xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water and
Waste Management
Washington DC 20460
SW-432
November 1979
c. /
Solid Waste
Resource Recovery
and Waste Reduction
Activities
A Nationwide Survey
-------
Resource Recovery
and
Waste Reduction Activities
A Nationwide Survey
This publication (SW-432a) was written for EPA's Office of Solid Waste
by Bradford J. Max. It replaces EPA's
1977 report on the same subject.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/1979
ran *v',uii»I Protection Agency
, Ufertuy
Dearborn Street,
60604
-------
Mention of commercial firms and products does not constitute endorsement.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author received a great deal of assistance in preparing this report from colleagues in the
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in Washington, D.C. Acknowledgments
are due to Stephen Lingle, Robert Holloway, David Sussman, and Douglas Ruby for their overall
guidance and careful reviews of the report. Chas Miller, David Cohen, David Gavrich, Jane Stieber,
and Harry Butler contributed to parts of the survey, and the author is grateful for being able to rely
on their expertise. Thanks go to Donna Sweeney and Val Howard for their efforts in preparing the
manuscript for publication.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Waste Reduction 3
Resource Recovery 5
Source Separation Programs 5
Office Paper Recycling Programs 5
Recycling Centers 5
Separate Collection Systems 6
Resource Recovery Facilities 9
Municipal Resource Recovery Facilities 9
Federal Resource Recovery Facilities 78
Resource Recovery Projects Under the President's Urban Policy 78
State Resource Conservation and Recovery Programs 80
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report brings together information on the
variety of waste reduction and resource recovery
programs being carried out in the United States.
It is meant to inform municipalities and other
interested parties on these programs so that in-
telligent choices can be made among the alter-
natives available in solid waste management.
The report replaces the 1977 publication entitled
Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Activ-
ities: A Nationwide Survey.
Eight types of programs are covered in this
report in two main categories: waste reduction
and resource recovery. The first program, bev-
erage container deposit legislation, is covered
under the category of waste reduction activities.
The remaining seven programs fall into the
general category of resource recovery. Three of
these programs—office paper recycling pro-
grams, recycling centers, and separate collec-
tion systems—are grouped under the section
entitled, "Source Separation Programs." Munic-
ipal and Federal resource recovery facilities
make up two more programs under the section,
"Resource Recovery Facilities."
The recently implemented financial assist-
ance program for resource recovery is described
in the section entitled, "Resource Recovery Proj-
ects Under the President's Urban Policy."
Finally, State implementation and assistance
efforts are described in the section entitled
"State Resource Conservation and Recovery Pro-
grams."
Some of these eight programs are covered in
greater detail than others. For instance, the sec-
tion on municipal resource recovery facilities
gives detailed information on project technol-
ogy, capacity, status, products, markets, and
other characteristics. On the other hand, State
resource recovery activities are presented in
summary. This approach has been taken be-
cause several programs, such as the State ac-
tivities, are presented in detail in other documents
published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
This survey involved a review of published
and unpublished literature and telephone and
letter contacts. Dates are given for each program
indicating how current the information is. Effort
has been made to present the most up-to-date
facts available on all programs.
Additional information, questions, or com-
ments on this report should be addressed to the
State Programs and Resource Recovery Division
(WH-563), Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460.
Conclusions
A comparison of the information in this survey
with that in the 1977 edition (reflecting 1976 data)
reveals that activity in resource recovery has in-
creased over the past three years at a fairly
steady pace. The estimated percentage of the
total post-consumer solid waste stream which
has been diverted through resource recovery
rose from a little over six percent in 1976 to about
10 percent in 1978.
In the area of municipal resource recovery fa-
cilities, growth is quite evident. The 1977 survey
identified 19 operating facilities, with a total
design capacity of 8200 tons per day (TPD). This
report lists 29 operating plants having a total
design capacity of over 15,200 TPD, an increase
of over 45 percent in total plant capacity. In ad-
dition, methane recovery projects increased from
a single operating facility in 1977, to three in
1979.
Resource recovery facilities under construc-
tion increased from 10 in 1977 to 14 in 1979. Of
the 10 facilities under construction in 1977, eight
were in operation (or shakedown), as of April
1979.
The 1977 survey lists 33 projects in advanced
planning. This survey lists only 22. The reason
for this apparent decline is that a much more
restrictive definition of "municipal facilities in
advanced planning" was used in this survey.
Had a comparable definition been used for the
same category in this survey, well over 40 proj-
ects could have been identified as in advanced
planning.
The number of separate collection programs
has also increased. The 1977 survey showed 174
separate collection programs in existence in
1974; this update identifies 218 programs as of
May 1978. The annual increase in the number
of separate collection programs runs about 10
percent, with little attrition.
Explanation of Terms
Abbreviations used in this report are listed in
table 1. Two terms that may be explained for
-------
benefit of members of the general public who
may not be familiar with the technology are
"starved-air, two-chamber furnace," and "flu-
idized bed incinerator." To define these terms in
simplest general concept—
In a starved-air, two-chamber furnace, the air
supply is limited so that combustible gases
given off can be concentrated in a second fire
chamber for better control to give more constant
and higher temperatures.
In a fluidized-bed incinerator, the burning
materials are supported by a turbulent bed of
coarse sand or other pelletized noncombustible
materials that are kept in motion by incoming
air draft. The pellets in constant motion (or
"flow") transfer heat to the combustibles enter-
ing the furnace. The turbulence and transfer of
heat help to assure more complete combustion.
TABLE 1. ABBREVIATIONS
A&E
Al
Bev. cont. legis.
Btu
Fe
ft"
MCU
MSW
ND
non-Fe
psig
RCRA
RDF
RFP
RR
RWI
SAT
stdft3
TPD
TPH
TPY
WWC
Architect and engineer (procurement)
Aluminum
Beverage container legislation
British thermal unit
Ferrous metals
Cubic feet
Modular combustion unit
Municipal solid waste
Not determined
Nonferrous metals
Pounds per square inch gauge
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Refuse-derived fuel
Request for Proposals
Resource recovery
Refractory wall incinerator
Saturated steam
Standard dry cubic feet
Tons per day
Tons per hour
Tons per year
Waterwall combustion
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction measures are designed to re-
duce the amount of solid waste that is gener-
ated, thereby reducing collection and disposal
costs. When waste reduction incorporates the
reuse of products, a decrease in the use of nat-
ural resources and in energy consumption re-
sults, and lower levels of manufacturing residuals
are deposited in air, land, and water mediums.
Virtually the only clearly identifiable waste
reduction activities currently in practice are
those under seven State beverage container de-
posit laws.
Comments regarding waste reduction activity
should be addressed to Harry Butler, State Pro-
grams and Resource Recovery Division (WH-
563), Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Beverage Container
Deposit Legislation
The principal characteristics of the beverage
container deposit laws are presented in table
2, "Summary of Beverage Container Deposit
Legislation."
-------
s
o
g
**4
_J
CO
»— i
O
w
,-J
H
)™H
r/5
V*
0
OL,
I^H
W
Q
S
2
i— i
<
H
2
O
U
^3
O
PC
W
J>
W
PQ
[J-|
O
S-i
>^
PC
<
s
f-l
s
D
CO
ci
,_q
«
<
H
-t-*
c
o
6
»-,
CD
C
O
D)
0)
>H
o
c
d
d)
IS
CJ
2
0
c
>— i
d
2
d
JO
0
d
J3
"0
Q
t .
inecticu
*— i
o
O
5
d
en
I^^^H
^•^^^1
-•1
"~" ^^^^IB
(T>fl^HB
n
[^
CD
OO
t^
C?
C^Q
OO
C^-
k* t^
0 C
en -*-1 O
C; cr> <~>
^ t~~ kH
P: - 2
^ P
S o-
CD
r--.
P;
CD
CO
c»
Effective Date
. 0
0 D
•*H "3
t» O >
LO
xo T!
° <-*
o S
S ,3
*
^ i
15
LO
*
W
tp 1
ti
0
1
0
k-<
o
« 6
LO !_,
0
o
X
« g
LO C
t)
** 1
LO '
0
0 f
v S
LO n
0
t>
1— I
^ T3
Minimum Refund Amount
Handling Fee (paid to retai
by distributor)
Types of Beverages Covere
(marked with "x"):
k-t
_o
"5
i x x x i x i :2
>-i
In
-3
kH
O
"5
i x x x x x i r9
^i
CO
-3
kH
_O
"5
x x x x x x i :9
kH
co
T3
)_(
o
"5
xxi i x x i :9
kH
"K
-3
t_i
"5
1 X X X X X X 5
M
w
-3
kH
0
"5
X X X X X X 1 •£
kH
"co
-3
kH
O
"5
I X X X X X 1 ^
kH
co
T3
Ale
Beer
Malt Beverages
Mineral Water
Soda Water
Soft Drinks
Liquor
Deposit Begins and Ends a
co
0
>•
co
0
><
00
a;
^
CO
CD
>•<
CO
0
>H
CO
0>
>i
U!
Oi
>1
O--
w
a
o
Ban on Removable "Tab" T
1 Q)
C -2
0 J3
C d
tn S 1
M b
d 5
T± 0
C7) >-c
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
0 t-.
o 0
c d)
1 § J3
T}< kH
CD O
1 1
Container Types Banned
Container Types Exempted
i-.
0
K<
t>
d
^3
d
s
0
d)
d
k— i
0
0
kJ J3
^ 0
d C
— O
co
•- G
M d
^
S CD
o S
4= 6
* >,
co^
^ T)
^ SJ
kH ^
.2 0
st
.^H >^
«1 d
CO g
CO
D "K
0, d
„ -c
d *"
'S fn
g|
"^e
c! UJ
0 0
a, ^
T3 "5
C J3
0 0
"2 3
g.2
">. S
S £
2
c "S
0 .2
*G ^~!
> *3
> kH
SS8
* Effective on this date
** Lower amount is for
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY
The resource recovery efforts are reported here
under the categories of source separation pro-
grams, municipal and federal resource recovery
facilities, projects under the President's Urban
Policy, and State resource conservation and re-
covery activities.
Source Separation Programs
The source separation technique of resource
recovery is accomplished by segregating re-
cyclable waste materials (such as paper, glass,
and ferrous and aluminum containers) from
other wastes at the point of generation (the
home, office, or other place of business) by the
waste generator. This separation is followed by
transportation of the recyclable materials from
their point of generation to a secondary mate-
rials dealer or directly to a manufacturer. Trans-
portation may be provided by city collection
vehicles, private haulers, scrap dealers, vol-
untary recycling organizations, or the generator.
The three source separation programs covered
in this report are office paper recycling systems,
recycling centers, and separate collection sys-
tems.
For more information about source separation
programs contact State Programs and Resource
Recovery Division (WH-563), Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Office Paper Recycling Programs
Office paper recycling systems collect recycl-
able high-grade paper. This effort began in
banks and insurance companies and has spread
to the Federal government through the "Use It
Again Sam" program. High-grade paper (for ex-
ample, white ledger, computer printout paper
and index cards) comprises about 50% of the
office solid waste stream (up to 80% in some
businesses that have significant computer use).
Studies have shown that an office paper recy-
cling program can reduce the solid waste stream
by 40% and reduce solid waste management
costs by 20%.
The "Use It Again Sam" program is very sim-
ple in its operation. The employee puts his high-
grade paper in a desktop container (a small de-
vice the shape and size of a napkin holder), and
when that container is full, transfers it to a cen-
tral collection box. This box is then emptied by
building custodians, and the contents are taken
to the loading dock for pickup by a paper buyer.
Office paper recycling programs are found all
over the country. Over 110 Federal facilities with
more than 130,000 employees are participating
in the "Use It Again Sam" program. In addition,
over 600 private companies have similar pro-
grams. A useful guidebook that can be adapted
to local and state governmental and private in-
dustry programs for paper recycling is EPA's
publication SW-571, Use It Again Sam: A Guide
for Federal Office-Paper Recycling.
Recycling Centers
Recycling centers sprang up throughout the
country following Earth Day 1970. Since then
they have continued to flourish, although in a
very uneven way. Recycling centers are marked
more by their diversity than by any other char-
acteristic. They range in size from a sophisti-
cated group like the Portland Recycling Team
(PRT) in Portland, Oregon, to small, once-a-
month, single-material neighborhood collec-
tions.
The Portland Recycling Team collects a large
variety of materials for recycling from several
collection points throughout the Portland area.
While this approach is likely to obtain a larger
share of the municipal solid waste stream than
the neighborhood recycling center, there are far
more neighborhood centers in existence. The
small centers are often located in shopping cen-
ter parking lots and rarely accept more than the
three basic recyclables: paper, glass, and metal
cans. Recycling centers can be either manned
or unmanned. They can be open 24 hours a day
or just a few hours a week. Some programs buy
back materials (the aluminum company buy-
back program is the best example of this), but
most do not.
Generally, recycling centers have a short life
span, since the interest and energy of the vol-
unteers wane. In addition, recycling centers are
often marked by high operating costs and low
revenues for recyclables due to the small quan-
tities of materials that are reclaimed. There are
several thousand recycling centers in America.
For more information on recycling centers,
contact Chas Miller, State Programs and Re-
source Recovery Division (WH-563), Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
-------
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202)
755-9140.
Separate Collection Systems
In separate collection programs, residents set
aside recyclable materials (e.g. newspaper,
glass) from their garbage and place the recycl-
ables at the curb for collection. Within the last
ten years, many communities have begun sep-
arate collection systems to conserve landfill
space, reduce the load on incinerators, and
lower overall solid waste management costs.
Most of these systems are relatively low in
capital costs compared with other recovery
methods.
Separate collection has proven to be an effec-
tive approach for reducing municipal waste ton-
nages and generating materials for recycling.
The likelihood of resident participation is sig-
nificantly greater in separate collection pro-
grams than in reclamation centers because
residents are provided the convenience of hav-
ing their recyclables collected at their homes.
Activities of innovative programs in two com-
munities are described below. The two com-
munities are Marblehead, Massachusetts, and
Boca Raton, Florida. The Marblehead program
was partially funded through an EPA grant. Fol-
lowing these two brief descriptions, a chart (fig-
ure 1) gives locations of separate collection
systems and characteristics of those systems,
with detailed information on 177 separate col-
lection systems. This information was gathered
in a telephone survey conducted by David Cohen
of EPA between July and September 1977. Fol-
lowing figure 1 is a list (table 3), of 218 separate
collection systems which had been identified by
EPA as of May 1978.
Approximately 99 percent of the programs sur-
veyed collected some form of wastepaper (figure
1). In particular, newspaper (old newspaper
from residential sources) was collected by 76
percent of the programs, while mixed waste-
paper (approximately 80 percent old newspa-
pers and 20 percent unsorted papers, by weight)
was collected by approximately 23 percent of the
communities. Glass (sorted by color and mixed)
was collected by 16 percent of the programs sur-
veyed. Cans and other metals were collected by
13 percent of the programs.
The number of multimaterial separate collec-
tion programs, where two or more recyclables
are collected, significantly increased from two
programs in 1974 to 40 programs in 1978. Of
177 programs surveyed in 1977, approximately
20 percent were conducting multimaterial
programs.
Municipal employees were responsible for
collecting recyclables in approximately 57 per-
cent of the programs. Collection responsibility
was undertaken by private collection firms in 29
percent of the programs and by community or-
ganizations in 12 percent.
Approximately 72 percent of all separate col-
lection systems used the "separate truck" col-
lection method. The separate truck approach
requires the use of an independent truck and
crew to collect recyclables. The "rack" method
of separate collection was undertaken by ap-
proximately 22 percent of the programs sur-
veyed. The rack method stores recyclables in
side, rear, or overhead racks that are usually
attached to packer trucks.
A "compartmentalized vehicle" method of sep-
arate collection was undertaken in two percent
of the communities surveyed. There are two ma-
jor kinds of compartmentalized vehicles being
used in the U.S. One is a separate collection
truck which is divided into two or three material
compartments. The other is a trailer housing two
or three storage bins which is pulled behind a
collection truck. Approximately five percent of
the communities collected recyclables in trailers
that were pulled behind a refuse collection
vehicle.
Thirty-nine percent of the separate collection
systems had signed contracts to regularly sell
materials to a single materials dealer for a spec-
ified period of time. A predetermined price and/
or a percentage of the market price for a partic-
ular recyclable material is always included in
the contract. Most contracts signed between
municipalities and materials dealers pertained
to the sale of separated newspapers.
Many separate collection programs are
plagued with scavenger problems. Scavengers
are unauthorized persons who pick up recycla-
ble material before the authorized municipal or
private collection truck arrives. In response to
actual or anticipated scavenger problems, 51
percent of the communities surveyed had en-
acted anti-scavenging ordinances, prohibiting
any unauthorized person or firm from collecting
separated material(s).
Most of the separate collection programs sur-
veyed are voluntary, i.e. citizens are "requested"
to separate one or more recyclable materials
from mixed refuse. However, in attempting to
increase participation and waste diversion rates,
many communities have adopted ordinances
which "mandate" that certain materials be sep-
arated from mixed refuse. Approximately 25 per-
cent of the 177 programs surveyed were
mandatory.
For additional information about separate col-
lection system implementation, operation, and
the national trends, the following EPA publi-
cations are recommended.
-------
Residential Paper Recovery: A Municipal Imple- A National Survey of Separate Collection Pro-
mentation Guide, Penelope Hansen (SW- grams, David Cohen (SW-778).
486)
If additional information is needed, contact:
State Programs and Resource Recovery Division
Source Separation; The Community Awareness (WH-563), Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environ-
Program for Somerville and Marblehead, mental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Massachusetts (SW-551). Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
MARBLEHEAD, MASSACHUSETTS
Separate Collection (Multimaterial)
CAPITAL COST: $40,300
PRODUCTS/MARKET: Paper, all glass and cans/Matcon, Inc.
MAJOR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER: Rendispos Corporation
CONSULTANT: Resource Planning Associations, Inc.
STARTUP DATE: January 12, 1976
PROJECT CONTACT: Raymond Reed, Director of Public Health
Adams Hall
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
(617)631-0212
Marblehead is a surburban community in the Boston area with a population of 23,000. In June
1975, the town was awarded a 3-year grant of $78,000 (31% of a $248,000 project) by EPA to implement
weekly separate collection of paper, glass, and cans.
The program requires householders to separate recyclables into three categories: (1) paper; (2)
glass and cans; (3) mixed brown and green glass and cans. Those three elements are collected by
a compartmentalized vehicle each week. Nonrecyclable mixed waste is collected by conventional
packer trucks. The material buyer is an intermediate processor who separates the glass from the
metals and the aluminum from the ferrous. Revenues received range from $10 to $20 per ton. In
addition, Marblehead avoids a landfill charge of $19 for each ton diverted from the landfill. Because
no additional labor has been added, program economics are quite favorable. In April 1977, because
the recycling program was regularly diverting 25% of the waste stream to recovery, Marblehead
eliminated one of its two regular weekly garbage collections. Now the city does garbage collection
once weekly and source separation collection once weekly.
EPA will be releasing several additional reports on the Marblehead project.
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA
Separate Collection (Newspaper only)
CAPITAL COST: None, truck rental, $1100/month
PRODUCTS: Newspaper
STARTUP DATE: August 1977
PROJECT CONTACT: Joyce Yelverton
Superintendent of Sanitation
City of Boca Raton
210 West Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
(305)395-1110
Boca Raton is a coastal city north oi Fort Lauderdale. The Sanitation Department serves a pop-
ulation of 58,000 people collecting newspaper from residential units ranging from detached single-
family houses to multistory apartment buildings. In areas using curbside collection, residents place
their separated newspapers on the curb, and the newspaper is collected by a crew driving stake-
body trucks rented by the city. Apartment residents take their separated newspaper to the garage
area and place it in dumpsters. The paper is collected from the dumpsters by city-owned packer
trucks.
-------
The Boca Raton program does have high collection costs due to the cost of leasing the trucks and
hiring the additional labor that is used in this program. However, revenues have ranged from $22
to $40 per ton of newspaper and the city also saves $11 per ton for every ton diverted from the privately
owned landfill that the city uses. As a result, program economics are very favorable.
Nationwide Survey of Separate
Collection Programs
The characteristics of the separate collection
programs in the nation are summarized in figure
1 and table 3.
Resource Recovery Facilities
Resource recovery facilities are mechanized
systems designed and built to recover energy
and materials from solid waste. Because these
facilities significantly reduce the size of the
waste stream by extracting and/or combusting
materials, they also serve as a method of ex-
tending the useful life of landfills. On account
of these benefits, interest in the technology and
implementation of resource recovery facilities is
growing rapidly.
Information on resource recovery facilities in
this survey is divided into a section on municipal
facilities and one on Federal facilities. For the
latter program, a brief description is provided
along with a table summarizing the major ac-
tivity (table 4).
Municipal Resource
Recovery Facilities
Sixty-five communities in the United States
are involved with resource recovery facility proj-
ects in advanced planning, construction, or
operating phases. The three categories
of implementation status are identified and
defined as follows:
Operating—Plants that are currently accepting
solid waste and processing it; plants that
have been accepting waste but are tempo-
rarily shut down to repair, modify, or ex-
pand, or to work out legal, financial, or
marketing problems; and plants in the
shakedown phase. In addition, these facil-
ities must be doing more than shredding,
incineration, ferrous metals recovery, and
landfilling; they must have the capability
for additional materials or energy recovery.
This category does not include plants closed
permanently.
Under construction—Progress from ground
breaking through, but not including, the
startup or shakedown phase. Construction
at these facilities may be halted, but a date
for resuming work must be known.
Advanced planning—To qualify for this cate-
gory, one of four conditions must be met: a
Request for Proposals (RFP) must have been
issued for design and construction of the
project; construction funding must have been
made available; final engineering design
must be under way; or, in the case of pri-
vately initiated projects, where an RFP will
not be a part of the procurement process,
either a preliminary design must be com-
plete and must have been accepted by the
community involved as a basis for making
a go/no-go decision, or a full-service pro-
posal must have been formally offered for
disposal services over a multi-year contract
period for a predetermined price.
The greatest difficulty with applying this
classification system came in separating proj-
ects in the "advanced planning" category from
those which had not fully completed any of the
requirements for that category. The course cho-
sen for borderline cases was to abide strictly by
the definitions given above. The result is that
the "advanced planning" category does not in-
clude some projects for which most implemen-
tation groundwork has been laid.
The sixty-five projects in the three imple-
mentation categories are summarized in table
4. Following this table are detailed activity re-
ports covering the sixty-five projects. The infor-
mation contained in these activity reports was
gathered through telephone interviews with lo-
cal officials between January and April 1979.
The Office of Solid Waste at EPA has much
published material available to satisfy a wide
range of interests concerning resource recovery
facilities. The most informative are in the series
of booklets entitled, Resource Recovery Plant Im-
plementation: Guides for Municipal Officials.
The separate publications in this series are ti-
tled: Accounting Format; Financing; Markets;
Planning and Overview; Procurement; Risks and
Contracts; Technologies; and Further Assist-
ance. Also of great value for its description of
current resource recovery technologies is a pa-
per by David Sussman and Steven Levy entitled,
Recovering Energy From Municipal Solid Waste.
To obtain these publications or other informa-
tion, contact the Resource Recovery Branch,
State Programs and Resource Recovery Division
(WH-563), Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460, telephone (202) 755-9140.
-------
Figure 1. Characteristics of Separate Collection Programs
Tucson, AZ X
Berkeley, CA X
Davis, CA X
Downey, CA X
Fresno and Clovis, CA X
Fullerton, CA X
Modesto, CA X
Newport Beach, CA X
Ontario, CA X
Pacifica, CA X
Palm Springs, CA X
Palo Alto, CA X
Sacramento County, CA X
San Anselmo, CA
San Bernardino, CA X
San Diego, CA X
San Francisco, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA X
Santa Barbara, CA X
Santa Maria, CA X
Santa Rosa, CA X
Boulder, CO
Northglenn, CO X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
/
/
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
/
X
/ ~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ ^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
-------
Figure 1 (Continued)
Bloomfield, CT
Durham and
Middlefield, CT
East Hartford, CT
East Lyme, CT
Enfield, CT
Greenwich, CT
Hartford, CT
Manchester, CT
Newington, CT
North Haven, CT
Norwalk, CT
Rocky Hill, CT
Stamford, CT
Waterbury, CT
Waterford, CT
West Hartford, CT
Wethersfield, CT
Boca Raton, FL
Oakland Park, FL
Aurora, IL
Franklin Park, IL
Rockford, IL
Rolling Meadows, IL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
-------
Figure 1 (Continued)
Atlanta, IN
Bloomington, IN
Greencastle, IN
Speedway, IN
Wabash, IN
Lexington, KY
St. Matthews, KY
Bowie, MD
Greenbelt, MD
Rockville, MD
Andover, MA
Arlington, MA
Bedford, MA
Beverly, MA
Cambridge, MA
Chelmsiord, MA
Hamilton, MA
Marblehead, MA
Newton, MA
Peabody, MA
Pittsfield, MA
Somerville, MA
Springfield, MA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ ~-
/ J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ ^
X
X
/ w
X
X
X
/ ^
X
/ ^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
-------
Figure 1 (Continued)
/w
/
v^
Swampscott, MA
Tewksbury, MA
Waltham, MA
Birmingham, MI
Huntington Woods, MI
Brooklyn Center, MN
Mankato, MN
North Mankato, MN
Crestwood, MO
University City, MO
Dover, NH
Hampton, NH
Newmarket, NH
Bergenfield, NJ
Bloomfield, NJ
Bound Brook, NJ
Clifton, NJ
East Windsor, NJ
Franklin, NJ
Glen Rock, NJ
Hasbrouck Hts., NJ
Leonia, NJ
Lodi, NJ
(a) Municipal-Private.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
-------
Figure 1 (Continued)
Metuchen, NJ
Millburn, NJ
Montclair, NJ
Paramus, NJ
Passaic, NJ
Princeton, NJ
Ridgewood, NJ
Ringwood, NJ
River Edge, NJ
Rutherford, NJ
Somerville, NJ
Summit, NJ
Teaneck, NJ
Tenafly, NJ
Union City, NJ
West Orange, NJ
Ardsley, NY
Briarcliff Manor, NY
Bronxville, NY
Carmel, NY
Cortland, NY
Dobbs Ferry, NY
Floral Park, NY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(b) Municipal-Community Organization.
/ •?/,
1 $ / .(.
'/*'
A"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
-------
Figure 1 (Continued)
Garden City, NY
Great Neck, NY
Harrison, NY
Hastings, NY
Irvington, NY
Ithaca, NY
Lynbrook, NY
Mamaroneck, NY
Mamaroneck and
Larchmont, NY
Mount Kisco, NY
New Cassel, NY
New Rochelle, NY
New York, NY
North Hempstead, NY X
Oceanside, NY X
Ossining, NY (village)
Ossining, NY (township)
Oyster Bay, NY X
Peekskill, NY
Pelham, NY
Pelham Manor, NY X
Pleasantville, NY X
Ramapo, NY X
(a) Municipal-Private.
X
X
X
X
X
15
-------
Figure 1 (Continued)
Rockville Centre, NY
Rye, NY
Tarrytown, NY
White Plains, NY
Yonkers, NY
Glendale, OH
Indian Hill, OH
Wyoming, OH
Abington, PA
Allentown, PA
Clifton Heights, PA
Darby, PA
Swarthmore, PA
Harrington, RI
Lincoln, RI
Tiverton, RI
Sioux Falls, SD
Dallas, TX
El Paso, TX
Garland, TX
University Park, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Northfield, VT
16
-------
Figure 1 (Concluded)
// 1 / / / / //// /// /// /Mm
,O; / / / / / /OY / $ & / /•^/V/O/<
^/ / £/ / / / / /^/ / / §/ /•y/ / / /£/^'/^/$
// /// 1 / / 1 /// /// ///// / ////////
////// / /// / /// //a/// ///// / ///£/&/£
r**? / &J / ^ / ^ / ff, / J>" / >^* / ^ / Cl / ^ I ^ / & I ^ I '5s' / ** / / C* / O / ^ / ' / ^^
6-s, / A/ ® / ^9 / rv / -V / O" / C< / .-"N / rV / J-J / C* / Qj / f*,? / & / "^ / ~~~^> / {•?* / -^ I c^i I £^
*ZT" / "^ I *V / C^/ ^* / CT / "n" ~~Q / ^ / ~> / / ^" / ~^i" / / / -C5 / O" / ,*^* / V / /^* / ^ / ^^
Alexandria, VA X
Fairfax, VA X
Falls Church, VA X
Vienna, VA X
Omak, WA
Appleton, WI X
Bayside, WI X
Madison, WI X
Menasha, WI X
Milwaukee, WI X
Oshkosh, WI X
Racine, WI X
Sheboygan, WI X
Shorewood, WI X
Two Rivers, WI X
Whitefish Bay, WI X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
-------
REGION 1
TABLE 3. LIST OF 218 SEPARATE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
(MAY 1978)
REGION 2 REGION 2 (Cont.)
Connecticut
Bloomfield
Durham and Middlefield
East Hartford
East Lyme
Enfield
Greenwich
Hartford
Manchester
New Hartford
Newington
North Haven
Norwalk
Rocky Hill
Stamford
Waterbury
Waterford
West Hartford
Wethersfield
Winchester Center
Massach usetts
Andover
Bedford
Beverly
Brookline
Cambridge
Chelmsford
Hamilton
Lexington
Marblehead
Newton
North Andover
Peabody
Pittsfield
Salem
Somerville
South Hadley
Springfield
Stoughton
Tewksbury
Topsfield
Waltham
New Hampshire
Hampton
Newmarket
Rhode Island
Barrington
Lincoln
Tiverton
Vermont
Northfield
New Jersey
Bergenfield
Bloomfield
Bound Brook
Clifton
Closter
East Windsor
Fair Haven
Franklin
Glen Rock
Hackensack
Hasbrouck Heights
Leonia
Little Silver
Lodi
Lyndhurst
Metuchen
Millburn
Montclair
Ocean
Palisades Park
Paramus
Passaic
Plainfield
Princeton
Ridgewood
Ringwood
River Edge
Rutherford
Rumson
Shrewsbury
Somerville
Summit
Teaneck
Tenafly
Union City
Upper Saddle River
West Orange
Wharton
New York
Ardsley
Briarcliff Manor
Bronxville
Carmel
Cortland
Dobbs Ferry
Floral Park
Garden City
Great Neck
Harrison
Hastings
Irvington
Ithaca
Lynbrook
Mamaroneck
Mamaroneck and Larchmont
Mount Kisco
New Cassel
New Rochelle
New York
North Hempstead
North Tarrytown
Oceanside
Ossining
Ossining township
Oyster Bay
Peekskill
Pelham
Pelham Manor
Pleasantville
Ramapo
Rockville Centre
Rye
Tarrytown
White Plains
Yonkers
REGION 3
Maryland
Bowie
Greenbelt
Rockville
Pennsylvania
Abington
Allentown
Clifton Heights
Darby
Swarthmore
Virginia
Alexandria
Fairfax
Falls Church
Vienna
REGION 4
Alabama
Birmingham
Florida
Boca Raton
Oakland Park
South Miami
Temple Terrace
18
-------
TABLE 3.
REGION 4 (Cont.)
Georgia
Macon
Kentucky
Lexington
Saint Matthews
Tennessee
Signal Mountain
REGION 5
Illinois
Aurora
Franklin Park
Rockford
Rolling Meadows
Indiana
Atlanta
Bloomington
Greencastle
Speedway
Wabash
Michigan
Birmingham
Huntington Woods
Minnesota
Brooklyn Center
Columbia Heights
Mankato
North Mankato
Ohio
Glendale
Indian Hill
Wyoming
Wisconsin
Appleton
Bayside
Madison
LIST OF 218 SEPARATE COLLECTION PROGRAMS (Cont.)
(MAY 1978)
REGION 5 (Cont.) REGION 9
Menasha
Milwaukee
Oshkosh
Racine
Sheboygan
Shorewood
Two Rivers
Whitefish Bay
REGION 6
Texas
Dallas
El Paso
Garland
University Park
REGION 7
Iowa
Sioux City
Missouri
Crestwood
University City
REGION 8
Colorado
Boulder
Northglenn
Montana
Helena
North Dakota
Fargo
South Dakota
Sioux Falls
Utah
Salt Lake City
Arizona
Tucson
California
Arcata
Atherton
Belmont
Berkeley
Burlingame
Davis
Downey
El Cerrito
Foster City
Fresno, Clovis Metro Area
Fullerton
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park
Modesto
Newport Beach
Ontario
Pacifica
Palm Springs
Palo Alto
Redwood City
Sacramento County
San Anselmo
San Bernardino
San Carlos
San Diego
San Francisco
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Maria
Santa Rosa
REGION 10
Washington
Omak
Seattle
19
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES
Design Capacity/
Location
Systems in Operation (29)
Altoona, Pennsylvania
Ames, Iowa
Azusa, California
Baltimore, Maryland
(temporarily shut down)
Baltimore County, Maryland
Blytheville, Arkansas
(temporarily shut down)
Braintree, Massachusetts
Chicago, Illinois (Northwest
Incinerator)
Chicago, Illinois (SW Supp.
Fuel) (shakedown)
Crossville, Tennessee
East Bridgewater,
Massachusetts
Groveton, New Hampshire
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Hempstead, New York
(shakedown)
Lane County, Oregon
(shakedown)
Madison, Wisconsin
(shakedown)
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
(shakedown)
Mountain View, California
Nashville, Tennessee
New Orleans, Louisiana
Norfolk, Virginia (U.S. Naval
Station)
North Little Rock, Arkansas
Oceanside, New York
Palos Verdes, California
Pompano Beach, Florida
(shakedown)
Portsmouth, Virginia (Norfolk
Naval Shipyard)
Salem, Virginia
Saugus, Massachusetts
Siloam Springs, Arkansas
Systems Under Construction
Akron, Ohio
Albany, New York
Type*
Composting
RDF
Methane
Pyrolysis
RDF
MCU
WWC
WWC
RDF
MCU
RDF
MCU
Codispoal
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
Methane
WWC
Material
recovery
WWC
MCU
WWC
Methane
Codisposal
WWC
MCU
WWC
MCU
(14)$
WWC
RDF
Avg. Throughput,
TPD*
25/25
400/170
—
1000/temp.
shutdown
1200/750
50/temp.
shutdown
384/250
1600/1200
1000/500
60/65
160/varies
30/6-11
720 MSW; 14
sludge/500; ND
2000/1300
500/Minimal
400/200
1200/900
—
720/400
750/650
360/140
100/90
750/750
—
100 MSW and
sludge/10
160/30
100/70
1500/1000
19/16.5
1000
750
Products *
Humus
RDF, Fe (Al**)
Methane
Steam
RDF, Fe
Steam
Steam
Steam (Fe***)
RDF, Fe
Steam
RDF
Steam
Steam
Electricity (Fe**,
Al**, glass**)
RDF, (Fe**)
RDF, Fe
RDF, Fe (Al**,
glass
aggregate**)
Methane
Steam
Fe, Al (glass**)
Steam
Steam
Steam
Methane
Methane
Steam
Steam
Steam (Fe***)
Steam
Steam, Fe
RDF, Fe
Starting
Date
1963
1975
1978
1975
1976
1975
1971
1971
1977
1978
1977
1975
Codisposal
1979
1978
1979
1979
1977
1979
1974
1978
1967
1977
1974
1975
1978
1976
1979
1976
1975
1979
1980
Abbreviations are in table 1. Throughput data are not available for facilities under construction
or in planning.
** Recovery subsystem in planning, shakedown, or infrequent operation.
*** Material being recovered, but not sold.
t Materials recovery still in planning.
20
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES (Cont.)
Design Capacity/
Location
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Dade County, Florida
Duluth, Minnesota
Genesee Township, Michigan
Hampton, Virginia (NASA,
USAF)
Lewisburg, Tennessee
Los Angeles, California
Monroe County, New York
Monterey Park, California
Niagara Falls, New York
Osceola, Arkansas
Wilmington, Delaware
Systems in Advanced Planning (1
Appleton, Wisconsin
Auburn, Maine
Beverly, Massachusetts
(Bayside Project)
Burlington, Vermont
Columbus, Ohio
Detroit, Michigan
Dubuque, Iowa
Gallatin, Tennessee
Glen Cove, New York
Lakeland, Florida
Newark, New Jersey
Norfolk, Virginia (SE Virginia
Planning Authority)
North Andover, Massachusetts
(NESWC)
Oyster Bay, New York
Peabody, Massachusetts
(SESWC)
Pinellas County, Florida
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
St. Paul, Minnesota
Staten Island, New York
Toledo, Ohio
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Westchester County, NY
Type*
RDF
RDF
Codisposal
MCU
WWC
RWI
Methane
RDF
Methane
RDF
MCU
Codisposal
?2;.-t
RDF
MCU
WWC
MCU
RDF
RDF
WWC
WWC
Codisposal
RDF
RDF
RDF
WWC
WWC
RDF
WWC
MCU
WWC
Methane
ND
RDF
WWC
Avg. Throughput, Starting
TPD * Products * Date
1800
3500
400 MSW, 340
sludge (wet)
100
200
60
—
2000
—
2286
50
1000 MSW, 50
sludge
2400
150-200
591
200
1200
3000
250
150
225 MSW, 25
sludge
300
2000
2000
3000
ND
1800
2000
240
1500
—
1000
1000
1500
RDF, Fe, Al, glass
RDF, Fe, Al, glass
Steam, Fe
Steam, electricity
Steam
Steam
Methane
RDF, Fe, Al, glass
Methane
Steam, Fe
Steam
Steam, Fe, Al,
glass, humus
Steam, Fe
Steam
Steam, electricity, Fe
Steam or hot water
Electricity, Fe
Steam, electricity, Fe
Steam, Fe
Steam, electricity
Electricity
Electricity, Fe
RDF, Fe
RDF, electricity
Electricity
ND
RDF, Fe
Electricity, Fe, non-
Fe, aggregate
Steam, Fe
Steam, Fe
Methane
Steam, Fe
RDF, Fe
Steam
1979
1981
1979
1979
1980
1979
1979
1979
1979
1980
1979
1982
1982
1980
ND
ND
1981
1983
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1983
ND
1985
ND
1982
1980
1983
1981
1982
1982
1983
* Abbreviations are in table 1. Throughput data are not available for facilities under construction
or in planning.
** Recovery subsystem in planning, shakedown, or infrequent operation.
*** Material being recovered, but not sold.
f Materials recovery still in planning.
21
-------
AKRON, OHIO*
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of processed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1000 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: September 1979
CAPITAL COST: Approximately $48 million (Including construction, engineering fees, financing,
and all other costs)
FINANCING: Revenue and general obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & DeHaven, Inc.
Operator—Teledyne National
Owner—City of Akron
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Business district heating system; The B.F. Goodrich Co.; University of Akron; Akron City
Hospital
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Robert A. Edwards
Service Director
156 South High Street
Akron, Ohio 44308
(216) 375-2270
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Construction is approaching completion. The boilers were scheduled to be fired in mid-April 1979.
The City of Akron passed an ordinance which requires that waste collected by private haulers in the
city be disposed of at the new facility when it is completed. Private haulers serving the area objected
to this restriction and brought suit, to be resolved in May 1979.
ALBANY, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a primary fuel in off-site production
of steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 750 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: June 1980
CAPITAL COST: $11 million for RDF facility; $11 million for steam generator
FINANCING: 50% State bonds, 50% municipal general obligation bonds
Tor list of abbreviations used, see Table 1.
22
-------
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Smith and Mahoney Consulting Engineers
Operator—Not determined
Owner—City of Albany
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
RDF (fluff)/New York State Office of General Services
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Wallace Johnson
Project Manager
Smith and Mahoney
40 Steuben Street
Albany, New York 12207
(518) 463-4107
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
The city of Albany began taking steps in 1973 to ascertain the feasibility of resource recovery. After
evaluating several alternatives, the city selected the processing of waste for use as a primary fuel
in steam generation. An attempt was made to employ a simple processing technology, and the design
which was adopted includes only shredding and ferrous metals recovery. The plant is being built
on the site of one of the city's old landfills. As of February 1979, the concrete foundation for thefacility
had been laid, the steel frame had been set up, and the shredders were in place.
The RDF will be burned as a primary fuel in two stoker-fired boilers which are being built near
downtown Albany by the New York State Office of General Services. The boiler facility will cost
approximately $11 million and is expected to be completed by mid-1980. The steam generated will
satisfy heating and cooling needs of the Office of General Services.
ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA
PROJECT TYPE: Composting of solid waste
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—25 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—25 TPD
STARTUP DATE: 1963
CAPITAL COSTS: Not available
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Fairfield Engineering Co.
Operator—Fairfield Engineering Co.
23
-------
Owner—Fcrirfield Engineering Co.
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Products
Humus (Carrier in
lightweight
fertilizer)
Ch or arc teris tics
Vary with
customer;
granulated,
pelletized, etc.
Amount
Recovered
or Produced Status
Approx. 8 TPD Selling
PROJECT CONTACT:
Markets
Individuals, nurseries,
poultry farm (as lit-
ter)
Daniel Detwiler
Plant Manager
R.D. 1, Box 925
Altoona, Pennsylvania 16601
(814) 942-8938
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This plant handles all residential solid waste (no oversized bulky waste or commercial waste) which
the city collects. The system consists of primary shredding, electromagnetic separation, air classi-
fication, secondary shredding, aerobic digestion (5 to 7 days), and final processing to suit customer
demand. The plant residuals (15 percent of input) are landfilled. The plant has demonstrated the
ability to handle sewage sludge.
AMES, IOWA
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF foi use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—400 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—170 TPD
STARTUP DATE: September 1975
CAPITAL COSTS: $6.2 million (1974) (Including engineering, construction, miscellaneous equipment,
startup, land)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Gibbs, Hill, Durham & Richardson, Inc.
Operator—City of Ames
Owner—City of Ames
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
24
-------
Products
RDF
Ferrous metals
Aluminum
Ch aracteiis tics
Fluff, I'/zinch
Shredded
Shredded
Amount
Recovered
or Produced
Status
Markets
Approx. 135 TPD Transported pnuematically to city-owned
power plant.
12 TPD
Minimal
Selling
Infrequent
operation
Vulcan Materials Co.
Aluminum Company of
America (Alcoa)
PROJECT CONTACT: Arnold Chantland
Director, Department of Public Works
City Hall
5th and Kellog Streets
Ames, Iowa 50010
(515) 232-7479
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
The plant at Ames was the first commercial RDF facility to be built. It was patterned after the St.
Louis demonstration plant.
The RDF is burned in a city-owned power plant which includes a 33 megawatt suspension-fired boiler
and two 20 megawatt spreader-stoker (grate equipped) boilers. The suspension-fired unit, the most
efficient of the three, did not provide sufficient retention time for complete combustion of heavy
organics, and it was modified in spring 1978 to include burn-out grates at the bottom of the unit. The
suspension-fired unit is now being fired using 20 percent RDF, 80 percent coal, without problems.
The two spreader-stoker units were routinely operated at up to 50 percent RDF.
The aluminum recovery system has produced minimal amounts of product due to both operating
problems and the fact that the feed to the system contains very little aluminum.
Several process modifications to the plant have been required, including dust collection equipment
and screening of the RDF. Net costs have averaged over $10 per ton of waste processed. However,
the plant has consistently processed Ames' waste and produced RDF which is burned regularly in
the city power plant's boilers.
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a primary fuel in off-site generation
of steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 2400 TPD (Two 1200-TPD lines)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Late 1982
CAPITAL COSTS: Processing facility—approximately $26 million (Includes costs for entire facility,
plus seven transfer stations)
Boiler units—approximately $15 million, total
FINANCING: Revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Sadoff & Rudoy Industry
Operator—Sadoff & Rudoy Industry
25
-------
Owner—Not determined
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
RDF/Midtech Paper Company
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority
3321 West Beltline Highway
Madison, Wisconsin 53713
(608) 266-2686
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
An RFP for design, construction, and operation of a waste processing facility was issued by the
Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority in 1977. In February 1978, Sadoff & Rudoy was selected
as contractor, and negotiations are about 90 percent complete. The Authority is also holding discus-
sions with Midtech Paper Company, for construction of a boiler unit to burn the RDF on the site of
Midtech's plant. These talks with Midtech are crucial to further progress of the project.
By State law the Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority has control of waste in its designated
region.
AUBURN, MAINE
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular
incinerator to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 150 or 200 TPD (3 or 4 modular units)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Late spring 1980
CAPITAL COST: $2.9 million (3 units)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds; Department of Energy, grant for design
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Consumat Systems, Inc.
Operator—Consumat Systems, Inc. (3-year, renewable agreement)
Owner—City of Auburn
PRODUCTS/MARKETS: Steam/Pioneer Plastics Division of LOF Plastics, Inc.
PROJECT CONTACT: Leo La Rochelle
Engineering Department
45 Spring Street
Auburn City Hall
Auburn, Maine 04210
(207) 784-0145
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
In early 1978 Auburn solicited proposals for a resource recovery system and selected a starved-air,
modular incinerator system by Consumat Systems, Inc. Contract negotiations with Consumat were
26
-------
begun immediately for design, construction, startup, testing, and operation of the facility. Auburn
has been awarded a DOE grant covering some, as yet undetermined, portion of the cost of design.
Auburn is also considering the implementation of codisposal of sewage sludge with MSW. Full-scale
testing of techniques for dewatering, introducing, and burning the sludge in modular incinerators
is being carried out by Consumat. Some design modifications will be necessary for codisposal.
Negotiations are presently being carried out with Pioneer Plastics for a steam purchase contract and
with local communities for tipping agreements. The outcome of these two series of negotiations will
determine whether the city buys 3 or 4 Consumat units. City officials expect the negotiations will be
completed by April 1979, and construction will begin during the summer.
AZUSA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT TYPE: Methane recovery from a landfill
STARTUP DATE: April 1978
CAPITAL COSTS: $1.2 million (Including systems for gas retrieval, cleansing and distribution)
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Azusa Land Reclamation Company; Locman and Associates
Operator—Azusa Land Reclamation Company
Owner—Azusa Land Reclamation Company
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Methane gas 540 Btu/stdit' 750,000 if/day Selling Reichhold Chemical
Co.
PROJECT CONTACTS: Ralph Rule Frank Sheets
Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Azusa Land Reclamation Co.
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 1201 W. Gladstone
Los Angeles, California 90010 Azusa, California 91702
(213) 487-4930 (213) 969-1614
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
Methane recovery was begun in Azusa to reduce the threat of damage from migrating landfill gas.
Azusa Land Reclamation Company began recovering and flaring the gas in June 1977. By April 1978,
the company had begun cleaning and selling the gas to Reichhold Chemical Company for use as a
boiler fuel in generating steam. Officials for Azusa Land Reclamation Company claim that the 750,000
cubic feet per day of gas being drawn from the landfill is only a fraction of the amount available.
Several additional customers for the gas are located adjacent to the landfill site.
In addition to methane recovery from the completed portion of the landfill, Azusa Reclamation is also
carrying out materials recovery in the section of the landfill currently used for disposal. Recovery is
accomplished by 25 to 30 people, who handpick materials from piles of waste on the ground. Materials
recovered usually include paper, tires, and metal and aluminum cans, but this will vary with the
concentration of the materials in the waste stream and with prevailing market prices. Company
officials estimate that materials recovery reduces the waste stream 3 to 5 percent by weight.
27
-------
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
PROJECT TYPE: Pyrolysis of processed waste to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—1000 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—Temporarily shut down
STARTUP DATE: February 1975
CAPITAL COSTS: $24.8 million (Including recent modifications amounting to about $9 million)
FINANCING: EPA grant, $6 million; State loan, $4 million; City funds, $6 million; Monsanto, $4
million; Economic Development Administration grant, $4.8 million
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.
Operator—City of Baltimore
Owner—City of Baltimore
Procurement Approach—Turnkey
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 415° F, 250 to 90,000 Ib/hr Temporarily Baltimore Gas & Elec-
300 psig (SAT) shut down trie Company
PROJECT CONTACT: Jacob Bochinski
Assistant Chief of Solid Waste Disposal
1801 Annapolis Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
(301) 396-3499
PROJECT STATUS: Operating (temporarily shut down)
This facility was designed and constructed by Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc., under a turnkey
arrangement for the city of Baltimore, Maryland. However, normal operation has not been possible
because of several problems: particulate emissions exceeding standards; mechanical problems with
shredded waste storage and kiln feeding; 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.
The emissions problem is being overcome by replacing the low-energy scrubbers with dry, electro-
static precipitators. Most of the other problems have been eliminated or minimized. The city of
Baltimore is responsible for the plant modifications, since Monsanto is no longer associated with the
project. All modifications were completed in early 1979. City officials expected to resume operation
of the plant in May 1979.
The city continued to operate the plant while modifications were under way until early 1978. During
the first 8 months of 1977, 60,000 tons of solid waste were processed. From this waste, 225 million
pounds of steam were produced and sold to the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company for $680,000.
28
-------
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to recover materials and to produce RDF for use as fuel in off-
site generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—1200 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—750 TPD
STARTUP DATE: January 1976
CAPITAL COSTS: $10 million (1975)
FINANCING: State of Maryland, 50%; Baltimore County, 50%
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Teledyne National
Operator—Teledyne National
Owner—Maryland Environmental Service (MES)
Procurement Approach—Hybrid (Contract with Teledyne National for operation, but Maryland En-
vironmental Service assumed risk for project)
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
RDF Varies 200 TPD RDF produced only Test burns; landfill
for tests; plant
normally shreds the
waste for landfill.
Ferrous Baled Approx. 18 TPD Selling Bethlehem Steel
metals
PROJECT CONTACT: Robert Pierce
Chief of Operations and Maintenance
Maryland Environmental Services
60 West Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 269-2916
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This is a demonstration plant funded by Maryland Environmental Services (MES), a State agency.
MES contracted with Baltimore County to mutally construct and operate an RDF and materials re-
covery facility. Teledyne National was selected by MES as the contractor for design, construction,
and operation. One-half of the capital cost was provided by the State of Maryland as a reimbursable
grant, while the other half was provided by Baltimore County out of its annual capital budget. The
county provided the site for the facility and the landfill for disposal of all residuals. The MES will
hold title to the facility and be responsible for its operation until the grant has been reimbursed by
the county. Teledyne has a contract with MES to operate the facility and is seeking markets for RDF
and other products.
29
-------
The net revenues from sales of RDF and other recovered materials will be shared by the State of
Maryland (60 percent), Baltimore County (10 percent) and Teledyne (30 percent, to be reinvested in
market and product development) until the State's reimbursable grant has been repaid. After repay-
ment of the grant, Baltimore County will receive 70 percent of the revenues and Teledyne, 30 percent.
As of February 1979, most of the RDF was being landfilled. Some RDF has been test burned at various
facilities, including local utilities, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and a cement plant (in cement
kilns). Ferrous metal is sold, and glass and aluminum recovery are carried out on an experimental
basis.
Plans are being made by Baltimore County to build a boiler unit to generate steam. Preliminary
design has been completed for the new facility to be located in eastern Baltimore County. This plant
will process waste and burn RDF produced on site and at the currently operating facility.
BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS
(Bayside Project)
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of processed (shredded) waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam/
electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 591 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 30 months after authorization to proceed
CAPITAL COST: $18-20 million
FINANCING: Industrial revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Titan Environmental Services
Operator—Titan Environmental Services
Owner—Industrial Development Financing Authority
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam and electricity/Beverly Hospital, Massachusetts Electric Co., United Shoe Manufacturing Co.
Ferrous metals/Vulcan Metals Company
PROJECT CONTACT: Richard L. Lewis
Vice President, Engineering and Construction
Titan Environmental Services
East 81, State Highway 4
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
(201) 843-0040
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
This project is one of several which are being considered by communities of northeast Massachusetts.
The crucial step for this and all other projects competing in the area is securing commitments to
participate from cities and towns. This effort has been delayed, in some cases, by the fact that the
towns can authorize such commitments only at "town meetings," which take place once a year.
To assist the communities, EPA Region 1 contracted with a consulting firm to analyze and report on
the alternatives available to communities in northeast Massachusetts.
30
-------
BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular
incinerator to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—50 TPD (4 modular units)
Actual Average Throughput—50-60 TPD
STARTUP DATE: 1975
CAPITAL COSTS: $800,000 (1975)
FINANCING: Municipal bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Consumat Systems, Inc.
Operator—City of Blytheville
Owner—City of Blytheville
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam — — System temporarily shut down
PROJECT CONTACT: Mayor Tom A. Little
City Hall
Blytheville, Arkansas 72315
(501) 763-3602
PROJECT STATUS: Operational (temporarily shut down)
In 1977 this system was producing and selling up to 24,000 Ibs of steam per 10-hour day, 5 days a
week. Although a market still exists for steam, none is being produced because of boiler problems.
These problems are thought to be the result of overloading and long operation (14 to 16 hours a day)
as the supply of waste has outgrown capacity. Consequently, the city is planning to acquire new
equipment in the next year to reach a capacity of 75-80 TPD. The new equipment will also have
automatic ash removal capability to eliminate serious ash handling problems. The system was
meeting state standards for incinerator particulate emissions.
BRAINTREE, MASSACHUSETTS
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—384 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—250 TPD
STARTUP DATE: 1971
31
-------
CAPITAL COSTS: $2.5 million (1970)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Operator—City of Braintree
Owner—City of Braintree
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Products
Steam
Ch arac teris tics
406° F. 250
psig (SAT)
Amount
Recovered
or Produced
1.44 million
Ibs/day
Status
Selling half of
steam produced
Markets
Weymouth Art Leather
Company
PROJECT CONTACT: Edward Courchene, Superintendent
Braintree Thermal Waste Reduction Center
Ivory Street
Braintree, Massachusetts 02184
(617) 843-6209
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
In order to meet emissions standards, several modifications were made to equipment between May
1976 and August 1977. This work included changing the flow of gas through the plant and rebuilding
the two electrostatic precipitators. The plant met state emissions standards in August 1978.
BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1800 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: December 1979
CAPITAL COST: $53 million (1975) (Includes construction plus RDF transportation system, site dem-
olition work, utility boiler modifications, capitalized interest, financing, and engineering costs)
FINANCING: Industrial revenue bonds through Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA)
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc., and Occidental Resource Recovery Associates
(CEA-Oxy)
Operator—CEA-Oxy
Owner—CRRA
Procurement Approach—Full service
32
-------
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
RDF (Eco-Fuel II, powdered RDF)/United Illuminating Co.
Ferrous metals/not determined
Glass/Glass Containers Corporation
Aluminum/Reynolds Metals Co.
PROJECT CONTACT: Joseph L. Boren
V.P., Development of Municipal Services
CRRA
60 Washington Street
Suite 1305,
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203)549-6390
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
On March 31, 1976 CRRA signed a contract (fixed price for capital costs) with a joint venture corporation
made up of CEA and Occidental Resource Recovery Associates. The contract covered construction
of the entire system including the main processing facility, six transfer stations, facilities for trans-
porting the RDF, and modifications of the utility boilers to burn the RDF. The contract also covered
marketing of all recovered products by the joint venture, with a guaranteed minimum revenue for
CRRA. Construction was 90 percent complete as of January 1979. CRRA expected six weeks of formal
testing to begin in March and full commercial operation to begin by the end of 1979.
The project will process waste from the cities of Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe,
Stratford, Trumball, and Westport. These cities have signed an interlocal agreement with CRRA to
dispose of their waste at the facility. CRRA, in turn, signed a contract with the joint venture. A total
of 1200 TPD has been committed to the project. Negotiations are taking place between CRRA and the
towns of Norwalk and Weston for additional waste.
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular incin-
erator to produce high-temperature hot water or steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 200 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Not determined
CAPITAL COST: Not determined
FINANCING: General obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Not determined
Operator—City of Burlington
Owner —City of Burlington
PRODUCTS/MARKETS: High-temperature hot water or steam/University of Vermont
PROJECT CONTACT: Jim Ogden
Supervisor of Streets
33
-------
P.O. Box 849
Burlington, Vermont 05402
(802) 864-7428
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
The city began investigating resource recovery in 1977 as a means of solving waste disposal and
power generation problems. Since that time the power supply problem has been solved, but the waste
disposal question remains. Two conceptual studies done ior the city have indicated that the use of
modular combustion units may be feasible. In February 1979, the city issued an RFP for a formal
feasibility study, to be used in making a go/no-go decision on the project. The feasibility study will
be due in October 1979. A bond issue has been passed to provide financing should city officials
decide to proceed.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
(Northwest Incinerator)
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—1600 TPD (Four 400-TPD boilers)
Actual Average Throughput—1200 TPD
STARTUP DATE: 1971
CAPITAL COSTS: $23 million (1970) (Excluding land)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Operator—City of Chicago
Owner—City of Chicago
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 250 psig (SAT) 330,000 Ibs/hr In-house use; Brach Candy Co.
contract to sell
a portion
Ferrous metals Incinerated Approx. 70 TPD Landfilling —
PROJECT CONTACT: Emil Nigro
Supervision Engineer
Department of Streets and Sanitation
Room 704
City Hall
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 744-3181
34
-------
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
The Chicago Northwest Incinerator was the first waterwall facility in North America to include chute-
to-stack components designed by Josef Martin Company (Zurich, Switzerland), and its U.S. licensee,
UOP Inc. The facility has four boilers, three of which are fired continuously. The fourth is kept in
reserve.
Twenty percent of the steam generated by this facility is used to drive turbines for in-house power.
The remaining 80 percent is available for sale. A contract has been signed between the city and
Brach Candy Company for purchase of some of the available steam, A steam line is presently under
construction.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
(Southwest Supplementary Fuel Processing Facility)
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—1000 TPD (Two 1000-TPD lines operating alternately)
Actual Average Throughput—500 TPD
STARTUP DATE: March 1977
CAPITAL COSTS: $16 million (1975) (Excluding land and a $4.5 million RDF handling facility at
utility)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Ralph M. Parsons Company; Consoer, Townsend & Associates
Operator—City of Chicago
Owner—City of Chicago
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
RDF Fluff 77% of Selling Commonwealth
throughput Edison Co.
Ferrous metals Coarsely 30 TPD Selling REG Associates
shredded, less
than 6 inches
PROJECT CONTACT: Emil Nigro
Supervising Engineer
Department of Streets and Sanitation
Room 704
City Hall
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 744-3181
35
-------
PROJECT STATUS: Operating (shakedown)
This plant produces RDF for Commonwealth Edison Company's Crawford Power Station. The RDF
is pneumatically conveyed to the power station. Commonwealth is responsible for operating and
maintaining the facilities for receiving, storing, and firing the RDF. The city funded the cost of these
facilities and of the boiler modifications.
The RDF plant has two identical, 1000-TPD processing lines which will be operated on alternate days.
This arrangement will allow for regular maintenance, excess capacity to cover increases in the waste
supply, and redundancy in case of breakdown.
COLUMBUS, OHIO
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in generating
steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: Approximately 1200 TPD received for processing
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Waste processing 1974; energy generation, late 1981
CAPITAL COST: $118 million (Entire energy generation and transfer station system, including
construction, engineering fees, and interest)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Alden E. Stilson and Associates
Operator—City of Columbus
Owner—City of Columbus
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Electricity/City of Columbus
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACTS: Bob Parkinson
Director of Public Services
(614) 222-8290
Henry Bell
Electricity Superintendent
(614) 222-8371
City Hall
90 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
PROJECT STATUS: Waste processing, operational; energy generation, advanced planning
In 1974 the city of Columbus began operating three large transfer stations, each equipped with a 60-
TPH Jeffrey shredder. Presently, shredded waste from these transfer stations is being landfilled.
Plans have been made, and $40 million in equipment has been ordered, for a 90-megawatt power
plant in Columbus to burn coal and shredded waste (RDF). A fourth shredding/transfer station will
also be constructed on the site of the power plant.
36
-------
The city of Columbus operates an electricity distribution system which supplies power to 9000 cus-
tomers and all city streetlights. The city is currently purchasing power to supply this system. When
the co-fired power plant begins operation, it will supply electricity to the city's distribution system.
Since the new power plant will be co-fired, changes in burn mixture of RDF and coal can be made
to adjust for fluctuations in the supply of waste throughout the year. The city is also considering the
feasibility of co-firing sewage sludge with RDF and coal.
The city is responsible for collection of residential waste within the city limits. Officials expect to
adjust the tipping fee at the facility to attract private haulers from suburban areas. The loss in
revenue from lower tipping fees will be made up by the substantial reduction in landfill disposal
costs which the plant will provide for the city.
A legal problem has developed between Columbus and the Ohio Power Siting Commission with
regard to the necessity for the co-fired power plant. A case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court
on this matter, and a decision was expected in early summer 1979.
CROSSVILLE, TENNESSEE
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of processed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular incinerator
to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—60 TPD (Two 30-TPD systems)
Actual Average Throughput—60-70 TPD
STARTUP DATE: May 1978
CAPITAL COSTS: $800,000 (Including the building, equipment, and extensive modifications)
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Environmental Control Products, Inc.
Operator—Environmental Services Corp.
Owner—Environmental Services Corp.
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 135 psig, SAT 15,000 Ib/hr Contract to sell Crossville Rubber
Products
PROJECT CONTRACT: Nelson Walker
President
Environmental Services Corp.
P.O. Box 765
Crossville, Tennessee 38555
(615) 484-7800 or 484-7673
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
37
-------
Under contract with the city of Crossville, Environmental Services Corporation (ESC) operates the
modular combustion system and the city-county landfill for disposal of residue. The system consists
of shredding ahead of combustion with automatic ash removal. Extensive equipment modifications
have been made to accommodate a waste stream which consists of about one-quarter rubber scrap
and an unusually high percentage of glass.
Both gas and oil are used to fire the units, but plant officials claim to have cut fuel use drastically.
Incineration begins on Sunday night with ignition of the burners in the lower chamber of the units.
These burners remain on, plant officials say, for an average of 18 minutes, or until the temperature
in the chamber reaches 800 degrees F. The upper-chamber burners stay on only until the temperature
reaches 1200 degrees F, which takes an average of 47 minutes. Then, with overlapping of shifts
throughout the week, the units can be operated continuously without additional auxiliary fuel con-
sumption. The system also conserves fuel by employing electric ignition, rather than continuously
burning pilot lights.
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROJECT TYPE: Materials recovery using a wet pulping process and production of RDF for use as
a supplemental fuel in on-site generation of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 3500 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: July 1981
CAPITAL COST: $138 million (not including turbogenerators, costing $20 million)
FINANCING: Florida State Pollution Control Bonds (General obligation)
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Resources Recovery Dade County, Inc. (RRDC)
Operator—RRDC
Owner—Dade County
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCT/MARKETS:
Steam/Florida Power & Light Company
Ferrous metals/Metal Cleaning and Processing (Milwaukee)
Aluminum/Alcoa
Glass/Owens-Illinois
PROJECT CONTRACT: Thomas Henderson
Chief, Solid Waste Disposal
Dade County Public Works Dept.
909 Southeast 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 579-3997
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Construction and operation of this facility is being managed by Resources Recovery Dade County,
Inc., a subsidiary of Parsons and Whittemore, Inc. The facility will recover materials and produce
38
-------
RDF using a wet pulping process similar to that used in the Franklin, Ohio, demonstration project.
RDF produced at the plant will be burned in four spreader-stoker boiler units. The steam which is
produced will be piped to an adjacent facility where it will be used to generate electricity. This
generating facility is being constructed and will be operated by Florida Power & Light Company.
Dade County is sharing project risks by agreeing to subsidize RRDC if annual steam revenues fall
short of $6.8 million under specific conditions. Any steam revenues over $6.8 million are to be split
evenly by Dade County and RRDC. RRDC has the right to all revenues from the sale of recovered
materials.
When construction is completed, RRDC is scheduled to receive 60 percent of the cost of construction.
Further payment will be made to RRDC in amounts equal to the percentage of design capacity at
which the plant is shown to operate while meeting performance requirements.
Ground breaking took place on December 17, 1978. As of March 1979, site preparation was being
concluded.
This project was designed on the basis of information gathered at the successful pilot plant at
Franklin, Ohio, which was designed and operated by Black Clawson Co., a subsidiary of Parsons
& Whittemore Inc. The Franklin plant, an EPA demonstration project, was permanently shut down
on March 31, 1979, because it could not be operated economically at the 50-TPD scale on which it
was built.
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a primary fuel in generating steam
(on-site) and electricity (off-site)
DESIGN CAPACITY: 3000 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Early 1983
CAPITAL COST: Not determined
FINANCING: Not determined
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Operator—Joint venture between Combustion Engineering Inc. and Waste Resources Corp.
Owner—Combustion Engineering Inc., or City of Detroit, not determined
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Detroit Edison Company
Electricity/not determined
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Michael Brinker
Government Analyst
Detroit Environmental Maintenance and Protection Department
Room 513
39
-------
City-County Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 224-3932
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
The city of Detroit issued an RFP for design, construction, and operation of this project in 1976. A
joint venture between Combustion Engineering Inc. and Waste Resources Corporation was selected
as the full service contractor in June 1977. The parties are currently negotiating to establish the
assignment of risk and to work out the details of the financial aspects of the project. Work on the
environmental impact statement for the project is also under way.
As presently conceived, the facility will have two processing lines and three boiler units. The proc-
essing lines will both be operated for two daily shifts, five days a week. Two of the three boilers will
be generating steam continuously, seven days a week. A memorandum of understanding has been
signed by the joint venture and Detroit Edison Co. for the sale of steam to be used in Detroit Edison's
central steam loop.
No waste supply problems are anticipated since the city of Detroit is responsible for collection. The
contracts which the city has with private haulers include provisions that deliveries to transfer agents
will stop as soon as the resource recovery facility opens. A sufficient amount of waste is generated
in Detroit to operate the facility at planned capacity.
DUBUQUE, IOWA
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a rotary (waterwall) combustor to produce
steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 250 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: May 1981
CAPITAL COST: Approximately $8 million (equipment only); $11 million upper limit on total project
FINANCING: General obligation or revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Sanders & Thomas, Inc.
Operator—Not determined
Owner—Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency
Procurement Approach—Turnkey (with Sanders & Thomas, Inc. as construction manager)
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Dubuque Packing Company
Ferrous metals/Local scrap dealer
PROJECT CONTACT: Blake Neville
Project Manager
Sanders & Thomas, Inc.
1720 West End Avenue
Suite 405
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(615) 320-0642
40
-------
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
The rotary combustor technology, which is relatively new to U.S. application, was first implemented
in Japan. It employs a cylindrical, inclined, rotating "basket" made up of water tubes, running
lengthwise along the basket. The tubes are separated by two-inch steel plates which have air intake
holes in them. Waste is deposited at the elevated end of the basket, tumbles through with the rotating
action and is burned. The residue exits to a quenching tank at the lower end of the basket. Hence,
rotation not only conveys the waste, but also agitates it to increase combustion. The rotary combustor
system, when combined with a boiler unit, has been shown to have a thermal effeciency of 80 percent.
Intended capacity determines the length and diameter of the basket.
The system being planned for Dubuque includes the rotary combustor and ancillary equipment of
standard design. Bids were due in April 1979 on the ten major pieces of equipment, which account
for 50 percent of the total cost of the project. These bids will be used to determine the final economics
of the project, including the tipping fee and the selling price for the steam.
The Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency is currently responsible for waste collection and
expects no problem in directing waste to the facility. The Dubuque Packing Company has agreed to
take all steam that the facility produces.
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
PROJECT TYPE: Codisposal—Combustion of processed municipal solid waste and sewage sludge
in a fluidized bed incinerator with waste heat recovery to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 400 TPD of MSW and 340 wet TPD sludge
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: June 1979
CAPITAL COST: $20 million (Includes all costs for co-incineration facility)
FINANCING: 75% EPA grant, 15% State grant, 10% municipal bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Consoer, Townsend & Associates
Operator—Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Owner—Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/In-house use
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: John Klaers
Manager of Planning
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
27th Avenue West and The Waterfront
Duluth, Minnesota 55806
(218) 722-3336
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
This project includes the construction of a facility to process and co-incinerate solid waste with
41
-------
vacuum filtered sewage sludge. Sewage sludge from a presently operating wastewater treatment
plant will be dewatered to 20 percent solids. Municipal solid waste will go through primary shredding,
air classification, and secondary shredding. The mixture will be burned in two fluidized bed furnaces.
Test burns are scheduled to take place in May 1979, and the facility is expected to begin processing
waste in June 1979.
EAST BRIDGEWATER, MASSACHUSETTS
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity: 160 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—Not applicable, operation is intermittent
STARTUP DATE: Spring 1977
CAPITAL COSTS: $12 million
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. (CEA)
Operator—CEA
Owner—CEA
Procurement Approach—Not applicable
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
RDF Powder, dry, 8- Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
(Eco-Fuel) 10% ash, 2% (Demonstration
moisture, 7500- facility)
7800 Btu/lb
PROJECT CONTACT: M.G. Magoulas
V.P., Facilities Management
Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc.
555 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(212) 980-3700
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This is a test facility to demonstrate CEA's proprietary process to produce powder RDF. The process
is being continually modified to upgrade the RDF quality as experience dictates. RDF from this facility
has been fired successfully as a supplement to oil in a steam plant.
42
-------
GALLATIN, TENNESSEE
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a rotary (waterwall) combustor to produce
steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 150 TPD (Two 75-TPD units)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Mid-1981
CAPITAL COST: $7 million, total ($5.8 million for construction, including land, building, and equip-
ment)
FINANCING: Revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Sanders & Thomas, Inc.
Operator—An Authority to be established by the cities of Gallatin and Hendersonville, and Sumner
County, Tennessee
Owner—Authority
Procurement Approach—Turnkey (with Sanders & Thomas as construction manager)
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Donnelly Printing Company; General Fireproof ing, Inc.; Andrews Wire, Inc.
Electricity/Tennessee Valley Authority
PROJECT CONTACT: Glenn Swinehart
Vice President
Director of Energy Systems
Sanders & Thomas, Inc.
1720 West End Avenue
Suite 405
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(615) 320-0642
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
The rotary combustor technology, which is relatively new to U.S. application, was first implemented
in Japan. It employs a cylindrical, inclined, rotating "basket" made up of water tubes, running
lengthwise along the basket. The tubes are separated by two-inch steel plates which have air intake
holes in them. Waste is deposited at the elevated end of the basket, tumbles through with the rotating
action and is burned. The residue exits to a quenching tank at the lower end of the basket. Hence,
rotation not only conveys the waste, but also agitates it to increase combustion. The rotary combustor
system, when combined with a boiler unit, has been shown to have a thermal efficiency of 80 percent.
Intended capacity determines the length and diameter of the basket.
The two boiler units will be fired for twelve days every two weeks, with a staggered, two-day shutdown
period for each boiler to allow for maintenance and cleanout. When boiler units are operating, the
system will generate approximately 45,000 pounds of steam per hour. The steam will be sent through
turbogenerators to generate electricity, which will be sold to the Tennessee Valley Authority. This
process will reduce the pressure of the steam from about 400 psig to about 200 psig. The 200 psig
steam will be sold to local industries.
The system being planned for Gallatin includes the rotary combustor and ancillary equipment of
standard design. Bids were due in April 1979, on the major pieces of equipment. These bids will be
43
-------
used to determine the final economics of the project, including the tipping fee and the selling price
for the steam and electricity.
Plans are being made to establish an authority for operating and owning the facility. The authority
would be made up of the cities of Gallatin and Hendersonville, and Sumner County. Waste supply
for the facility posed a problem for the project, since cities in the county were using various arrange-
ments for waste collections. Twenty-three haulers operate in the county. Consequently, Sumner
County enacted a law which brought waste disposal under its control.
GENESEE TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular incin-
erator to produce steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 100 TPD (Two 50-TPD units)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: June 1979
CAPITAL COST: $2.3 million (Total cost, including co-generation equipment)
FINANCING: Industrial revenue bonds (Michigan State Building Authority Act)
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Consumat Systems, Inc.
Operator—Not determined
Owner—Genesee Township
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/not determined
Electricity/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Hanuman Marur
Township Engineer
Charter Township of Genesee
7244 N. Genesee Road
Genesee, Michigan 48437
(313) 640-2000
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Construction of this facility is 70 percent complete and startup is scheduled for June 1979. The plant
will be located in an industrial park which has both steam and electricity distribution systems.
Township officials have added plans for electricity generation to the project, but have not yet found
financing for this feature. They are contacting various agencies including the Michigan Energy
Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy for possible funding.
The township has a contract with a private hauler for waste collection, transportation, and disposal
in a landfill. This contract expires on June 1, 1979. The township is currently taking bids for a new
contract which will include collection of waste and transportation to the resource recovery plant.
GLEN COVE, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Codisposal—Combustion of unprocessed waste and vacuum filtered sewage sludge
in a refractory wall furnace with a waste heat boiler to produce steam
44
-------
DESIGN CAPACITY: 225 TPD of MSW and 25 TPD municipal sewage sludge (20% solids)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Mass burning unit and sewage plant, 1981
CAPITAL COST: Mass burning unit, approximately $8 million; sewage plant, $12 million
FINANCING: Mass burning unit, not determined; sewage plant, city funds with State and Federal
grants
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Joint venture: William F. Cosulich and W. F. Franck
Operator—City of Glen Cove
Owner—City of Glen Cove
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCT/MARKETS: Electricity for use at sewage plant
PROJECT CONTACT: Ernest Pascucci
Commissioner
Department of Public Works
City Hall, Bridge Street
Glen Cove, New York 11542
(516) 676-2000 Ext. 205
PROJECT STATUS: Mass burning unit, advance planning; sewage plant, under construction
This codisposal facility will involve a continuous feed, stoker-fired furnace to burn MSW with sewage
sludge which has been vacuum filtered to 20 percent solids. The sludge will be metered into the
furnace in such a way that it will remain on top of the bed of refuse during combustion.
The sewage treatment plant has been under construction for a year and a half. Officials for the project
expect to solicit bids for construction of the incinerator unit in early summer 1979.
GROVETON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular
incinerator to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—24 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—6 to 11 TPD
STARTUP DATE: October 1975
CAPITAL COSTS: $250,000(1975)
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Environmental Control Products, Inc. (incinerator); Eclipse Boilers (boiler unit)
Operator—Groveton Paper Mill (Diamond International Corporation)
45
-------
Owner—Groveton Paper Mill, Diamond International Corporation.
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 345° F, 125 psig 2000 Ibs/hr Used to satisfy part of in-house steam
(SAT) requirements
PROJECT CONTACT: Norman Charleston
Superintendent, Steam and Power
Groveton Paper Mill
Groveton, New Hampshire 03582
(603) 636-1154
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This modular combustion unit is in operation 24 hours a day, six days a week, burning all of the
paper mill's waste for five days and all of the city's municipal waste one day. Company officials at
the paper mill are primarily concerned with using the unit to dispose of waste, rather than to produce
steam. Steam production could be increased by burning more auxilliary fuel with the waste.
HAMPTON, VIRGINIA
(NASA, USAF, Hampton)
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 200 TPD (Two 100-TPD boilers)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: June 1980
CAPITAL COST: $10 million
FINANCING: Municipal bonds, 70%; USAF and NASA, 30%
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—J. M. Kenith Company
Operator—City of Hampton
Owner—Leased to Hampton by joint venture (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S.
Air Force, and Hampton)
Procurement Approach—J. M. Kenith to design, construct, start up, and test for joint venture
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/NASA-Langley facilities for heating, cooling, and research needs
PROJECT CONTACT: Leo P. Daspit
Project Manager
NASA-Langley Research Center
Mail Stop 437
Hampton, Virginia 23665
(804) 827-2283
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
46
-------
The city of Hampton, NASA and the USAF have combined to form a joint venture for this project. All
three parties are contributing funds. The contract for design construction, startup, and testing was
signed with J. M. Kenith Co. on January 31, 1978. When the facility is ready for operation, it will be
leased by the joint venture to the city of Hampton. It will be operated seven days a week, with 175
TPD of waste from the city and 25 TPD from the Federal installations.
As of February 1979, engineering design was 95 percent complete, and major equipment had been
ordered. Construction of the building to house the system was well under way.
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
PROJECT TYPE: Codisposal—Combustion of unprocessed municipal solid waste and sewage sludge
in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—720 TPD MSW and 14 dry TPD sludge
Actual Average. Throughput—500 TPD MSW; sludge combustion system, under construction
STARTUP DATE: October 1972; sludge combustion system, November 1979
CAPITAL COSTS: $8.3 million (1972) (Not including recent modifications)
FINANCING: Revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Operator—City of Harrisburg
Owner—City of Harrisburg
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Products
Steam
Characteristics
460° F, 240 psig
(SAT)
Amount
Recovered
or Produced
150,000 Ibs/hr
Status Markets
Selling Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company
In-house use for heating and sludge drying
PROJECT CONTACT: Jack Karper
Deputy Director of Public Works
423 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
(717)255-3118
PROJECT STATUS: MSW incineration, operating; sludge drying and combustion system, under con-
struction
This facility employs chute-to-stack, mass-burning technology supplied by Josef Martin Company
(Zurich, Switzerland) and UOP Inc. Modifications have been under way at the plant for over a year
to improve steam production, to construct a new steam line, and to provide for drying and combustion
47
-------
of sewage sludge. The new two-mile steam line was installed to tie the plant into an existing
downtown steam loop, which is operated by the Pennsylvania Power & Light Company. This con-
struction was completed, and sales of steam started in late 1978.
A sludge combustion system is presently under construction. Sludge at five percent solids will be
pumped to the plant where it will be 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 be introduced into
the furnace and burned. Some modifications are being made to the waterwall furnace for introducing
the dry sludge.
In the past year project officials have made efforts to increase the supply of waste to the facility.
Their efforts have included contacting surrounding communities and negotiating with private haulers
in Harrisburg. Throughput was approximately 377 TPD in 1977, 485 TPD in 1978, and officials hope
it will reach 575 TPD by the end of 1979.
HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste (wet pulping and separation) to produce RDF for use as a
primary fuel in on-site generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—2000 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—1300 TPD, still in shakedown
STARTUP DATE: September 1978
CAPITAL COSTS: $90 million (Not including cost of turbogenerators)
FINANCING: Industrial development revenue bonds and private financing
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Parsons & Whittemore Inc.
Operator—Hempstead Resource Recovery Corporation (HRRC)
Owner—HRRC
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Produces
Steam/Electricity
Ferrous metals
Aluminum
Glass
Ch arcrc t eris tics
Amount
Recovered
or Produced
40 megawatts
40,000 TPY
(planned)
Status
Selling
Contract
Color sorted
Not determined
23,000 TPY
(planned)
Contract
Contract
Markers
Long Island Lighting Co.
Scrap dealer
Reynolds Metals Co.; and
Aluminum Company of
America (Alcoa)
Glass Containers
Corporation
48
-------
PROJECT CONTACT: Peter Alevra
P.O. Box 4014
Roosevelt Field Station
Garden City East, New York 11530
(212) 561-8050
PROJECT STATUS: Operating (shakedown)
A contract was signed on December 12, 1974, between the city of Hempstead and Hempstead Resource
Recovery Corporation, a subsidiary of Parsons & Whittemore Inc. The contract stipulates that the City
will "put or pay" to the recovery system at least 6000 tons of solid waste per week. The contract also
requires that the facility be able to process 11,000 tons per week with a maximum of three percent
residue by volume.
The facility began operation in September 1978, and as of early 1979 has reached one-half capacity.
HRRC officials expect the plant to reach full capacity in May 1979.
This project was designed on the basis of information gathered at the successful pilot plant at
Franklin, Ohio, which was designed and operated by Black Clawson Co., a subsidiary of Parsons
& Whittemore Inc. The Franklin plant, an EPA demonstration project, was permanently shut down
on March 31, 1979, because it could not be operated economically at the 50-TPD scale on which it
was built.
LAKELAND, FLORIDA
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in on-site
generation of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 300 TPD (One eight-hour shift per day)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: October 1981
CAPITAL COST: $186 million (Entire project, including processing and boiler facilities, pollution
control equipment, and a small portion of land for the system)
FINANCING: Municipal general obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—C. T. Main, Inc.
Operator—City of Lakeland
Owner—Jointly owned, City of Lakeland and Orlando Utilities Commission
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Electricity/Orlando Utilities Commission
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Claude Hiers
Superintendent of Industrial Engineering and Business Affairs
City of Lakeland
Box 368
Lakeland, Florida 33802
(813)682-1121
49
-------
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
This project involves construction of both a waste processing plant and a boiler unit for burning RDF
with coal. As of March 1979, the majority of engineering design work had been completed, and the
city was making plans to purchase equipment for the facility. Sale of bonds to finance the project
was scheduled for mid-March.
The city expects few problems with waste stream control. Over one-half of the population of greater
Lakeland lives within the city limits, where waste collection is the responsibility of the city. In
addition, the resource recovery facility will lure many private haulers away from landfill disposal
because it offers shorter transportation distances.
LANE COUNTY, OREGON
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—500 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—Minimal
STARTUP DATE: Early 1979
CAPITAL COST: $2.1 million (Not including additional work supplied by system contractor)
FINANCING: Municipal general obligation bonds and State grant
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Allis-Chalmers Corp.
Operator—Western Waste Corp.
Owner—Lane County
Procurement Approach—Turnkey
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status
RDF Less than 2 inches Not determined Shakedown
Ferrous metals Shredded Not determined Shakedown
Markets
Not determined
Not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Craig Starr
Director of Solid Waste Management Division
Lane County
125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(503)687-4119
PROJECT STATUS: Operating (shakedown)
Construction at this facility is essentially complete, and the shakedown phase has begun. However,
several problems have prevented continuous operation. The major problem involves the air classi-
50
-------
fication system in that the original design using a closed-loop, recirculating-air approach has not
been effective. Allis-Chalmers Corp. the turnkey contractor, indicates that the system should be
redesigned to vent exhaust air through a bag house. County officials are opposed to this remedy.
The facility will not be operated to any significant extent until this problem is resolved.
As of April 1979, no market had been secured for the RDF which the plant is to produce. The University
of Oregon at Eugene has expressed some interest in running test burns of the RDF in its boilers.
Waste collection in Lane County is carried out by private haulers. However, because the county owns
and operates transfer stations and the landfill, disposal has been the county's responsibility by
tradition. Therefore, county officials expect no problems with supplying waste to the facility.
LEWISBURG, TENNESSEE
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a refractory wall furnace with waste heat
boilers to recover steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 60 TPD (8 to 10 hours of operation per day)
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: July 1979
CAPITAL COST: $1.75 million (Excluding land)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—CICO Resource Recovery, Inc.
Operator—City of Lewisburg
Owner—City of Lewisburg
Procurement Approach—-A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Heil-Quaker Corp.
PROJECT CONTACT: J. L. Moss, Jr.
City Manager
City Administration Building
505 Ellington Parkway
Lewisburg, Tennessee 37091
(615) 359-1544
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Construction is nearly complete on this refractory furnace system in Lewisburg. Waste will be burned
in suspension in a 20 by 20 foot chamber. Combustion is to be self-sustaining; no auxiliary fuel will
be required. Heat will be recovered in a waste heat boiler.
The city of Lewisburg is responsible for waste collection within the city limits. City officials are
expecting to attract waste from other communities in the county.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT TYPE: Methane recovery from a landfill
51
-------
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: June 1979, for delivery of gas to city power plant
CAPITAL COST: $1.75 million
FINANCING: Municipal funds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—City of Los Angeles
Operator—City of Los Angeles
Owner—City of Los Angeles
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Methane/Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power
PROJECT CONTACT: John C. Peck
Sanitary Engineering Assistant
Department of Public Works
Room 1410
Los Angeles City Hall East
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 485-5347
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Equipment to control migration of landfill gas has been in place and operating since 1970 at the
Sheldon-Arleta landfill in Los Angeles. Approximately 750 cubic feet per minute of raw landfill gas
has been flared. The gas utilization project now under construction will recover 1000 cubic feet per
minute of raw gas containing 500 to 550 Btu per standard cubic foot. This gas will be burned in the
city-operated power plant, which is two miles from the landfill.
MADISON, WISCONSIN
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—400 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—200 TPD
STARTUP DATE: January 1979
CAPITAL COSTS: $2.4 million (Including construction, engineering, and financing costs; excluding
$900,000 for RDF handling facility at utility)
FINANCING: General obligation bonds and municipal capital funds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—City of Madison
Operator—City of Madison
Owner—City of Madison
52
-------
Procurement Approach—Not applicable
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Products
RDF
Amount
Recovered
Characteristics or Produced
90% less than %
inch
Ferrous metals Coarsely shredded
120 TPD
10TPD
Status
Selling
Selling
Markets
Madison Gas &
Electric Company
Wisconsin Metals and
Chemicals Co
PROJECT CONTACT: Gary Boley
Principal Civil Engineer
City-County Building, Room 115
Madison, Wisconsin 53709
(608) 266-4091
PROJECT STATUS: Operating (shakedown)
The city of Madison acted as general contractor for the design and construction of this facility, as
well as the RDF handling facility at Madison Gas & Electric Company's power station. Although this
placed more risk on the city, it gave the city more control over the project. The processing of waste
includes primary shredding, magnetic separation, screening, secondary shredding, and air
classification.
Along with operating a resource recovery facility, the city of Madison carries out a strong program
in source separation. This program provides for the separate collection of newspaper and results in
a waste stream volume reduction of about five percent.
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—1200 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—900 TPD
STARTUP DATE: Early 1977
CAPITAL COSTS: Processing facility—$21 million (1975). (Not including land or $4 million for RDF
handling facilities and boiler modifications at power plant)
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—American Can Company
Operator—American Can Company
Owner—American Can Company
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
53
-------
Products
RDF
Characteristics
Fluff; 90% is less
than % inch;
5000 Btu/lb
Ferrous metal Shredded
Aluminum
Shredded
Glass aggregate Not applicable
Amount
Recovered
or Produced
550 to 650 TPD
15TPD
Not available
Not available
Status
Selling
Selling
Shakedown
Shakedown
Markets
Wisconsin Electric
Power Co.
Wisconsin Metals &
Chemicals Co.
Not available
Not available
PROJECT CONTACT: Dr. George Mallan
Director of Operations and Technology
(203) 622-7545
E. J. Greber
Director of Sales and Marketing
(203) 622-7549
Americology, Recovery Systems Division
American Can Company
Greenwich Office Park, No. 8
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
PROJECT STATUS: Operating (shakedown)
In January 1975, a contract was signed between the city of Milwaukee, American Can Company and
Wisconsin Electric Power Company in which the utility agreed to purchase RDF from a facility to be
built and operated by the Americology Division of American Can Company. American Can Company's
responsibility to operate transfer stations and dispose of Milwaukee's solid waste commenced in
January 1976.
After an explosion at the plant on December 28, 1978, American Can Company installed extensive
additional safety features, and the plant, in mid-March 1979, is operating. A steel reflector barrier
was erected between the shredder enclosure and the picking platform for added protection of picking
personnel.
MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to recover materials and to produce RDF for use as a
supplemental fuel in generating steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 2000 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: June 1979
CAPITAL COST: $53 million (Including professional fees, startup, and RDF receiving facility at
utility)
FINANCING: Municipal general obligation bonds and State grant
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Raytheon Service Company
Operator—Raytheon Service Company (5-year renewable contract)
Owner—Monroe County
54
-------
Procurement Approach—Modified full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
RDF (fluff, l'/2 inch particle size)/Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.
Ferrous metals/Vulcan Metals Company
Aluminum/Reynolds Metals Co.
Glass/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Howard F. Christensen
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Public Works
110 Coif ax Street
Rochester, New York 14614
(716)428-5921
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Officials for this project are presently attempting to assure a supply of waste to the facility to enable
it to operate economically. In addition, RDF marketing work is continuing, in order to assure adequate
markets.
Raytheon Service Company designed the facility, is managing construction, and will operate the
facility. The facility is being constructed by a general construction contractor selected by the County
under a low-bid competition.
As of February 1979, construction of the facility was 90 percent complete, and dry-cycle testing had
begun. Officials expect to begin processing materials through the facility by June 1979.
MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT TYPE: Methane recovery from a landfill
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: July 1979
CAPITAL COST: Not available
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Ortloff Corp.
Operator—Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
Owner—Joint venture between Ortloff Corp. and Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Methane/Southern California Gas Company
PROJECT CONTACT: Fred Rice
Director of Business Development and Marketing
Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
2750 Signal Parkway
Signal Hill, California 90806
(213) 595-4964
55
-------
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Construction is under way on this project to utilize methane gas from a landfill which is owned and
operated by Operating Industries, Inc. Up to about 8 million cubic feet per day of raw gas will be
drawn from 21 wells on the site. This gas will be processed to yield approximately 4 million cubic
feet of pipeline-quality gas. The processed gas will be piped to an underground storage facility near
the landfill and will be used for general distribution by Southern California Gas Company.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT TYPE: Methane recovery from a landfill
STARTUP DATE: January 1979
CAPITAL COSTS: $840,000
FINANCING: $270,000, EPA grant; remainder, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—PG&E
Operator—PG&E
Owner—PG&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Methane 950 Btu/stdft' 1 million ft/day, raw Producing PG&E
gas; approx. 650,000
ft'/day, processed gas
PROJECT CONTACTS: Richard Haughey Max Blanchet
Resident Engineer Senior Resources Engineer
Dept. of Public Works Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
540 Castro Street 245 Market Street
Mountain View, California 94042 San Francisco, California 94106
(415)967-7211 (415)781-4211
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This project became operational in January 1979. Raw gas is pumped from wells on the Mountain
View landfill and is purified by a molecular sieve cleansing system. After purification the gas is fed
directly into the PG&E transmission pipeline.
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—720 TPD (Two 360-TPD boilers)
Actual Average Throughput—400 TPD
STARTUP DATE: June 1974
56
-------
CAPITAL COSTS: $25 million (Including $13 million for boiler facility and $4 million for steam
distribution system in 1974, and $8 million for recent modifications)
FINANCING: Revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—I. C. Thomasson Associates
Operator—Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation
Owner—Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation
Procurement Approach—Not applicable
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 600° F, 400 psig 100,000 Ib/hr Selling Downtown heating and
cooling loop
PROJECT CONTACT: Milton Kirkpatrick
General Manager
Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation
110 First Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
(615) 224-3150
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
The Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation, a nonprofit authority, began operating this facility in
June 1974. Unlike other facilities, the system was originally conceived as a fossil-fuel-fired district
heating and cooling system. Later, but still in the planning stages, a decision was made to use solid
waste as the primary energy source.
The system is operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It includes a standby package-type boiler,
which can be fired by oil or gas. This is necessary because some of Nashville Thermal's customers
have no alternative means of heating or cooling. For cooling, steam turbine-driven chillers provide
water at 41° F to customers.
In order to bring the boiler facility into compliance with current emission standards, low-energy
scrubbers were recently replaced with electrostatic precipitators. This modification cost approxi-
mately $8 million. Particulate emissions are now well within standards.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
PROJECT TYPE: Materials recovery using a dry mechanical process (ferrous metals and aluminum)
and froth floatation (glass)
CAPACITY: Design Capacity—750 TPD (12 hours a day, 6 days a week)
Actual Average Throughput—650 TPD
STARTUP DATE: March 1978 (Materials recovery processes completed)
57
-------
CAPITAL COSTS: Approximately $9 million (Including buildings and equipment)
FINANCING: Waste Management, Inc. and loan from National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR)
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—NCRR
Operator—Waste Management, Inc.
Owner—Waste Management, Inc.
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Products
Ferrous metals
Aluminum
Glass
Characteristics
Shredded and
unshredded
Shredded
Froth floated
Amount Recovered
or Produced Status
15-20 TPD
Selling
500-700 Ib/day Selling
— In shakedown
Markets
Proler International
Corp.
Reynolds Metals Co.
PROJECT CONTACTS:
Frank Bernheisel
National Center for Resource Recovery
1211 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 223-6154
W. S. Parker
Directing Engineer
17000 Chef Menteur Highway
New Orleans, Louisiana 70129
(504) 254-2227
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This facility is a demonstration project for the National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR). The
operation of the facility has included two phases. The first phase was begun in September 1976, and
included waste shredding and landfilling for land reclamation near the site of the plant. A second
process line has now been installed which includes tromrneling (sizing) of raw waste, shredding,
and recovery of ferrous metals, aluminum, and glass. The ferrous metals recovery system is presently
being redesigned to improve product quality. NCRR is also actively pursuing an energy market for
the light, organic fraction of the shredded waste.
Waste collection is the responsibility of the city of New Orleans. Waste Management, Inc. has a 12-
year, "put or pay" contract with the city for delivery of an average 650 TPD of waste to the facility.
No shortfalls of waste delivery have taken place. The resource recovery facility processes nearly two-
thirds of New Orleans' waste, including nearly all residential solid waste.
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 2000 TPD initially, 3000 TPD ultimately
58
-------
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 1981
CAPITAL COST: Approximately $70 million
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Joint venture: Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc.; and Occidental Resource Recovery
Associates (CEA-Oxy)
Operator—CEA-Oxy
Owner—CEA-Oxy
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
RDF (powder)/Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Ferrous metals/Vulcan Metals Co. or M&T Chemicals Inc.
Glass, aluminum, paper possible
PROJECT CONTACT: Frank Sudol
Supervisory Environmental Specialist
Room 410
Newark City Hall
920 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(201) 733-6683
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
A joint venture of Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc., and Occidental Resource Recovery As-
sociates, is financing this project and relying on sales of RDF to Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
to make the project profitable. The plant will initially include two 1000-TPD processing lines with
facilities for adding a third line. The powdered RDF, "Eco-Fuel II," will be burned by the Public
Service Electric & Gas Co. as a supplement to oil.
Since early 1976 activity on this project has moved from pre-bid conference through awarding of a
conditional contract and approval by state agencies to issuance of building permits. Ground breaking
was scheduled for spring 1979, with construction to be completed 24 months later.
NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to recover materials and to produce RDF for use as a primary
fuel in on-site generation of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 2286 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: April 1, 1980
CAPITAL COST: $73.9 million (Includes all facilities necessary for handling, preparation, and stor-
age of municipal solid waste. Also included are boilers, electrical turbine generators, electrostatic
precipitators, and associated auxiliary equipment.)
59
-------
FINANCING: Niagara County Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & DeHaven, Inc.
Operator—Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp.
Owner—Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp.
Procurement Approach—Project initiated by Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp.
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam and electricity/Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp.
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: James M. Green
Manager—Public Relations
Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp.
345 Third Street
Niagara Falls, New York 14302
(716) 278-7007
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
Approximately 30 percent of construction has been completed, and roughly 70 percent of the capital
is committed. Negotiations with local municipalities are under way to secure waste supply contracts.
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
(Southeastern Public Service Authority)
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to recover materials and to produce RDF for use as a primary
fuel in on-site generation of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 2000 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 1983
CAPITAL COST: Approximately $185 million (Including $117 million in construction costs for proc-
essing facility and transfer stations; financing costs, engineering fees not included)
FINANCING: Revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Henningson Durham Richardson, Inc.
Operator—Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia (SPSA)
Owner—SPSA
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Norfolk Naval Shipyard, at Portsmouth, Virginia, 100% of steam requirement
60
-------
Electricity/Naval shipyard, 75% of electricity requirement
PROJECT CONTACT: Durwood Curling
Executive Director
Southeastern Public Service Authority, Suite 127
Koger Center, Building 18
Norfolk, Virginia 23502
(804) 461-0878
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
The Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia (SPSA) is made up of the cities of Chesapeake,
Franklin, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, and the counties of Isle of Wight and
Southampton. SPSA is responsible for implementing regional plans in the Southeastern Virginia
Planning District. Interest in this resource recovery project began in 1973 with a feasibility study
covering waste stream composition, waste collection, and alternative resource recovery technologies.
This was followed by the development of an implementation plan in 1976. As of March 1979, SPSA
has established a project management team and has selected a site for the project. Engineering
design work was 30% complete.
This project is favored by its proximity to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard at Portsmouth, Va. The shipyard
is a ready market for the steam and electricity which the plant will generate. The facilities for
production of RDF and for power generation will be located on site. The project also includes con-
struction of five solid waste transfer stations.
No significant problems are anticipated in securing waste for the project. Officials for SPSA expect
to receive guarantees from the member cities and counties for supplying their waste to the facility.
Private haulers, who collect approximately half of the waste in the planning district, are currently
supporting the facility. In addition, there are no private landfills in the area.
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
(U.S. Naval Station)
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—360 TPD (2 boilers, 180 TPD each, operated alternately)
Actual Average Throughput—140 TPD (1 boiler)
STARTUP DATE: 1967
CAPITAL COSTS: $3.5 million (Including $2.2 million original cost in 1967; plus $1.1 million for
electrostatic precipitators in 1976, and $200,000 for retubing in 1978)
FINANCING: Military construction project
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
Operator—Navy Public Works Center
Owner—U.S. Navy
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
61
-------
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 225 psig (SAT) 40,000 Ibs/hr Producing U.S. Naval Station
PROJECT CONTACT: Causey Simmons
Head, Utilities Department
Navy Public Works Center
Norfolk, Virginia 23511
(804) 444-7775
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This facility is currently producing 10 percent of the Naval Station's steam requirements. The plant
normally operates one unit 24 hours a day, 5 days a week, alternating boilers each week. Twenty
percent of the waste burned is residental, the rest is waste from the Naval Station activities.
The plant is undergoing modifications to meet air emissions standards.
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
(Northeast Solid Waste Council)
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace for on-site generation of
steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 3000 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 3 years after signing of contract for construction
CAPITAL COST: $120 million (1978 estimate)
FINANCING: Industrial development revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—UOP Inc.
Operator—UOP Inc.
Owner—UOP Inc.
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Electricity/New England Power
PROJECT CONTACT: John F. Albis
Project Manager
Northeast Resource Recovery Project
North Andover Town Hall
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
(617)727-1183
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
This facility is the largest of several projects which are being considered by communities of northeast
Massachusetts. It has received the endorsement of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management. It is designed to handle 3000 TPD, but may be scaled down, depending on the amount
62
-------
of waste which is committed. As of early February, 1979, less than 1000 TPD had been committed
from nearby communities. The project is also designed to include on-site generation of electricity.
The crucial step for this and all other projects competing in the area is securing commitments to
participate from cities and towns. This effort has been delayed, in some cases, by the fact that the
towns can authorize such commitments only at "town meetings," which take place once a year.
To assist the communities, EPA Region 1 contracted with a consulting firm to analyze and report on
the alternatives available to communities in northeast Massachusetts.
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular incin-
erator to prodce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—100 TPD (4 modular units)
Actual Average Throughput—90 TPD
STARTUP DATE: 1977
CAPITAL COSTS: $1.45 million (Excluding land)
FINANCING: Municipal revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Consumat Systems, Inc.
Operator—City of North Little Rock
Owner—City of North Little Rock
PRODUCTS/MARKETS: Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 350° F, 130 psig 17,000 Ibs/hr Selling 11,750 Koppers Co., Inc.
(SAT) Ibs/hr creosoting plant
PROJECT CONTACT: Jack Atkins
Director of Sanitation
1120 N. Sycamore St.
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114
(501) 374-6145
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This facility is operated 24 hours a day, five days a week to supply steam to a nearby creosoting
plant. Major maintenance, repair, and residue removal are carried out on the weekends.
The system includes two identical heat recovery modules. Each module is made up of two incinerator
units, which feed into a single boiler for heat recovery. The two modules are located on opposite
wings of the facility, with a tipping floor between them.
63
-------
OCEANSIDE, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterfall furnace for on-site generation of
steam/electricity
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—750 TPD, entire plant (300 TPD in each of two waterfall furnaces, 150 TPD in a
backup refractory unit)
Actual Average Throughput—750 TPD
STARTUP DATE: Waterwall furnaces, 1974 and 1976
CAPITAL COSTS: $9 million for both waterwall units
FINANCING: Municipal bonds and state grant (addition of heat recovery system)
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Charles R. Velzy, Consulting Engineers
Operator—Township of Hempstead, New York
Owner—Township of Hempstead, New York
Procurement Approach—A&E
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 60,000 Ibs/hr In-plant use for electricity generation
PROJECT CONTACT: Al Alvanese
Superintendent, Sanitation
Township of Hempstead
1600 Merrick Road
Merrick, New York 11566
(516) 378-4210
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This plant originally had three batch-feed, refractory furnaces, two of which had waste heat boilers.
The two furnaces with heat recovery were replaced, one in 1974 and the other in 1976, with continuous-
feed, waterwall units. The plant has had many problems with corrosion and erosion of boiler tubes.
New electrostatic precipitators are meeting emission standards.
OSCEOLA, ARKANSAS
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular incin-
erator to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 50 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Early fall 1979
CAPITAL COST: $750,000 (including building and equipment)
FINANCING: Sanitation revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
64
-------
Manufacturer—Consumat Systems, Inc.
Operator—City of Osceola
Owner—City of Osceola
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Textile finishing firm
PROJECT CONTACT: Mayor R. E. Prewitt
City Hall
Osceola, Arkansas 72370
(501) 563-5245
PROJECT STATUS: Under construction
For several years Osceola has been burning its waste in two 12.5-TPD modular combustion units
with no heat recovery. Due to an increasing supply of waste and a secure, adjacent steam market,
the city began looking for additional capacity. In September 1978, the city contracted with Consumat
Systems, Inc. to trade in its old units and purchase two 25-TPD modular units as part of a system
with heat recovery. The system will burn residential and industrial waste. Construction of the building
to house the new units is nearly complete.
OYSTER BAY, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam/elec-
tricity (tentative)
DESIGN CAPACITY: Not determined
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 1985
CAPITAL COST: Not determined
FINANCING: Not determined
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Not determined
Operator—Not determined
Owner—Not determined
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/not determined
Ferrous metals, aluminum/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: John Vanderveer
Superintendent of Environmental Control
150 Miller Place
Syosset, New York 11791
(516) 921-7347 Ext. 514
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
65
-------
RFP has been issued for design, construction, and operation of this project, and proposals were due
in June 1979. A pre-submittal conference has been held for all interested parties. Decisions concerning
the scale and financing for this project will be made on the basis of a study being finalized in early
1979.
PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT TYPE: Methane recovery from a landfill
STARTUP DATE: 1975
CAPITAL COSTS: Not available
FINANCING: Private capital for construction of gas processing plant
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
Operator—Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
Owner—Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Methane Meets pipeline 1000 ftVminute, Selling Southern California
standards, 1000 raw landfill gas; Gas Co.
Btu/stdft3 50° ft3/minute,
processed gas
PROJECT CONTACT: Robert E. Van Heuit
Division Engineer
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
P.O. Box 4998
Whittier, California 90607
(213)699-7411
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc., has constructed and is operating a molecular sieve cleansing plant
that purifies raw landfill gas to pipeline standards. Approximately 500 cubic feet per minute of
pipeline-quality gas is produced from every 1000 cubic feet per minute of raw gas drawn from wells
on the Palos Verdes landfill. The wells and raw gas pipeline system were provided by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District. After purification, the gas is fed directly into a Southern California Gas
Company gas main. Plans are being made to expand the facility to process about 3000 cubic feet per
minute of raw landfill gas.
PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS
(Southern Essex Solid Waste Council)
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in the generation
of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1800 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 30-36 months after construction contracts are signed
66
-------
CAPITAL COST: $20 million
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. (CEA)
Operator—CEA
Owner—CEA
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
RDF'Narragansett Electric Co. and James River Corporation pulp mill
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Anthony Fletcher
Chairman, SESWC
1 Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
(617) 744-0241
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
This facility is one of several which are being considered by communities in northeast Massachusetts.
The project is backed by enabling legislation calling for the Southern Essex Solid Waste District to
be created when 275,000 TPY have been committed from communities in the area. The District will
have authority to sign contracts for financing, construction, and operation of the facility. As of Feb-
ruary 1979, 30,000 TPY had been committed from the city of Peabody.
The crucial step for this and all other projects competing in the area is securing commitments to
participate from cities and towns. This effort has been delayed, in some cases, by the fact that towns
can authorize such commitments only at "town meetings," which take place once a year.
To assist the communities, EPA Region 1 has contracted with a consulting firm to analyze and report
on the alternatives available to communities in northeast Massachusetts.
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace for on-site generation of
steam/electricity.
DESIGN CAPACITY: 2000 TPD, operating seven days per week
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Spring 1982
CAPITAL COST: $80-90 million (Total cost, including boiler unit, generators, land, scale house,
financing costs, and other costs)
FINANCING: Pinellas County Revenue Bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Procon Inc., a subsidiary of UOP Inc.
Operator—UOP Inc.
67
-------
Owner—Pinellas County
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Electricity/Orlando Utilities Commission
Ferrous metals, aluminum/not determined
Non-ferrous heavy metals, aggregate/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: D. F. Acenbrack
Director of Solid Waste Management
Department of Public Works and Utilities
Pinellas County
315 Haven Street
Clearwater, Florida 33516
(813) 448-2251
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
Pinellas County is negotiating with UOP Inc. to finalize contracts for design, construction, and op-
eration of this project. The county is also working on obtaining power plant site certification from the
State of Florida.
Electricity will be generated on site and sold to the Orlando Utilities Commission. Plans for the
project also include extensive, post-incineration materials recovery of ferrous metals, heavy nonfer-
rous metals, aluminum, and aggregate. This material recovery will be accomplished through spe-
cially arranged waste flow and heat control.
Municipal collection systems handle about 60 percent of the 2200 TPD of waste generated in the
county. State law gives the county authority over the disposal of waste within its borders. Few
problems are expected in obtaining cooperation of the municipalities for the project.
PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of processed and unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air,
modular incinerator to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 240 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Fall 1980
CAPITAL COST: $5.3 million (Construction, processing equipment, combustion units, boilers, steam
lines)
FINANCING: Industrial development revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Vicon Recovery Associates
Operator—Vicon Recovery Associates
Owner—Vicon Recovery Associates
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
68
-------
Steam/local paper manufacturer
Ferrous metals, aluminum/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Joseph Domas, Jr.
President
Vicon Construction Company
Bridgewater Lane
P.O. Box 488
Lincoln Park, New Jersey 07035
(201) 696-9200
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
After several years of public discussion and study of Pittsfield's solid waste problem, the City Com-
mission decided that resource recovery would provide the best solution. With the assistance of Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc. as consultants, the city issued an RFP in the spring of 1978. Vicon Construction Company
was selected, and extensive negotiations have been carried out covering construction, financing,
markets, and operation. A contract was signed in early February, 1979, between the city and Vicon
Recovery Associates, a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying out the contract.
The feasibility of this project was greatly enhanced by the presence of a secure local market for
steam. The steam purchaser, a paper manufacturer, has agreed to buy all the steam the facility can
produce. Vicon has guaranteed a supply of 600,000 pounds per day and will increase this amount as
it is able to do so.
Vicon expects to process one half of the waste burned in the units. Processing will include trommeling
and hand sorting to recover ferrous metals and aluminum. However, plant economics are based
solely on the production and sale of steam.
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT TYPE: Codisposal (pilot) to produce methane in controlled digesters
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—50 to 100 TPD MSW and sewage sludge
Acutal Average Throughput—10 TPD
STARTUP DATE: June 1978
CAPITAL COSTS: $2.9 million (1976)
FINANCING: U.S. Department of Energy grant
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Jacobs Construction, Inc.
Operator—Waste Management, Inc.
Owner—Waste Management, Inc.
Procurement Approach—Not applicable
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
69
-------
Products
Methane
Characteristics
550 to 750 Btu/stdft
Amount
Recovered
or Produced
Not available
Status
Producing
Markets
Use on site
PROJECT CONTACT: Peter Ware
Waste Management, Inc.
900 Jorie Boulevard
Oakbrook, Illinois 60521
(312) 654-8800
PROJECT STATUS: Operating (Shakedown)
This pilot facility is operated by Waste Management, Inc., to provide data regarding methane pro-
duction from a mixture of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. Optimum temperature, residence
time, ingredient mixtures, and supplementary nutrients will be investigated. The process involves
shredding, magnetic separation, trommeling, and air classification prior to anaerobic digestion.
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
(Norfolk Naval Shipyard)
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—160 TPD (Two 80-TPD boilers)
Actual Average Throughput—30 TPD
STARTUP DATE: 1976
CAPITAL COSTS: Approximately $4.5 million
FINANCING: Military construction project, pollution abatement
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Not available
Operator—Public Works Department, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia
Owner—U.S. Navy
Procurement Approach—Not applicable
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status
Steam 350° F, 125 psig (SAT) 30,000 Ibs/hr Producing
PROJECT CONTACT: Pedro Cananan
NAVFAC ENGCOM
Environmental Quality Branch
Norfolk, Virginia 23511
(804) 444-7313
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
Markets
Naval Shipyard
70
-------
The plant accepts all waste collected from the shipyard and the on-base housing, and is also accepting
waste from the city of Norfolk.
The two 80-TPD boilers are operated on alternate weeks to allow for cleanout and maintenance.
Steam generated by the plant is supplied to shipyard facilities and ships undergoing repair.
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1500 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 1983
CAPITAL COST: Not determined
FINANCING: Not determined
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Twin RESCO (Joint venture between Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. and Phoenix Industries)
Operator—Twin RESCO
Owner—Twin RESCO
Procurement Approach—Modified full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/not determined
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Floyd Forsburg
Energy and Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
234 City Hall
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 298-4321
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
RFP was issued in February 1977 which resulted in the selection of Twin RESCO to develop a full
service proposal (for design, construction, and operation) for the city of St. Paul. Twin RESCO is a
joint venture between Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., and Phoenix, Inc., a local waste hauling and disposal
firm. Twin RESCO began work on securing financing, obtaining required permits, and finalizing
contracts for markets and waste supply. The technology to be employed at this facility will be similar
to that used at the RESCO plant in Saugus, Massachusetts.
SALEM, VIRGINIA
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular
incinerator to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—100 TPD (Four 25 TPD modular units)
Actual Average Throughput—70 TPD in January 1979
71
-------
STARTUP DATE: January 1979
CAPITAL COSTS: $1.9 million
FINANCING: Municipal general obligation bonds and a $302,000 Department of Energy grant for
energy recovery
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Consumat Systems, Inc.
Operator—City of Salem
Owner—City of Salem
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Amount Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 250 psig (SAT) 20,000 Ibs/hr Selling Mohawk Rubber Company
PROJECT CONTACT: William Paxton
City Manager
P.O. Box 869
Salem, Virginia 24153
(703) 389-8601
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
Two relatively minor problems surfaced in the first month and a half of operation in the system's
automatic ash removal equipment. The first problem was the freezing of water in the system's residue
quenching tank. This will be alleviated by modifying and heating the building. The second problem
involves the conveyor which moves residue from the incinerators to the quenching tanks. A single
conveyor performs this function for all four modular units. Large, irregular-sized pieces of metal were
found to block the flow of the conveyor. Officials recommend that systems be designed with more
than one conveyor to service four units.
The system is operated 24 hours a day, five days a week. Nine people are assigned to the project,
including: a supervisor, a clerk for weighing trucks and bins, a mechanic, and two people on three
shifts to charge and operate the units.
SAUGUS, MASSACHUSETTS
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design Capacity—1500 TPD
Actual Average Throughput—1000 TPD
STARTUP DATE: 1976
CAPITAL COSTS: $43 million
FINANCING: Industrial revenue bonds and private capital
PROCUREMENT:
72
-------
Designer—Refuse Energy Systems Company (RESCO), a joint venture between Wheelabrator-Frye,
Inc. and De Matteo Construction Company
Operator—RESCO
Owner—RESCO
Procurement Approach—Not applicable
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Products
Steam
Ferrous metals
Amount
Recovered
Characteristics or Produced
Superheated,
845° F
285,000 Ibs/hr
75 to 80 TPD
Status
Selling
Stockpiling
Markets
General Electric Co.
PROJECT CONTACT: John Kehoe
Vice President
General Manager, Energy Systems Division
Wheelabrator-Frye, Incorporated
Hampton, New Hampshire 03842
(800) 258-0850
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
The plant had superheater and grate problems which have been solved by using special alloys. It
has not been operated at full capacity as yet because the amount of waste delivered to the plant has
been less than anticipated. General Electric Co. does not always take the full load of steam which
the plant produces.
SILOAM SPRINGS, ARKANSAS
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a two-chamber, starved-air, modular
incinerator to produce steam
CAPACITY:
Design—19 TPD (Two 9.5 TPD modular units)
Actual Average Throughput—16.5 TPD
STARTUP DATE: September 1975
CAPITAL COSTS: $377,000 (1974)
FINANCING: Municipal funds
PROCUREMENT:
Manufacturer—Consumat Systems, Inc.
Operator—City of Siloam Springs
Owner—City of Siloam Springs
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
73
-------
Amount
Recovered
Products Characteristics or Produced Status Markets
Steam 125 psig (SAT) 10,000 Ibs/hr Selling Local food canning
plant
PROJECT CONTACT: Al Varwig
Superintendent of Sanitation
City Hall
Siloam Springs, Arkansas 72761
(501) 524-8512
PROJECT STATUS: Operating
This facility has been successfully burning municipal solid waste and producing steam since Sep-
tember 1975. Volume and weight reduction are 95 percent and 67 percent, respectively.
The entire operation is broken into three operating steps per 24-hour period: 15 hours of charging and
burning solid waste, 7 hours of cooldown and 2 hours of cleanout. Plant operators indicate a problem
with cracking of refractory material inside furnaces during ash cleanout when cold outside air comes
in contact with the refractory walls. The city is considering purchase of an automatic ash removal
system to alleviate this problem.
STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Methane recovery from a landfill
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 1981
CAPITAL COST: Not available
FINANCING: Private capital
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Not determined
Operator—Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
Owner—Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Methane/Brooklyn Union Gas Company
PROJECT CONTACT: Fred Rice
Director of Business Development and Marketing
Reserve Synthetic Fuels, Inc.
2750 Signal Parkway
Signal Hill, California 90806
(213) 595-4964
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
This project will be located at the New York City Fresh Kills* Landfill on Staten Island. It will produce
4 to 6 million cubic feet of pipeline-quality gas per day. Final engineering design is under way.
* "Kill" or "kil" was early Dutch settlers' term for "channel" or "creek."
74
-------
TOLEDO, OHIO
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste or processing of waste to produce RDF (not
determined)
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1000 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Late 1982
CAPITAL COST: Approximately $46 million
FINANCING: Ohio Water Development Authority Bonds (tentatively)
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Not determined
Operator—Not determined
Owner—Ohio Water Development Authority
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Local industrial user
Ferrous metals/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Gary V. Hodge
Deputy Director
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments
Robert C. Rivet
Resource Economist
420 Madison Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43604
(419) 241-9155
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
RFP for design, construction, and operation of this facility was issued in October 1978. Seventeen
responses were received. Proposals are for steam production and for generation of steam and elec-
tricity. Selection of a contractor was planned for June 1979.
The Toledo Metropolitan Area COG is the designated solid waste planning agency for the Toledo
area. The implementing entity for resource recovery in the Toledo area is Northwestern Ohio Solid
Waste Management (NOSWM). The NOSWM Board of Trustees is recognized by the local governments
and state agencies as the policy-making body for resource recovery project development and imple-
mentation in the Toledo area. The eight-member Board of Trustees of NOSWM is appointed by the
Mayor of Toledo (5 members), the Lucas County Commissioners (2), and the Toledo Chamber of
Commerce (1). The Toledo Metropolitan Area COG is represented on the board in non-voting capacity.
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
PROJECT TYPE: Processing of waste to produce RDF for use as a supplemental fuel in off-site
generation of steam/electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1000 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Early 1982
75
-------
CAPITAL COST: $22 million (construction costs)
FINANCING: Industrial revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Mustang RDF Company and Williams Brothers Engineering Co.
Operator—Mustang RDF Company
Owner—Tulsa Energy Resource Recovery Authority (TERRA)
Procurement Approach—Full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
RDF (fluff, 1" nominal size)/Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
Ferrous metals, Aluminum, mixed non-ferrous, glass/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: David Thomas
V.P., General Manager
Mustang RDF Company, Suite 1100
First National Center East
120 North Robinson St.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
(405) 272-9471
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced planning
Interest in resource recovery in Tulsa began in 1975 with discussions between the City Commission,
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (electric utility), and Williams Brothers Urban Ore, Inc., an
environmental engineering firm. In November 1977, the Tulsa Energy Resource Recovery Authority
(TERRA) was created by the City Commission to finance, construct, and own a resource recovery
facility. Since then, Williams Brothers and Mustang RDF Company, a subsidiary of Mustang Fuel
Corporation, have financed feasibility studies for the project and are presently completing work on
engineering design. The only condition the two companies have made for sponsoring this work is
that they be reimbursed from bond proceeds if TERRA uses the engineering data they developed to
build the system.
One problem which has been encountered is that of securing waste for the facility. Municipal col-
lection in Tulsa accounts for less than 50 percent of the waste. One-hundred-and-thirty private haulers
operate outside direct city control.
WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK
PROJECT TYPE: Combustion of unprocessed waste in a waterwall furnace to produce steam/
electricity
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1500 TPD
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: Early 1983
CAPITAL COST: $75-80 million
FINANCING: $27 million from New York Environmental Quality Bonds; 20% of total from private
equity; remainder from industrial development revenue bonds
PROCUREMENT:
76
-------
Designer—Not determined
Operator—Not determined
Owner—Joint ownership: private contractor to be selected and municipal authority to be established
Procurement Approach—Modified full service
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/not determined
PROJECT CONTACT: Edward Davies
Assistant Commissioner
Solid Waste
522 County Office Building
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 682-2003
PROJECT STATUS: Advanced Planning
In 1977, officials issued RFP's for resource recovery facilities at two sites in the county. The 14
responses were analyzed, and a report was sent to the County Board of Legislators. The Board
eventually rejected both original sites for the facility and selected a third at Peekskill, New York.
Then, based on the responses to the original RFP's, county officials began drafting bid documents
for the Peekskill facility. The bid documents will be used to select a construction contractor through
competitive bidding, as required by New York State procurement law.
Since the county does not have control of the waste stream, county officials are developing inter-
municipal agreements with up to 44 communities in the county for participation in the project. The
county has been divided into eight waste-shed areas to facilitate transportation of the waste.
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE
PROJECT TYPE: Codisposal—Combustion of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge in a
waterwall furnace to produce steam
DESIGN CAPACITY: 1000 TPD MSW and 50 dry TPD sludge
EXPECTED STARTUP DATE: 1982
CAPITAL COST: Projected, $75-90 million
FINANCING: Revenue bonds, federal and state grants
PROCUREMENT:
Designer—Processing facility, Raytheon Service Company; steam generating facility, not determined;
sludge handling subsystem, Raytheon Service Company
Operator—Processing facility, Raytheon Service Company; other facilities not determined
Owner—Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Procurement Approach—Processing facility and sludge handling, full service; steam generating
facility, not determined
PRODUCTS/MARKETS:
Steam/Negotiating with industrial markets
77
-------
Ferrous metals/Detinner
Aluminum/Recycler
Glass (froth floated)/Glass container manufacturers
Humus/Poultry farm for use as litter
PROJECT CONTACT: Pasquale Canzano
Chief Engineer
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
P.O. Box 981
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 678-5361
PROJECT STATUS: Processing plant and sludge handling subsystem, under construction; steam
generating facility, advanced planning
This project is being partially funded by EPA as a demonstration facility. A contract was signed in
August 1978 between the Delaware Solid Waste Authority and Raytheon Service Company for
construction of the RDF processing plant and sludge handling subsystem. As of February 1979 site
work was well under way, and an RFP was being developed for procurement of the steam generating
facility.
The remainder of this report covers: Federal
resource recovery facilities, resource recovery
projects under the President's Urban Policy, and
State resource conservation and recovery pro-
grams.
Federal Resource Recovery
Facilities
Federal agencies, particularly the Depart-
ment of Defense, are showing increasing inter-
est in energy recovery from solid waste. Most of
the Federal facilities use incineration, with
steam being generated for on-site use. Some
facilities are combining their operations with
the solid waste programs of nearby cities.
Shown in table 5 are large- and small-scale,
Federally-owned facilities that currently are
operating, or under construction, or in advanced
planning. In addition to the facilities shown,
over 25 projects are under consideration for
feasibility.
The information provided in the table was
compiled in August 1978. For more information,
contact Jane Stieber, State Programs and Re-
source Recovery Division (WH-563), Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone(202)
755-9140.
Resource Recovery Projects
Under The President's Urban
Policy
The President's Urban Policy, issued on March
27, 1978, directed the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to carry out a program of finan-
cial assistance to urban areas for solid waste
resource recovery. As stated in the Federal Reg-
ister, October 17, 1978, this program is aimed at
accomplishing three primary objectives: "to ac-
celerate national progress in resource recovery
implementation; to provide environmentally
sound alternatives to solid waste disposal; and
to assist economically distressed urban areas
pursuant to the President's Urban Policy." To
allow EPA to carry out this program, Congress
approved funding of $15 million for FY 1979. An
additional $13.9 million was requested by the
President for FY 1980.
Funds offered by the program can be used by
local governments to hire a resource recovery
project director and staff, and to obtain con-
sulting expertise and to pay other approved
costs as listed in the Federal Register oi October
17, 1978, pages 47944 through 47949. Final en-
gineering design and construction are not fund-
able items under the program. Recipients of
assistance are required to furnish 25 percent of
the cost of their projects.
The deadline for submitting preapplications
for FY 1979 funds was December 15, 1978. A total
of 205 preapplications were received and eval-
uated by the States, the Department of Energy
and the EPA headquarters and regional offices.
Evaluation criteria included the extent of land
disposal problems, potential for successful im-
plementation of resource recovery, and degree
of uiban economic distress. On February 23,
1979, EPA announced that 68 communities had
been selected to receive funds, pending the de-
velopment of a satisfactory scope of work by the
78
-------
CO
H
H
t-J
U
£
PC
U
O
U
u
cc
u
U
K
D
O
CO
u
H
S
Q
IS
[i l
0
*^J
«
^^
Jfrf
D
CO
•
w
hJ
S
H
in
d
to
d w
'3. S
d r )
U u
ft
3 0
•+_• -*->
« 0
2Q
>,
21 3 Q
S o ex
Q d fc
°
IT
0_ "o
>H r]
CX U
0
H
^
U
0
\J)
|rf*
"3
0
T3
0
IX,
C
O
d
J8
Tl
Kg!
n o
||
"ft 0)
-o J:
0 -C
a &-s
d g G
'§"*'•«
<
^
LO
,_,
CO
CD
T3
0
>l-l
6
0
0
o
o
J3 d
1 - ^
•-< UH Q)
£ Q C
T) CC 'Fj
0 *O C
£ C 'm
w O)
0 "3 j^
Is 8 y
« cx
>_t
0
-X
U
3
PC
*^
^4
P-i G
„ d
^•« ^
6 £
n 0
E-
D
U c
rt rt E-1 *"
1| ||
< O
o
3
t-i
G
O
U
0
G
!=>
2
!^
CD
6ft
CO
CD
. — i
0
J3
O
g
(
_,
o
2
+->
.5
fi
•"rt
y
O
tj
M
"5
o
u
0
T)
C
CD
t^
CD
O
3
M
0
•i-t
u
G
. i-H
0
d>
d
,*
u
d
CX
G
O
3
CO
c
o
"u
M
In
O
o
0
13
6ft 6ft
CD
c~-
CD
d
0
to
0
U
d
!ir
O 0 O
-S ii u
y w 0
d d >"
"0 ^
PC
o
D ^H O
d
i
0
s i
Q u
K u D
O a S
o
a.
G >, G
•£ ^ '2
U ° G
3 J3 d
•? ft
-d
0
U
G
d
.,
0 O
S
03 N
V. ^
5? M
^L, t-( NsH
CD y 5;
CD ^ CO
•-< o
6ft 6ft
CO
CD
CD
c-^
CD
JX,
"3
0 0
8 d
£1
- 0
Q 0
o
LO
O)
0 C
si
* s
3 §
•o °
CO
o
1
d
d
3
^
0
PH
LO
nace
Waterwa
in a
Q) 42
.S a
ex
PQ
3
W
»-<
0
I
to
G
O
"u
3
to
G
O
U
8
o
CN
(M
CD
CO
O
"u
O
ecove
d
0)
"o
d
a.
tn
O
d>
G
'S
G
"ft
T3
0
u
T3
0
CO
CD
Q)
d
ne
0
d>
d
_*
u
d
(X
,
in
0
< §
<5
i2
o
u
o
u
0
G
CD
C~-
CD
Q
K
Q
a,
0
CO
. «
£5 -«
^ §
§
tn
d
OH
^H P3
DltJL,
•c <
d)
d
ft
O
CD
>.
d
3
^
0
P-,
LO
(N
O
3 2
| S
3 .~H
W U
G C
O —
O
C
o
d)
d
"G
0
cx
on
W
S-i
!>- 2 "C.
.3-1 O &1
^ 3 « a
g PQ x Q
2 O
*4
G
O
d
G
0
CX
Arlington
ruction
U)
G
0
L)
0
-o
0
6ft
§
CD
0
G
3
O
0
O
d
d
>-4
-H
"3
Se
_0
"S
0
u
o
PH
•«
"^
C/2
<
SI
C
O
Q.
6
d
co
G
• i— *
d
0
a
O
1
^H
^
CD
CD
O
CD
CO
0
U
d
G
>-,
-H
"3
»-4
_0
"5
o
•;"*.
d
c/5
"3
•z
Norfolk
D)
C
• i— 1
d
V-,
0
a
O
LO
CO
CD
CD
O
CD
0
U
d
C
Vt
-2
t (
"3
^
M
_0
d
"H
B
a
CO
d
•z,
.£
Portsmout
G
C
"ft
T3
0
u
G
d
Ti
LO
p. — 1
6ft
CD
CD
^Y*
3
CN
CO
O
3
0
G
u
G
0
co
d
-^
u
d
CX
U3
In
3
PJ
-»-•
0
PL,
E
VH
<
Warwick
79
-------
communities. The selected projects included
seven for source separation, four for sewage
sludge co-disposal with solid waste, and a va-
riety of large-scale and small-scale energy re-
covery projects. The selectees for FY 1979 are
listed in table 6 by EPA Regions. For further in-
formation on the Resource Recovery Program
under the President's Urban Policy, contract
Steven Levy, State Programs and Resource
Recovery Division (WH-563), Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202) 755-
9140.
State Resource Conservation and
Recovery Programs
As open dumps are being closed and up-
graded, and as land disposal sites are becoming
increasingly difficult to locate and more strin-
gently regulated, resource conservation and re-
covery is surfacing as a key alternative for solid
waste management in the United States.
The Congress has urged the States to exercise
leadership in facilitating the movement toward
more environmentally sound disposal. Several
sections of the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act of 1976 (RCRA) stress the importance
of developing State resource conservation and
recovery programs. A key mechanism for plan-
ning and implementing these programs is the
State Solid Waste Management Plans. On Au-
gust 28, 1978, EPA issued proposed guidelines
for the development and implementation of
State plans for solid waste management. Sub-
part D of these guidelines delineates the re-
quired and recommended resource conservation
and recovery activities which are to be incor-
porated in the State plans.
In addition to the Guidelines, EPA's Office of
Solid Waste is drafting a handbook tentatively
titled, Developing A State Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Program. The handbook will
delineate the opportunities available to States,
and will utilize examples of States which have
seized those opportunities to their advantage.
The table on the following pages (table 7) pre-
sents a picture of the current level of State re-
source conservation and recovery activity in the
United States. The data was collected by tele-
phone interviews conducted over the 12-month
period, January-December 1978. The specific
date of collection for each State is shown in the
first column of the tables. Each State's activities
are broken down into three categories of activ-
ities: planning, legislation, and implementa-
tion. More detailed information about these
activities is available in an EPA publication
titled State Resource Recovery Activities, 1978.
If you have any questions about these State
activities or would like to provide EPA with up-
dated information, please contact David Gav-
rich, State Programs and Resource Recovery
Division (WH-563), Office of Solid Waste, EPA,
Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202)755-9140.
80
-------
TABLE 6. RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S URBAN
POLICY, 1979 SELECTEES
EPA REGION 1
Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority (New Haven), CT
New Britain, CT
Central Massachusetts Solid Waste Project (Worcester), MA
Lower Pioneer Valley—Regional Resource Recovery Planning Project (Springfield), MA
Claremont, NH
Dover and Somersworth, NH
Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation, RI
Rutland, VT
EPA REGION 2
Camden City and County, NJ
Hackensack Meadowlands Commission, NJ
Mercer County Improvement Authority (Trenton), NJ
Newark, NJ
Brookhaven, NY
Monroe County, NY
New York City, NY
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (New York City), NY
Utica, NY
Westchester County, NY
Solid Waste Management Authority (San Juan), PR
Government of the Virgin Islands—Department of Public Works (St. Thomas), VI
EPA REGION 3
District of Columbia Department of Environmental Services, DC
Baltimore County, MD
Howard County (Columbia), MD
Philadelphia, PA
Southeast Public Service Authority (Norfolk), VA
State Resource Recovery—Solid Waste Disposal Authority, WV
EPA REGION 4
Jefferson County (Birmingham), AL
Broward County, FL
Daytona Beach, FL
Escambia County (Pensacola), FL
Hillsborough County (Tampa), FL
81
-------
(Continued) TABLE 6
Floyd County (Rome), GA
LaGrange, GA
Savannah, GA
Bell County (Middlesboro), KY
Hattiesburg, MS
Charlotte, NC
Fayetteville, NC
EPA REGION 5
Chicago, IL
Rockford, IL
Indianapolis, IN
Detroit, MI
Flint, MI
West Michigan Regional Planning Commission (Grand Rapids, Muskegon), MI
St. Paul, MN
Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), OH
Montgomery County (Dayton), OH
Toledo, OH
State Solid Waste Recycling Authority (Wausau), WI
EPA REGION 6
New Orleans, LA
Del City, OK
Tarrant County (Fort Worth), TX
Waco, TX
EPA REGION 7
Black Hawk County, IA
Bi-State Development Agency (St. Louis), MO
Kansas City, MO
Springfield, MO
EPA REGION 8
Eagle, CO
Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City), UT
82
-------
TABLE 6 (Concluded)
EPA REGION 9
Berkeley, CA
Long Beach, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles County, CA
San Francisco, CA
Kauai County, HA
EPA REGION 10
Lane County, OR
Portland, OR
King County (Seattle), WA
83
-------
d)
c
o
• I-H
"5
"5
0
0
"a
£
VERY ACTIVITIES
Legislation
o
o
STATE RESOURCE RE
Planning
IJL.
o
PC
TABLE 7. SUMMA
Agency
0
-H-
d
CO
>-.
~
^>
"u
d
"5
d
y
'S
.21
'S
O
*
Beverage container
legislation (bev. cont.
legis.) and litter bills
introduced
No significant activity
u
• f— I
tate Department of Pub!
Health
OT
CO
o
T)
i!
d fi
jjj!
<
><
• I-H
.S
"u
d
"S
o significa:
2
di
c
-3
a
0
a
tn
'Si
"E
o
o
0
CQ
No significant activity
ept. of Environmental
Conservation
Q
0£
Is
<
o
..-H
a
.
C
o
• r-4
a
0
Ul
Iffice paper
program
U
0 t— i
u «;
Bev. cont. legislation
introduced; little chan
due to Beverage Indus
No significant activity
tn
u
CO
13
"o
u
0
Q
d CO
fi C;
O c5
.a S
t-H '
fV
MH
PC
Recycling Program (BI
Waste oil recycling bill
introduced
£
J>H .i-H
d) **
H >_,
c a,
0 £
^ tn
S|
tn .£•
' in
:=! >.
d tn
G ^
<" £
2 %
I*
CO
TJ
CD
O
CD -ti
— ' C
•d ""
8.2
tn Co
d jfU
3 "S
r\ o
0
H- >
X 0
,-J D3
k^ CO t-^
i^H -: rT^
Feasibility studies of energ
recovery from solid waste
Resource Recovery Planninc
Section opened in DPCE
ept. of Energy and
Environmental Policy
ept. of Pollution Control
and Ecology
Q Q
in
•§ -
<
H~
"*-* rt
d> y .s>.
C .2, 0
3 2£
^^ Co
^ c c
aa o z3
0 '-£ U
0 d ><
ipH M O
^ d oj
^8 111
^ §" s c
CO CO
T3
ni
Tax on litter-producing
businesses
Oil Recycling Bill; pass<
01/78
— S
Local feasibility and marke
studies under way, six ar
State-funded
State Resource Recovery Pic
tate Solid Waste
Management Board
CO
d
S oo
o C;
^H CO
U ~
"tn
O
U
Q _J
^ ^
> M CD
2 -2 d
^ CU CO
| g .S
J2 0) (D
^ PU OH
m
T3
being updated
Educational packages on
waste reduction develope
procurement
d
"* 0 tn
Co tn c
a co
5 .£ '•£
^ ^^ ^
£ "d "tn
-« CO.S
8 .S ^
A 13 0
0 >H g
I £ 2 g
a c ^ a
!
-------
Wilmington project in design
stage
. >-.
d DSWA, 1974
nsive authorit
stablishe
omprehe
PJ U
6
u
73
0
0 d
2 G
.anning for S
disposal pla
a.
.2
"ai
a
£
73
O
CO >,
8 'S
S Js
£ •£
d 3
"0<
Q
No significant activity
3ri
0
-*-*
in
d
73
"o
in
»H
0
O
in
0
73
market stu
Wilmington;
in
0
a
0
73
u
O
d
73
a
d
6
73
0
in
in
0
ft,
0
in
3
-»-•
O
XI
d
>•
• f-t
3
£
in
M
"o
2
"5
0
a
o
>-,
»>
c
u
~o
"ft
0
Cl
XI
5
'43
tn
1 C
0
ft
3
"E
0
d)
.S
G
o
u
1
Pi
Q
PC
M-*
o
in
0
u
0
"u
CO
c
o
legislati
n National
esource
ot project
srticipating i
Center for Ri
Recovery pil
a.
RRC publishes information
in
M
JD
"o
CO
f~
CD
"o
pa
PC
PC
73
"o
in
M-I
O
tx
0
1 -county surv
03
IS
"E
0
S
G
o
>H
£>
G
PJ
'o
ft
0
Q
es on technology and State
R. activities
•-5K
iations to coui
incentives for
appropr
and tax
>>
authority
rgy recover
waste legal
tatewide ene
CO
_
'u
c
o
O
!^i
K*^
>-<
(U
Cu
rt\
o *
._2 PC
"5 0
"3 2
Cn 3
0 O
cc w
0
PC
ommittee
U
~o
"5
O
><
73
feasibility si
0
d
>-,
d
ft
0
CO
)-,
0
ft
d
a,
0
y
^*-,
O
5
a
CO
"d
u
_0
d)
c
43
in
43
d
In
0
"u
<
>,
jrce recove
egional resoi
PC
in
0
u
>-i
3
O
in
0
PC
"d
)-<
3
d
Z
'o
ft
0
Q
Program
g DNR to purchase only
c
e Recovery
ies with bond
Resourc
Authorit
'o
0
to
d
S»
1|
feasibility s'
tudy of recyc
CO
c
o
',"1
u
0
+-*
o
>_
A
MH
2
|S
0
6 a
§ 2
.S <"
> '£
u i3
recycled paper
State-funded source
separation project
No significant activity
>_,
tracting powe
0
U
73
c
d
ehicles
>
0
d
CO
6
o
73
0
in
0
ft
0
>-*
ft
in
'S)
_0
0
u
0
PQ
-£*
'>
"u
d
o significant
z
0
G
O
Z
C .H,
3 u
O 0
V 'o
% ft
o >,
n d)
O XH
^ 0
Tl G
0
u in
0 ^
5 £
io
73
d) ®
G -^
g'oTB
3 "S J2
8 -S
C C (\)
QJ OJ -2
^ g i
-5 2^
73 ft 0
(11 ^~*
w 0 y
o t; >"
2 d u
0 CO £
>-H
ft,
0
U
C
d
In
tn
tn
d
13
u
'2
i-;
u
0
0
S
o
CO
73
0
U
3
73
0
>-,
"E
in
'S
(!)
vy
c
0
u
>
0
oa
d
u in
43 0
U ;H
_in 'u
"G ^2
ft o
0 ^
2 w
CO d
u
d
d
u
73
d
_>,
43
in
d
j;
73
0
73
G
-3
0
d
CO
-G
"3
0
E
*-«— i
o
.
"ft
0
Q
0
in
£
"0
XH
M
O
•"+H
studies
bonding
, .
u
0
'o~
>H
ft
>.
Cn
>M
0
0
o
MH
O
fi
o
d
d)
"5
0
G
0
6
o
CO
0
J5
"0
^
73
G
d
45
"d
0
X
. , ,
O
•
ft
0
Q
in
^d
^H
S
d
S
>.
seconda
markets
S
OJ
^
«}
)-<
0
«^-<
>.
73
_3
"in
>H
jS
'in
d
0
P-,
2
"H
0
B
o
KH
'>
G
in
'3
C
;=:
o
6
0
73
P-,
Q
'PC
"5
d
'd>
0
d
w
>-i
tj
JH
0
d)
<
o
"u
0
"o
X-,
ft,
0
d
d)
0
73
0
o
ft
^d
"ft
0
ti ^-~
i"
.2S
0 -^
Q
o H „
*- 5 °o
y j3 c^
'M o ^3"
"50S
_o
C
o
oo
2 55
G O
85
-------
^
•4-f
e
o
u
t^
u
I-J
OQ
<
H
CO
U
1— <
ECOVERY ACTIVIT
w
U
K
|z>
O
CO
w
PC
U
H
<
H
CO
Uu
O
><
PC
<
S
S
D
CO
•
t^
u
1-4
3
H
Implementation
Legislation
Planning
u
a
0
fn
<
0
"d
•*-•
to
d
ctive program of lectures c
solid waste legislation
eveloping paper recycling
for State Board of Health
< Q
~o
n 0
lendment on ownershij
ocal waste stream to b
ntroduced
c — • •-
<
to
1— 1
o E
ssisting in communicati
network for marketing
recovered materials fro:
source separation
<
£
"d
0
K
^-i
o
T^
U
M
PQ
0
*-•
O
CO
d
Cj
'S
c
1— (
d 00
a t;
li
c
1— t
di 0
tate-sponsored oil recyclin
project
ncouraged industrial wast
exchange at Iowa State
CO U
"d
0
U
73
O
"S
[/]
'S>
5
"c
O
U
>
0
m
^H
0
J3
[onitoring planning in ol
parts of State
esearching wastes for
recovery
2 K
'B
"H
0
6
a
0
'>
c
w >,
*. .-s
0 "o
-*— « ^
8-0
Q
00
t--
d LO
^s
o
HM
University
, ,
^aste oil program in capita
ncouraging purchase of
recycled materials
^ u
0
gislation defining
Dwnership of solid was
Dassed
v. cont. and litter bills
.ntroduced
0 0
>-j m
ncouraging resource
recovery planning
[aintaining Statewide
survey of secondary
materials purchasers
U 2
T3
C
d
^3 *-
"*"* C
"o S
0 g
ffi a
„_ O
o .b
. >
"*-* d
frw
Q
Wl OS
d C;
W 10
d °
W
o significant activity
2
0
in
3
O
ffi 5
-d o
S!^
U] a;
!•!
'""^ ^
^ «
^ °
S ^H
"*~* T^
nJ P3
o significant activity
z
W
0
u
»-(
3
O — '
tn a
•si
11
5 S
o -5
2 c
-S"
. T3
"o C
&o
Q
I>H
t-^<
11
-C C^
a o
0 ~-'
M
:ooperation in funding
{H
o
"u
0
"o
t^
(X
resource recovery
m <-
CRR operating Resource
Recovery I at New Orlean
aiser Aluminum operating
aluminum recovery projec
Z W
tie progress
^
,-j
CD
S J2
CO d
reliminary planning for
TPD energy and materi
recovery plant
(X
d)
c
5
d
T3 S
aj a _
u d ^
c >, ^
.2 » §
" "o 6
CO ^-. 2
o s
M-I ^ p.
o a 2
m "^ T*
0 u >
U 0 C
S f-1 w
O
d
Is
•11
f~\
3
o significant activity
Z
v. cont. deposit law
passed November 1976
0
P3
0
d
T3
-Q
CO
5
d
CO
en
•^ a
d d
-RS
^>
0
a
o
Z
So
0 C^
a ^
dS
S
r\
tate participation in two
operating plants
tate Office Paper Separatic
Program
CO CO
V-t xp
0 TI "V;
CL n-. L°
d - ^
a^Tj
0 u b
d £
CO 0 S
,_, -Q cn
0 o ~"
xO *" >-i
o^ 01 -Q
« XT;
01 o .2 £
2-552
'3 3 d .
o* a B A
^ i_t, i_ j_i
PC
co
^c
>-l
easibility study for
proposed project
tate assistance in prepa
county plans
[j-, tn
"d
a
0
£
a
o
>H
>
a
u
^d dj
C u
0 '5
— i r
>i fc
Sco
S
T3
Is
>H 5<
5s
S
86
-------
State Bureau supporting No significant activity
Dur renewed effort for bev.
M-H
State Bureau directing
regional RR projects in
0
-*-
in
O
^
13
'o
CO
M-l
o
3
0 M
§ s
« a
Q) W
.«Hl '!^
2 Q
CO
3
c
o
u
o
metro areas: one close
construction, three into
ss Bev. cont. legis. passed, 1976 State technical assistance
Bill passed 1974 to conserve given to planning 3000 TPD
resources and regulate RR plant in Detroit
projects
planning
0
Feasibility study in progr
for entire State
"3
VH
3
O
Z
•H-l
O
ft
ylv
£ ("
Q 0
C £
a 3
O) O
"* tn
J3 0
.a «
s
Market study completed
Providing technical
2
T>
0
tn
tn
a
o
B
in
'5>
.3
assistance to several
facilitate cities' role in RR
projects
Pop-top cans banned by Abandoned motor vehicle
State law program
Packaging legislation bans
certain types of packaging
ies Waste Oil Bill, passed
January 1976
communities
Several RR facilities are
13
-»-•
G
o
U
G
0
13
"o
ft
d
0
tn
0
C
G
• P— i
2
developing
Drafting market survey
Grant program disbursed
>-.
u
C
0
D)
<
T3
$1.2M for feasibility stu
Bonding authorization for RR Some plant activity without
facilities pending State involvement
No significant activity
j^
"a
0
K
*4-l
o
T>
^4
o
0
oq
0
D
CO
Some legislation pending DNR sponsoring paper
recycling programs
rn
Participating in numerous
feasibility studies
m
0
u
>_i
3
O
tn
0
PC
i— 1
D
i-i
"5
s
"3
^j
ft
0
Q
DNR completed market
survey
No significant activity Abandoned auto program
One local curbside
State funds solid waste
studies, requiring
tn
0
u
C
a>
13 u
a co
a —i
~, 0
jz ~
•»— ' (-<
— • S
D <"
J 6
X G
H-H O
o .b
. >
-^ c
8-w
Q
0
^-
u
_0
"o
U
>-«
0
ft
d
ft
U3
^
0
0
r i
consideration of resouri
recovery
wo Litter law pending Sludge composting project
Supports "Keeping Omaha
•*-•
Assisting RR planning in
cities
, i
d
G
0
g
G
0
G
W Ti
o
"O J3
-z o
&u
Q
Beautiful Recycling
Program"
>< ..
Completing market surve
for secondary materials
0)
-I--
"0
en
3
Is
o y
S
a
D
s>S
•gi
•i-( "—••
s
03 00
0 E^
C 55
C o
Q.
w 0
W C--
'w ^
W O
W iO
tn o
D ^
C oo
D E^
D ^
"w 0°
0 E^
M 10
ja o
0 ^
87
-------
a
o
U
u
r f\
w
H
>
H
RECOVERY AC
w
r^
\RY OF STATE RESOUR<
"^
s
?o
C/J
•
w
j
«
<
H
Implementation
p.
o
Legislat
Planning
u
c
t
1
CO
o significant activity
2
D)
.s
0
DH
"S
o
u
0
pa
No significant activity
c
D
C
o tn
11
0 O
tn w
G 3
"o S
CL <^r
Q
^-^
D oo
O Lo
> 0
0 *-"
2
:ate demo projects on
sludge composting, rura
recycling, and regional
planning
CO
£?
>
No significant act:
No significant activity
£>-<
O)
CD
C
U
"o
a
0
Q
"g
CO
0)
.rt
a,
« • — •
K ^
^ 0
0 ^^
2
o significant activity
2
LO" p..
07 (X
""*- £
Ti o
*^I 55
^ D
Solid Waste Mgm
requires max. f<
Some technical assistance
given to Newark and
, ,
o
"5
0
G
c
0
> c
rt o
w •£
M-t U
O 0)
^ "o
(U
Q
>,
0
S2 £o
^ C;
•> "^
* s
2
•
O)
VH
0
U
M-«
O
0
Q
C 43
ource separation active i
three cities
ome experimentation wit
paper recycling
CO CO
Little activity
)_!
Planning beverage containe
recovery, waste oil
recycling, sludge farming
tire recycling
"5
CD
S
CD
o
J3
13
g
0
C >-.
5 £
o £
d "^
w
o
y
'S ^
JS E^
£ 0
(i) —
u/
2
,_
0 tn
> 0
0 •£
2 V
C .2
I!
u .3
C «
2 2
O
<
U)
I1 — . 0
£ _£ S
""- S fi '"
^ 0 ~ O 0
< " "* ^ iv
>. o "a 6 ffi
IS Is -s
8| ats
K t? >• S e o
8 1 H 3 2
3 o 5 ,2 > w
§ g 2 | I 8
PC J
CO M
State assistance (technical
and financial) for plannm
RR facilities in cities and
counties
Extensive market surveys fa
recovered materials
State Comprehensive
Resources Recovery and
Solid Waste Mgmt. Plan,
draft, February 1978
. — i
_D
C
CD
!•!
u £
M-H 0
O tn
. c
0
Q
>-^
o So
^H C^-
^ 0
0 ' — '
2
^
C
State source separation gra
program
(o facilities constructed;
40 certifications issued
z.
tn
0
.•^
'G
3
^K
.S oc
Legislation allow
certification of
No significant activity
tn
0
tn .y
u £i
t3 <^
^ co
o
tn X!
0 ^
C "o
"o 'tn
-** .^
0 Q
Q
a
g
>~i
o
O So
c^
"G 0
o ^
2
S
uccessful Statewide
abandoned auto progra:
CO
o
2
0
Limited technical assistant
provided
43
X
"o
a
0
Q
2
CO
a
"o
o ^^
Q oo
0 ~
2
-------
0
"o
•*-»
C/3
0
TJ 0
ikron facility un
construction, s
funds
<;
PC
d) "
G >-*
.3 o
,2 *
1— < c
D "3 TJ
c — 2 .S
c^ •£ ja
ill passed, IS
contracts wi
competitive
m
0 'S
Continuing work on Sta1
Plan
Technical assistance, ar
•7* >-.
1 S
0 S>
o Environm
rotection Ac
A ^
O
^_^
CO
E^
2 OT
O ~
projects
to
t)
.?-,
funding to several pro
G
0
d
^
d
0 ^
to W
uccessful souro
program at Foi
w
0
0
^
o
^
0 "S
Conducting market surv
recovered materials
Tulsa planning RDF pla:
xi
"^
D
Q)
rant/loan progrc
implementing r
local solid was
O
0
G d)
0 d
~ S {V3
'55 > p:
o 0 ai
Mandatory dej
carbonated 1
containers, 1
S
Source separation and
resource recovery
identified as key State
^^
d
G
0
E
o
PJ >,
0
Q
G »
o E^
0 O
6~
a
^j
, .
0
to w
G a 0
d G y
1— < 'I-H .'. .
management p
tatewide Recycl
Information Ofi
w
priorities
_^
.^H
-4_>
o significant ac
55
>,
.^H
.£
"u
d
o significant
2
m
Conducted five metro ar<
market studies
^^
d
G
0
E
c:
it. of Enviroi
esources
Q
d
d
~>* So
co E>
d ^
G o
0 ^
P-,
0
Grants made available t
locals for feasibility
studies and
implementation
^|
|
"u
d
d
y
'S
&
'55
0
z
>.
^
.%
"u
d
o significant
z
^s
Resource Recovery and
Source Separation Tas
T)
M
0
CQ
£>-!
•— H
d
O
ironmental
>
u
o
u
••-I
CO
o c^
tM LO
0 O
Pi
ft
"0
to
to
0
u
o
UH
O
d>
G
"3
>-.
"w u
d 0
roviding technic
assistance on r
OH
CO
G
TJ
G
O
0
>
'Fn
ISWM Corp. <
authority
PC
d
>-l
communities
RISWM Corp. receiving
proposals for RR facilil
Providence
G
0 °:
-+_J f.
"> O
0 JH
^- o
> ft
"3 o
de Island Si
anagement
o S
43 "*
K
TJ
G
^0
1—1 So
T3 r— <
PC
•^
'>
o significant ac
2
S o>
-*-• C
5 -3
a a
£
0 .2
G "^
S -S
average contc
control legis
CQ
DHEC administering RR
grant program
, — 1
O
-i-
o
d — .
t. of Health
ivironmentc
&fl
Q
d
G
"o
d
O
^
o
)
d
-d
TJ
OJ
to
to
d
DH
di
(1)
O
O
0)
PQ
jx,
.rH
tj
d
-*-•
d
U
CO
o
2
6
G
O
'> c
" O
w -~
M-I U
O 0
Q
d
o
d ^_
Q oo
d
o
2
§
I
O
oq -1
Q) T>
p 0)
to
to
3
P d
to
a
d
u
to
o
d
0
OH
~O
ft
0
Q
0
0
to ~
co op
0 C~-
c ?;
c s
0 "-
H
89
-------
T^
o>
TABLE 7 (Conclud
CO
w
I-H
H
h-H
>
i— i
H
U
<
SM
ECOVER
«
M
U
VIARY OF STATE RESOUR
2
D
CO
p^
nJ
<
H
Implementation
o
3
1/5
'co
0
I-J
Planning
><
u
0
Cr
<
0
^—
_c
t/:
c
>H
Testing and small-scale
activity
Some newspaper recover
larger cities
tn
0
'u
G >->
Q) 0
$ 0
0 »
tu
•K ^
2 y
rrt »4_4
UJ 1+4
in 0
£^i
'^! u
^^
£ 2
£ 2
0
j
Making overall study of RR to
find most effective large-
scale implementation
method
|
^c
1
£
~o
"ft
0
Q
tn
d
X
0
E-H
00
tn C;
a t*.
SB
w
E-i
Inventories of large-city
waste streams being taken
No significant activity
>,
'>
tJ
d
significant
o
Z
No significant activity
/-i
rJ-l
D
G)
ffi
'o
c
o
2
>
Q
XI
d
5
CO
c^
XI 0
o d
•*-•
H3
State initiated waste oil
recycling program
73"
0
VI
tn
d
ftco
. c-~
u) en
'5>71
^^
"S B
0 5
" ft
• 0
^
CQ
No significant activity
d)
g
o
2
•*-• . — ^
C co
o E^
gs
0 -"
>
No significant activity
><
'>
"u
d
significant
o
2
Feasibility study for energy
recovery in St. Thomas
tn
iv*
f^ft
>-<
O
y
!3
3
CU
"o
•
ft
0
Q
tn
73
J3
In ^^
•— ' co
c C;
'S, "^
D) o
M •
>
No significant activity
><
'>
"u
D
significant
0
Grant program for all solid
waste activities
XJ
(— I
o
0
E
o
^_>
ft
0
O
C; £o
II
>
0
G
"~*
Statewide Recycling Hot
Grant Program for solid
waste plans
D
a •£
0 C
0 5
co o
a a
? *-•
-Q o
u
tn 2>
0) G
I'*
— ' u
£ 2
0 3 n
~ G ft
•-1 H •£
0 § ~
~ S ;3
j
Developed marketing plan
for recovered materials
Updating Resource Recovery
Plan
>.
O)
0
•— i
o
u
u
M-t
O
*j
ft
0
Q
G
O
•4-"
co^
s °°
ll
>
t>
No significant activity
[*s.
c~-
o~>
<
^
W
in
'o
•*-•
ablishmen
-4-<
in
U
No significant activity
^
M
O
XJ
"5
<
0
to
a
73
"o
W
0
*^
o
-*-1
O)
d
'3
'co
»-i ^ ^
>•-• co
C;
«s
(D B
>
^
•S 0 «
tn 0 w
0 J«! Q
WDNR suggested chang
Americology's Milwau
plan
Scattered recycling of w
oil, office paper and
newspaper
o
~ tn
>O. 0
S 73 ~
§ §|
> » o
SO-"
« 8 «
0 § ffi
G % ~
J~ §
o g-e
2-S.s
u > ft
„. 0 g
C^ 73 — 1
CO
i— «
WSWRA contributing $10M to
construction of 3-county
RDF plant
Market survey completed,
1973
"3
5
"M ^
5 |.-&
«_i »2 C
>5 :> /-*
o ^ _°
-^ T3 "s;
& ^<
Q g w co
e i- G G
M U t-l 2
'S "-1 'm ^
W 3 W 0
S ° n >"
o w o u
y a) " 0
.2 PC .2 PC
> >
!> >
C
§ 00
o C:
U CT)
tn o
.!-(
*^
»H
Government office pape
recycling program
>,
>
"u
D
-4-"
significan
o
Z
No significant activity
>c
"~i
0
~ a
0 _
*: °
ft "5
0 0
Q 6
g1 o
S >H
6 'H
o c
>
?>
D)
11
Is
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979-0-307-383/6692
90
------- |