport, Connecticut. The plant is to process 1,800
TPD into a powdered RDF (Eco-Fuel II) in a proprietary
process that uses a special embrittlement agent and a heated
ball-mill pulverizer. The powdered RDF will be burned to
supplement oil at United Illuminating1s Devon electric
generating plant.
Lane County (Eugene), Oregon. This small 500-TPD plant
has a single processing line. The RDF will be used to
supplement wood waste (hog fuel) at a local site.
Monroe County, New York. This 2,000-TPD plant has two
processing lines. The RDF will be burned as a supplement to
coal in Rochester Gas and Electric's No. 7 plant.
27
-------
497
In addition to the supplemental fuel systems listed
above, RDF is being used as a primary fuel in a number of
locations. These plants, all of which are under construction
or in start-up prepare the waste by shredding, some air
classification, magnetic metals removal, and screening, and
burn the predominantly organic material in a hog-fuel type
boiler with a grate to produce steam. Normally, the shredded
waste (coarse RDF) is the only fuel, but a few plants are
under design that plan a 50-50 mixture of coal and coarse
RDF. The fuel can also be produced by wet pulping, as
developed in the EPA-supported demonstration project in
Franklin, Ohio. This approach is being implemented in
Hempstead. Two processing lines feeding two boilers are
typical.
Akron, Ohio^ This 1,000-TPD'plant will employ two
processing lines to produce a coarse RDF that will be burned
in two spreader-stoker boilers. The superheated steam will
be used for urban and industrial heating.
Albany, New York. The RDF at this 750-TPD facility
will be prepared and shipped across the city to a spreader-
stoker boiler suppling heating steam to a number of State
office buildings.
Niagara Falls, New York. This system is privately
owned and operated and will be supplying steam to the Hooker
Chemical Company. The solid waste will come from the communities
in the vicinity of the plant.
2 8
-------
498
Hempstead, New York. This 2,000 TPD plant uses the wet
separation process to produce RDF. The fuel, after dewatering
to 50 percent moisture, is combusted in a boiler and the
superheated steam generated is used to produce electricity
which is sold into the grid. The plant is beginning operations
and is now at half capacity. A sister plant will be built
in Dade County, Florida.
Pyrolysis Systems
Pyrolysis is the destructive distillation of the organic
fraction of solid waste. It occurs when organic material is
exposed to heat in the absence or near absence of oxygen.
Pyrolysis differs from combustion in that it is endothermic
(heat absorbing) rather thari exothermic. Processes under
development use heat from part of the waste to provide the
heat absorbed during pyrolysis and recover the remaining
heat in the form of steam or a gaseous or liquid fuel.
All processes reduce the solid waste to three forms:
gases (primarily hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, and
carbon dioxide); liquids (water and organic chemicals, such
as acetic acid, methanol, and benzene); and solids (a
carbonaceous char). The form and characteristics of the
fuel fraction varies for each of the different processes
under development and is a function of the reaction time,
temperature and pressure in the pyrolysis reactor, the
particle size of the feed, and the presence of catalysts.
29
-------
499
To maximize gas production, reactor temperatures are
held in the range of 800 C to 1,600 C (1,400 F'to 3,000 F) ;
for oil, temperature is on the order of 500 C (900 F).
Pressures range from 1 to 70 atmospheres. Ideally, the
reaction is allowed to take place in the absence of diluting
gases so that the product is the volatile matter of the
solid waste. If air is used in the reactor, the gases
produced will be diluted by the nitrogen in the air (air is
approximately 79 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen).
As a result, some processes have been developed which use
oxygen/ thus resulting in a higher heat-content fuel gas.
Other systems indirectly transfer the heat to the gasifier
to minimize dilution of the product gas.
Heating solid waste releases gases and leaves a carbon
residue called char. In some reactors, the residue reaches
such high temperatures that the ash and other noncombustibles,
such as cans and glass, melt to form a slag, which can be
removed from the reactor in a molten state and quenched to
form a glassy aggregate.
Residues produced from pyrolysis are biologically
inactive and may be safely -disposed in sanitary landfills.
Solid residues from the noncombustible portions of the
refuse, such as glassy aggregate, may be used for construc-
tion and paving. If the char is not consumed in the process,
it has a higher heating value of approximately 10 MJ/kg
(9,000 Btu/lb). Its high ash content (50 percent), however,
30
-------
oCO
severely limits its usefulness. Clearly, failure to consume
all the char in the process represents a loss in energy
recovery.
This paper describes the four pyrolysis systems, which
can be classified as "developmental." There are presently
no commercially operational pyrolysis systems, and there are
numerous other systems which can be considered "experimental."
All four of the systems described have been previously
operated on a small pilot scale. Full-sized plants of 200
tons per day or larger are currently being tested. Two of
the systems produce low energy gas which is used "on-site"
to produce steam. The third system produces a medium-energy
gas which can be sold to a nearby industrial user or may be
suitable as a chemical feedstock. The fourth system pro-
duces an oil-like liquid fuel which can be stored and
transported for use "off-site" in large industrial or
utility boilers.
Baltimore, Maryland. The 1,000-TPD pyrolysis plant
currently in operation in Baltimore, Maryland, was originally
developed by Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Incorporated.
The process involves a starved-air primary furnace chamber
(pyrolyzer) and immediate combustion of the low-heat value
gases in an afterburner for recovery of heat. Waste is
shredded, conveyed to a storage silo, and subsequently fed
to a rotary kiln where it is pyrolyzed. Fuel oil is also
burned in the kiln to provide some of the heat for the
31
-------
501
pyrolysis reaction. The burner is arranged to provide a
counter current flow of gases and solids, thus exposing the
waste to progressively higher temperatures as it passes
through the kiln. The finished residue is exposed to the
highest temperature, 1,000 C (1,800 F), just before it is
discharged from the kiln and quenched in a water-filled
tank. The residuals were to.be split into three fractions:
glassy aggregate, ferrous, and char. The glassy aggregate
and ferrous materials were to be recovered for sale and the
char was to be dewatered and landfilled.
Gases resulting from the pyrolysis reaction have a high
temperature and low heating value (making off-site trans-
portation uneconomical); therefore, they are immediately
mixed with air and burned in an afterburner to liberate the
heat of combustion. The gases then pass through waste-heat
boilers where steam is generated for distribution. Steam is
produced at 213 C (415 F) and 1,400 to 3,600 Kg/cm2 (100 to
260 psi) pressure.
Status. Construction of the plant was completed in
February 1975 under a turnkey contract with Monsanto.
However, normal operation of. the plant has not been possible
because a number of process changes were needed in order to
ensure proper operation. These changes are currently being
made and are expected to be completed in early 1979.
32
-------
502
As originally built, exhaust gases were cleaned by
means of a large spray tower. Initial tests of the spray
tower showed that it could not clean the gases sufficiently
to meet the required ordinances. All efforts to modify the
plant to meet the standard have failed, and as a result it
has been decided to replace the low energy scrubbers with
dry, electrostatic precipitators. Other problem areas that
have required modification or have not worked completely as
intended include: blockage in the shredded-waste storage
bin and hydraulic ram feeder to the kiln; loss of refractory
lining in the kiln and afterburner due to slagging and
temperature control problems; excessive vibration in the
induced draft fan; and failure of the residue drag conveyor.
Most of these other problems have now been eliminated or
reduced.
Although Monsanto is no longer associated with the
project, the city of Baltimore has proceeded with the
modifications. The original cost of the plant was $16
million, excluding land. With the modifications currently
underway, the total cost of the plant will rise to about $25
million.
The city has continued to operate the plant while the
modifications have been underway. During the first 8 months
of 1977, 54,000 tonnes (60,000 tons) of solid waste were
processed. From this waste 225 million pounds of steam were
33
-------
503
produced and sold to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
for $680,000.
San Diego County, California. A 180-tonnes (200 tons)-
\
per-day pilot plant was built under a turnkey contract by
the Occidental Research Corporation. This process was to
convert the organic portion of the waste into an oil-like
liquid fuel that could be used as a substitute for No. 6
fuel oil. Pyrolysis of the organic material occurs almost
instantaneously because it is mixed turbulently with hot
glowing char in an inert atmosphere. The concept was originally
tested in a small laboratory unit. In 1971, a 3.6-TPD (4
TPD) pilot plant was built by Occidental at LaVerne, California.
Successful laboratory scale testing has since led San Diego
County, California, and EPA to fund the 180-TPD (200 TPD)
demonstration plant.
In order for this flash pyrolysis process to work
efficiently, most inorganic materials must be removed and
the organic materials must be reduced to small, dry particles.
Incoming municipal solid waste was first shredded to a
particle size of 5 cm (2 inches) or less. An air classifier
then separated the light, organic fraction from the heavy,
inorganic fraction. The "lights" were dried to a moisture
content of 3 percent. A screen removed additional inorganics,
and the remaining material was shredded again to a particle
size of -14 mesh. The material must pass through a screen
having 1.81 mm openings (14 openings per inch). Ferrous
34
-------
504
metals were reclaimed magnetically from the classifier
rejects; and a sandlike, mixed-color, glass cullet of 99.7-
percent purity was recovered from the remaining inorganics
by selective crushing and screening, followed by froth
flotation.
The pyrolysis reaction took place in a transport
reactor 9.14-m tall and 20 cm in diameter (30-feet tall and
8 inches in diameter). The fine-shredded material was
carried into the base of the reactor where it was mixed with
burning char. Both materials were carried through the
system by spent combustion gases from an auxiliary char
burner. In the reactor, the hot, glowing char and solid
waste mixes rapidly as the material passes upward under
turbulent flow conditions. Reactor temperature were main-
tained, without any auxiliary fuel, at about 480 C (900 F).
Because the pyrolysis reaction was so rapid, the gaseous
products formed are not exposed to the high temperatures
long enough for them to degrade thermally. The result is
that when the gases are cooled down to ambient temperatures,
the compounds formed are organic liquids rather than gases.
After removal of char by cyclones, the hot gases passed
to a standard oil-recovery collection train. Hot char could
either be recirculated to the pyrolysis reactor after being
reheated in the char heater, or quenched for disposal.
35
-------
505
The hot, char-free gaseous products leaving the reactor
cyclone were cooled rapidly, from about 480 C '(9OF) to 65 C
(150F) by a venturi quench system using recirculated product
oil. In this way, the liquid products, at the rate of about
3 \
0.14 m (0.9 barrel or 36 gal) per ton of solid waste, were
recovered before thermal cracking could occur. The outlet
gas was cooled further to 43 C (110 F) in a packed-bed
scrubber before being returned to the process. Condensed
water from the decomposition of cellulosic compounds amounted
to about 13 percent of the pyrolysis feed. This water was
cooled in a separate heat exchanger, and a portion was then
returned to the scrubber for cooling purposes.
The liquid fuel obtained from the pyrolysis of municipal
refuse differs in many important aspects from fuel oil
derived from petroleum. It is a complex, highly oxygenated
organic fluid. The sulfur content is a good deal lower than
that of even the best-residued oils. To produce the same
amount of energy as No. 6 fuel oil, nearly twice its weight
in pyrolytic oil would be needed; the average heating value
of pyrolytic oil is about 5,000 kJ/kg (10,500 Btu per pound),
compared with 8,640 kJ/kg (18,200 Btu per pound) for a
typical No. 6. On a volume basis, however, a liter (or
barrel) of oil derived from the pyrolysis of municipal waste
contains about 76 percent of the heat energy available from
No. 6 fuel oil.
36
-------
506
Status. Construction of the 180 tonnes (200 tons)-per-
day plant was completed in February 1977. Startup operations
were underway for almost 1 year when it became apparent that
the process would not work as designed and extensive modifications
would be required. The "front end" of the plant worked
reasonably well, but from the secondary shredder and dryer
on through the pyrolysis system, numerous mechanical and
thermal problems arose. Reducing and drying the shredded
solid waste to -14 mesh proved very difficult. The material
was abrasive and equipment life was severely limited. The
pyrolysis reactor and associated hardware did not perform as
designed, and consequently, the little pyrolysis oil that
was produced did not meet the expectations of the operators.
None of this oil was burned in the oil-fired electric utility.
boiler as was originally planned. At present, the plant is
shut down. Occidental Research is analyzing the data gathered
during the short runs and will determine the viability of
further modifications. Until Occidental can assertain the
cost and extent of the modifications required the commerical
viability of this process is questionable.
Souch Charleston, West Virginia. The Linde Division of the
Union Carbide Corporation has developed a high-temperature
pyrolysis reactor (called "Purox") which produces a fuel gas
that can be recovered for off-site use. Original pilot-
plant work was done in Tarrytown, New York, on a 3-m (10
foot) tall, packed-column retort having a capacity of 4.5
TPD (5 TPD). Union Carbide is currently testing a 180-TPD
37
-------
507
(200 TPD)-facility at South Charleston, West Virginia. This
company-owned test facility is being used to confirm engineering
scale-up criteria, to obtain operating data on and experience
in working with municipal solid waste, and to confirm projected
economics. In addition to municipal solid waste, separate
tests have been conducted on a mixture of sewage sludge and
solid waste.
The basic part of the Purox system is a vertical shaft
furnace into which shredded solid waste is charged at the
top. This furnace operates at atmospheric pressure with
oxygen admitted into the combustion zone at the bottom of
the furnace. Combustion occurs at the base of the furnace,
and the temperature levels at that point are about 165 C
(3,000 F). At this temperature, glass and metal constituents
of the solid waste are fused into a molten slag, the slag
being discharged continuously from the bottom of the furnace
through a water seal. The furnace temperatures drop off
rapidly above the bottom zone, and the oxidizing conditions
at the bottom of the furnace are replaced by reducing con-
ditions in the middle and upper zones. In the middle and
upper zones of the furnace, low-temperature distillation and
drying occur together with the reactions between steam and
carbon monoxide and the combustible components of the solid
waste. The end result of the chemical reactions taking
place in this part of the furnace is the formation of a gas
at a temperature level of about 90 C (200 F) which has a
3
heating value of about 8.9 kJ/m (300 Btu per cubic foot).
38
-------
508
This gas contains, on a dry basis, about 50 percent carbon
monoxide, 15 percent carbon dioxide, and 30 percent hydrogen.
The gas leaving the furnace contains a large amount of
water-soluble products of pyrolysis. A standard design
electrostatic precipitator removes the oil and fly ash,
which are recycled back to the furnace combustion zone.
Following the electrostatic precipitator, a condenser
removes most of the water vapor together with water soluble
components of the gas. There is very little fly ash in the
product gas because of the electrostatic precipitator, the
filtering action of the refuse bed, and the low gas velocity
in the furnace. The last condition is accomplished by the
use of oxygen rather than air for the combustion process.
The gas also contains few oxides of nitrogen because the
combustion occurs mostly under reducing conditions and also
because in using oxygen instead of air, there is very little
nitrogen present in the furnace.
The Union Carbide Corporation envisions the use of
product gas as a fuel gas. They indicated that, although
the heating value of the gas is lower than natural gas, the
flame temperature will be higher, based on the heat released
per volume of combustion product. The lower heating value
is a problem only if the gas must be transported a significant
distance.
39
-------
503
The Purox system, as described by Union Carbide, will
include the pyrolysis furnace, the electrostatic precipitator,
the water condenser, and the cryogenic oxygen plant supplying
the pyrolysis furnace. A flare burner would also be provided
to dispose of the gas and to allow for continuous operation
of the furnace, if the downstream processing unit should be
shut down for some reason. The gas stream would need to
pass through the hydrogen sulfide and chloride scrubbing
units before being flared, in order to minimize air quality
impacts. A major support system required as part of the
process is a waste water treatment plant to treat the highly
contaminated waste waters produced in the gas cleanup train.
Torrax Process
The Torrax process was originally developed by the
Carborundum Company through an EPA demonstration grant to
Erie County, New York. The process was subsequently sold to
the Andco Corporation who is currently promoting the process
in Europe. A 180-tonne (200 ton)-per-day commercial facility
is presently operating in Luxemburg.
This process is similar to the Union Carbide one in
that pyrolysis takes place in a high-temperature, packed-
bed, vertical shaft reactor. The major difference, however,
is that preheated air is used in the lower combustion zone
instead of oxygen. Because of this, the resultant fuel gas
40
-------
510
is diluted by the nitrogen in the air and thus does not have
as high a heating value. Consequently, the gas must be
burned on-site and the energy recovered as steam.
The solid waste is charged as received from the solid
waste pit into the gasifier. The gasifier is a vertical
shaft furnace designed so -that the descending refuse burden
and the ascending high-temperature gases become a counter-
current heat exchanger. The uppermost portion of the
descending solid waste serves as a plug to minimize the
infiltration of ambient air. As the solid waste descend,
four distinct process changes occur. The first is drying,
where the moisture is driven off; the second is pyrolysis,
due to the heat transfer from the ascending hot gases to the
solid waste; the third is combustion in the hearth, where
the carbonaceous char is oxidized to carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide; and the final process change is melting of
the inert fraction of the solid waste.
The heat for pyrolyzing and drying the solid waste and
for melting the inert fraction is produced by the combustion
of the carbon char with 1,000 C (2,000 F) preheated air
supplied to the hearth zone of the gasifier. The heat thus
generated melts the inerts to form a molten slag, which is
drained continuously through a sealed slag tap into a water-
quench tank to produce a black, sterile, granulated residue.
41
-------
511
The quench tank is periodically purged into the system slag
pit.
The volatile products of pyrolysis and products of
primary combustion exit from the gasifier into the secondary
combustion chamber, where the gases are mixed with a near-
stoichiometric quantity of ambient air.
The secondary combustion chamber is a vertical, refractory-
lined vessel in which temperatures of 1,400 C (2,500 F) are
realized and where sufficient residence time to assure
complete burning is maintained. The majority of the particulate
matter entrained in the off gas from the gasifier is burned
or slagged-out into another slag-quench tank. The resulting
slag residue is sluiced into the system slag pit. The
combusted gaseous mixture exits from the secondary combustion
chamber at 1,150 to 1,250 C (2,100 to 2,300 F) .
A portion of the hot waste gas from the secondary
combustion chamber (about 15 percent) is directed through
regenerative towers where its sensible heat is recovered and
used for preheating the process air supplied to the gasifier
hearth. These regenerative-towers, successfully used for
many years in the steel industry, are two refractory-lined
vessels containing a high heat capacity refractory checkerwork
material. Hot products of combustion from the secondary
combustion chamber and ambient process air are passed through
42
-------
512
the towers on a cyclical basis for preheating the 1,000 C
combustion air. The remainder of the flow exiting the
secondary combustion chamber is supplied to a waste heat
boiler designed for inlet gas temperatures of 1,150 C to
1,250 C (2,100 to 2,300 F).
The cooled waste gases from the regenerative towers are
combined with the exiting flow from the waste heat boiler
and are ducted to a hot gas electrostatic precipitator of
conventional design.
Status. The principles of the Torrax process were
originally proven on a 68-tonne (75 ton)-per-day pilot plant
operated intermittently from 1871 to 1975. This plant,
located in Erie County, New York, and financed with a grant
from EPA has been used to process municipal solid waste and
solid waste/ sewage sludge mixtures. Tests with controlled
percentages of waste oil, tires, and PVC plastics were also
run. The pilot plant differs significantly from the above-
described system in that the hot-blast combustion air is
heated using a gas-fired air-to-air heat exchanger instead
of the regenerative towers.
The Carborundum Corporation, which was involved in the
original development of the Torrax process, has turned its
marketing rights over to Andco.
43
-------
513
A 180-tonne (200 ton)-per-day prototype plant has been
built In Luxemburg and has been operating for over 1 year.
Three other Torrax plants have been built in Europe and are
in various stages of start-up. They are located in Frankfurt,
\
Germany; Grasse, France; and Centeuil, France.
Conclusions
The first half of this decade has been characterized by
a flurry of activity related to energy recovery from municipal
solid waste. Many communities acted hastily as a result of
intense environmental pressure. This has led to the construction
of some facilities that are not working as efficiently as
was originally expected. The lessons that have been learned
have/ in some cases, been very costly, both politically and
economically.
With more plants coming into operation each year, a
great deal is being learned about the realities of what can
be expected from a solid waste energy recovery system. And
while interest is every bit as intense as it had been in the
past, community planners are moving more cautiously. Resource
recovery is not the panacea,that will turn "garbage into
gold," but it can be an economical means of waste disposal
if it is carefully developed.
44
-------
514
The Recovery of Energy from Municipal Solid Waste
(A Review of Activity in the United States)
Discussion Leader: Mr. David B. Sussman
Question: In the Harrisburg plant, would you tell me the type of
shredder that is used and the reason why that shredder must
be used to reduce the refuse to less than 5 cm in size,
despite the fact that the shredder is not used in the Chicago plant?
Answer: Some of the mass burning plants have installed shredders
—hammermills—to reduce the bulky refuse to small sizes
so that it can get into furnaces. The reason for the
shredder is to handle the bulky waste that comes to the
facility; if no bulky waste comes to the facility, they
would not need a shredder.
Question: In the case of "small two chamber modular combustion units",
is it possible to clear the air pollution limits for gas and
dust emission with only the provision of afterburners?
Answer: In this country, we only have a dust emission standard for
incinerators—no gas standard. And the units can meet the
present dust standard. However, in the future, the dust
standard will be tightened and the units will require
additional air pollution control equipment to meet the
new standards.
Question: The paper mentions the use of catalysts for pyrolysis systems.
Is there any system using catalysts now underway in the U.S.?
If there is, please let us know about it.
-------
515
Answer: As the pyrolysis systems are experimental, various companies
have tried different pressures and temperatures to make their
systems produce specific pyrolysis products. Two pyrolysis
systems that I know of off hand use catalysts: one is a
secret,proprietary catalyst; the other isaluminum silicate,
I think. Neither system works.
Question: It describes that pressure for various pyrolysis processes
range 1 to 70 atmospheres. What are the differences in the
experimental results according to pressures? What are the
advantages for using higher pressure?
Answer: I don't know what the advantages are because none are working
at commercial scale.
Question: How big was the pilot plant before going on to the 1000 t/d
demonstration plant in Baltimore. Couldn't it be possible
to foresee the mechanical problems encountered in the 1000
t/d at the pilot plant stage?
Answer: The plant was scaled up from 35 t/d to 1000 t/d. This was a
mistake. Yes, it was possible to foresee some of the mechani-
cal and thermal problems because of this scale up; but we all
went ahead anyway.
Question: The report says that the San Diego project has been interrupted.
What is the most recent status after the time of publication?
Answer: The San Diego pyrolysis plant has been shut down. The problems
are with the production of the feed material and with the
thermal process. Occidental Research is studying the process
-------
516
to determine if it makes sense to continue investing money in
the system.
Question: In the St. Louis plant, as an example of refuse derived fuel
(RDF), I would like to know the power consumption in kilowatt
hours per ton of refuse and the average total cost in dollars
per ton of refuse for obtaining the RDF of less than 1.5
inches in size.
Answer: The power consumption was 4O kilowatt hours per ton to pro-
duce an RDF of approximately 1.5 inches in size. The cost
to produce the RDF in St. Louis is not a good number because
the plant was pilot scale. But the cost of shredding solid
waste averages about $3.00 per ton.
Question: In the Baltimore pyrolysis plant, would you please explain
more details concerning the problem of blockage in the waste
storage bin and feeder and the failure of the residue drag
conveyer?
Answer: It was a 1000 ton storage system. The problem was with
abrasive wear between the buckets that dragged the material
out and the floor, and the fact that stored garbage formed a
dense mass and would not feed out. The failure of the residue
drag conveyer was caused by large pieces of slag jamming the
conveyer; the slag was formed during process upsets.
Question: What are economic evaluations for various types of pyrolysis
processes under development?
Answer: So far, none of them are economically viable. You don't evaluate
something that is not economically viable anyway.
-------
517
Question: Among the 'four main pyrolysis systems described in the paper,
which process is considered the most promising?
Answer: Two have failed; one works in Europe and the other one they
can't seem to sell. Therefore I would have to answer that
I don't think pyrolysis of mixed municipal solid waste is
very promising at all in this country within the next five
to ten years.
Question: You mentioned that of the four main pyrolysis projects, one
works in Europe.
Answer: That's right. That's the Torrax System that was developed
here in this country.
Question: Why does it work there?
Answer: Well, I don't consider it pyrolysis, number one. I consider it
starved air combustion. It is just another form of burning
garbage. Whether it will be competitive in this country
compared to other garbage mass burning techniques still
remains to be seen. The only true pyrolysis system that
we have in this country is Union Carbide's Purox. And
they haven't sold a commercial version yet. Nobody wants to
buy it. It's too expensive.
Question: I understand that this Purox system developed by Union Carbide
is supposed to enter the Japanese market very soon. We are
told that the capacity will be 75 tons per day for each of
the two units; so tha't makes 150 tons per day. Would you
like to make some remarks on this?
-------
518
Answer: Well, the Union Carbide system does work. It has operated at
150 tons per day for a 90 day period—steady. When Union
Carbide has attempted to sell that unit in this country it
costs so much more than competing technologies that no one
would buy it. What I'm saying is that I have yet to see
the commercial viability of the Union Carbide process in
this country. It may work fine in Japan because your waste
is quite a bit different from ours and your problems are
different. I want to bring up one more point. Five years
ago, Kawasaki was promoting Monsanto's Landgard system in
Kobe, Japan—30 tons per day. When Baltimore did not work,
Kawasaki stopped promoting Landgard. I can only say that
perhaps Union Carbide and the Japanese affiliate of Union
Carbide have the same arrangement. It hasn't sold here;
maybe it will sell there. One more point. It is our opinion
at EPA that there have been no successes with pyrolysis but
as a developmental technology it still has promise. It is
just that it is not ready for implementation today in a city
—maybe in five years; maybe ten years.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a wet
system for mass burning?
Answer: I was avoiding answering that question because you are going
to go to Hempstead and I'd rather the system developers give
you their opinion of why it is better, rather than put me on
the spot. That's saying I don't want to get involved. I
-------
519
can't really give you the advantages and disadvantages because
I don't have the data to support an opinion. I have never
seen an energy balance sheet on the Hempstead plant.
Question: As to the two chamber combustion systems, are there any cases
with dust recovery?
Answer: In the two-chamber unit, the primary chamber acts as a gasifier
—a pyrolysis chamber. It has very low air flow and very little
dust is entrained in the gas stream. In the second chamber,
organic gases are combusted to completion. Consequently,
the whole system produces very little dust.
Question: for what size population was the plant in Nashville designed?
Answer: The plant operates on about 500 tons of garbage a day. That's
only part of the population of the city. It supplies
steam and chilled water to a number of buildings in the downtown
area it's not the whole city.
Question: Your report is very helpful and very informative. And I am
very glad to be here to listen to your report. I don't mean
to give you a hard time, but could we possibly have what
you just explained to us in written down form,— in the form of
documents or something?
Question: On the whole technology?
Answer: Just the answers you h>zve yiven us to these questions.
Response' I can send you all kinds of documents as we get them in or
I can formally answer your questions. However there will be
a written version of the question and answer segment of this
conference.
Response: The written version of the question and answer segment of this
conference will be satisfactory.
-------
Comment: I think what I should do is go to Japan and sit down with you
and we can go over this again. (Laughter)
Comment: What Dr. Naito is concerned about is that to many of us, what
you just told us is somewhat shocking. So what we are con-
cerned about is knowing if this statement is available in the
future as an appendix to your report—in other words, as
an official statement of EPA.
Comment: Mr. Sussman's self-incriminating remarks will be part of the
transcript. (Laughter)
Question: One of the questions I was asked earlier was whether the Depart-
ment of Energy shares this view of of this technology. Maybe
Steve, you can reflect DOE's feelings on pyrolysis both today
and in the future.
Answer: I would say that Mr. Sussman's comments represent the general
American government viewpoint—both of DOE and EPA concerning
the status of pyrolysis. I don't think there is any conflict.
-------
521
5.1, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES RECOVERY SYSTEM
(SECOND PHASE)
Ministry of International Trade and Industry
Agency of Industrial Science and Technology
1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
-------
522
CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Purpose of Research and Development 1
3. Research and Development of Material Recovery Type Process
Sys tern 2
3.1 Assortment of Urban Wastes 4
3.2 Converting Wastes into Compost 6
3.3 From Was tes to Refined Pulp 7
3.4 From Wastes to Fuel Gas 9
4. Research and Development of Energy Recovery Type Process
Sys tern 11
4.1 Pre-treatment of Urban Refuse 13
4.2 From Garbage to Methane 13
4.3 From Wastes to the Fuel Oil 13
-------
523
1. Introduction
The Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, Ministry of
International Trade and Industry, carried out research and develop-
ment of the elementary techniques of a system for utilizing urban
solid wastes, in the period of fiscal 1973 to 1975 as a part of the
big industrial technical research and development system planned by
Japanese Government. The secondary phase of research and development
was started from fiscal 1975. It aims at an integration of the
previously developed elementary techniques into an innovational
technique useful for recovery and reuse of urban refuse (domestic
wastes). An experimental test plant, called the "Star dust *80",
is at the most advanced stage in the above-mentioned "Research and
Development of Resources Recovery System" project and is seen as
the most promising urban refuse recovery and reuse process system in
the 1980rs.
2. Purpose of Research and Development
The following is the fundamental purpose of the secondary-phase
research and development of this resources recovery system:
(1) To realize synthetic and effective treatment necessary for
converting collected mixture of urban solid wastes into useful
and harmless resources.
(2) To make it possible to convert a large part of recovered
waste into material resources and energy resources.
(3) To meet the requirements for preventing environmental pollution.
(4) To develop a system which is safe and relatively easy to
maintain.
(5) To develop a system which will be more economical than the
currently existing systems when taking the subsidiary effect
of utilized resources into consideration.
(6) To develop a system well fitted to social needs.
- 1 -
-------
524
The method of research and development is as follows:
Two prototype technical systems are set up: One for mainly
reproducing material resources and the other for mainly recovering
energy resources. For each system, a large-sized pilot plant
(treatment capacity is about 100 tons a day) will be designed and
constructed. Through the long-term test operation of the pilot
plants, useful data will be obtained for establishment of necessary
techniques on design, construction and operation of an actual plant
which satisfies the above-mentioned purposes of development.
Research and Development of Material Recovery Type Process System
(Star dust '80)
This research and development effort concerns a technical system
which converts a considerably large part of urban solid wastes
mainly into material resources. A pilot plant (100 tons a day in
capacity) under this system is under construction on reclaimed ground
in Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, Japan. Figure 1 indicates the
schematic flow of this pilot plant.
The pilot plant consists of the following sub-systems:
(1) A pre-treatment sub-system around the semi-wet selective
pulverizing classifier which classifies the mixture of collected
wastes into garbage group, wastepaper group and plastic-and-
metal scrap group.
(2) The high-rate composting sub-system which converts refuse of
the garbage group into compost (farmyard-manure-like, organic,
soil improvement compound).
(3) The pulp-refining sub-system which converts wastepaper into
refined pulp.
(4) The two-bed type pyrolysis sub-system which converts recovered
plastics into fuel gas.
- 2 -
-------
525
Compost
Stock
Refining
device
Foreign matter (glass and plastics
High-rate
composting
device
Group I refining
E
CO
co
ja
CO
x~"
01
M 01
cd
p. f
O ct
)-i O
o >-
?
Residual composting device
Forein
matter
i- — • >
>
CO
00 '•3
CO CO
CO
CO -O
to
C M
CU 'H O)
4-» > N -H
•H -H iw
4J lJ -H
CO
CO
0)
I CJ CU
•H 0> >
CU O) 3 .-i
CO CO P, O
Refined pu
CJ
o
CO
i
ulp refining device
Foreign matter
(Plastics)
1
L
00
a
•H
a
T-l
CU
0)
M 4J
M CO
P, CD
0 J3
!-" 3
O CO
t
0)
M CO
M P.
CU
P, 4J
3 CO
O cd
M S
U C-
CO
CO
00
4J
•H
0
holder
CO
CO
O
en
wo-bed type pyrolysi
evice
H -0
t"
refining
n
M CU
M 4-1
M CO
3 1
O ,£>
O CO
•
s~
M Cl
M C.
M T
4-
p, t
3 c<
O i-
M p.
O ^<
&.
CO
o
CO
U
o
4J
CO
' k
N
)
4
)
X
e
CU
4-1
CO
CO
CO
a)
o
o
01
o
U
(0
T3
01
a)
cu
CJ
CO
00
- 3 -
-------
526
3.1 Assortment of Urban Wastes (Pre-treatment sub-system)
Figure 2 indicates the principle of the semi-wet selective pulverizing
classifier — the main part of the pre-treatment sub-system. The
device is composed of the rotary drums, which have two kinds of
screens different in mesh from each other, and two kinds of scrapers
which correspond to the two screens, respectively, and rotate at
different speeds from each other. Charged wastes are crushed as
they are pushed in the axial direction of drums, and assortment of
wastes can be attained by screening them out of the drums, according
to the different sizes of the crushed grain size of materials due to
the differences in shock resistance, compression resistance and
shearing stress properties.
When a mixture of wastes is thrown into the classifier, the scrapers
will first crush the most fragile material such as garbage, soil and
glass, and crushed material will be collected through the first-stage
screen (group I). The remaining wastes are wetted with water in the
drum and subjected to shocks, shearing and crushing by scrapers
while they move in the drums. Wetted wastepaper will therefore be
collected through the second-stage screen (group II). Metal-and-
plastic scraps with the highest ductility will come out of the
opposite end of the drums (group III). The features of this pre-
treatment sub-system are as follows:
(1) Simultaneous crushing and assortment function can be achieved
by a light-power, single process.
(2) Group I material mainly composed of garbage is favorable raw
material for compost.
(3) Group II material mainly composed of wastepaper is favorable
raw material for refined pulp.
(4) Group III material mainly composed of plastics is favorable
raw material for fuel gas.
-------
527
(5) In accordance with variation in composition of charged wastes
assortment can easily be modified by adjusting the speed of
feeding vraste into the drums and the relative speed of rotation
of scrapers to the drums.
(6) Unlike the conventional overall crusher, this device allows
metal, rubber, leathers, clothes and plastics to remain nearly
the same sizes as their original state, thus eliminating the
problem of heavy metals contained in the compost caused by
crushing batteries and exfoliation printing ink.
(7) The device is provided with a protector which prevents tangling
of long strings and a safety device which prevents overloading.
An example of assortment of urban wastes is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Results of Experiment by Small
Continuous Experimental Model
Paper
Garbage
Glass
Soil, Sand,
Stone
Metals
Plastics
Fibers
Wood and Bomboo
Pieces
Total
Moisture
Content
Separation by Groups
(Dry Basis) %
I
43.5
88
88.5
74.5
19.5
11
8
24.5
51.5
-
II
42
11
11.5
23.5
2.5
7.5
15.5
27
24.5
-
Ill
14.5
1
0
0
78
81.5
76.5
48.5
24
-
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
Composition by Groups
(Dry Basis) %
Before I
Charging
48.6
21.3
5.6
2.3
4.1
14.4
2.7
1.0
100
49
41.5
39.5
10
3.5
1.5
3
0.5
0.5
100
61
II
80
8.5
2
2
0.5
4.5
1.5
1
100
66
III
32
1
0
0
12
45
8
2
100
26
- 5 -
-------
528
3.2 Converting Wastes into Compost (High-rate Composting Sub-system)
Garbage selectively collected by the pre-treatment sub-system is
converted into good quality farmyard-manure-like organic manure
by the high-rate composting sub-system.
Garbage contained in the fermentation vessel is satisfactorily
stirred up at fixed intervals of time and fed with air, so that
vigorous fermentation activity can convert garbage into odorless
manure in a short period. Foreign matter such as glass fragments
and small pieces of plastic are removed. The high-rate composting
sub-system not only contributes to producing good quality organic
manure, but also to saving space in land to be filled up with urban
was tes.
The features of the high-rate composting sub-system are as follows:
(1) Mechanical stirringTIand forced aeration in the functionally
designed fermentation vessel accelerate activity of micro-
organisms so that garbage can be converted into organic manure
in a short period of time.
(2) Manure product is free from foreign matter, uniform in grain
size, and stable in quality.
(3) The machine is designed as an economical, automatic system.
Its running cost is quite small.
(4) Manure product is hygienic since the heat (70°C) generated
during fermentation kills disease germs and parasites and
dissolves seeds which may be in garbage.
(5) Counternieasures are taken to prevent generation of bad smells
and other environmental pollution which frequently accompanies
conventional composting systems.
- 6 -
-------
529
The manure product includes the following fertilizer components:
Nitrogen (N) 1.6 to 2.3% (weight proportion)
Phosphate (P20s) 0.8 to 1.2%
Potassium (K£0) 0.7 to 3.1%
First stage Second stage
Charged wastes I screens I Scrapers
Group I Group IX Group III
Fig- 2 Principle of Semi-wet Selective
3.3 From Wastes to Refined Pulp (Pulp-refining sub-system)
This sub-system is for removing plastics, waste threads, hairs and
garbage from the wastepaper which is selectively collected by the
pre-treatment sub-system, and for producing sterilized, bleached and
refined pulp. Refined pulp can be used not only for paper manufacture,
but also for other applications which require supply of new pulp.
- 7 -
-------
530
The results of experiment made in laboratory on the quality and
other characteristics of the pulp collected from urban solid wastes
by the semi-wet selective separator are as described in the following.
(1) Quality
(a) Compared with the pulp regenerated from used waste paper,
the pulp under consideration contains a slightly greater
amounc of inclusions such as wool and thread pieces, straw
pieces, wood fragments, hairs and plastics (including hot-
ffielt basic adhesives) .
(b) The burst factor, breaking length and tear factor of the
pulp under consideration are between those of used newspaper
regenerated pulp and those of used cardboard regenerated
pulp.
(2) Deinking ;,
(a) The tested urban solid wastes contained paper by an
average of 35.0 percent. The paper consisted of newspaper
and magazines 55.7%, cardboard 26.7%, kraft paper 9.8%
and high quality paper 7.8%.
(b) Under the condition staged above, the percentage of
additives such as alkaline chemicals and surface active
agents and the processing temperature had little effect
upon the deinking.
(c) The pulp under consideration assumes the color of kraft
paper, without remarkable improvement for whiteness by
the deinking.
(3) Sanitary Factors
o Stink
(a) The as-separated paper from urban solid wastes (Group
II) evidently stinks of kitchen refuses.
- 8 -
-------
531
(b) As the separated paper Is pulpified, this stink is
removed and the pump has the smell of old waste paper.
The sterilizing treatment in the pulpifying process has
an effective influence upon the removal of the stink.
o Colon Bacilli
(a) The number of colon bacilli is counted as the index of
bacterial contamination.
(b) In this test, the number of colon bacilli in the separated
paper was 108 to 10^ but was reduced to less than 10^ in
the processed pulp.
o Other Harmful Inclusions
The concentration of alkyl mercury (R-Hg), total mercury (T-Hg)
cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), total chromium (T-Cr), arsenic (As),
cyanides (-CN), organic phosphorus (R-P) and polychlorobiphenyl
(PCB) has been measured to indicate no significant amount of
them present in the pulp.
3.4 From Wastes to Fuel Gas (Two-bed type pyrolysis sub-system)
This sub-system is for effectively converting the plastics selectively
collected by the pre-treatment sub-system into good-quality, high-
caloric (7,000 Kcal/m^) fuel gas. The two-bed type pyrolysis sub-
system is so called because it uses circulation of fluidized medium
(sand) between two beds so that pyrolizing reaction (endothermic)
and combustion reaction (exothermic) can be performed independently.
The features of this pyrolysis system are as follows:
(1) Fluidized sand is heated by combustion of char formed by the
preceding thermal decomposition in the pyrolizing reaction.
The fluidized sand is then circulated to the regenerator and
gives its heat to waste to cause gasification of the waste by
- 9 -
-------
532
thermal decomposition. Char, residum of thermal decomposition,
is sent to the primary bed. Gasification of waste is supported
by repetition of this process.
(2) Since char is used for heat source, thermal decomposition is
attended by formation of a little quantity of solid solution
and tar-like material which are difficult to deal with.
(3) Since the regenerator and the pyrolizing reaction are separated
from each other, gas product can be used for fluidized gas which
is to be circulated inside the pyrolizing reaction, thus making
it possible to produce high-caloric gas.
(4) Piping which connects the two beds to each other is specially
designed so as to give the fluid bed turning movement. Other
unique designs are applied to the feeder of waste, etc.
For details, see the separate volume "Two-bed Type Pyrolysis (from
Wastes to Fuel Gas)".
- 10 -
-------
533
4. Research and Development of Energy Recovery Type Process System
This research and development effort concerns a technical system
which converts some part of the mixture of urban refuse mainly into
energy resources (fuel oil and methane).
Figure 3 indicates an example of composition of urban refuse in
Japan.
Water content
49.0%
Combustibles
36.4%
Wastepaper
21.4%
Low
• calorific ,^_-—Plastics 5.1%
value "(Tncl. vinyl chloride)
1458 Kcal/kg —-_____08%)
Garbage
4.2%
Wood and
miscellaneous
material
Waste threads
grave
3.33.6%
Non-
combustibles
•Metal scrap
'Eggshell and shells 0.5%
Fig. 3 Example of Composition of Urban Refuse
- 11 -