FOURTH  REPORT TO CONGRESS
  RESOURCE  RECOVERY
AND WASTE REDUCTION
       This report (SW-600) was prepared
 by the Office of Solid Waste as required by Section 205
  of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended in 1970
(Public Law 91-512) and was delivered August 1,1977,
       to the President and the Congress
  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               1977
                US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                RFGION 5 LIBRARY (PL-12J)
                ^WEST JACKSON BLVD 12TH FLOOR
                CHICAGO IL 60604-3590

-------
An environmental protection publication in the solid waste management series (SW-600)

-------
A   ,
             UNITED  STATES ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   WASHINGTON, D.C.   20460
                                           August 1,1977
              To the President and the Congress:

                   I am pleased  to submit herewith the Environmental Protection Agency's
              fourth report on resource recovery and the reduction of solid waste generation,
              as required  under Title II, Section 205, of the Solid Waste  Disposal Act as
              amended in 1970 (P. L. 91-512). Previous reports in this series were issued in
              February  1973, March  1974, and September  1975.   This report reviews the
              current status of resource recovery and waste reduction in the United States and
              presents new findings from EPA studies, investigations, and technology demon-
              stration projects.
                   This is the final report in the present series. The new amendments to the
              Solid Waste  Disposal Act, passed last October as the Resource Conservation and
              Recovery Act of 1976 (P. L. 94-580), created a revised framework for studying
              and reporting on solid waste and resource conservation issues. The Act gives
              EPA wide authority in these areas for research, demonstrations, and studies; this
              work will be  described in a required annual report on EPA's solid waste activities,
              as well as in other reports and articles. A key element of the law was the estab-
              lishment of the Cabinet-level  interagency  Resource Conservation Committee,
              which has been  instructed to study and make recommendations on a broad range
              of present and proposed national policies affecting resource recovery and the use
              of our natural resources.
                   The body of  knowledge represented  in this series of reports has greatly
              increased our understanding of the resource-conserving options in waste manage-
              ment.  This  knowledge, together with the added impetus of the Resource Con-
              servation and Recovery Act, will help us in the years ahead to achieve improved
              solid waste practices and to devise conservation policies that are prudent in both
              environmental and economic terms.
                                                  Sincerely yours,

                                                  DOUGLAS M. COSTLE
                                                  Administrator
                                                 iii

-------
                  CONTRIBUTING STAFF
   This report is based on a number of EPA contractual efforts and staff ana-
lyses, and is the responsibility of the Resource Recovery Division, J. Nicholas
Humber,  Director.  Frank A. Smith provided overall technical supervision and
editing.   Primary authors included John H. Skinner, Fred L. Smith, and Frank
A. Smith  of EPA, and William A. Franklin, David Conn, and Marvin Zeldin under
contract.   Emily Sano of the Management and Information  Staff edited the
entire manuscript and wrote the Summary.  Additional technical contributions
were provided by the following EPA staff: Steven A. Lingle, Penelope Hansen,
Steven J. Levy, J. Robert Hollo way, David B. Sussman, Yvonne M. Garbe,
Robert M. Lowe, Lawrence B. McEwen, Robert  Randol, Harry  Butler, and
Thomas Canfield.  Chapter  reference lists and  bibliographical  entries  in the
Appendices were prepared by Frances Lederer of Biospherics,  Inc.  EPA manu-
script typing was done by Mary Williford, Nancy Ziegler, and  Brenda Marshall.

-------
                           CONTENTS


                                                               PAGE
   Summary	     ix

2. Background and Perspectives	     1

        ELEMENTS AND CAUSES OF THE MUNICIPAL
          SOLID WASTE PROBLEM   	     2
             Reasons for Concern  	     2
             Why So Much Waste and So Little Recycling	      5
        ALTERNATIVES TO DISPOSAL: RESOURCE RECOVERY AND
          WASTE REDUCTION AS RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT TOOLS  . .     7
             The Potentials   	     7
             Economic Considerations	     8
        CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS	     9
        REFERENCES       	     11

2. Post-Consumer Solid Waste Generation and
     Resource Recovery Estimates	    13

        DISPOSAL ESTIMATES FOR 1975 AND RECENT TRENDS	     13
        RECOVERY OF MATERIALS AND ENERGY, 1971-75	     16
             Material Recovery	     16
             Energy Recovery	     16
        FUTURE WASTE PROJECTIONS	     19
        REFERENCES  	     20

3. Waste Reduction	    21

        ACTIVITIES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL	     21
             Guidelines for Beverage Containers	     21
             Legislation Addressing Waste Reduction	     22
             Recent EPA Research and Current Studies	     22
             Research by Other Federal Agencies  	     24
        STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES  	     25
             Beverage Container Legislation	     25
             Other Waste Reduction Activities	     28
        OTHER BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT EXPERIMENTS	     28
        EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR	     29
             Newsprint Conservation	     29
             Automobile Weight Reduction	     30
        REFERENCES	     30

4. Source Separation for Materials  Recovery	    32

        SEPARATE COLLECTION OF OLD NEWSPRINT AND
          OTHER WASTEPAPER  	     32
        MULTIMATERIAL SEPARATE COLLECTION	     34
             Marblehead and Somerville  	     34
             Other EPA Grants	     36
             Constraints on Multimaterial Programs	     37
        MULTIMATERIAL RECOVERY THROUGH RECYCLING
          CENTERS  	     37
             Nottingham, New Hampshire	     37
             EPA Grants	     38
        OFFICE PAPER SEPARATION	     38
        ALUMINUM INDUSTRY RECOVERY OF SOURCE-SEPARATED
          ALUMINUM CANS   	     39

-------
                                                               PAGE

        FEDERAL ACTIVITIES	     41
             EPA Guidelines on Source Separation	     41
             Procurement Requirements for Federal Agencies	     42
             Waste Oil Recovery  	     43
             Other Federal Activities	     44
        REFERENCES	     44

5. Mixed-Waste Processing for Material and	
     Energy Recovery	    45
        NATIONWIDE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION	     46
             Scope of EPA Facilities Survey	     46
             Current Status and Recent Trends	     46
        DEVELOPMENTS IN MATERIAL RECOVERY FROM
          MIXED WASTE	     51
             Overview	     51
             Specific Technologies	     51
        DEVELOPMENTS IN ENERGY RECOVERY	     54
             System Summaries   	     54
             The Energy Efficiency of Recovery Systems	     58
        DEVELOPMENTS IN PROCUREMENT AND FINANCING	     59
        STATE ACTIVITIES AND ASSISTANCE	     61
        FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS	     62
             EPA Implementation Grants	     63
        REFERENCES	     65

6. Environmental and Economic Impacts of National
     Beverage Container Deposit Legislation	    67

        CONTAINER MARKET SHARE SCENARIO AND OTHER
          ASSUMPTIONS  	     67
        RESULTS  	     69
             Litter Reduction  	     69
             Energy Savings	     69
             Solid Waste Reduction and Material Savings	     70
             Employment Effects	     70
             Industrial Investment Requirements	 .     72
             Consumer Price Impacts	     73
        CONCLUSIONS  	     74
        REFERENCES	     75

Appendix A.—Description and Status of EPA-Supported
   Resource Recovery Technology Demonstration Projects...     76

        FRANKLIN, OHIO	     77
        ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI	     78
        BALTIMORE, MARYLAND	     80
        SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA  . . . ;	     81
        DELAWARE	     83
        SOMERVILLE AND MARBLEHEAD, MASSACHUSETTS  	     83
        MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA	     85
        BIBLIOGRAPHY	     87

Appendix B.-Status of Product Charge Studies	   88

        CONCEPTS AND DESIGN OPTIONS	     88
             Rationale  	     89
             Practical Design Issues	     90
             Summary of Bate-Case Product Charge Design	     93
                                 Vi

-------
                                                            PAGE

       PRELIMINARY IMPACT ESTIMATES	    93
            Administrative Costs  	    93
            Effect on Recycling and Waste Reduction	    94
            Consumer Price and Income Impacts  	    95
            Estimated Product Charge Payments by Industries	    96
       REFERENCES	    99

Appendix C.-Bibliography of EPA Publications on
   Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction	  100

Appendix D.—Listing of Major U.S. Government Agency
   Research Projects and Studies	  117

Appendix E.—Bibliography on Environmental and Natural
   Resource Impacts of Products and Materials	  139
                               vii

-------

-------
                            SUMMARY
      This report describes the principal developments and findings in the areas
of resource  recovery and waste reduction, as they apply to post-consumer mu-
nicipal solid wastes, since the Third Report to Congress (September 1975) on
these subjects.
                    BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES
      "Resource recovery"-the  productive use of waste material-and "waste
reduction"-the prevention of waste generation-represent major means of alle-
viating the problems of solid waste. This is well recognized in the new law, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which now forms the basis of
the Federal solid waste program  and which mandates or authorizes a number of
programs that directly or indirectly support these resource conservation meas-
ures.  (While the Act has not yet had significant effect on the practice or develop-
ment of resource recovery and waste reduction in the country, principal features
and implications of the Act are noted in this report.)  The nature and causes of
the solid waste problem are therefore key parts of the context for understanding
the role of resource recovery and  waste reduction.
                Elements of the Municipal Solid Waste Problem
      The solid waste problem includes diverse elements:
      • Growth in solid waste generation.  The product and packaging com-
ponents of municipal wastes have more than doubled since the early 1950's.
Though slowed during  1974-75 due to the recession, waste generation rates are
projected to grow substantially over the next 10 to 15 years.
      • Ecological damages of disposal.  Traditionally,  incinerator  emissions,
rats, insects, and trash fires have been  of particular concern for public health
reasons.  More recently widespread pollution of surface and ground waters by
runoff and leachate from land disposal sites has been documented. Costs of con-
trolling these effects  at  acceptable  levels  nationwide would run  to several
hundred million dollars per year.
      • Aesthetic effects. The aesthetic effects of open dump sites, uncollected
garbage and trash, and littered streets and landscapes are of general concern.
These effects are not directly measurable in dollar terms, although millions are
spent annually for litter pickups.
      • Broader environmental implications.  High rates of solid waste produc-
tion necessarily imply  high rates of virgin raw material extraction, processing,
and fabrication-the most significant sources of environmental damages.
      • Solid waste disposal as  an index of natural resource depletion.  Many
have come to regard our high-waste, low-recycle system as inherently wasteful of
our endowment of natural resources.
                                    IX

-------
              RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
      •  Costs of collection and disposal.  The average cost of collecting and dis-
posing of a ton of municipal solid waste is estimated to be close to $30, or al-
most $4 billion a year nationally.   Costs per ton will rise due to increases in
land costs, antipollution requirements, and general  inflation.
      • Public administration problems.  In  addition to rising costs, local offi-
cials must  increasingly deal with problems of amidisposal zoning, intergovern-
mental agreements, the location of new disposal sites outside the city or metro-
politan area, and the closing of facilities made obsolete by new environmental
regulations.
      All these problems could be mitigated (although not "solved") by reducing
waste generation at the source and increasing resource recovery.
       Why is Waste Generation too High and Resource Recovery too Low?
      The present high national rate  of waste generation (over 1,300 pounds per
person per year) and low rate of resource recovery (less than 7 percent of total
waste) can be explained in large part as the natural result of an expansive, high-
ly productive economic system endowed with an abundance of natural resources.
Historically, cheap supplies of virgin  raw materials  have encouraged the develop-
ment of material-intensive technologies and products and discouraged  competi-
tion from  secondary  materials.  However, there  is considerable evidence and
theory to indicate that certain national government policies, institutional short-
comings, and failures in our market  system of resource allocation have all con-
tributed to a situation  where waste generation is too high and resource recovery
is too low.
      •  Federal policies.  The  Federal  government has historically  played a
major role in stimulating natural resource development. Currently,  special  tax
laws relating to mining  and forestry and Federal subsidies for raw materials
exploration, research,  and development all  favor  virgin raw materials and  en-
courage a materials-intensive economy.  In addition, a number of laws and agen-
cy policies tend to discriminate against recycled materials and waste reduction
measures.
      • Historical disregard for environmental degradation.   Environmental
damage costs have been  borne mainly by society in general or  "third parties"
rather than the  specific industries and their customers whose decisions  caused
the damages.  By failing to control pollution and other forms of environmental
degradation, as a society we have implicitly subsidized the material and  enerw
sectors.  By allowing cheap, environmentally damaging waste disposal, we have
caused alternative waste reduction  and  recycling options  to be undervalued.
      • Undercosting and noncharging for waste management services.  Conven-
tional accounting systems and financing methods generally lead to understate-
ment of the true costs of solid waste  management.  In addition, waste generators
and  disposers seldom see direct charges for these  services as they do for other
public utilities.  These factors cause  the services to be undervalued and tend to
minimize incentives for waste reduction and resource recovery in both public  and
private sectors.

-------
                                SUMMARY

               Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Potentials
      • Waste reduction potentials.  By changing product designs or otherwise
altering society's patterns of production and consumption, the post-consumer
waste stream could conceivably be reduced by 10 percent.
      • Resource recovery potentials.  Up to 25 percent of total post-consumer
solid waste  could be recycled through  source separation (separating out of re-
cyclables by householders, office workers, other waste generators).  Large-scale
mixed-waste processing systems, now beginning to go into commercial operation,
have a greater long-term potential but  require much longer lead times, higher
capital requirements, and greater risks.
      These  potentials lie far beyond projections for actual implementation in
the foreseeable future in the absence of major shifts in public policies or major
unforeseen material and energy shortages.

                           Concluding Observations
      • Potential benefits  from resource  recovery  and waste reduction  cut
across many problem areas.  This counsels against ad hoc policymaking based on
single objectives such as energy saving or waste disposal.
      • Causes of high waste and low-recycling have deep historical roots in tk?
economy and public institutions.  Major progress in waste reduction and resource
recovery will require a broadly based, long-term strategy that considers ways of
improving the market incentive system  as well as more direct efforts at techno-
logical and institutional development.
      • A multifaceted, flexible approach is needed.  To be effective and effi-
cient,  a national strategy should emphasize a variety of means (from among
waste reduction,  source separation, and mixed-waste processing options), diver-
sity of local opportunity, and flexibility to  change  over time with shifts in mar-
kets and technologies.
      • Past and present economic incentives and institutions have  often been
biased against resource recovery and waste reduction. The sectors "competitive"
to resource  recovery and waste reduction, that is, conventional disposal and fos-
sil fuels and virgin raw materials, appear to have been subsidized and favored by
market failures and government practices.
      • There  should be maximum  reliance placed on market forces and local
decision-making.  However, there is a case to be made for a Federal role in work-
ing to correct imperfections in market pricing systems and in modifying govern-
ment-induced  distortions that provide  disincentives  to resource recovery and
waste reduction.  Also, short-term Federal efforts to promote technological re-
search and development and provide technical assistance and information seem
justifiable in view of past neglect and present needs.  As technologies and insti-
tutions develop, it  should be possible to scale down or phase • j.t many of the
programs.
      • A national  strategy should reflect an economic logic.   Resource re-
covery and  waste reduction strategies  should be consistent  with the Federal
government's broad commitments to efficiency in government and promotion of
                                     XI

-------
              RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

improved efficiency in the nation's overall economic system. This concept tends
to rule out a  "recovery for recovery's sake" or an "energy for energy's sake"
approach.
            POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND
                    RESOURCE RECOVERY ESTIMATES
     •  There was a decline in  the estimated amount of post-consumer solid
waste generated nationally in 1975 (136.1 million tons) from  1974 (144.1 mil-
lion). About 8 million tons were recovered for recycling, leaving 128.2 million
tons to be disposed of, or 3.2 pounds per capita per day, slightly lower than the
3.5 pounds figure for 1973.  The general economic recession, beginning in mid-
1974 and deepening into  1975,  appears to have had a significant influence  on
the short-term growth trend of solid waste quantities.
     •  The principal  impact of the economic slowdown was on  paper and
paperboard packaging wastes; these categories accounted for  nearly all of the
estimated decrease in net waste generation. Overall, the nonfood product com-
ponents of the waste stream decreased by almost 7 million tons between 1974
and 1975, and this was only partly offset by increases in food and yard wastes.
     •   Waste generation rates  should rebound in  1976 as  the economy  re-
covers,  since  there is  no present indication that  the underlying longer-term
economic forces have changed significantly.
     •   Wastepaper accounted for 88 percent  by weight of materials recovered
for recycling.  Overall, allowing for the recession, tonnages of recycled materials
have increased during the first half of the decade.  However, the percentage of
total gross discards recycled has changed hardly at all.
     •   Wastes processed for energy recovery have not become quantitatively
significant as yet.  In 1975 the 13 energy recovery facilities that were operational
processed probably not more than 300,000 tons of waste. Significant capacity
additions are in progress,  but will probably not reach the million-ton-per-year
figure before 1978 or 1979.
                            WASTE REDUCTION
     "Waste reduction"  is defined here  as prevention of waste at its sources,
either by the redesigning of products or by otherwise changing societal patterns
of production  and consumption.
     •  Guidelines for Beverage  Containers were published by EPA in the Fed-
eral Register on September 21, 1976. Under the guidelines, a refundable 5-cent
deposit  will be placed on all containers for beer and soft drinks sold  on Federal
facilities.  The purpose is to encourage the return of bottles and cans for reuse or
recycling, thereby saving waste management costs, materials, and energy.
     •   The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  of 1976 contains pro-
visions for assisting States to develop waste reduction programs and mandates a
full investigation of resource  conservation by a Federal interagency committee.
     •   Recently completed Federal studies have focused on the resource re-
quirements and environmental impacts associated with particular products;  the
elasticities of  demand  for consumer products  (data which would help in pre-
dicting the effects of price changes on consumption); and  operation of existing

                                   xii

-------
                                SUMMARY

 Federal programs that directly regulate material use or product characteristics.
 Analyses of the likely effects of a nationwide beverage container deposit sys-
 tem were completed by EPA and the Federal Energy Administration.
      •  Voters in Michigan and Maine approved deposits for beverage containers
 in  November  1976, while voters in  Colorado and  Massachusetts rejected de-
 posits.
      •  In Oregon, some recently reported effects of the deposit law include the
 following:  At Blitz, the only local brewery in the State, 90 percent of the con-
 tainers  are refillable bottles, compared with 30 percent before the law. The
 number of nonlocal beers sold in Oregon has decreased from 29 to 9.  Pepsi-
 Cola now uses refillables exclusively, compared with 65 percent refillables before
 the law, and reports average number  of trips per bottle as  ranging from  16 for
 26-oz to 27  for  16-oz bottles.  Coca-Cola  still uses both refillable and non-
 refillable containers and reports return rates of 90-95 percent for bottles and
 80-85 percent for cans.
      • In Vermont, legislation revising the  1973 beverage container law was
passed in  1975.  The new provisions extended labeling requirements for non-
refillable containers and added bans (effective January 1977) on all throwaway
glass containers, detachable parts of metal cans, and plastic rings or similar non-
biodegradable  devices for connecting containers. Early reported trends following
the 1973 law include a 67-percent decrease in the beverage container portion of
highway litter, a temporary decline in beer sales, price rises of beer and soft
drinks (not necessarily due to the deposit law) a shift toward use of refillables,
8 to 12 trips for soft-drink bottles, increases in employment to handle and trans-
port refillable bottles,  and no significant sales or employment impacts on con-
tainer manufacturers (sales volume in Vermont is relatively small, however).
      •  In Minnesota, a December 1976 court  decision upheld the  1973 law
giving the State's Pollution Control Agency the authority to review new or re-
vised packaging and the regulations for implementing this authority.  An industry
suit had challenged the regulations on the grounds that they were unconstitu-
tional, vague, and burdensome.
      •  Examples of waste  reduction activities in  the private sector include
measures taken by the paper industry and  newspapers to conserve newsprint
(by reducing its weight and changing the format of newspapers) and the attempts
of U.S.  auto manufacturers to reduce the weight of automobiles to improve gas
mileage as mandated by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
                          SOURCE SEPARATION
      Source  separation-the  setting aside of recyclable waste  material at the
point of generation-is the primary means of resource recovery at present. Most
of  the 9 million tons of materials recovered (mostly paper) in 1974 was re-
covered through  source separation rather  than  mixed-waste processing.  The
potentials are  much greater-perhaps  25  percent  by  weight of municipal solid
wastes could theoretically be recovered this way.
      •  There is renewed interest in source separation of newspaper and  corru-
gated containers as a result of the upward trend in the. wastepaper market during
                                   Xlll

-------
                RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

1976.  The depressed markets of 1974-75 adversely affected newspaper collec-
tion programs, but no municipal program that was based on long-term purchase
contracts failed during the recession.
     • Demonstrations  of multimaterial separate collection.  In  1976 two
Massachusetts  communities, Somerville and Marblehead, began programs with
EPA assistance to demonstrate the extent to which glass, cans, and paper can be
economically recovered from the solid waste stream in carefully planned source
separation programs. Preliminary  results are  encouraging. EPA is also assisting
two counties in California to develop separate collection programs.
     • Recycling centers can make recovery of materials possible in rural areas
where solid waste is not collected from residences. Nottingham, New Hampshire,
is recovering about 50 percent of the  waste delivered to its disposal facility by
residents.  Two other communities, Duluth, Minnesota, and Nez Perce County,
Idaho, are being assisted by EPA to develop similar programs.
     • Office paper recycling is spreading—about  500 organizations are now
saving  and selling their office  wastepaper.  Reduced waste management costs,
reduced waste volume, and good employee response were among the findings of
EPA evaluative studies of these programs.
     • The aluminum  industry reports it  now has 1,300 recycling centers.
A record 3.9 billion aluminum cans, 25 percent of sales, were turned in at such
centers in  1975, 70  percent more than in 1974. The industry currently pays
$300 a ton for aluminum cans.
     • Guidelines were issued on April 23, 1976, requiring source separation
and recycling of high-grade paper in Federal office buildings employing 100 or
more people,  recycling  of newspapers from Federal facilities housing 500 or
more families, and recycling of  corrugated containers  from  Federal facilities
generating 10 or more tons of corrugated per month. Prototype programs will be
initiated in each region by the end of 1977.  The guidelines also contain recom-
mended procedures for separating other recyclable materials where markets exist
or can be developed.
     • Federal agencies will be required in procuring products to select those
composed  of  the  highest  percentage of recycled  material  practicable  after
October 1978, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act.
     • Recycling of used lubrication oil is the subject of new Federal activity.
Provisions  of  the  Energy Policy and  Conservation Act of 1975 require the
National  Bureau of Standards to establish tests to determine equivalency  be-
tween virgin and refined oils, the Federal Trade Commission to establish labeling
provisions as to product quality, and the EPA to provide guidance on acceptable
disposal options.  The  Federal  Energy Administration is working toward in-
creasing the amount of used oil made available for recycling.
              MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR RECOVERY OF
                        MATERIALS AND ENERGY
     Resource recovery from mixed  municipal refuse involves the centralized
processing of  collected raw  waste to  extract  useful energy and recyclable
materials. Recovery of energy or fuel is an ingredient in most such systems, as is
                                   XIV

-------
                                 SUMMARY

recovery of ferrous  metals. Some systems also  include recovery of nonferrous
metals and glass. Most systems are designed to divert very large fractions of the
incoming waste, leaving no more than 25 percent, by weight, for landfilling.
      •  One energy recovery process has been widely used thus far. Waterwall
combustion to produce steam has been widely applied  in  Europe and is con-
sidered a commercially available technology. Another  process, recovery of a
refuse-derived fuel for use as a supplement to coal in existing boilers, is in early
stages of commercial application and  has attracted wide interest.  Pyrolysis of
solid  waste has not yet been successfully  implemented at commercial scale, but
pilot plant operations have been completed.
      •  Recovery of ferrous  metals is an established technology.  It has been
widely applied in instances where waste is being processed for recovery or trans-
port.  Composting has been widely practiced in Europe but  has been of limited
success in the U.S. due to limited markets. Glass and aluminum recovery is being
included in some of the  newer resource  recovery systems now being designed,
but the technologies are still considered to be developmental.
      •  Initial capital investment estimates range from $5,000 to $50,000 per
ton of daily processing capacity, depending on type of process, plant  size,  and
other factors. While there is  still relatively little concrete economic data avail-
able for most of the systems, the economics appear favorable for a number of
cities and regions, particularly where high disposal costs combine with favorable
markets for recovered products.
      • EPA's most recent survey  found that,  as  of mid-1976,  there were 21
operational facilities (many of them  pilot or demonstration  projects), 10 under
construction or  in final stages of contract negotiation or procurement,  33 in
"advanced planning," and 54 localities at the early stage of having commissioned
feasibility studies.
      • Seven different  types  of technology are represented  among the 21
operational  facilities.  Thirteen are incinerator types (three older refractory
wall units, seven waterwall units, and three new small-scale modular units). The
remainder include a composting operation, a wet-pulping fiber recovery demon-
stration plant, a demonstration pyrolysis plant, a demonstration of methane re-
covery from landfills, and four plants using  the  "RDF" (refuse-derived fuel)
method employing dry shredding and air classification.   Five of the 10 plants
that will be coming on-line in the next 2  years will use the  dry-shredding tech-
nology.
      • Ferrous metaJ is  the only material being almost universally recovered at
resource  recovery facilities.  Eddy current technology for recovering aluminum
is scheduled for intensive testing in 1977; this technique may be nearing com-
mercial application.   Among  glass recovery techniques,  froth flotation will be
demonstrated at the San Diego demonstration plant. The system for color-
sorting glass tested at Franklin, Ohio, did not eliminate enough contaminants
to meet current glass industry specifications as published.
      • Better evaluation of materials recovery processes  and their products
will be possible in the near future. A test facility is being  constructed by the Na-
tional Center for Resource Recovery, Inc., with EPA support; the new facilities
                                    xv

-------
                RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

at Ames (Iowa), Baltimore County, and New Orleans will produce substantial
quantities of materials for commercial use; and standards and test procedures
for recovered products are being developed by the American Society of Testing
Materials, the National Bureau  of Standards, and the National Center for Re-
source Recovery.
      • Net energy efficiencies  have been calculated for a number of the energy
recovery processes.  Preliminary data indicate that the various processes recover
significantly different percentages of the gross energy content of the raw waste
input.  For example, on a net  fuel produced basis, different processes recover
as fuel anywhere from 20 to 80 percent of gross input energy (after subtracting
processing energy input requirements  and the energy content of nonrecovered
residuals).
      • Financing:   While there are many variations, almost all facilities have
been financed by tax-exempt, long-term debt obligations and are dependent on
energy revenue.  Most recent projects sell energy products to the electric utility
industry.  An important development was the favorable ruling by IRS on use of
pollution control revenue bonds  to finance resource recovery projects.
      • State government  involvement in resource  recovery implementation
has changed little in the past year:  21 States now have planning or regulatory
roles, 11 have authority to underwrite loans or make grants for construction, and
6  have authority to  engage directly in procuring and  operating facilities.
      • EPA's  Resource Recovery  Technical Assistance Program is providing
information, consultation, and a small  amount of financial aid for planning and
implementation to States and communities in need of such assistance.
        ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NATIONAL
           RETURNABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINER LEGISLATION
      At the request of Congress, EPA has analyzed the environmental and
economic impacts of a nationwide refundable  deposit on beer and soft-drink
containers. The analysis was based on an assumed 5-year transition in the con-
tainer mix from 1975 to 1980. The analysis also assumed: growth in the re-
fillable bottle share  of the market to 80 percent; decline in the use of metal cans
to 20 percent of the market; a 90 percent return rate for both refutable bottles
and recyclable cans; a 90 percent recycle rate for returned cans; no change in
beverage consumption  trends; and disappearance of nonrefillable bottles  from
the marketplace. Some of the major findings based on this scenario were:
      • Litter reduction: Roadside litter of beverage containers in 1980 would
be 60 to 70 percent below levels projected in the absence of deposit legislation.
(Beverage containers typically constitute between 20 and 30 percent  of total
roadside litter by item count and 40 to 60 percent on a volume basis.)
      • Energy savings:  Annual energy consumption for the conventional
beverage container system is projected to be 585 trillion  Btu by 1980.  The re-
turnable scenario projects a reduction of 40 percent (245 trillion Btu's) from
that level, a saving in 1980 equivalent to 125,000 barrels of oil per day.
      • Solid waste reduction and material savings:  The beverage container por-
tion of municipal solid waste would be reduced by 70 percent, or 7.2 million
tons, in 1980 (a 5-percent reduction in that year's total municipal solid waste).

                                    xvi

-------
                                 SUMMARY

 Estimated annual  material savings for the national economy would amount to
 500,000 tons of aluminum, 1.5 million tons of steel and 5.2 million tons of glass
 by 1980.
      •  Employment effects:  Employment levels in the container manufactur-
 ing and  supply  industries would decrease by about 80,000 positions by 1980.
 Actual employee  dislocations due to the container deposit would total about
 one-half of the total job losses, however, since normal attrition in these industries
 over  the 5-year period would affect almost 40,000 jobs. Employment  in the
 beverage filling, distribution, and retailing industries would  increase by about
 165,000  positions. While the jobs eliminated would generally be higher paying
 than  the  jobs gained, the net increase in jobs would result in a $400 million net
 increase  in labor income in 1980.
      •  Industrial investment requirements:  Capital expenditures to increase
 the market share  of refutable bottles would total $1.8 billion. Over the  5-year
 period this is of the same order of magnitude as the current annual investment
 in one-way container systems.
      •  Consumer price impacts: Projected annual consumer savings would total
 $2.5 billion by 1980 and $3.2 billion by 1985.


          EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY
                       DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
      The emphasis of the  EPA resource recovery demonstration program has
been on large processing facilities that recover resources from mixed municipal
solid waste (five projects).  Demonstrations are also being supported  of multi-
material separate collection (two projects) and recovery of methane from a land-
fill (one project).
      • The  Franklin, Ohio, project, designed mainly to determine the  feasi-
bility  of  wet processing solid waste to recover paper fiber, was completed in
March 1976.  According to cost projections for larger plants with nearby users of
the fiber, the process appears economically viable. Since markets for  this low-
quality fiber are  limited, however, in future applications  of this technology the
fiber is likely to be used for fuel.
      • The  St.  Louis project, which was also completed in 1976, proved that a
refuse-derived fuel could be produced through dry shredding and air classifica-
tion and fired in suspension with pulverized coal in existing steam-electric boilers
without significant adverse short-term effects on boiler operation. Although unit
operations have  not been optimized and questions remain regarding combined
firing with coal, a number of commercial systems have resulted from this demon-
stration.
     •  In Baltimore the facility that was  to  demonstrate  steam generation
through pyrolysis of waste has run into numerous major mechanical problems,
many of them attributable to incorrect scaling up from the pilot  plant.  The city
will conduct further performance runs before deciding whether  to continue the
project or convert the plant into a more conventional solid waste  facility.
                                   xvu

-------
                RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

      • In San Diego County, the pyrolysis demonstration plant is scheduled to
begin operating in June 1977. A liquid oil-like fuel will be produced for use as a
supplement to fuel oil  in electric  utility boilers.  Ferrous metal, aluminum, and
glass cullet will also be recovered.
      • The State of Delaware is negotiating with a contractor to design, build,
and operate a  demonstration plant that will produce refuse-derived fuel for use
as a supplement to fuel oil in an existing oil-fired steam-electric boiler.  The
plant will also handle digested sewage sludge, produce humus by composting, and
recover ferrous metals, aluminum, and glass.
      • Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts, have programs to demon-
strate the  feasibility of weekly curbside collection of paper, glass, and cans using
a compartmentalized collection truck.  Mixed waste is collected in a regular col-
lection truck.  The recovered materials are sold to a processor under a contract
with a guaranteed  floor price that was negotiated through an open bidding pro-
cedure before  the programs started.  The early results are promising, with the
Marblehead program making a profit and Somerville breaking even.
      • Mountain View, California, has a project to demonstrate the  recovery of
methane from a typical shallow (40-foot deep) sanitary landfill.  The success of
the testing program has led to development of a  full-scale gas recovery project
which is scheduled to be operational by July 1977. The recovered gas will be up-
graded and injected into a nearby utility pipeline.
                 STATUS OF PRODUCT CHARGE STUDIES
      As defined in recent Congressional bills, a solid waste product charge is an
excise tax on the material content of consumer products entering the solid waste
stream. Though varying in specific design details, most product charge  pro-
posals to date  have had three characteristics in common:  (1) a charge (Federal
excise tax) on consumer products and packaging tied directly to projected solid
waste management costs for the items in question; (2) a  special exemption for
the use of secondary materials in  products  and packaging; and (3) provision for
redistributing all or most of the  revenue yield to local governments for solid
waste management purposes.
      As reported previously, the  product charge concept  has a number of desir-
able incentive  features from an economic efficiency standpoint.  A waste charge
on products would ensure that producers and consumers whose decisions jointly
determine the  levels of the solid waste management burden will directly bear the
costs resulting from their choices, thus providing a direct  economic incentive to
stimulate desirable waste reduction and recycling efforts.
      This report describes EPA research in progress concerning quantitative im-
pacts and  economic effects of such  an approach.  Since our studies are not yet
completed, no EPA recommendation of any particular product charge or subsidy
measure is warranted at this time.
                  Assumptions and Preliminary Study Results
      The analysis has  been conducted on the following base case assumptions:
(1) a product charge of $26 per ton for most product wastes and 0.5 cent per
unit for rigid  containers; (2) levied at bulk  material or  semi-finished  product

                                   xviii

-------
                                SUMMARY

stages of manufacture; (3) levied on all paper products and all non-paper packa-
ging materials that enter the municipal solid waste stream (these constitute 80
percent of the product contribution to such wastes); (4) a full rebate (credit) for
use of recycled material in products; and (5) a phase-in period of 10 years during
which the charge would be gradually introduced. Preliminary results based on
these assumptions include:
     • Administrative costs:   The  degree of  complexity and potential ad-
ministrative overhead costs to the Federal government of implementing a waste
charge seem comparable to those of existing Federal product excise taxes. Costs
should be less than 1 percent of revenue yield.
     • Recycling effects: Although the  preliminary nature of the analysis sug-
gests that the specific numerical results should be treated cautiously, modeling
efforts thus far indicate that significant increases in recycling would result. Re-
cycling  of glass, steel, and aluminum packaging would increase severalfold, and
paper recycling would more than double.
     •  Waste reduction effects: Adequate estimating models  are not available
to quantitatively evaluate the range of effects  of material cost  changes on prod-
uct  designs  or packaging material shifts at the producers' level. Estimates of
waste reduction based only on consumer responses to induced price  changes are
on the order of 2 to 3 percent of the product waste stream.
     •  Consumer price impacts: For most products, price increases at the con-
sumer retail level  would be less than one-half of a  percent. Products such as
canned  goods and soft drinks with heavy packaging components could show
price increases of 2 to 4 percent. The  overall impact on the BLS consumer price
index (which includes many service and noncharged goods as well as the charged
items) would be barely perceptible-on the order of less than two-tenths of 1
percent.
     •  Impact  on consumer budgets: Initial analysis indicates that the product
charge  would  cost families in the  lowest income group  (decile) about $8 per
family per year, the highest decile  group  about $60 per family, and the median
U.S. family a maximum of about $30 per year in increased taxes.
     •  Impact  on government budgets:  The charge scheme would  yield about
$2 billion per  year in Federal revenues by the  late 1980's. Since administrative
costs would be small, virtually all of this could  be made available to local govern-
ments either through general revenue sharing or earmarked for solid waste pur-
poses.
     Further  analysis on this and other product  charge and financial incentive
measures will be carried out under the interagency Resource Conservation Com-
mittee established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
                                    xix

-------

-------
                                           Chapter 1
                         BACKGROUND AND  PERSPECTIVES
     U.S. households and commercial sources cur-
rently generate over  140 million tons of solid waste
annually.  About  6 percent of this post-consumer
municipal waste is recovered for productive uses, the
remainder being disposed of in the nation's landfills,
incinerators, and  open  dumps, or  littered on  city
streets and country landscapes. In addition, sewage
sludge, demolition and construction refuse, and un-
recycled junked autos add further substantial magni-
tudes to  the municipal solid waste disposal burden.
These high and rising solid waste volumes have signi-
ficant  adverse  consequences in terms of environ-
mental quality, aesthetics, the economy,  natural re-
sources implications, and local public administration
problems.
     Although solid waste generation is an inevitable
fact  of economic  life, it is equally apparent that our
society has a  broad range of choices regarding the
types and quantities of residuals that we produce and
the manner in which we deal with them thereafter. It
is basically these choices, relating to the nondisposal
alternatives for solid waste management, that are the
subject of this series of EPA reports on resource re-
covery and waste  reduction.   As with  the previous
three reports,   the  focus of this fourth  report
is primarily on "post-consumer" solid waste-the end-
product residuals of our system of material flows-as
distinguished  from the  solid  waste  resulting  from
mining, agricultural, and  industrial processing acti-
vities.
     As the term has evolved, "resource recovery" is
a general concept  referring to any productive use of
what would otherwise be  a waste material requiring
disposal.  As such,  it encompasses narrower concepts
such as:
     • "Recycling"-reprocessing wastes to recover
        an original raw material; for example, the
        steel content from tin cans or the fiber con-
        tent of wastepaper.
      • "Material conversion "-utilizing a waste in a
        different form of material, such as compost
        from wastepaper  or road-paving  material
        from auto tires.
      • "Energy recovery "-capturing the heat value
        from organic waste, either by direct com-
        bustion or by first converting it into an inter-
        mediate fuel product.
     The initial  "extraction" phase of resource re-
covery  is  currently performed primarily  through
"source separation," i.e., the segregation of specific
waste materials at their point of discard for concen-
trated  collection  and reprocessing. The main  alter-
native to source separation is mixed-waste processing,
which involves the centralized processing of collected,
mixed  municipal  wastes  to  separate  out recyclable
materials and/or  convert mixed fractions into  new
forms of marketable materials or fuels.
     "Waste reduction," on the other hand, involves
waste prevention or diminishing the quantity of waste
generated. This can be accomplished by redesigning
products or changing our consumption patterns so
that reduced amounts  of materials are required to
satisfy our wants.  More durable and longer-lived prod-
ucts;  reusable rather than  throwaway  or single-use
products and packaging; improvements in the mater-
ials themselves so that,  less material  is needed to
accomplish  the  purpose; redesigning  products and
packaging systems to reduce materials requirements;
shifting our consumption  habits towards a  less
materials-intensive "market  basket"  of goods and
services-all  are  examples  of waste reduction ap-
proaches.
     This Fourth Report to Congress  on Resource
Recovery and Waste Reduction  is submitted under
Section 205 of  the Solid  Waste Disposal Act as
amended by the Resource Recovery Act of  1970. In
October 1976, Congress enacted the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-

-------
                               RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
580),  which replaces the former  provisions of the
Solid Waste  Disposal Act and adds important new
dimensions to the Federal role in solid waste manage-
ment and resource conservation.
     Of most immediate practical significance, the
new Act takes  major  steps to control  hazardous
waste handling and disposal and to eliminate the use
of open dumps as an admissible practice in municipal
solid waste  management.  In  addition  to  benefiting
the environment directly,  these actions should  have
far-reaching  implications,  since,  by foreclosing en-
vironmentally unacceptable disposal options, which
are usually the low-cost options, they  will have the
effect of placing  resource recovery and waste reduc-
tion options on a somewhat more equal and equitable
competitive basis with land disposal.
     In  addition  to  continuing EPA's general re-
search  and  study, technology demonstration,  and
technical assistance programs, the  1976  legislation
also sets the  stage for possible  new  directions in
Federal resource conservation policies. Section 8002(j)
established the Resource  Conservation Committee,
consisting of the Administrator of EPA as Chairman,
the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, Treasury, and
Interior,  the Chairman  of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and a representative of the Office of
Management and Budget.
      The Committee is required  to conduct a full
and complete investigation and study of all aspects of
the economic, social, and environmental consequences
of a number of economic and regulatory conservation
policies.  The Act emphasizes economic  market ap-
proaches to conservation. These would  include modi-
fying existing tax policies, the imposition of waste
disposal  charges,  and  the  introduction of deposit or
bounty systems.  The Committee is also to evaluate
existing  and proposed  regulatory  policies affecting
materials use. Reports must be submitted to Congress
on these issues every 6 months. The first of these re-
ports,  the Implementation Plan, was  recently  sub-
mitted.
      Thus,  in  the new  Act Congress  has clearly
recognized  the close interrelationships between en-
vironmental  protection,  solid  waste  management,
efficiency in the  nation's use of materials and energy,
and natural resource conservation. The Resource Con-
servation Committee  is the  first Cabinet-level  com-
mittee called upon by Congress to review, evaluate,
and  recommend policy alternatives cutting across
these important aspects of the nation's natural  re-
sources and economy.  In many respects, the present
series of reports to  Congress may be regarded as a
predecessor to the Resource Conservation Committee
studies by providing conceptual background, problem
definition,  quantitative perspectives, and descriptive
review of the state of the art in resource recovery and
waste reduction.
      This introductory chapter has  three purposes:
(1) to characterize the  nature and magnitude of the
municipal solid waste problem; (2) to outline the
scope and potentials of resource recovery and waste
reduction as solid waste management approaches; and
(3) to summarize some general considerations relating
to future courses of action.
 ELEMENTS AND CAUSES OF THE MUNICIPAL
            SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
      Although solid waste has always been with us,
it has only recently come to be regarded as a subject
for national concern. A brief review of some of the
diverse reasons for this concern will underscore the
breadth of the  perceived solid waste problems and
help  in understanding their causes.
               Reasons for Concern
      Among the many elements of  the solid waste
problem, the following can be singled out for special
attention:
      • Growth in waste generation per se
      • Environmental damages from waste disposal
      • The aesthetics of litter and dumping
      • Broader environmental implications
      • Waste  generation as a reflection of natural
        resource depletion
      • Direct  economic costs for collection and
        disposal
      • Other  local  public administration problems.
All of these issues have received attention in previous
reports in this  series1"3 and elsewhere and therefore
need only the briefest summary statement.
      Growth  in Municipal  Solid  Waste Generation.
Residential  and commercial solid waste generation
now totals about 144 million tons annually, of which
more than two-thirds is composed of manufactured
products and  packaging materials (Chapter 2).  In
addition  sewage sludge is generated at a rate of over 5
million (dry weight)  tons per year, and junked autos

-------
                                      BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES
 and building demolition  wastes together contribute
 perhaps another 45  million tons of gross discards.
 Of these latter three categories of post-consumer solid
 waste,  only the metals in  autos and in demolition
 wastes  are salvaged to  any  extensive degree; the re-
 mainder constitutes a substantial portion of the muni-
 cipal solid waste disposal burden.
      Although  precise historical data are lacking for
 most waste categories, analysis of consumption statis-
 tics indicates that the  product and packaging com-
 ponents of municipal wastes have more than doubled
 since the early  1950's.  Paper,  glass, metals, plastics,
 and rubber  wastes have all increased  dramatically
 since World War II.  And although slowed recently
 due to  the  general economic recession,  the national
 trend is towards substantial future increases in almost
 all categories of solid waste generation, with less than
 comparable growth in resource recovery.
     This growth  in the sheer  physical magnitude
 of post-consumer  wastes has had a profound impact
 on public awareness because of its aggravating influ-
 ence on all of the associated economic, social, and
 environmental problems.
     Ecological and  Public Health Damages from
 Disposal.   Ecological damages attributable to poor
 solid waste management  practices are of increasing
 concern.  Traditionally, the  focus was almost  exclus-
 ively on  incinerator  emissions and on  control of
 disease-bearing insects and rodents at collection, stor-
 age, and dump  sites.  Though air pollution and sani-
 tation issues are no less important today,  our perspec-
 tives have broadened  to include increased awareness
 and understanding  of important water quality prob-
 lems resulting from traditional land disposal practices.
     Surface and ground water  contamination, due
 to  both surface runoff and underground  leachate
 from landfills, has  been increasingly documented by
 EPA and other scientists.  &    Ground  water  con-
 tamination  is particularly  serious  because,  once it
 occurs,  it is practically  impossible to eliminate with
 present  means, and an aquifer may be ruled out as a
 source  of  drinking water  for  decades.   Currently
 about half the U.S. population is served by ground
 water,  and  the  use of ground  water  is increasing
 rapidly.6

     The need to protect water quality  has im-
portant  implications for the economics of solid waste
disposal in locations requiring such protection, since
the cost  of adequate leachate control in these areas
can be expected to more than double the cost of dis-
posal at  new landfills.7  Effects of land disposal on
water quality also further emphasize the interrelated-
ness of the  air, land,  and water  as environmental
media for waste disposal.
      The environmental damages from uncontrolled
disposal and their resulting public health, economic,
and  social  consequences all represent  real costs  to
society of solid waste disposal.  These types of social
costs have been variously termed "external costs"  or
"hidden costs" in that they do not show up either on
the accounting statements of individual waste genera-
tors or in the solid waste budgets of city governments,
but  rather  are  borne  indirectly and often anony-
mously by  the damaged parties.  As with aesthetic
costs, they are not priced in the marketplace nor can
they be readily  measured in conventional  monetary
terms, and thus meaningful nationwide estimates  of
these important  categories  of social  costs have not
thus far been developed. They are  no less  real, how-
ever,  and would  most certainly be  reduced by more
extensive  use of  waste reduction  and resource re-
covery approaches.
      Aesthetic Effects. To a great  many people, the
solid  waste problem is most apparent in its aesthetic
dimensions-the   aesthetics  of  uncollected garbage
and  trash,  dump sites, incinerator smoke, garbage
washed up on beaches, and littered streets and land-
scapes.  Tens of millions of dollars are spent annually
by  State and local agencies on street  and highway
litter  pickups.  Such expenditures are crude and in-
complete proxies for society's willingness to pay for a
more aesthetically  satisfying environment, but they
do signify that society places a considerable value on
the aesthetic quality of the environment, aside from
ecological damage and public health  aspects.
      Broader Environmental Implications.   Another
fundamental dimension of the environmental impli-
cations of  high  rates of post-consumer solid waste
disposal becomes evident when we  view the national
economy as an integrated  system of  material flows.
The present system might be characterized an "open-
ended" or  "high-throughput" economy in terms of
the way  in  which final demands for  material goods
and  services are  satisfied.    We  produce  an ex-
tremely high rate of material flow per person and per

-------
                              RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
unit of national income or economic welfare. We do
this by such means as satisfying an increasing portion
of our consumer wants with single-use or disposable
items  rather  than reusable commodities, utilizing
shorter-lived rather than longer-lived durable goods,
and recycling very little of the resulting high flow of
wastes.
      It has been abundantly  documented by EPA
and others that  virgin  material extraction and  the
initial raw materials refining and processing activities
are by far the most significant sources of the nation's
environmental  damages.    These damages  include
many forms of ecological disruption from mining and
timber harvesting as well  as air and  water  pollution.
(See Appendix E  for a bibliography on this topic.)
Virgin material extraction and processing are also  dis-
proportionately high consumers of energy.  Thus the
magnitude of the solid waste problem  is directly cor-
related with  most  other  environmental  degradation
problems which originate  earlier in the production
sequence of the economy's system of material flows.
      Waste  reduction approaches, as alternatives to
present materials-intensive  systems for  satisfying final
consumer needs,  produce comparatively  very low
system-wide industrial  pollution and other forms of
environmental  degradation, while effectively elimi-
nating post-consumer waste generation. Less obvious,
but also well documented,  is the fact that virtually all
resource  recovery technologies also produce substan-
tially lower system-wide  environmental  damage  po-
tentials and also require far less energy than counter-
part virgin-materials supply sequences.8"10
      Actions  taken to reduce material throughput
and recover  post-consumer  material  residuals will
thus generally  yield environmental protection bene-
fits throughout the economic system and not only at
municipal solid waste disposal sites.  In effect, this
represents substitution  of low-polluting  systems for
high-polluting systems of  production  and  consump-
tion.
      Soh'd Waste Disposal as  an Index of  Natural
Resource Depletion. The same perspective on mater-
ial flows leads to the conclusion that the  rate of post-
consumer solid waste disposal can be regarded as a
useful quantitative measure of the rate of depletion
of virgin natural raw material resources. Thus, a high-
waste, low-recycle economy necessarily  implies high
rates of virgin raw material extraction and processing
(with attendant high industrial energy demand) and/
or high rates of imported raw material and fuel re-
sources.  This, in  turn,  means that the rate of de-
pletion   of   the    higher   quality  natural  re-
sources will be faster the less we rely on waste reduc-
tion and  resource  recovery as  material  and energy
conservation alternatives to the  "high-throughput"
system of satisfying material wants.
     There  is honest disagreement among natural re-
source  economists as to the seriousness of the need to
adopt conservation measures at this time,11 and as to
appropriate  measures for evaluating  the present and
future  social value of conserving (i.e., postponing use
of) virgin resource  stocks.12'13   Nevertheless, few
would  argue that resource conservation is of no con-
sequence in the modern world.
     Q'rect Costs of Collection and Disposal. EPA
estimates that the average cost for collection and dis-
posal of post-consumer municipal solid waste in 1976
was close to $30 per ton, or almost  $4 billion a year
for the U.S. as a whole.  These costs have probably
doubled within the  past 6  to 8 years; and they in-
clude only direct expenditures (both public and pri-
vate) relating to existing disposal practices, which are
considered environmentally inadequate for the major-
ity of U.S. communities.  In addition to general infla-
tion and growth in the waste stream itself, direct real
national costs will rise in the future due to rising land
values, longer haul distances to new  outlying disposal
sites, and  to  increased  requirements for environ-
mental protection at disposal sites and emission con-
trols for incinerators.  At least in part, the increase in
direct costs  of waste handling and disposal will come
as a direct consequence of the implementation of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, especially
Section 4005  which  mandates the elimination  of
open dumps by 1983.

     Public Administration  Problems.   Although
ranking below such local public expenditure items as
health, education, welfare, streets, public safety, sew-
age, and water, solid waste collection and  disposal
services nonetheless occupies a significant position in
local government budgets.14   As  discussed, direct
costs of collection and disposal have been increasing
steadily, and a very large part of the total is reflected
in municipal budgets.

-------
                                     BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES
      However, the public administration problems
 go beyond the questions of cost  and finance.  In-
 creasingly, they also include problems of zoning, of
 locating new disposal sites outside city limits, and of
 achieving broader regional management approaches.
 In many respects, the city and county management
 problems posed by  high and rising solid waste flows
 often appear disproportionately large, even relative to
 their budgetary position.15
     Summary.  The "municipal solid waste  prob-
lem" can be viewed from  different  perspectives as
parts of many diverse problems having to  do with
waste management, environmental protection, natural
resource conservation, and economic welfare.   All
these problems could be mitigated,  although not
necessarily "solved," through properly chosen reduc-
tions in waste generation  rates and increases in re-
source recovery rates.  However, before considering
the  feasibility  and  desirability of expanding  these
solid waste management  approaches,  it is important
first to  question basic causes. This involves two para-
mount  questions:   Why are solid  waste  generation
rates too high (over 1,300 pounds per person per
year)?  and, Why are resource recovery rates too low
(less than 7  percent of  total waste generation)?

    Why So Much Waste and So Little Recycling?
      To a very significant degree, our high and rising
levels of solid waste generation can be explained as
the natural result of an expansive, highly  productive
market economy richly endowed with an  abundance
of accessible natural resources.  This combination has
made for relatively cheap virgin materials and energy,
which in turn has had the dual effects historically of
encouraging extensive use of materials and  energy,
on  the one hand, and of discouraging competition
from secondary (recovered) resources on the other.
     These forces have  been augmented, however,
by  a variety  of explicit  and implicit public  policies
and  by a number of important shortcomings in the
market  pricing system which also have guided our re-
source allocation decisions.  Thus,  for a number of
reasons,  to be  discussed below, virgin  raw  material
and  fuel costs  have historically been made "artifi-
cially" low in relation to the levels that would have
prevailed under a system in which  raw material mar-
kets accurately reflected  the  full  social costs of
material use and were less biased by public  policies.
In  this sense,  virgin material use  and concomitant
waste generation have been made "too high." Simi-
larly, resource  recovery has been "too low" because
of the explicit and implicit advantages afforded virgin
supplies.  Some of these policies and market condi-
tions are as follows:
      Federal Policies  Stimulating Natural Resource
Development.  The  Federal Government  has always
played a  major role in stimulating and encouraging
natural resource development.  In the last century, a
series  of public  land acts,  railroad development
grants, and mining and minerals policy laws generally
opened the  country to resource exploration and 3e-
velopment.  More recently, special Federal tax laws
favoring   mineral  extraction  (percentage depletion
allowances and foreign tax credits) and  timber and
pulpwood harvesting (capital  gains  treatment) have
reinforced the  tendency  towards  inexpensive  virgin
raw materials.16'17
      Perhaps more  important in recent  years, how-
ever,  have been the Federal  (and  some  State-level)
subsidization of mineral exploration (carried out by
the U.S.  Geological Survey), mining and processing
research  and development (U.S. Bureau  of Mines),
and agricultural and forestry  research and develop-
ment (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
      EPA does not necessarily question the historical
validity of any of these acts or policies favoring ex-
pansive natural  resource development. Under modern
circumstances, however, certain of these policies have
come under question.  Others, especially  those  in the
research and development area,  might also be recon-
sidered in terms of the stimulus they provide to  virgin
material consumption.  For example, when financed
out of general tax revenues, these R&D costs do not
become reflected in  the market  prices of the relevant
raw material and energy products, thus understating
the full  social costs of  these  commodities in the
marketplace. In effect, this represents a hidden sub-
sidy that encourages higher market  demand for these
materials and less economy in  their use than the free
market would otherwise have encouraged.
     Historical Disregard for Environmental  Degrad-
ation.  Until quite recently, the American economic
and political systems exhibited a general disregard for
environmental degradation.  This was equally true in
relation to mining and processing as it  was for muni-
cipal  solid  waste disposal.  Environmental  damage

-------
                              RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
costs of mining and processing have been borne main-
ly by society in general or by "third parties" rather
than the  specific  industry and its customers whose
joint  economic  decisions gave rise to the environ-
mental damage.  For this reason, market  prices for
materials  and fuels  have failed historically, and in
large part still fail, to reflect the full  social costs of
production, thus providing inaccurate price  signals for
resource allocation.18 Once again, the result has been
an  implicit stimulus to a  more  materials-intensive
economy.
      At the  other end of the material flow sequence,
post-consumer solid wastes have  also been creating
environmental damage costs for society. These have
not  been accounted  for in community solid waste
management  budgets, nor have they  been reflected
back to waste generators as  an inherent part of the
total "life cycle"  cost  of  using and disposing  of
material  goods.  Here, again,  is another example of
an implicit subsidy to material consumption.
      Others  Factors Causing Costs of Solid Waste
Services to be Obscured.  In addition to the market's
failure to account for environmental damage costs, a
number of other  institutional factors typically  ob-
scure and understate the full social costs of the solid
waste collection and disposal services themselves.
      The first set of factors relates to three types of
undercosting typically encountered at the local muni-
cipal services level. The first is the fact that munici-
pal and county solid waste accounting systems often
segregate land and equipment costs in separate capital
accounts, and the current interest and amortization
often do not get explicitly recognized in the solid
waste budget.  The  second factor is that foregone
property  tax revenues on lands set aside  for public
waste processing and disposal  sites are almost never
explicitly recognized as a community cost attributable
to  the waste management function.   They are, of
course, paid through higher taxes on other properties.
Finally, municipal purchases of land and equipment
are financed by public sector bonds, the interest on
which is exempt from Federal taxes.  While reducing
local government  costs of providing solid waste ser-
vices, the differential interest  rate subsidy  is paid out
of higher Federal taxes on other sources of income.
All of these  accounting, financing, and taxing prac-
tices have tended to make  it appear that  local  solid
waste  services are less costly than they  really  are.
      Of greater significance than these cost account-
 ing factors, however, is the fact that three-fourths of
 U.S.  communities finance their solid waste manage-
 ment systems out of general tax revenues (mainly
 property taxes) rather than through user fees.18 This
 means that most households, and many commercial
 enterprises as well, never see a specific bill or charge
 of any kind for this service, as they do, for example,
 for electricity or other public utility services.  Many
 cities that  do employ user fee systems to finance solid
 waste services charge lump-sum amounts that are not
 related to  quantities handled.
      Though  possibly justifiable from  other  view-
points, all of these practices involve the undercosting
of services  and/or  the noncharging of the economic
costs  to the waste  producers in the material flow sys-
tem.  By making the services appear costless to those
utilizing  them, noncharging has the overall effect  of
minimizing or negating any possible economic incen-
tive towards reducing waste generation or encouraging
local public or private resource recovery options.

      Other Federal Policies Inimical to Resource Re-
 covery.  Congress has long recognized that a number
 of public laws and Federal agency policies may have
 tended to  discriminate against recycling or waste re-
 duction. Although preliminary steps have been taken
 to evaluate and improve upon  some of these situa-
 tions, problems may still remain  regarding the fol-
 lowing:

      •  Rail freight rates, administered by the Inter-
         state Commerce Commission, that may favor
         virgin  over secondary materials.   An EPA
         study found no decisive pattern, but did pre-
         sent  evidence that  suggested possible rate
         biases against ferrous scrap, glass cullet, and
         reclaimed rubber, and  possible favoring  of
         scrap rubber, scrap aluminum,  and waste-
         paper.19  As the result of a Congressionally
         mandated study, ICC in  February 1977 or-
         dered reductions in the freight rates in certain
         geographic areas for certain secondary mater-
         ials, including reclaimed  rubber and glass
         cullet.   ICC found no cause for lowering
         rates for ferrous scrap  or wastepaper.  Fur-
         ther investigation was  ordered of rates for
         some other secondary materials.

-------
                                     BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES
      • Pejorative product labeling requirements that
        unnecessarily or  incorrectly introduce pur-
        chaser biases against products manufactured
        from secondary or  reclaimed raw materials.
        The Wool  Labeling  Act and  the Federal
        Trade  Commission labeling requirements on
        reclaimed lubricating oil are cases in point.
        The FTC is also currently reviewing its regu-
        lations in this field.
                   Conclusions
      To a significant degree, our post-consumer solid
waste generation  rates are higher than they should be
and our resource recovery rates are lower than they
should be from the perspectives of national economic
efficiency  and general  public welfare.  Our  high-
throughput, open-ended economic system of material
flows has been historically biased by a large number
of explicit public policy measures and implicit public
administration shortcomings, and by some important
shortcomings in the market system itself.  The overall
effect  historically has been a failure  of both raw
material and product markets to signal a correct pat-
tern of incentives in costs and prices.  This situation
is reflected today in the intensification  of many per-
ceived national  concerns falling  under the general
rubric of  "the  municipal  solid  waste problem."
  ALTERNATIVES TO DISPOSAL:  RESOURCE
   RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION AS
       RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT TOOLS
                  The Potentials
      The Third Report to Congress presented results
from  an unpublished EPA analysis of the technical
potentials for waste reduction and resource recovery
relative to  projected 1985 waste generation levels.20
Because we consider these potentials to be significant,
the highlights are repeated below.  The  estimates are
based only on technical possibilities within  the  state
of technology that now exists or that can reasonably
be expected to be available  within the next 5 to 10
years.  It  should  be emphasized that many  elements
of these estimates have not yet  been  subjected to
economic feasibility or benefit-cost evaluations.  They
are not being suggested as national goals but only as
first-step results in the evaluation of future potentials.
      Wastfl Reduction Potentials.  Based  on  what
seemed to  be a reasonable set of assumptions,  EPA
 projected that the 1985 gross discard stream (approx-
 imately 200 million tons) could be reduced by up to
 20 million tons (10 percent of total waste; 15 percent
 of nonfood product waste). The assumptions for this
 scenario included: an 80-percent nationwide shift to
 refillable beer and soft-drink containers; a major shift
 to more durable passenger car  tires (continuation of
 current industry trend); and a  general 10-percent re-
 duction  in  other nonfood product  and  packaging
 wastes per unit  of final sales,  based on a  variety of
 material conservation measures.   Altogether, these
 measures would result in decreases in gross discards
 of glass by 40 percent, rubber tires by 40 percent,
 aluminum by 30 percent, ferrous metals by 15 per-
 cent, and other materials (including paper) by 10 per-
 cent.
      Actually implementing such a scenario would
 not be an easy matter, especially since there are likely
 to be apparent adverse impacts on a number of key
 primary industries.  Nevertheless, the majority of the
 changes in question would most likely result in lower
 total cost to consumers.21 '22 Furthermore, if phased
 in over a 10- to 15-year period, the primary impact
 would in most cases  occur as a reduction in the net
 growth  of product outputs and employment for the
 specified industries,  rather than as an absolute de-
 crease in output and employment from their present
 levels.
      Resource Recovery  Potentials.   EPA has esti-
 mated that  a maximum feasible nationwide source
 separation effort could recycle approximately 25 per-
 cent of the nation's  total gross discards, compared
 with about 6 to 7 percent currently.  Based on non-
food product waste only, this would amount to about
 35 percent,  or three and one-half times the present
 10-percent recovery  rate.  Based on  the  projected
 1985 gross  discards  of  200 million tons (without
waste reduction), this maximum  source separation
 program could yield 45 to 50 million tons of paper,
 metals, glass, and rubber for recycling.
      Though  this yield  figure  appears extremely
high,  it is not without some precedent-recycle rates
during World War II were apparently at comparable
levels for wastepaper, metals, and rubber.  That public
participation rates can indeed be quite  high given the
necessary incentive is currently being  demonstrated
by the aluminum industry, which reports that, during

-------
 8
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
1975, 25 percent of all-aluminum cans were returned
for recycling  at a  price of  15 cents per pound.23
      Mixed-waste  processing  potentials, including
both  material and energy  recovery, are generally
thought to be restricted by logistics and other factors
to  the metropolitan  or  urbanized  areas  of  the
country. If this is  so,  then based on an assumed 80-
percent recovery efficiency factor for the urbanized
U.S.  (which generates 70  percent  of the  nation's
waste),  the maximum technically  feasible recovery
could not be  greater than about 56 percent  (80 per-
cent times  70 percent) of the nation's "available" or
deliverable waste stream.  For 1985, this would then
amount, at  most, to about 112 million tons of the
nation's  estimated  200 million tons of gross waste.
      For a number of reasons, this should  be con-
sidered only an approximation of the maximum level
possible. In the first place, the  amount available for
processing in mixed-waste systems will be subject to
the influences of both waste reduction, if any, and
prior source separation  activities. In the second place,
the amount "available"  will have  very  little to do
with the amount that  is likely to be processed, even
though it is probably "technically feasible" to"process
almost all that is available. No estimates have thus far
been made to ascertain the economically feasible or
desirable (in  cost-benefit terms) future  nationwide
levels of mixed-waste processing. EPA and contractor
estimates of mixed-waste  plants expected on line,
based on present  trends and policies, indicate that
10 to 20 million tons  of materials could  be diverted
from  conventional  disposal through such plants by
1985.
             Economic Considerations
      Our studies have indicated that as  far as tech-
nical feasibility is concerned, waste reduction and re-
source recovery  opportunities available now or in the
near future are  such  that very sizable potential re-
ductions in solid waste generation and attendant dis-
posal  problems could be achieved. Beyond the essen-
tial prerequisite  of technical  feasibility, however,
economic considerations largely determine the selec-
tion of options in waste reduction, resource recovery,
and conventional disposal.  For private industry, con-
sumers, and local governments, decisions to select or
reject available waste reduction and resource recovery
measures will hinge largely  on comparative market
values relating to such factors as alternative product
                         and packaging  designs,  prices of virgin or secondary
                         raw materials and  fuels,  and cost of available and
                         permissible  solid waste disposal options.  Thus, the
                         competitive marketplace will determine the economic
                         practicality  of nondisposal alternatives and the degree
                         to which they are introduced over time.
                               At present, it appears that some waste reduction
                         and resource recovery options stand a good chance of
                         economic survival and  expanded  use on  their own
                         merits under present market conditions.  Many more,
                         however,  will not appear "practical" at the present
                         time from private business  or local government per-
                         spectives. Costs will be too high or rates of return on
                         investment  will be  too low for these to be the pre-
                         ferred alternatives under conventional cost-accounting
                         practices.
                              In this respect it should be reiterated that many
                         of the market values  upon  which such decisions are
                         based appear to understate, possibly significantly, the
                         true social values of resource  recovery and waste re-
                         duction options.  This is  due to the  previously dis-
                         cussed market  imperfections, public  sector  policies
                         favoring  virgin  resources,  and shortcomings  in local
                         waste management  cost-accounting practices.  Thus,
                         from a broad national viewpoint, it can be argued that
                         private sector and local government decisions under
                         present conditions will  not  achieve an economically
                         desirable degree of waste reduction  or  resource re-
                         covery.
                              This does not mean that we should be prepared
                         as a nation  to  embrace every waste reduction or re-
                         source recovery proposal as a means of advancing the
                         public welfare.  It does strongly suggest, however, that
                         the Federal government may well  have an important
                         corrective role  to play in formulation of a national
                         strategy for waste reduction and  resource recovery.
                               In  considering the  economics of  resource re-
                         covery and  waste reduction over  the longer term, it
                         should also be  recognized that the economic values
                         in this field may  well change quite rapidly over time.
                         For example:
                               • If  world raw  material and  fuel prices in-
                                 crease  due to conditions of increased scarcity
                                 or  for political  reasons,  nondisposal solid
                                 waste  options  will increase  in  social  value.
                              •  If society places a higher  value over time on
                                 environmental  aspects of solid waste dis-
                                 posal, nondisposal options increase in value.

-------
                                     BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES
      •  If  technological  innovations  increase  the
         attractiveness of waste reduction options or
         decrease the cost or improve the competitive
         quality of recovered materials or fuels, then
         the economically desirable waste reduction
         or  recovery level is increased.
      In a  rapidly changing world, dynamic factors
 such as these can play a deciding role in determining
 the economic future of waste reduction and resource
 recovery.
         CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
      This Fourth Report to Congress  does  not pre-
 sent specific recommendations for legislation  or other
 Federal policy changes. As noted in the introduction,
 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
 was just passed in October.  This Act sets forth new
 objectives in solid waste management relating to en-
 vironmentally safe handling and disposal of wastes
 and conservation of energy and materials. Key pro-
 visions establish    regulation of  hazardous  waste
 management and  prescribe steps to  end inadequate
 land disposal of all wastes.  The Act also created a
 Federal  interagency Resource Conservation  Com-
 mittee, chaired by the Administrator of EPA, to con-
 duct a detailed review of financial and other national
 incentive policies  over a 2-year period.  Thus, a new
 focus  on national waste  management and conserva-
 tion policy has been created.
      Based on findings described in this and previous
 reports to  Congress, EPA has reached  a number of
 general conclusions  concerning the nature and signi-
 ficance of resource  recovery and waste reduction as
 ways  to deal  with long-term  national  problems.
 These  conclusions, which are summarized below, are
 consonant with the new directions indicated in the
 Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act and have
 continuing  implications for the design of  national
 policy.
     • Resource recovery and waste reduction pro-
duce multitaceted benefits.  The benefits from re-
source  recovery and waste reduction cut across many
problem areas, including  those  of  local solid waste
management, environmental protection,  energy sup-
ply and conservation, and national materials policy.
There is also considerable  evidence that appropriate
increases in both of these activities would increase the
nation's overall economic efficiency. This counsels
 against ad hoc policymaking based  on a single ob-
 jective  such  as "energy" or "waste disposal" alone.
      •  The causes of our solid-waste-related prob-
lems have deep historical roots in the economic and
institutional structure.  EPA analysis suggests that the
nation's solid-waste-related problems are to  a great
extent manifestations or results of a high-technology
economy geared to an imperfect  set of market incen-
tives  which,  partly  due to past  public  policy, have
tended  to  undervalue material conservation  and  re-
 source  recovery activities.   In addition, social and
political institutions for waste management and en-
vironmental protection have, until very recently, been
 either entirely lacking or focused only on very narrow
and symptomatic aspects of the broader  problems
related  to our uses of materials and energy.  As a re-
 sult,  both our technologies and our social  institu-
tions for dealing with these issues  are underdeveloped.
      This  view of  causes  suggests that there is  no
 quick or easy  solution.  On the  contrary, it  implies
the need for  a broadly based,  long-term national
 strategy that considers  various possibilities for alter-
ing market incentive structures as well as efforts at
technological development and institutional improve-
ments.
      • A great many technical approaches are avail-
able; all have particular advantages and disadvantages.
EPA finds that no single technical approach (such as
mixed-waste  processing, source separation,  or waste
reduction)  can "solve"  the  solid  waste  problem;
a broad range of tools needs to be employed if signi-
ficant national progress is to be made. Regardless of
their  other  specific merits  or disadvantages,  certain
approaches are  more appropriately undertaken at a
national level, others at the State or local level. Some
are more appropriate for small communities or rural
areas, and some are best adapted for  particular local
markets.
      These conclusions imply that national and local
strategy formulation should continue to be based on
evaluation of a diversity of approaches, including a
full range of resource recovery technologies and waste
reduction possibilities. They also argue strongly for
preserving flexibility in  decision-making  at both the
municipal and  private enterprise levels. They do not
imply that resource recovery and waste reduction will
or should replace  land  disposal in cases where land

-------
10
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
disposal  can be  a least  cost  and environmentally
acceptable option.
      • Past and present economic incentives and in-
stitutions  have often been biased against resource re-
covery and waste reduction.  The economic feasibility
of increased resource recovery  and waste reduction
activities  is dependent upon  current costs of com-
petitive waste disposal services (landfilling) and prices
of competitive fossil fuel and  virgin raw materials.
However,  these competitive sectors appear to have
been  subsidized and favored in a number of ways by
market failures and  government practices, to the
detriment of resource recovery  and resource conser-
vation.    As discussed above,  the  list  of factors
includes:
      Undercosting and noncharging for waste man-
      agement services in local level accounting sys-
      tems
      Employing    environmentally   unsatisfactory,
      low-cost solid waste disposal methods
      Historical failure to control pollution and other
      environmental degradation in mining, farming,
      processing,   and manufacturing  sectors, thus
      underpricing the true  costs of virgin materials
      and fossil fuels
      Various forms  of Federal subsidies, including
      percentage  depletion  for minerals extraction
      and capital gains treatment of wood harvesting,
      extensive R&D, and  other promotion of the
      virgin raw materials sector
      The general  inability  of our market structure
      to reflect the total  life-cycle costs of material
      use  back to  points of product design and pur-
      chasing decisions, thus failing to correctly price
      various raw material and product options

The  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  of
1976  addresses the land disposal question, and our
general air and water pollution control regulations
have begun to require some  measure of cost internal-
ization of pollution control on the part  of industry.
However,  much remains to  be done regarding  these
and  other market shortcomings and  public  sector
biases.   Restructuring market  disincentive  factors
should encourage resource recovery and waste reduc-
tion   across a  broad  national  front,  with  general
benefit for the economy as a whole.
                              There are also two broad philosophical proposi-
                         tions that EPA believes should form the basis for long-
                         term policy  formulation  in the field of national re-
                         source  recovery and  waste reduction policy.  These
                         relate to the appropriate  role for the Federal govern-
                         ment  and  the question  of economic  rationality:
                              • Many Federal activities in the resource re-
                         covery  and waste reduction field may be justifiable
                         in  the short run,  but can be minimized  in  the long
                         run.  In accordance with reliance on free markets and
                         decentralized  decision-making,    the long-run goal
                         should  be to minimize the direct participation of the
                         Federal government  in day-to-day resource recovery
                         and waste reduction decisions.   It would not be in-
                         consistent with the  principle of reliance on market
                         forces and local government  decisions, however,  for
                         the Federal  government  to work toward correcting
                         imperfections  in  market  pricing systems and modi-
                         fying  government-induced distortions judged to be
                         long-term causes of the problem.
                              A case can also be made for an active short-term
                         Federal role in  promoting technical  research and
                         development  in these fields  to  "catch  up"  after a
                         history of  past  neglect  and market imperfections.
                         Moreover, in many instances, total social benefits will
                         exceed the  private  industry or local government
                         benefits from particular  lines  of technological  de-
                         velopment.  Federal technical assistance and infor-
                         mation programs can be supported on similar grounds.
                         However, as the technologies and institutions develop
                         over time,  it  should be  possible to scale down or
                         phase out many of the supporting  Federal activities
                         now considered essential to a balanced short-term
                         strategy.

                              •  A national strategy  should reflect an eco-
                         nomic logic.   Resource recovery and waste reduction
                         strategies  should be consistent  with the Federal
                         government's broad  commitments  to  efficiency in
                         government  and  promotion of efficiency  in the
                         nation's overall economic system.   This  proposition
                         has a number of important implications.  For exam-
                         ple, it  tends to rule out  a "recovery for recovery's
                         sake" or an  "energy for  energy's sake" approach. It
                         also suggests that  technological feasibility alone is an
                         insufficient criterion for Federal action.
                              EPA recognizes that sound benefit-cost analysis
                         in  these fields can be extremely difficult due to the

-------
                                        BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES
                                                                                                            11
large number of system interrelationships and major
methodological problems in  assessing  the economic
benefits of natural  resource conservation and pollu-
tion abatement measures.  Nevertheless, sound policy
planning in  these fields requires increased applica-
tion of economic logic.
                 REFERENCES
l.
      U.S.
2.
      U.S.
3.
4.
      U.S.
5.
6.
7.
      Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of
         Solid Waste  Management Programs.   Re-
         source recovery and source reduction; first
         report to Congress. 3d ed. Environmental
         Protection Publication SW-118. Washington,
         U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  1974.
         61 p.
      Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of
         Solid Waste  Management Programs.   Re-
         source recovery   and   source  reduction;
         second report to Congress. Environmental
         Protection Publication SW-122. Washington,
         U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  1974.
         112 p.
      Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of
         Solid Waste  Management Programs.   Re-
         source recovery and waste reduction; third
         report to Congress. Environmental Protec-
         tion Publication SW-161.  Washington, U.S.
         Government  Printing Office,  1975.  96 p.
Brunner, D.  Gas and leachate from land disposal of
         municipal  solid  waste;  summary  report.
         Cincinnati,  U.S. Environmental Protection.
         Agency,  Solid  and Hazardous Waste  Re-
         search Division.  (In preparation; to be dis-
         tributed by National Technical Information
         Service, Springfield, Va.)
Miller, D. W., F. A. DeLuca, and T. L. Tessier. Ground
        1 water contamination in the Northeast States.
         Washington,  U.S. Government Printing Of-
         fice, 1974.  325 p.
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of
         Water  Supply and Office of Solid Waste.
         Waste disposal practices and their effects on
         ground water; the report to Congress.  1977.
         511 p.
Shuster, K. A.  Leachate damage  assessment; an ap-
         proach.  Environmental Protection Publica-
         tion  SW-172.  Washington, U.S. Environ-
         mental Protection Agency, 1976.   (In pre-
         paration.)
8.    Ziegler, R. C., et al. [Calspan Corporation]. Environ-
                mental impacts of virgin and recycled steel
                and aluminum.   Environmental Protection
                Publication  SW-117c.  U.S. Environmental
                Protection Agency, 1976.  125 p.  (Distri-
                buted  by National Technical Information
                Service,  Springfield, Va., as  PB-253 487.)

9.    Gordian Associates, Inc.  Environmental impacts of
                production of virgin and secondary paper,
                glass and rubber  products.  Environmental
                Protection Publication SW-128c.  U.S.  En-
                vironmental  Protection  Agency.  (In pre-
                paration; to be distributed by National Tech-
                nical Information Service, Springfield, Va.)

10.   Hunt, R. G., et al.  [Midwest Research Institute],  Re-
               source  and  environmental  profile analysis
               of nine beverage container alternatives; final
               report,   v. 1-2.   Environmental Protection
               Publication SW-91c.  Washington, U.S.  En-
               vironmental    Protection Agency,   1974.
                178 p.

11.   Brown, G. M., and B. Field.  Implications of alterna-
               tive measures  of  natural resource scarcity.
                Presented at  Annual Meeting, American Eco-
               nomic  Association,  Atlantic City, Sept. 18,
                1976.

12.   Mishan, E. J.  Criteria  for intergenerational welfare
                comparisons.  Presented at Annual Meeting,
                American Economic  Association, Atlantic
                City, Sept. 18,1976.

13.   Page, T.  An economic basis  for materials  policy-
                Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1976.

14.   U.S. Bureau of the Census.  Governmental finances in
                1972-73.  Series GF 73 No. 5. Washington,
                U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 1974.
                56 p.

15.   Cities and the nation's  disposal crisis.   Washington,
               National  League  of Cities  and  U.S. Con-
               ference of Mayors, Mar. 1973. 46 p.  Re-
               printed,  [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, June 1973.
16.   Booz-AUen and Hamilton, Inc.  An evaluation of the
                impact of discriminatory taxation on  the
                use of primary and secondary  raw materials.
                Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
                lOlc.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
                cy, 1975. 148 p.  (Distributed by National
               Technical Information Service, Springfield,
                Va., as PB-240 988.)

17.   Anderson, R. C., and R. D. Spiegelman  [Environmen-
               tal  Law   Institute].  The  impact of  the
                Federal  tax  code  on  resource  recovery.
                U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.
                1977.  (Distributed  by National Technical
               Information  Service,  Springfield,  Va.  as
               PB-264 886.)

-------
12
                                  RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
18.   Kneese, A.  V.  Natural resources  policy  1975-85.
               Albuquerque,  University  of New  Mexico,
               Department of Economics, Apr. 1976.  p.
               20.  (Program in resource economics. Work-
               ing paper series no. 1.)
19.   Moshman  Associates,  Inc.  Transportation rates and
               costs for selected  virgin and secondary com-
               modities.   U.S. Environmental Protection
               Agency,  1974.   234 p.   (Distributed by
               National  Technical   Information  Service,
               Springfield, Va., as PB-233 871.)
20.   Smith, F.  A.  Technical possibilities for solid waste
               reduction and  resource recovery; prospects
               to 1985.  Washington, U.S. Environmental
               Protection  Agency, Office of Solid  Waste
               Management Programs, Dec. 10,1974. 18 p.
               (Unpublished paper.)
21.   Wester man, R. R.  The management of waste passen-
               ger car tires.  Ph.D. Dissertation, University
               of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1974. 239 p.
22.   Summary of the  environmental and economic impacts
               of national returnable beverage container
               legislation.   (Unpublished research by  the
               Resource  Recovery Div., EPA, 1976.)

23.   Aluminum  statistical review 1975.  New York, Alu-
               minum Association, Inc., [1976]. 64 p.

-------
                                         Chapter 2
               POST-CONSUMER  SOLID WASTE  GENERATION
                   AND RESOURCE  RECOVERY ESTIMATES
     Beginning with the second report to Congress in
this series (March 1974),  EPA initiated a new series
of municipal solid waste estimates based on a material
flows estimating procedure.1'2 The estimates cover
the post-consumer residential and commercial waste
sources and types that comprise the major portion of
typical municipal collections. Excluded are data on
mining,  agricultural,  industrial processing,  and de-
molition and construction wastes, sewage sludge, and
junked autos and other obsolete equipment wastes,
which are not covered in this report.
     This chapter  provides an update on the EPA
estimates  of national  post-consumer solid  waste
generation and recycling through 1975, together with
selected historical comparisons covering the  period
from 1971 and projected future trends. The tabular
formats, definitions of waste categories, and estimat-
ing methods are essentially the same as those em-
ployed in the last two annual reports in this series
and as described in detail in other publications.3'5
     The  material  flows  approach utilizes detailed
U.S. government and industry trade association statis-
tics on material consumption and product shipments
to household and commercial sectors in deriving solid
waste generation estimates. While this approach yields
reasonably accurate estimates for most of the manu-
factured goods components of the waste stream, the
food and yard waste estimates can be considered only
rough approximations. In addition, the estimates pre-
sented are indicative only of U.S. nationwide totals
or averages. Since there is considerable regional varia-
tion  in  waste generation,  collection,  and recycling
rates, these nationwide figures should not be used for
local planning purposes.

       DISPOSAL ESTIMATES FOR 1975
            AND RECENT TRENDS
     Estimates of U.S. post-consumer solid  wastes
disposed of in 1975, by material types and by major
product-source categories, are presented in Table 1.
"Net waste disposed of " includes collected and un-
collected wastes disposed of by  incineration, land-
filling,  dumping, and littering, after accounting for
amounts of materials recycled.
     As in  other recent years, paper, glass, and
metals  dominated the waste material categories, and
the containers and packaging group dominated the
major  product-source  categories. Overall,  nonfood
products accounted for about 61 percent of the "as-
generated"  weight of total  net  waste,  with food
wastes  and yard wastes (grass clippings, leaves, etc.)
also contributing very substantial portions.
     The figures show a rather sharp decline in total
waste disposal of over 6 million tons, from 1973-74
highs  of about 135 million  tons to  just over 128
million tons in 1975 (Table  2). In per capita terms,
this represents  a decrease to 3.2 pounds  per per-
son per day in 1975 from 3.5 pounds in 1973.
     The  general economic  recession beginning in
mid-1974 and continuing well into 1975 thus appears
to have had a significant influence on  the short-term
growth  trend of solid waste  quantities. Overall, the
nonfood-product component  of the waste stream de-
creased by almost 7 million tons during 1974-75, and
this was only partly offset by estimated increases in
food and yard wastes.  The principal  impact  of the
economic slowdown was reflected in paper and paper-
board  packaging, which accounts for most of the
estimated decrease.
     However, it should  be explained  that  some
portion-perhaps a significant portion-of the appar-
ent decrease in 1975 packaging and other paper and
board waste is attributable to shortcomings  in the
estimating procedure and data available rather than
to a real decrease in post-consumer waste.  The esti-
mating problem is due to abnormally large reductions
in converter  inventories, which was reflected  in the
extremely  large  production  cutbacks at paper and
board mills during the last quarter of 1974 and the
first half of 1975. Actual consumption of paper and
                                                 13

-------
14
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION











0
Q
W
en
S

J2
g
g
H +-
S ">
TABLE 1
L AND COMMERCIAL POST-CONSUMER 1
ERIAL AND PRODUCT CATEGORIES, 19/
S s
w >•
S PQ
c/3
§
S
w
w
E-i
<
i
&
Q
E
s
I










3

^













Product category
millions of tons, as-generated wet weight)*!
&

















§"

1 I
1 « la

3-2
*

8
TJ -H- 3
0) -M (H
•M J3 O
2 o» A
o> 'S
£ ? M
9* S o 2
§ **

CO
(D u
S «o
a
"8 1
o -o
(JU O
o.
Major
, Furniture,' Clothing,
household
furnishings footwear
appliances
V] tjl
£3 &
1 -s
! S.
o "•

«" w
S - S
5. J3 .S
§. o a
& 8 a
5 ,0. «
a B



to
&
1
M



O; to oo cq NO N cq
«f O ON to' CN] FH IO
tO i-H

ON LO NO ON •* CN] ON
^ tO CN ^* tO C1) ^
^f i-H r-t


q^^^P?r^>qNqoo
ON O ON 00 O O tO CS FH tO
(N) FH v^— •

**• r~, x-^
CS to FHCOON^* ^* tO FH ON
C~ 10 CS 6 0 O •*' to' CN1 ^i
tO FH FH FH ^_

tO p pCXFHCN] LONDON LO
00 FH «1< to O O ~* CN]' O O


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ii i i i a 5 3 '
• FH FH CO FH" fNl FH
*• 0 CS F£ 0^ 0^ 0 *• *• «

FH cs o; N-TP | r-; ^ FH oo



«? i I I 1 1 1 1 1
gs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1






i &
S 6 r»5
39= 1
§ 1 s a
^ U 13 5 FH

tO ON
NO FH

LO rH
NO ON
CO FH


LO 00
o' r-'
NO rH


LO CO
L-. fNl

ON
CO '
i-H
00
1 CNJ
CS

to' '
CN

^ |



°9 1
ON '

a
i
s
1
1
a
1
H
3 «
£ 1
I
fNl tO NO O
CS NO FH o
00 FH O

NO ON O LO
LO O CN) 00
O CN CNl
FH FH

M CNJ in O
00 O FH C>
C~ CN O
rH

tO O ON CS
O NO rH 00
0 CS CS
FH rH

ON
00
i— 1
00
CS
CN)

i— 1
to'
to
CS

rH



CO
ON





1
1 J
III
MI p re
3 a> E *
^ i i
S 1
s "° j«r
1 S °
t* ^2
V « Q

1 s*
.H *H FH
-* "o -
5 0 o
S ""
"3 cd fv
+- sr^
n) w
5 o»JS
a (0 g
ft 2
"^ "(0
1 II
Q) £ O
.S 'So
• <4-( p O
S 'o" 5
|§ SI
* ." a> o C
(0 O tn O t-
5 'o e o
e | i | 2
S a. c € c
inklin Associates, Ltd., revised January 1977.
er accounting for recycled materials diverted 1
moisture content of material in its final use
Kid and yard categories, estimated at 26 perce
:erials in collection and storage, but no net ad
jf refuse. In Proceedings; 1970 National Inci
2 £ -g H a v
T3 Tg S .S o» 2
S -C 0 •S C a
™_ ffi C 3 O C
C" « TJ "3 l| 41

|F- 1 «- 3 .
Ill ^lf«9
1 » s o 1 6 ^
I a | j 1 * -
| jS .» 6 8 1 1
g -a ,2 o 1 r ^
0^ --J ^j Jj K Di *«
|"8.|«!-M
^ ^ * ^ a a |
Piiiii
° 3 § ™ .2 g |
2 yj n JQ *? ,_ s
c ** a -S.J3 « j
K 0) 
-------
               POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND RESOUCE RECOVERY ESTIMATES
                                               15
                                               TABLE 2
         POST-CONSUMER NET SOLID WASTE DISPOSED OF, BY MATERIAL AND PRODUCT CATEGORIES,
                                                1971-75*
                                 (As-generated wet weight, in millions of tons)
              Materials and products
                                          1971
                                                        1972
                                                                        1973
                                                                                     1974
                                                                                                    1975
Material composition:
Paper
Glass
Metal
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Total nonfood product waste
Food waste
Total product waste
Yard waste
Miscellaneous inorganics
Total
Product composition:
Newspapers, books, magazines
Containers and packaging
Major household appliances
Furniture and furnishings
Gothing and footwear
Other products
Total nonfood product waste
Food waste
Total product waste
Add: Yard and misc. organics
Total

39.1
12.0
11.8
(10.6)
( 0.8)
( 0.4)
4.2
3.3
1.8
4.6
76.9
22.0
98.9
24.1
1.8
124.8

10.3
41.7
2.1
3.2
1.2
18.4
76.9
22.0
98.9
25.9
124.8

42.5
12.7
12.1
(10.8)
( 0.9)
( 0.4)
4.7
3.4
1.8
4.7
82.0
22.2
104.2
24.5
1.8
130.5

10.9
45.1
2.1
3.3
1.2
19.5
82.0
22.2
104.2
26.3
130.5

44.2
13.2
12.4
(11.0)
( 1-0)
( 0.4)
5.0
3.6
1.9
4.9
85.3
22.4
107.7
25.0
1.9
134.6

11.3
46.8
2.1
3.4
1.3
20.4
85.3
22.4
107.7
26.9
134.6

43.4
12.9
13.0
(11.5)
( 1-0)
( 0.4)
4.5
4.1
2.1
4.8
84.8
22.6
107.4
25.5
1.9
134.8

11.5
45.4
2.1
3.3
1.3
21.1
84.8
22.6
107.4
27.4
134.8

37.2
13.3
12.2
(10.8)
( 0.9)
( 0.4)
4.4
3.3
2.1
4.9
77.5
22.8
100.3
26.0
1.9
128.2

9.8
41.7
2.3
3.4
1.3
18.9
77.5
22.8
100.3
27.9
128.2
      *Office of Solid Waste, Resource Recovery Division, and Franklin Associates, Ltd. Revised February 1977. Details may not
 add to totals due to rounding.
paperboard (and associated waste generation) did not
decrease to nearly the extent implied by the mill
production and shipments figures which constitute
the primary data for EPA's material flows estimates
of solid waste.  Unfortunately, there is insufficient in-
formation for making corrective  adjustments at this
time. Therefore,  users of the data for 1975 should
understand that the paper and board waste generation
figures, especially in the packaging  categories, are
considered to understate the true waste generation re-
sults for that year. By the same reasoning, the  1975
decreases in total waste and in the total container and
packaging category shown in Table 2 are also to some
extent overstated.
      Other selected packaging categories, including
steel, aluminum and plastics, also decreased and many
other nondurable product wastes were in a no-growth
situation during 1975. The decline in steel beverage
container consumption, however, is attributed largely
to a loss in markets to competing glass bottles and
aluminum  cans, both  of  which showed increases in
1975 compared to 1974.
      The actual decrease in product waste generation
for 1975 does not signal a general leveling off or long-
term  decline in  U.S. solid waste generation. As the
analysis of product category trends indicated, the
major tonnage decrease was concentrated  in paper
packaging,  and the behavior of these materials over

-------
16
                               RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
the years as a business cycle barometer is well known.
In fact, it is expected that the final data for 1976 will
show an equally dramatic rise in paper and paper-
board packaging, reflecting industrial recovery and in-
creased purchasing following the  low point of the
business recession during the first half of 1975.6 '7
     Although fuel prices have increased greatly in
the recent past, there is no indication that underlying
longer-term economic  growth  forces  have  changed
significantly since  the  1960's or early 1970's. Thus,
barring unexpected worldwide shortages of major raw
materials or major waste reduction policy actions by
Congress,  waste generation  rates should rebound in
1976 and 1977 to the rising trend of the early 1970's.
   RECOVERY OF MATERIALS AND ENERGY,
                     1971-75
      Ideally,  it  would  be useful  to  have detailed
statistical time-series data for material  and energy
recovery from post-consumer waste on a  material-by-
material,  grade-by-grade, product-by-product basis.
This  would enable tracing the flows  from specific
waste  sources and recovery techniques to specific
end-use markets. For the most  part, detailed data of
this type does not exist and  is not likely to become
available in the foreseeable future. The waste sources
are so numerous,  the recovery  and processing activi-
ties so diverse, and the  end-use markets so complex
that the data-gathering tasks  would pose formidable,
although not insoluble,  problems. EPA has, however,
made a start in  assembling existing government and
industry trade association statistics for  purposes of
developing some crude estimates of material recovery
from the post-consumer municipal waste  stream. This
section summarizes these estimates.

                Material Recovery
      Product-source and kind-of-material details for
1975  post-consumer waste are presented  in Tables 3
and  4, indicating  gross discards before  recycling,
quantities recycled, and  net waste residual after de-
ducting amounts recycled. As in Tables 1 and  2, net
disposal includes litter as well as collected and  uncol-
lected  waste destined for incineration, landfills, and
dumping. Since  the post-consumer  waste generation
and recycling definitions used here exclude  industrial
fabricating and converting waste sources and  a number
of special obsolete scrap sources (such  as demolition
debris  and junk  autos), the recycling estimates in
Tables 3 and 4 do not correspond closely to other
published recycling estimates. The latter,  such as
those published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the
U.S. Department  of Commerce, usually report much
larger quantities  of material recycled because they
include material recovered from some or all of these
other scrap sources.
      It is evident that overall recovery is not great-
about 8  million tons  per year, or 6 percent of gross
municipal discards. It is also obvious that wastepaper
recycling dominates the recovery statistics, comprising
about  88 percent of total  recovered tonnage  and
achieving a recovery rate of over  15 percent of gross
household  and commercial  wastepaper generation.
The only  other   material  currently  approaching a
significant  recovery rate is  aluminum  cans,  where
the amount recovered has increased rapidly over the
past 4 years as the result of aluminum can recycling
programs initiated by  the  aluminum  and brewery
industries.
      The depressing  influence of the recession on
1974-75 secondary materials markets caused material
recycling tonnages to decrease slightly during 1975
compared  with  1971-74 (Table  5).  In percentage
terms, the overall recycling rate with respect to gross
discards  decreased to 5.9 percent from 6.5 percent
the previous year.
      Table 6 provides a time profile of recycling for
1971-75 for  individual  materials consistent with
Table 4 material  categories. The recovery rates would
seem to be on a  slight upward trend if the recession
impact of 1975 were  discounted. The rates for alumi-
num, steel, and glass have all risen. It is quite likely
that the material recovery picture for steel will be
altered significantly over the next few years as some
of  the  larger  mixed-waste  processing  plants with
magnetic separation  units go  into  operation  (see
Chapter 5).
                 Energy Recovery
      Although energy recovery from mixed munici-
pal solid waste has not yet become  quantitatively
significant in the U.S. resource recovery picture, by
the end  of 1975, 13 energy recovery facilities were
operational (although not necessarily operating). Of
these, three (at St. Louis, Missouri; East Bridgewater,
Massachusetts;  and South Charleston,  West Virginia)
were pilot  or  demonstration facilities operated only

-------
        POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ESTIMATES

                                          TABLE 3
                  POST-CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATED
               AND AMOUNT RECYCLED, BY DETAILED PRODUCT CATEGORY, 1975*
                            (As-generated wet weight, in thousands of tons)
17
Material recycled

Product category

Durable goods:
Major appliances
Furniture, furnishings
Rubber tires
Miscellaneous durables
Nondurable goods, exc. food:
Newspapers
Books, magazines
Office paper
Tissue paper, inch towels
Paper plates, cups
Other nonpackaging paper
Clothing, footwear
Other misc. nondurables
Containers and packaging:
Glass containers:
Beer, soft -drink
Wine, liquor
Food and other
Steel cans:
Beer, soft -drink
Food
Other nonfood cans
Barrels, drums, pails, misc.
Aluminum:
Beer, soft-drinkt
Other cans
Aluminum foil
Paper, paper board:
Corrugated
Other paperboard
Paper packaging
Plastics:
Plastic containers
Other packaging
Wood packaging:
Other misc. packaging
Total nonfood product waste
Add: Food waste
Yard waste
Misc. inorganic wastes
Total
Gross
discards

14,740
2,430
3,370
1,790
7,150
24,140
8,850
3,075
5,210
2,235
485
1,045
1,250
1,990
46,550
12,520
6,345
1,790
4,385
5,525
1,340
3,195
760
230
770
510
25
235
23,135
12,520
5,470
5,145
2,635
420
2,215
1,800
165
85,430
22,785
26,010
1,900
136,125


Quantity
390
150
0
190
50
2,775
1,820
255
700
0
0
0
0
0
4,810
370
250
30
90
300
65
160
40
10
85
80
0
5
4,055
2,755
720
560
0
0
0
0
0
7,975
0
0
0
7,975


Percent
3
6
0
11
1
11
21
8
13
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
4
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
11
16
0
2
18
22
13
11
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
6
Net waste disposed of


Quantity
14,350
2,280
3,370
1,600
7,100
21,365
7,020
2,820
4,510
2,235
485
1,045
1,250
1,990
41,740
12,150
6,095
1,760
4,295
5,225
1,275
3,035
720
220
685
430
25
230
19,080
9,745
4,750
4,585
2,635
420
2,215
1,800
165
77,455
22,785
26,010
1,900
128,150

% of total
waste
11
2
3
1
5
17
5
2
4
2
_
1
1
2
33
10
5
1
3
4
1
2
1
-
1
	
	
-
15
7
4
4
2
	
2
1

61
18
20
1
100

% of nonfood
product waste
19
3
4
2
9
27
9
3
6
3
—
1
2
3
54
16
8
2
6
7
2
4
1
-
1
1
_
—
25
13
6
6
3
	
3
2

100
29
33
2
164
*Office of Solid Waste, Resource Recovery Division, and Franklin Associates, Ltd. Revised January 1977.
t Includes all-aluminum cans and aluminum ends from nonaluminum cans.

-------
18
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                  TABLE 4
                 POST-CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATED
                           AND AMOUNTS RECYCLED, BY TYPE OF MATERIAL, 1975*
                                    (In millions of tons, as-generated wet weight)
     Material
                                                 Material recycled
                                                 Net waste disposed of
                                    Gross
\>aic^v./j. y
Paper
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonferrous
Plastics
Rubber
Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other
iuav
-------
              POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ESTIMATES
                                                19
                                                TABLE 6
                TRENDS IN MATERIAL RECOVERY FROM POST-CONSUMER MUNICIPAL WASTE,
                                     1971-75, BY TYPE OF MATERIAL*
                                            (In thousands of tons)
Material recycled
Paper and paperboard
% of gross paper and board discards
Aluminum
% of gross aluminum discards
Ferrous metalsf
% of gross ferrous discards
Glass
% of gross glass discards
Rubber (including tires and other)
% of gross rubber discards
Total materials
% of gross nonfood product waste
% of total post-consumer waste
1971
7,495
15.9
20
2.4
140
1.3
221
1.8
257
8.9
8,133
9.5
6.1
1972
8,075
16.0
30
3.2
200
1.4
273
2.1
245
7.9
8,825
9.6
6.2
1973
8,730
16.5
35
3.4
300
2.4
306
2.3
219
6.8
9,590
10.1
6.7
1974
8,430
16.3
52
5.0
400
3.4
327
2.5
194
6.1
9,400
10.0
6.5
1975
6,830
15.5
87
8.7
500
4.4
368
2.7
189
6.9
7,975
9.3
5.9
      *Office of Solid Waste, Resource Recovery Division, and Franklin Associates, Ltd.  Revised February 1977.
      tThese estimates for ferrous metal recycling are highly inferential and preliminary. There are no regularly collected statis-
 tics on this category. EPA estimates are based in part on work by the Resource Technology Corporation for the American Iron and
 Steel Institute regarding magnetic separation facilities.
part time, and others, such as those at Ames, Iowa,
Siloam Springs, Arkansas, and Groveton, New Hamp-
shire, were either in the initial startup phase or are
very small units. Others, such as the Chicago (North-
west) and Harrisburg waterwall incinerators, did not
have  markets  for their  steam. Only a  few units
actually operated as on-line energy recovery units for
any significant portion of the year during 1975.
      Thus, even though comprehensive energy pro-
duction or sales data have not been gathered on these
facilities, it is not likely that the total waste processed
for useful energy recovery  by all these facilities
could have exceeded  300,000  tons  in 1975.  During
1976, some capacity additions have  occurred as well
as fuller capacity utilization at many of the earlier
facilities.  Nevertheless,  it is unlikely that  municipal
waste processed for energy recovery will  reach one
million tons per year before 1978 or  1979. Implemen-
tation of energy recovery  facilities  is discussed fur-
ther in Chapter 5.
         FUTURE WASTE PROJECTIONS
      EPA  has  not  revised  its long-term  baseline
future projections published in last year's Report to
Congress  (reproduced here  as Table 7). However,
these projections  should be reevaluated in the near
future.  New tools for performing projection analysis
of gross generation have been developed by EPA's
Office of Research and Development.8 Although not
yet  utilized  extensively,  computerized  projection
models,  utilizing  EPA's "SEAS" computer  system,
have much promise as a means of evaluating alterna-
tive future waste generation trend possibilities.
      In addition, there is increasing evidence that the
baseline projections, developed in  1973-74,9 tended
to overestimate the rate of increase in  resource  re-
covery, especially with respect to paper recycling and
the implementation of large-scale facilities for proc-
essing  mixed wastes.  The  main problem with the
projected  baseline rate  of  mixed-waste  processing
plants  is  not that fewer  cities than expected are

-------
20
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                   TABLE 7
           BASELINE ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS OF POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE GENERATION,
                             RESOURCE RECOVERY, AND DISPOSAL, 1971  TO 1990*
                                                   Estimated
                                    1971
               1973
                                                                                             Projected
1974
                                                                        1975
                                                  1980
                                   1985
1990
 Total gross discards:
    Million tons per year                133         144        144         136         175        201         225
    Pounds per person per day          3.52        3.75        3.70         3.40        4.28        4.67         5.00

 Less resources recovered:
    Million tons per year                  8           9          9           8          19          35          58
    Pounds per person per day          0.21        0.23        0.23         0.20        0.46        0.81         1.29
Equals net waste disposed of:
Million tons per year
Pounds per person per day

125
3.31

135
3.52

135
3.48

128
3.20

156
3.81

166
3.86

167
3.71
       *Office of Solid Waste, Resource Recovery Division. Updates for 1974 and 1975 by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
progressing with plans for implementation, but rather
that most plans are featuring  plants in the small-to-
medium size range (averaging  1,100 tons per day)
rather than the larger average sizes assumed in making
the baseline projection. Thus,  the  baseline resource
recovery  projection portrayed  in Table 7, although
still not impossible to achieve by 1985 or 1990, now
looks  more like  the  high side of  a broad range of
possibilities rather  than the likely  midpoint  projec-
tion.  The baseline  projections should thus be used
with caution. It should  also be remembered that they
were  developed under the assumption of an absence
of large-scale Federal policy intervention in the areas
of  waste  reduction, resource  recovery subsidies, or
other incentive measures.
      New EPA projection studies under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act will be undertaken
during 1977-78.



                   REFERENCES
1.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
               Waste Management Programs.  Resource re-
               covery and source reduction; second report
               to Congress. Environmental Protection Pub-
               lication SW-122. Washington, U.S.  Govern-
               ment Printing Office, 1974. 112 p.
2.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid
               Waste Management Programs.  Resource re-
               covery and waste reduction; third report to
                                         Congress. Environmental Protection Publi-
                                         cation  SW-161. Washington, U.S. Govern-
                                         ment Printing Office, 1975. 96 p.
                                Smith, F. L., Jr. A solid waste estimation procedure;
                                         material flows approach. Environmental Pro-
                                         tection Publication  SW-147. [Washington],
                                         U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, May
                                         1975. 56 p.
                                Smith, F. A., Comparative estimates of post-consumer
                                         solid waste. Environmental Protection Pub-
                                         lication SW-14 8. [Washington ], U.S. Environ-
                                         mental Protection Agency, May 1975. 18 p.
                                Smith, F.  A., Quantity and composition  of  post-
                                         consumer solid waste: material flow esti-
                                         mates for 1973 and baseline future projec-
                                         tions, Waste Age, 7(4): 2, 6-8, 10, Apr. 1976.
                                Paper  and  paperboard:  January—November  1976.
                                         American Paper Institute  Monthly Statis-
                                         tical Summary, 54(11): 1-12, Nov. 1976.
                                Statistical series. In Pulp, paper, and board; quarterly
                                         industry report. Washington,  U.S.  Depart-
                                         ment of  Commerce,  Bureau  of Domestic
                                         Commerce, Fall 1976. p. 24-25, 32.
                                International  Research and Technology Corporation.
                                         Forecasting the composition and weight of
                                         household solid wastes using input-output
                                         techniques;  final report. Washington, U.S.
                                         Environmental  Protection Agency,  1975.
                                         (In   preparation;  to  be  distributed  by
                                         National  Technical Information  Service,
                                         Springfield, Va.)
                                Franklin, W. E., et al. [Midwest Research Institute].
                                         Baseline forecasts of resource recovery, 1972
                                         to 1990: final report. Environmental Protec-
                                         tion Publication  SW-107c. U.S.  Environ-
                                         mental Protection  Agency, 1975.  386 p.
                                         (Distributed by National Technical Informa-
                                         tion Service,  Springfield,  Va., as  PB-245
                                         924.)

-------
                                           Chapter 3
                                     WASTE REDUCTION
   Reduction in the rate of waste generation has be-
come a basic goal of solid waste management. Lower
waste generation  would help reduce the need for
land disposal.  It would reduce, or slow the growth
of, costs for collection and  disposal. Lower waste
generation also means less material and energy used
in production and a lessening of the environmental
impacts that result from the entire cycle of resource
use, from extraction of raw materials to disposal of
wastes.
   Waste reduction was defined  in  the  Third Re-
port to Congress as prevention of waste at its source
by redesigning products or changing  the patterns of
production and consumption. Waste reduction can be
achieved by various means:
      •  The development and use of products  re-
        quiring less material per unit of product (for
        example,   smaller   automobiles,  thinner-
        walled containers)
      •  The development  and use of products with
        longer lifetimes, to  reduce discards and  re-
        placement needs (for example, longer-lived
        appliances, more durable tires)
      •  The substitution  of reusable products for
        single-use  "disposable" products, and an in-
        crease in the number of times that items are
        reused (for example, reusable plates and cut-
        lery, refillable beverage containers)
      •  A reduction in the  number of units of the
        product consumed per household per year
        (for example, fewer automobiles per family)
   All of these methods of waste  reduction are
either being studied or implemented  by government
agencies and the private sector. This  chapter should
not  be  viewed as a comprehensive  state-of-the-art
review of waste reduction but rather as a summary of
the more  significant recent  developments since the
Third Report to Congress. This summary includes re-
sults of newly  available studies; new and proposed
Federal legislation; and waste reduction measures at
Federal, State, and local government levels and in the
private sector.

     ACTIVITIES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
        Guidelines for Beverage Containers
   Section 209 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended in  1970 (Public Laws 89-272 and 91-512)
required the  Administrator of EPA to "recommend to
appropriate  agencies  and  publish  in the Federal
Register  guidelines  for  solid  waste  recovery,  col-
lection, separation, and disposal  systems  . .  . ."
Section 1008 of the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act  of 1976 (P.L.  94-580),  which further
amended the  Solid Waste  Disposal Act, continued
the Agency's guideline-writing authority. The Act and
Executive Order 11752 mandate that Federal agencies
comply with these guidelines on Federal facilities. In
addition, they  are  recommended  for adoption by
State and local governments and private agencies.
   Several guidelines have  now  been  issued,  in-
cluding the Guidelines for Beverage Containers, which
appeared in the Federal Register on September 21,
1976.1  These are intended to reduce beverage con-
tainer solid waste and litter, save waste collection and
disposal costs to the Federal government,  and  save
energy and materials.
   Under the guidelines, a refundable 5-cent deposit
will  be placed on all containers  for  beer  and  soft
drinks, including glass bottles which can be refilled
and all one-way glass bottles and cans. The deposit is
intended to  encourage the return of these containers
for refilling or recycling.
   All  Federal  agencies  must  report  to  EPA  by
December 1977 on how they will comply with the
guidelines. EPA is  now  working  with  agencies to
develop report forms.
   Individual facilities (or  groups of facilities)  do
not  have to implement the  guidelines if the cost is
                                                  21

-------
22
excessive. Also, if the deposit system does not result
in a reasonable rate of return of  containers,  the
system  does not  have  to  be  continued.  Federal
agencies that do not choose to install a deposit system
at a facility must submit a report to EPA giving details
of their decision. The report must contain technical
data, market studies, and policy considerations used
to make the decision.
   EPA  estimates  that  the  U.S.  Department  of
Defense (DOD) accounts for 90 to 95 percent of beer
and soft drink sales on Federal facilities: DOD, with
assistance from EPA, plans to test the guidelines at
10  military bases  chosen to represent the  total of
about 300 bases. The test will guide the DOD  decision
on  how to comply  with  the requirements of the
guidelines.

      Legislation Addressing Waste Reduction
   In October 1976,  the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act  (P.L.  94-580)  was  signed into law,
amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The  law con-
tains provisions for "resource conservation," which
is defined  in the law as  including "reduction of the
amounts of solid waste that are generated and reduc-
tion of overall resource consumption."  Specifically:
     •  The Act requires guidelines for solid waste
         management, which  is defined to include
         resource conservation.
     •  Twenty  percent of  the appropriation for
         general administration of the act  must be
         used to support  "Resource Recovery  and
         Conservation Panels "-technical assistance
         teams-to work with  State and  local govern-
         ments upon request.
      •  State plans to be developed and implemented
         under the act shall include consideration of
         appropriate resource conservation systems.
      •  State and  local  governments are eligible for
         financial  assistance to establish solid waste
         programs, which may include resource con-
         servation .
      •  A Resource Conservation Committee, repre-
         senting seven Federal agencies, is established
         to conduct a "full and complete investigation
         and study  of all  aspects of the economic,
         social, and environmental consequences of
         resource conservation." The study  is to be
         completed by October 1978.
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                             During Congressional debate of the bill, an amend-
                          ment  to require refundable deposits nationwide on
                          all beer and soft-drink containers was introduced on
                          the floor of the Senate. This amendment was defeated
                          by a vote of 60 to 26.
                            In the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L.
                          94-163),  Congress  has for the  first  time required
                          actions by the private  sector which will  result  in
                          significant reductions in the weight  of a product
                          often  considered as  a  solid waste: discarded auto-
                          mobiles. The law requires improvements in the average
                          fuel economy  of automobiles: the standard for the
                          1977 model year is  18.6 miles  per gallon, and the
                          standard rises each year. For the 1985  model year,
                          the  standard is  27.5 miles per gallon. The  many
                          changes that will take place to  meet these require-
                          ments will include  reductions in size  and  weight  of
                          cars. This  means less use of materials and energy  to
                          make new cars, and  less material wasted when cars
                          are discarded and not  recycled.
                            Other  pieces of legislation relating to  waste re-
                          duction were introduced into the 94th Congress but
                          not enacted:
                               (1)   Prohibition of the sale of one-way bever-
                                    age  containers on Federal lands (e.g., S.
                                    2833)
                               (2)   The development of Federal  packaging
                                    guidelines and model standards or regula-
                                    tions for possible adoption by  States
                                    (e.g., S. 1474)
                               (3)   Federal regulation of oversized and ex-
                                    cessive packaging (e.g., H.R. 11393)
                               (4)   The development of product reports and
                                    national product standards to reduce the
                                    use  of  energy  and  materials  in  short
                                    supply (e.g., S. 1744)
                               (5)   The requirement that products be labeled
                                    to show expected useful life or durability
                                    (e.g., H.R. 876 and H.R. 5540)

                              Recent EPA Research and Current Studies
                            Since publication  of the Third Report to  Con-
                          gress, final reports on  several studies sponsored by
                          EPA's Office of Solid Waste relating to waste reduc-
                          tion have been completed. They  provide information
                          that will assist the EPA and others in (1) examining
                          resource use and waste  generation associated  with

-------
                                           WASTE REDUCTION
                                                                                                       23
specific  products  and  product categories  and  (2)
identifying and evaluating alternative ways in which
waste could be reduced.
   Research Triangle Institute examined 477 con-
sumer products classified by the Department of Com-
merce and ranked them by  resource requirements
(e.g.,  energy, steel) and by  residuals (e.g., industrial
solid  wastes, water  discharges, post-consumer solid
wastes).2
   The study found  that passenger cars consistently
ranked among the highest for  material requirements:
metals, glass, rubber  and plastics. Food packaging re-
quires significant amounts of  steel, aluminum, glass,
and paper board.
   Of all consumer  purchases, direct spending  on
fuels and electricity  for transportation, heating, and
lighting resulted in the highest energy  consumption.
The manufacture and distribution of cars consumed
more  energy than any other product. The report con-
firms  that smaller, lighter cars result  in  significant
materials and energy conservation beyond the benefits
of reduced fuel consumption.
   The study also showed that meats, housing, and
women's and children's apparel were products with
high energy inputs. Products with high energy inputs
are generally associated with the largest quantities of
atmospheric emissions. Packaging  dominates post-
consumer wastes, with  beer and soft-drink containers
the most identifiable  packaging products.
   The  study  points out that these 477 consumer
products are interrelated. Actions that reduce spend-
ing on one product  may result in  reductions in  re-
source use and residuals associated with that product,
but another consequence may be increased spending
on another product  with equal or greater impact  on
resources and the environment.
   In  another  contract study, Ernst and  Ernst esti-
mated the  elasticities  of  demand for  consumer
products entering  the  solid waste stream.3  Calcula-
tions  were made of  each  product's elasticity of de-
mand (i.e., the  percentage  change  in quantity pur-
chased relative  to a  change in the  product's price),
cross-elasticities  (the percentage change in quantity
purchased due to a change in the price of a substitute
or complementary product),  and income elasticity
(the  percentage change  in quantity  purchased  in
response  to a change in real income). Accurate know-
ledge  of these  elasticities would  help  in  predicting
the effects of price changes (perhaps through higher
taxes for virgin  materials or  tax credits for recycled
materials) on the quantities  of products  consumed.
This information could be combined with the environ-
mental impact data for the same products (e.g., from
the study by Research Triangle Institute) to derive
the changes in environmental impacts likely to result
from changes in the prices of products. The elasticity
estimates also have much broader general applications
in evaluating the effects of government policies, mar-
ket  trends,  and proposed private industry pricing
changes.
   Resource  Planning  Associates  completed a study
of the implementation and enforcement of existing
Federal programs that directly regulate material usage
or product quality and characteristics.4 The effective-
ness of each regulatory scheme was assessed. The pro-
grams examined were  the Food Regulatory Program
(Food and  Drug Administration),  the  Meat  and
Poultry Inspection and Grading Programs  (U.S. De-
partment of  Agriculture), the Hazardous Substances
and Poison Prevention Packaging Programs (Consumer
Product Safety Commission), and the Wool Products
Labeling Program (Federal Trade Commission). These
programs  are not themselves intended to promote
waste reduction, but  knowledge of their  experience
in regulating consumer products will assist the EPA
and others to assess whether it is desirable or possible
to regulate products to reduce wastes.
   A  project carried out  within the Office of Solid
Waste examined  the  likely environmental and eco-
nomic impacts of a national system of deposits on all
beer and so ft-drink containers.  The results of the
study are presented in Chapter 6 of this report.

   The Midwest Research Institute is in the process
of completing a study of the environmental, health,
and economic aspects of five  milk container systems:
refillable glass bottles, refillable plastic  bottles, one-
way  plastic bottles, one-way paperboard cartons, and
one-way plastic pouches.5 The study attempts to dis-
play  the different impacts  of the  milk  container
systems for  the  same volume of milk: raw materials
use,  energy  use,  water use,  industrial solid  wastes,
airborne  emissions,   water   discharges,  and post-
consumer wastes. The study also considers health and
economic factors. The report is scheduled to be com-
pleted in the spring of 1977.

-------
24
                               RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
   The Midwest Research Institute is also conducting
a similar study comparing  disposable products with
their reusable counterparts:  paper towels and cloth
towels or sponges; paper napkins and cloth napkins;
plastic utensils and stainless steel utensils; single-use
diapers and cloth diapers; paper and plastic disposable
cups and plastic reusable  cups; single-use  and  re-
usable institutional bedding and linens.  The report
examines  raw materials use, energy use, water use,
industrial solid wastes, airborne emissions, water dis-
charges, and  post-consumer waste.  It also examines
sanitation issues relating to these products and sum-
marizes  economic  considerations.    The report  is
scheduled to be completed in the summer of 1977.
   The  Municipal  Environmental  Research  Labora-
tory, a part of EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment, is also sponsoring research on waste reduction.6
A 2-year  study at the University of  Oklahoma will
attempt  to  quantify  the   energy  savings  possible
through waste reduction: reductions  in energy used
to make products  that become waste and in energy
used for waste collection and disposal.

        .Research by Other Federal Agencies
   The   Federal    Energy   Administration  shares
EPA's interest in the likely effects of a nationwide
beverage container  deposit system. FEA contracted
with Research Triangle Institute7 to study the impacts
of a 5-cent  refundable deposit on all beer and soft-
drink containers:  glass bottles which  can be refilled
and one-way glass bottles  and cans. The study esti-
mated  the response of the total beverage industry,
including retailers, beverage  producers and  distri-
butors,  container  manufacturers, and producers of
basic  steel and aluminum. Three  major areas  were
examined: (1) changes in annual energy consumption;
(2) changes in capital  investment needs (in terms of
fixed  plant and equipment); (3) changes in labor re-
quirements (in terms of jobs and earnings). The report
first projects energy, capital, and labor requirements
of the beverage industry assuming no deposit  legis-
lation is passed; these baseline projections are then
compared to  projections of what  might  happen as
the result of a deposit law. Results are reported  for
1982: the report assumes that a law would be imple-
mented in the late 1970's and that by  1982 transitory
effects would have dissipated.
   A wide range of impacts could result, depending
on two key factors: the market share retained by cans
and the rates at which cans and bottles are returned.
For illustrative purposes, the report focuses on two
scenarios judged to be reasonable. A summary of the
net energy and economic impacts for these scenarios
is given in Table 8.
   The beverage production and distribution system
is very complex, and packaging  has a critical effect
on  the  system.   The  study took  only a limited
number of factors into account and cannot be ex-
pected to provide a comprehensive description of
impacts.   Nevertheless, the authors claim that the
material  presented can  provide  an important  input
to an informed decision-making process.
   The  General  Accounting  Office  is  conducting
its  own   internal  review  of the likely  impacts of
mandatory deposit legislation nationwide. This review
is planned for completion early in 1977.8
   The  National Science  Foundation  (NSF),  under
its program of Research Applied to National Needs,
solicited  proposals in January 1976 for  "Decision-
Related Research in the Field of Urban Technology."
Within the solid waste management category, waste
reduction was identified as a topic of high priority,
and two  studies addressing  this topic were  subse-
quently funded.
   The  first  study, conducted by  Franklin Associ-
ates, Ltd., will examine technical options for waste
reduction, with an  emphasis  on  packaging.   The
objective  of the  study is to provide government
officials with information that could be used in stim-
ulating  packaging technology  changes that  would
reduce wastes  without  resorting to regulation. The
second  NSF-funded  study,  by  the  University of
California at Los Angeles, is concerned with extension
of product life as a means of waste reduction. Product
lifetimes  are determined  not only by the physical
durability  "built in" by manufacturers but also by a
variety of other factors. The research seeks informa-
tion to assist government decision-makers  in develop-
ing cost-effective policies to influence these lifetimes.
Researchers will  survey consumers to obtain data
about their purchase and disposal of selected durable
products, ask manufacturers for information about
their actions affecting product lifetimes, and examine
the nature and extent of second-hand markets.

-------
                                                WASTE REDUCTION
                                                           25
                                                    TABLE 8

                ESTIMATES OF THE NET ENERGY AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MANDATORY DEPOSITS
                   BASED ON ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIOS OF THE BEVERAGE CONTAINER MARKET
                                      AND CONTAINER RETURN RATES, 1982*
                                  1982
                                 baseline
                                  value
         Scenario 1:
Cans produced stay at 1976
level. Growth in container
market since 1976 is completely
accounted for by refillable
bottles. Return rate for all
containers, 90 percent.t
       Scenario 2:
Cans produced drop to half
of 1976 level.  Refillable
bottles gain this loss plus
the growth in the market
since 1976. Return rate for
all containers, 80 percent.t
    Beverage consumption
    rate, 10^ ounces annually        1,893.5

    Container production
    rate, 10^ units annually            90.6
       Glass containers                18.0
          Refillable                   2.4
          Nonrefillable                15.7
       Cans                         72.5
          Steel                      42.0
          Aluminum                  30.5

    System energy require-
    ments, 1012 Btu annually         383

    System capital require-
    ments* 106 dollars             7,303

    System labor require-
    ments:*
       Net employment, 10^         369
          Jobs gained               —
          Jobs lost                 —
       Labor earnings, 10^
       dollars annually             4,080
           -  3.6
           - 33.6
           - 12.2
           +  3.4
           - 15.7
           - 21.3
           - 12.8
           -  8.4
           -168
           +824
           +118
            156
             38

           +879
         -   3.5
         -  48.6
         -   1.6
         +  14.1
         -  15.7
         -  47.0
         -  27.5
         -  19.5
                                           -144
                                         +2,006
         +117
          166
          49

         +936
          *Bingham,  T.  H., et al. [Research Triangle Institute]. Energy and economic impacts of mandatory deposits;
    executive summary. Washington, Federal Energy Administration, 1976. 15 p. (In preparation.)
          fValues in  this column represent deviations from baseline trends in first column.
          * Retailers,  distributors, beverage manufacturers, can and bottle manufacturers, steel and aluminum manufacturers.
   The  Office of Technology  Assessment  (OTA), a
Congressional  unit, is also interested in extending
product life. Its emphasis is on the use of technology
to reduce  wear and corrosion  and thereby improve
materials utilization.  In  January 1976,  OTA held a
workshop  at  which various aspects of "wear reduc-
tion" were examined, and in July 1976, it solicited
proposals to  perform an evaluation  of  technologies
to achieve materials conservation.
          STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES


                    Beverage Container Legislation
           Some State  and  local governments  continue to
         consider legislation  to require mandatory refunds or
         deposits for beverage containers. Most of the bills or
         ordinances introduced have resembled the existing law
         in Oregon, which requires all containers of beer, malt
         beverages,  and carbonated soft drinks to carry  a 5-

-------
 26
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
cent minimum refund value.* The Oregon law also
bans the sale of cans with flip-tops or pull-tabs. Ore-
gon also allows a reduced refund value of 2 cents on
"certified" or standard containers that can be refilled
by more than one manufacturer. This creates an in-
centive for use of standard refillable bottles.
   A  few  interesting  variations on  the legislation
have been suggested. For example, proposed legis-
lation in Ohio calls for a transition period of 3 years,
during which time a 5-cent tax  would  be levied on
one-way bottles  and  cans only.  The proceeds from
this tax  would be earmarked for the State's Energy
Resource Development  Agency to  use in supporting
resource recovery activities.
   Legislation  requiring  mandatory  refund  values
or deposits has been hotly contested, most vocally by
the beverage and beverage container industries.10'13
Most  State and  local  bills  or ordinances  affecting
beverage containers have been stalled in committees
during the past year, while supporters and opponents
have debated the likely environmental and economic
impacts of their passage.
   In November  1976,  voters  in four States decided
whether to adopt mandatory refunds or deposits for
beverage containers:

                            Percent of Voters
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
   Voters in Michigan and  Maine approved  deposits
for beverage containers, thus joining Oregon and Ver-
mont, which already have such laws, while voters in
Colorado and Massachusetts rejected deposits.
   Oregon. No change in the existing law is currently
contemplated,  although there  was some effort in
1975 to extend its coverage to wine bottles. This
effort has not been continued.
For deposits
33
57
49.6
64
Against deposits
67
43
50.4
36
      ^Technically, the Oregon law requires that  a refund
be given on all containers that are returned; it does not re-
quire that a deposit be collected when the beverages are sold.
Laws in some other States and localities (e.g., Vermont) do
explicitly require deposits.
                           Changes in the kinds of beverages sold and the
                         containers used have occurred since the refund system
                         started in  Oregon. At the Blitz-Winehard Company,
                         the only local brewery in the State, 90 percent of the
                         containers are refillable bottles and 10  percent are
                         cans. Before the law was passed, 50 percent of the
                         containers used by this company were cans, 20 per-
                         cent  one-way  bottles,  and  30  percent refillable
                         bottles.14  The number of nonlocal beers sold in Ore-
                         gon has decreased from 29 to 9  since the law was
                         passed.  Budweiser,  a  major  out-of-State brewery,
                         changed over to the "certified" or standard refillable
                         beer bottle for the Oregon market and found that its
                         bottles were being  bought by local  and regional
                         brewers rather than  collected and shipped back to
                         them in Los Angeles. Budweiser consequently raised
                         the deposit it charges its distributors and returns to
                         them have since increased.15 Pepsi-Cola,  which pre-
                         viously used a mix of containers that was 25 percent
                         cans, 65 percent refillable bottles, and 10 percent one-
                         way glass  bottles, has  now converted to refillable
                         bottles only.  They report a return rate ranging from
                         93 percent for 26-oz bottles to 97 percent for  16-oz
                         bottles.16  Coca-Cola, which  still sells drinks in  refill-
                         able glass bottles and one-way bottles and cans, re-
                         ports a return rate of 90-95 percent for bottles and an
                         80-85 percent return rate for cans.17
                           South Dakota. A law prohibiting the use of bever-
                         age  containers  that  are not "reusable"  or "biode-
                         gradable"  was passed in February 1974  and was to
                         take effect on July 1, 1976. The law has now been
                         changed to permit the use of containers that are "re-
                         cyclable"  (which presumably includes virtually all
                         bottles and  cans), and  the  effective  date has been
                         postponed until July 1, 1978.
                           Vermont.  Deposit  legislation has been in  effect
                         since  1973.  The  law  provides  for:   a  minimum
                         deposit of 5 cents on  all beer and soft-drink con-
                         tainers; a handling charge of 20 percent of the deposit
                         to be paid by the manufacturer or distributor to the
                         retailer; a  label on each container clearly  indicating
                         the amount of the deposit and the name of the State
                         in which the deposit  is valid; the ability to establish
                         (by any person)  a centralized refund facility away
                         from a retail store; and a penalty of  up to $1,000
                         for violation  of the law. A new law, passed in  1975,
                         has expanded the labeling requirements for one-way

-------
                                           WASTE REDUCTION
                                                                                                      27
beverage containers while excluding refillable bottles
from these  requirements. The  new law added bans
(effective January  1, 1977) on all one-way glass con-
tainers, detachable parts of metal cans, and on plastic
rings or similar non-biodegradable devices for holding
containers together.
   Complete data  on  the  effects of the Vermont
legislation  are  not yet  available, although  certain
trends have been  reported.18 According  to surveys
conducted  by the Vermont  State Highway Depart-
ment,  the  beverage  container  portion  of highway
litter decreased by about 67 percent  between  1973
and  1974 (a reduction of more than 8,500 littered
containers  per month).  Tax receipt data  indicate
that sales of beer declined by about 10 percent in the
first year of the law, although this may be due to the
general economic decline at that time rather than the
law. Sales have subsequently risen. Prices of beer and
soft  drinks  have risen since the law,  but  they have
risen throughout  New England and  the  nation. A
limited price survey  indicates  that  Vermont con-
sumers pay  the same or less for identical beverages in
identical containers  compared  with  consumers  in
neighboring States.19
   More  soft-drink bottlers  are now using  refill-
able  bottles exclusively  (e.g.,   Coca-Cola, both  in
Burlington  and in Barre).  Beer manufacturers also
seem to be shifting toward greater use of glass bottles
which can  be refilled.   The return rates have gen-
erally been in the 80 to 95 percent range for bottles.
   Several  soft-drink  distributors  and beer  whole-
salers  have  reported   increases  in  employment  to
handle and transport returnable bottles. No  significant
sales or employment decreases have been experienced
by container manufacturers, but Vermont is a rela-
tively small market.
   Washington,  D.C., Metropolitan Area. The Metro-
politan Council of Governments for the Washington,
D.C., area has adopted as policy the concept of man-
datory deposits on beverage containers and has de-
veloped a draft ordinance for its members' use. How-
ever, the policy  does not  become binding unless
each of the members adopts it  individually.  At this
time, Montgomery County, Maryland, has passed a
mandatory  deposit ordinance,  effective January  1,
1978.  Fairfax County, Virginia, on the other hand,
has passed an ordinance for which implementation is
 conditional on  passage  by  the  other jurisdictions.
 In  Prince  Georges County, Maryland,  the  County
 Council  indefinitely postponed a vote on a deposit
 law and a tax on one-way containers. The District of
 Columbia City Council has voted down a deposit ordi-
 nance. Neither the City of Alexandria nor Arlington
 County in Virginia have yet taken any formal action.
   In addition to passing a deposit ordinance, Mont-
 gomery County  passed a law, now in effect, requiring
 that the prices  of beverages in refillable bottles be
 posted minus the deposit.
   The County also passed a tax  on  one-way bever-
 age  containers  which  was  to  be  imposed  until
 deposits  took effect in January 1978. This tax was
 overturned  in the court on the grounds that the
 county has no right to impose sales taxes in Maryland.
 The County Council altered  the language of the tax
 law to avoid this problem, but the court again  ruled
 the law  unconstitutional. The County Council has
 appealed this judgment again, and the case is pending.
   Just  outside  the Washington,  D.C., metropolitan
 area,  a  mandatory refund ordinance was passed by
 Loudoun County, Virginia, but was challenged in the
 Virginia Circuit  Court. The judge found the law was
 unconstitutionally  vague and  was  pre-empted  by
 State alcoholic beverage (beer) laws. The County has
 filed an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, and
 this appeal is pending.
   A similar mandatory deposit ordinance was passed
 5 years ago by Howard County, Maryland; it was to
 be implemented  in 1976. The County Council recon-
 sidered this law, and  passed  a new deposit law with
 more  specific  bans  on   one-way   glass  bottles,
 detachable metal tops of cans, and plastic holders for
 cans.  Opponents and  proponents of these laws have
 both  submitted  petitions for  referendum votes in
 1978 on portions of this new law.
   If both  petitions are upheld, they have the effect
of submitting the  new  deposit  law  to the voters
 while letting the original deposit law go into effect.
 There may be  a  conflict in this, and the County
 executive may choose not to enforce the original de-
posit law until the referendum vote in 1978.
   Berkeley, California. A mandatory deposit  ordi-
nance was  passed by the   Berkeley  City  Council
in October 1975  but has subsequently been  chal-
lenged in court by a group representing local liquor

-------
28
                               RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
and grocery interests. The suit alleges that the law is
unconstitutional,  that  it was  adopted without due
process, that it is pre-empted by State law, and that
it would infringe on the right to engage in commerce
without undue restrictions. A preliminary injunction
has been  issued,  which  will prevent  the law from
being implemented until the case is decided, probably
in early 1977.

        Other Waste Reduction Activities
   So far,  most  of  the attention  given  by States
and localities to waste reduction has been focused on
beverage container legislation.  However, interest has
developed in other approaches to waste reduction,
particularly in the States of Minnesota and California.
   Minnesota.  In May 1973  the Minnesota Legis-
lature  passed  a  comprehensive  law  (Minn.  Stat.
116F.06 (1974)) to reduce the amount and types of
material which enter the solid waste  stream and to
encourage the reuse and recycling of materials. Since
packaging  represents a  large part  of municipal solid
waste,  the   Minnesota  Pollution Control  Agency
(MFCA) was specifically given authority to review
new  or revised packages except when such changes
involve only color, size, shape, or printing.
   Any  person, including the packaging user,  may
submit the package to MPCA for review. With certain
exceptions, the MPCA staff has 120 days to approve
or prohibit it. Unless MPCA acts within the 120-day
time period to prohibit the package under review, it
may not thereafter  do so.  If the MPCA  staff deter-
mines the package  should be prohibited because it
constitutes a solid waste problem or because it is in-
consistent with State environmental policies, a public
hearing must be held. An MPCA prohibition is subject
to review  by the Minnesota Environmental Quality
Council. Finally, any MPCA prohibition of a package,
in order to  stay  in  effect, must be reaffirmed and
extended by a State law after a period of time.
   Following public hearings,  meetings with indus-
trial  representatives, and both legislative and legal
reviews, the MPCA  promulgated "Regulations for
Packaging  Review" (Minn.  Reg. SR-1  through SR-6)
on December 31, 1974. The  regulations set defini-
tions; set criteria to evaluate new or revised packages;
specified the types of samples and information needed
by the agency to evaluate packages; established a pro-
cedure for the review; and established exemptions for
some new or revised  packages. On May  29, 1975, a
group of industries filed suit alleging that the MPCA
had exceeded its  statutory authority in issuing the
regulations, and that  the regulations were vague and
burdensome, that they  were unconstitutional,  and
that they imposed an unreasonable burden on inter-
state and foreign commerce. A temporary injunction
restraining the MPCA from enforcing the regulations
was granted on July 14,  1975. Petition for a perma-
nent invalidation of the  statute and regulations was
given a court hearing in  May  1976. Both sides then
prepared post-trial briefs  and submitted them in July
1976.  In a December 1976 decision, the law and the
regulations were  upheld by the court.
   California.  The Nejedly, Z'Berg, Dills Solid Waste
Management and  Resource  Recovery  Act  passed
by  the California  Legislature  in  1972 required the
newly established State Solid  Waste Management
Board to  investigate "changes  in  current product
characteristics, and production and packaging prac-
tices, which would reduce the amount of solid waste
generated at its source."  In January 1975, the Board
established a Source Reduction and Packaging Policy
Committee and  assigned to  it the task of preparing
a background  report and recommending methods to
reduce  solid  waste  generation.   The   Committee
included representatives  from industry, government,
and citizen and environmental groups. The committee
sent its findings to  the  board in March  1976. The
report  contains information  about the  nature of
waste  reduction, its objectives, methods of achieve-
ment, and a review of the likely impacts  of a variety
of measures, including product regulations, minimum
warranty requirements, mandatory refunds on bever-
age  containers,  taxes on  packaging,  and  disposal
charges.20 The committee unanimously endorsed the
support  of voluntary waste  reduction efforts,  but
were unable to  reach unanimity  on other measures.
The board has accepted the report and has called for
its  wide distribution; a  public hearing may be held.
        OTHER BEVERAGE CONTAINER
            DEPOSIT EXPERIMENTS
   The Yosemite  Park  and Curry Company  (sole
concessionaire for Yosemite National Park), in colla-
boration with EPA  and the National Park Service,
conducted a pilot  test of the Guidelines for Beverage
Containers1 within the  National Park from May 17,

-------
                                          WASTE REDUCTION
                                               29
1976,  until September  17,  1976.  All beer and soft
drinks sold on park grounds were  sold in containers
which carried a minimum 5-cent refundable deposit.
The deposit  was  charged  at all  retail outlets and
vending  machines  throughout the park.  The con-
tainers carried a special mark, and deposits were re-
deemed at retail  outlets and the  existing  recycling
centers. A public information campaign made use of
signs and announcements in the park newspaper, the
Yosemite Guide.
   This test  was  successful  and  the system is being
continued at the park. The return rate was 69 percent
throughout  the summer.  About  25  tons  of glass,
aluminum, and bimetal containers were recycled. This
is more than four times the amount of materials re-
cycled during the  previous  9-month  voluntary re-
cycling program. Park officials feel beverage container
litter declined. Sales did not decline as a result of the
deposits. The park concessionaire  profited  from the
deposit system during the  test: the revenues from re-
cycling the bottles and cans, which exceeded the low
additional out-of-pocket costs, plus about  $16,000
of unredeemed deposits provided the concessionaire
with a cash surplus for other environmental programs
in the park. The park and the concessionaire received
favorable publicity for conducting the test.
   In 1975, the senate  of Cornell University voted
a 1-year trial of mandatory deposits for soft drinks in
two areas of the  campus.  The 5-cent deposit can be
refunded at several points throughout the campus. At
the same  time, the price  of all  beverages sold else-
where on campus was raised by 5 cents. The proceeds
were to be used to offset the costs of operating the
deposit system.
   In  its  First  Quarter  Report  on  the   trial  in
February  1976, the Cornell  Department of Dining
Services  cited a  number  of problems, including:
insects at the storage areas for  returned containers
and an increased  need for insecticide spraying; not
enough storage space for both full and empty con-
tainers; increased costs for labor and transport of con-
tainers; decreased sales.21
   The senate  executive  committee  then  author-
ized a group of students, faculty, and administrators
to study the situation.  In  the report,  the  majority
pointed out:22
     • The program was poorly  publicized.
      • Plans did not provide adequately for bottle
        redemption.
      • Lower sales probably resulted from the in-
        crease in prices  for  all beverages sold on
        campus; one bottler charged more per ounce
        for soda in refillable bottles than for canned
        soda.
      • The program apparently had  a  favorable
        environmental impact. Container consump-
        tion was lower, saving energy and materials.
        Few containers were littered.
      • Consumers favored the deposit system  by
        3tol.
   Despite  a minority report  which repeated some
of the continuing problems cited by the Department
of Dining Services, the senate of Cornell voted to con-
tinue the  program through  October 1976  and then
reassess the program. The results of this review were
generally encouraging, and the senate voted to make
the program permanent.
   A  number of  other schools in New York State
have  instituted or  experimented with  deposits  on
beverage containers.  These include Wells  College,
Syracuse University, State University of New York
at Binghamton, SUNY at Albany, and Colgate Uni-
versity.
23
         EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES IN
             THE PRIVATE SECTOR
             Newsprint Conservation
   In the paper industry, as in many other indus-
tries, the rising cost of materials has led to increased
efforts to find ways of reducing the material require-
ments  of products.  The  American  Paper Institute
recently  reported that newsprint  can  be produced
with a 5-percent weight  reduction; the product has
proved satisfactory in performance.24
   In a related newsprint conservation  effort, many
newspapers  have made,  or  are planning to make,
a change from their  traditional eight-column format
to a new format of  six columns for news and  nine
columns  for advertising. The change reduces an 88-
page paper in the old format to 84 pages in the new,
without  reducing content; this represents a yearly
saving  in newsprint of about 5 percent. Some of the
newspapers  changing their format  include the Los
Angeles  Times,  Washington  Post, New York Times,

-------
30
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
and others in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati,
Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Memphis, Phila-
delphia, Phoenix,  Pittsburgh, and  Wilmington.25'26

           Automobile Weight Reduction
   The  fuel  consumption of  an automobile is very
dependent on  its weight.  In 1975, for example,  the
Datsun  B210 with a weight  of about 2,250 pounds
achieved 27 miles per  gallon in EPA's test of city
driving; in contrast, a typical U.S. automobile with a
weight of 4,500 pounds achieved only  12 miles  per
gallon under the  same conditions.   The largest U.S.
automobile with  a weight of 5,500 pounds had an
even  higher gas consumption.  This comparison sug-
gests  that each 100 pounds added to an automobile's
weight  increases the amount of gas  consumed in an
average year's  driving (10,000 miles) by about 15-17
gallons.27
   To improve  gas mileage,  as  mandated  by  the
Energy Policy  and Conservation Act, U.S. automobile
manufacturers are attempting to reduce the weight of
their  products. For the 1977 model year,  General
Motors has  reduced  the  length of  its traditionally
large  standard-size vehicles by an  average  of 1  foot
and has decreased the average weight by 700 pounds.
The engines in many models are smaller; for example,
the 500-cubic-inch Cadillac engine has now been re-
placed  by a standard 425-cubic-inch engine. Lighter
materials  are  being  used   wherever  possible;  for
example, General  Motors has reduced  the weight of
many of  its  larger vehicles  by substituting lighter
wheels and tires, as well as smaller fuel tanks. Chrysler
has achieved  a weight reduction in the  Plymouth by
using new high-strength steel frame members, lighter
tires, thinner  glass,  more aluminum in transmission
cases,  and more plastic  in air   conditioners.  The
trend in  sales appears to be  toward the intermediate
or mid-size vehicles. Ford has redesigned its Thunder-
bird, which in recent years has been standard-size, to
an intermediate size. General Motors is expected to
introduce a new range of smaller intermediate vehicles
next  year.28  These changes will  obviously  have an
impact not only on  fuel economy,  but also on the
amount of waste generated when the automobiles are
ultimately scrapped.
                                           REFERENCES

                           1.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste
                                        management  guidelines for  beverage con-
                                        tainers.  Federal  Register, 41(184):41202-
                                        41205, Sept. 21,  1976.
                           2.   Bingham, T. H., et al.  [Research Triangle Institute].
                                        An analysis of the materials and natural
                                        resource requirements  and residuals genera-
                                        tion of personal consumption expenditure
                                        items; final report. Washington, U.S. Envir-
                                        onmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
                                        Waste  Management Programs,  1976.  (In
                                        preparation.)
                           3.   Ernst & Ernst.  An investigation of consumer demand
                                        elasticities.  U.S. Environmental Protection i
                                        Agency.  3 v. (In preparation; to be dis-
                                        tributed by National Technical Information
                                        Service, Springfield, Va.)
                           4.   Resource Planning Associates.   Implementation  and
                                        enforcement of Federal consumer product
                                        regulatory programs; final report.  Washing-
                                        ton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                        Office  of   Solid  Waste  Management
                                        Programs, 1974. (In preparation.)
                           5.   Welch,  R., et  al.   [Midwest  Research  Institute].
                                        Resource and environmental profile analysis
                                        of five milk container systems, with selected
                                        health and economic  considerations. U.S.
                                        Environmental Protection  Agency,  1976.
                                        2 v.  (In preparation;  to be distributed by
                                        National  Technical Information  Service,
                                        Springfield, Va.)
                           6.   Schwartz, W. A., C. L. Stumpf, and  D.  M. Weber,
                                       comps.  Summaries of active extramural
                                        research  tasks of the Municipal  Environ-
                                        mental  Research  Laboratory—1975. Cin-
                                        cinnati,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                                        Agency, Office of Research and  Develop-
                                        ment, June 1976. 254 p.
                           7.   Bingham, T. H., et al. [Research Triangle Institute].
                                        Energy and economic impacts of mandatory
                                        deposits; executive summary. Washington,
                                        Federal Energy Administration, 1976. 15  p.
                                        (In preparation.)
                           8.   Personal communication. L. White,  General Account-
                                        ing Office, to W.  D.  Conn, University of
                                        California,  Oct.  1976.
                           9.   Personal  communication.  W.  Franklin,  Franklin
                                        Associates,  Ltd., to W. D. Conn, University
                                        of California, Oct. 1976.
                         10.   Mitchell, J. G. Keeping America bottled (and canned).
                                        Audubon, 78(2): 106-113, Mar. 1976.
                         11.   Selby, E., and M. Selby. Can this law stop the trashing
                                        of America? Reader's Digest, 108(647):69-
                                        73, Mar. 1976.
                         12.   Selby,  E., and  M. Selby,  The lobby that battles the
                                        bottle bills. Reader's Digest,  108(649):237-
                                        238, 241-242, 245, May 1976.
                         13.   Brandt, R. J. Summary report:  Dade County Bottle
                                        Ordinance. Miami, Florida International
                                        University, FAU-FIU Joint  Center for En-
                                        vironmental  and  Urban Problems, Feb.
                                        1975. 35 p.

-------
                                                WASTE REDUCTION
                                                     31
14.   Personal  communication.  B.  Wessinger,  President,
               Blitz-Weinhard Company, to J. H. Skinner
               and  N. Humber,  Office  of Solid  Waste
               Management Programs, Jan. 1976.
15.   Personal  communication.  C. Maletis  III,  Columbia
               Distributors,  to J.  H.  Skinner and N.
               Humber, Office of  Solid Waste Management
               Programs, Jan. 1976.
16.   Personal communication.  F. Gist,  Controller, Pepsi-
               Cola of Portland, to  J. H. Skinner and N.
               Humber, Office of  Solid Waste Management
               Programs, Jan. 1976.
17.   Personal  communication.  W.  Trebilcock, General
               Manager Coca-Cola of Portland, to  J. H.
               Skinner and  N. Humber, Office of  Solid
               Waste Management  Programs, Jan. 1976.
18.   Loube, M. Beverage containers: the Vermont experi-
               ence. Environmental Protection Publication
               SW-139. [Washington],  U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1975. 16 p.
19.   [Skinner, J. H.]  EPA objects to misleading advertising
               on the Massachusetts bottle bill. [Washing-
               ton],    U.S.   Environmental   Protection
               Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Oct. 4, 1976.
               7 p. (Unpublished report.)

20.   Conn, W. D., ed.  Proposed policies for waste reduction
               in California; a report prepared for the State
               Solid  Waste  Management  Board  by  the
               Source  Reduction  and  Packaging Policy
               Committee.  [Sacramento],  California State
               Solid Waste Management Board, 1976. 88 p.
21.   Cornell  University,  Department  of Dining Services.
               First quarter report to the University Senate
               on   SA-346  non-returnable/non-refillable
               container  prohibition act.  Ithaca, Cornell
               University Senate, [Feb. 19, 1976].  7 p.
               (Unpublished report.)
22.   Report of  Bottle Bill Study  Group. Ithaca, Cornell
               University Senate, 1976.  5 p. (Unpublished
               report.)
23.   Personal  communication.  P.  S. Hudson,  New York
               Public  Interest  Research Group,  Inc., to
               N. Getnick,  Office of Solid Waste Manage-
               ment Programs, July 1976.
24.   Personal  communication.  C.  R.  Calkins, American
               Paper Institute, to W. D. Conn,  University
               of California, Apr. 1976.
25.   Post shifts to new format. Washington Post, 90(242):
               3, Aug. 3, 1976.
26.   The  Times  alters its column format for news and ads.
               The  New  York Times,  125(43,326):30,
               Sept. 7,1976.
27.   Pierce, J. R. The fuel consumption  of automobiles.
               Scientific  American,   232(l):34-44,  Jan.
               1975.
28.   Hood, P. C.  Less for the  dollar. National Observer,
               15(40):9,0ct.2, 1976.

-------
                                          Chapter 4
           SOURCE SEPARATION  FOR  MATERIALS RECOVERY
               INTRODUCTION
     Source  separation is defined as the  setting
aside of  recyclable waste materials at their point
of generation for segregated collection and transport
to specialized  waste  processing  sites or final manu-
facturing markets. Transportation can be provided
either by the waste generator, by city  collection
vehicles,  by private haulers and  scrap dealers, or by
voluntary recycling or service organizations.
     To  one degree or another, a wide variety of
waste products from  households  and commercial
establishments are presently recycled in this manner,
including glass and metal containers, automobile tires,
large household appliances, and  waste lubricating oil
from auto crankcases.  However, of the roughly 9
million tons of materials currently recycled per year
from these sources, over 90 percent is comprised of
various   types  of  wastepaper  and  paperboard
(Chapter  2).
     Based  on current practices, it has been esti-
mated that source separation recycling is likely to
increase to about  15 million tons by 1985 in the
absence  of Federal incentive programs.1 The supply
potential for  materials  recovery  through source sep-
aration is far  greater, however. EPA estimates that
source  separation techniques  could conceivably be
used to  recover as much as 50 million tons of mate-
rials by  1985. For most materials the principal con-
straint  is insufficient industrial  demand. The addi-
tional 35 million tons would equal about one-fourth
of the nonfood product materials entering the solid
waste stream in 1985  and consist mostly of paper
(primarily waste news,  corrugated, white ledger, and
computer papers),  glass, metal cans, tire rubber, and
household appliances.
     In  order to  be economically viable, increased
recycling levels will require both expanded industrial
markets  for the recovered materials and improved
techniques for segregation, collection, and processing.
This chapter focuses on  recent technology and market
developments and Federal efforts since the Third Re-
port to Congress.

SEPARATE COLLECTION OF OLD NEWSPRINT
          AND OTHER WASTEPAPER
     On the subject of paper, EPA's  Third Report
to Congress focused on the source separation of old
newspapers  through  municipal  separate  collection.
It was reported that the number of known municipal
programs for  separate curbside  collection  of  used
newspapers had grown from  2  in  1968  to 134 in
1974.
     The report suggested that the success of muni-
cipal  curbside  newspaper  collection .programs de-
pended heavily on: the availability of markets within
a reasonable  distance, active  publicity programs to
encourage citizen cooperation and participation, care-
ful  planning, and "antiscavenger" ordinances to pre-
vent anyone other than the municipal collection crew
or private contract hauler from picking up the news-
papers placed at the curb.
     The Third Report also noted that  the previously
encouraging economic picture which had developed
for separate newspaper collection and for the separate
collection of corrugated containers from supermarkets
and other commercial and industrial sources had been
adversely affected  by the recession which began in
1974.
     More recent data confirm the recession's impact
(see graphs).  No. 1 waste news prices fell from a high
of $38 to $60 per  ton in the first half of 1974, to $5
to  $25 per ton a few months later. Similarly, waste
corrugated  prices dropped from their  1973-74 high
of $46 to $60 per  ton to $8 to $25 per ton in 1975.
The recession also adversely affected white ledger and
mixed-paper prices. As indicated  in Chapter 2 (Table
6), total papermill use  of all wastepaper types re-
covered from post-consumer sources fell by more than
20 percent from 8.7 to 6.8 million tons  between 1973
and 1975.
                                                  32

-------
                                 SOURCE SEPARATION FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY
33
                       NO. 1 NEWS
     50
               1970
                               1971
                                              1972
                                                               1973
                                                                               1974
                                                                                               1975
                                                                                                               1976
    100
     50
                             NO. 1 MIXED WASTEPAPER
O
a.
in
CC
                                      ' \  I   I   I  I   I  I  I   I  II   I  I  I  I
                                        •      1O-M      •      1QT3      •     1
               1970
                               1971
                                               1972
                                                               1973
                                                                              1974
                                                                                               1975
                                                                                                              1976
    150
    100
     50
                       SORTED WHITE LEDGER
           1  I   I  I  I
                                                                                             I  I   I
     50
               1970            1971
                     WASTE CORRUGATED
                                               1972
                                                               1973
                                                                              1974
                                                                                               1975
                                                                                                               1976
               1970
                               1971
                                               1972
                                                               1973
                                                                               1974
                                                                                               1975
                                                                                                                1976
         Market prices for wastepaper were subject to extreme fluctuations during the 1973-76 period. Plotted on the graphs are
  weekly price quotes appearing in Official Board Markets for four important wastepaper grades since 1970. The price range pre-
  sented for each grade reflects the spread of the high weekly quoted prices  among four representative market areas: New York,
  Chicago, Los Angeles, and the South (sic). (Prepared by SCS Engineers and EPA staff.)

-------
34
   RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
      The depressed market for wastepaper was the
direct result of the recession's severe impact on indus-
tries which use products manufactured from recycled
paper, such as the  construction, packaging, publish-
ing, and other industries. The year 1976 has brought
an upward trend in wastepaper markets,  as the graphs
indicate. Consequently, there are  indications of re-
newed interest in source separation of old news and
corrugated.
      While precise figures are not available, there is
little doubt that the recession adversely affected some
existing  municipal wastepaper  collection  programs
and  may have discouraged the initiation of  new
programs. However, EPA's best information is that
municipal programs that  were based on  long-term
purchasing  contracts  survived  the  recession.  This
underscores the importance of long-term contracts
for municipalities  planning separate collection  of
newspapers or other materials.

   MULTIMATERIAL SEPARATE COLLECTION
            Marblehead and Somerville
      Assisted  with modest EPA  grants, two com-
munities  in  Massachusetts-Somerville  and  Marble-
head-initiated programs during the  past year  to
demonstrate  the extent to which glass, cans, and
paper can be economically recovered  from the muni-
cipal  solid waste stream via carefully  planned house-
hold source separation programs.
      Marblehead is an affluent suburban community
with a relatively long  history of recycling activities.
Somerville is a densely populated urban community
with no previous experience in recycling. The follow-
ing data indicate some  characteristics of  the two com-
munities:
                        Marblehead   Somerville
   Population
   Land area

   Average annual
    income
   Average education
   Recycling history
23,000
4.5 sq.
miles
$13,000
90,000
4 sq. miles

$10,000
College
3 years
High school
   None
      In  Somerville, residents are asked to separate
their wastes into three categories:
     •  All clean paper.
     •  All glass and cans, together in one container.
     •  All remaining  mixed wastes, which will not
        be recycled.

      In the Marblehead program the glass-can frac-
tion is segregated into two levels, (1) clear glass and
cans and (2) brown and green glass and cans. One day
each week  the paper, glass, and cans are set out at the
curbside  for  collection in a special  bucket-loading
truck with separate compartments for the paper and
the glass-cans mixture(s). In Somerville, the truck has
two compartments; in Marblehead, three. The re-
maining mixed wastes destined for disposal are picked
up by a conventional packer truck.
      The source-separated materials are taken direct-
ly to the purchaser in Marblehead; in Somerville they
are taken to a municipal collection center, from which
they are periodically hauled away by the buyer. The
mixed glass and cans are mechanically separated into
ferrous, aluminum, and glass fractions by  the pur-
chaser at  a  processing facility. The wastepaper is
shipped directly to users.
      The two  programs are  designed to achieve re-
source recovery with a minimum of collection costs
and a maximum of citizen participation. Local ordi-
nances require source separation. In addition, aggres-
sive public education programs are being conducted
to heighten public awareness  of the programs and of
resource and environmental problems generally, and
to  make  recycling a  habit.   A full report on the
Somerville-Marblehead  public awareness program has
been published by EPA.2
      Both communities obtained favorable contracts
for sale of the materials through competitive bidding.
The  contracts  specify guaranteed  minimum floor
prices (Table 9), with escalator clauses tied to current
published market prices.  In return, the communities
assure the  contractor a stable supply of materials de-
livered in a form which can be readily processed into
marketable raw materials.
      Both cities pay  private haulers to collect and
dispose of unrecycled wastes.  Marblehead pays $ 18.95
a ton and Somerville  $14.50 a ton for disposal ser-
vices (exclusive of collection). Each ton of wastes re-
cycled is thus a ton that does not have to be disposed
of  at a cost  of $18.95 or $14.50 a ton. With paper,

-------
                               SOURCE SEPARATION FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY
                                               35
  glass, and cans constituting approximately 50 percent
  of the residential waste  stream,  source separation
  and recycling  clearly offer both  communities signi-
  ficant potential savings in disposal costs.
       Somerville began its program on December  1,
  1975; Marblehead on January 19, 1976.  Preliminary
  results are encouraging. In Marblehead, revenue from
  the sales of recovered resources and the savings from
  reduced waste disposal costs have been -consistently
  producing a net  savings of approximately $3,000 a
  month,  despite  slightly  increased collection costs
  (Table 10). Somerville has also been realizing savings,
  although  these have  fluctuated somewhat  thus far
  (Table 11).
       Marblehead,  which  previously  operated  a
  monthly separate collection recycling program, is re-
  covering some 200 tons of paper, glass, and metal
each month, or about 25 percent of the total solid
waste collected from its 23,000 residents (Table 12).
Somerville is recovering about 230 tons each month,
or about 8 percent of the total solid waste collected
from its 90,000 residents (Table 13).

      EPA analysis  of similar  programs  elsewhere
indicates that citizen participation  in source separa-
tion programs rises slowly over time, given a continu-
ing public education program. EPA plans to evaluate
the progress of the Marblehead  and Somerville de-
monstrations, including the technical and  economic
results, throughout the 3-year grant periods. Findings
will be reported  so  other  communities can better
assess the potential of source separation and the appli-
cability of the Marblehead and Somerville systems to
their own areas.
                                                  TABLE 9
                                          PRODUCT SELLING PRICES,
                                  MARBLEHEAD AND SOMERVILLE PROJECTS
Marblehead
Material
collected
Paper
Glass
Cans
Guaranteed
floor price
$5
12
10
Actual prices
(1/76 to 10/76)
$12 to $27
12
10 to 16
Somerville
Guaranteed
floor price
$2
10
5
Actual prices
(12/75to 10/76)
$6 to $21
10
5 to 14
                                                 TABLE 10
                                    MARBLEHEAD PROGRAM ECONOMICS,
                                         JANUARY-SEPTEMBER 1976

Month

January (12-31)
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Revenues
from
sales
$1,870
2,560
3,790
3,500
3,400
3,730
3,280
4,340
3,360
Diverted
disposal
savings
$2,990
3,390
3,680
3,640
3,390
3,850
3,350
3,850
3,580
Incremental
collection
costs*
$2,930
3,570
4,450
4,470
3,850
4,240
4,040
4,240
4,050

Net
savings
$1,930
2,380
3,020
2,670
2,940
3,340
2,590
3,950
2,890
     ^Includes labor costs as well as operation, maintenance, and capital amortization for the compartmentalized trucks and all
other equipment added as a result of the source separation program.

-------
36
 RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

                  TABLE 11
      SOMERVILLE PROGRAM ECONOMICS,
DECEMBER 1975 AND JANUARY-SEPTEMBER 1976

Month

December (1-14)*
January (12-31)*
February
March
April
May
June
July*
August
September
Revenues
from
sales
$1,240
720
2,080
3,890
3,350
3,600
4,200
1,460
4,270
3,180
Diverted
disposal
savings
$2,670
1,460
2,890
3,260
3,350
3,530
4,290
1,480
3,570
3,350
Incremental
collection
costs
$7,280
3,570
5,290
6,930
6,500
6,200
6,790
2,950
6,495
6,205
Net
savings
(costs)
$(3,270)
(1,390)
(320)
220
200
930
1,700
(10)
1,340
325
     *Strikes and snowstorms prevented recyclables collection for 2 weeks in each of these months.


                                                TABLE 12
                           QUANTITY OF MATERIALS RECOVERED IN MARBLEHEAD,
                                        JANUARY-SEPTEMBER 1976
                                                  (Tons)
Recovered materials

Month

January (12-31)
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September

Total residential
waste

475
560
690
720
795
890
755
880
730

Paper

80
80
90
90
95
105
85
105
90

Cans and
glass

75
95
100
100
85
100
100
95
95

Total

155
175
190
190
180
205
185
200
185
Percent of
residential
waste*
33
32
28
27
23
23
23
23
24
      *Though amounts recovered have increased somewhat since the program began, sharp increases in the total waste stream
 during summer months have resulted in a decline in the percentage recycled.
                Other EPA Grants
      EPA is  also assisting two  other  separate col-
lection programs with small implementation  grants,
which were awarded in July 1976.
      A grant to Stanislaus County, California, will
help  the  county increase  public participation in an
existing recycling program operated by a nonprofit
corporation which  provides  free curbside  pickup,
once  a week,  of  bottles,  cans,  and  newspapers.
Objectives include  developing collection techniques
for  apartment  complexes, improving  existing col-
lection routes,  identifying additional markets, and
                           promoting source separation to  increase the volume
                           of recovered materials.
                                San Luis Obispo County, California, has re-
                           ceived  EPA  funding to help  implement a source
                           separation program in  the city of San Luis Obispo.
                           Later, the program will be applied county-wide. The
                           county is some 200 miles from secondary materials
                           markets,  and the  program  will  help determine the
                           feasibility of source separation systems in rural areas
                           distant from markets.  The  demonstration will also
                           help evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a system using
                           a private  hauler.

-------
                               SOURCE SEPARATION FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY
                                               37
                                                TABLE 13
                           QUANTITY OF MATERIALS RECOVERED IN SOMERVILLE,
                              DECEMBER 1975 AND JANUARY-SEPTEMBER 1976
                                                  (Tons)
                                                                   Recovered materials

Month
December*
January*
February
March
April
May
June
July*
August
September

Total residential
waste
1,850
1,120
2,430
2,890
3,105
3,260
3,340
1,295
2,975
3,085

Paper
130
60
120
145
145
150
160
50
135
125

Cans and
glass
50
40
75
75
80
90
130
50
110
105

Total
180
100
195
220
225
240
290
100
240
230
Percent of
residential
waste
10
9
8
8
7
7
9
8
8
7
       *Strikes and snowstorms prevented recyclables collection for 2 weeks in each of these months.
       tAmounts recovered have increased somewhat since the program began, but because the total waste stream increased sharply
 during summer months, the percentage recycled has remained nearly constant.
        Constraints on Multimaterial Programs
      The success of  multimaterial separation pro-
grams such as those at Marblehead and Somerville is
based in part on the limited demands on householders
in terms of separating and storing the  recyclables.
By combining glass and cans, it is felt that many more
householders can be motivated to participate, and
tonnages recovered can be significantly increased.  At
the present time, however, only one company in New
England has installed the relatively simple screening
and  crushing equipment necessary  to process these
segregated materials into their individual components.
The  lack of this intermediate processing capacity in
other areas of the country may limit implementation.
As an alternative, communities may opt to perform
their own processing and ship directly to industrial
users of the materials.
      While the compartmentalized  vehicle in use in
Marblehead and Somerville appears to function well,
more work is needed in adapting vehicles for separate
collection.

     MULTIMATERIAL RECOVERY THROUGH
             RECYCLING CENTERS
      Recycling centers have been in existence at least
since 1968. Thousands have been established across
the country for varying periods of time.  In rural and
other areas where solid wastes are not collected, re-
cycling centers make possible the recovery of mate-
rials which would otherwise be lost.

            Nottingham, New Hampshire
      In the small town of Nottingham, New Hamp-
shire, source separation and recycling have become a
way of life for the 1,200 residents, replacing open
dump burning.
      By town ordinance, Nottingham residents are
required to separate their trash by category:  news-
paper, corrugated and clean mixed paper, glass, metal,
and rubbish. Residents take their wastes to the town
recycling center or hire a private collector to do so.
At  the center,  glass is manually sorted by color and
then crushed. Aluminum and ferrous cans are  mag-
netically  separated  and then  crushed. Newspaper,
corrugated, and flat paper are  baled. The recovered
materials  are  then shipped  to buyers. Rubbish  is
burned in an environmentally approved incinerator
and the ash put in a landfill.
     A survey of Nottingham residents revealed that
80  percent of those using the system supported it.3
Only 25 percent  cited difficulties with home separa-
tion, and half of those still favored the system.
     The Nottingham system is recovering about 50
percent of the waste delivered to the disposal facility.

-------
38
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
The  initial   investment  by  the  community was
$33,295. Although initial reports have been optimistic
concerning costs and benefits, EPA has not yet eval-
uated the results of this project. If it proves economi-
cally viable, the Nottingham  system could  be quite
significant for the future of recycling in rural com-
munities.
                    EPA Grants
     EPA recently awarded implementation grants to
assist  recycling center programs in two other com-
munities.
     A grant to Duluth, Minnesota, will help the city
establish 12  neighborhood  collection  stations  in
shopping centers, from which  the source separated
materials will be transferred to an existing community
recycling  center. There,  physically  and  mentally
handicapped persons are employed to process paper,
metal, and glass for sale to secondary materials users.
      A grant to  Nez Perce County, Idaho, will help
expand and  improve  three recycling programs already
in operation  into a  county-wide system based  on
source separation and satellite collection of paper,
glass, and cans.
          OFFICE PAPER SEPARATION
      Last  year's  Report  to Congress  noted that
separation of high-grade office paper was  the most
significant new development in source separation and
was growing rapidly. At that time EPA estimated that
some 300 U.S. companies had started  programs to
separate high-grade  wastepaper generated  in their
office buildings. Termed "white ledger" in the waste-
paper trade, this category includes  letterhead, dry
copy paper, business forms, stationery, typing paper,
tablet  sheets, and computer  tab cards and  printout
paper.
      One paper recycling company recently reported
that in 1976,450 customer organizations were parti-
cipating in  its desk-top office  paper collection pro-
gram, 60 percent  more than in  1975.4 This company
is now collecting some 10,000 tons of high-grade
paper a year, 72 percent from private businesses, the
remainder from State and Federal office buildings.
The firm forecasts its tonnage will increase 60 percent
this year.
      Several other paper  companies, both  large and
small,  are  developing similar  programs with their
                         customers, and although no hard figures are available,
                         the total number of office paper separation programs
                         may now be well over 500.
                              The most effective system in use is the desk-top
                         program, in  which office employees place all high-
                         grade white  wastepaper in trays or holders on their
                         desks. When the small desk-top container is filled, the
                         employee  empties it  into a larger container  nearby.
                         The larger containers are emptied periodically, and
                         the paper is  taken to a central storage or baling area
                         in  the building, from which it  is periodically trans-
                         ported by the buyer. Computer tab cards are usually
                         boxed at the computer center in the office building.

                              The economics of office paper separation pro-
                         grams vary depending upon the size of the office
                         building, the volume  of  high-grade paper collected,
                         and the structure of the building and its facilities.
                              EPA studies of six buildings have provided data
                         on the composition of solid waste from office build-
                         ings. Waste from the  EPA headquarters office (Table
                         14) was  typical  of  general-purpose office buildings
                         studied.   White  ledger  wastepaper and computer
                         papers represent over 50 percent of the waste stream.
                         In banks  and  insurance companies, these categories
                         made up over 75 percent of all waste,

                                            TABLE 14
                               COMPOSITION OF EPA HEADQUARTERS
                                          OFFICE WASTE
Type of waste
Paper:
White ledger
Computer tab cards
Computer printout
Colored ledger
Newsprint
Corrugated
Books/cardboard files
Other
Garbage
Metals
Glass
Textiles
Plastics
Wood
Other
Total
Lb/day

1,392
25
367
113
432
193
154
309
113
52
125
4
34
16
131
3,460
Percent

40.2
0.7
10.6
3.3
12.5
5.6
4.5
8.9
3.3
1.5
3.6
0.1
1.0
0.5
3.8
100.1

-------
                            SOURCE SEPARATION FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY
                                               39
     A recent EPA  contract  study  of 12 private
office paper separation programs reached these con-
clusions:5

     •     Source  separation  of  office paper  can
           divert substantial portions of office build-
           ing solid wastes from disposal. Amounts
           diverted for recycling averaged 34 percent
           by  weight in the  12 programs studied;
           one building's solid waste load destined
           for disposal  was   reduced  78  percent
           (Table 15).
     •     Source separation of wastepaper is practi-
           cable  and economically sound  in  office
           buildings. Overall, net solid waste manage-
           ment costs were reduced an average of 12
           percent (Table 16).
     •     Cost-effectiveness is highest  in programs
           source-separating white high-grade paper
           exclusively.
     •     Startup  costs are not excessive but gen-
           erally require some expenditures for initial
           publicity and education, equipment, and
           to a lesser extent, labor.
     •     Employees respond favorably. Voluntary
           participation  in   the   programs  studied
           averaged  80 percent; in some programs,
           it was as high as 95 percent.
     •     Publicity and education are essential at
           the outset and thereafter to encourage
           participation  and to minimize  contami-
           nation of the paper to be recycled.

     EPA analysis of desk-top source separation pro-
grams at several Federal facilities confirms the effec-
tiveness  of this method. For example:
     The National  Bureau of  Standards facility in
Boulder, Colorado, with  1,400 employees, began its
program in 1974. The facility generates about 25 tons
of waste each  month. Of that total, 7.8 tons of high-
grade paper are being recovered each month, or about
32 percent. The government  is receiving about $60
per ton for the paper.
     EPA  headquarters  in Washington, D.C., with
2,750 employees, began  its program  in 1975. The
headquarters generates some 38 tons  of waste each
month.  Of that total,  15 tons of high-grade paper are
being recovered each month, or about 40 percent.
The government is currently receiving $70 per ton for
the paper, or $12,600 a year.
      Analysis of desk-top source separation programs
in operation indicates  that  programs of  this type
should  reduce  solid waste  management  costs  an
average of 21 percent, reduce waste volume an average
of 39 percent, and achieve a 90 percent participation
rate, with minimum incremental labor costs to collect
the  source-separated paper.  Contamination  levels
averaged 3 percent in the case studies and so were well
within the 5 percent range allowed by manufacturers.

      In  sum, it appears  that office  separation of
wastepaper  for  recycling is  increasing as  private
companies,  universities,  government agencies at  all
levels, and other institutions which generate signifi-
cant amounts of wastepaper learn that it makes sense
economically and environmentally, it is a sound busi-
ness practice, and  it generates good public  relations.
Increasing  demand  for  high-grade  wastepaper and
increasing costs  of solid  waste disposal point to a
healthy outlook for this segment of the  paper  re-
cycling industry.

     ALUMINUM INDUSTRY RECOVERY OF
     SOURCE-SEPARATED ALUMINUM CANS
      According  to the Aluminum Association, a rec-
ord 3.9 billion all-aluminum cans were returned for
recycling in  1975-approximately one out of four
cans sold; this was 70 percent more than in 1974.6
The 87,000 tons of cans amounted to 7.8 percent of
the estimated total of 1.1 million tons of "old scrap"
aluminum recycled from all sources in 1975. Most
of the aluminum  was  from junked  transportation
equipment (including autos) and  various demolition
wastes.
      The industry opened its first can  collection
center in 1967; there are now approximately 1,300
centers. The industry attributes the growth in alumi-
num can recycling to one fundamental motive: profit.
The industry currently pays $300 a ton for aluminum
cans and  is  buying all  the cans it can obtain. A
major reason is the industry's desire to reduce energy
costs: recycling used aluminum requires less than 5
percent of the energy needed to produce aluminum
from ore.

-------
40
                   RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

                                     TABLE 15
  PERCENT OF TOTAL WASTE DIVERTED FROM DISPOSAL AS RESULT OF SOURCE
SEPARATION, BY BUILDING TYPE, METHOD OF SEPARATION, AND PAPER GRADE*
Building
type/number
Bank/insurance:
1
2
3
4
Average
General office.
5
6
7
8
9
Average

Multipurpose
10
11
12
Average


Overall average
Percent diverted
from disposal

73
19
78
70
60

29
42
17
28
17
~27~

7
9
18
11


34
Method/
building number
Desk top-
3
5
W
Average
Dual basket'
7
8
11
Average
Central container'
1
2
4
6
9
12
Average


Overall average
Percent diverted
from disposal

78
29
7
38

17
28
9
HT

73
19
70
42
17
18
40


34
Paper grade/
building number
White only:*
3
5
10
Average
White, colored:*
2
6
12
Average
White, colored, mixed:
1
4
Average
Mixed only
7
8
9
11
Average
Overall average
Percent diverted
from disposal

78
29
7
38

19
42
18
~26~
§
73
70
72

17
28
17
9
18
34
               ^Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies and multiple independent variables.
               * Computer tab cards, printout, and ledger.
               * Ledger.
                §Multigrade.
                                                     TABLE 16
                        IMPACT OF SOURCE SEPARATION ON OVERALL OFFICE BUILDING
                           SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS, BY TYPE OF BUILDING*
Solid waste manage-
ment cost ($/ton)

Building type/
number
Bank/insurance:
1
2
3
4
Average change
General office'
5
6
7
8
9
Average change
Multipurpose'
10
11
12
Average change
Overall average
change
Prior to
source
separation

34
61
92
53
-

107
315
74
412
77
-

47
75
134
-


After
source
separation

23
64
60
38
-

80
294
67
419
70
-

43
80
132
-



Net
effect

-32
+ 5
-35
-28
-22

-25
- 7
- 9
+ 2
- 9
-10

- 8
+ 7
- 1
- 1
-12

Incremental cost factors (% change )

= Collection*

+ 1
+23
+12
+46
+21

+ 2
+ 1
0
+ 6
+ 5
+ 2

+ 4
+12
+ 8
+ 8
+10


+ Disposal

- 7
- 6
0
-15
- 7

- 5
- 4
0
- 2
-12
- 4

0
0
0
0
- 4


+ Revenue

-26
-12
-47
-59
-36

-22
- 4
- 9
- 2
- 2
- 8

-12
- 5
- 9
- 9
-18

               ^Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies and multiple independent variables.
               Change as a percent of total solid waste management cost (per ton) prior to implementation of source separation.
               "Collection" encompasses equipment and/or labor to store, collect, and/or process source-separated paper.

-------
                              SOURCE SEPARATION FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY
                                                          41
              FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

        EPA Guidelines on Source Separation
      On April 23, 1976, EPA issued guidelines for
 the source separation of residential, commercial, and
 institutional  solid wastes, under the authority  of
 Section 209(a) of the Solid  Waste Disposal Act, as
 amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.7
      The guidelines  are mandatory for Federal agen-
 cies which  generate  economically recoverable paper
 wastes; they also serve as recommended or suggested
 practices for State, interstate, and local governments,
 as  well  as private organizations desiring to increase
 resource recovery.
      The guidelines  require source separation and re-
 cycling of high-grade paper in Federal office buildings
 employing 100 or more people, recycling of news-
 papers from  Federal  facilities (such as military instal-
 lations) housing 500 or more families, and recycling
 of  corrugated containers from Federal facilities gener-
 ating 10 or more tons per month.
      High-Grade Office Paper.  The major impact of
 the guidelines will be to increase recycling of high-
 grade office wastepaper. The guidelines became effec-
 tive as of May 24, 1976, and should begin to produce
 results in about 1  year. When fully implemented, the
 guidelines will return to the paper industry for reuse
 an  estimated  220,000 tons of high-grade paper fiber
          each year.
                Estimated savings to  the  Federal government
          will be $7.4 million a year-$2 million a year at the
          2,291 owned and 346 leased office buildings managed
          by the General Services Administration, $2.5 million
          a year at Department of Defense office facilities, and
          $2.9 million a  year at other Federal office facilities.
                The guidelines  provide methods, procedures,
          and techniques for establishing paper separation pro-
          grams. They are based on the desk-top system already
          proven at  more  than 450  private and government
          office facilities. Table 17 lists Federal  facilities cur-
          rently using the desk-top system.

                Waste Corrugated.   The guidelines for recovery
          of waste corrugated containers will apply primarily to
          military commissaries, which generate some 218,500
          tons of corrugated waste a year and which now spend
          about $6.12 million a year for collection and disposal
          of the waste. An estimated 95,000 tons of corrugated
          are expected  to be  recycled each year.  Estimated
          savings to the government will be approximately
          $1.38 million per year.

                Waste Newspaper.   The guidelines for recovery
          of waste newsprint will apply primarily to military
          housing areas, which now generate some 32,000 tons
          of used newspapers each year. An estimated 8,000
                                                 TABLE 17
                FEDERAL FACILITIES USING THE DESK-TOP SOURCE SEPARATION SYSTEM, 1976
              Agency
    Location
   Date
implemented
Number of
employees
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Mines
   Building #20
   Building #53
Bureau of Reclamation
Civil Service Commission
Energy Research and Development Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
Geological Survey
Mine Enforcement Safety Administration
National Bureau of Standards
National Center of Atmospheric Research
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Customs House
Federal Building
Denver, Colo.

Denver, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Golden, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Washington, D.C.
Denver, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Boulder, Colo.
Boulder, Colo.
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Denver, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
   10/76

   8/75
   8/75
   10/74
   2/76
   3/74
   U/75
   11/75
   8/75
   2/76
   2/76
   1/74
   11/74
   1/76
   2/76
   4/76
    500

     56
    195
  1,200
    150
    500
    265
  3,000
    500
    400
    100
  1,400
    500

    300
  3,000

-------
42
                               RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
tons of newsprint are expected  to be  recycled each
year, at no additional cost to the government.
      Other Products.  The  guidelines  also contain
recommended,  not mandatory, procedures for Fed-
eral agencies to follow for separating glass, cans, and
mixed paper waste in areas where markets exist or
can be developed for those materials.
    Implementation.   To help agencies establish of-
fice paper recovery programs, EPA  is developing a
step-by-step implementation manual, based on case
studies of successful programs and EPA's own experi-
ence with the program.
     EPA will also work with the General Services
Administration (GSA) to help it establish specifica-
tions and secure contracts for the sale of the recov-
ered paper in each Federal region. GSA is responsible
for selling all wastepaper generated by Federal civi-
lian recycling programs.
     Prototype programs will then  be initiated in
the major Federal office building in each region and i
in 10  additional Federal buildings in  selected  regions
by the end of 1977. EPA plans to monitor and eval-
uate the prototype paper separation and recycling
programs as they are implemented and will report the
results to those agencies and to others planning to
begin the program.
      Reactions. The  guidelines  were first published
in the  Federal Register in proposed form on Septem-
ber 17, 1975, and written comments on the proposed
regulations  were  invited. Comments were received
from  90 sources. Of these, 28 favored  promulgation
without modifications, 35 favored promulgation with
modifications that would strengthen the guidelines
and reduce  flexibility, 5 favored promulgation with
modifications that would weaken the requirements
placed on agencies, and 1 opposed promulgation.
The 21 other comments favored promulgation with
minor clarifications and/or procedural  changes. Fol-
lowing evaluation  of the comments, clarifying revi-
sions were made in the guidelines.
      As proposed, the guidelines were strongly sup-
ported by citizen organizations, the general public,
industry  associations,  and paper companies. Space
does not permit  inclusion in this report of  lengthy
excerpts  from the comments, but it  is interesting to
note reactions to the proposed guidelines from some
paper companies.
      One company, a major consumer of recyclable
materials, wrote:
        We applaud  your  strong and  positive ini-
        tiative in  this important issue.  We are con-
        vinced that the government will not only
        find  it economically  attractive  to follow
        your  guidelines,  but we call  attention to
        other  environmental   concerns,  such  as
        energy conservation, resource conservation,
        and reduced solid waste disposal costs, which
        make the guidelines of  critical importance
        to the nation.
      Another paper company wrote:
        Mandatory  separation   requirements  for
        wastepaper  on  the part  of  government
        agencies  will help further to draw  national
        attention to the need to conserve resources,
        reduce  waste disposal  and produce high
        value industrial raw materials. Experience
        gained by the Federal  government, in its
        efforts to establish effective source separ-
        ation systems, will be of substantial value to
        both  public and private agencies and organi-
        zations which contemplate similar programs.
      All of the comments on the proposed regula-
tions and EPA's disposition of them are on file and are
available to interested persons at EPA headquarters.

  Procurement Requirements for Federal Agencies
      Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, enacted October 21, 1976,  Federal agencies will
be  required in  procuring  products to select those
composed  of the  highest  percentage  of  recycled
material practicable. This requirement will apply to
procurements after October 21,  1978,  and  to items
purchased in amounts totaling $10,000  or more dur-
ing the preceding fiscal year. By April 1978 Federal
procurement specifications will be reviewed to assure
that any exclusion of recovered material is eliminated,
that  specifications do not require  virgin materials,
and that specifications require reclaimed materials to
the  maximum extent practicable without seriously
impairing performance characteristics.
      The Act also requires EPA, after consultation
with other Federal  agencies, to  issue guidelines on
how to comply with the requirements; these guide-
lines are to include recommended procurement prac-

-------
                             SOURCE SEPARATION FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY
                                               43
tices and information on the availability and uses of
recovered materials and products made from them.
Overall implementation of the policy on procurement
under the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act
is  the  responsibility of the  Office of Procurement
Policy  of the Executive Office  of  the President, in
cooperation with EPA.
     In January 1976, EPA had issued recommended
but nonmandatory guidelines on  Federal  procure-
ment.8 The guidelines recommended (1) the removal
of restrictions that prevent greater use of  recycled
material in products except where performance stand-
ards would not be satisfied; (2) specifications require
recycled  material to be included in products to the
maximum extent practicable; (3)  performance criteria
for products not be overly restrictive  and not arbi-
trarily exclude recycled material; and (4) the type of
recycled material that is most difficult to market, i.e.,
post-consumer waste, receive the  greatest  stimulus
through procurement specifications.
     The Comptroller General of the United States,
in a report issued in  May  1976, cited the need for
more management emphasis by  the General Services
Administration and the Department of Defense "to
further   expand   the  procurement  of   recycled
products."9
     The General Services Administration has indi-
cated it will  develop  formal policies, objectives, and
guidelines to  establish a permanent recycled products
procurement  program.  GSA has  also revised  its
specifications for paper products to allow purchases
of more recycled paper. The  Department of Defense
has indicated that it plans  to review its policies con-
cerning the preparation of procurement specifications
to determine what changes can  be made  to further
enhance the use of recycled materials.
     Although the  Federal  government  is a large
single  consumer,  Federal  expenditures are  only a
small  fraction of  combined  industrial, commercial,
and personal expenditures for  most  product cate-
gories.  Therefore the direct market  creation effect of
Federal purchases  of waste-based  products  would
probably  be small  relative  to  the  total  national
markets. However, as the  Comptroller General's re-
port noted, "Federal procurement specifications and
procurement  practices are widely circulated and dup-
licated by State and local  governments  and some
industries. Therefore,  modification  of Federal pro-
curement practices could result in more widespread
use  of recycled  materials in  other  sectors as well.
Moreover, Federal purchasing may well have a signi-
ficant  impact on recycled materials demand in locali-
zed markets."

                Waste Oil Recovery
      EPA,  the Energy  Research and Development
Administration, the Federal Energy Administration,
the Department of Defense, and the General Services
Administration  have all  begun programs directed at
the  conservation of waste lubricating oils.  These oils
represent a small but  significant  petroleum resource.
Re-refining of the oil for reuse as a lubricant appears
to be the most energy-conserving method of the sev-
eral forms of waste oil  utilization. How waste oil is
used and disposed of  is also  of concern from a pol-
lution control standpoint, especially because of the
lead  content of unprocessed crankcase  drainings.
Improperly controlled burning can result in unaccept-
able emissions of lead and other contaminants; poorly
controlled use or disposal on land can result in water
pollution and contamination of agricultural lands.
     The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 requires the National Bureau of Standards to
establish  tests  to  determine  equivalency  between
virgin and re-refined oils, the Federal Trade Commis-
sion to  establish  labeling  provisions as to product
quality, and the EPA  to provide  guidance  on accep-
table disposal  options, which  will also be incorpora-
ted into labeling provisions. The Bureau of Standards
will most likely develop  its testing plans around the
testing program that EPA is  carrying out with the
Department of Defense.  In an EPA field test in San
Diego,  vehicles of the  city public works department
have been operated on re-refined lube oil exclusively
for over 2 years. ERDA is also doing research on pro-
duct quality as well as undertaking development of
new re-refining technology.
     The Federal Energy Administration is develop-
ing a program aimed at people who change  their own
oil. A  network of service stations will be utilized to
encourage the return of crankcase drainings. FEA also
has initiated a model law program to assist States in
adopting legislation encouraging the recycling of oil.

-------
44
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
      The General Services Administration has intro-
duced  Federal  Property  Management  Regulations
aimed at  encouraging  Federal facilities  to recycle
waste  oil through  either  energy  recovery  or  re-
refining.

               Otfter Federal Activities
      In another effort  to increase recovery  of  re-
sources from waste materials and  promote the use of
recycled  products, the  Interagency Committee  on
Resource Recovery, established by  GSA, is investi-
gating ways  to increase efficient reuse of materials
either by recycling or rehabilitation. The committee
addresses problems only within the Federal govern-
ment and hopes that actions taken by the government
can help  set an  example for the nation. Representa-
tives  of  GSA,  EPA, DOD, and several other Federal
agencies serve on the committee.
      Finally, several EPA publications issued recently
provide technical information designed to encourage
source separation for resource recovery. These publi-
cations include Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste
Management10 and Residential Paper Recovery-A
Municipal Implementation  Guide.11  The paper  re-
covery  guide  includes  sample  bid specifications, a
sample letter  of intent  to bid for the purchase of
wastepaper,  a  sample contract, and a  sample source
separation and separate collection ordinance.


                  REFERENCES
1.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Office of Solid
              Waste Management  Programs. Resource  re-
               covery and waste reduction; third report to
               Congress.  Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation SW-161. Washington, U.S. Govern-
               ment Printing Office, 1975. 96 p.
                           2.  Resource  Planning  Associates, Inc.  Source  separation;
                                         the  community  awareness  program  in
                                         Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts.
                                         Environmental Protection Publication SW-
                                         551.  [Washington],  U.S. Environmental
                                         Protection Agency, Nov. 1976. 81 p.
                           3.  Tichenor, R., E. F. Jansen, Jr., and J. Pickering. Econo-
                                         mics of a small rural town recycling system:
                                         implications   of  a  case  study.  Research
                                         Report No. 43. Durham, University of New
                                         Hampshire, Agricultural Experiment Station,
                                         June 1975. p. 32-35.
                           4.  Personal communication. Gene Brant man, Shade Informa-
                                         tion Systems, Inc., to M. Zeldin.
                           5.  SCS  Engineers.  Optimization  of office paper recovery
                                         systems.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                                         Agency, Office of Solid Waste. (In prepara-
                                         tion; to be distributed by National Techni-
                                         cal Information Service, Springfield, Va.)
                           6.  The growth of aluminum can  reclamation. New York,
                                         Aluminum Association, May 11, 1976. 3 p.
                                         [Press release.]
                           7.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Source separation
                                         for materials recovery;  guidelines. Federal
                                         Register,  41(80):16950-16956,  Apr.  23,
                                         1976.
                           8.  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency. Guidelines  for
                                         procurement  of products that contain re-
                                         cycled material. Federal Register, 41(10):
                                         2356-2363, Jan. 15, 1976.
                           9.  Comptroller General of the United States. Report to  the
                                         Congress; policies and programs being devel-
                                         oped  to expand  procurement  of products
                                         containing recycled materials; General Ser-
                                         vices   Administration,    Department  of
                                         Defense. PSAD-76-139.  Washington, U.S.
                                         General Accounting Office, May  18,  1976.
                                         26 p.
                           10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
                                         Waste   Management  Programs.   Decision-
                                         makers  guide in solid waste  management.
                                         Environmental Protection  Publication SW-
                                         500. Washington, U.S.  Government  Print-
                                         ing Office, 1976.  158 p.
                           11. Hansen,  P.  Residential  paper recovery; a  municipal
                                         implementation guide. Environmental Pro-
                                         tection Publication SW-155. [Washington],
                                         U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
                                         1975. 26 p.

-------
                                          Chapter 5
                MIXED-WASTE  PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL
                               AND  ENERGY  RECOVERY
                INTRODUCTION
     Resource recovery from mixed municipal refuse
involves the centralized  processing of collected raw
waste to separate out recyclable materials and to con-
vert remaining mixed fractions into useful material or
energy forms. Because of the heterogeneous nature of
mixed refuse and the economics of recovery, virtually
all such systems are designed as multiple-product op-
erations. At minimum, ferrous metal is magnetically
extracted for recycling and at least  one  major com-
modity is derived from the organic fraction-usually,
but  not necessarily, a  fuel  or  converted  energy
product.
     Depending  on technologies and markets, other
inorganic  materials selected  for recycling  besides
ferrous metal can include glass cullet (either mixed-
color or color-sorted), aluminum, and other, heavier,
nonferrous metals.  Alternatively, some  approaches
convert various mixed inorganic  fractions thermally
into  a slag or frit material for use as a construction
aggregate or in other building products.
     Energy recovery processes available  or under
development include the direct firing of either raw or
shredded waste in heat recovery boilers or waterwall
combustion units to produce steam, as  well as the
mechanical, thermal, or biological processing of waste
to produce various intermediate solid,  liquid,  or
gaseous fuel products for on-site  use or sale to com-
mercial  customers.  As an alternative to energy re-
covery,  a  variety of other options for utilizing the
organic components of solid waste are also in use or
under development. These include mechanical proc-
esses for separating out paper fiber  and  plastics for
recycling as well as biochemical approaches for con-
verting the organic wastes into compost, animal feed,
or chemical industry feedstocks.
     As an approach to resource recovery,  mixed-
waste processing  offers several attractive  features. In
addition to integrating easily into conventional mixed-
waste collection and transfer systems,  most such
systems divert very large fractions of the total waste
input,  leaving  a nonmarketable residual  for  land-
filling of no more than 25 percent by weight, or 10
percent by volume, of the raw waste processed. At
the extreme,  developers of some  high-temperature
thermal  processes claim  to  convert all the waste
throughput into some form  of usable product with
positive, or at least nonnegative, market value. Energy
recovery or bioconversion may be  the only feasible
resource recovery possibilities for the food and yard
waste fractions, which together  can  constitute over
30 percent of the wet weight of municipal collections.
      Of the  many competing and  complementary
unit processes and full-system recovery concepts, only
three processes have been widely used thus far. These
include:  (1) waterwall combustion (extensively em-
ployed  in Europe; seven  operating facilities in the
United  States and Canada);  (2)  composting (widely
practiced in Europe, but numerous U.S. installations
have shut down due to poor marketing experience);
and (3) magnetic separation of ferrous scrap (over 30
U.S. applications reported in use at transfer stations,
landfill  sites,  and mixed-waste processing facilities).
In addition, however, a number of mechanical separa-
tion technologies (generally referred to  as  refuse-
derived  fuel,  or RDF,  systems),  including both wet
and dry processes, can be considered at the stage of
"commercial demonstration," with a number of units
in the 400- to 1,000-ton-per-day  category at or near-
ing completion  since  September 1975  and  many
others under  construction or contracted for.  Other
processing technologies-most  notably the pyrolysis
and bioconversion systems-are either in pilot  stage
or technology  prototype demonstration, and will not,
therefore, be fully evaluated as to commercial feasi-
bility for some time to come.
     Most  of the mixed-waste  processing  systems
under  consideration   involve  relatively  complex,
capital-intensive technologies. Reported and estimated
initial capital investment costs typically range from
                                                 45

-------
 46
                                RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
$5,000  to  $50,000  per  ton of  daily  processing
capacity, depending on type of process,  plant size,
and  other  factors. High  initial capital costs imply
long-term investment commitments to keep  amorti-
zation costs per ton of waste at reasonably low levels.
In general, the "high-technology" approach  also re-
quires highly sophisticated  planning, management,
and  marketing  expertise,  together with  favorable
long-term product market possibilities, in order to re-
duce  financial  risks  to  acceptable  levels. These
factors,  together with significant economies in capital
and  operating  costs  for larger  sized  plants, may
restrict  most of these systems either to larger cities
or regional (e.g., county wide) applications. However,
recent developments in the field of factory-assembled,
small-scale  incinerators  with  heat recovery com-
ponents make this conclusion less obvious.
      The  developmental and demonstration work
underway should do  much in the next few years to
reduce uncertainties regarding technical performance
and  reliability  of many  of  the  proposed  systems.
However, the  principal  long-term questions relate
more to questions of economic  feasibility and the
extent to which the new technologies can be made to
compete with conventional land disposal methods on
the one hand,  and virgin material  and  fossil  fuel
supply sources on the other.
      Thus far, the economics appear favorable for a
number of cities and regions, particularly  where high
disposal cost factors combine with favorable market
circumstances.  However, the early stage of develop-
ment and the large number of local cost factors and
market  price uncertainties make it extremely difficult
to generalize on future economic potentials for the
nation as a whole. On balance, the impact of the Re-
source  Conservation and Recovery Act of  1976
should  tend to  improve the relative economics of
mixed-waste recovery systems by  encouraging  the
closure  of many environmentally  unsatisfactory but
comparatively low-cost land disposal options.
      This chapter reports on the major recent trends
and  significant  developments in  mixed-waste proc-
essing as  an update  to  previous  annual  reports in
this series.  The following sections concentrate on five
areas: the nationwide trend in facilities implementa-
tion; technology developments in materials recovery;
technology developments in energy recovery; institu-
tional developments  in financing  and  in State pro-
grams, and a review of current Federal activities. (For
more detailed  or  technically oriented surveys of
mixed-waste  processing  systems and  facilities,  see
references 1-7 at end of this chapter.)

 NATIONWIDE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION
          Scope of EPA Facilities Survey
      Since  1974, EPA has conducted  periodic sur-
veys of community activity in implementing mixed-
waste  processing  facilities.5'6   Though  somewhat
restricted in scope initially, the survey now attempts
to include all categories and sizes of facilities designed
to process mixed municipal refuse  for energy and
material recovery, including larger scale pilot, testing,
and demonstration units as well as those established
as regularly operating components of municipal solid
waste systems. The principal exclusions are operations
limited to handpicking of materials at transfer  sta-
tions and disposal sites.  Also excluded are small-scale
experimental or  pilot projects.  The  survey  covers
facilities at  all phases of project development, from
preliminary feasibility studies  to on-line  operation.
         Current Status and  Recent Trends
   EP A's most recent nationwide survey results (Table
18) cover 118 existing,  planned,  and potential units;
as of mid-1976, there were:
   •  21 operational facilities (including  pilot  and
      demonstration units as well as on-line operating
      plants)
   •  10 units in various stages of construction or
      startup or undergoing modifications subsequent
      to initial startup
   •  33 projects in  the "advanced planning" cate-
      gory (with requests for proposals issued, design
      studies underway, and/or construction funding
      authorized)
   •  54 localities at the early stage of having com-
      missioned feasibility studies. (This category ex-
      cluded many communities which have expressed
      interest or undertaken informal initial studies.)
   Readers are cautioned that the survey summary in
Table 18 is not  directly comparable to similar listings
previously published  in EPA's Nationwide Survey of
Resource Recovery Activities (March 1975) and the
Third Report to Congress (September 1975).  Not
only  have the definitions of types of facilities to in-
clude  been substantially  broadened for the current

-------
                       MIXED4tfASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                    TABLE 18
         SUMMARY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY MIXED-WASTE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION, SUMMER 1976*
               Locationt
      Type*
  Capacity
(tons per day)
Products/markets     Startup date
Operational facilities (21):

      Altoona, Pa.
      Ames, Iowa
      Blytheville, Ark.
      Braintree, Mass.
      Chicago, in. (Southwest)
      Chicago, 111. (Northwest)
    N-E. Bridgewater, Mass.
    D-Franklin, Ohio
      Groveton, N. R
      Harrisburg, Pa.
      Merrick, N. Y.
      Miami, Fl.
      Nashville, Tenn.
      Norfolk, Va.
      Oceanside, N. Y.
      Palos Verdes, Calif.
    D-St. Louis, Mo. §
      Saugus, Mass.
      Sfloam Springs, Ark.
    N-South Charleston, W. Va.
    N-Washington, D.C.

Facilities under construction (10):
    D- Baltimore, Md.

    G- Baltimore County, Md.
      Chicago, HI. (Crawford)
      Hempstead, N.  Y.
      Milwaukee, Wis.
    D-Mountain View, Calif.
    N-New Orleans, La.
      Portsmouth, Va. (Shipyard)
    D-San Diego County, Calif.
      St. Louis, Mo.
 Compost               200       Humus                     1963
 RDF                  400       RDF, Fe, Al                9/75
 MCU                   50       Steam/process               11/75
 WWC                  240       Steam/process               1971
 RWI                 1,200       Steam                      1963
 WWC                 1,600       Steam (no market)           1970
 RDF                  160       RDF/utility                 1974
 Materials recovery       150       Fiber, Fe, glass, Al           1971
 MCU                   30       Steam/process               1975
 WWC                  720       Steam (no market)           1972
 RWI                  600       Electricity                  1952
 RWI                  900       Steam                      1956
 WWC                  720       Steam/heating & cooling      7/74
 WWC                  360       Steam/Navy base            1967
 RWI/WWC             750       Steam                      1965/74
 Methane recovery                 Gas/utility & Fe             6/75
 RDF                  300       RDF/coal-fired utility        1972
 WWC                 1,200       Steam/process               4/76
 MCU                   20       Steam                      9/75
 Pyrolysis               200       Gas, Fe                     1974
 RDF                   80       RDF, Fe, Al, glass           1974
 Pyrolysis             1,000       Steam/heating & cooling
                                    Fe, glass                 6/75
 RDF                  550       RDF, Fe, Al, glass           4/76
 RDF                1,000       RDF/utility                 3/77
 WRDF/WWC         2,000       Electricity, Fe, Al, glass      NA
 RDF                1,000       RDF, corrugated, Fe          1977
 Methane recovery                 Gas/utility                   6/77
 RDFH                 650       Nonferrous, Fe, glass, paper    11/76
 WWC                  160       Steam loop                  12/76
 Pyrolysis               200       Liquid fuel/utility            4/77
 RDF                6,000       RDF/utility, Fe, glass, Al     NA
Communities in advanced planning (33):  (RFP issued, design study underway, or construction funding made available)
      Akron, Ohio
      Albany, N. Y.
      Bridgeport, Conn.
      Central Contra Costa County
         Sanitation District, Calif.
      Chemung County, N. Y.
      Dade County, Fla.
    G-Detroit, Mich.
      Hackensack, N. J.
      Haverhill, Mass.
WWC                1,000      Steam/heat, cool process     7/78
RDF                1,200      RDF, Fe                   NA
RDF                1,800      RDF, Fe, Al, glass          NA

RDF                1,000      RDF/sludge incinerators      1979
RDF                  300      RDF.Fe                   NA
WWC/wet-pulp        3,000      Electricity/utility, Fe        NA
RDF/WWC           3,000      RDF/steam                NA
RDF                2,500      Steam/utflity               NA
WWC                3,000      RDF/utility, Fe             NA

                                                      (Continued)
      *A Nationwide Survey of Resource Recovery Facilities (ref. 6), updated.
      tD = EPA demonstration grant; G = EPA implementation grant; N = non-EPA pilot or demonstration facility; E = ERDA grant.
      JRDF = refuse-derived fuel; WRDF = wet-pulped refuse-derived fuel; WWC = waterwall combusion; RWI = refractory wall
incinerator with waste-heat boiler; MCU = modular combustion unit.
      § Plant dosed down in 1976.
      fUses RDF technology, but current plan is to landfill the light fraction because of lack of market.

-------
 [8                              RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

                                                 TABLE 18
  SUMMARY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY MIXED-WASTE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION, SUMMER 1976 (continued)
Lo cation t
Capacity
Type! (tons per day)
Products/markets Startup date
Communities in advanced planning (33) : (continued)
Honolulu, Hawaii
Jacksonville, Fla. (Navy base)
Key West, Fla. (Navy base)
G-Lane County, Oreg.
G-Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't., Ky.
Mayport, Fla. (Navy base)
Memphis, Tenn.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.
Monroe County, N. Y.
G- Montgomery County, Ohio
New Haven, Conn.
North Little Rock, Ark.
Onondaga County, N. Y.
Palmer Township, Penn.
E-Pompano Beach, Fla.
Portland, Oreg.
Riverside, Calif.
Salem, Lynn & Beverly, Mass.
Seattle, Wash.
Smithtown, N. Y.
Sun Valley, Calif.
Takoma, Wash.
Westchester County, N. Y.
D-Wilmington, Del.
NA
MCU
Compost
RDF
WWC
RWI
WWC/RDF
WWC
RDF
RDF
WWC
MCU
WWC
RDF
Methane recovery
RDF
Pyrolysis
NA
Pyrolysis
Hand sort
Methane recovery
RDF
NA
RDF/sludge
2,000
50
50
750
1,050
40
2,000
1,200
2,000
1,600
1,800
100
1,000
150
50
200
50
750
1,500
1,000

NA
1,300
300
Utility
Steam, Fe
Humus, Fe
RDF
Steam, Fe
Steam
NA
Steam/papermill
RDF, Fe, Al, glass
RDF
Steam, Fe
Steam
Steam/heat & cool, Fe
Fuel/cement kiln, Fe
Methane
RDF, Fe
Electricity
NA
Ammonia
Newspaper, corrugated, Fe
Gas/utility
Steam
NA
RDF, Fe, Al, glass, humus
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1980
NA
NA
NA
1977
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/77
1978
NA
NA
NA
Communities which have commissioned feasibility studies (54):

     Anchorage, Alaska
     Auburn, Maine
     Allegheny County, Pa.
     Babylon, Huntington & Islip, N. Y.
     Brevard County, Fla.
   G-Charlottesville, Va.
     Cowlitz County, Wash.
     Columbus, Ohio
     Cuyahoga County, Ohio
     DeKalb County, Ga.
     Dubuque, Iowa
     District of Columbia (Metro Area COG)
   G-Denver, Colo.
     Dutchess County, N. Y.
     Erie County, N. Y.
     Fairmont, Minn.
     Hamilton County, Ohio
     Lawrence, N. Y.
     Lincoln, Neb.
     Lincoln County, Oreg.
     Madison, Wise.
     Marquette, Mich.
     Miami County, Ohio
   G-Middlesex County, N. J.
     Minneapolis (Twin Resco)
     Montgomery County, Md.
     Morristown, N. J.
     Mt. Vernon, N. Y.
  500
  200
2,000
3,000
  200
  NA
  100
  NA
1,200
1,000
  500
  750
1,200
  700
2,000
  150
1,500
  500
  NA
  NA
  200
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
1,200
  NA
  400
                                                                                                 (Continued)
     See previous page for footnotes.

-------
                      MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                49
                                                TABLE 18
   SUMMARY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY MIXED-WASTE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION, SUMMER 1976 (concluded)
Location
Communities which have commissioned feasibility studies (54):
Niagara County, N. Y.
G-New York, N. Y. (Arthur Kill)
Oakland County, Mich.
Orange County, Calif.
Phoenix, Ariz.
Pasadena, Calif.
Peninsula Planning District, Va.
Philadelphia, Pa.
G-Richmond, Va.
Riverview, Mich.
Rochester, Minn.
St. Cloud, Minn.
Salt Lake County, Utah
Scranton, Pa.
S. E. Virginia Planning District
G-Springfield, 111.
Springfield, Mo.
Tallahassee, Fla.
Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fla.
Toledo, Ohio
Tulsa, Okla.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Western Berks County, Pa.
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Winnebago County, ffl.
Wyandotte, Mich.
Capacity
(tons per day)
(continued)
760
1,500
NA
1,000
NA
200
NA
1,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
750
NA
1,500
NA
1,000
NA
NA
1,200
NA
2,000
250
400
NA
1,000
      G = aided by EPA implementation grant.
survey, but in addition our knowledge of community
activity has improved over the years.
   In order to obtain a more accurate view of recent
trends, previous EPA  survey  listings have been re-
vised on the basis of present definitions and improved
information to provide more consistent comparisons
with the current data (Table 19). Overall, there are
48 more facilities listed for July 1976 (118) than for
July  1974 (70), including 6 more operational units
and 3 more under construction.
   Operational Units.  The most recent EPA survey
results indicate that mixed-waste resource recovery
installations in operation are  substantially greater in
number and exist in a wider variety of types than had
previously been generally recognized.  The 21 opera-
tional units listed in Table 18 include seven different
types of  technologies and design capacities ranging
from 30 to 1,600 tons per day.  With the exception
of the Altoona, Pennsylvania, composting operation
and Franklin, Ohio's EPA-supported wet-pulping fiber
recovery demonstration, all are  either exclusively or
primarily in the energy recovery category. Thirteen of
these 19 energy recovery units are  direct-firing  or
"incineration" units designed for the mass burning of
raw  waste.  These include three  older (1952-63) re-
fractory wall units,  seven waterwall units, and three
very new, small-scale modular combustion units in the
20- to  50-TPD  range. Of the remaining energy re-
covery units, four are technology demonstrations or
pilot/testing facilities, one  is the methane recovery
from landfill project at Palos Verdes, California, and
the last  is the new Ames,  Iowa, refuse-derived fuel
(RDF) facility.
   From a  technology implementation  standpoint,
the six additions to the list of operating plants since
1974 are perhaps of greatest significance.  Three of

-------
 50
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                              TABLE 19
                                    TREND IN MIXED-WASTE RESOURCE
                                RECOVERY FACILITY IMPLEMENTATIONS*

Facility status
Operational
Under construction
Advanced planningt
Feasibility studies £
Total
July
1974
15
7
23
25
70
January
1975
15
8
30
32
85
July
1975
19
8
30
37
94
January
1976
19
10
29
52
110
July
1976
21
10
33
54
118
     *EPA interview and file data.
     tSee Table 18 for definition,
     ^Prior to 1976, this category included all communities known to EPA which had "expressed interest" whether or not resources
had been committed for feasibility studies.
these (at Groveton, New Hampshire, and Blytheville
and Siloam Springs, Arkansas) represent the first mu-
nicipal   waste  applications   of  the  small-scale/
"package"  incinerators with heat recovery  modules,
previously developed for industrial and institutional
boiler markets.
   Another recent addition in the mass-burning cate-
gory  is the  waterwall  combustion  unit at Saugus,
Massachusetts, which began shakedown operations ii.
the spring of 1976 and is the only new waterwall unit
since the Nashville plant began operating 2 years ago.
It is also among the largest of its kind in this country
(1,200 TPD) and is being closely watched as an exam-
ple of modern design.  In  all, EPA now counts five
municipal waterwall units with current steam cus-
tomers in operation in this country. (Two other water-
wall units, the Chicago  (Northwest) facility-the larg-
est waterwall installation in the  U.S.-and the Harris-
burg facility, have been included in Table 18 because
they have steam-generating  capacity even though they
do not have markets.)
   The  completion  of  the Ames, Iowa, RDF (dry-
shredding and  air classification) unit in  the fall of
1975 is a modern landmark in resource recovery his-
tory, especially from  EPA's standpoint.   Not only
does it represent the first "commercial" RDF unit de-
signed as an integral component of a municipal solid
waste system, but it is  also the  first application of a
major technology aided by the  EPA demonstration
program.
                             Finally, the recovery of methane gas from existing
                          municipal landfill sites is being pioneered in an instal-
                          lation completed in 1975 at Palos Verdes, California,
                          and the concept is being further developed in Moun-
                          tain View, California.
                             Facilities  Under Construction.  This category in-
                          cludes 10 facilities presently under construction or in
                          various stages of startup. With the exception of the
                          San  Diego  pyrolysis,  Mountain  View methane re-
                          covery, and Portsmouth waterwall facilities, they are
                          in the medium-to-large-scale (550 to 3,000 TPD) cate-
                          gory.  Three of the 10 (San Diego, Mountain  View,
                          and  Baltimore City) are federally subsidized demon-
                          stration projects, the others being financed by  State,
                          local, or private obligations to be recovered through
                          product revenues and tipping fees.
                             By definition, this category represents the current
                          modern technology coming on line over the next few
                          years.  Interestingly, 5 of the  10 plants will use some
                          variation  of the "fluff-RDF" technology employing
                          dry-shredding and air  classification, which was used
                          for the Ames facility and the  earlier EPA demonstra-
                          tion at St.  Louis.  One of these five, being built by
                          Baltimore County, Maryland,  is also adopting the full
                          line  of technology for materials  recovery  developed
                          by the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
                             Another  of the plants under construction,  at
                          Hempstead,  New  York, will  use  the  Black-Clawson
                          hydrapulping technology  (previously demonstrated
                          at Franklin, Ohio, for fiber recovery) in combination

-------
                    MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                51
with a waterwall steam boiler and turbo-generator to
produce electricity.  The only waterwall unit sched-
uled to burn unprocessed waste is the small plant at
the Portsmouth  shipyard, although many plants of
this type are in earlier design stages.  The remaining
three are the EPA-supported demonstrations of pyrol-
ysis at San Diego and Baltimore and of methane from
landfill at Mountain View.
   Communities at the "Advanced Planning" Stage.
"Advanced  planning"-the stage in which a request
for proposals  has  been  issued, an architectural-
engineering  design study is  underway,  and/or  con-
struction  funding is  authorized-corresponds to the
category  designated  "committed" in  previous  EPA
reports.   The 33 communities in this category-up
from  30 in  July 1975 and 23 in July 1974-represent
facilities that will be coming on line in  the 1979-82
period.
   The survey data for this group of communities in-
dicates that  plants of the 1979-82 vintage will be simi-
lar in  size to those now under construction or con-
tracted for  1976-78.  They will, however, include, ac-
cording to present plans, a larger group of waterwall
combustion units  and a  substantial  number  com-
bining  RDF separation with  waterwall steam gen-
erators. There is also a great deal of interest in the
smaller modular  combustion  units ranging  in  size
from 50 to 100 TPD.
   Feasibility Studies.  Interest in mixed-waste pro-
cessing facilities  and possible future  trends are also
indicated  by the number of communities that  have
commissioned feasibility studies.  Although this cate-
gory is particularly difficult to  monitor, both as a
matter of definition  and in terms of assuring com-
pleteness, we feel that most communities that belong
in the category are now included. Many other locali-
ties have expressed varying  degrees of interest but,
according to EPA information, have not yet actually
funded substantive feasibility studies.
   Such funding  at least reflects a degree of serious
intent or, viewed another way, a necessary first step.
Localities that have not undertaken such studies by
1976 probably cannot be expected to bring plants to
completion  within the  next  3  to 5 years. The EPA
survey data indicate a very substantial growth in ex-
pressed interest over the past 2 years.  Although part
of this increase may simply reflect improvement in
EPA survey coverage, it should be noted that all but
12 of the 54 communities currently in this category
have been added since the summer of 1974.

  DEVELOPMENTS IN MATERIAL RECOVERY
              FROM MIXED WASTE
                     Overview
   Virtually all  of the wastepaper, aluminum cans,
and  glass containers currently recovered from post-
consumer wastes  are  separated  at the  source  and
routed  via  community  collection  centers or scrap
dealers  to  industrial  processors.  Numerous com-
munities  are  now  separating ferrous  metal from
mixed waste by magnetic separation,  but the quan-
tities processed  have thus far amounted to a very
small percentage of the ferrous metal available in the
U.S. mixed-waste stream (see Chapter 2).
   However, much developmental and demonstration
work in mechanical recovery has been conducted in
recent years, and, as shown  in Table 18, mechanical
recovery  of  at  least  some  materials from mixed
waste will be  an integral aspect  of all modern large-
scale resource recovery  facilities.   The status of
mixed-waste processing technology for materials re-
covery is summarized below.
 Material
Paper
Glass
Ferrous metal

Aluminum
Other nonferrous
metals
Plastics
   Status of recovery technology

Wet process (hydrapulping) demon-
strated for low-grade fiber
Dry processes in developmental stages
(demonstrated in Sweden, Germany,
and Italy)
Mechanical  processes  available for
construction-grade aggregate separa-
tion
Mixed-color recovery  of container
quality  glass by  froth flotation de-
monstrated (pilot plant)
Color-sorted glass eullet recovery in
developmental stage (pilot plant)
Electromagnetic separation commer-
cially demonstrated and available
Heavy-media  process  used commer-
cially in auto scrap recovery
Electrostatic   and  electromagnetic
methods in advanced development
Developmental stages  (pilot plant)

Research and  experimental stage in
U.S.

-------
 52
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
   In general, the  equipment  used to  size-reduce,
screen, and separate materials  is being adapted pri-
marily from existing technology in the mining, metal-
lurgical, and pulp and paper industries. Although the
original technology is often  well established, applica-
tion to the processing of mixed municipal waste often
poses major problems.  The  U.S. Bureau of Mines has
long played a direct and leading role in the adaptation
and  development  of  these material recovery  pro-
cesses, culminating in  its current pilot plant opera-
tions at  College Park, Maryland.   EPA's Office of
Research and Development has also sponsored a num-
ber of R &  D contracts for testing and evaluating
size-reduction equipment, fine-grinding  techniques,
and  preprocessing systems for energy recovery.  In
addition, the National Center for Resource Recovery,
Inc.  (NCRR), a nonprofit, industry-financed research
and consulting organization, has established an equip-
ment testing and evaluation  facility  ("ETEF") in
Washington, D.C.   This facility, operated with the
cooperation of the District government and partially
supported by EPA and ERDA funds,  is testing and
evaluating many types of full-scale processing equip-
ment,  including several air  classifiers, an aluminum
magnet, froth flotation of glass,  and equipment for
pelletizing RDF.
   In addition to NCRR's "ETEF" facility, the most
important  new  development   in  material  recovery
from mixed waste relates to the fact that new full-
scale facilities are now beginning to come on stream.
The Ames, Iowa, plant (400 TPD), completed in the
fall  of 1975, is being followed  by the Baltimore
County plant (550 TPD)  and the New Orleans plant
(650 TPD). All three of these facilities are scheduled
to recover aluminum and other nonferrous metals as
well as ferrous metals, and  the latter two plants are
scheduled to recover glass. The New Orleans facility,
the financial success of which is partially guaranteed
by NCRR, will feature a dedicated 3-year test and
evaluation phase.
   With test facilities  in operation and with  several
commercial-size recovery facilities in startup or under
construction, there are  now  new opportunities to
evaluate  both recovery process technology and the
characteristics of  recovered materials.  Previously,
only limited quantities of materials recovered from
mixed wastes have been available from pilot plants to
                         potential purchasers.  We are now apparently enter-
                         ing the stage  of full-scale market testing in actual
                         commercial  situations as greater  quantities of these
                         recovered materials  are  used by industrial buyers.
                            An  important related  area is the  development of
                         quality standards and specifications for  recovered
                         products.  Establishment of  reasonable and relevant
                         product standards is  considered by many to be a key
                         to the  future commercial development of the mixed-
                         waste processing sector of the recycling industries.
                         Work is being done in this  area by the  American
                         Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) and the National
                         Bureau of Standards (U.S. Department of Commerce).
                         In addition  to participation  on ASTM panels, EPA
                         has also provided contractual support to the National
                         Center for Resource Recovery for development of a
                         set  of  standards and sampling and  test procedures
                         for recovered materials.8
                            Such standards and specifications can serve as a
                         temporary planning baseline for both technology and
                         market development. While there  may be some short-
                         comings  in  these preliminary standards, they repre-
                         sent an important step in the long-term technical and
                         institutional process of achieving broadly accepted
                         industry-wide product standards in this field.
                            The following briefly reviews the status of specific
                         technologies for materials recovery.


                                        Specific Technologies
                            Size Reduction and Organics Separation.  Glass
                         and metals  are usually recovered from mixed wastes
                         after  one   or more preprocessing  steps  involving
                         various combinations of size reduction  (shredding,
                         milling, flailing, or hydrapulping), screening, and air
                         or  liquid cyclone  classification  of  the wastes.   In
                         most systems, these are basic processing steps integral
                         to  recovery of both material and energy products.
                            There are  now  over  30  manufacturers offering
                         shredders commercially.    Air classifiers  and liquid
                         cyclone classifiers for separating the  size-reduced ma-
                         terial into  light (predominantly  organic) and heavy
                         (predominantly glass and metal) components are less.
                         well developed, but  there  are now at least 10 com-
                         panies  competing for the market.
                            Until recently, virtually all of this technology was
                         developmental and untested insofar as continuous,

-------
                     MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                53
 large-scale operation is concerned.   Now, extensive
 full-scale  testing and evaluation programs are  either
 underway or scheduled to start  soon at both test
 (demonstration) and commercial facilities.  In addi-
 tion to  the Bureau of Mines, both EPA and  the
 National Center for Resource Recovery are involved
 in testing and evaluating the design and performance
 of  size-reduction  and air classification  equipment.
 All three  organizations have separate but complemen-
 tary evaluation  programs  continuing,  with  EPA's
 program being primarily  based on  contracts rather
 than its own pilot and test facilities.  Thus, the next 2
 years  should be particularly important in  deter-
 mining technical  reliability and evaluating the eco-
 nomic cost factors  for full-scale equipment used in
 continuous operations.
   Paper Fiber Recovery.  The EPA-supported  Black
 Clawson demonstration plant at Franklin, Ohio, has
 proven conclusively  that a marketable fiber can be re-
 covered from mixed waste using the wet processes
 (hydrapulping and liquid  cyclone) adapted from the
 woodpulping industry.9  The technology  has high re-
 liability; however, the fiber is of low quality com-
 pared  to  source-separated  paper  and marketability
 appears limited to use in relatively low-grade con-
 struction  papers.  Recently the technology has been
 directed more at producing a wet RDF fuel for boiler
 firing.
   A  dry  process based on air  classification and
 screening  has also been applied  to the recovery  of
 paper for  repulping.  Although this technique has not
 been pursued very far in the U.S., three facilities have
 been operating in Italy recovering paper fiber from
 mixed  waste using the Cecchini process.10
   Ferrous Metals Recovery. Ferrous metal is the only
 material being  universally included  for  recovery  at
 mixed-waste processing facilities in  use or in planning.
 Magnetic  separation  of ferrous metal has long been
 proven technically, and it  is being  practiced at trans-
 fer  stations and landfill  shredding  sites as well  as
resource recovery plants. These are all instances where
shredding  or milling is performed  prior to magnetic
 separation.  During 1976 there were 30 to 35 such
installations operating with  a reported combined re-
covery of about 200,000 tons.11
   In some facilities, the metal is run through secon-
dary shredding, compaction, or other preparation to
 meet particular market requirements. The two princi-
 pal markets currently are steelmaking and copper pre-
 cipitation (primarily in the southwest).  Detinning
 mills represent  another  important but relatively un-
 exploited potential  market,  especially for the can
 fraction of the  ferrous scrap. To date only a few de-
 tinning mills have utilized this post-consumer scrap.
    Aluminum and Other Nonferrous  MetaJs. Alumi-
 num and other nonferrous  metals are typically re-
 covered from the inorganic or "heavy" fraction of the
 classified waste stream following shredding, organics
 separation  and magnetic recovery of  most of the
 ferrous metals. Recovery of aluminum and other non-
 ferrous metal is closely related to glass recovery be-
 cause when an operation is included to separate one
 of these  materials from the inorganic stream, the re-
 mainder  becomes more richly concentrated in the
 others.
   Techniques exploiting differences in physical char-
 acteristics of the various inorganic materials have been
 widely adapted from the mineral processing and ore
 beneficiation fields. These have included grinding and
 screening, jigging, rising current,  and  heavy-media
 separation approaches.  Many of these have  proved
 highly useful in tests or pilot plants  as preliminary
 processes for separating out the glass, sand, and lighter
 organics  from   the remaining metals. In  addition,
 other approaches depending  on differential electro-
 static  or electromagnetic properties  have  recently
 come under intensive investigation.
   Electrostatic  separation, involving the placement
of static charges on materials, may be used to remove
nonconductors,  which hold   the charge, from con-
ductors (the metals), which do not. Similarly, it can
be used to remove metallic contaminants from a glass-
rich stream. This technique  was tested in  the EPA
demonstration plant at Franklin and will be included
in the commercial plant at Hempstead, New York.
   Another  process for extracting aluminum  from  a
mixed inorganic fraction is the eddy current technol-
ogy, often referred to as the "aluminum magnet,"
which depends on  the electromagnetic properties of
aluminum.12    At least  three  private  companies-
Raytheon, Combustion Power Company, and Occi-
dental Research-have developed prototype units of
this type.
   A  Combustion Power Company unit, owned by

-------
54
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Alcoa,  is  now installed and undergoing  tests  at
NCRR's Washington, D.C., testing facility. Alcoa and
NCRR have recently added a double-stage "air knife"
to this  system, which  is expected to increase alumi-
num  purity  by  elimination  of  other  metals and
organic material carryover.13 A commercial-size unit
has been installed at Ames, and another is scheduled
for the  New Orleans plant in early 1977. Occidental's
process will be tested in the EPA-supported pyrolysis
demonstration  plant in San Diego County,  which is
expected to begin operating in 1977. The Raytheon
aluminum magnet is scheduled to be installed in the
Monroe County, New York, facility, and  the Bureau
of Mines has added it to their  flowsheet as a pre-
concentrator prior to electrostatic separation.
   It thus appears that the eddy current process may
be on the threshold of commercial application. How-
ever, a number of questions remain concerning prod-
uct yields, purity, and market acceptance, and the
process economics are therefore uncertain.
   G/ass Recovery. Glass-rich fractions may be extrac-
ted at various points in recovery plant systems-from
trommel screens prior to primary shredding, from
grinding and screening operations following air classi-
fication, or from media separation, jigging, or eddy-
current processes.  A crude recovered glass product
may be marketable as a construction aggregate or fill
material, or the  product may be upgraded for the
more stringent specifications of glass container  or
other market  applications. Developmental work on
such upgrading has focused mainly on two technol-
ogies, optical sorting and froth flotation.
  Optical  sorting of  particles 1/4  to  3/4 inch in
size to segregate clear from colored glass and to re-
move non-glass refractories has been demonstrated at
the Franklin plant using equipment  of the Sortex
Company of North America. To  date, however, the
system has not eliminated ceramic and refractory con-
taminants  to  the  degree necessary to  meet the
stringent specifications established by the glass in-
dustry (refractories cause imperfections in glass con-
tainers).  In addition, yield has been somewhat lower
than expected.
   The economics of color sorting are questionable at
this time, especially since the  equipment is quite ex-
pensive. Nevertheless, color sorting may  still prove
viable for some locations since  there appear to be
                         more buyers  in the  glass industry  for  color-sorted
                         than for mixed-color glass.
                            Froth  flotation, the other basic  method  of glass
                         recovery, is used as the final step after size and density
                         separations to remove metals and organics and grind-
                         ing to a very fine particle size. The process takes place
                         in small tanks where, after addition  of a chemical
                         agent,  the  glass attaches  to  air  bubbles  flowing
                         through the  mixture and thus rises to  the  surface.
                         Contaminants sink to the bottom.
                            Froth flotation has been tested by Occidental Re-
                         search Company in a pilot plant and will be demon-
                         strated  in the EPA/Occidental demonstration plant
                         in San  Diego  County, California. Recovery rates are
                         estimated at  above 90 percent of the process input
                         feed  and  purity is 99+  percent. However, a signifi-
                         cant  quantity of the glass in the original waste may
                         be  lost at early stages of grinding, classifying, and
                         screening. Also, although purity of the product is
                         high, industry specifications are so stringent that it is
                         uncertain whether they can consistently be met.
                            The  U.S. Bureau of Mines has also experimented
                         extensively with froth flotation and  claims capability
                         to meet container industry specifications for new con-
                         tainers. NCRR's testing and evaluation facility will
                         conduct full-scale testing of froth flotation, and units
                         have  also  been included in the  final  design of several
                         commercial  facilities,  including  those  of  Monroe
                         County (New  York) and New Orleans.

                             DEVELOPMENTS IN ENERGY RECOVERY

                            Energy can  be  recovered from  municipal  solid
                         waste either  directly by burning  raw, as-received
                         waste in a furnace with heat recovery  facilities or by
                         first upgrading the raw refuse by mechanical, thermal,
                         or other processes to enhance its usefulness as a fuel.
                         This  section  reports on current technical develop-
                         ments in  energy recovery systems,  including a com-
                         parative overview of energy recovery efficiencies.

                                         System Summaries
                            For  review purposes, energy recovery technologies
                         can be grouped into five general categories (Table 20):
                         (1)  direct combustion;  (2) mechanical  processing;
                         (3) pyrolysis; (4) byconversion; and (5) the  Brayton
                         Cycle.

-------
                     MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                                                                          55
                                               TABLE 20
                    A CLASSIFICATION OF ENERGY RECOVERY PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
                              Processes
                   Principal fuel or convened
                      energy products*
           1.  Direct combustion processes:
                 Refractory furnace
                 Waterwall combustion boiler
                 Small-scale package incinerator
           2,  Mechanical separation of solid combustibles (RDF):
                 Dry process (shredding and air classification)
                Wet process (hydrapulping)
           3. Pyrolysis
           4. Byconversion:
                Landfill
                Anaerobic digestion
                Acid hydrolysis
                Enzymatic hydrolysis
           5. Brayton cycle
                   Steam; hot or chilled water
                   "Fluff" RDF
                   Dust RDF
                   Densified RDF
                   Wet RDF
                   Low Btu gas
                   Medium Btu gas
                   Liquid fuel

                   Methane
                   Methane
                   Methane, ethyl alcohol
                   Methane, ethyl alcohol
                   Electricity/steam
      *AU fuels can, of course, be burned to produce steam. Steam in turn can be converted to electric energy or used directly for
space heating, industrial processes, or other uses.
Direct Combustion Processes
   Direct  combustion  of  raw  (or  semiprocessed)
municipal  solid waste for energy recovery is by no
means a new concept.  There are presently over 250
facilities operating on this basis in Europe and Japan,
and  at  least 12 facilities have this  capability in  the
U.S. Earlier  U.S. installations, dating from the early
1950's, were of the refractory-wall  incinerator type,
with waste-heat recovery boilers.7  This technology
has  since  the  late  1960's  been superseded  by  the
waterwall combustion technique based primarily on
European design concepts and operating experience.
More recently, small-scale package incinerators with
heat recovery  capabilities,  originally designed  for
industrial and institutional  applications,  have begun
to be adapted for municipal wastes.
   WaterwaJJ Combustion Furnaces.  Waterwall units
are widely employed in Europe and Japan, and there
are now seven units completed  in  the U.S.  Not all
of them are marketing steam at present  due to lack
of customers, but  at least four plants can be con-
sidered  U.S. commercial prototype  operations from
the marketing as well as the technology standpoints.
Somewhat surprisingly, there are currently no units
of this type under construction in the U.S., although
several are in the planning  stages.  The two newest
units to come on line, at Nashville, Tennessee, and
Saugus, Massachusetts, are worthy  of further com-
ment.
   The Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation facil-
ity (720 TPD) came on line in the summer of 1974 as
an  integral  part  of  a  district heating and  air-
conditioning system. The  plant has now come to be
recognized as a classic example  of an unsuccessful
attempt to build a low-cost system by "short-cutting"
proven design criteria. The most notable development
in 1975 was the major upgrading of the facility to
correct design deficiencies. By the end of the year the
facility  was back in operation and  producing steam
to design standards. However,  the  original  air pol-
lution  control systems did not  meet emission stan-
dards and are being replaced.
   The Saugus unit  is a 1,200-TPD privately owned
facility, completed in the fall of 1975 and financed by
pollution control revenue  bonds. It  is the first U.S.
plant to supply superheated steam  to an industrial

-------
56
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
user on a commercial scale. The contracted tipping
fee for communities delivering solid waste to  the
Saugus plant is about $14 per ton.
   Small-Scale Package Incinerators.  The small-scale
package incinerator  (under  50 TPD) with heat re-
covery module represents a new technology  in its
municipal applications and  offers the  prospect of
energy conservation  to relatively small communities.
This concept  has been  employed  by three  com-
munities—Blytheville and Siloam Springs, Arkansas,
and Groveton, New Hampshire-to supply part of the
steam requirements of local industry.
Mechanical Separation of Solid Fuels (RDF)
   Mechanical separation  processes  under develop-
ment and application in the U.S. include two broad
types,  loosely termed "dry" and "wet." Both have
been actively supported by EPA demonstration fund-
   9 14
ing.  '
   The "dry" process utilizes  shredding (or milling)
for size reduction of raw refuse, followed typically by
some form of air classification to separate the  parti-
cles into a light (primarily combustible organics) and
a  heavy  (primarily  noncombustible  inorganics and
hard-to-burn  organic pieces) materials  stream. The
light fraction, without further processing, has gener-
ally come to be known as "RDF" (for refuse-derived
fuel) or,  more specifically, as "fluff RDF." This was
essentially  the fuel material produced by EPA's St.
Louis demonstration project.14 Processed further by
physical or chemical means,  it can become "densified
RDF"  (dRDF) or "dust RDF," according to current
terminology.
   FJuff RDF. EPA's demonstration unit to produce
RDF at St. Louis proved the basic feasibility of the
mechanical separation processes, transport and storage
techniques, and the burning  of fluff RDF in place of
5 to 27 percent of the pulverized coal in suspension-
fired utility boilers without adverse short-term effects
on boiler operations.
   The production  of fluff RDF is commercially
available, although a great deal of work remains on
the refinement of equipment components and  the
technical and economic  optimization of the  basic
technology. The first commercial unit, the 400-TPD
Ames,  Iowa, facility, is only just beginning to accum-
ulate operating experience. Three other larger units-
in Baltimore  County (550 TPD), Milwaukee (1,200
                         TPD),  and Chicago (1,000 TPD)-are scheduled for
                         completion in early 1977.
                            Densified RDF. The preparation of densified RDF
                         is  now being explored and  evaluated.15 Densified
                         RDF is produced  by  pelletizing,  briquetting, or ex-
                         truding fluff RDF and is particularly  adapted for
                         stoker  and spreader-stoker furnaces where fuels are
                         burned on grates rather than in suspension. It has not
                         been  demonstrated  commercially, and the  costs,
                         handling characteristics, and firing characteristics will
                         be evaluated in ongoing projects.
                            Dust RDF. The basic feasibility of producing dust
                         RDF  (particles smaller than  0.15 millimeter)  was
                         demonstrated in a proprietary pilot-plant process in
                         1975   by Combustion  Equipment Associates,  Inc.
                         After adding an embrittling chemical, coarsely shred-
                         ded waste is pulverized to a dust-like consistency. A
                         commercial-size plant is under construction at East
                         Bridgewater, Massachusetts.
                            Dust RDF has a higher Btu content than fluff RDF
                         (7,500 to 8,000 Btu/pound versus 5,000 Btu/pound);
                         it also has greater density and homogeneity. In addi-
                         tion it may be  capable of mixing and direct co-firing
                         with  conventional fuel oils. However, production
                         costs  are expected to exceed those for fluff RDF
                         since  more  processing is required, and  the  dust-like
                         composition may  necessitate special  handling to
                         minimize the danger of  an explosion.  The benefit/
                         cost comparisons between dust and fluff RDF are not
                         yet known.
                            Wet RDF. The "wet" mechanical separation proc-
                         ess utilizes hydrapulping technology adapted from the
                         pulp and paper industry to reduce the raw waste to
                         more  uniform  size and consistency, followed by a
                         centrifugal,  liquid cyclone process for separating the
                         pulped mass into light  and heavy fractions.  The
                         original solid waste application was at the EPA/Black-
                         Clawson  demonstration  facility  at Franklin,  where
                         the light  fraction was further processed for  fiber re-
                         covery and the nonfiber organic residual was burned
                         in a fluid-bed combustion unit for disposal.9 Future
                         applications  are  planned primarily for energy re-
                         covery,  with the fuel product  now coming to be
                         known as "wet RDF." Unlike other RDF, however,
                         wet RDF is likely to  be  burned as the sole fuel for
                         special on-site boilers rather than as a supplementary
                         fuel in existing boilers.

-------
                    MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                                                                       57
   Several test bums of the hydrapulped light frac-
tion have been conducted in both  suspension-fired
and stoker -fired boilers. However, since the first full-
size plants are only just nearing the construction stage
(at Hempstead, New York, and Dade County, Florida)
the system must be considered developmental from a
boiler design and operations standpoint. These first
boilers will be  specially designed to  burn the hydra-
pulped RDF  to produce steam for electricity genera-
tion.
Pyrolysis
   Pyrolysis is the physical and chemical decomposi-
tion of organic matter through the application of heat
in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. When municipal
solid  waste is  thus  processed,  the organic  fraction
(primarily cellulose)  is broken down, primarily into
hydrogen,  carbon monoxide, methane,  and carbon
dioxide.  By controlling operating parameters such as
temperature,  pressure,  residence time, and certain
catalysts, it is possible to control the nature and com-
position of resulting products. Various pyrolysis proc-
ess designs have been developed to derive gaseous and
liquid fuels from municipal refuse.
   Pyrolysis  is  largely  in a developmental status,
although two systems have been successfully operated
at pilot stages.
   Low  Btu  Gas.  The first commercial-scale  gas
pyrolysis  plant is  the EPA-supported,  Monsanto
"Landgard"  demonstration  facility  (1,000  TPD),
which was constructed for the city of Baltimore and
scheduled to begin operations in 1975.16 The process
yields a low-Btu gas (130 Btu/standard cubic foot),
which is burned in an afterburner with a waste-heat
boiler to generate steam for district heating and cool-
ing in downtown Baltimore.
   When completed in 1975, the plant exhibited signi-
ficant design deficiencies attributable in large part to
the scaling up from  pilot plant  to large  commercial
size. The principal problem stems from the fact that
the reactor temperature is higher than expected and
the residence time in the kiln is also longer  than  ex-
pected. This led to the formation of submicron parti-
cles  (metallic salts)  which were too small  for col-
lection by the  scrubber, and emissions did not meet
air pollution  standards with the already  installed
pollution control equipment. Slagging and kiln refrac-
tory wear were also greater than anticipated.  A  2-year
modification program was begun in 1975 in which 96
system modifications were made. These modifications
significantly  improved plant operation but did not
solve all of the problems. After unsuccessful attempts
to  complete  30 days of  uninterrupted operation,
Monsanto recommended that the plant be shut down,
and their involvement in the project terminated  in
February 1977. The city is continuing to operate the
plant and has completed a successful 30-day perfor-
mance run at just over half of the plant's design capa-
city. The city plans to attempt two additional 30-day
runs before  making  a final decision  on spending
several million dollars to make further plant modi-
fications.
   In the stage  of early commercial operation is a
process being marketed by the Andco  Torrax Com-
pany. A 200-TPD plant began operation in mid-1976
in Luxembourg. Two other  units of similar size are
under  construction in  Europe. The Andco Torrax
process is a high-temperature slagging pyrolyzer that
produces low-Btu combustible gas.  The technology
was initially tested in an EPA-supported pilot plant.
   Medium Btu  Gas.  Union  Carbide's Purox System
completed  a series of pilot  plant tests in 1975  at
South  Charleston,  West Virginia. The process was
tested  using mixed municipal waste;  it is now  under-
going  tests  with sewage  sludge  co-disposal.  Union
Carbide  now offers  the  system commercially.  In
addition to possible use as a  fuel either on site or by
a nearby customer, the Purox gas is believed to have
potential as  a feedstock to  an  on-site methanol  or
ammonia plant.
   Liquid Fuel.  A  demonstration  plant  based on
Occidental  Petroleum  Company's  flash  pyrolysis
system has been constructed with EPA support in San
Diego County, California.17'18 The process produces
an oil-like liquid with properties similar to No. 6 fuel
oil. The plant is expected  to begin operation in the
summer of 1977.
Bioconversion
   Bioconversion is the alteration of organic wastes
through the  action of a living organism,  such as a
fungus, yeast, or bacterium.  Given time, nature can
accomplish the biodegradation of wastes unassisted.
Landfills, for example, anaerobically  digest the cellu-
losic content of the  fill to  produce methane. The
early results of work conducted in Palos Verdes, Cali-

-------
58
                               RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
fornia, indicate that pipeline quality gas can indeed be
processed from that  collected from a landfill. Cur-
rently, EPA is evaluating the kinetics of gas recovery
from a different kind of landfill located at Mountain
View, California, and additional experimentation is
being conducted under private sponsorship on at least
four other sites.
   Methane  recovery  from landfills is, in a sense, an
afterthought to the disposal process. Bioconversion
technologies developed  specifically  to   maximize
energy  production include  anaerobic digestion in
reactors to produce methane, hydrolysis followed by
anaerobic digestion to produce methane, and  hydro-
lysis  followed  by  fermentation  to produce ethyl
alcohol. In addition to the manufacture of methane
and ethanol from cellulosic wastes,  it is possible to
produce glucose for chemical feedstocks, and protein
for animal consumption.
   EPA is currently conducting research on a 2-TPD
anaerobic digester, using municipal  solid waste, at
Franklin, Ohio. Results to  date have indicated that
mixing of the waste poses a significant problem that
needs to be resolved before the process can be effec-
tive.  Of greater  interest  is EPA-sponsored research
involving acid hydrolysis of specially prepared muni-
cipal solid waste. While not in itself a biological con-
version process,  acid hydrolysis (like its biological
cousin, enzymatic hydrolysis) is  a precursor  to
various bioconversion options, such as production of
glucose, methane, or  ethyl alcohol. A recent techno-
logical breakthrough achieved has resulted in glucose
conversions of up to 50  percent in 10 seconds. The
competing enzymatic hydrolysis process has typically
required hours to produce glucose conversions of only
30 percent. A 1 -TPD acid hydrolysis pilot plant is now
being developed by EPA to determine the kinetics of
the process as conducted in a continuous reactor.
Brayton Cycle System
   For  several years  EPA's Office of Research and
Development has sponsored research on the Brayton
Cycle. In  this  system high-pressure  gases resulting
from the combustion of solid waste with compressed
air are directly used  to drive a gas turbine. Combus-
tion Power  Company has carried out the work. Fluff
RDF is combusted in a fluidized bed furnace and the
cleaned  gases  are introduced  into  a gas  turbine-
generator to produce electricity.
   Despite several years of effort, the system still has
significant  technical problems because the gases can-
not be cleaned sufficiently to  prevent  unacceptable
turbine damage. The latest work has been on a gas-
cleaning  process which would  remove  fine particles
and other  contaminants. However, a test unit failed
structurally, and continuation of the effort to develop
this  system as  a  municipal solid waste processing
option is in doubt.
     The Energy Efficiency of Recovery Systems
   The most common basis for expressing potential
energy recovery from solid waste has been the gross
energy content of raw waste (expressed in either Btu
or equivalent  barrels of oil). Although a useful first
approximation,  this has generally led to mistakenly
high estimates of potential energy savings.19 The rea-
son for this is that the gross or latent energy content
can  never be entirely  captured as useful energy.
First, if a mechanical separation process is employed,
some portion  of the energy will be physically lost as
part of the "heavies" reject stream. In addition, if the
process  involves conversion of  material  from  one
form to another via thermal or chemical processes,
there will be substantial  losses (mainly in the form of
waste  heat)   due  to conversion  inefficiencies.  Net
energy contained in the recovered fuel output stream
can therefore be substantially less (by 50 percent or
more) than the gross energy content of the total waste
input stream.
   It must also be recognized that any material handl-
ing and processing operation must itself require fuel
and  electricity.  These  energy input  requirements
must be included in calculations of a plant's overall
energy balance.
   EPA's preliminary calculations of the net energy
efficiencies for  a  number of recovery  processes are
presented in Table 21.20 The  calculations are based
to  the  extent possible  on  actual measured  energy
balances for existing operating or pilot facilities, but
in many instances they necessarily reflect preliminary
engineering estimates.   The  column  showing net
energy available as steam has been calculated  to pro-
vide additional  important  comparisons  among the
different fuels (since the  conversion efficiencies of
the different  fuels  to steam differ markedly), and to
allow valid comparison between direct  conversion to
steam  (waterwall  furnace) versus intermediate fuel
production. Others have published similar estimates
of energy efficiencies of recovery techniques.21

-------
                    MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                                                                         59
                                              TABLE 21
                      COMPARISON OF ENERGY RECOVERY EFFICIENCIES FOR SELECTED
                                SOLID WASTE ENERGY RECOVERY PROCESSES*
                              (Percent of higher heat value contained in input solid waste)
       Process
Net energy in fuel
   produced!
   Net energy
available as steamf
Fluff RDF
Dust RDF
Wet RDF
Waterwall combustion furnace
Purox gasifier
Monsanto gasifier
Torrax gasifier
Occidental Petroleum Co. pyrolysis
Biological gasification §
   With use of residue
   Without use of residue
      74
      80
      76

      64
      78
      65
      26

      29
      16
       58
       63
       48
       59
       58
       42
       37
       23

       24
       14
      *EPA data from reference 20. All calculations based on solid waste input at 5,000 Btu per pound (higher heating value) with
some inorganic materials removed.
      tThis is the higher heating value of the fuel product less the heat value of the energy used to operate the system (in the case of
electric power consumption it was assumed that the electricity was produced on site using the system's fuel product), expressed as a
percent of the heat value of the input solid waste.
      fin order to compare all the processes on an equal basis, the net energy available as steam was calculated using the boiler effi-
ciency for each fuel product.
      § Includes energy recovered from sewage sludge.
   In general,  the less processing the waste  under-
goes, the greater the net energy recovered for useful
application as  a fuel and the less process energy re-
quired. Thus, pyrolysis, which creates a more refined
intermediate fuel product, is less energy efficient than
RDF, which makes no chemical change in the waste
material. However, the gas, liquid, or steam product
would be expected to sell for a higher price and may
therefore be economically justified.
   Even though based on  incomplete data, the net
energy calculations presented constitute an important
technical advance in our  understanding of alternative
energy recovery processes.
      DEVELOPMENTS IN PROCUREMENT
                AND FINANCING
   Communities that have actively engaged in imple-
menting large-scale  resource  recovery systems  have
found that  they must  deal  with more than just
technological choices. They must also make decisions
regarding managing/operating, procuring, and finan-
cing of recovery facilities, as well as the marketing of
recovered products.
            Methods that communities have followed in finan-
         cing  and  constructing large-scale resource recovery
         systems are  summarized in Table 22. The table lists
         the procurement methods, financing options, manage-
         ment  systems, and principal product markets, as of
         July  1976, for all  U.S. faculties in excess of 300 tons
         per day capacity either built or contracted for since
         1967. It does not include installations that only shred
         and magnetically scalp ferrous metal from the solid
         waste.
            The data  show that no single pattern or model has
         been established in financing, procuring, or managing
         recovery  systems.  Options  have  varied  to  meet the
         specific objectives and constraints of a given locality.
         Almost all  facilities have  been  financed by tax-
         exempt, long-term debt obligations, however. In addi-
         tion, all except one of  the projects is dependent  on
         energy revenue, and most  recent projects sell to the
         electric  utility   industry.   Seven   new  recovery
         facilities-located  in Bridgeport,  Milwaukee,  Hemp-
         stead,  Saugus, Chicago, St. Louis, and  North Little
         Rock-were financed during the past year.

-------
60
                           RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION




















Cv]
N
[d
CQ
g




















3 ^

0 S^

w w
O U
p
« 0
O [I,
£ Q
PROACHE:
NTRACTE
§8
fc?
) PROCUREMEl
COVERY PLAN
2 W
FINANCING A
RESOURCE i








1
1





II
a >
f§
u iS





&
H



Project
management


Procurement
method

Financing
method




Location


f! 1 ia
If III I

& 1 111 la
OJ2 i; n +j 4-1 43
c/i MOM w a




O O O O O
O C4 04 AO O






^ u u u u



III I
& & I & « 1
u O z o ^ £


s 1
JS s
1 |!
U Cz] C U U ^ -a

II I ,lfl
ll j Ifjl




if< ! « -
.S "- -S f ^ g"
«» 5) *C J5 "*-i Cn
ti ri N w> >^ 5
c £ ft (3 o S
£! < X S5 21 w
>,
w
a
8
I I
I u
J3 •*-.
g S
« I
« O




o 10
c^ ui






•g |
!•



D.
§
s
a E


5T
J«!
JW
3

Federal grant,
State loan,
city funds
State reimbursable
county GO bonds



E ^
I *
S I
if j
f 1 a
£
W
8~
*a Jj
1 §--s

If s b I




o o o
So o
0_ 0
P-T ^H tO~




u

o a 1
Q* & t^



a.
8
1 >> S
lei


S 8
1 s I

State revenue bonds
(moral obligation)
City GO bonds
State GO bonds




Bridgeport, Conn.
Chicago, 111.
Dade County. Fla.


.
Is
&i
3!
S.s




o
o
o
of





O
h"
Q
K



Private corp.


Full-service

Pollution control
revenue bonds




Hempstead, N. Y.



Is
|1
P -S




o
o
o^






u>
§



Private corp.


Full-service

S




Milwaukee, Wis.




&
3
a




o
o
o^
of






b
Q



Private corp.


A&E
(partial turn-key)

State grant, public
improvement bonds



>.;
Monroe County, N


.8
1
•3 &
1 1




SO
O
vO~






§ §



Private
Private


Fun-service
Fun-service

Private
Pollution control
revenue bonds




New Orleans, La.
St. Louis, Mo.
























<
&
, Office of Solid Waste,
B
•P
S
r
n
*Resource Reo


if 6
!»|
•?•?!
JSI
» tl 0
is^
5.T3 «
32 »
9,-° "°
•s o f
M -°.
., C tn
" O< C.
&• '3 .&
9 S* «
ns * TS
M s
a 1 «
fff
Uf
8=3 $
= 43 |
g O B
ll?
11 -&2
£2 3
5 w o>

s^ 1
Ba &
-derived fuel syst
:ers perform feas
ility to meet accc
s-aa
litions: RDF = reft
= architect and enc
3es performance of
aw S
•S * 2
S< I
»'i
Abbrfiviatio
= general obliga
gns, constructs,;
Q-ri
s

-------
                     MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                               61
   An important institutional development with re-
spect to financing occurred  when the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service ruled favorably on the use of pol-
lution control revenue bonds (PCRB's) in financing
recovery  projects.  PCRB's  are  tax-exempt  bonds
issued through a public entity on behalf of a private
enterprise. The  municipality acts only as a vehicle
through which the corporation may obtain low-cost
financing. On June 20,1975, the IRS published in the
Federal Register "temporary" regulations delineating
use of PCRB's  for  financing solid  waste facilities.
Since then, IRS has ruled favorably on the Saugus,
Hempstead, New Orleans, and  St.  Louis  (Union
Electric Co.) applications.
   The IRS rules address both materials and energy
recovery.  Basically, they allow tax-exempt status for
all types of materials recovery plant and  equipment
to separate materials from the mixed  waste stream,
plus all equipment at the  recovery plant necessary to
beneficiate  the  recovered products to make  them
more commercially  acceptable or to  increase their
market value. The rules specifically exclude benefi-
ciation facilities  and equipment for further processing
at the commercial user's plant.
   With respect  to energy recovery, the rules  allow
tax-exempt status for all  assets to convert the waste
into usable energy,  including extra equipment that
may be necessary to upgrade the product to meet the
specifications  of its particular  market.  The  rules
exclude equipment for transporting the product after
processing "into the form in which it is sold" (e.g.,
via  steam pipes or trucks).  The rules also exclude
electricity  generating  equipment  from  tax-exempt
financing, "since the equipment transforms the com-
mercially salable steam into another form of energy."
   Resource  recovery  facilities  can  be financed
through taxable (corporate)  or  tax-exempt (general
obligation, State or municipal revenue, or pollution
control revenue) bonds.  In  most circumstances,  it
should be assumed that tax-exempt bonds will be the
primary  method for  financing  recovery projects,
because taxable,  corporate bonds will usually be a
more expensive form of financing. The one exception
to this statement thus far has occurred in Milwaukee,
where Americology  (a  subsidiary of the  American
Can  Company)  did  finance  a project with taxable
debt.  Americology has since  stated, however, that it
would not finance future projects in a similar fashion,
and was only willing to use taxable debt to insure that
the Milwaukee plant, their first and showcase project,
would be built in a timely fashion,

     STATE ACTIVITIES AND ASSISTANCE

   In numerous instances State governments have
taken a direct and active role in the implementation
of resource recovery (Table 23).
   For example, some States have supported resource
recovery planning efforts at the local level by issuing
planning grants or providing  State agency  expertise
to municipalities or regions  to  conduct feasibility
studies. Many States have also engaged in direct state-
wide planning   to  determine needs and marketing
potentials, alternative regional plant sites, and overall
recovery strategies.
   In other instances, certain States have taken steps
to regulate recovery activities. This regulation can range
from control over  the supply and disposal of solid
waste to authority to  own  and  operate resource re-
covery facilities. At the present time,  according  to
EPA's nationwide  survey,  21  States  are  involved
directly in resource recovery planning or regulation.
   Many States  also assist in financing  the construc-
tion  of resource  recovery facilities  through the
establishment of either State grant or loan programs.
Such action can ease  the financing burden  of the
cities and stimulate implementation by  either sub-
sidizing  part  of the  capital costs  outright  or by
making available low-interest loans to the communi-
ties, thereby reducing interest expenses. EPA's nation-
wide survey  presently  lists 11 States  with the
authority to underwrite loans  or  make grants for
facilities construction. The  number was increased
during the  past year by the addition of California,
which authorized $200 million in tax-exempt bonds
for construction of recovery facilities. Although pro-
vided with  the  authority, however,  not all of these
States have  appropriated or  approved funding for
projects.
   In  another  related effort, North   Carolina has
enacted legislation authorizing favorable tax treatment
for certified resource recovery facilities. Such a certi-
fication exempts a facility from county real estate
taxes and permits a 60-month writeoff for State tax
purposes.

-------
62
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                               TABLE 23
                                           SUMMARY OF STATE
                                ACTIVITY IN RESOURCE RECOVERY, 1976*
States involved in
planning or regulation
(21)
California
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Grant or
loan authority
(11)
$200 million, loans
$250 million, loans
$200 millionT

$6 million, grants
$15 million*
$10 million §

$3.5 million, grants

$175 million, loans


$2.5 million, grants



$49.3 million, loans; $2.4 million, grants

$30 million, grants & loans

Operating
authority
(6)

X
X


X
X








X




X
      *Resource Recovery Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA.
      tThis is total available for air, water, and solid waste programs.
      |Total available for resource recovery and other solid waste management.
      § Bonding authority for land acquisition.
   Finally,  six States-Connecticut, Florida,  Mary-
land, Massachusetts, Rhode  Island,  and Wisconsin-
have  enacted  legislation providing  for  special  State
authority  (or for the formation of nonprofit public
corporations with State backing and  authority) to
engage directly in facilities design and construction
or  procurement  contracts and, in  some  instances,
authority to operate facilities.
   The Third Report to Congress contained descrip-
tions of activities for most  of the  States listed in
Table 23.  For more recent descriptions, the reader is
referred to EPA's  revised Nationwide Survey.6 In
addition, a 1976 publication of the National League
of Cities/United States Conference of Mayors provides
a comprehensive current review of State programs.22
      FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
   Many communities do not have sufficient experi-
ence  to implement  a  successful resource recovery
                          project, which is a business endeavor quite different
                          from  traditional solid  waste management activities.
                          Communities need information to address in a timely
                          and effective manner such issues as project manage-
                          ment, public education, evaluation of different tech-
                          nologies, marketing  of products, project financing,
                          management  of risks, and  drafting of  appropriate
                          procurement documents and contracts.

                             To  address these needs,  EPA has established a
                          Resource Recovery Technical Assistance Program. Its
                          objectives are to transfer experience that has been
                          gained among local governments as well as infor-
                          mation and nisults from EPA's own research, develop-
                          ment, technology demonstration, and analysis efforts.
                          The program has two main elements: information and
                          consultation. These  are supplemented by a limited
                          financial assistance program of project implementa-
                          tion grants.

-------
                     MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                                                63
   Through contract and in-house efforts,  informa-
 tion has been developed and made available on a wide
 array  of topics relating to resource recovery.  The
 major recent  output of  this effort is the eight-part
 series:  Resource  Recovery Plant  Implementation:
 Guides for Municipal Officials,  which constitutes a
 comprehensive  guide  to planning  and procuring a
 system;  the topics include: Planning and Overview,
 Financing, Risks and Contracts, Accounting, Procure-
 ment, Technologies, Markets, and Further Assistance
 (a list of information sources).20' 23~29
   EPA  also  provides  in-depth consultation to  a
limited number of communities  who  are  familiar
with  resource recovery, demonstrate  political com-
mitment to implementation, and are willing  to work
closely  with a  technical  assistance team. Assistance
is oriented  towards helping State  and local govern-
ments decide  what tasks should be performed.  Per-
formance of these tasks is generally left to the State
or local government and its consultants.
   A  local government must complete two phases of
activities to determine if resource recovery is feasible
and should be implemented in its area. The Technical
Assistance Program  can  provide aid  in both these
phases. In the study and planning phase, technologies,
costs,  markets,  management  structures,  financing
arrangements,  and procurement options are identified
and analyzed.  Information and assistance in  this area
has been  given to many State and local government
agencies.
   The second phase involves selection and procure-
ment  activities leading directly to the acquisition  and
construction of a facility or other project. Activities
in this phase include writing and reviewing a request
for proposals  (RFP), developing evaluation  criteria,
reviewing responses  to the RFP,  critiquing design,
analyzing risks, developing a negotiating strategy,  and
negotiating of contracts for construction, operation,
or the sale of products. Assistance in these areas re-
quires close work with a city over an extended period
of time.  In  recent months, such assistance has been
given to the following localities:
Dade County, Florida

Detroit, Michigan
Assisted in evaluation of pro-
posals.
Assisted city in writing request
for proposals (RFP), in decid-
ing  on major system param-
eters,  and in evaluating pro-
posals to build and operate a
facility.
                                 Lane County, Oregon
                                Lexington, Kentucky
                                Memphis, Tennessee
                                Montgomery County,
                                   Ohio
                                Washington, D.C.
                         Advised city on preparation of
                         RFP  and recommended  pre-
                         solicitation meeting  with po-
                         tential bidders.
                         Advised city on risk manage-
                         ment  and  system  selection;
                         provided design review.
                         Presented  evaluation of  pro-
                         posals to city council and pro-
                         posed  decision-making  proce-
                         dures.
                         Advised city on procurement
                         strategy.
                         Evaluated  merits  of system
                         under  consideration  by  city
                         council.
   The Bureau of Mines of the Department of the
Interior  also  provides  technical assistance to  com-
munities committed to resource recovery, particularly
those planning to adopt Bureau of Mines technology
in whole or in part. Frequently this includes compre-
hensive  tests   on  the  communities'  refuse  in the
Bureau's Resource Recovery Pilot Plants. Some com-
munities that  have recently been provided assistance
on raw refuse processing include: St. Petersburg and
Tampa, Florida, Tulsa,  Oklahoma, Rochester,  New
York,  the  counties of  Baltimore, Montgomery, and
Howard  in  Maryland, and Mifflin County, Pennsyl-
vania.  In addition the Bureau supplied  engineers to
serve on design review committees for the projects at
Monroe County, New York, and Montgomery County,
Maryland.
   Besides  working  directly  with  State  and  local
governments,  EPA works closely with many public
interest,  advocacy, and industry groups to further
understanding of resource recovery. The agency has
participated in conferences sponsored by the National
League of  Cities/U.S.  Conference  of Mayors, Na-
tional  Association of Counties, National Solid Waste
Management Association, the  American Public Works
Association and the League  of  Women Voters. EPA
has provided grants to  many of these organizations
and  others for  the  education of  their  constitu-
encies  regarding the  issues in resource recovery and
solid waste management in general.
            EPA Implementation Grants
   EPA has observed that many local governments are
unable or reluctant to  budget funds to hire profes-
sional consultants to supplement their own resources
for planning resource  recovery projects. To stimulate
the implementation  of systems and to  demonstrate

-------
64
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
proper planning practices, EPA recently instituted a
program of implementation grants to State, regional,
and   local  governmental  (or  quasi-governmental)
agencies.

   EPA received funds for and announced  the availa-
bility of these grants in March and October  1975.
Table 24 indicates  the  response to each announce-
ment and the awards that were made. The amount of
funds available was small relative  to the number of
applicants  and amounts requested, and  many  quali-
fied applicants had to be denied.
                             To be eligible, applicants were required to submit
                          a detailed work plan  that described tasks leading
                          directly to  implementation of a system  (signing of
                          contracts  for  construction,  sale of products, and
                          supply of waste). Applicants were required to demon-
                          strate their commitment to follow through by provid-
                          ing cash or in-kind  services to pay for at least 25 per-
                          cent of the  pre-design and pre-construction project
                          costs. In the first round, only energy recovery projects
                          were  eligible. In the second  round,  proposals were
                          also invited for materials recovery, source separation,
                          and waste reduction projects.
                                                 TABLE 24
                          RESOURCE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION GRANT PROGRAM
                                     SCHEDULE AND AWARD DECISIONS
Program announced
Applications received:
   Date
   Number
   Amount requested
Grants awarded:
   Date
   Number
   Amount
Grantees selected:
            First round

        March 1975
        April 1975
           102
        $7.2 million
        June 1975
             8
        $440,000
                                        Denver Regional Council
                                        of Governments, Colo.
                                        Lane County, Oreg.
                                        Lexington-Fayette Urban
                                        County Government, Ky.
                                        Middlesex County, N. J.t
                                        Montgomery County, Ohio
                                        New York, N. Y.
                                        Rhode Island Solid Waste
                                        Management Corporation!
                                        Richmond, Va.
   Second round

October 1975
December 1975
    99
$4.5 million
June 1976
     9
$350,000
                                                 Charlottesville, Va.
                                                 Detroit, Mich.
                                                 Duluth, Minn.*
                                                 Nez Perce County,
                                                 Idaho*
                                                 San Luis Obispo
                                                 County, Calif.*
                                                 Springfield, HI.
                                                 Stanislaus County,
                                                 Calif.*
                                                 State of Maryland
                                                 Commonwealth of Massachusetts
      *Represent implementation grants for source separation resource recovery projects.
      tin June 1976, Middlesex County and the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation grants were supplemented
with $100,000 and $50,000, respectively, under the areawide planning authority (Section 208) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control|Act (P.L. 92-500). The scope of work for the two grants was expanded correspondingly.

-------
                       MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY
                                                     65
                    REFERENCES
 1. Levy, S. J. Markets and technology for recovering energy
               from solid waste. Environmental Protection
               Publication SW-130. Washington, U.S. En-
               vironmental Protection Agency,  1974. 31 p.
 2. Levy, S. J. Materials recovery from  post-consumer  solid
               waste.  Presented  at 3d  U.S.-Japan Confer-
               ence on  Solid Waste Management, Tokyo,
               May 12-14, 1976. Washington,  U.S.  Envi-
               ronmental Protection Agency. 33 p.
 3. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of  Solid
               Waste Management Programs. Resource  re-
               covery and source reduction; second report
               to Congress. Environmental Protection Pub-
               lication  SW-122. Washington, U.S.  Govern-
               ment Printing Office, 1974. 112  p.
 4. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
               Waste Management Programs. Resource  re-
               covery and waste reduction;  third report to
               Congress.  Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation  SW-161.  Washington, U.S.  Govern-
               ment Printing Office, 1975. 96 p.
 5. Hopper, R. E. A nationwide survey of resource recovery
               activities. Environmental Protection Publica-
               tion SW-142.  [Washington], U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, Jan.  1975.  74 p.
 6. McEwen, L. A nationwide survey of waste reduction and
               resource  recovery activities.  Environmental
               Protection  Publication  SW-142.1. Washing-
               ton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
               1977.
 7. Alvarez, R. J. Status paper on conversion of  solid waste
               to energy on the North American continent.
               In  Conference papers; CRE, Conversion  of
               Refuse to  Energy; 1st  International  Con-
               ference and Technical Exhibition, Montreux,
               Switzerland, Nov. 3-5, 1975. p. 130-135.
 8. Specifications for recovered  materials,  pt.  I.  NCRR
               Bulletin,  5(4):86-96, Fall 1975; pt.  II. A
               prerequisite    to   marketing.   6(l):13-22,
               Winter 1976.
 9. Arella, D. G. Recovering resources from solid waste using
               wet-processing; EPA's Franklin, Ohio, de-
               monstration project. Environmental Protec-
               tion  Publication  SW-47d. Washington,  U.S.
               Government Printing Office, 1974. 26 p.
10. Resource recovery; experience and systems description.
               Bethpage, N.  Y.,  Grumman   Ecosystems
               Corporation, Jan. 1975. 27 p.
11. Resource Technology  Corporation.   Solid waste proc-
               essing facilities. Technical Report 103701,
               Rev. B.  Washington,  American Iron and
               Steel Institute, Feb. 1976. 358  p. Also Re-
               source Technology Corporation unpublished
               data.
12. Morey,  R., and S. Rudy. Aluminum recovery from muni-
               cipal trash by  linear induction motors. Pre-
               sented at 78th National  Meeting, American
               Institute  of Chemical Engineers, Salt  Lake
               City, Utah, Aug. 18-21, 1974, 17 p.
13. The aluminum magnet: closing the loop: aluminum pro-
               duction,  use,  recovery, reuse.  Pittsburgh,
               Aluminum  Company  of  America, 1976.
               8 p.
 14. Lowe, R. A. Energy recovery from waste; solid waste as
                supplementary fuel in power plant boilers.
                Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
                36d Ji. Washington, U.S. Government Print-
                ing Office, 1973. 24 p.
 15. National Center for Resource Recovery. Preparation, use
                and cost  of d-RDF as a supplementary fuel
                in stoker fired boilers. U.S. Environmental
                Protection Agency, Office of Research and
                Development Grant No. R804150.
 16. Sussman, D. B.  Baltimore  demonstrates gas  pyrolysis;
                resource  recovery from solid waste. Envi-
                ronmental Protection Publication SW-75d.i.
                Washington, U.S. Government  Printing Of-
                fice, 1975. 24 p.
 17. Levy, S. J. San Diego County demonstrates pyrolysis of
                solid waste to  recover liquid fuel, metals,
                and glass. Environmental Protection  Publi-
                cation SW-80d.2. Washington, U.S. Govern-
                ment Printing Office, 1975. 27 p.

 18. Preston,  G. T. Resource recovery and flash  pyrolysis.
                Waste Age, 7(5):83-86, 89-90, 92, 94,  96,
                98, May 1976.

 19. Lowe,  R. A., M. Loube, and F. A. Smith. Energy con-
               servation  through  improved  solid  waste
               management. Environmental Protection Pub-
               lication SW-125. Cincinnati, U.S. Environ-
               mental  Protection  Agency, 1974. 39  p.,
               app.
20. Levy, S. J., and H. G. Rigo. Resource recovery  plant
               implementation: guides for municipal offi-
               cials—technologies.  Environmental  Protec-
               tion Publication SW-157.2. [Washington],
               U.S.  Environmental   Protection   Agency,
                1976.81 p.
21. Bailie, R. C., and D. M. Doner. Energy accounting proce-
               dure for evaluation of efficiency of resource
               recovery  systems. Resource Recovery and
               Conservation, 1(2): 177-187, 1975.

22. Heidenreich, P.,  and  R. A. Lowe.  Resource   recovery
               planning ... an overview of the implemen-
               tation process. Washington, National League
               of  Cities,  United   States Conference  of
               Mayors, [1976]. 21 p.
23. Shilepsky, A., and R. A. Lowe. Resource recovery  plant
               implementation: guides for municipal offi-
               cials—planning and overview. Environmental
               Protection Publication SW-157.1.  [Washing-
               ton] ,   U.S.   Environmental   Protection
               Agency, 1976. 34 p.
24. Garbe, Y. M.,  and S.  J. Levy. Resource recovery plant
               implementation: guides for municipal offi-
               cials-markets.   Environmental Protection
               Publication  SW-157.3  [Washington],  U.S.
               Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1976.
               47 p.
25. Randol, R.  E. Resource recovery plant implementation:
               guides for municipal officials—financing. En-
               vironmental  Protection  Publication  SW-
               157.4. [Washington],  U.S.  Environmental
               Protection Agency, [1975]. 20 p.

-------
66
                                  RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
26, Mitre  Corporation. Resource recovery plant implemen-
               tation: guides for municipal officials—pro-
               curement. Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation  SW-157.5.  [Washington],   U.S.
               Environmental Protection Agency, [1976].
               66 p.
27. Sussman, D.  B.  Resource recovery plant  implemen-
               tation:   guides  for municipal  officials-
               accounting  format. Environmental  Protec-
               tion  Publication  SW-157.6. [Washington],
               U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,
               [1976]. 17 p.
28. Randol, R. E. Resource recovery plant implementation:
               guides for municipal officials—risks and con-
               tracts.  Environmental  Protection  Publica-
               tion SW-157.7.  [Washington], U.S. Envi-
               ronmental Protection Agency, 1976. 52 p.
29. Hawkins, D. Resource recovery plant  implementation:
               guides for municipal officials—further assis-
               tance. Environmental Protection Publication
               SW-157.8. [Washington], U.S. Environmen-
               tal Protection Agency, [1975], 29 p.

-------
                                           Chapter 6
    ENVIRONMENTAL  AND  ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF  NATIONAL
              BEVERAGE CONTAINER  DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
                INTRODUCTION
   In  recent years there have been numerous pro-
posals at the Federal, State, and local levels to require
mandatory  deposits on all beer and soft-drink con-
tainers. The purpose of such deposits is to provide a
direct financial  incentive  to  consumers to return
empty beverage containers to points of purchase (or
other  redemption points) for reuse or recycling, thus
diverting them from municipal solid waste collection,
disposal, and  littering.  Reuse and recycling of con-
tainers also result in savings of energy and materials.
   Four States-Oregon,  Vermont,  Michigan, and
Maine-now have such laws in effect. The U.S. Senate
in the 1976  session  voted against a proposal that
would have instituted mandatory deposits nationwide.
Many of those voting against this proposal indicated
that they felt  that they did not have sufficient infor-
mation to make an informed judgment.
   At  the request of Congress, EPA has carried out an
analysis of  the environmental and economic impacts
of such a law. This chapter presents EPA's findings in
the areas of:
      Litter reduction
      Energy savings
      Material savings
      Solid  waste reduction
      Employment effects
      Industrial investment requirements
     Consumer beverage price changes
   The results presented are based upon a number of
analyses,  studies,  and investigations  conducted by
EPA staff,  consultants,  and contractors, as noted in
the references at the end of the chapter. The Federal
Energy Administration and the Department of Com-
merce have  also carried out analyses of many of these
issues,1'2  and  comparisons with their results are pro-
vided where feasible.
    CONTAINER MARKET SHARE SCENARIO
          AND OTHER ASSUMPTIONS
   The  economic  and  environmental  impacts  of
container deposit legislation depend upon the change
in the market shares of different container types and
the time period over which this change takes place.
The  general  consensus  is  that deposit legislation
would  result  in an  increased  use  of refillable glass
bottles at the expense of nonrefillable bottles and
metal cans. However, the precise extent and rapidity
of the shift are subject to debate.
   Many previous analyses of deposit  legislation have
assumed an extreme and sudden market response  in-
volving  complete  elimination  of both  nonrefillable
bottles and metal cans in a very short period of time
following enactment.2'3 This does not appear to be a
feasible or likely market response for several reasons.
   Deposit  legislation  under consideration does not
ban or prohibit the use of metal cans or nonrefillable
bottles but merely requires a  refundable deposit  on
whatever container is used. With deposit legislation, a
nonrefillable  bottle and a refillable bottle may  be
identical in the eyes of the consumer. If so, container
choice would be made on  the basis of price alone
(rather than on the basis of price and convenience in a
situation where nonrefillable bottles do not carry de-
posits).  Since beverages in refillable bottles are typi-
cally much less costly than beverages in nonrefillable
bottles, the former  would  be purchased whenever
they represent perfect substitutes for the latter. How-
ever, in certain container sizes (especially quart and
larger sizes) beverages in refillable containers are not
always available. Also, some consumers might prefer
nonrefillable bottles  because of their lighter weight
(this may be  particularly  important for the larger
sizes). Furthermore, certain beverage producers could
choose to stay with nonrefilldble bottles for product
distinction, and imported beer may continue to  be
                                                 67

-------
 68
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
sold in such bottles. Therefore, while it is reasonable
to expect a significant decline in nonrefillable bottle
usage under a  national  deposit  system,  it  is not
obvious  that such containers  would  be eliminated
altogether.
   Usage of metal cans may be less deeply affected.
The metal can  is the highest  priced  beverage  con-
tainer in use today, and some  consumers are paying
a premium for  beverages in cans  even as  compared
to nonrefillable  bottles.  For these consumers, metal
cans apparently  provide certain benefits beyond the
convenience of  not having to  return the container,
perhaps  ease of storage,  lighter  weight, or shatter
resistance.  Such  perceived advantages, together with
greater value of metals over glass  as material for re-
cycling, could cause the metal can to fare much better
than the  nonrefillable bottle under a universal deposit
system. This is suggested  by the  recent successes of
the aluminum industry's can recycling efforts, where
substantial fractions are returned  for a small refund
(three-quarters of a cent per can).
   While  it is difficult  to estimate  the extent of mar-
ket shifts, it is perhaps even more difficult to estimate
the rate  at which such shifts would take place. The
availability  of  both containers  and  on-line filling
equipment capacities would affect this rate, as would
a host of other industry  adjustment factors.  In the
present analysis, it has been assumed that a uniform
national  deposit law was enacted at the end of 1975
and that  the container mix transition occurs over the
5-year period from 1975 to 1980.
    Based on considerations such as the above, to-
gether with  results  of  the  Oregon  and Vermont
experience, the  following  shift in market shares was
assumed  for the  EPA impact analysis:

      •  Growth in the refillable bottle share of the
         combined beer and soft-drink market to 80
         percent from 25 percent in 1975.
      •  Decline in the use of one-way  glass bottles
         and  elimination  of such  containers by the
         end of the transition period, contrasted with
         a 27-percent market share in 1975.
     •   Decline of metal cans to 20 percent of the
        market  (shared  equally  by aluminum and
         steel cans) from 47 percent in 1975.
                         Other assumptions are:
                              • Beverage consumption does not change as a
                                 result of legislation. (This is consistent with
                                 findings by the Research Triangle Institute
                                 on the  price effects and price elasticities of
                                 demand for beer and soft drinks.* '3)
                              • 90 percent of refillable bottles are returned
                                 and refilled.  (This is equivalent to a  "trip-
                                 page" rate of 10, which is considered realis-
                                 tic, both in light of present national experi-
                                 ence   and   the  Oregon-Vermont  deposit
                                 experience.)
                              • 90 percent of the  aluminum  and steel cans
                                 are  returned,  and  90  percent of  those
                                 returned are  recycled. (The same return rate
                                 as  for glass seems the  most  reasonable
                                 assumption.  The recycling  rate assumption
                                 is arbitrary.)
                              • The container weight and size mix does  not
                                 change during  the  transition  period.   (A
                                 simplifying assumption.)
                              • The plastic bottle does not enter the market
                                 during the transition period.  (A simplifying
                                 assumption.)
                             In  the analysis this deposit scenario is compared to
                          a baseline  container mix for  1980 projected in the
                          absence of deposit legislation (Table  25). The latter
                          data are based on an EPA contract study of technical
                          and economic trends in the beverage, container, and
                          metals industries.4
                             While  the assumptions concerning market  shares,
                          transition period, and return and recycling rates are
                          to some  extent arbitrary, they do not constitute an
                          unreasonable working model for estimating  the im-
                          pacts  of  such legislation.  If anything,  the assumed
                          change in  container  mix perhaps represents a more
                          extreme  market shift over this period  than would
                          actually be realized.  If this is true, then the analysis
                          will tend to overestimate changes in employment and
                          capital costs, and, to some extent, environmental and
                          conservation benefits as  well. However, the environ-
                          mental, energy, and resource conservation benefits
                          are more sensitive to the return, reuse, and recycling
                          rates  achieved than to the changes in container mix
                          as such.

-------
                    IMPACTS OF NATIONAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
                                                69
                    TABLE 25
   DISTRIBUTION OF THE BEVERAGE CONTAINER
   MARKET AMONG CONTAINER TYPES, FOR BEER
           AND SOFT DRINKS COMBINED*
             (Percent of packaged volume)


1975 baseline
1980 baseline
1980 deposit
legislation
Refillable
glass
bottles
26
21

80
One-way
glass
bottles
27
28

0
Steel
cans
31
30

10
Aluminum
cans
16
21

10
    *EPA analysis of data from: Nuss, G. R., et al. [Midwest
 Research Institute]. Base Line Forecasts of Resource Re-
 covery, 1972 to 1990: Final Report. Environmental Protec-
 tion Publication SW-107c. U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, 1975.  [386 p.] (Distributed by National Technical
 Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-245 924.)

                    RESULTS
                 Litter Reduction
   The analysis of the impact of national  container
deposit legislation on roadside litter is based upon the
results of similar legislation in Oregon and Vermont.
A study sponsored by the Oregon State Legislature
estimated that beverage  container litter declined by
66 percent  in the year  following enactment of the
legislation.5 A study  by the Oregon Environmental
Council found that beverage container litter was re-
duced by 72 percent during the first year and by 83
percent during the second  year following the passage
of the legislation.6 Both of these studies utilized data
collected through controlled litter surveys conducted
by  the Oregon State  Highway Division. A  Vermont
Highway Department litter survey found a 67 percent
reduction in beverage container litter in the year fol-
lowing passage of legislation in that  State.7 All of
these results have been reviewed and analyzed and are
believed  to  correctly  represent the impact of  these
laws on beverage container litter.
   Amounts of beer  and soft  drink containers that
would be littered on highways with and without con-
tainer deposit legislation were estimated and projected
using litter rates  from these and other surveys. The
results indicate that approximately 4.1 billion con-
tainers were littered in 1975; the projected figure for
1980 is 5.3 billion (Table 26). If a nationwide deposit
system were in effect, it is estimated that beverage
container litter would be reduced to 1.6 billion con-
tainers in 1980. This  figure is 60 percent below the
1975 level and 70 percent below that projected for
1980 in the absence of deposit legislation.
   Litter surveys  have shown that beer and soft-drink
containers comprise  between  20 to 30 percent of
roadside litter by item count and 40 to 60 percent on
a volume basis. In Oregon, total roadside litter was re-
ported to be reduced by  11 to 26 percent on an item
count basis and 35 percent on a volume basis the first
year after the bill went  into  effect.5'6 During the
second year, a reduction in total roadside litter of 39
percent by item count and 47 percent by volume was
reported.6 National beverage container deposit legis-
lation is thus expected to result  in significant  reduc-
tions in roadside litter.
                  Energy Savings
   Energy requirements for various container systems
were analyzed. The analysis included the energy re-
quired for each manufacturing and transportation step
in the life cycle of the container, beginning with the
extraction of raw materials from the earth and con-
tinuing through materials processing, product fabrica-
tion, use, and final disposal (or reuse and recycling).
The analysis employed  1973 energy  consumption
factors.
   The  EPA analysis indicates there are considerable
energy savings when beverage containers are reused or
recycled.  For example, a  glass bottle reused 10 times
consumes less than one-third of the energy of single-
use containers used to deliver the equivalent quantity
of  beverage.8  Recycling of aluminum  and all-steel
cans saves 78 and 39 percent,  respectively,  of the
energy required to  manufacture cans from virgin raw
materials.8
                 TABLE 26
        AMOUNTS OF LITTER OF BEER
        AND  SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS*
           Year
Billions of
containers
        1975 baseline
        1980 baseline
        1980 deposit
          legislation
   4.1
   5.3

   1.6
     *EPA analyses based on  data  from:  Finkner,
  A. L. National Study of the Composition of Roadside
  Litter. Report from the Highway Research Board to
  Keep America Beautiful. Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
  Research Triangle Institute,  Sept. 12,  1969. 137 p.
  (Unpublished report.); and  Waggoner, D. Oregon's
  Bottle Bill Two Years Later. Portland, Ore., Columbia
  Group Press, May 1974. 37 p., app.

-------
 70
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
   In the absence of container legislation, energy con-
sumption for the beverage container industry is pro-
jected to be 585 trillion Btu in 1980. Container legis-
lation would reduce this by 245 trillion Btu that year
and in fact would reduce energy consumption below
the 1975 baseline levels (Table 27).
   An energy  saving of 245  trillion Btu per year is
equivalent to a saving of 125,000 barrels of oil per
day. While this would be less than 1 percent of total
national energy consumption in 1980, it is comparable
in magnitude to other important energy conservation
measures. For example, it is equivalent to one-half of
the energy saving from nationwide adherence to the
55-mile-per-hour vehicle speed limit.

                   TABLE 27
       ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY
        BEVERAGE CONTAINER SYSTEMS*
             Year
   Trillion
     Btu
          1975 baseline
          1980 baseline
          1980 deposit
            legislation
     465
     585

     340
      *EPA analyses of data from:  Hunt, R.G., et al.
   Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine
   Beverage Container Alternatives; Final Report, v. 1-2.
   Environmental Protection Publication SW-91c. Wash-
   ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 178 p.

   The Federal Energy Administration recently com-
pleted an energy savings analysis similar to the one
previously conducted by EPA.1  However, the FEA
study accounted for technology changes that may re-
duce energy consumption in the beverage industry in
future years. This study also made different assump-
tions  concerning container market shares and return
and recycling rates. The FEA study estimates annual
energy savings ranging from 145 to 170 trillion Btu in
1982  depending upon the assumptions made. While
these  savings are lower than those previously pre-
dicted by EPA, they still represent substantial levels
of energy conservation for this industry (reductions
in energy consumption of 38 to 44 percent).
    Solid Waste deduction and Material Savings
   Savings in virgin raw materials and reduction in
solid waste result from the reuse and recycling of con-
tainers. Estimates of virgin raw  material  usage  for
                         both  the baseline case  (in the absence of container
                         deposit legislation) and  the container deposit scenario
                         indicate that  deposits  would result in a savings of
                         530,000 tons  of aluminum, 1.5 million tons of steel,
                         and  5.2  million  tons  of glass  per  year by  1980
                         (Table 28). Furthermore, under a deposit law, 1980
                         material consumption would drop  below even 1975
                         baseline conditions.

                                            TABLE 28
                             VIRGIN RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION FOR
                              PRODUCTION OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS*
                                       (Millions of tons per year)
Year
1975 baseline
1980 baseline
1980 deposit
legislation
Aluminum
.475
.643

.112
Steel
1.49
1.74

.29
Glass
6.79
8.24

3.00
   *EPA analyses of data from: Hunt, et al., Resource and
Environmental Profile Analysis, 1974.

   Deposit legislation  is projected to  reduce  the
beverage container component of solid waste by 70
percent, or 7.2 million tons, in 1980 (Table 29). This
represents  approximately a  5-percent  reduction in
total residential and commercial solid waste generated
in that year  (or  8.5 percent  of  the  manufactured
goods, excluding  food  and yard  trimmings, in  the
waste stream).

                    TABLE 29
            BEVERAGE CONTAINERS IN
             MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE*
                                    Year
                                                           Million tons
                                 1975 baseline
                                 1980 baseline
                                 1980 deposit
                                   legislation
                                      8.8
                                     10.6

                                      3.4
                                *EPA analysis of data from: Hunt, et al., Resource
                             and En vironmental Profile Analysis, 1974.
                                        Employment Effects
                            The  establishment  of  a  returnable  container
                          system should result in increases in employment for
                          the distribution and handling of containers. However,
                          employment in the beverage container manufacturing
                          industries would decrease due to reductions in the use
                          of cans and nonrefillable bottles.

-------
                     IMPACTS OF NATIONAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
                                                71
   Employment estimates were made using quantita-
 tive  relationships between employment levels  and
 beverage container production and usage levels devel-
 oped in previous  studies. Employment impacts were
 estimated for the following seven industries:
      Soft drinks
      Malt liquor
      Wholesale beer distribution
      Retailing
      Glass container manufacturing
      Metal can manufacturing
      Metal suppliers
   A nationwide deposit system would cause employ-
 ment levels in the container manufacturing and supply
 industries  to be decreased  by 82,000 positions by
 1980 compared with the baseline projection for  that
 year (Table  30). However, employment levels in the
 beverage, beverage distribution, and retailing indus-
 tries would be increased by over 164,000 positions,
 resulting in an overall net increase of 82,000 positions.
 This represents a 23-percent increase above the 1980
 baseline projection.
   The FEA and  Commerce  Department carried out
 similar analyses to  derive employment impact esti-
 mates corresponding to the assumptions about con-
 tainer market shares and return rates used  in those
 studies. The results of both these studies are broadly
 similar to those  presented here in terms  of both
 direction   and   general   magnitude   of   change:
(1)  employment  in the  container manufacturing
sector  would  be decreased by several tens of thou-
sands,  and (2) employment in other beverage supply
and distribution sectors would be increased by several
tens of thousands of jobs more than those lost in
manufacturing.

   Effects  on  labor income  were  estimated using
average annual  earnings of  production workers in
these industries.  While  the  positions eliminated are
generally higher paying than the positions gained, the
increase in employment levels would result in a $400
million net increase in labor income in 1980 under a
nationwide container deposit system (Table 31).
   With regard to the decline in employment in the
glass container,  metal can, and primary metal manu-
facturing  industries, of special  concern  are the job
dislocations in those industries, or the number of in-
dividuals who would lose their jobs because of the
shift in container use. It is important to note that the
job dislocations are less than the difference in employ-
ment  levels between the  baseline  and  container
deposit cases.  Dislocations are reductions in the labor
force employed prior to enactment of the deposit
legislation and are therefore measured relative to the
1975 labor force. Furthermore, job losses due to pro-
ductivity changes or normal employee attrition (resig-
nations and retirements) must not be included in the
count of dislocations caused by the change in contain-
er market shares.
                                                TABLE 30
                        EMPLOYMENT LEVELS IN CONTAINER PRODUCTION AND USE*
                                            (In thousands of jobs)

Year
1975 baseline
1980 baseline
1980 deposit
legislation
Net change
Soft
drink
industry*
102
119

154
+ 35
Malt
liquor
industry
19.8
23.6

31.9
+ 8.3
Wholesale
beer
distribution
56.2
67.1

90.2
+23.1

Retailing
13.4
13.1

111.0
+ 97.9
Glass
container
manufacturing
36.5
40.7

11.0
-29.7
Metal
can
industries
42.0
55.5

21.5
-34.0
Metal
suppliers
22.8
30.2

11.7
-18.5

Total
293
349

431
+ 82
(1980 deposit legislation
minus 1980 baseline)
   *EP A analysis of data from: Bingham, T.H.,and P. F. Mulligan [Research Triangle Institute]. The Beverage Container Problem;
Analysis and Recommendations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1972. 190 p. (Distributed by National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-213 34l);Bottle Survey '71; A California Supermarket Report on the Cost of Handling
Returnable Soft Drink Bottles. Le Habra, Calif., Alpha Beta Acme Markets,  1971. 16 p.; Employment Dislocations Data.
Research Triangle Park, N. C., Research Triangle Institute, Apr. 10, 1974. 31 p.
   t Container distribution employment only.

-------
 72
                                RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                TABLE 31
                          LABOR INCOME FROM CONTAINER PRODUCTION AND USE*
                                             (In millions of dollars)


Year
1975 baseline
1980 baseline
1980 deposit
legislation
Net change
Soft

drink
industry
745
872

1,125
+ 253
Malt

liquor
industry
257
306

413
+107
Wholesale

beer
distribution
517
617

830
+213


Retailing
99
96

815
+719
Glass

container
manufacturing
347
387

105
-282
Metal

can
manufacturing
479
633

245
-388

Metal
suppliers
269
357

138
-219


Total
2,710
3,270

3,670
+ 400
(1980 deposit legislation
minus 1980 baseline)
   *EPA analysis of data from: Table 30; and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and Earnings:
United States 1909-1970. Bulletin 1312-7.  Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 602 p.
    Container distribution employment only.
   It  has  been  estimated that  43,000  employees
would be affected by job  dislocations resulting from
a container deposit law that caused a gradual shift in
container market shares over a 5-year period (Table
32). (In deriving this figure a 4-percent annual separa-
tion rate  was applied to 1975 employment levels to
account for normal employment attrition and produc-
tivity changes.) These job  losses would be spread out
over the 5-year transition  period and would occur in
proportion to  the change  in market mix of the dif-
ferent containers.*  Depending on an area's existing
unemployment rate and growth in other job oppor-
tunities, these  job dislocations may represent signif-
icant  hardships for affected  employees and regions
and are an important transitional social cost of the
deposit legislation.
   The dislocations  will,  in general, be spread  out
over  many States,  corresponding to the wide geo-
graphic  distribution  of  container  manufacturing
plants,  especially glass  plants. While  the economy
should be readily able to absorb most of the displaced
workers, there may be some areas where this is not
the case. EPA's analysis has not attempted to identify
specific  areas  that  would  have  problems in  this
respect.
    *Longer transition  periods would mean fewer job dis-
locations because  employment reductions  due  to normal
attrition  and  productivity improvements over the longer
period would  reduce the number of workers who wou'd be
affected. For example, a 10-year transition period would re-
sult in 24,000 job dislocations (13,700 in  glass container
manufacturing, 6,400  in the  metal can industry, and 3,500
in the metal supply industry).
        Industrial Investment Requirements
   To  the extent that container deposit legislation
increases the market share of refillable bottles, new
investments would be required in the soft-drink, malt
liquor, wholesale beer distribution, and  retail indus-
tries. In addition, future investment requirements for
one-way  containers  and  container  systems would
decline. It has been  estimated  that $1.8 billion in
capital expenditures  would be necessary to  increase
the market share of refillable bottles to 80 percent of
the market at 1975 rates of consumption (Table 33)t.
This includes costs  of items such as transportation
equipment, refillable bottle inventory, and new bottle-
washing and filling lines.  The estimates were derived
by   updating  a  1969  beverage-industry-sponsored
study of the investment requirements resulting from a
ban on nonrefillable containers.
   It is  important that these figures  not be  inter-
preted as new or incremental capital expenditures for
this industry. As the refillable  bottle market share
increases, the nonrefillable container share would de-
crease,  as would investment requirements  in that
sector. Therefore, to some extent container deposit
legislation merely causes a change from one type of
capital purchase to another.
    The U.S. Department of Commerce has estimated invest-
 ments of $3 to $5 billion for a 100-percent refillable bottle
 market based upon  projections of the capital expenditures
 in Oregon after passage of deposit legislation.^ The Federal
 Energy Administration has also estimated industry  capital
 requirements for various refillable bottle market shares.*

-------
                    IMPACTS OF NATIONAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
                                                                      73
                    TABLE 32
      EMPLOYMENT DISLOCATION RESULTING
           FROM DEPOSIT LEGISLATION*
           (Over a 5-year transition period)
         Industry
          Jobs
 Glass container manufacturing
 Metal can industry
 Metal suppliers
   Total
          20,500
          14,400
           7,800
          42,700
   *EPA analysis of data of Table 30, using a 4 percent an-
 nual rate of employee separation to account for normal em-
 ployment attrition.

   Annual investments in the beverage and container
industries in the 1970-75 period, based upon infor-
mation provided by the  U.S. Bureau of Census, are
estimated at $600 to $800 million per year (Table
34). The major part of this investment was probably
for capital  expenditures  for  nonrefillable container
systems, since such containers represented  over 70
percent of  the market and all growth was in  that
sector.

   The above figures suggest  that the annual invest-
ment requirements  for increasing the refillable bottle
share over  a 5-year period would  be of the same
general magnitude as the current annual investment in
one-way container  systems. Therefore, a shift to re-
fillable containers should not require significant incre-
mental  capital expenditures for the industry as an
aggregate. However, certain segments of the industry,
notably  wholesale  beer  distribution and  retailing,
might have higher-than-normal investment levels.

                    TABLE 33
       CAPITAL EXPENDITURES NEEDED TO
  INCREASE REFILLABLE BOTTLE MARKET SHARE
     AS PER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION SCENARIO*
       Industry
Millions of dollars
Soft drinks
Malt liquor
Wholesale beer distribution
Retailing
   Total
                                        1,780
   *EPA  analysis of data from: Maillie, J., The National
Economic Impact of a Ban on Nonrefillable Beverage Con-
tainers; Final Report. Kansas City, Mo., Midwest Research
Institute, June 30, 1971. 120 p.
   An estimate of the 1975 value of the capital stock
that would be subject to accelerated depreciation due
to container deposit legislation indicates $1.9 billion
worth of capital and  equipment would be written off
over the 5-year transition period (Table 35). This esti-
mate was  derived by  updating a  1969  beverage-
industry-sponsored study  of  the accelerated  capital
writeoffs resulting from a ban on nonrefillable con-
tainers. It should be noted that the accelerated asset
writeoffs do not represent a net  cost to the affected
industries since they also involve certain offsetting
tax reductions.  In order to  estimate the  effect on
Federal tax revenues of such a writeoff, the acceler-
ated depreciation  schedule would have to  be com-
pared to the normal depreciation rate of such equip-
ment.

                    TABLE 34
     ANNUAL INVESTMENTS IN THE BEVERAGE
       AND CONTAINER INDUSTRIES, 1970-75*
                              Industry
                                           Millions
                                          of dollars
                      Soft drinks
                      Malt liquor
                      Wholesale beer distribution
                      Glass container manufacturing
                      Metal can manufacturing
                      Metal suppliers
                        Total
                                          200 - 300
                                          160 - 200
                                           60-80
                                           60-85
                                           70- 100
                                           20-50
                                          570-815
   *Personal communication. U.S.  Bureau of Census to
M. Loube, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1975.

              Consumer Price Impacts
   Numerous  studies  indicate  that beer  and  soft
drinks sold in refillable bottles are lower priced to the
retail consumer than beverages in one-way bottles and
cans.9"13 Savings in the range of 3 to 8 cents per 12
ounces of  beverage have  frequently been observed.
The savings are even greater for larger containers.
   The prices  are lower  because  refillable  bottles
used many times are much cheaper to a soft-drink
bottler or brewer than one-way bottles and cans. This
is  true even though the use of  refillable containers
involves  higher  costs of filling,  transportation, and
storage as compared to one-way containers. The con-
tainer  cost savings  more than  offset  the  higher
handling costs.

-------
74
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                   TABLE 35
     CAPITAL STOCK THAT WOULD UNDERGO
      ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION DUE TO
             DEPOSIT LEGISLATION*
        Industry
     Millions of dollars
Soft drinks
Malt liquor
Glass container manufacturing
Metal can manufacturing
Metal suppliers
   Total
            272
            254
            113
            813
            450
          1,915
   *EPA  analysis  of  data  from:  Maillie, The National
Economic Impact, 1971.
   A shift to refillable bottles caused by deposit legis-
lation would involve some changeover costs that are
not reflected in present-day prices. Therefore, in the
early years of the transition, the average prices might
be higher than the price for beverages in refillable
bottles today. However, there is no reason to believe
that  prices  would  be higher than those currently
charged for beverages in one-way containers.  In the
longer term,  with  container  deposits average  con-
sumer prices for beer and soft drinks should be less.
   In order to estimate national consumer cost savings
from  a transition to returnable containers, it was
assumed that  retail prices for beverages in refillable
bottles would be 2.5 cents cheaper per container than
beverages in one-way glass bottles and 5 cents cheaper
than beverages in metal  cans. This is a conservative
assumption  based upon current price differentials.
Future retail price differentials could widen since the
cost of metal cans has been increasing faster than the
cost of glass bottles. Annual consumer savings would
total $2.5 billion by 1980 and $3.2 billion by  1985,
with cumulative  savings through those years of $7
billion and  $22 billion, respectively (Table 36). The
Federal Energy Administration study estimated simi-
lar reductions in consumer expenditures  of $1.8 to
$2.6 billion annually by 1982.l
                 CONCLUSIONS
   The results of EPA analyses indicate that Federal
beverage container deposit legislation would cause a
significant shift in beverage container systems towards
reuse and  recycling.   Most analysts  predict a very
significant  decrease  in nonrefillable  bottles  and a
less significant decrease in the use of metal cans.
                                             TABLE 36
                                CONSUMER SAVINGS RESULTING FROM
                                  CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION*
                                          (In billions of dollars)
Year
1980
1985
Annual savings
2.5
3.2
Cumulative savings
through the year
7.0
22.0
   *EPA analysis using data from References 8 through 12.

An analysis of the projected container market  re-
sponse and  its effects, based on relatively extreme
but not unreasonable assumptions  regarding shifts
in container mix, return rate, and can recycle rates,
yields the following conclusions:

   Environmental  and resource conservation effects:
     •  Reduction in roadside litter by 60 to 70 per-
        cent of container litter and 20 to 40 percent
        of total litter.
     •  Reduction in annual  municipal solid waste
        of about  7 million tons (1980), or 5 percent
        of total  waste  (including  food  and  yard
        waste) or 8.5 percent of the manufactured
        goods portion of solid waste.
     •  Reductions in U.S. total energy consumption
        by 1980 of over 245 trillion Btu, or about
        40  percent  of  total energy  required   to
        supply beer and soft drinks.
     •  Annual virgin raw material savings of 5.2
        million tons  of glass, 1.5 million tons  of
        steel, 500,000 tons of aluminum,  and many
        hundreds of thousands of tons of auxiliary
        materials (limestone, sodium carbonate, etc.)
        by 1980.
   Economic impacts:
     •  The total economic cost of supplying bever-
        ages would most  likely be less-a national
        economic saving  of about $2.5 billion per
        year at projected  1980 consumption rates.
     •  Consumer prices would be  lower  by about
        2.5 cents per  12-oz. serving.
     •  Consumer "convenience" would be reduced
        by the returning of containers.
     •  Total  employment would be higher, on a net
        basis, by approximately 80,000 jobs (1980).

-------
                      IMPACTS OF NATIONAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
                                                    75
      • Container manufacturing employment would
         be  decreased  by  about  80,000 positions;
         about  one-half of  the decrease would be in
         the  form  of  actual layoffs  of employed
         workers and half would occur through nor-
         mal attrition over a 5-year transition period.
         This could cause  some  significant regional
         hardships.
     •  Employment in  the beverage  supply, distri-
         bution, and retailing sectors  would be in-
         creased by about 165,000 jobs by 1980.
     •  Overall total national  investment  require-
         ments  would not  be significantly changed.
         There  would be a  major shift in investment
         away from container manufacture  and to-
         wards   container  filling  and distribution,
         especially  in  the  transition  period. Long-
         term investment requirements could be re-
         duced.

                  REFERENCES
1.   Research Triangle Institute.  Energy  and  economic
              impacts of mandatory deposits; final report.
              Federal Energy  Administration, Sept. 1976.
              752 p. (Distributed by National Technical
              Information  Service,  Springfield,  Va., as
              PB-258 638.)
2.   The impacts of national beverage container legislation.
              Staff Study A-01-75. Washington, U.S. De-
              partment of Commerce, Bureau of Domestic
              Commerce,Oct. 1,1975.20 p. (Unpublished
              report.)
3.   Bingham, T. H., and P. F. Mulligan [Research Triangle
              Institute]. The  beverage container problem;
              analysis and recommendations. U.S.  Envi-
              ronmental Protection  Agency, Sept. 1972.
              190 p. (Distributed by National Technical
              Information  Service,  Springfield,  Va., as
              PB-213341.)
4.   Nuss, G. R., et al. [Midwest Research Institute]. Base
              line forecasts of resource recovery,  1972 to
              1990:  final report. Environmental Protec-
              tion Publication  SW-107c.  U.S.  Environ-
              mental Protection Agency,  1975.  386 p.
               (Distributed by National Technical Informa-
               tion  Service,  Springfield, Va.,  as PB-245
               924.)
 5.    Applied Decision Systems, and Decision Making Infor-
               mation, Inc. Study of the effectiveness and
               impact of the Oregon minimum deposit law;
               project completion report. Salem, State of
               Oregon  Department   of Transportation,
               Highway Division, Oct.  1974. 1 v. (various
               pagings).
 6.    Waggoner, D. Oregon's bottle  bill two years later.
               Portland, Columbia Group Press, May 1974.
               37 p., app.
 7.    Loube, M. Beverage containers: the Vermont experi-
               ence. Environmental Protection Publication
               SW-139. [Washington], U.S.  Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1975. 16 p.
 8.    Hunt, R. G., et al.  [Midwest  Research  Institute].
               Resource and environmental profile analysis
               of nine beverage container alternatives; final
               report, v.  1-2.  Environmental  Protection
               Publication SW-91c. Washington, U.S. Envi-
               ronmental Protection Agency, 1974. 178 p.
 9.    No  deposit, no return; a  report  on  beverage con-
               tainers. Albany,  New York  State  Senate
               Task Force on Critical Problems, Feb. 1975.
               106 p., app.
10.    Stern, C., et al. Impacts of beverage container legisla-
               tion on Connecticut and a review of the ex-
               perience  in Oregon,  Vermont  and Wash-
               ington State. Storrs, University of Connecti-
               cut, Department of Agricultural Economics,
               Mar. 20, 1975. 181 p.
11.    Impacts  of  beverage container regulations in Minne-
               sota; a report to the  Governor  and the
               Minnesota Legislature.  [Minneapolis], Min-
               nesota State Planning  Agency, Jan. 1974.
               140 p.
12.    Statement of J. Lucian Smith, President, Coca-Cola,
               U.S.A. In  U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee
               on the Judiciary. Exclusive territorial alloca-
               tion legislation. Hearings before  the Sub-
               committee on Antitrust and Monopoly, 92d
               Cong., 2d sess., on S. 3040, S.3116, S.3133,
               S.3145 and S.3587.  pt.  1.  Aug.  8-10,
               Sept. 12 and  14,  1972. Washington, U.S.
               Government Printing Office, 1973. p. 161-
               194.
13.    Peterson, C. Price comparison survey of beer and soft
               drinks in  refutable  and non-refillable con-
               tainers. Washington,  U.S.  Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1976. [9 p.], app.

-------
                                       Appendix A
              DESCRIPTION AND STATUS OF  EPA-SUPPORTED
                     RESOURCE  RECOVERY  TECHNOLOGY
                           DEMONSTRATION  PROJECTS
   The actual technical and economic feasibility of
"high-technology" resource recovery systems can be
ascertained only if the systems are demonstrated at
operational scale. However, the high capital costs and
the technological and economic risks involved natu-
rally make it difficult for cities to undertake con-
structing the first  prototypes of such systems. The
EPA program of demonstration grants enables cities
to implement promising systems by assuming part of
the risks.
   Problems in the planning, construction, and opera-
tion of these facilities were expected as a normal part
of technology development.  The demonstration pro-
gram  is intended to address the  problems which
emerge in this  stage of development and ultimately
result in technologies that are feasible and can be
quickly replicated.  The information developed from
these projects can  thus guide cities in their decisions
on emerging resource recovery systems.
   Two of  EPA's resource recovery  demonstration
projects, those  located at St. Louis and Franklin
(Ohio), are now essentially complete. The technical
results  and  economic projections from these dem-
onstrations  were  sufficiently  encouraging  so that
both technologies  are now being replicated  in com-
mercial resource recovery plants.  These plants will
serve  to  further  define  technical and  economic
feasibility. Of the more recently funded demonstra-
tions, the one in  Baltimore has exhibited  scale-up
problems that have required significant modifications
that are now underway.  Two other projects, in San
Diego and Delaware, have experienced delays and, in
San Diego, significant cost increases. The delays were
primarily due to the kind of "institutional" problems
that have delayed  numerous resource recovery instal-
lations.
   While the major  emphasis of the demonstration
program has been on large processing facilities that
recover resources from mixed  solid waste, other
forms of recovery are also being developed. A dem-
onstration of the recovery of methane from a sanitary
landfill is being conducted in Mountain View, Cali-
fornia. The initial testing and design studies indicated
the feasibility  of  recovering  the gas, treating it to
raise the  Btu content, and injecting it into a nearby
pipeline.   A full-scale demonstration system is now
being installed.
   Demonstrations of multimaterial source separation
and separate municipal collection  have been opera-
tional for a few months in Somerville and Marblehead,
Massachusetts. The early results have been encouraging.

   Overall, the  EPA demonstration  program has pro-
duced several benefits.  Testing and evaluation of the
demonstration  projects have greatly  increased  the
amount of available data,  although  more data are
necessary.  The  experience  of users of recovered
energy and materials will be helpful in setting market-
ing specifications.  System builders and  operators
have also acquired valuable waste-handling experience.
And the development of a new and important indus-
try has been stimulated.
   The demonstrations have served to illustrate that
resource recovery is neither a panacea nor an impos-
sible dream.  It can provide an opportunity to reduce
disposal requirements and to  conserve resources at a
reasonable cost, although there are  still significant
technological and economic risks at the current stage
of development.  Such risks can be reduced only by
acquiring more information through the evaluation
of demonstration and operational systems.
   The following  describes  the eight projects sup-
ported by EPA.  The costs,  schedules, participants,
and plant outputs are summarized for each project in
the tables.
                                                 76

-------
              EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
                                                                                                      77
      FRANKLIN, OHIO (Tables Al and A2)
   Background. In March 1969, EPA awarded a grant
to Franklin, Ohio, to demonstrate the recovery of
materials by a wet processing system. This was the
first such demonstration grant awarded by EPA, and
the project  was  completed in March 1976. The pro-
ject was initially designed to determine the feasibility
of wet processing and fiber recovery. Later it was ex-
panded to include the demonstration of aluminum re-
covery and color-sorting glass.
   System Description. The Franklin system is a wet
pulping process and associated fiber reclamation sub-
system  designed  by the  Black  Clawson Company.
Solid waste  is mixed with water and pulped in a
hydrapulper; this  works on a principle  similar to
that of a kitchen blender and was adapted from equip-
ment used in the paper industry.  Fibrous  material
from the  hydrapulper is screened and  washed  to
produce paper fiber.  Reject fiber is mixed with
           sewage sludge from a neighboring wastewater treat-
           ment  plant and burned in a fluid bed incinerator.
           Acceptable fibers are pumped as a slurry to a neigh-
           boring roofing felt mill.  Metals and glass from the
           hydrapulper are also recoverable.  Ferrous metals are
           extracted magnetically.  Other metals  and glass are
           sent  through a  series  of screening  and classifying
           operations  to  produce an aluminum-rich  and glass-
           rich stream. In this subsystem, which has been opera-
           ting primarily on a test basis, there is also equipment
           to separate  clear glass from colored glass with  an
           optical sorter. The capacity of the Franklin plant is
           150 tons of solid waste in a 24-hour day.
              Operating Results
              •  The plant has operated continuously since 1971,
           processing an average of 35 tons per day of Franklin's
           solid waste at a throughput rate of about 7 tons per
           hour.  The plant has never turned away waste due to
           overload or equipment failure.
                                                TABLE Al
                                        TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
                                            FRANKLIN PROJECT
              Phase and activity
   Time period
Total cost*t
Federal share
  of cost
    Hydrasposal and Fiber Recovery Systems:
       Design

       Construction

       Operation and evaluation


          Subtotal

    Glass and Aluminum Recovery System:
March 1969 to
   February 1970
March 1970 to
   June 1971
June 1971 to
   September 1974
$ 165,000
1,970,000
500,000
$ 110,000
1,300,000
350,000
                          2,635,000
                       1,760,000
Design
Construction
Operation and evaluation
Subtotal
Total
June 1971 to
May 1972
May 1972 to
July 1973
July 1973 to
March 1976
20,000
360,000
90,000
470,000
$3,105,000
15,000
232,000
147,000
394,000
$2,154,000
          * Approximate non-Federal contributions: the city of Franklin, $500,000; the Black Clawson Company, $268,500;
    and the Glass Packaging Institute, $181,500.
          tDoes not include costs to evaluate the overall plant performance under a separate EPA contract.

-------
78
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

                  TABLE A2
       PRODUCTS AND MARKET VALUES,
             FRANKLIN PROJECT
        Product
                 Tons per 100
               tons of waste input
Approximate market
   price received
    (per ton)
   Ferrous metal
   Paper fiber
   Glass (color-sorted)
   Aluminum
                      9
                     20*
                      3
                      0.3
    $   25
     10-60
         t
         t
         *Dry weight basis of input and output.
         t Market values uncertain; outputs not sold regularly.
   •  Under best operating conditions, 49 percent of
the incoming paper is recovered  and sold for use in
making felt roofing shingles; 94 percent of the ferrous
metals are recovered and sold to the steel industry.
   •  Up to 60 percent of the incoming glass can be
recovered as a color-sorted product. Although separa-
tion of clear and colored glass has been  acceptable,
the process  has  not been able to produce a product
with  sufficiently low levels of  refractory contam-
inants to meet market specifications.
   •  The aluminum product  recovered is not being
cleaned or refined, but  is marketable and may be
upgraded for increased market value.
   •  Exhaust gases from the fluidized bed incinerator
meet applicable State and Federal standards.
   •  Water from the process is treated in the neigh-
boring wastewater treatment plant.
   While the pulping and fiber recovery  system has
been operated as the primary means of waste disposal
for Franklin,  with the products sold regularly, the
glass/aluminum recovery  subsystem has been operated
as  an experimental  system  by  the  Black Clawson
Company, the Glass Packaging Institute, and EPA.

   Prospects for the  Future. The Franklin demon-
stration has proven the  feasibility  of wet processing
solid waste  to produce a low-quality fiber.  In cost
projections of larger plants with nearby users of low-
grade fiber, the process  appears  to be economically
viable.   However,  since the  markets for this  low-
quality fiber are limited, later versions of this plant
                           may emphasize recovery  of fiber for use as a fuel.
                           The town of Hempstead, New York, has signed a con-
                           tract with  the  Hempstead Resource Recovery Cor-
                           poration (subsidiary of the Black Clawson Company)
                           to build a  wet  pulping  system to produce a fuel for
                           on-site burning to generate electricity.
                              A first step in the difficult problem of recovering
                           color-sorted glass has been demonstrated.  However,
                           the marketability of the recovered glass products, with
                           its present  level of refractory contamination, and the
                           economic feasibility of glass recovery are questionable.
                                  ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (Table A3)
                             Background.  The  St. Louis  project,  now com-
                          pleted, began in 1970 on the recommendations of a
                          feasibility study sponsored by EPA.  In  July 1970,
                          EPA awarded a  grant to the city  of St. Louis to dem-
                          onstrate the feasibility of burning shredded municipal
                          solid waste in an existing  utility boiler as a  supple-
                          ment to pulverized coal. The plant began operating in
                          1972 and continued intermittently through 1976.
                             System  Description.  At a processing plant, com-
                          mercial and residential waste are shredded to a !'/£-
                          inch particle  size.  The shredded material is then air
                          classified into two fractions.  The heavy fraction  is
                          processed to  recover ferrous metals. The residue of
                          this fraction is landfilled.
                             The light  fraction  (refuse-derived fuel, or RDF),
                          which has a heat value of about one-half that  of coal,
                          is transported by truck to the Union  Electric Com-

-------
              EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

                                                TABLE A3
                                        TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
                                            ST. LOUIS PROJECT
                                                79
Activity
Design and
construction
Operation and
evaluation
Time period
July 1970 to
August 1972
May 1972 to
June 1975
Total cost
$3,288,544
600,000
Federal share
of cost
$2,180,026
400,000
       Total
        $3,888,544*
$2,580,026
         *Union Electric Company provided $950,000 and the city of St. Louis the remaining $358,518 of the non-Federal
    share. In addition, EPA spent over $1 million to evaluate the project.
 pany's  Meramec Power Station  where it is used to
 supplement coal in  an existing pulverized-coal-fired,
 steam-electric boiler.  At St. Louis, about  80 to 85
 percent of the input to the air classifier  has been
 recovered as RDF.
   Operating Results.  Most of the equipment at the
 processing plant performed essentially as  designed.
 However, the system had a low reliability because it
 was designed as simply and cheaply as possible, with
 no redundancy. The  plant was  operated  intermit-
 tently,  more as a  test facility than a commercially
 operating RDF production plant.
   The  project showed that the RDF produced could
 be fired at boiler heat input rates of from 5 to 27 per-
 cent  without  noticeable  adverse boiler  operation
 effects.   Although corrosion of boiler tubes is fre-
 quently cited as a concern, Union Electric indicates
 that they have not observed an increase in short-term
 corrosion.
   Handling the shredded waste was more difficult
 than  originally anticipated.  Several pieces  of equip-
 ment were modified to improve handling.
   Environmental testing has been conducted at both
 the processing plant and the powerplant. At the proc-
 essing plant it was determined that dust from several
 pieces of equipment should have been controlled (as
 it will  be in second-generation plants).   Additional
 testing  to look more closely at dust and  airborne
 bacteria and viruses  associated with handling  solid
 waste was completed in November 1976. The results
will be available in the summer of 1977.
   Tests of paniculate emissions were not totally con-
clusive.  There was considerable data scatter.   Also
different series of tests were conducted over a 2-year
period, thus changes in boiler operations and electro-
static precipitator (ESP) collection  efficiency could
have influenced results. The tests indicated no change
in uncontrolled paniculate emissions with combined
firing of waste and  coal. However, controlled emis-
sions were found to increase  at  boiler loads  at or
above  the boiler's nominal design capacity.   The
increase in controlled emissions was attributed  to a
decrease in the collection efficiency of the ESP when
solid waste was burned.   The  efficiency loss in  turn
was attributed to higher gas flow rates through the
precipitator when refuse was burned. Higher gas flow
rates were expected due to the conversion of moisture
in the RDF to steam upon combustion.  Though the
increased gas flow concept  is strongly supported by
air pollution  experts as  an expected phenomenon
and probable cause of the efficiency loss in the  ESP,
measurements of gas flow rates did not clearly  con-
firm the increase. Also contrary  to  expectation was
the finding that emissions did not increase as the per-
centage of RDF fired was increased.
   Obviously, additional  testing at other facilities will
be needed to provide  more complete  data on  air
emissions when burning solid  waste in combination
with coal.  This would be necessary in any case  since
other boiler/precipitator combinations, RDF charac-
teristics, and coal types  would be expected to yield
different results.

-------
 80
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
   Prospects  for  the  Future.  Although the  unit
operations have not been optimized to perform con-
tinuously at lowest cost, the demonstration proved
that solid waste could be processed to produce a fuel
which  could  be fired in suspension with pulverized
coal in an existing steam-electric boiler without signi-
ficant  adverse  short-term boiler  operation  effects.
Nevertheless, many questions regarding combined fir-
ing with coal have not been adequately answered, and
utilities are understandably cautious about use of this
new fuel.
   A number of commercial systems of this type have
resulted from this demonstration.  One  of these, in
Ames,  Iowa, is already in operation.  Systems in Mil-
waukee and  Chicago are  under construction and
should be operating by early  1977. In addition,
similar systems are planned in Bridgeport, Connecti-
cut, and Monroe  County, New York, and are under
consideration in numerous other communities.
       BALTIMORE, MARYLAND (Table A4)
   Background. In September  1972, EPA awarded a
grant  to the  city of  Baltimore to demonstrate the
generation of steam  through pyrolysis using a process
                         developed by the Monsanto Company.  Pyrolysis is
                         the physical and chemical decomposition of organic
                         matter brought about  by the action of heat in an
                         oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
                            System Description.  The Baltimore "Landgard"
                         plant  was  developed  by Monsanto  Enviro-Chem
                         Systems, Inc., with a capacity of 1,000 tons per day.
                         Plant design calls for solid waste to be shredded and
                         fed into a pyrolysis kiln. Inside the kiln, temperatures
                         to about 2,600° F pyrolyze the organic portion of
                         the waste into a gas.
                            The pyrolytic gases  are burned in an afterburner,
                         and the resulting hot gases flow through two waste-
                         heat boilers. For 100 tons of waste  input, approxi-
                         mately 180  tons of  steam is produced; the market
                         value of the steam is about $5.50 a ton. The Balti-
                         more Gas and Electric  Company is using the steam
                         for a downtown steam loop.
                            The residue from the kiln was to be separated into
                         three  fractions: ferrous metals, char,  and a glassy
                         aggregate. Due to operational problems, however, the
                         residue separation subsystem has functioned in a test
                         mode for only a few hours.
      Total
                                            TABLE A4
                                     TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
                                       BALTIMORE PROJECT
Activity
Design and
construction
Shakedown

Modification

Installation of
emissions controls
Evaluation

Time period
January 1973 to
December 1974
January 1975 to
September 1975
January 1976 to
October 1977
August 1977 to
February 1979
October 1976 to
April 1978

)

;






Total cost*

$16,300,000

5,000,000

5,000,000

350,000

Federal share
of cost

$6,000,000

1,000,000



200,000

                                                               $26,650,000
                                                          $7,200,000
      "Maryland Environmental Services provided $4 million; Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems provided $4 million; and
 Baltimore will provide $10.95 million of the non-Federal share.

-------
              EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
                                                                                                      81
   Operating Results. Construction of this facility was
completed in early  1975.  Shakedown testing began
shortly thereafter, and after a few months of inter-
mittent  running it  became apparent  that the plant
could not meet two of the performance guarantees:
guaranteed throughput of 51,000 tons of solid waste
in a 60-day period,  and emissions to the atmosphere
of less than 0.03 grains of particulate per dry standard
cubic foot  of  undiluted  exhaust gas  (the  State
standard).
   Monsanto, the system designer, traced the high
emission levels of  the demonstration plant to the
presence of a greater number of submicron particles
than were produced in the pilot plant.  (Submicron
particles are more difficult to collect than larger parti-
cles.) Monsanto believed that the high level of sub-
micron particles was caused by sublimation, or vapori-
zation, and  condensation  of certain inorganic  salts
during the pyrolysis reaction. This phenomenon did
not occur in the pilot plant.  In scaling up from 35  to
1,000 tons per day, key design and operating param-
eters (equipment size, temperatures, residence time of
solid waste in the kiln, etc.) were increased in certain
proportions.  The difference in performance between
the demonstration plant and the pilot plant appears to
have been caused  by incorrect scaling of some param-
eters.  Many of  the mechanical problems that are
limiting the  throughput are  also a result of scale-up
difficulties. This situation illustrates the risk inherent
in scaling up technology from pilot to commercial
scale.
   When the problems were first encountered, Mon-
santo tried various process adjustments, but they were
unable to duplicate  the low level of emissions experi-
enced in the prototype. Three air pollution control
devices  were tested; one of these, an  electrostatic
precipitator,  was found  capable  of controlling the
emissions to meet  the State  standard  and will  be
installed.
   A supplemental  agreement between the city and
Monsanto was signed on December 31, 1975. Funds
for the  work outlined in this agreement will be  $4
million  contributed  by  Monsanto  (equivalent  in
amount to the original performance guarantee) plus
an  increase  in the  EPA grant of $1 million.  This
work covered mechanical modifications that were  to
improve the reliability of the system and enable the
plant to have a daily throughput of about 75 percent
 of design capacity.
   The procurement, installation, and shakedown of
the air pollution control equipment was not part of
the supplemental agreement. The device will be pur-
chased by the city  after positive assurance  that the
plant will operate effectively.
   The total estimated  cost of all the work required,
including the new air pollution control device, is be-
tween $8 and $12 million.
   Prospects for the Future. The Baltimore plant has
had significant operating problems. In February 1977,
after unsuccessful attempts at 30-day performance
runs, Monsanto recommended that the plant be shut
down.  Reasons stated  were their inability to predict
clearcut success and continued mechanical problems.
The  city refused to accept Monsanto's recommenda-
tion, terminated the supplemental agreement, and is
continuing with the project.  After three scheduled
30-day runs this spring, the city will  decide to con-
tinue with the project  or convert  the facility into a
more conventional solid waste facility. Based on the
total capital cost of about $27 million currently esti-
mated at Baltimore, and the steam revenues expected
in Baltimore, the system is projected to be economi-
cally competitive with most other disposal and re-
covery alternatives.  The problems at Baltimore must
first  be resolved,  however.

       SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
               (Tables A5 and A6)
   Background.  In  September 1972, EPA awarded a
 grant to San  Diego County to produce a liquid fuel
 from municipal  solid  waste  through a process of
 pyrolysis developed by the Occidental Research Cor-
 poration  (formerly  Garrett  Research and  Develop-
 ment Company), a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum
 Corporation.  The  primary product of the process is
 an oil-like liquid with a heating value of about 60 per-
 cent that of No. 6  heating oil on a volumetric basis.
 The "oil" is to be burned as a supplement to fuel oil
 in the electric utility boilers of the San Diego Gas and
 Electric  Company. Ferrous metal, aluminum,  and
 mixed glass cullet will also be recovered.
   Groundbreaking  ceremonies  were  conducted in
 August 1975 and construction was completed in De-
 cember 1976. The facility is expected  to begin opera-
 ting in June 1977 for a 1-year test period.
   Original project  costs for construction, operation,

-------
 82
         Total
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION

                 TABLE A5
          TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
             SAN DIEGO PROJECT
Activity
Design
Construction

Operation and
evaluation
Time period
December 1974 to \
April 1975 I
August 1975 to (
December 1976 *
June 1977 to
May 1978
Total cost*
$11,233,000

2,364,000

Federal share
of cost
$4,262,710



                                                                 $13,597,000
                                                              $4,262,710
         *San Diego County is to provide $2 million, and Occidental Research Corporation is to provide the remainder of
    the non-Federal share.
                    TABLE  A6
        ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS AND PRICES,
                SAN DIEGO PROJECT
Product
Oil
Ferrous metal
Glass
Aluminum
Quantity per
100 tons
waste input
100 barrels
6.7 tons
5.3 tons
0.4 tons
Approximate
market value
$ 2.30 per barrel*
34.00 per ton
16.00 per ton
260.00 per ton
      *Currently being renegotiated.
and evaluation were estimated at $4 million, but they
have escalated  to  $13.6 million.   Inflation was, of .
course, one factor.  Other factors that have increased
costs include:  (1) change of the plant site and, as a
result,  modifications  of the design; (2) additional
odor control equipment; (3) the addition of an alumi-
num recovery subsystem; (4) additional  redundance
and landscaping.
   It is anticipated that net operating costs at San
Diego will also be high.  Although scale-up is signifi-
cant (from 4 tons per day to 200 tons per day), the
planned size  is  not  considered  large enough to be
economical.  However,  it is large enough to predict
performance at commercial scale.
                            System Description. Incoming waste will be shred-
                         ded and air classified.  Ferrous metal, aluminum, and
                         glass (froth-floated)  will  be  recovered  from  the
                         heavy fraction.  The light fraction, after  additional
                         shredding to reduce the particles to a very fine size
                         (consistency of vacuum cleaner fluff), will go to the
                         pyrolysis reactor. A flash reaction (short retention
                         time) produces gases that are then condensed rapidly
                         to produce the oil. The reaction occurs at relatively
                         low temperatures of about 900°F.
                            Testing and Evaluation. Once the plant is finished,
                         a complete technical, economic, and  environmental
                         evaluation program will be conducted.  Testing will
                         be  split between the  processing plant, where the
                         waste is converted to liquid fuel, and the powerplant,
                         where it is burned along with No. 6 fuel oil to pro-
                         duce electricity.  The testing program is scheduled to
                         last 1 year, beginning May 1977, after 3 months of
                         shakedown.
                             Because of  the unique meteorological and geo-
                         graphic characteristics of the site, it will also be neces-
                         sary to monitor the impact of the processing plant on
                         ambient nitrogen oxide levels.  It has been predicted
                         that under certain infrequent adverse weather condi-
                         tions, nitrogen oxide levels in the vicinity of the  plant
                         might exceed allowable levels established by San Diego
                         County. If this occurs, it may be necessary to suspend
                         operations at the plant periodically for a few days at a
                         time.

-------
             ' EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
                                              83
   ffrospects for the Future. Because the fuel pro-
duced by this process is liquid, it is expected to have
two  advantages  over other  energy forms produced
from  solid waste:   it  is both  storable and  trans-
portable.  This means that the processing facility and
the user need not be close and that their operating
schedules need not be the same. However, it remains
to be seen whether the fuel can  be produced in a
technically reliable and cost-effective manner.

    STATE OF DELAWARE (Tables A7 and A8)
   Background.  In  October  1972, EPA  awarded a
grant  to  the State of  Delaware for a process that
will produce RDF for use as a supplement to fuel oil
in an existing oil-fired, steam-electric boiler. In addi-
tion, the project  will handle digested sewage sludge,
produce humus by composting, and recover ferrous
metals, aluminum, and glass.
   The planned  plant capacity  is  500 tons per day
of municipal solid  waste and 230 tons of digested
sewage sludge (8 percent solids).
   Current Status.  Based on proposals received  in
December 1976, the State solid waste authority  began
negotiating with the Raytheon  Service Company  in
April  1977 for the design, construction,  and opera-
tion of the facility.

       SOMERVILLE AND MARBLEHEAD,
     MASSACHUSETTS (Tables A9 and A10)
   Background.   Two  Massachusetts communities,
Somerville and Marblehead, have been awarded  grants
by the EPA to demonstrate the feasibility of weekly
curbside collection of paper, glass, and cans using a
                    TABLE A8
  ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS AND MARKET VALUES,
              DELAWARE PROJECT*
Product
Humus (compost)
Solid waste fuel
Ferrous metal
Nonferrous metal
Glass
Paper
Sludge disposal
Tons per dayt
38 (dry)
305
35.5
2
25
5
18 (dry)
Market value
per ton sold
$ 14.70
16.40t
40.00*
200.00
7.00
10.00
40.00
      *Estimates by EPA based on earlier  estimates by
 Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., for the State of Delaware.
      t Based on input of 500 tons per day of solid waste
 (wet weight).
      ^Assumes  fuel oil  costs $2.00 million per Btu, and
 that  solid waste  fuel has  a heat value of 5,000 Btu/Ib, or
 10 million Btu/ton. Value  of fuel is discounted to reflect
 the boiler efficiency loss when firing waste. Efficiency loss
 is assumed to be 2 percent.
compartmentalized  collection truck.   Somerville is
a densely populated urban community, with no his-
tory of recycling activities. Marblehead is a suburban
bedroom community that has been recycling  on a
townwide basis for 3 years.
   System Description. Ordinances passed by the two
communities mandate that citizens separate  their re-
fuse into several categories. In Somerville, the  cate-
gories are paper; glass and cans; and all other waste.
In Marblehead, the  glass-and-cans fraction is segre-
gated into (1) clear glass and cans and (2) brown and
green glass and cans. The paper, glass, and cans are
                                               TABLE A7
                                       TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
                                           DELAWARE PROJECT
Activity
Design and
construction
Startup
Operation and
evaluation
Time period
October 1977 to
October 1980
October 1980 to
July 1981
July 1981 to July 1982
Total cost
$25,000,000
328,000
2,700,000
Federal share
of cost
$6,755,000
245,000
2,000,000
         Total
        $28,028,000
$9,000,000

-------
 84
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                TABLE A9
                                        TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
                                      SOMERVILLE AND MARBLEHEAD
         Activity
       Time period
Total cost
Federal share
  of cost
    Somerville:
       Capital expenditures
       Planning, operation,
          and evaluation

          Total

    Marblehead:
       Capital expenditures
       Planning, operation,
          and evaluation

          Total
       July 1975 to
          June 1979
       July 1975 to
          June 1979
$ 41,000
 308,000
                                   $349,000
$ 40,000
 212,000
                                   $252,000
 $ 41,000
   84,000
                            $125,000
  $ 40,000
   41,000
                            $ 81,000
                   TABLE A10
         PRODUCTS AND MARKET VALUES,
         SOMERVILLE AND MARBLEHEAD*

Product

Somerville:
Paper
Glass
Cans
Marblehead:
Paper
Glass
Cans
Tons per
100 tons
of waste generated

5
2
0.5

13.5
11.6
3.0
Market price
received
(per ton) t

$ 6-21
10
5-27

12-27
12
10-29
      *These are actual data based on 3 months of operation.
      tFloating prices based on market indexes.
collected weekly in a newly designed compartmenta-
lized vehicle.  Mixed  waste is collected weekly in a
regular collection truck. The recovered materials are
sold to  a  processor under a contract with a guaran-
teed floor price that was negotiated through an open
bidding procedure before the programs started. The
processor  mechanically separates  the glass, ferrous
metals, and aluminum, and bales the paper for resale
to manufacturers.
                            The  programs, which  began in  Somerville  on
                          December 1, 1975, and in Marblehead on January 19,
                          1976,  were preceded by  extensive publicity and
                          public  education  campaigns that included  the  coop-
                          eration  of  citizen groups and schools.   Publicity is
                          projected to  continue for  the life of the program.
                          During the initial months,  Marblehead recovered 23
                          to 33  percent of their  residential solid waste and
                          Somerville recovered 7 to 10 percent. The Marblehead
                          program is making a profit; Somerville is breaking even.
                            Prospects   for the   Future. The  Marblehead/
                          Somerville  projects will take a  major  step toward
                          determining the feasibility  of source separation and
                          combined separate collection of paper,  metals, and
                          glass.   Historically, fluctuating prices for secondary
                          materials and the  lack of efficient collection systems
                          have hindered efforts  to maintain viable community-
                          wide separate  collection  programs.   New techniques
                          for  separate collection and an increased interest on
                          the part of industry to engage in long-term contracts
                          for the purchase  of recovered materials will increase
                          the economic feasibility of source separation, and this
                          form of resource  recovery may become an attractive
                          alternative  or  complement  to  landfilling  or  high-
                          technology resource recovery systems.
                            (See Chapter 4 for further details of the Marble-
                          head and Somerville programs.)

-------
              EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
                                               85
   MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA (Table All)
   Background. In June 1974, EPA awarded a grant
to the City of Mountain View, California, to demon-
strate the recovery of methane from a sanitary land-
fill.  The objectives of the project were to determine
(1) the composition of the gas produced by the land-
fill;  (2)  the  optimum rate of  gas withdrawal  and
spacing of wells; (3) the site's potential rate of gas
production; and (4) the effect on gas production of
varying the solid waste moisture content.
   The Pacific Gas  and Electric  Company agreed to
provide laboratory  facilities for gas analysis and to
evaluate the various methods of using the gas.
   System Description. The 250-acre site at Mountain
View was selected in order to determine the feasibility
of methane recovery from a typical shallow  (40-foot
deep)  sanitary landfill. A three-phase program  was
developed for the initial study.
   Phase 1 ascertained the effect of the gas withdrawal
rate on gas composition and the optimal withdrawal
rate for  long-term pumping.  This was accomplished
through the installation and operation of several pro-
duction wells and numerous monitoring wells.
   Phase  2  was intended to determine the potential
rate  of gas production, potential revenues, and esti-
mated production costs. This information was needed
to assess the desirability of further site development.
   Phase  3 consisted of an evaluation of the effect of
moisture content on gas production. A  water distri-
bution grid was installed around  one production well
to saturate  the refuse with moisture. A  similar well,
lacking the water distribution system, was used as a
control.  Both wells were pumped at the optimal rate,
as determined in Phase 1, while gas qualities were
compared to determine the effect of the moisture.
   Operating Results. Testing of prototype production
wells  began in December 1974.   These wells were
constructed in two levels, one extending from the sur-
face to the middle of the landfill, and the other con-
tinuing to the bottom.  Test results indicated that
atmospheric interference was inversely proportional
to well depth. As air was drawn into the upper level,
the decomposition rate, and  therefore methane pro-
duction, was negatively affected.
   An  examination  of withdrawal rates determined
that a rate of no greater than 50 cubic feet per minute
(cfm) per well would maintain a steady, optimal gas
composition of approximately 44  percent methane,
34  percent carbon dioxide, and 20 percent nitrogen.
At higher withdrawal rates, concentration of methane
fell and that of nitrogen increased as air entered the
fill.
   The well being pumped at the optimal rate was
determined to have  a radius of influence of 130 feet.
Using overlapping radii, the calculated withdrawal rate
is  .039 million cubic  feet  per acre per day.  Thus,
with an effective surface area of 150 acres of land-
fill, the site could theoretically produce  5.8 million
cubic feet of gas per day with a 44 percent methane
content.
   An  evaluation by the Pacific  Gas and Electric
Company indicated that using the gas for electrical
                                              TABLE All
                                       TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
                                      MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA
Activity
Testing and design
studies
Full-scale
implementation
Total
Time period
July 1974 to July 1975
July 1975 to May 1978
Total cost*
$ 60,000
617,000
$677,000
Federal share
of cost
$ 60,000
200,000
$260,000
         *Parific Gas and Electric Company is providing the $417,000 non-Federal share.

-------
86
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
generation, conversion to methanol, or production of
pipeline quality gas is economically unfeasible.  While
direct, interruptible use of the treated or untreated
gas by customers  near  the site appeared to be the
most economical solution, a suitable user could not be
found.  Injection of untreated gas into PG&E's net-
work would lower the quality of the pipeline  gas to
an unacceptably low level, but treatment could raise
the gas from  500 Btu/scf to 700 Btu/scf, allowing
injection into a nearby pipeline without significantly
decreasing the quality of the pipeline gas.
   Due to problems  with  the third phase of the test
program, the evaluation of moisture effects on the
                         rate of gas production was not completed.

                            Prospects for the Future. The success of the first
                         two phases of the test program has resulted in plans
                         for a full-scale gas recovery program. Mountain View
                         was awarded an additional $200,000 in November
                         1975, and PG&E has agreed to provide an additional
                         $400,000 to design, install, and operate a molecular
                         sieve gas treatment plant with a capacity of 1 million
                         cubic feet per day.   The plant will upgrade the Btu
                         content of the gas, which will be supplied by 20 wells
                         producing gas at a rate of  40 to 50 cfm each. The
                         entire system will be operational by July 1977.

-------
                EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
                                                     87
                BIBLIOGRAPHY ON EPA
             DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Arella, D. G.  Recovering resources from solid waste using
                wet-processing; EPA's Franklin, Ohio, dem-
                onstration project.  Environmental Protec-
                tion Publication SW-47d.  Washington, U.S.
                Government Printing Office, 1974. 26 p.

Hansen,  P., and J. Ramsey.  Demonstrating  multimaterial
                source separation in Somerville and Marble-
                head, Massachusetts. Waste Age,7(2):26-27,
                48, Feb. 1976.

Gar be, Y.  M. Color sorting waste  glass at Franklin, Ohio.
                Waste Age, 7(9):70-71, Sept. 1976.

Gar be,  Y.  M.  Demonstration of  pyrolysis  and materials
                recovery  in San  Diego,  California.  Waste
                Age, Dec. 1976. (In press.)

Hollo way, J. R. Resource recovery technology update from
                the U.S.E.P.A.:  EPA  resource recovery de-
                monstration:  summary  of  air  emissions
                analyses. Waste Age, 7(8):50-52, Aug. 1976.

Horner & Shifrin, Inc.  Solid waste as  fuel for power plants.
                Environmental   Protection    Publication
                SW-36d.   U.S.  Environmental Protection
                Agency, 1973.   146 p.   (Distributed by
                National  Technical   Information  Service,
                Springfield,  Va., as PB-220 316.)

Levy, S. J.  San Diego  County demonstrates  pyrolysis of
                solid  waste  to recover  liquid fuel, metals,
                and glass.  Environmental Protection Publi-
                cation SW-80d. 2. Washington, U.S. Govern-
                ment Printing Office, 1975. 27 p.

Lowe,  R. A.  Energy  recovery from  waste; solid waste as
                supplementary fuel in power plant  boilers.
                Environmental   Protection    Publication
                SW-36dai.   Washington, U.S. Government
                Printing Office, 1973. 24 p.

Roberts,  R. M., et  al.   [Envirogenics  Company].  Systems
                evaluation of  refuse  as a low sulfur fuel.
                Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
                Agency, 1971. 2 v. (Distributed by National
                Technical Information. Service, Springfield,
                Va., as PB-209 271 - PB-209 272.)

SCS Engineers.  Analysis of source separate collection of re-
               cyclable  solid  waste; separate collection
               studies,   [v. 1.]  Environmental Protection
               Publication  SW-95c.l.  U.S. Environmental
                Protection Agency, 1974. [157 p.] (Distri-
                buted by  National  Technical  Information
                Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239 775.)

SCS Engineers. Analysis of source separate collection of re-
               cyclable  solid   waste;  collection  center
               studies,   [v.2.]   Environmental Protection
               Publication SW-95C.2.   U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1974. [75  p.]  (Distri-
               buted by National  Technical  Information
               Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239 776.)

Shannon, L. J., D. E. Fiscus, and P. G. Gorman [Midwest
               Research  Institute, Inc.].  St.  Louis refuse
               processing plant:  equipment,  facility and
               environmental  evaluations;  final  report,
               Sept. 1974 - Jan. 1975.  Washington, U.S.
               Environmental  Protection  Agency,   May
                1975.  122 p.   (Distributed  by National
               Technical Information  Service, Springfield,
               Va., as PB-243 634.)

Shannon, L. J. et al.   [Midwest Research Institute, Inc.].
               St. Louis/Union Electric refuse firing dem-
               onstration   air   pollution   test  report.
               Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
               Agency, Aug. 1974.  107 p.   (Distributed
               by National Technical Information Service,
               Springfield, Va., as PB-237 630.)

Sussman, D.  B.    Baltimore  demonstrates gas  pyrolysis;
               resource recovery from solid waste. Environ-
               mental  Protection  Publication  SW-75da.
               Washington,   U.S.  Government  Printing
               Office, 1975.  24  p.

[Sussman, D. B.]  Resource recovery technology  update from
               the  U.S.E.P.A,;  Baltimore pyrolysis and
               waste-fired steam generator emissions. Waste
               Age, 7(7):6-9, 77, July 1976.

Sutterfield, G. W.  Refuse as a supplementary fuel for power
               plants; November  1973 through March 1974;
               interim progress report.  Environmental Pro-
               tection  Publication  SW-36d.iii.  [Washing-
               ton], UJS. Environmental ProtectionAgency,
               July 1974. 25 p.

Systems  Technology  Corporation.   A  technical, environ-
               mental and economic evaluation of the "wet
               processing system for the recovery and dis-
               posal of municipal solid waste."   Environ-
               mental Protection Publication SW-109c. U.S.
               Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1975.
               [386  p.]  (Distributed by National Techni-
               cal Information  Service,  Springfield,  Va.,
               as PB-245 924.)

-------
                                        Appendix B
                THE STATUS OF PRODUCT  CHARGE  STUDIES
                INTRODUCTION
     Section 205 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by  the  Resource Recovery Act of 1970,
directed EPA to investigate and study:
           . . .  recommended incentives . .. and dis-
           incentives to accelerate the reclamation or
           recycling of  materials from solid wastes
           .  . . [and] the necessity and method of
           imposing disposal or other charges on
           packaging, containers, vehicles, and other
           manufactured goods, which charges would
           reflect the cost of final disposal, the value
           of recoverable components of the item,
           and  any social costs associated with non-
           recycling or uncontrolled disposal of such
           items.
     One of the most widely recognized of the possi-
ble approaches to providing incentives for recycling is
the  "product charge"  concept.  Unlike  local  solid
waste collection fees or  service  charges, which are
levied on the solid waste  generator at the point of
collection or disposal, a product charge is a special
sales or excise tax, most likely at the Federal level,
levied at the point of product (or package) manufac-
ture  or  point  of wholesale  or  retail distribution.
Product  charges can serve two  distinctly  separate
functions, either of which may receive greater or lesser
emphasis in particular design proposals. The first is to
provide an explicit financial incentive to producers
and  consumers  to alter  their  jointly determined
product and packaging decisions affecting solid waste
quantities and  characteristics. Second, the  product
charge,  like all  fees or  taxes, serves as a source of
public  revenue.  Depending on specific policy objec-
tives, these revenues may or may not be earmarked for
solid waste management or other  special purposes.
     Under the mandate of the  Resource Recovery
Act of 1970 EPA began  to study the product charge
concept along with other  incentive and disincentive
measures to curb waste, encourage resource recovery,
and improve solid waste management practices. Many
of these findings have been  discussed in the three
previous reports to Congress in this series.1*3 More
specifically, in the Second Report to Congress (March
1974, pp. 109-112), EPA presented findings from its
initial analysis of the product charge concept.  It was
reported at that time that, from a conceptual and the-
oretical economic standpoint, the product charge ap-
proach  has a  number  of desirable incentive and
efficiency features. However, little quantitative work
had been  done on effectiveness and impact implica-
tions, and key questions were raised regarding admin-
istrative feasibility and  equitability  of impacts on
different income groups.
     This appendix provides preliminary results from
work performed since the earlier report, specifically
with respect to EPA contract studies on the effective-
ness of product charges as a resource recovery and
waste reduction incentive, on quantitative economic
impacts, and on administrative cost. The intent here
is not to present a comprehensive benefit-cost report
or an analysis of options but to summarize the status
of work in progress.
      It should be noted that there are a number of
other financial incentive proposals that could either
complement or substitute for some  elements  of the
product charge.  One alternative is the recycling tax
credit, which received initial approval in Congressional
committees during the 94th Congress but which was
subsequently defeated on the floor in both Houses.
Another approach, the incremental waste disposal fee
or user charge, is also under study by EPA.  At the
present time, pending  further review and analysis,
EPA does not recommend  or endorse any particular
incentive or disincentive mechanism at the national
level to stimulate resource recovery. During the com-
ing year, the alternatives will be further evaluated by
the Resource  Conservation Committee (see Chapter
1).
     The  following is divided into two parts.  The
first briefly reviews the theoretical rationale of a pro-
duct charge as a  waste management  tool, describes
                                                  88

-------
                                    STATUS OF PRODUCT CHARGE STUDIES
                                                                                                       89
 various specific design options, and defines the typical
 base case design used in recent EPA impact studies.
 The second part presents preliminary findings from
 recent EPA contract studies on quantitative effective-
 ness and economic impacts of a typical product charge
 proposal.
        CONCEPTS AND DESIGN OPTIONS
      As the term has come to be used in the solid
 waste  policy literature and in Congressional bills, a
 solid waste product charge is an excise tax on the ma-
 terial content of consumer products entering the solid
 waste stream.  Though varying in specific design de-
 tails, most product charge proposals to date have had
 three characteristics in common:
        A charge (Federal excise tax) on  consumer
        products and packaging that is tied directly
        to projected solid waste management costs
        for the items in question.
        A special exemption or other incentive pro-
        vision  for the use of secondary  materials in
        products and packaging.
        Provision for redistributing all or most of the
        revenue yield to local governments for solid
        waste management purposes.
      In essence, these were the basic features of the
 "penny-a-pound" proposal,  originally  forwarded by
 Leonard S. Wegman at the 1970 Senate  Hearings on
 the Resource Recovery Act.4 That initiative provided
 the original conception for most later product charge
 designs, including those  considered  at one level or
 another by committees in both Houses  of the 94th
 Congress during the winter and spring of  1975-76.5"6
                    Rationale
     To a great extent, the rationale for  the product
 charge concept rests on a basic principle in the eco-
 nomic theory of efficient resource allocation.7  That
 is, for the market system to function efficiently in
 allocating all of the economy's scarce resources, every
 production and consumption activity should bear  the
full social cost  of the good or service in  question.
 Generally this  means  that  prices of  each product
 should include  all costs of production.  Economists
have long argued that environmental  damage costs
 should be included in this "total social cost" concept,
along with the  normally  priced  labor, capital,  and
other resources.7
      It is also recognized by economists that costs of
 collecting  and disposing of  the  discarded product
 when it enters the solid waste stream should, by the
 same reasoning, be charged against the specific pro-
 duct.8
      At present, collection and disposal costs are typ-
 ically  paid  for   either indirectly  and  collectively
 through general  real estate  taxes or through  fixed
periodic levies on each discarder,  often unrelated to
the cost of providing the service. Thus, individual
waste discarders are seldom charged in proportion to
their total waste contribution; individual products are
never charged as such. This failure to price solid waste
services-that is, to charge each waste generator and
each product the amount required to collect and pro-
cess the relevant  solid waste-is not only inequitable
but also inefficient.  The lack of proportional fees is
inequitable in that the costs tend to be borne equally
by taxpayers or in other ways unrelated to degree of
responsibility.  Inefficiency arises from the fact that
when solid waste services are not appropriately priced,
there is little incentive either to consumers or to pro-
ducers to take action to minimize social costs.
     Consumers  are not provided with a market or
economic incentive to consider the solid waste cost
implications of their purchasing decisions. Since the
perceived  costs of products are lower than they ac-
tually are to the economy, consumers are encouraged
to purchase more of the products.  Under full-cost
pricing, consumers might shift their purchasing more
towards low-waste items (returnable containers, re-
usable  tableware, longer-lived  durable  goods) and
might give more emphasis to recycling as an alterna-
tive to disposal.  Similarly, there is a lack of competi-
tive incentive among producers to minimize the waste
disposal costs associated with  a product as there is to
minimize  costs of capital, labor,  and other directly
priced  inputs to  production.  Waste-reducing actions
by  producers might include redesigning products to
reduce material requirements or improve recyclability,
or greater use of secondary material.
     This failure of consumer product and packaging
markets to fully reflect solid waste management  costs
amounts to an implicit subsidy for physically and
economically wasteful production and consumption
habits.  It thus contributes to excessive use of mate-
rial and energy resources and  elevated levels of waste
discharges, as described in Chapter  1.

-------
90
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
      A charge on products at their point of manufac-
ture  or  sale, equal  in  amount  to the  product's
prospective waste collection and disposal costs, would
be a way of pricing solid waste collection and disposal
services on a product-by-product basis.  This would
insure that those whose production and consumption
decisions jointly and ultimately determine the quan-
tity of solid waste will directly bear the costs resulting
from  their choices.  In the jargon of economics, this
would "internalize" the cost of solid waste manage-
ment within the relevant market sectors.  The primary
social benefit  would be to establish a framework of
economic incentives to stimulate economically effici-
ent waste reduction and  recycling efforts by both
producers and consumers.
      As viewed by economists, the product charge
is a possible tool for improving the overall economic
efficiency of consumer goods markets in relation to
raw materials supply and solid waste  management
sectors.    Environmentalists may  view  the product
charge approach primarily as an incentive system for
encouraging resource  recovery  and waste reduction.
City managers or others concerned with local solid
waste management problems, on the other hand, may
have little regard for the economic incentive features
of the charge and may be much more concerned with
possible revenue-sharing provisions.
      As discussed below, the issue of what to do with
the revenue yielded by a product charge is in principle
completely separable from the concept of the charge
as a market incentive mechanism.  Whether revenues
should be shared with local governments, as in most
recent proposals, or designated for other purposes, or
returned to individual families via income tax rebates
is a matter for policy debate.
              Practical Design Issues
      Although  the  principal  rationale and  general
outlines of a  product charge system may be  clear,
a number of practical design considerations arise in
any effort to translate the  concept into  a formal
proposal.  Design issues that have appeared most im-
portant according to  EPA analyses thus far  include
the following:
        What products should be included?
        What material characteristic(s)  (e.g.,  weight,
           volume)  should  be  the basis  for the
           charge?
                                 At what point in the production-distribution
                                    system should products be charged?
                                 How much should the charge be?
                                 Should recycling be credited to the product
                                    in assessing the charge, and, if so, how?
                                 Should there be a phasing in of the charge
                                    over time?
                                 How should the revenues be utilized?
                              A "base case" product charge design, incorpo-
                         rating selected answers  to the above questions, has
                         been formulated in order to provide specific para-
                         meters for conducting preliminary impact and cost
                         analyses. The following briefly describes the options
                         and the specific design parameters selected for study
                         purposes.
                              What products should  be included?   If  one
                         accepts the economists' rationale for the charge, then
                         in  principle all products  entering municipal waste
                         should be charged since all give rise to collection and
                         disposal costs.  In  practice, the administrative com-
                         plexity and expense of charging certain small-volume
                         products or small-scale  producers  may be taken as
                         sufficient reason to justify exemptions. It is not clear
                         from EPA's analysis thus far at what point the added
                         costs of including more products would exceed the
                         additional benefits.
                              A more practical consideration from a research
                         and analysis standpoint is that the  complexity of the
                         estimating tasks expands rapidly with expansion of
                         the number of products considered. Thus, if for no
                         other reason than to keep the research and estimating
                         tasks  within manageable bounds,  the base case has
                         thus far included only paper products and nonpaper
                         packaging materials.  Together these broad categories
                         include about 80 percent  of total nonfood product
                         materials in the municipal waste stream, and the great
                         majority of  the  short-lived or  nondurable  goods
                         (Tables Bl and B2).
                               What material characteristic should be the basis
                         for the charge? If the charge is intended to cause
                         prices of individual products to reflect their prospec-
                         tive waste management costs, then some method must
                         be  selected  for  relating  these costs to specific
                         products.  There are no entirely satisfactory or  widely
                         accepted methods,  and relatively  little is known in
                         detail  regarding the  relationships  between  various
                         product characteristics and real impacts on collection

-------
                                   STATUS OF PRODUCT CHARGE STUDIES
                                                                                                        91
                    TABLE Bl
 PAPER PRODUCT CATEGORIES  INCLUDED  IN PRO-
              DUCT CHARGE  STUDY

 Paper
      Newsprint
      Printing, writing, and related paper
      Packaging and industrial converting paper
      Tissue and sanitary paper
 Containerboard*
      Linerboard
      Corrugating media
      Container chip and filler
 Boxboard*
      Folding boxboard
      Setup boxboard
      Milk cartons and food service containers

      *Does not include miscellaneous paperboards.
                    TABLE B2
PACKAGING  CATEGORIES INCLUDED  IN  PRODUCT
                 CHARGE STUDY
  Packaging material
SIC* code
Coverting paper
Bag paper
Glassine
Boxboard
Paper closures
Cellophane
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Plastic sheet
Polystyrene and other
thermoformed
Plastic closures
Plastic bottles
Plastic tubes, cups, jars,
boxes, baskets, foams
Glass jars
Glass refillable bottles
Glass nonrefillable bottles
Steel cans
Aerosol cans
Metal closures
Aluminum foil
Aluminum plates
Aluminum cans
Collapsible tubes
(26412,26415)
(2431)
(2643)
(2651,2652,2654,2655)
(26451/81)
(2821)
(2821)
(2821)
(2821)

(2821)
(30794/71)
(3079)

(3079)
(3221)
(3221)
(3221)
(3411)
(3411)
(34616,24617)
(3352)
(3352)
(3411)
(3496)
      ^Standard Industrial Classification.
and disposal costs.  Furthermore, in practice, munici-
pal wastes are usually collected as a mixed aggregate,
which  implies that costs may have to be allocated
somewhat arbitrarily.  Factors suggested as possibili-
ties  for allocating  solid waste  costs to  specific
products have  included  weight, volume,  compacted
volume, weight of incinerated residue, and "ease" of
recycling  or disposal.   Weight is the most widely
estimated factor and probably the most easily admin-
istered charge criterion and would seem appropriate
for many, if not most, products.  The benefits that
might  result from more precisely  tailored charges
must ultimately be judged against their greater admin-
istrative  complexity; clearly more research on  this
subject is warranted.
     There  are  at  least two categories  where  an
exception to the weight-based charge may be justified.
Product categories (such as rigid packaging) where
competing products have very different  weight-to-
volume ratios (aluminum versus glass containers, for
example) but where the products nonetheless require
roughly the same volume in mixed waste collection
and disposal, might be more appropriately charged on
a per item or volume basis.  Bulky items, such as tires
or refrigerators, which involve special collection  and
disposal  problems, might also best be charged  per
item. For such large items, a direct estimate of their
collection and disposal costs might be feasible.
     The base case design presently relies primarily
on a weight-based charge criterion for all items except
rigid consumer packaging, where an attempt has been
made to assign unit collection and disposal costs based
on an estimated volume-cost criterion.
     At what point in production should the charge
be assessed? The principal issues here appear to be
those  of  administrative  feasibility and  cost.   In
general, the  closer to wholesale  and retail levels of
distribution, the more  difficult and costly the charge
program would become to administer. This is due to
two  factors, the first and perhaps more significant is
the very large numbers of charge collection points; the
second is possibly greater monitoring difficulties in
certifying the primary and secondary material content
of goods  the  further they are from their original
production  sources.
     Usually,  the  further  back  in the production
sequence towards bulk raw material production, the
fewer the manufacturing sources and hence the fewer
the collection and monitoring points. The principal
problem at this early stage of material processing (say,
the bulk paper manufacturing level) may be for the

-------
92
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
producer  to distinguish the  fraction of  his  total
product output destined to enter the municipal waste
stream.  Another difficulty here  may be in making
allowances in the charge level for "prompt" or manu-
facturing  scrap generated at subsequent production
stages, since the charge concept would apply only to
the weight (or  volume) of the finished goods rather
than on  original bulk material weight (or volume).
     Thus it appears that the precise points of charge
application should be a matter for further administra-
tive study and judgment.  EPA impact analyses have
assumed  that  charges  will be  at either  the  bulk
processing stage (a papermill,  for example) or  at an
intermediate production stage (for example, a can
manufacturing plant), depending  on the products in
question.
      How much should the charge be?  In principle,
if the economic efficiency rationale is to govern, the
charges should  reflect the total costs to society of
collecting and disposing of the product. According to
current EPA estimates, the direct costs of collecting,
processing,  and  landfilling  municipal  wastes will
average about $30 per ton, or 1.5 cents per pound, in
1976.  This figure could be refined and  improved by
more extensive  cost-sampling data. Some economists
would also argue that,  from a  national efficiency
viewpoint, land and  capital costs are understated by
conventional local government accounting and financ-
ing practices (see Chapter 1) and that a national level
charge should recent the true, higher social opportu-
nity costs of land and capital.
      EPA's recent  impact study  evaluations  have
been based on an assumed  charge of $26 per ton for
most  product wastes and 0.5  cent per unit for rigid
containers, based on estimates of nationwide average
direct costs for  1974.
      How should credits for recycling be handled?
Most product charge proposals to date have specified
that only the  virgin material content of  bulk raw
materials  or products would  be  charged.   This, in
effect, provides an implicit subsidy for the use of
secondary (recycled) materials. It is further generally
assumed, either  implicitly or explicitly, that this credit
for the use of recycled material should apply only to
the post-consumer waste content, and not to  either
home  scrap (recycled within  the establishment) or
other  "prompt"  or  "new" industrial scrap sources.
                               It must be recognized that the task of assessing
                         the recycled material content of bulk or finished raw
                         materials and also determining the type of waste
                         source may pose some administrative and monitoring
                         difficulties.
                               An  alternative  concept  would  be  to  credit
                         products according to estimates of that product's own
                         material recycling (or  energy recovery) record (rather
                         than its secondary material content). This has certain
                         merits but would also pose administrative difficulties
                         in that it requires detailed recycling estimates, nation-
                         wide, for all major individual products and packaging
                         types.
                               Thus far, EPA analysis has followed the original
                         Wegman proposal in assuming a charge credit for the
                         recycled material content of products.
                               Should the charge  be  phased in  over  time?
                         Phasing in the charge by incremental amounts over,
                         say, 5 or  10 years would have the salutary effect of
                         avoiding  shock impacts  on affected  industries and
                         allow time for adjustments (recycling and waste reduc-
                         tion) that would mitigate  the financial impacts on
                         both producers and consumers. The EPA analysis has
                         assumed a 10-year phase-in period (10 percent of the
                         total charge being implemented each year), following
                         the  proposal in  recent  Congressional  committee
                         discussions.
                               How should the revenues be  utilized?   Under
                         any charge scheme, Federal  revenues will  be  gener-
                         ated.  Several alternative uses of these revenues are
                         possible, including:  (1) allocating the revenues to the
                         general fund as is done with many  current  excise
                         taxes; (2) allocating part or all of the yield to Federal
                         program areas; (3) rebating the revenues to individual
                         households,  possibly with  writeoffs on  income tax
                         returns; and (4) distributing the revenues to local
                         governments, either earmarked for  solid waste man-
                         agement  or  other  programs  or  as  non-tied revenue
                         sharing.
                               Most  recent proposals  have  favored revenue
                         sharing with local governments tied to some (generally
                         undefined) solid waste management or resource re-
                         covery  function.   This area requires  considerable
                         additional analysis of options and their implications.
                         EPA studies  have not dealt with the revenue-sharing
                         implications in detail.  However, it can be noted that
                         the estimated amount involved could total on the
                         order of $2 billion per year  if a $26-per-ton  charge

-------
                                   STATUS OF PRODUCT CHARGE STUDIES
                                               93
were fully implemented by 1980 or 1985.
   Summary of Base-Case Product Charge Design
      For purposes of quantitative estimation, EPA
studies have utilized the following set of assumptions
as a base-case design proposal:
        All paper products and most nonpaper pack-
        aging products of the types that enter the
        municipal solid waste stream would be sub-
        ject to  the charge  (80  percent  of  the
        product waste stream).
        The charge is weight-based and is set at $26
        per ton (1974 estimated U.S. average cost of
        municipal collection and disposal). Adjust-
        ment is made to a per unit container cost of
        $5.00 per thousand (0.5 cent each) for rigid
        containers.
        Products  are charged as close to the bulk
        material processing point as feasible.
        Recycled material  content (post-consumer
        waste only) of products is credited—i.e., the
        charge is based only on the virgin material
        content of products.
        The charge is phased in over a 10-year period.
        Revenues may  or may not be shared with
        local governments.

      PRELIMINARY IMPACT ESTIMATES
      Based on  the above  assumptions and design
considerations, EPA has conducted a series of studies
to develop estimates of the approximate quantitative
impacts of a  product charge measure. Preliminary
results for  the following topics are described below:
administrative  costs; effects on recycling levels and
waste reduction; prices of consumer goods; and the
impact on household budgets.
      It should be well noted that this work is still in
progress; in particular, the specific numerical values
will almost certainly  change as the studies are re-
viewed  and  revised.    Results  could  also change
significantly if  various design assumptions were al-
tered.
               Administrative Costs
      EPA carried out a comparative evaluation of the
workings of several existing excise  tax programs to
better understand the problems involved  in  imple-
menting  and administering the selected waste  charge
scheme.   Three  Federal  excise tax programs were
considered:  taxes for highway maintenance (gasoline
and  oil), the  fish  and  wildlife  conservation tax
program  (sporting goods  equipment),  and the dedi-
cated airport maintenance tax program (airplane fuel,
lubricants, equipment).
      The study found that the administrative require-
ments for a product charge program are comparable
with those for  these existing programs. This finding
reduces the concern that, despite its theoretical value,
a national solid waste product charge scheme  would
prove excessively complicated or extremely costly to
administer. In part, this finding reflects the  simplified
nature of  the  design under  which  the  charge  is
restricted to a selected range of product categories and
is collected at the manufacturing stage. These features
significantly reduce the number of establishments that
must be monitored (Table  B3).
      Some  of  the  conclusions from this  study are
quoted below:
        Viewed in terms  of tax collection tasks by
        the IRS, the proposed imposition of  manu-
        facturers' excise taxes or their equivalent on
        rigid consumer containers, flexible  consumer
        packaging,  and paper  is quite feasible. As
        indicated by the previous analysis of specific
        precedents in the dedicated  area, the IRS
        now administers manufacturers and retailers
        excise  taxes which are at least as complex as
        the  type of plan  embodied in the Congres-
        sional draft initiatives.
        Assuming even  that  a separate  excise tax
        return  were filed  for each  establishment
        [Table  B3], the total number  of returns
        involved (9,240) would amount to about
        0.7 percent of the 1,343,220 total of Federal
        excise tax returns filed in 1974. If each and
        every one of the presumptive 9,240 returns
        were examined, they would amount to only
        10.5  percent of the 88,348 Federal excise
        returns examined in 1974.

-------
 94
                                RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                    TABLE B3
 NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE KEY INDUS-
 TRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS COVERED BY THE PRODUCT
                CHARGE PROPOSAL*
 SIC
 code
Industry
  Number of
establishments
 2621        Papermills (except build-
              ing paper)
 2631        Paperboard mills
 3221        Glass containers
 3079        Misc. plastic products
 2821        Plastic materials and
              resins
 3353        Aluminum sheet, plate,
              and foil
 3411        Metal cans
 3466        Crowns and closures
      Total
                          349
                          273
                          117
                         7,678

                          323

                           51
                          396
                           55
                         9,240
      *Compiled from memoranda prepared for the  Re-
 source Recovery Division, Office of Solid Waste, by Franklin
 Associates, Ltd.
        Collection costs for IRS (or other product
        charge collection authorities) under the plan
        would be moderate-certainly not in excess
        of  1  percent of gross yield and probably in
        the vicinity of 1/2 of 1 percent.
      The overall  administrative  impact of the pro-
gram would appear to be of an acceptable level based
on  this initial assessment; however, we  anticipate
continuing work in this area  in conjunction with the
Department  of the Treasury under the  Resource
Conservation Committee mandate.
     Effection Recycling and  Waste Reduction
      Under a product  charge, materials would cost
more because their waste management costs would be
assessed against them; therefore,  depending on parti-
cular situations,  somewhat  less  material  would  be
used. Moreover, under the base case charge proposal,
the relative cost  to the  producers  of using  recycled
materials would be reduced and thus recycling should
increase.
      EPA has sponsored two studies to estimate the
quantitative  impact of product  charges on material
use and  recycling. The  first was an  earlier  contract
study (1973-74), focusing on containers and packag-
ing materials, that examined a variation of the product
charge along with a number of other incentive policy
approaches.10'11 The second, more recent, study was
designed specifically to evaluate the base case charge
proposal as applied to a broad range of paper pro-
ducts,  including  both  packaging  and nonpackaging
product  groups.    Since some paper products  were
included in both studies the results overlap somewhat.
Moreover,  since the studies were done at different
times  and  employed rather different methods and
policy  assumptions, the results are not directly  com-
parable. Despite certain major differences in approach,
the two studies have  nevertheless provided broadly
similar conclusions  indicating that a product charge
set at  a level approximating average waste collection
and disposal costs would have significant impacts on
the post-consumer solid waste stream (Tables B4 and
B5). Work is now underway to provide an improved
and more complete set  of estimating methods in this
field.
     The estimated waste reduction impacts-that is,
the price-induced reductions in demand-are relatively
small in both studies, on the order of 2  to  3 percent
of net  waste. However, it should be noted that the
study designs were only capable of estimating waste
reduction effects due to shifts in consumer purchases.

                   TABLE B4
   REDUCTIONS IN POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
    RESULTING FROM A PRODUCT CHARGE ON
    PACKAGING MATERIALS, 1970 BASE  YEAR*
            (In thousands of tons per year)
Packaging
material
Paper and
board
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
Waste reduction
effect*
232
40
216
238
8
734
Resource recovery
effect*
1,078
0
4,078
2,532
244
7,941
Total
1,310
40
4,294
2,770
252
8,666
                                            *Miedema, Allen K., et al. (Research Triangle Institute).
                                      Preliminary  Analysis of a Product  Charge on Major Com-
                                      ponents of Post-Consumer Waste. EPA Contract  No. 68-01-
                                      2981, June 7, 1976.
                                            tThe estimated reduction in material waste generation
                                      resulting from reduction of consumer purchases due to in-
                                      creased product prices.
                                            ''The reduction in solid waste disposal attributable to
                                      increased material recycling.

-------
                                   STATUS OF PRODUCT CHARGE STUDIES
                                               95
                   TABLE B5
          REDUCTIONS IN SOLID WASTES
     RESULTING FROM A PRODUCT CHARGE ON
        PAPER PRODUCTS, 1975 BASE YEAR*
            (In thousands of tons per year)
Paper Waste reduction
category effect
Paper
Container-
board
Boxboard
Total
346
122

1,274
1,742
Resource recovery
* Total
effect
2,400
6,493

1,189
10,082
2,746
6,615

2,463
11,824
      *Miedema, Allen K.,et al. (Research Triangle Institute).
Preliminary Analysis of  a  Product Charge on  Major Com-
ponents of Post-Consumer  Waste. EPA Contract No. 68-01-
2981, June 7, 1976.
      tThe estimated reduction in material waste generation
resulting from reduction of consumer purchases due to in-
creased product prices.
      *The reduction in solid waste disposal attributable to
increased material recycling.
They were not able to simulate a complete range of
effects  of material cost changes  on product designs
or packaging material shifts at the producers' level.
      The estimated increases  in  recycling levels for
glass, steel, and aluminum packaging materials and for
paper products in general are quite significant. In the
packaging materials study, the estimated recycling
effect amounted to a  several-fold increase for glass,
steel, and aluminum packaging, with an overall impact
amounting to about 8 million tons (Table B4). This
would have  more  than doubled the total material
recycled in  1970  (the base year for calculating the
estimates), and would  have amounted to more than
10 percent of the total nonfood  product and packa-
ging component of the  national waste stream.
      The paper industry  study,  using the base-case
charge design, an  improved data base,13 and more
sophisticated methods, estimated  a recycling increase
for paper products alone of about 10 million tons for
1975. This compares with an actual 1974-76 recycling
rate  of about 8.5 million tons per year. The increased
rate  with a product charge is similar to the rate that
was  considered  technically feasible but highly un-
likely (without government action) in the industry-
sponsored study, Paper Recycling:  The Art  of the
Possible.14
      Excessive  attention should not  be placed on
particular numerical results in either of these tables
due  to  the preliminary nature of the studies. Never-
theless, both studies generally support the conclusion
that a product charge of the magnitude employed in
the  studies  would  have a significant impact on the
waste stream and on material and energy conservation.
        Consumer Price and Income Impacts
      The increases  in the price of those consumer
products most likely to be affected by a charge mea-
sure have also been estimated (Tables B6 and B7). The
estimated price increases are uniformly small-seldom
greater than 1 or 2 percent  of product prices and
typically less than one-half of 1 percent.  This is not
surprising, since total solid waste management costs
are less than 1  percent  of total consumer expendi-
tures. The price impacts  shown here are based on an
extreme assumption that the total effect of the charge
is passed on to the consumer.
      In addition to  price, data was also developed on
how a product charge would  impact on  poorer and
richer families (Table B8).  This distributional impact
analysis was based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
consumer expenditure survey.  As a percent of annual
income, the charge  would weigh more  heavily  on
lower  income  groups and would thus  be  termed
"regressive."  However,   the  absolute  level  of the
annual charge would not be large, the amounts ranging
from about $8 per year for the poorest (lowest decile)
families to $59 per year for the richest (highest decile)
families. The median-income family would pay out a
maximum of about $30 per year under the base case
proposal.
     The distribution  of  the  revenues collected
would,  of  course, affect  the  total net  impact  on
consumers.   For  example, returning  the funds to
individual families via a Federal income tax rebate or
writeoff would essentially neutralize the  consumer
budget impact. Returning funds to cities in some form
of revenue-sharing approach also should, depending
on how the funds were used,  reduce the  net impact
on family incomes.   The redistributional effects of
some revenue-sharing approaches could compensate
or offset, either partially or completely, any regressive
features that a product charge might introduce into
the overall tax and expenditure structure.

-------
 96
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                     TABLE B6
     INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRODUCT PRICES
       RESULTING FROM A PRODUCT CHARGE
         ON PACKAGING,* 1970 BASE YEAR
      Consumer product
        Price increase
          (percent)
Baked goods
Dairy products
Frozen foods
Fresh and cured meat
Fresh and cured fish and seafood
Fresh and cured poultry
Produce
Distilled spirits
Wine
Beer
Soft drinks
Prepared beverages
Candy and chewing gum
Canned foods
Cereals, flour, and macaroni
Pet foods
Tobacco products
Other foods
Soaps and detergents
Other cleaning supplies
Pesticides
Other household supplies
Packaged medications
Oral hygiene products
Cosmetics and hand products
Hair products
Shaving products
Other beauty aids
Other health aids
Other general merchandise

      Weighted average
            0.2
            0.2
            0.2
            0.2
            0.1
            0.1
            0.2
            0.2
            0.3
            2.2
            4.1
            1.1
            0.2
            4.2
            0.1
            2.6
            0.1
            0.7
            1.1
            0.3
            0.0
            0.3
            0.3
            0.6
            0.5
            0.4
            0.4
            1.3
            0.5
            0.1
            0.3
      *Miedema, Allen K.,et al. (ResearchTriangle Institute).
Preliminary Analysis of a Product Charge on Major Com-
ponents of Post-Consumer Waste. EPA Contract  No. 68-01-
2981, June?, 1976.
      tfhe weighting is based on the amount  consumers
spent in each consumer product category.
   Estimated Product Charge Payments by Industries
      To obtain an initial estimate of the charge pay-
ments  that  each  affected  industry would  pay  out
under a waste charge measure, two extreme scenarios
were analyzed  (Table B9). In the "no recycle" case,
the charge was assumed to  have no recycling impact;
in the  second  "high recycle" case, a relatively rapid
increase in the rate of recycling was assumed. Since
                                                TABLE B7
                                INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRODUCT PRICES
                                  RESULTING FROM A PRODUCT CHARGE
                                          ON PAPER PRODUCTS*

Rankt

Paper
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10

Consumer product


Newspapers
Paper napkins, facial tissue
Periodicals
Book publishing
Shave lotions, cream, oils
Lubricants, oil, gasoline
Bread, cake, related
products
Women's, children's apparel
Cigarettes
Fresh and frozen meats
Price
increase
(percent)

1.39
1.66
0.62
0.39
0.15
0.04
0.08

0.04
0.07
0.04
Co ntainerboard
  1               Fresh and frozen meats        0.02
  2               Bottled and canned soft       0.07
                  drinks
  3               New passenger cars           0.02
  4               Frozen fruits and             0.09
                  vegetables
  5               Canned and bottled beer      0.04
  6               Games and toys              0.15
  7               Pork sausages and like         0.04
                  products
  8               Women's, children's apparel    0.02
  9               Package milk, cottage         0.02
                  cheese
 10               Bread, cake, related           0.02
                  products

Boxboard
  1               Package milk, cottage         0.12
                  cheese
  2               Fresh and frozen meats        0.04
  3               Pork sausages and like         0.08
                  products
  4               Bread, cake, related           0.05
                  products
  5               Frozen fruits and             0.10
                  vegetables
  6               Ice cream, frozen desserts     0.15
  7               Soaps, detergents             0.14
  8               Canned and bottled beer      0.04
  9               Women's, children's apparel    0.02
 10               Shave lotion, cream, oils      0.05

      *Miedema, Allen K., et al. (Research Triangle Institute).
Preliminary Analysis of a Product Charge  on Major Com-
ponents of Post-Consumer Waste.  EPA Contract No. 68-01-
2981, June?, 1976.
      tThis  ranking is based  on  the quantity  of material
consumed. The  10 consumer products that use the largest
quantity of paper, containerboard, and boxboard are shown.

-------
         STATUS OF PRODUCT CHARGE STUDIES
                                                                      97
w
    S
    in O>
6 ox
o o-
"1-1
    o cs
    82

£00









88
    oo
|5
IS
        s
        a
        «






        S
        [C
            n
            1
               *
               00
               3?
               S!
                   8.
                   00
                   in
               cl
o.
S


3
s
                   8
                 55
              i .2
              :«
                          5.
        in


        cs
                          oo

                          in
                          to
                          TH

                          to
                      o
                      t-l

                      in
                        111
                             in

                             i
                                 if
                                 to
                                 CN
                                 o
                                 cs
                             in
                             I— I

                             to
                                   *
                                 I   I
                                       I
                           s
                                               i

-------
98
                               RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                               TABLE B9
                    INDUSTRIAL CHARGE PAYMENTS FOR TWO RECYCLING SCENARIOS*
                                           (In millions of dollars)

Glass:
No recycle
High recycle
Steel:
No recycle
High recycle
Aluminum cans
and ends:
No recycle
High recycle
Blow-molded
plastic contain-
ers:
No recycle
High recycle
Plastic packaging
except blow-
molded bottles:
No recycle
High recycle
Paper and
paperboard:
No recycle
High recycle
Total:
No recycle
High recycle
1978

20.9
20.9

33.2
33.2


9.15
8.80



5.64
5.64



7.90
7.90


126
126
203
203
1979

42.3
41.6

66.7
64.3


19.2
17.8



12.3
13.3



17.0
17.9


262
260
419
413
1980

64.3
61.8

100
93.2


30.3
27.3



19.°
19.7



27.3
27.0


402
402
644
631
1981

85.4
80.7

134
120


38.7
33.4



28.2
27.9



38.6
38.2


554
547
879
847
1982

107
99.0

167
144


48.2
40.6



37.3
36.6



51.2
50.2


718
700
1130
1070
1983

126
116

200
166


52.0
42.3



47.3
45.9



55.1
63.1


878
844
1370
1280
1984

148
132

232
185


55.8
44.8



58.3
56.0



80.6
77.4


1050
990
1620
1480
1985

169
147

262
202


56.7
44.9



70.5
67.0



97.6
92.7


1240
1120
1900
1670
1986

189
162

291
216


64.7
50.0



83.9
78.7



115
109


1450
1260
2190
1880
1987

208
175

318
227


72.6
54.8



98.6
93.7



133
126


1660
1400
2490
2080
1988

207
171

310
214


73.1
53.8



104
98.8



139
132


1700
1440
2530
2110
       ^Compiled from memoranda prepared for the Resource Recovery Division, Environmental Protection Agency, by Franklin
  Associates, Ltd.
the charge is assumed to be levied only on virgin raw
material  in  the base case design,  the impact of a
product charge on a given industry will be reduced to
the extent that the industry converts to  the use of
secondary raw materials.

     The total annual cash flow would be in the $2
billion range by the late 1980's. This is equal to some-
what  less than half of  all solid waste management
costs by that time.
      As noted earlier, the costs of administering the
waste charge proposal are likely to be small; therefore,
most  of these funds would  be available  for redistri-
bution.  Under the  revenue-sharing alternative for
using  the funds, for example, if net charge revenues
did reach $2 billion by  1988 and the population at
that  time  were 245 million (U.S.  Bureau  of the
Census, Series E Projection, 1972 base year), a city of
100,000 would receive for  environmental or other
programs slightly over $800,000 in  that year.

-------
                                      STATUS OF PRODUCT CHARGE STUDIES
                                                     99
                  REFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
              Waste  Management  Programs. Resource re-
              covery and source reduction; first report to
              Congress.  3d ed. Environmental  Protection
              Publication SW-118. Washington, U.S. Gov-
              ernment Printing Office, 1974. 61 p.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
              Waste  Management  Programs. Resource re-
              covery and source reduction; second report
              to Congress. Environmental Protection Pub-
              lication SW-122. Washington,  U.S. Govern-
              ment Printing Office, 1974. 112 p.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
              Waste  Management  Programs. Resource re-
              covery and waste reduction; third report to
              Congress, chap. 2. Environmental Protection
              Publication SW-161. Washington, U.S. Gov-
              ernment Printing Office, 1975. p. 16-32.
4. Wegman,  L.  S.    Statement of Leonard S. Wegman,
              Leonard  S.  Wegman Co.,  Inc.,  New York.
              In U.S.  Congress.  Senate. Committee on
              Public  Works. Resource  Recovery Act of
              1969  (pt. 3). Hearings before the Subcom-
              mittee on Air and Water Pollution,  91st
              Cong., 2d sess., on S. 2005, Feb. 20, 23-25,
              1970. Washington, U.S. Government Print-
              ing Office, 1970. p. 1854-1866.
5. U.S. Congress. House. Committee  on Commerce. Solid
              Waste Utilization Act, Dec. 1975. (Draft.)
6. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works, Sub-
              committee  on  Environmental   Pollution.
              Hearings   on effects of  product disposal
              charges in municipal waste recovery and re-
              use, May 20, 1976.
7. Kneese, A. V. The economics of regional water quality
              management. Washington  and   Baltimore,
              Resources for the  Future, Inc., and  The
              Johns Hopkins Press, 1964. 215 p.
8. Baumol, W. J. Statement of Dr. W. J. Baumol, Profes-
              sor of  Economics, Princeton  University.
               In  U.S.  Congress. Senate. Committee on
               Public  Works. To  Consider the  Effects of
               Product  Disposal  Charges  on  Municipal
               Waste Recovery and  Reuse. Hearing before
               the Panel on Materials Policy of the Sub-
               committee on Environmental Pollution, 94th
               Cong.,  2d sess., May 20, 1976. Washington,
               U.S. Government  Printing  Office,  1976.
               p. 27-36.
 9. Slitor, R. E. Administrative aspects of a dedicated manu-
               facturers excise tax on solid waste creating
               products; final  report. Washington,  U.S.
               Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
               Solid Waste. (In preparation.)
10. Bingham, T. H., et  al. [Research Triangle Institute]. An
               evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of
               regulatory and fiscal policy instruments on
               product  packaging. Environmental Protec-
               tion Publication SW-74c. U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1974. 301 p.
11. Miedema,  A.  K., T. H.  Bingham, and J. Daber. Pre-
               liminary  analysis  of  a product  charge on
               major components of post-consumer  solid
               wastes. Research Triangle Park, N. C., Re--
               search Triangle Institute, June 7, 1976. 36 p.
12. Miedema, A. K., et al. [Research Triangle Institute]. The
               case of virgin material charges:  a theoretical
               and empirical evaluation in the paper indus-
               try;  draft final  report. Washington,  U.S.
               Environmental Protection Agency. (In prep-
               aration.)
13. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Analysis of demand and supply for
               secondary fiber in the U.S. paper and paper-
               board industry, v. 1., sect. 1-8, 10. Environ-
               mental  Protection  Publication SW-115c.l.
               U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
               1976. 383 p. (Distributed by National Tech-
               nical Information Service, Springfield, Va.,
               as PB-250 798.)
14. Franklin, W. E. Paper recycling—the art of the possible,
               1970-1985.  New  York, American  Paper
               Institute, 1973. 181 p.

-------
                                      Appendix  C
                   BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF EPA  PUBLICATIONS
                              ON  RESOURCE RECOVERY
                               AND  WASTE  REDUCTION
   This Appendix provides a  comprehensive list of
EPA publications on the subjects of resource recovery
and waste reduction  and other closely -related sub-
jects in the municipal solid waste field. The intent is
to be comprehensive both historically and across EPA
program areas.  Thus, it includes publications as far
back historically as records provide, at  all levels of
technical sophistication, and from all offices of EPA.
This bibliography also includes papers by EPA  per-
sonnel  published in  outside  technical  and trade
journals,  magazines,  and symposia proceedings, as
well as in-house  and  contract  research reports.  The
list also includes a number of items originally pub-
lished by other government  agencies  and  private
sources that have been reprinted by EPA. It includes
selected,  published Congressional or other hearings
records which have been reprinted  by EPA. It does
not include unpublished speeches, nor does it include
items on resource recovery from mining,  industrial,
or most other non-municipal waste sources.
   The titles have been  divided into 7 subject cate-
gories. References covering more than one topic have
usually been placed in the "general" category (I) un-
less they had an obvious and predominant focus on
one of the specifically listed categories.  Titles falling
outside  the other specific subject areas were  also
classified in the "general" category.  Of necessity,
rather arbitrary  decisions  were made in many in-
stances, and researchers in a  particular  subject are
advised  to also peruse other categories, particularly
the general category.
   Publications  with  an  "AIM" number, except for
items that are out of print (denoted by a "t"), may
be ordered free of charge from:  Solid Waste Informa-
tion,   UJS.   Environmental   Protection  Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.

   References accompanied by a "PB" number are
primarily contract and grant reports sponsored either
by the Office of Solid Waste or the Office of Research
and Development (or their predecessor offices). "PB"
reports may be purchased from: National Technical
Information  Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia 22161. (Microfiche copy price is
$2.25; Xerox copy prices vary.)

   Remaining items, including out-of-print titles, are
usually available from EPA libraries, U.S. Government
Printing Office  depository libraries, public and uni-
versity libraries, or occasionally by contacting  the
author directly.
          Subject category
General studies, surveys, or reports
Solid waste quantity and composition
   and forecasts
Environmental impacts, raw materials,
   and energy requirements for materials
   and products
Waste reduction
Materials recovery and recycling
Energy recovery from waste
Policy studies and papers
Page
101
105
106
106
107
113
115
                                                100

-------
            BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                   101
    I. GENERAL STUDIES, SURVEYS, OR REPORTS

Allison, G., S. Mooser, and P. Taylor.  Mas alia de la lata
               de basura.  Spanish version of "Beyond the
               trashcan."  Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation SW-7tg. [Washington], U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency,  1974.   23 p.
               (AIM no. 424)

Black,  R. J.   State activities in solid waste management,
               1974.  Environmental Protection Publica-
               tion SW-158.  [Washington], U.S. Environ-
               mental  Protection  Agency,  June  1975.
               216 p.  (AIM no. 457)

Black, R. J. Summaries of solid waste management contracts;
               July  1,  1970-March 31, 1975.  Environ-
               mental   Protection  Publication  SW-5.4.
               [Washington], U.S. Environmental  Protec-
               tion Agency, Aug. 1975.  37 p.  (AIM no.
               469)

Black,  R. J., and P. L. Davis.   Refuse collection and dis-
               posal; an annotated bibliography,  1960—
               1961. rev. ed.  Public Health Service Publi-
               cation No. 91, Suppl. E.  Washington,  U.S.
               Government Printing Office, 1966.  69 p.
               (AIM no. 38)

Black,  R. J.,  J. B. Wheeler, and  W. G. Henderson.  Refuse
               collection and disposal; an annotated biblio-
               graphy, 1962-1963. Public Health Service
               Publication No. 91, Suppl. F. Washington,
               VS.  Government  Printing Office,  1966.
               134 p.  (AIM no. 38)

Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc.  Cost estimating handbook
               for transfer, shredding and sanitary landfill-
               ing of solid waste.  Environmental  Protec-
               tion  Publication SW-124c.   U.S. Environ-
               mental  Protection  Agency,  Aug.  1976.
               82 p.  (PB-256 444)

Breidenbach,  A. W., comp.  Summaries of solid waste intra-
               mural research  and development projects.
               Environmental Protection Publication  SW-
               14r.  Washington, U.S. Government Printing
               Office, 1971. 24 p.  (AIM no. 165)

tQark,  T. D.  Economic realities of reclaiming natural re-
               sources  in solid  waste.   In Institute of
               Environmental Sciences 1971 Annual Tech-
               nical  Meeting Proceedings,  Los Angeles,
               Apr.  26-30,  1971.   Mt.  Prospect,  HI.,
               Institute  of Environmental Sciences, p. 39-
               43. Reprinted, [Washington], U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency,  1971.   12 p.
               (AIM no. 225)

Committee guide; study of solid waste management.  League
               of Women  Voters  Publication  No. 699.
               Washington, League of Women  Voters of
               the United States, Nov.  1971.  8 p. (AIM
               no. 259)

Connolly, J. A., and S. E. Radinsky, comps.  Patent abstracts;
               United  States  solid  waste  management,
               1945-1969.  Public Health Service Publi-
               cation  No.  1793,  Suppl.  A. Washington,
               U.S. Government  Printing  Office,  1973.
               452 p.  (AIM no. 317)

Connolly,  J. A., and S. E. Stainback.  Solid waste manage-
               ment; abstracts from  the  literature— 1964.
               Public Health Service  Publication No. 91-
               1964, Suppl. G. Washington, U.S. Govern-
               ment Printing Office,  1971.  280 p. (AIM
               no. 231)

Connolly,  J. A., and S. E. Stainback.  Solid waste manage-
               ment; abstracts from  the  literature— 1965.
               Public Health Service  Publication No. 91-
               1965, Suppl. H. Washington, U.S. Govern-
               ment Printing Office,  1972. 216 p. (AIM
               no. 257)

Current views on  solid waste management; recommended
               reading.   Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation SW-544.  Washington, U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, [1976].  10 p.
               (AIM no. 544)

tDarnay,  A.   Resource recovery and land protection; an
               environmental   imperative.    Presented at
               Spring Meeting, Paperboard Group, Ameri-
               can  Paper  Institute,  Greenbrier, W. Va.,
               May  21, 1974.  New York, American Paper
               Institute, 1974.  7 p. (4/M no.413)
Drobny, N. L., H. E. Hull, and R. F. Testin.  Recovery and
               utilization of municipal solid waste; a sum-
               mary of available cost and  performance
               characteristics of unit processes and systems.
               Public Health Service Publication No. 1908.
               Washington,  U.S.  Government  Printing
               Office, 1971. 118 p. (AIM no. 177)

Franklin  Institute   Research  Laboratories.    Solid waste
               management; abstracts from the literature—
               1966.   Public  Health  Service Publication
               No.  91-1966, Suppl. I.  Washington, U.S.
               Government Printing Office, 1972. 197 p.
               (AIM no. 258)

Franklin  Institute   Research  Laboratories.    Solid waste
               management; abstracts from the literature—
               1967.   Public  Health  Service Publication
               No.  91-1967, Suppl. J.  Washington, UJS.
               Government Printing Office, 1972. 404 p.
               (AIM no. 281)
      tOut of print; available only from EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
      tOut  of print; available only  from EPA libraries or
Government  Printing Office depository libraries.

-------
102
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
 tFranklin  Institute  Research Laboratories.   Solid  waste
                management; abstracts from the literature—
                1968.  Public Health Service Publication
                No. 91-1968, Suppl. K. Washington, U. S.
                Government  Printing Office, 1972.  286 p.
                (AIM no. 282)

 Franklin, W. E., D. Bendersky, L. J. Shannon, and W. R.
                Park [Midwest  Research  Institute].   Re-
                source  recovery:   catalogue of processes.
                U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
                Feb. 1973. 141 p. (PB-214 148)

 Gar be,  Y. M., and  S.  J. Levy.   Resource recovery plant
                implementation:   guides for municipal of-
                ficials—markets.  Environmental Protection
                Publication SW-157.3.  [Washington], U. S.
                Environmental Protection  Agency,  1976.
                47 p. (AIMno. 499)

 tGolueke, C. G.  Comprehensive studies of solid  waste
                management; third annual report. Environ-
                mental  Protection Publication   SW-lOrg.
                Washington,  U.  S. Government  Printing
                Office,  1971. 201 p. (AIMno. 178)

 Golueke, C. G.   Solid waste  management; abstracts and ex-
                cerpts  from  the  literature, v. 1-2. Public
                Health  Service Publication No.  2038.  Wash-
                ington, U. S. Government Printing Office,
                1970. 147 p. (AIMno. 127)

 Golueke, C. G., and P. H. McGauhey. Comprehensive studies
                of solid waste management; first and  sec-
                ond annual reports. Public Health Service
                Publication  No. 2039.  Washington, U. S.
                Government  Printing Office, 1970.  245 p.
                (AIM no. 128)

 Hale, S., Jr.  The Federal resource recovery demonstration
                program.   Professional  Engineer, 48(6):
                28-31, June 1973. (AIMno. 334)

 fHale,  S.,  Jr. Resource recovery  losing  ground.  Phoenix
                Quarterly, 4(2):3-4, 1972. (AIMno. 289)

 tHart,  S. A.  Solid  wastes management in Germany; report
                of the U. S.  Solid Wastes Study Team visit,
                June 25July 8,  1967. Public Health  Ser-
                vice  Publication  No.  1812.  Washington,
                U.  S.  Government Printing Office,  1968.
                18 p. (AIM no. 59)

 Hawkins,  D.    Resource recovery plant   implementation:
                guides  for municipal officials—further assis-
                tance.   Environmental Protection Publica-
                tion SW-157.8.   [Washington],  U. S.  En-
                vironmentalProtection Agency, 1975. 29 p.
                (AIM no.
       tOut of print; available only from EPA libraries or
 Government Printing Office depository libraries.
       ^Available in public and university libraries.
                             Hopper, R. E.  A nationwide survey of resource recovery
                                            activities.  Environmental Protection Publi-
                                            cation  SW-142.  [Washington], U. S. En-
                                            vironmental Protection  Agency, Jan. 1975.
                                            74 p. (AIM no. 432)

                            Humber, N. Waste reduction and  resource recovery—there's
                                            room for both. Waste Age, 6(11):38, 40-41,
                                            44, Nov. 1975. (AIM no. 505)

                            International Research Group on Refuse  Disposal (IRGRD);
                                            information bulletin numbers 21-31, August
                                            1964 to December 1967.  Rockville,  Md.,
                                            U. S. Department of Health, Education,
                                            and Welfare, 1969.  387 p. [Translated by
                                            the  Israel  Program for Scientific  Transla-
                                            tions.]  (,4/Afno. 89)

                            International Research Group on Refuse  Disposal (IRGRD);
                                            information bulletin number 32, April 1968.
                                            Rockville, Md., U. S. Department of Health,
                                            Education,  and  Welfare,  1969.   41 p.
                                            [Translated by the Israel  Program for Sci-
                                            entific Translations.] (AIMno. 142)

                            International Research Group on Refuse  Disposal (IRGRD);
                                            information  bulletin  number  33,  August
                                            1968. Rockville, Md., U.  S. Department of
                                            Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. 27 p.
                                            [Translated by the Israel  Program for Sci-
                                            entific Translations.] (AIMno. 143)

                            International Research Group on Refuse  Disposal (IRGRD);
                                            information bulletin number 35, May 1969.
                                            Rockville, Md., U. S. Department of Health,
                                            Education,  and  Welfare,  1969.   46 p.
                                            [Translated by the Israel  Program for Sci-
                                            entific Translations.]  (AIMno. 145)

                            Lefke, L. W., A. G. Keene, R. A. Chapman, and H. Johnson,
                                            comps.  Summaries  of solid waste  research
                                            and training grants—1970.  Public Health
                                            Service Publication No.  1596.  Washington,
                                            U. S. Government  Printing  Office, 1971.
                                            134 p.  Addendum through July 31, 1971.
                                            8 p.  [Insert.]  (AIMno. 190)

                             Levy, S. J., and H. G.  Rigo.  Resource recovery plant im-
                                            plementation:    guides  for municipal of-
                                            ficials—technologies.   Environmental  Pro-
                                            tection Publication SW-157.2.  Washington,
                                            U.  S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
                                            1976. 81 p. (AIM no. 5t,o)

                             Lingle, S., ed.  Resource recovery technology update from
                                            the U.S.EP.A.; demonstrating resource re-
                                            covery.  Waste Age, 7(6): 19, 22, 26,42,44-
                                            46, June 1976. (AIMno. 528)

                             Lonergan, R. P.,  and E. M.  Herson. Solid waste—a natural
                                            resource? In  Man and the quality of his
                                            environment;   Western  Resources Papers,
                                            1967.  J. E.  Flack and M. C. Shipley, eds.
                                            [Boulder], University  of Colorado Press,
                                            1968. p. 107-120.  (AIMno. 77)

-------
             BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                   103
McEwen, L. B., Jr.  A nationwide survey  of resource re-
               covery activities. Environmental Protection
               Publication SW-142.1. Washington, U.S. En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, 1976.  (AIM
               no. 432)

Meyers, S.  Status of solid waste management in the United
               States. Presented at 2d International Con-
               gress of the International Solid Wastes Asso-
               ciation, Padua, June 24, 1976. Washington,
               U.  S.  Environmental   Protection Agency.
               22 p. (AIM no. 526)

tMidwest Research Institute.  Resource recovery; the state
               of technology.  [Prepared for the Council
               on  Environmental  Quality.]  Washington,
               U.  S.  Government  Printing Office, 1973.
               67 p. (ATM no. 321)

Mitre Corporation. The resource recovery industry; a survey
               of the industry and its capacity. Environ-
               mental  Protection  Publication  SW-501c.
               Washington,  U.  S. Government Printing
               Office, 1976, 92 p.  (4/Afno. 501)

Mitre Corporation. Resource recovery plant implementation:
               guides for municipal officials—procurement.
               Environmental Protection Publication  SW-
               157.5. [Washington], U. S. Environmental
               Protection  Agency, 1976.   66  p.  (AIM
               no. 495)

fMuhich,  A.  J.   Grants  encourage  new  waste disposal
               methods. Journal of Environmental Health,
               32(5):572-578,  Mar.-Apr. 1970.  (AIM no.
               121)

National Analysts, Inc.  Metropolitan housewives' attitudes
               toward  solid waste disposal.   U. S.  En-
               vironmental  Protection   Agency,  1972.
               114 p. (PB-213 340)

Office of Solid Waste Management  Programs, Resource Re-
               covery  Division.    Current recommended
               readings  on resource  recovery  and  waste
               reduction.  Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation  SW-536.  [Washington],  U. S. En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, 1976.  13 p.
               (AIM no. 536)

Ottinger, R. S., et al. [TRW Systems Group]. Recommended
               methods  of reduction,  neutralization,  re-
               covery  or  disposal  of hazardous waste.
               U.  S.  Environmental   Protection Agency,
               1973.  16 v. (PB-224 579-Set)

^Peterson,  B.  There's gold in your  garbage.   Scouting,
               62(7)A7A8, 84-86, Oct. 1974.  Reprinted,
               [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protec-
               tion Agency, 1974.4 p. (AIM no. 421)
      tOut  of  print; available only from EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
      J Available in public and university libraries.
 Randol, R. E.   Resource recovery plant implementation:
                guides  for  municipal officials—financing.
                Environmental Protection Publication SW-
                157.4.  [Washington], U.S.  Environmental
                Protection Agency,  1975.  20 p.  (AIM
                no.471)

 Randol, R. E.   Resource recovery plant implementation:
                guides  for  municipal officials—risks and
                contracts. Environmental Protection Publi-
                cation SW-157.7.  [Washington], U.S. Envi-
                ronmental Protection Agency, 1976. 52 p.
                (AIM no. 496)

 tRecycling.  Falls   Church,   Va.,  Stuart   Finley,  Inc.,
                [1971].  6 p.  [Flyer.]  (AIM no.  210)

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public Law
                94-580, 94th  Congress, S. 2150-Oct.  21,
                1976. [Washington, U.S. Government Print-
                ing Office,] 1976. [47 p.]  (AIMno. 171)

Resource recovery, recycling, and reuse. In Citizens' Advisory
                Committee  on  Environmental   Quality.
                Annual report to the  President and to the
                Council   on   Environmental   Quality  for
                the  year  ending  May  1972.   Washington,
                U.S. Government  Printing Office,  [1972].
                p.  33-41.  Reprinted, [Cincinnati], U.S.
                Environmental  Protection Agency,  1972.
                [10 p.] (AIMno. 307)

Shilepsky,  A.   Resource recovery plant  implementation:
                guides for municipal officials—interim re-
                port. Environmental Protection Publication
                SW-152.  [Washington], U.S. Environmental
                Protection Agency, Oct. 1975.  38  p. (AIM
                no.480)

Skinner, J. H.  Resource recovery: the Federal perspective.
                Waste Age, 5(1):12-14, 54, Jan./Feb. 1974.
                Reprinted,  [Washington],  U.S. Environ-
                mental  Protection  Agency,  1974.  3  p.
                (AIM no. 350)

Smith, F. A. Resource recovery plant cost estimates: a com-
                parative  evaluation of four  recent  dry-
                shredding designs. Environmental Protection
                Publication  SW-163.  [Washington], U.S.
                Environmental  Protection Agency, Oct.
                1975. 20 p. (AIM no. 482)

The  Solid  Waste Disposal Act;  Title II  of  Public Law
                89-272, 89th Congress, S.  306-October 20,
                1965,  as  amended by The  Resource Re-
                covery Act  of 1970, Public  Law  91-512-
                91st Congress, H. R. 11833-October 26,
                1970; by  Public Law  93-14-93rd Congress,
               H. R.  5446-April  9, 1973 (To extend the
               amended Solid Waste Disposal Act—For one
               year); and by Public Law 93-611-93rd Con-
               gress, H.  R.  16045-January 2,  1975 (To
               amend  the  Solid  Waste Disposal  Act to
               authorize  appropriations  for   fiscal year
                1975).   Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation SW-1.3. [Washington], U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid
               Waste Management Programs,  1975.  14 p.
                (AIM no. 171)

-------
104
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
^Solid waste disposal and resource recovery grants.  Federal
               Register, 36(181):18622-18628,  Sept.  17,
               1971. (AIM no. 221)

Solid waste; disposal, reuse present major problems.  Con-
               gressional Quarterly; Weekly Report, 31(17):
               1019-1023, Apr. 28, 1973. (AIM no. 330)

Solid waste management; an  overview of State legislation.
               Washington, National League  of  Cities —
               United   States  Conference  of  Mayors,
               [1976]. 60 p.

Sponagle, C. E., and P. L. Stump.  Solid waste management
               demonstration  grant  projects—1971;  for
               grants awarded during the  period  June 1,
               1966-June 30, 1971. Public Health Service
               Publication No. 1821.   Washington, U.S.
               Government Printing Office, 1971. 247 p.
               (AIM no. 232)

Stump, P.  L., comp.  Solid Waste  Demonstration Projects;
               Proceedings  of a  Symposium,  Cincinnati,
               May  4-6, 1971.  Washington, U.S. Govern-
               ment  Printing  Office, 1972.  256 p.  (AIM
               no.311)

Sussman, D. B.  Resource  recovery plant implementation:
               guides for  municipal officials—accounting
               format.  Environmental  Protection  Publi-
               cation SW-157.6.  [Washington], U.S. Envi-
               ronmental Protection  Agency,  1976.  17 p.
               (AW no. 493)

tTalty, J. T. Resource recovery—a new solid  waste manage-
               ment  philosophy and technology. Presented
               at the   10th  Annual  Environmental and
               Water  Resources Engineering  Conference,
               Vanderbilt University, Nashville, June  1971.
               [Cincinnati],   U.S.  Environmental  Protec-
               tion  Agency.  9  p. Reprinted 1971.  11 p.
               (AIM no. 196)

Train, R. E. Solid waste management: horizons unlimited.
               Presented at International Waste Equipment
               and   Technology   Exposition,  Chicago,
               June  2, 1976. Washington, U.S.  Environ-
               mental  Protection  Agency.  16 p.  (AIM
               no.525)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid  Waste
               Management   Programs.  Decision-makers
               guide in solid  waste  management. Environ-
               mental   Protection  Publication  SW-500.
               Washington, U.S. Government  Printing Of-
               fice, 1976. 158 p. (AIM no. 390)

UJS. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste
               Management  Programs.  Resource  recovery
               and  source reduction; first report  to Con-
               gress. 3d ed. Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation SW-118.  Washington, U.S.  Govern-
               ment  Printing Office,  1974. 61 p.  (AIM
               no. 352)
                           UJ5. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
                                          Management  Programs.  Resource recovery
                                          and  source reduction;  second  report  to
                                          Congress. Environmental Protection Publi-
                                          cation SW-122.  Washington,  U.S.  Govern-
                                          ment Printing Office, 1974.  112 p. (AIM
                                          no. 353)

                           UJS. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
                                          Management Programs. Resource  recovery
                                          and  waste  reduction; third report  to Con-
                                          gress. Environmental Protection Publication
                                          SW-161.  Washington,  U.S.   Government
                                          Printing Office, 1975. 96 p. (AIM no. 448)


                           $U.S. finds a rich resource: the nation's trash pile.  U.S. News
                                          &  World Report, 76(19):63-64, 66, May 13,
                                          1974. (AIM no. 396)

                           Wahl, D., and R. L. Bancroft. Solid waste management today
                                          .  .   .   bringing about municipal change.
                                          Nation's Cities,  13(8): 17-32,  Aug. 1975.
                                          (AIM no. 466)

                           Weaver, L., ed.  Proceedings; the Surgeon  General's Con-
                                          ference  on  Solid  Waste Management  for
                                          Metropolitan Washington, July 19-20, 1967.
                                          Public Health Service Publication No. 1729.
                                          Washington, US. Government Printing  Of-
                                          fice. 194 p. (AIM no. 30)

                           West Virginia University, Department of Chemical Engineer-
                                          ing.  Solid  waste: a new natural resource.
                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May
                                          1971.18 p. (PB-211 256)

                           Wiley,  J.  S., ed. International Research Group on  Refuse
                                          Disposal (IRGRD); information  bulletin
                                          numbers   1-12,    November    1956   to
                                          September  1961. Washington, U.S.  Govern-
                                          ment Printing Office, 1969. 308 p. (AIM
                                          no. 21)
                            Wiley, J. S., ed. International  Research  Group  on Refuse
                                           Disposal  (IRGRD);  information  bulletin
                                           numbers  13-20,  December 1961  to May
                                           1964. Washington, U.S. Government Print-
                                           ing Office, 1969. 274 p. (AIMno. 22)

                            Williams, E. R. Refuse collection and disposal; an annotated
                                           bibliography, 1956-1957. Public  Health Ser-
                                           vice Publication No. 91, Suppl. C. Washing-
                                           ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958.
                                           48 p. (^/Afno.36)
                           Williams, E. R., and R. J. Black. Refuse collection and dis-
                                           posal; an annotated  bibliography,  1958-
                                           1959. Public Health  Service  Publication
                                           No. 91, Suppl. D.Washington, U.S. Govern-
                                           ment Printing Office, 1961. 73 p. (AIM
                                           no. 37)
      tOut of print; available only from  EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
                                | Available in public and university libraries.

-------
             BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                   105
Williams, T. F. Conservation and common sense. Presented
               at National Conference "Land Application
               of  Waste  Materials,"  Soil  Conservation
               Society  of America, Des  Moines, Mar.  17,
               1976.  [Washington], U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency. 21 p. (AIM no. 515)
          II. SOLID WASTE QUANTITY AND
           COMPOSITION AND FORECASTS

Arthur D. Little, Inc. Analysis of demand and supply for
               secondary fiber in the U.S. paper and paper-
               board industry, v.  1, sec. I-VIII, X. U.S.
               Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Oct.
               1975. 383 p. (PB-250 798)

Arthur D. Little, Inc. Analysis of demand and supply for
               secondary fiber in the U.S. paper and paper-
               board industry, v. 2, sec. IX. Process econo-
               mics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
               Oct. 1975. 257 p.  (PB-250 905)
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Analysis of demand and supply for
               secondary fiber in the U.S. paper and paper-
               board industry,  v.  3.  Appendices.  U.S.
               Environmental Protection Agency,  1976.
               422 p. (PB-250 802)

tBlack, R. J., A. J. Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hickman, Jr.,
               and  R.  D.  Vaughan.  The national solid
               wastes    survey;    an   interim   report.
               [Cincinnati],  U.S. Department of Health,
               Education, and  Welfare,  [1968].  53 p.
               (AIMno.2b)

Boyd.G. B., and M. B. Hawkins. Methods of predicting solid
               waste characteristics. Environmental Protec-
               tion  Publication SW-23c.  Washington, U.S.
               Government  Printing Office,  1971. 28 p.
               (AIM no. 235)

Darnay, A,, and  W. E. Franklin. The role of packaging in solid
               waste management, 1966  to  1976. Public
               Health   Service  Publication   No.  1855.
               Washington,   U.S.   Government  Printing
               Office, 1969, 205 p. (AIM no, 44)
JDeGeare, T. V., Jr., and J. E. Ongerth. Empirical analysis
               of  commercial   solid  waste  generation.
               Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
               Proceedings  of the  American Society of
               Civil   Engineers,   97(SA6): 843-850, Dec.
               1971.(/4/Mno.240)

Franklin, W. E., and A. Damay. The role of nonpackaging
               paper in solid waste  management, 1966 to
               1976.  Public  Health  Service Publication
               No.  2040. Washington, U.S. Government
               Printing Office, 1971. 76 p. (AIM no. 170)
International Research and Technology Corporation. Fore-
               casting the composition and weight of house-
               hold  solid wastes  using input-output tech-
               niques;  final  report.  US.  Environmental
               Protection Agency. (In preparation; to be
               distributed by National Technical Informa-
               tion Service, Springfield, Va.)

International Research and Technology Corporation. Problems
               and opportunities  in management of com-
               bustible solid wastes.  U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1973.  517 p. (PB-222
               467)

Kiefer, I. The role of packaging in  solid waste management,
               1966 to  1976.  Washington, U.S. Govern-
               ment Printing Office,  1971.  28 p. (AIM
               no.243)

fLefke, L. W. Resource recovery in solid waste management.
               Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
               67r. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Pro-
               tection Agency, 1971.14 p. (AIMno. 241)

Midwest  Research Institute. Base line forecasts of resource
               recovery,  1972  to  1990:  final report.  En-
               vironmental  Protection Publication  SW-
               107c.   U.S.   Environmental   Protection
               Agency, 1975. 386 p. (PB-245 924)

Muhich,  A. J., A. J. Klee, and P. W.  Britton. Preliminary
               data analysis; 1968 national survey of com-
               munity  solid waste practices. Public Health
               Service  Publication No. 1867. Washington,
               U.S.  Government   Printing Office,  1968.
               483 p. (AIM no. 28)

Smith, F. A. Comparative estimates of  post-consumer solid
               waste. Environmental Protection Publication
               SW-148. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, May 1975. 18 p. (AIM
               no.443)

Smith, F. A.  Quantity  and composition of post-consumer
               solid waste: material flow estimates for 1973
               and baseline future projections. Waste Age,
               7(4):2,6-8,10,Apr. 1976. (AIM no. 498)

Smith, F. L., Jr. A solid waste estimation procedure; material
               flows approach. Environmental  Protection
               Publication  SW-147.   [Washington],  U.S.
               Environmental   Protection  Agency,  May
               1975. 56 p. (AIM no. 445)

Stone, R., and D.  E. Brown [Ralph Stone and Company,
               Inc.]. Forecasts of the effects of air and
               water pollution controls on solid waste gen-
               eration.    U.S.   Environmental  Protection
               Agency, 1974. 830 p. (PB-238 819)

University of  Chicago. Socio-economic factors affecting
               demand for municipal  collection of house-
               hold  refuse. U.S. Environmental'Protection
               Agency, 1973. 58 p. (PB-225 020)
      tOut of print; available only from EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
      $ Available in public and university libraries.
      tOut of print; available only from  EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.

-------
 106
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admi-
                nistration.  1974 Highway litter study; re-
                port  to Congress. House Document No. 93-
                326  (93rd Congress, 2d Session).  Wash-
                ington, U.S.  Government Printing  Office,
                1974. 77  p. (AIM no. 455)
  III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, RAW MATERIALS
            AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
          FOR MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS

Bingham,  T.  H., et  al. [Research Triangle Institute]. An
               analysis of the  materials  and natural  re-
               source requirements and residuals generation
               of  personal consumption expenditure items.
               UJS. Environmental Protection Agency. (In
               preparation; to be distributed by  National
               Technical  Information Service, Springfield,
               Va.)

Claussen, E. L. Environmental impacts of packaging. [Wash-
               ington] ,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
               Agency, 1973. 10 p. (,4/Mno. 332)

Gordian Associates, Inc. An energy analysis of the production
               of  selected products in six basic material
               industries.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
               Agency. (In preparation; to be distributed
               by National Technical Information Service,
               Springfield, Va.)

Gordian Associates, Inc. Environmental  impacts associated
               with  selected  options   for  the  recycling
               of  materials, reuse of products and recovery
               of  energy from  solid waste. U.S.  Environ-
               mental Protection Agency. (In preparation;
               to  be distributed  by  National Technical
               Information Service, Springfield, Va.)

Gordian Associates,  Inc.  Environmental impacts of  pro-
               duction of virgin and secondary paper, glass
               and rubber products. Environmental Protec-
               tion  Publication  SW-128c. U.S.  Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, 1975.  (In  pre-
               paration;  to  be  distributed  by  National
               Technical  Information Service, Springfield,
               Va.)

Hunt, R. G.,  et al. [Midwest Research Institute]. Resource
               and  environmental profile analysis of nine
               beverage container alternatives; final report.
               v.  1-2. Environmental  Protection Publica-
               tion   SW-91c.  Washington, U.S.  Environ-
               mental Protection  Agency, 1974. 178  p.
               (AIM no. 405; PB-253 486)

Lowe, R.  A., M. Loube, and F. A. Smith. Energy conserva-
               tion  through improved solid waste manage-
               ment. Environmental Protection Publication
               SW-125. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1974. 39 p., app. (AIM
               no. 378)
                           Vaughan,  D. A., et al.  [Battelle Columbus Laboratories].
                                          Environmental  assessment  of future dis-
                                          posal  methods for  plastics  in  municipal
                                          solid waste.   U.S.  Environmental Protec-
                                          tion  Agency,  June  1975.    86 p.   (PB-
                                          243 366)

                           Ziegler, R. C., et al. [Calspan Corporation].  Environmental
                                          impacts of  virgin and recycled  steel and
                                          aluminum.  Environmental Protection Publi-
                                          cation  SW-117c.  U.S. Environmental Pro-
                                          tection Agency, 1976. 125 p.  (PB-253 487)
                                          IV. WASTE REDUCTION
                           Claussen, E.  Oregon's bottle bill; the first six months. En-
                                          vironmental Protection Publication SW-109.
                                          Washington, UJS. Government Printing Of-
                                          fice, 1973. 14 p. (X/Mno.325)

                           Claussen, E.  Packaging source reduction; can industry and
                                          government cooperate?  Environmental Pro-
                                          tection Publication SW-136.  [Washington],
                                          U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
                                          1974.  17 p. (AIM no. 422)

                           Darnay, A. Environmental protection, residuals management,
                                          and resources—the future is now. Presented
                                          at  Annual Meeting  of  National Packaging
                                          Association, Boca  Raton, Fla.,  Mar. 12-16,
                                          1974.   [Washington], U.S. Environmental
                                          Protection Agency,  1974.    23 p.   (AIM
                                          no. 364)


                           Hickman, L., Jr.  Packaging industry and government.  Waste
                                          Age, 2(6): 12-14,  Nov.-Dec.  1971.   (AIM
                                          no.246)

                           Peterson, C. Price comparison survey of beer and soft drinks
                                          in  refillable  and non-refillable  containers.
                                          Washington, UJS. Environmental Protection
                                          Agency, 1976. (In preparation.)

                           Proceedings; 1st National Conference on Packaging Wastes,
                                          Sept. 22-24, 1969.  Environmental Protec-
                                          tion Publication SW-9rg. Washington, U.S.
                                          Government Printing Office, 1971. 242 p.
                                          (AIM no. 172)

                           Sachsel, G. F., comp.   Design of Consumer Containers for
                                          Re-use or Disposal; Proceedings of the Solid
                                          Waste  Resources Conference, [Columbus],
                                          May 12-13,1971. Washington, U.S. Govern-
                                          ment Printing Office, 1972.  330 p.   (AIM
                                          no.261)

                           Skinner, J. H.  Reduce the incentive to waste. Paper No. 7d.
                                          Presented at 80th National Meeting, Amer-
                                          ican Institute of Chemical Engineers, Bos-
                                          ton, Sept. 8, 1975.  9 p.   (AIM no. 500)

-------
             BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                   107
 Skinner, J. H.  Statement of John H. Skinner before the Wis-
                consin  Senate  Commerce Committee hear-
                ings on beverage container deposit legisla-
                tion, Madison, May 7, 1976. [Washington,
                U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency],
                1976. 13 p.

 Source reduction fact sheet1, reducing waste at its source, pro-
                gram of International Paper Company and
                Wells  Dairy.   Washington, U.S. Environ-
                mental Protection Agency, May 1975. 2 p.
                (AIM no. 447)

 Source reduction fact sheet;  Red  Owl  Stores  program.
                [Washington],  U.S. Environmental  Protec-
                tion Agency,  1974.   3 p. (AIM no. 416)

 Train, R. E.  The uses  and abuses of waste.  Compost Sci-
                ence,  16(3): 11-13,  May-June  1975. (AIM
                no.476)

 Train, R. E.  Win the war on waste. Presented at 3d National
                Congress on Waste Management Technology
                and Resource  Recovery,  San  Francisco,
                Nov. 14,  1974.    [Washington,  U.S. En-
                vironmental Protection Agency,  1975.  ]
                15 p. (AIMno.460)

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste manage-
                ment;  guidelines  for beverage  containers.
                Federal  Register,  41(184):41202-  41205,
                Sept. 21, 1976. (AIM no. 463)

 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of Solid
                Waste  Management Programs.  Proceedings;
                1975  Conference on  Waste   Reduction,
                April  2-3,  1975, Washington, D.C.  En-
                vironmental Protection  Publication  SW-7p.
                Washington, VS. Government Printing Of-
                fice, 1975. 152 p. (Afflfno.461)

 tVaughan, R.  D.  Solid waste management and the pack-
                aging industry.  [Cincinnati], US. Depart-
                ment of Health, Education, and Welfare,
                1969. 20 p. (AIMno.107)

 Wahl, D., and  G. Allison.  Reduce; targets, means and im-
                pacts of source reduction. League  of Wo-
                men  Voters  Publication No. 576.   Wash-
                ington, League of  Women Voters  of the
                United States, 1975.  47 p. (AIM no. 456)
    V.  MATERIALS RECOVERY AND RECYCLING

Albrecht, O. W., and R. G. McDermott. Economic and tech-
               nological impediments to recycling obsolete
               ferrous  solid waste.   U.S. Environmental
               Protection  Agency,  1973.   62  p.   (PB-
               223 034)

^Alexander, T. Where will we put all that garbage?  Fortune,
              76(5):149-151,  189-190,  192,  194,  Oct.
               1967. Reprinted, [Cincinnati] ,U.S. Depart-
               ment  of  Health,  Education, and Welfare,
               [1970], 13 p. (AIM no. 120)

Alter, H., and W. R. Reeves [National Center for Resource
               Recovery, Inc.],  Specifications for  mater-
               ials recovered from municipal refuse. U.S.
               Environmental Protection Agency, National
               Environmental Research  Center, May 1975.
               120 p. (PB-242 540)

A. M. Kinney, Inc.  Franklin, Ohio's solid waste disposal
               and  fiber  recovery  demonstration  plant;
               final report.  Environmental Protection Pub-
               lication SW-47d.2. U.S. Environmental Pro-
               tection   Agency,  1974.  2   v. (PB-234
               715-PB-234716)

Ananth,  K. P., and J. Shum  [Midwest Research Institute].
               Fine  shredding of municipal  solid  waste.
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, In-
               dustrial  Environmental  Research Labora-
               tory, July 1976. 71 p. (PB-257 105)

Arella, D. G.  Recovering resources from solid waste using
               wet-processing; EPA's Franklin,  Ohio, de-
               monstration  project.  Environmental Pro-
               tection Publication  SW-47d.   Washington,
               U.S.  Government Printing Office,  1974.
               26  p.   (AIM no.  408)

Arella, D. G., and Y. M.  Garbe.  Mineral recovery from the
               noncombustible fraction of municipal solid
               waste; a  proposed project to demonstrate
               incinerator residue recovery.  Environmen-
               tal Protection Publication SW-82d.l. [Wash-
               ington],  U.S. Environmental    Protection
               Agency,  Dec. 1975.  14 p.  (AIM no. 491)

Banks, M. E., W. D. Lusk, and R. S. Ottinger. New chem-
               ical concepts for utilization of waste plas-
               tics.   [Public  Health  Service Publication
               No. 2125.]   Washington, U.S. Government
               Printing  Office,  1971.   129 p.  (AIM no.
               222)

Barbour, J. F., R. R. Groner, and V. H. Freed.  The chem-
               ical  conversion of solid wastes to  useful
               products.  U.S. Environmental Protection
               Agency, 1974. 168 p. (PB-233 178)

Battelle Memorial  Institute.    A study to identify oppor-
               tunities for increased solid waste utilization.
               v.  1.  General report. Environmental Pro-
               tection Publication  SW-40d.l.   U.S.  En-
               vironmental   Protection   Agency,  1972.
               178 p. (PB-212792)

Battelle Memorial Institute. A study to identify opportuni-
               ties for  increased  solid  waste utilization.
               v. 2-7. Aluminum, copper, lead, zinc, nickel
               and stainless  steel, and  precious metal re-
               ports.  Environmental Protection Publica-
               tion  SW-40d.  U.S. Environmental Protec-
               tion  Agency,  1972.   608 p.  (PB-212 730)
      tOut  of  print;  available only from  EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
      |Available in public and university libraries.

-------
108
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Battelle Memorial Institute.  A study to identify opportuni-
               ties  for increased solid  waste  utilization.
               v. 8-9. Paper and textile reports.  Environ-
               mental  Protection  Publication SW-40d.3.
               U.S.   Environmental  Protection Agency,
               1972. 342 p. (PB-212731)

Boettcher, R. A.  Air classification of solid wastes; perform-
               ance  of  experimental  units and  potential
               applications for  solid  waste reclamation-
               Environmental Protection Publication SW-
               30c.  Washington, U.S. Government Print-
               ing Office,  1972.   73 p.  (AIM no. 256)

Booz Allen Applied  Research, Inc.  An analysis  of the
               abandoned automobile problem.  U.S. En-
               vironmental  Protection  Agency,   1973.
               196 p. (PB-221 879)

Brand, B. G.  Scrap rubber tire utilization in road dressings.
               U.S.  Environmental   Protection Agency,
               1974. 51  p. (PB-232 559)

Breidenbach,  A. W.,  et al. Composting of municipal solid
               wastes in  the United States. Environmental
               Protection Publication SW-47r.   Washing-
               ton, U.S.  Government Printing Office, 1971.
               103  p. (AIM no. 212)

Callihan, C. D., and C. E.  Dunlap. Single-cell proteins from
               cellulosic  wastes.  U.S. Environmental Pro-
               tection Agency, 1973.  89 p.  (PB-223 873)

Carlson, O. N., and  F. A. Schmidt.  The metallurgical up-
               grading  of automotive  scrap steel.   U.S.
               Environmental  Protection Agency,  1973.
               90 p. (PB-223 740)

fCarnes, R. A., and  R.  D. Lossin.  An investigation of the
               pH  characteristics of compost.   Compost
               Science, 11(5): 18-21, SepL-Oct.  1970. Re-
               printed,  [Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency,  1971,]  4 p. (AIM no.
               158)

Carroll, T. E., et al.   [Battelle  Columbus Laboratories].
               Review  of landspreading of liquid munici-
               pal sewage sludge. U.S. Environmental Pro-
               tection Agency, June 1975.  110 p.  (PB-
               245  271)

Converse,  A. O., H. E.  Grethlein, S.  Karandikar,  and S.
               Kuhrtz.   Acid hydrolysis of  cellulose  in
               refuse to  sugar and its fermentation to al-
               cohol. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
               cy, 1973.  113 p.  (PB-221 239)

Cukor, P.,  M. J. Keaton,  and G. Wilcox  [Teknekron, Inc.,
               and the Institute of Public Admint-.tration].
               A technical and economic study of waste
               oil recovery,  pt. 1.  Federal research on
               waste oil from automobiles. Environmental
               Protection Publication  SW-90c.l.  U.S. Er>.
               vironmental   Protection  Agency,   1974.
               107 p. (PB-237618)
      :):Available in public and university libraries.
                            Cukor, P., M. J. Keaton, and G. Wilcox [Teknekron, Inc.,
                                           and the Institute of Public Administration].
                                           A technical and economic study of waste
                                           oil recovery,  pt. 2. An investigation of dis-
                                           persed  sources of used  crankcase   oils.
                                           Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
                                           90c.2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
                                           cy, 1974.  63 p. (PB-237619)

                            Cukor, P., M. J. Keaton, and G. Wilcox [Teknekron, Inc.,
                                           and the Institute of Public Administration].
                                           A technical and economic study of waste oil
                                           recovery,   pt. 3.   Economic, technical and
                                           institutional barriers to waste  oil recovery.
                                           Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
                                           90c.3.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                                           Agency, 1974.  143 p.  (PB-237 620)

                            Cukor, P., and T. Hall [Teknekron, Inc.]. A technical and
                                           economic  study   of  waste oil recovery.
                                           pt. 4.  Energy consumption in waste oil re-
                                           covery.    U.S. Environmental  Protection
                                           Agency, 1976.  (In press; to be distributed
                                           by National Technical  Information Service,
                                           Springfield, Va.)

                            Daly, W.  H.,  and L. P. Ruiz.  Fabrication of single cell
                                           protein from  cellulosic wastes.   U.S.  En-
                                           vironmental  Protection  Agency,   1975.
                                           71 p.  (PB-239 502)

                            Dane,  S., comp.  The  national buyer's guide to recycled
                                           paper.  Washington,  Environmental  Educa-
                                           tors,  Inc.,  1973.   208 p.  (AIM no. 343)

                            Darnay, A.  Recycling; assessment and prospects for suc-
                                           cess.  Environmental Protection Publication
                                           SW-81.  Washington, U.S. Government Print-
                                           ing Office, 1972.   14  p.  (AIM no. 286)

                            Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for  materi-
                                           als in solid wastes.  Environmental  Protec-
                                           tion Publication SW-29c. Washington, U.S.
                                           Government Printing Office, 1972.  187 p.
                                           (AIM no. 293)

                            Dehn,  W. T.   Solving the abandoned car problem in small
                                           communities.   Environmental  Protection
                                           Publication  SW-70ts.l.   Washington, U.S.
                                           Government  Printing  Office, 1974.  23 p.
                                           (AIM no. 354)

                            Dindal, D. L.  Ecology of compost; a  public  involvement
                                           project. Syracuse,  State University of New
                                           York, College of Environmental Science and
                                           Forestry,  1972.   12 p.  (AIM no. 322)

                            Experimental  composting research  and  development; joint
                                           U.S. Public Health  Service-Tennessee Valley
                                           Authority  Composting  Project,   Johnson
                                           City,  Term. Washington, U.S.  Government
                                           Printing  Office, 1968.   6 p.   [Flyer.]
                                           (AIM no. 15)

                            Fookson,  A., and G.  Frohnsdorff. The nitrite-accelerated
                                           photochemical degradation of cellulose as a
                                           pretreatment for microbiological conversion
                                           to protein.  U.S. Environmental Protection
                                           Agency, 1973. 102 p. (PB-222 115)

-------
             BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                   109
For an, J. F., et al.  Raw materials transportation costs and
               their influence on the use of wastepaper
               and scrap iron and  steel.   U.S.  Envrion-
               mental Protection Agency, 1974. 2 v. (PB-
               229816-PB-229817)

Gainesville  Municipal  Waste  Conversion  Authority,  Inc.
               Gainesville compost plant; an interim report.
               U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
               Welfare,  1969.   345  p.   (PB-187 311)

Gainesville Municipal Waste Conversion Authority, Inc., and
               Environmental Engineering, Inc.  Gainesville
               compost  plant; final report on a solid waste
               management demonstration,   v.  1-2.  En-
               vironmental Protection Publication SW-21d.
               UJ5. Environmental   Protection  Agency,
               1973. 237 p. (PB-222710)

Goddard, H. C. An economic evaluation of technical systems
               for scrap tire recycling.  U:S. Environmental
               Protection  Agency,  Municipal   Environ-
               mental Research  Laboratory,  Dec. 1975.
               48 p. (PB-249 197)

Great Lakes Research Institute.  Evaluation, extraction, and
               recycling of certain solid waste components.
               Environmental Protection Publication  SW-
               35d.  US. Environmental Protection Agen-
               cy, 1972. 110 p.  (PB-208674)

Gumtz, G. D., and E. J. Martin  [Maryland Environmental
               Services].  Preliminary  design  of a com-
               prehensive  waste  oil  processing   facility.
               U.S.   Environmental Protection   Agency,
               May 1975.  142 p. (PB-242461)

Hansen, P.   Residential  paper recovery; a municipal im-
               plementation guide.  Environmental Protec-
               tion  Publication  SW-155.  [Washington],
               U.S. Environmental   Protection   Agency,
               1975. 26 p. (X/Afno.486)

Hansen, P., comp.  Solid waste recycling projects; a national
               directory. Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation  SW-45.  Washington, U.S.  Govern-
               ment Printing  Office, 1973.  284 p.  (AIM
               no.341)

Hansen, P.,  and  J. Ramsey.   Demonstrating multimaterial
               source separation  in Somerville and Marble-
               head,  Massachusetts.   Waste  Age,  7(2):
               26-27,  48,  Feb.  1976.   (AIM no. 510)

Hart, S. A. Solid waste management/composting; European
               activity  and American  potential.   Public
               Health   Service  Publication  No. 1826.
               Washington, U.S.  Government Printing Of-
               fice, 1968. 40 p.  (AIMno. 55)

Hecht, N. L., et al. Characterization and utilization of muni-
               cipal and utility  sludges  and ashes.  U.S.
               Environmental   Protection  Agency, May
               1975. 3 v. (PB-244 309-Set)

               v.  1. Hecht, N. L., and D. S. Duvall [Univer-
               sity of Dayton Research Institute]. Sum-
               mary. 40 p. (PB-244 310)
               v. 2. Hecht, N. L., D. S. Duvall, and A. S.
               Rachidi [University of Dayton Research In-
               stitute]. Municipal sludges. 241 p. (PB-244
               311)
               v. 3. Hecht, N. L., and D. S. Duvall [Univer-
               sity of Dayton  Research Institute]. Utility
               coal ash. 74 p. (PB-244 312)


Herbert, W., arid W. A. Flower. Glass and aluminum recovery
               in  recycling  operations.  Public  Works,
               102(8):70,110,112, Aug. 1971. Reprinted,
               [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protec-
               tion Agency, 1972. 2 p. (AIMno. 308)

Herbert, W., and W. A. Flower. Waste processing complex
               emphasizes   recycling.    Public   Works,
               102(6):78-81, June 1971.  Reprinted, [Cin-
               cinnati] ,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
               Agency, 1972. 4 p. (AIMno.  309)

Hinesly, T. D., O. C. Braids, and J. E. Molina. Agricultural
               benefits and environmental changes  result-
               ing  from the use of digested sewage sludge
               on field crops; an interim report on a solid
               waste demonstration project. Environmental
               Protection Publication SW-30d. Washington,
               U.S. Government  Printing  Office,  1971.
               62 p. (AIM no. 229)
Hortenstine,  C.  C.,  and  D. F.  Rothwell.    Composted
                municipal refuse as a soil amendment. U.S.
                Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1973.
                67 p. (PB-222 422)

Howard, S. E.  Market locations for recovered materials.
                Environmental Protection Publication SW-
                518.   [Washington],  U.S. Environmental
                Protection Agency, Aug.  1976.  81 p. (AIM
                no. 518)

International Research and Technology Corporation. Tire re-
                cycling and reuse incentives. Environmental
                Protection Publication SW-32c. U.S.  En-
                vironmental Protection Agency, 1974. 88 p.
                (PB-234 602)
Jensen,  M. E. Observations  of  continental  European solid
               waste management practices.  Public Health
               Service Publication No. 1880. Washington,
               U.S.  Government Printing  Office,  1969.
               46 p. (AIMno.VZ)

Kelly, J.  A.  Radiolytic hydrolysis  of cellulose. U.S. En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, 1973. 26 p.
               (PB-221 877)

Kennedy,  J. C. Current concepts in the disposal of solid
               wastes. Journal of Environmental  Health,
               31(2): 149-153,  Sept.-Oct. 1968. (AIM no.
               110)

Kiefer, I. The salvage industry; what it is—how it works. En-
               vironmental   Protection Publication  SW-
               29c.l. Washington, U.S. Government Print-
               ing Office,  1973. 32  p. [Condensation.]
               (AIM no. 333)

-------
110
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
tKochtitzky, O. W., W. K.  Seaman,  and J.  S.  Wiley.
                Municipal composting research at Johnson
                City, Tennessee.  Compost Science,  9(4):
                5-16, Winter 1969. (AIM no. 74)

Leatherwood, J. M. Utilization of fibrous wastes as  sources
                of  nutrients. U.S.  Environmental  Protec-
                tion Agency, 1973. 16 p. (PB-223 625)

Lefke, L. W. Progress in solid waste management and needed
                developments. In  Proceedings; 8th  Annual
                Environmental and  Water Resources  Engi-
                neering  Conference, Nashville,  June 5-6,
                1969. Vanderbilt  University, Technical Re-
                port No. 20. p. 107-118.  Reprinted, [Cin-
                cinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
                cation, and Welfare, 1970. 16 p. (AIM no.
                116)

Leonard S. Wegman Co., Inc. Marketability of recovered and
                clarified  incinerator residue  in  the New
                York metropolitan area. Environmental Pro-
                tection Publication  SW-53d. U.S. Environ-
                mental Protection  Agency,  1973.  188 p.
                (PB-222 588)

Levy,  S. J. Materials recovery from post-consumer solid
                waste. Presented at 3d U.S.-Japan  Confer-
                ence on  Solid Waste Management,  Tokyo,
                May  12-14,  1976.  Washington,  U.S. En-
                vironmental Protection Agency. 33 p.
 JLingle, S. A. Paper recycling in  the United States. Waste
               Age, 5(8):6-8,10, Nov. 1974. (AIM no. 420)


 Lingle, S. A. Paper recycling 1973; a dramatic year in per-
               spective. In Fiber Conservation and Utili-
               zation:  Proceedings; Pulp and Paper Semi-
               nar, Chicago, May 1974. Reprinted,  San
               Francisco, Miller Freeman Publications, Inc.,
               1975. lip. (AIM no. 465)

 tLingle, S. A. Recycled  materials markets; February 1975-
               a summary. Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation  SW-149.  [Washington],  U.S.  En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, Apr. 1975.
               8 p. (AIM no. 438)

 Lingle, S. Separating paper at the waste source for recycling.
               Environmental Protection Publication  SW-
               128. Washington,  U.S. Government Print-
               ing Office, 1974. 16 p. (AIMno. 381)

 iLossin, R. D. Compost studies,  pt. I. Compost Science,
               11(6):16-17, Nov.-Dec.  1970.  (AIM  no.
               204)

 fLossin, R. D.  Compost studies, pt. II. Compost Science,
               12(1): 12-13, Jan.-Feb.  1971. (AIM  no.
               205)
                            |Lossin, R. D. Compost studies, pt. III. Measurement of the
                                           chemical oxygen demand of compost. Com-
                                           post Science, 12(2):31-32, Mar.-Apr. 1971.
                                           (AIM no. 206)

                           McGauhey,  P.  H. American composting concepts. Public
                                           Health Service Publication No. 2023. Wash-
                                           ington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
                                           1971. 23 p. (AIM no. 169)

                           McGough,  E. Recycling  our resources. American  Youth,
                                           13(1):18-21, Mar.-Apr.  1972. (AIM  no.
                                           273)

                           Maizus, S.  [National Oil Recovery Corporation]. Recycling
                                           of waste oils. U.S. Environmental  Protec-
                                           tion Agency, June  1975. 283  p. (PB-243
                                           222)

                           Malisoh, W. R., D. E. Day, and B. G. Wixson. Use of domes-
                                           tic waste glass for  urban paving. U.S. En-
                                           vironmental   Protection  Agency,  1973.
                                           107 p. (PB-222 052)

                           Malisch, W. R., D. E. Day, and B. G. Wixson [University of
                                           Missouri].  Use of domestic waste glass for
                                           urban  paving; summary  report. U.S.  En-
                                           vironmental Protection Agency, May 1975.
                                           60 p. (PB-242 536)

                           Management Technology, Inc. Automobile  scrapping proc-
                                           esses and needs for Maryland; a final report
                                           on  a  solid  waste  demonstration. Public
                                           Health Service Publication No. 2027. Wash-
                                           ington, U.S. Government Printing  Office,
                                           1970. 64 p. (AIM no. 106)

                           Marceleno, T. The processing and recovery of Jon Thomas-
                                           cool  cat!  Washington,  U.S.  Government
                                           Printing Office, 1972. 34 p. (AIM no. 299)
                           Martin, E.  J.,  and  G. D.  Gumtz  [Environmental  Quality
                                           Systems, Inc.]. State of Maryland waste oil
                                           recovery and reuse program. Washington,
                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan.
                                           1974. 262 p. (PB-234446)

                           Meller, F. H. Conversion of organic solid wastes into yeast;
                                           an economic evaluation.  Public Health Ser-
                                           vice Publication No. 1909. Washington, U.S.
                                           Government Printing  Office, 1969. 173 p.
                                           (AIM no. 91)

                           tNational  Academy  of Engineering—National  Academy of
                                           Sciences. Policies for solid waste manage-
                                           ment.  Public Health Service Publication No.
                                           2018.  Washington,  U.S. Government Print-
                                           ing Office,  1970. 64 p. (AIM no. 112)

                           National Center for Resource Recovery. Residential paper
                                           recovery:   a community action  program.
                                           Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
                                           Agency, 1976. (In preparation.)
       tOut of print; available only from EPA libraries or
 Government Printing Office depository libraries.
       f Available in public and university libraries.
                                  tOut of print; available only  from EPA libraries or
                            Government Printing Office depository libraries.
                                  t Available in public and university libraries.

-------
              BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                                                                                  111
 Neff, N. T. [A. M. Kinney, Inc.]. Solid waste and fiber re-
                covery demonstration plant for the City of
                Franklin, Ohio; an interim report. Environ-
                mental  Protection  Publication  SW-47d'.i.
                U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,
                1972. 83 p. (PB-213 646)

 Nelson, R. D., and E. Vey  [IIT Research Institute]. Reuse
                of solid waste from water-softening proc-
                esses..   U.S.   Environmental   Protection
                Agency, 1973. 108 p. (PB-224 820)

 Opferkuch,  R. E., et al. Study of utilization and disposal of
                lime  sludges  containing  phosphates.  U.S.
                Environmental Protection  Agency, r973,
                119 p. (PB-222 354)

 tPeterson, M. L. Parasitological examination of  compost;  a
                Solid Waste Research open-file report. [Cin-
                cinnati],  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                Agency, 1971. 15 p. (,4/Af no. 224)

 Pettigrew, R. J., F, H. Roninger, W. J. Markiewicz, and M. J.
                Gransky.  Rubber  reuse  and  solid waste
                management,  pt.  1-2.  [Public  Health Ser-
                vice  Publication  No. 2124.] Washington,
                U.S.   Government  Printing  Office, 1971.
                120 p. (AIM no. 187)

 Recycle;  in search of new policies for resource recovery.
                League of Women Voters Publication No.
                132.  Washington, League of Women Voters
                of the United States, 1972. 39 p. (AIM no.
                296)

 Recycling and the consumer;  solid waste management.  En-
                vironmental Protection Publication SW-117.
                [Washington], U.S.  Environmental  Protec-
                tion Agency, 1974. 12 p. (AM no. 344)
 Recycling and the consumer; solid waste management. En-
                vironmental   Protection  Publication  SW-
                117.1.  [Washington], U.S. Environmental
                Protection Agency,  1974.  [163/4 x 22-in.
                two-sided sheet with information about re-
                cycling as well as illustrations  of  five re-
                cyclable materials, which can be made into
                a mobile.]  (AIM no. 403)
 Regan, R., et  al. Cellulose  degradation in  composting. U.S.
                Environmental Protection  Agency,  1973.
                153 p. (PB-215722)
Regan, W. J., R. W. James, and T. J. McLeer [Institute of
               Scrap  Iron and Steel, Inc.]. Identification
               of opportunities for increased recycling of
               ferrous solid waste.  Environmental  Protec-
               tion  Publication   SW-45d.  U.S. Environ-
               mental  Protection Agency, 1972.  391 p.
               (PB-213  577)

Resource Planning Associates, Inc.  Source  separation:  the
               community  awareness program  in  Somer-
               ville and Marblehead, Massachusetts. Envir-
               onmental  Protection  Publication SW-551.
               Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
               Agency, 1976. 81 p. (AIM no. 551)
Resource Planning Institute.  A case study  and business
                analysis of the scrap industry. U.S. Environ-
                mental Protection  Agency,  1974. 129  p.
                (PB-229 220)

^Rogers, C. J., P. V. Scarpino, E. Coleman, D. F. Spino, and
                T. C. Purcell. Production of fungal protein
                from  cellulose  and waste  cellulosics. En-
                vironmental Science  &  Technology,  6(8):
                715-719, Aug. 1972. (AIM no. 295)

Roig, R. W., et al. [International Research and Technology
                Corporation]. Impacts of material substitu-
                tion in automobile manufacture on resource
                recovery.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                Agency,  1975.  2 v. (In  preparation; to be
                distributed by  National Technical Informa-
                tion Service, Springfield, Va.)

Ruf,  J.  A.  Refuse shredders at EPA's Gainesville, Florida,
                experimental composting plant.  Waste Age,
                5(3):58,60-63,66, May/June  1974. (AIM
                no. 402)

SCS Engineers, Inc. Analysis of source separate collection of
                recyclable  solid waste; separate  collection
                studies,  [v. 1.] Environmental  Protection
                Publication SW-95c.l. U.S.  Environmental
                Protection Agency,  1974. 157 p. (PB-239
                775)

SCS Engineers, Inc. Analysis of source separate collection of
                recyclable  solid waste;  collection  center
                studies, v. 2. Environmental Protection Pub-
                lication SW-95C.2. U.S. Environmental Pro-
                tection Agency, 1974. 75 p.  (PB-239 776)
SCS  Engineers, Inc.  Evaluation of  a  compartmentalized
                refuse collection vehicle  for  separate news-
                paper  collection. U.S. Environmental Pro-
                tection Agency, May 1976.  97 p. (PB-257
                969)
SCS Engineers, Inc.  Optimization of  office paper  recovery
               systems;  final report. U.S. Environmental
               Protection  Agency, 1976.  (In preparation;
               to  be distributed  by National Technical
               Information Service, Springfield, Va.)
Shafizadeh, F., et al. Chemical conversion of wood and cellu-
               losic wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection
               Agency, 1974. 60 p. (PB-229 246)

Shell, G. L., and J. L.  Boyd. Composting dewatered sewage
               sludge.  Public  Health Service Publication
               No.  1936.  Washington,  U.S. Government
               Printing Office, 1970. 28 p. (AIM no. 115)

Smith, F. L., Jr.  Trends  in wastepaper  exports and their
                effects on domestic markets. Environmental
               Protection  Publication SW-132. [Washing-
               ton],   US.   Environmental   Protection
               Agency, 1974. 17 p. (AIMno. 397)

Smith, F. L., Jr. Wastepaper recycling: review of recent mar-
                ket  demand and supply. Pulp  & Paper,
               49(10):148-151, Sept. 1975. (AIM no. 511)
        fOut of print; available only from EPA libraries 01
 Government Printing Office depository libraries.
       £ Available in public and university libraries.

-------
112
                                  RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Solid Waste Engineering and Transfer Systems, Inc. Economic
               feasibility study, second phase; resource re-
               covery facility, San  Francisco solid  waste
               transfer  station. U.S.  Environmental Pro-
               tection Agency, 1974. (In preparation; to
               be  distributed  by National Technical In-
              I formation Service, Springfield, Va.)

fSolid waste reduction/salvage plant, an interim report; City
               of Madison pilot plant demonstration pro-
               ject,  June 14 to  December  31,   1967.
               Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
               cation, and Welfare,  1968. 25 p. (ATM no.
               57)

£ Stearns, R. P., and R. H. Davis. The economics of separate
               refuse collection. Waste Age, 5(3):6-8,10-ll,
               14-15,130-131, May/June 1974. (AIM no.
               400)

Stevenson,  M. K., J. O. Leckie, and R. Eliassen. Preparation
               and evaluation of activated carbon produced
               from  municipal refuse. U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1973.  150 p. (PB-221
               172)

Stone,  R. B., C. C. Buchanan, and F. W. Steimle, Jr. Scrap
               tires  as artificial reefs. Environmental Pro-
               tection Publication  SW-119.  Washington,
               U.S.  Government  Printing Office,  1974.
               33 p. (AIM no. 348)

Stone,  G. E., and C. C. Wiles. Composting at Johnson City;
               final report on joint USEPA-TVA compost-
               ing project with operational data, 1967 to
               1971. v.  1-2. Environmental Protection Pub-
               lication SW-31r.2.  [Washington] , U.S. En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, 1975. 336 p.
Stuart  Finley, Inc.  Recycling.  Environmental  Protection
               Publication  SW-39c.3.  [Cincinnati],  U.S.
               Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1972.
               8 p.  [Film narrative.] (AIM no. 268)

tStutzenberger,  F. J., A. J. Kaufman,  and R.  D.  Lossin.
               Cellulolytic activity in municipal solid waste
               composting.  Canadian Journal  of Micro-
               biology,  16(7):553-560,  July  1970. (AIM
               no. 126)

Systems Technology Corporation. A technical, environmental
               and  economic evaluation of the  "wet proc-
               essing system for the recovery and disposal
               of municipal solid waste." Environmental
               Protection  Publication SW-109c. U.S.  En-
               vironmental  Protection   Agency,   1975.
               223  p. (PB-245 674)

Talley, R. J., and R. H. Ongerth. Aluminum as a component
               of solid  waste  and a recoverable resource.
               U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
                1974. 31 p. (PB-235 770)
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  Promulgation  re-
               source recovery facilities guidelines. Federal
               Register, 41(184):41208-41211, Sept. 21,
               1976. (AIM no. 490)
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency. Source separation
               for  materials  recovery; guidelines. Federal
               Register,  41(80): 16950-16956,   Apr. 23,
               1976. (AIMno. 473)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal solid waste
               management program. The automobile cycle:
               an environmental and  resource reclamation
               problem.  Environmental Protection  Publi-
               cation SW-SOts.l. Washington, U.S. Govern-
               ment Printing Office,  1972. 115  p.  (AIM
               no. 275)

fVaughan, R. D. Recycling and reuse of waste materials; an
               essential feature of solid waste control sys-
               tems  for  the future. Waste  Age,  1(1):
               6-7, Sept. 1969. (AIM no. 96)
tVaughan, R. D. Reuse of solid wastes: a major solution to
               a major national problem. Waste Age, 1(1):
               10,14-15, Apr. 1970. (AIM no. 119)

Weinberg,  M. S.,  et al. Sludge conditioning using  sulfur
               dioxide and low pressure for production of
               organic  feed  concentrate.  U.S.  Environ-
               mental Protection Agency,  1973.  90 p.
               (PB-223 343)

Weinstein,  N. J. Waste  oil recycling and disposal. U.S. En-
               vironmental   Protection  Agency,  1974.
               328 p. (PB-235 857)
What you can do to recycle more paper. Environmental Pro-
               tection Publication SW-143. [Washington],
               U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency,
               1975. 12 p. (AIMno. 446)

Wiley, J. S. Composting of organic wastes; an annotated bib-
               liography. Suppl.  1. U.S.  Department  of
               Health, Education, and Welfare, Technical
               Development Laboratories, June 1959. 65 p.
               (PB-147 220)

Wiley, J. S. Composting of organic wastes; an annotated bib-
               liography. Suppl.  2. U.S.  Department  of
               Health, Education, and Welfare, Communi-
               cable  Disease Center,   Apr.  1960.  66 p.
               (PB-148 097)

J Wiley, J.  S. Some specialized equipment used in European
               compost systems.  Compost Science,  4(1):
               7-10, Spring 1963.  (AIM no. 61)

Wiley,  J. S.,  F. E. Gartrell, and H. G.  Smith. Concept and
               design  of  the  joint  U.S.  Public Health
               Service-Tennessee  Valley  Authority   com-
               posting project, Johnson  City,  Tennessee.
               [Cincinnati],  U.S.  Department  of Health,
               Education, and Welfare, 1968. 14 p. (AIM
               no. 9)
      tOut of print; available only from EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
      J Available in public and university libraries.
       tOut of print; available only from EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
       ^Available in public and university libraries.

-------
             BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                   113
 Wiley, J. S., and O. W. Kochtitzky. Composting develop-
                ments in the United States. Compost Science,
                6(2):5-9, Summer 1965. [Reprinted, Wash-
                ington, U.S. Government  Printing Office,
                1968.]  5 p. (AIM no. 8)

 Wolk, R. H., and C. A. Battista. Study of the technical and
                economic  feasibility of  a hydrogenation
                process for utilization of waste rubber. U.S.
                Environmental  Protection Agency,  1973.
                155 p. (PB-222 694)


       VI. ENERGY RECOVERY FROM WASTE

Arthur D.  Little, Inc. Study of the feasibility of Federal
               procurement  of  fuels produced from solid
               wastes.  Environmental Protection  Publica-
               tion SW-123c. U.S. Environmental Protec-
               tion Agency, July  1975.  256 p. (PB-255
               695)

Ayer, F. A.,comp. [Research Triangle Institute]. Symposium
               on  Environment and  Energy  Conservation
               (November 1975, Denver, Colorado).  U.S.
               Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
               Energy  Research and Development Admi-
               ministration,  Aug. 1976. 512 p. (To be dis-
               tributed by National Technical Information
               Service, Springfield, Va.)

Combustion Power Company, Inc. Combustion power unit-
               400 (CPU-400);  a technical abstract.  U.S.
               Department of Health, Education, and  Wel-
               fare, 1969. 15 p.  (PB-187 299)

Engdahl, R. B., [Battelle Columbus Laboratories]. Identifi-
               cation of technical  and operating problems
               of  Nashville  Thermal Transfer Corporation
               waste-to-energy plant. U.S. Energy Research
               and Development Administration, Feb. 25,
               1976. 35 p. (BMM947)

EPA press briefing on solid waste management and energy,
               February 8, 1974. [Washington],  U.S. En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, 1974. 6 p.,
               attachments, app. (AIM no. 359)

Hitte,  S.  J. Anaerobic  digestion of solid waste and  sew-
               age sludge to methane. Environmental Pro-
               tection Publication SW-159. [Washington],
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July
               1975. 13 p. (>4/Mno.458)

Hoffman, D. A. Pyrolysis of solid municipal wastes. U.S. En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, 1973. 78 p.
               (PB-222 015)

Holloway, J. R.  Resource recovery technology update from
               the U.S.E.P.A.; EPA resource recovery de-
               monstration:  summary  of air  emissions
               analyses. Waste Age, 7(8):50-52, Aug. 1976.
               (AIM no. 538)

Homer and Shrifrin,  Inc.  Energy recovery from  waste; a
               municipal-utility  joint venture.   Environ-
               mental  Protection  Publication  SW-36d.i.
               Washington,   U.S.  Environmental  Protec-
               tion Agency, 1972. 20 p. (PB-213 534)
Homer and Shifrin, Inc. Solid waste as fuel for power plants.
               Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
               36d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
               1973. 146 p. (PB-220316)

Huffman, G. L. The EPA R&D program in wastes-as-fuel: an
               overview focusing on process environmental/
               energy  impacts.  In  F.  A.  Ayer, comp.,
               Symposium on Environment  and Energy
               Conservation  (November  1975,  Denver,
               Colorado).  U.S. Environmental  Protection
               Agency and U.S.  Energy  Research and
               Development Administration,  Aug.  1976.
               p. 422-434. (To be distributed by National
               Technical  Information Service, Springfield,
               Va.)

Huffman,  G.  L; Processes for the conversion of solid wastes
               and biomass fuels to clean  energy forms.
               In Proceedings; A Conference on Capturing
               the  Sun Through  Bioconversion, Washing-
               ton, Mar.   10-12, 1976. Washington,  Wash-
               ington  Center   for  Metropolitan  Studies.
               p. 454-484

Kaufman, J.  A.,  and A. H. Weiss. Solid waste conversion:
               cellulose liquefaction. U.S. Environmental
               Protection  Agency, 1975. 216 p.  (PB-239
               509)

Levy, S. J. The  conversion of municipal solid waste to a
               liquid   fuel by pyrolysis. In Conference
               Papers; CRE;  Conversion of   Refuse  to
               Energy; 1st  International Conference and
               Technical   Exhibition, Montreux,  Switzer-
               land,  Nov.  3-5,  1975.  IEEE   cat.  no.
               75CH1008-2 CRE.  [Piscataway,  N. J.],
               Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engi-
               neers, p. 226-231.

Levy, S. J. Markets and technology for recovering energy from
               solid waste. Environmental Protection Publi-
               cation  SW-130. Washington, U.S. Environ-
               mental  Protection  Agency,  1974.  31  p.
               (AIM no. 401)

tLevy, S. J.  Pyrolysis of municipal solid waste. Waste Age,
               5(7):14-15,17-20, Oct. 1974. (<4/Mno.417)

Levy, S. J.  Pyrolysis  of solid  waste. In  Recent Develop-
               ments  in Resource Recovery; Seminar Pro-
               ceedings, Hull, Quebec, Mar. 7, 1974. Solid
               Waste  Management  Report EPS-3-EP-74-3.
               [Ottawa],  Environment Canada,  Ecological
               Protection  Branch, June 1974. p. 48-74.

Levy, S. J. A review of the status of pyrolysis as  a  means
               of recovering energy  from municipal solid
               waste.  Presented at  3d U.S.-Japan Confer-
               ence on Solid  Waste Management, Tokyo,
               May 12-14, 1976. Washington, U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, Office  of Solid
               Waste Management Programs. 29 p.
      tOut of  print; available only from EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.

-------
114
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
 Levy, S. J. San Diego County demonstrates pyrolysis of solid
                waste  to recover liquid fuel,  metals, and
                glass. Environmental Protection Publication
                SW-80d.2. Washington,  U.S.  Government
                Printing Office, 1975. 27 p. (AIM no. 442)

 Lowe,  R.  A. Energy recovery from  waste; solid waste  as
                supplementary fuel in power plant boilers.
                Environmental Protection Publication SW-
                36d ji. Washington, U.S. Government Print-
                ing Office, 1973. 24 p. (AIM no. 264)

 Lowe, R. A. Use of solid waste as a fuel by investor-owned
                electric  utility companies. In  Proceedings;
                EPA/Edison Electric Institute Meeting, Wash-
                ington, Mar. 5-6, 1975. Environmental Pro-
                tection   Publication   SW-6p.   Reprinted,
                [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protec-
                tion Agency, 1975. 27 p. (AIM no. 467)

 McEwen, L.  B., and S.  J. Levy. Can Nashville's story be
                placed in perspective? Solid  Wastes Manage-
                ment/Refuse Removal  Journal,  19(8):24,
                28-30,58,60, Aug. 1976. (AIM no. 548)

Metcalf &  Eddy,  Inc.,  and  City of  Lynn,  Massachusetts.
                Generation of steam from solid wastes. En-
                vironmental Protection Publication SW-49d.
                U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,
                1972. 139 p. (PB-214  166)

 Nydick,  S.  E., and J. R. Hurley [Thermo-Electron Corpora-
                tion],  Solid  waste as  a  supplementary fuel
                in  industrial  boilers. U.S.  Environmental
                Protection Agency, 1976. (In  press; to be
                distributed by  National Technical Informa-
                tion Service,  Springfield, Va.)

 Pfeffer, J. T. Reclamation of energy from organic waste. U.S.
                Environmental Protection  Agency, 1974.
                143 p. (PB-231 176)

 Proceedings;  A Conference on Capturing the Sun Through
                Bioconversion,   Washington, Mar.   10-12,
                1976.  Washington,  Washington Center for
                Metropolitan Studies.  862 p.

 tPyrolysis:  a possible new approach to solid waste disposal
                and  recycling. [Cincinnati,  U.S. Environ-
                mental Protection Agency], May 1973. 4  p.
                (AIM no. 329)

 RECON  Systems, Inc. Municipal-scale  thermal processing of
                solid  wastes.  U.S.  Environmental  Protec-
                tion Agency,  1976. (In preparation; to be
                distributed by  National Technical Informa-
                tion Service, Springfield, Va.)


 Roberts, R.  M., et  al. [Envirogenics Company]. Systems
                evaluation of refuse  as a low  sulfur fuel.
                U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,
                Nov. 1971.  2 v.(PB-209 271-PB-209 272)
                            Saving the energy in solid waste; environmental information.
                                           Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
                                           Agency, [ 1976]. 4 p. (AIM no. 503)

                            Shannon, L. J., D. E. Fiscus, and P. G. Gorman. St. Louis
                                           refuse processing plant; equipment, facility,
                                           and environmental evaluations; final  report,
                                           Sept.  1974-Jan. 1975.  U.S. Environmental
                                           Protection  Agency,  May  1975.  122  p.
                                           (PB-243 634)

                            Shannon, L.  J., et al. [Midwest Research Institute]. St. Louis/
                                           Union  Electric refuse  firing demonstration
                                           air pollution test report. U.S. Environmental
                                           Protection Agency, Aug. 1974. 119  p. (PB-
                                           237 630)

                            Sussman, D. B. Baltimore  demonstrates gas  pyrolysis; re-
                                           source  recovery from solid waste. Environ-
                                           mental  Protection  Publication  SW-75d.i.
                                           Washington, U.S. Government Printing Of-
                                           fice, 1975. 24 p. (AIMno. 431)

                            [Sussman, D. B.] Resource recovery technology update from
                                           the U.S.E.P.A.;  Baltimore pyrolysis and
                                           waste-fired steam generator emissions. Waste
                                           Age, 7(7):6-9,77, July 1976. (AIM no. 537)

                            Sutterfield, G. W. Refuse as a supplementary fuel for power
                                           plants; November 1973 through March 1974;
                                           interim progress report. Environmental Pro-
                                           tection  Publication SW-36djii.  [Washing-
                                           ton] ,    U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                                           Agency, July 1974. 25 p. (AIM no. 387)

                            Truett,  B., R. G. Murray, and G. Foley [Stanford Research
                                           Institute  and Mitre Corp.].  EPA program
                                           status  report—synthetic  fuels  program.
                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct.
                                           1975. 32 p. (PB-247 140)

                            Tunnah, B. G., A. Hakki, and R. J. Leonard [Gordian Asso-
                                           ciates, Inc.]. Where the boilers are; a survey
                                           of electric  utility  boilers  with potential
                                           capacity  for burning  solid waste  as fuel.
                                           Environmental Protection Publication SW-
                                           88c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                           1974. 329 p. (PB-239 392)

                            Ware,  S. A. [Ebon Research Systems]. State-of-the-art of
                                           bioconversion  as a  waste  processing alter-
                                           native  in  the U.S.   U.S. Environmental
                                           Protection  Agency.  (In preparation; to be
                                           distributed  by National Technical Informa-
                                           tion Service.)

                            Wilson,  E. M., and H. M. Freeman. Processing energy from
                                           wastes. Environmental Science & Techno-
                                           logy, 10(5):430-435,May 1976.

                            JWisely, F. E., G. W. Sutterfield, and D. L. Klumb. St. Louis
                                           power  plant to burn city refuse. Civil Engi-
                                           neering, 41(l):56-59,  Jan.  1971. (AIMno.
                                           180)
      tOut of  print;  available only  from EPA libraries or
Government Printing Office depository libraries.
                                 % Available in public and university libraries.

-------
             BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EPA PUBLICATIONS ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                                                                                                                  115
          VII. POLICY STUDIES AND PAPERS
Anderson, R. C., and R. D. Spiegelman [Environmental Law
               Institute].  The impact  of  the Federal tax
               code  on resource recovery. U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, 1976. (In press;
               to  be distributed by National Technical
               Information Service, Springfield, Va.)

Anderson, T., et al. The states' roles in solid waste manage-
               ment; a task force report.  Lexington, Ky,,
               Council of State  Governments,  Apr. 1973.
               58  p. Reprinted,  [Cincinnati], U.S. Envi-
               ronmental  Protection Agency, May  1973.
               (AIM no. 327)

Arthur D. Little,  Inc. Incentives for recycling and reuse of
               plastics; a  summary report. Environmental
               Protection  Publication SW-41c.l. [Cincin-
               nati],   U.S.   Environmental    Protection
               Agency, 1973. 18 p. (AIM no. 316)

Bingham, T. H., and P. F. Mulligan [Research Triangle Insti-
               tute]. The beverage  container  problem;
               analysis  and  recommendations.  U.S. -En-
               vironmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1972.
               190 p. (PB-213341)

Bingham,  T. H.,  et  al. [Research Triangle Institute]. An
               evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of
               regulatory and fiscal policy instruments on
               product packaging. Environmental  Protec-
               tion Publication SW-74c. [Washington], U.S.
               Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1974.
               301 p. (yl/Mno.437)

Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Ah evaluation of the  impact
               of discriminatory  taxation on the use of pri-
               mary  and secondary raw materials. Environ-
               mental Protection Publication SW-lOlc. U.S.
               Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1975.
               148 p. (PB-240 988)

Cardin,  F.  A. Secondary fiber recovery incentive analysis.
               U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
               National  Environmental  Research Center,
               Oct. 1974. 400 p.  (PB-241 082)

Cities and the nation's disposal crisis. Washington, National
               League  of  Cities  and  U.S. Conference  of
               Mayors, Mar. 1973. 46 p. Reprinted, [Cin-
               cinnati],  U.S. Environmental   Protection
               Agency, June 1973. (AIM no. 331)

Ernst &  Erhst.  An  investigation of  consumer demand
               elasticities.    U.S. Environmental  Protec-
               tion Agency.  3' v. (In  preparation; to  be
               distributed by National Technical Informa-
               tion Service, Springfield, Va.)
Irwin,  W. A.,  and R. A, Liroff [Environmental  Law Insti-
               tute], Economic disincentives for pollution
               control:  legal,  political, and administrative
               disincentives. U.S.  Environmental Protec-
               tion Agency,  July  1974. 271  p.  (PB-239
               340)

Kiefer, I. Incentives for  tire recycling and reuse.  Environ-
               mental  Protection  Publication  SW-32c.l.
               Washington, U.S. Government Printing Of-
               fice, 1974. 28 p. (AIM no. 382)

Loube, M. Beverage containers: the Vermont experience. En-
               vironmental Protection Publication SW-139.
               [Washington],  U.S. Environmental Protec-
               tion Agency, 1975. 16 p. (AIM no. 487)

Milgrom, J. Can Federal procurement practices be used to
               reduce  solid wastes?  U.S.  Environmental
               Protection Agency, 1974. 232 p. (PB-229
               727)

Milgrom, J. Incentives for recycling and reuse of plastics.
               Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
               41c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
               1972. 316 p. (PB-214 045)

Moshman Associates, Inc. Transportation rates and costs for
               selected virgin and secondary commodities.
               U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
               1974. 234 p. (PB-233871)

Questions and answers;  returnable beverage  containers for
               beer and soft drinks. [Washington, U.S. En-
               vironmental  Protection  Agency],   July
               1975. 13 p. (AIM no. 462)

Rains, W. A., and D. E. Williams [Smithers Scientific Service,
               Inc.]. A study of the feasibility of requiring
               the Federal Government to use  retreaded
               tires. Environmental Protection Publication
               SW-105c.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
               Agency, 1975. 122 p. (PB-243 028)

Ramsey,  J. M. [Resource  Planning Associates]. Requiring
               secondary materials in Federal construction;
               a  feasibility  study. Environmental Protec-
               tion Publication SW-130c.  U.S.  Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, Jan. 1975. 206 p.
               (PB-241 729)

Resource Planning Associates. Implementation  and enforce-
               ment of Federal consumer product regula-
               tory programs; final report. U.S.  Environ-
               mental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid
               Waste Management Programs, Feb. 28, 1974.
               (In preparation; to be distributed by Na-
               tional   Technical   Information   Service,
               Springfield, Va.)
International  Research  and Technology Corporation. Prob-
               lems  and  opportunities  in  management
               of combustible solid wastes. U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency,  1973. 517  p.
               (PB-222 467)
Resource Planning Associates. A study of Federal subsidies to
               stimulate resource recovery. Environmental
               Protection Publication SW-96c. U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, 1974. [144  p.]
               (PB-239 736)

-------
116
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
SCS Engineers. Analysis of Federal programs affecting solid
               waste generation and  recycling.  U.S. En-
               vironmental   Protection  Agency,   1972.
               153 p. (PB-213311)

SHtor,  R. E. Administrative aspects  of a dedicated manu-
               facturers excise tax on solid waste creating
               products;  final report. U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency, Resource Recovery Divi-
               sion.  (In preparation; to be distributed by
               National  Technical  Information  Service,
               Springfield, Va.)
                             State solid waste management and resource recovery incen-
                                            tives act. In 1973 Suggested state legislation.
                                            v. 32. Lexington, Ky., The Council of State
                                            Governments, 1973. Reprinted, [Washing-
                                            ton] ,   U.S.    Environmental  Protection
                                            Agency, 1974. p. 63-76. (AIM no. 377)
                             Stevens, B. H. Criteria for regional solid waste management
                                            planning.  U.S.  Environmental Protection
                                            Agency, 1974. 338 p. (PB-239 631)

-------
                                   Appendix D

          LISTING OF  MAJOR  U.S. GOVERNMENT  AGENCY
                   RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                This is a list of research and development projects and studies in the area of
           resource recovery and waste reduction that were in progress as of September
           1976 in the following Federal agencies:

                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Solid Waste and Office
                   of Research and Development)
                U.S. Department of Commerce
                U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines
                U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
                Federal Energy Administration
Title and description


Type Performing
organization

Amount Beginning
date

Ending date
or current
status
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE:
Virgin Material Charges:             Contract
A Theoretical and Empirical Evalua-    (68-01-3267)
tion in the Paper Industry
   Analysis of the ramifications of a •
   raw materials charge/subsidy pol-
   icy applied to the paper industry.

Environmental Impact of Disposables    Contract
vs. Reusables                     (68-01-2995)
   Evaluation of the environmental
   and resource consumption im-
   pacts of nine disposable/reus-
   able products, including towels,
   napkins, bedding, diapers, drink-
   ing containers, and plates.
   Health and economic issues
   associated with the use of these
   products will be investigated.
Research Triangle
Institute, Research
Triangle Park, N. C.
Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas
City, Mo.
$49,767    6/9/75
$121,999   11/19/74
Draft final
report under
review
Final report
in prepara-
tion
                                            117

-------
118
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
     Title and description
        Type
Performing
organization
                                           Amount
Beginning
date
Ending date
or current
status
     U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE (CONTINUED):
     Glass Recovery Technology
        Comparative economic analy-
        sis of current mechanical
        glass recovery systems.
       Contract        Raytheon Company,   $   9,790      3/5/76
       (68-01-1966)    Burlington, Mass.
                                              Draft final
                                              report under
                                              review
     Implementation Manual for
     Office Wastepaper Recovery
     Systems
        A how-to-do-it guide.
       Contract        Stearns, Conrad &     $24,800     3/18/76    9/17/76
       (68-01-3596)    Schmidt, Engineers,                            In prepara-
                      Long Beach, Calif.                              tion
     Materials Recovery Systems,
     A Technical and Economic
     Analysis
        An evaluation of the New
        Orleans resource recovery
        facility.

     Resource and Environmental
     Profile Analysis of Five
     Milk Containers
        Evaluation of the environ-
        mental and resource con-
        sumption impacts of five
        milk containers:  refillable
        glass bottle and plastic
        bottle, nonrefillable plastic
        bottle, paperboard carton, and
        plastic pouch. Various sizes
        of each container type will be
        evaluated. Health and eco-
        nomic issues associated with
        the use of each container
        type will be investigated.

     Resource Recovery Plant Imple-
     mentation Process Case Studies
        A review of the experiences
        of six communities in imple-
        menting a resource recovery
        facility, with particular atten-
        tion to control of the supply
        of waste, establishment of
        markets, identification of
        economics, obtaining fi-
        nancing, and elements of the
        planning process.

     Technical Assessment Support
        Provides technical support
        to the Technology and Mar-
        kets Branch in evaluating
        specific technical issues.  This
        has included an evaluation of
        resource recovery technology.
       Contract        National Center       $  61,161     12/10/76    Contract not
       (68-01-2944)    for Resource                                   yet awarded
                      Recovery, Washington,
                      D. C.
       Contract        Midwest Research     $  64,905     9/30/74    Draft final
       (68-01-2953)    Institute, Kansas                               report under
                      City, Mo.                                      review
       Contract       Development Sci-
       (68-01-3422)    ences, Inc., East
                      Sandwich, Mass.
                     $ 49,958      4/5/76    12/30/76
       Contract       Systems Technology   $  41,122     6/26/75    Contract to
       (68-01-3285)   Corporation, Dayton,                           be extended
                      Ohio

-------
       LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                        119
 Title and description
 Type
 Performing
 organization
                                                                         Amount
             Beginning
             date
Ending date
or current
status
 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE (CONTINUED):
 Technical Assistance Support           Contract       To be selected
    To provide support to the           (RFP No.
    Technical Assistance Branch         WA -7 6 -R164)
    in aiding local, State, and
    Federal programs on im-
    plementation of resource
    recovery facilities.

 Evaluation of European Water-         Contract       Battelle
 wall Incinerator Design Practices        (No. 68-01-     Columbus
    Assessment of the technology       4376)          Lab.
    as it pertains to use in the
    United States.
                                     $290,000    N.A.
                                              N.A.
                                     $200,000     10/1/76
                                     (est.)         (est.)
                                              10/1/78
 Interpreting Cost Data for RDF
 Solid Waste Resource Recovery
 Systems:  A Guide for Local
 Government Decision-Makers
    An analysis of cost variables
    in the construction and opera-
    tion of RDF systems.
Contract       Raytheon
(RFP No.      Service Co.
WA-76-B135)
                      $100,000    10/15/76    10/15/77
 Technical and Economic Evaluation
 of the EPA Demonstration (Resource
 Recovery) Project in Baltimore,
 Maryland
   A technical, economic, and en-
   vironmental evaluation of the gas
   pyrolysis plant in Baltimore,  in-
   cludes history of scale-up and start-
   up anomalies; evaluation of air
   emissions, dust emissions, effluent
   water quality; analysis of products
   and economic viability.
Contract
(68-01-4359)
 Systems Tech-
 nology Corp.
$350,000   10/1/76
(est.)       (est.)
10/1/78
Technical and Economic Evaluation
of the EPA Demonstration (Resource
Recovery) Project in San Diego,
California
   A technical, economic, and en-
   vironmental evaluation of the
   solid waste oil pyrolysis plant
   in San Diego.
Contract
(RFP No.
WA-76-B392)
                                                    To be selected
                      $400,000     12/1/76
                      (est.)         (est.)
                         Proposals
                         under review
Estimates of the Transitional Impacts    Contract
on Beverage Prices and Other Costs      (68-01-
and Benefits of National Beverage       3420 A)
Container Legislation.
               Research Triangle
               Institute, Research
               Triangle Park, N.C.
                     $50,000     3/8/76
                         12/31/77
Analysis of the Interrelationships
Between Beverage Containers and
Structural Change in the Brewing
and Soft Drink Industries.
   Analysis of the interrelationships
   between alternative container
   types and such factors as firm
   size, employment, skill mix,
Contract
(68-01-
3420 B)
Research Triangle
Instutute, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
$50,000     3/8/76
12/31/77

-------
120
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
    Title and description
      Type
Performing
organization
Amount     Beginning    Ending date
            date        or current
                        status
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE (CONTINUED):
       and geographical location in the
       brewing and soft drink manu-
       facturing industries.
    Appraisal of the Impacts of Sever-      Contract
    age Container Guidelines on            (68-01-
    Specific Beverage Producers and        3420 C)
    Distributors.
                     Research Triangle
                     Institute, Research
                     Triangle Park, N.C.
                     $50,000     3/8/76
                        6/30/77
    Analysis of Charge/Subsidy Policies
    Applied to Rigid Container
    Materials.
       Development of estimates and
       methods for estimating the
       impact of various possible
       financial incentives on mater-
       ials production, recycling, and
       solid waste generation assoc-
       iated with steel, glass, alumi-
       num, and plastic materials
       used in rigid containers.
      Contract
      (68-01-
      3426)
Research Triangle
Institute, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
$38,950     7/6/76
         10/77
    Prices of Personal Consumption
    Items.
       Develop methods and produce
       estimates of the effect on house-
       hold budgets in different income
       groups of a solid waste product
       charge on the material content
       of consumer goods.
      Contract
      (68-01-
      3429)
Research Triangle
Institute, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
$35,990     7/6/76
         10/77
    U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: MUNICIPAL
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
    CINCINNATI, OHIO:
    Construction and Demolition
    Wastes Survey
       Complete survey report on
       energy potential of major
       demolition wastes in 10 of
       the top 20 cities, based on
       extrapolations from demolition
       business volume.
      Contract
      (68-01-3560)
JACA Associates
$  83,000
 1/76     5/77
    Agricultural and Forestry
    Wastes Survey
       Review of availability of
       wastes and estimate of pol-
       lutant potential using NSF
       data bank to determine feas-
       ibility of using agricultural and
       forestry wastes as fuels or feed-
       stocks for energy conversion
       processes.
      Contract
      (68-01-2946)
Stanford Research
Institute
$  60,000
7/76     4/77

-------
       LISTING OF MAJOR US. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                      121
Title and description
 Type
Performing
organization
Amount     Beginning    Ending date
            date         or current
                        status
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: MUNICIPAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
CINCINNATI, OHIO (CONTINUED):


Municipal Solid Waste Survey          Contract       To be selected        N. A.          10/76    4/78
Protocol                           (RFP No.
    Complete development of a        CI-76-0241)
    protocol for determining the
    composition and total quan-
    tities of municipal refuse for
    design of resource recovery
    plants.

Preprocessing Systems Evaluation      Contract       Midwest Research     $349,000       3/76     10/78
    Evaluate actual systems and        (68-03-2387)   Institute
    equipment for preparing refuse-
    derived fuels and feedstocks
    for energy recovery systems
    through field tests.
 Municipal Solid Waste Pre-
 processing Research and Devel-
 opment
   The NCRR Environmental
   Test and Evaluation Facility
   (large-scale pilot plant) will
   be used to study the opera-
   tion of specific unit pro-
   cesses and systems configura-
   tions for the recovery of
   materials and fuel fraction from
   MSW.
 Grant
 (803901)
 National Center
 for Resource
 Recovery
 $340,000
9/8/75    7/77
 Fine Grinding Technology Devel-
 opment
   The requirements for fine grind-
   ing of MSW for resource re-
   covery processes are being in-
   vestigated, especially for energy
   conversion processes.  Research
   efforts will attempt to expand
   fine grinding theory to include
   the fine particle range. Com-
   parative evaluations of equipment
   for fine grinding will be made.
 Grant
 (R-804034)
 University of
 California
 $175,000
 8/75
12/77
Preparation of Densified RDF
   Develop and evaluate a process
   for the preparation of d-RDF
   from municipal solid waste.
   Determine the properties of
   the fuel.
Grant
(R-804150)
National Center
for Resource
Recovery
$270,000
 9/75    4/78
Concepts for Improving the Fuel       Grant
Quality of RDF                      (R-804421)
   Thennochemical preprocessing
   technology as used in other
               University of Dayton
               Research Institute
                    $112,000
                8/76   9/78

-------
122
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
     Title and description
      Type
Performing
organization
Amount    Beginning   Ending date
            date        or current
                        status
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: MUNICIPAL
     ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
     CINCINNATI, OHIO (CONTINUED):
       fields will be explored for
       applicability. Develop selected
       processes as warranted by feasi-
       bility.

    Preprocessing System Optimization
       Prepare a survey report assessing
       performance information needs
       for resource recovery preproc-
       essing system optimization.
       Design a complete program,
       considering selected alternative
       approaches, which will lead to
       the development of optimal
       preprocessing systems for large
       and small communities.
      Contract
      (RFP)
                     To be selected
                     N.A.
               10/76
               {est.)
         10/77
         (est.)
    St. Louis/Union Electric Supple-
    mentary Fuel Studies
       Research, development, and
       demonstration studies are con-
       tinuing to determine the en-
       vironmental and technologi-
       cal aspects of co-firing RDF
       with coal in a suspension
       (tangential) fired utility boiler.
       Hazardous emission tests are
       included.  Continuation of this
       work will investigate in detail
       the question of virus and bac-
       teria emissions from the pre-
       processing facility and com-
       pare the emissions to those
       associated with sewage treat-
       ment plants, transfer stations,
       and landfills.
      Contract
      (68-02-1871)
Midwest Research
Institute
$242,000
 9/76    7/77
    Utilization of Solid Waste as a
    Supplementary Power Plant Fuel
       Studies of the technical aspects
       of firing RDF (fluff) with coal
       in a stoker utility boiler, em-
       phasizing high RDF loadings,
       corrosion effects, and environ-
       mental pollution. This study
       has produced highly significant
       information regarding corrosion
       aspects.

    County of Hawaii Project
       The County will evaluate
       the feasibility of alternative
      Grant
      (804008)
City of Columbus,
Battelle/Columbus
$410,000
                                                                                           6/74    3/79
      Grant
      (803924)
County of Hawaii
$ 50,000
12/75
12/76 Draft
report under
review

-------
      LISTING OF MAJOR US. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                       123
Title and description
Type
Performing
organization
Amount     Beginning    Ending date
            date         or current
                        status
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: MUNICIPAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
CINCINNATI,OHIO (CONTINUED):
   waste disposal tools.
   Emphasis will be placed on
   coinrineration of MSW with
   agricultural wastes in existing
   bagasse boilers available at
   selected sugar manufacturing sites.

Waste as a Supplementary Fuel:
Co-firing With Coal and Gas
   This study will evaluate an ad-
   vanced RDF plant and co-
   firing of the RDF with coal
   and gas in a tangentially fired
   boiler.  Technical, economic,
   and environmental data will
   be generated and evaluated, in-
   cluding data not available from
   the St. Louis study.
Grant
(8071903)
City of Ames,
Iowa
$465,000
12/75    7/78
Firing Densified-RDF in a Stoker
Boiler
   Evaluations of technical,
   economic, and environmental
   aspects of co-firing d-RDF with
   lump coal in stoker boilers with
   emphasis on applicability to
   smaller communities.
Contract
(68-03-2426)
Systems Tech-
nology Corp.
$293,000
 7/76    12/77
Portable Pyrolysis of Agricultural
Wastes
   Assess the technical feasi-
   bility and economic viability
   of pyrolyzing agricultural
   wastes in a portable unit to
   provide a source of sulfur-free
   gas or fuel oil, and other energy
   products, such as char, that can
   be more easily transported, there-
   by saving more than 75% of the
   transportation costs.
                                    Grant
               Georgia Institute
               of Technology
                     $204,000
                5/74    6/77
Pilot Pyrolysis of Mixed Waste
to Fuel
   Use small-batch pyrolyzer and
   pilot-size (200 kg/hr) fluidized
   bed pyrolyzer to determine frac-
   tion of fuel products (i.e., gas,
   liquid and solid) produced in
   the pyrolysis of various types
   and mixes of solid wastes (i.e.,
   municipal, agricultural, indus-
   trial, etc.), as a function of the
   pyrolyzing conditions.
Contract
Energy Resources
Co., Inc.
$565,000
                                                   6/75    9/77

-------
124
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
   Title and description
      Type
Performing
organization
Amount     Beginning    Ending date
            date         or current
                        status
   U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: MUNICIPAL
   ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
   CINCINNATI, OHIO (CONTINUED):
   Biological Conversion Process
   Assessment and Development
      Comprehensive evaluations
      of major bioconversion
      waste-to-energy processes,
      including preprocessing
      requirements, process
      technology, environmental
      aspects, and pollution con-
      trol needs. Research recom-
      mendations will be made
      for systems identified as
      promising candidates for
      development.
      Grant
      (804457)
                     Oasis 2000
                     $110,000
                8/76    9/77
   A Case Study of Methane Re-
   covery from a Sanitary
   Landfill
      A case study of the Palos
      Verdes landfill gas develop-
      ment project, including
      methods to optimize the
      production and recovery of
      methane.
      Contract       COM Inc.,
      (68-03-2143)   Environmental
                     Engineering
                     $ 20,000
                9/75
9/76 Draft
report under
review
   Evaluate Enzymatic Hydrolysis
   and Subsequent Conversion to
   Produce an Ethanol-Based Fuel
      Studies include (1) enzyme
      production, (2) substrate
      conditioning, (3)  saccharifi-
      cation, (4) fermentation
      process development, (5)
      saacharification reactions,
      (6) the process control sys-
      tem, and analysis to determine
      if an economically viable
      process for enzymatic con-
      version of cellulose to glu-
      cose can be developed.
      Interagency     U.S. Army,
      agreement      Natick Lab-
      (IAG-05-       oratories
      0758)
                     $100,000
                4/75
1/77
Annual
report in
draft stage
   Acid Hydrolysis for Biological
   Conversion
       Research is underway to
       develop and optimize a novel
       pretreatment hydrolysis process
       for the conversion of waste
       cellulose to glucose. The bench-
       scale results have been ex-
       tremely promising, and a mini-
       plant is under construction to
       prove scale-up.
      Grant
      (R803664-
      02)
New York
University
$110,000
                                                                                          6/75    12/79

-------
       LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                        125
Title and description
Type
 Performing
 organization
Amount     Beginning    Ending date
             date         or current
                         status
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: MUNICIPAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
CINCINNATI,OHIO (CONTINUED):
Methane Recovery from Sanitary       Contract
Landfills                            (RFP CI-76-
   Explore the feasibility of des-       0308)
   igning and operating landfills
   for the controlled production
   and recovery of methane.
                                                   To be selected
                                                                         N. A.
                                                    10/76
                                                    (est.)
                                              10/77
                                              (est.)
Methane Recovery from Sewage
Treatment  Systems
   Evaluate sewage treatment
   system for production and
   recovery of methane utilizing
   the anaerobic digestor.
Contract
(66-03-2356)
 Environmental
 Systems, Inc.
$  30,000
                                                     6/75
        9/76
        Draft
        report under
        review
Energy Requirements of Sewage
Treatment Plants
   Evaluate energy requirements
   for sewage treatment plants and
   feasibility of energy recovery
   from sludge.
                                     Contract
                dean Water
                Consultants
                      $ 25,000
                                                                                         4/75
                         9/76
                         Draft report
                         under review
Use of Organic Residues in
Sewage Sludge Processing
   Project consists of bench-
   and pilot-scale testing to
   define the process, econom-
   ics, and feasibility of using a
   mixture of sewage sludge and the
   organic rejects from material
   recovery operations using the
   Franklin, Ohio, system to im-
   prove the dewatering  character-
   istics of the sludge. Resulting de-
   watered sludge is being inves-
   tigated to determine if methane
   and/or a solid fuel can be pro-
   duced. Gas mixing studies for
   anaerobic digestion have been
   completed. Final report published
   on the effects of selected gas
   mixing system on large scale
   anaerobic digestion.
Contract
(68-03-2105)
 Systems
 Technology
 Corp.
$271,998     6/28/74    8/30/77
Co-Incineration of MSW and
Sewage Sludge
   RDF will be used as principal
   fuel in a sludge incinerator.
   Environmental, technical, and
   economic evaluations of RDF as
   a fuel for sludge incineration
   will be made.
Grant
(E-803927)
Twin Cities
Metropolitan
Waste Control
Commission
$275,000
6/7b    8/77

-------
126
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
    Title and description
       Type
Performing
organization
Amount     Beginning   Ending date
            date        or current
                        status
    U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:  MUNICIPAL
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
    CINCINNATI,OHIO (CONTINUED):
   Co-Disposal of Sewage Sludge and
   Municipal Refuse
      This project is to demonstrate
      the ability of the Union Carbide
      Purox pyrolysis system to pro-
      cess a mixture of sewage sludge
      and solid waste. The organic
      materials will be converted into
      a medium Btu fuel gas.
     Grant
     (S-803769)
City of South
Charleston
$332,000
9/76    10/77
   Compilation, Development, and
   Testing of Interim Standard MSW
   Product Analysis Procedures
      Develop optimum sampling and
      analysis procedures for charac-
      terizing materials recovered from
      MSW; develop and test user
      specifications for selected sec-
      ondary material feedstocks.  The
      results will serve the develop-
      ment of specifications for re-
      covered materials and product
      quality control, both of which
      are vital elements in removing
      market barriers.
     Contract
                    To be selected
                                         N.A.
                                                          8/76    12/78
   Alternatives for Utilization of
   Waste Rubber Tires
      Cost/benefit analysis of alter-
      native systems for the manage-
      ment of waste passenger car
      tires.
     Contract
     (68-03-2401)
California State
University
$ 18,000
4/76    2/77
   Field Evaluation of Waste Rubber
   in Road Pavement
      This project will experimen-
      tally evaluate rubberized
      asphalt derived from waste
      tires as a road paving material;
      it will be conducted in con-
      junction with D.O.T.
      Interagency
      agreement
Federal High-
way Administration
$ 82,000
3/76    3/81
   Waste Glass Used in Brick
   Manufacturing
      Conduct a field evaluation of
      waste glass use in fabricating
      bricks; also evaluate glass-
      brick production.
                                       Contract
                    Occidental
                    Research
                     $ 35,000
                7/76    10/77

-------
       LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                       127
Title and description


Type Performing
organization

Amount Beginning
date

Ending date
or current
status
 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:  MUNICIPAL
 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
 CINCINNATI,OHIO (CONTINUED):
 Develop and Test Candidate Building
 Materials from Solid Waste
    Purpose of this project is to
    evaluate previous research on
    potential products from waste
    materials; to develop data on
    supply and location of waste
    materials; to demonstrate feasi-
    bility, applicability, and accep-
    tance of building products
    fabricated from waste materials.
Contract       Materials Sys-         $188,000
(68-03-2056)    terns Corp.
                                     2/74    10/77
 State-of-the-Art Report on Land
 Cultivation and Refuse Farming
    A survey of the literature on
    techniques by which wastes
    from selected industries and
    municipal refuse are added to
    the soil.  The beneficial and
    detrimental aspects will be eval-
    uated and a techno-economic
    evaluation performed.
Contract
(68-03-2435)
SCS Engineers
$ 88,000
7/76    9/77
 Upgrading of Pyrolysis Products        Interagency    U.S. Navy, Naval      $235,000        6/75    6/77
    Research to produce higher          grant          Weapons Center
    molecular weight hydrocar-          (IAG-D5-
    bons during pyrolysis and           0781)
    from lower molecular weight
    products derived from the pyroly-
    sis of municipal solid wastes
    using chemical methods.

 Upgrading of Oils Derived from the      Grant          Georgia Institute      $ 61,000        6/76    8/78
 Pyrolysis of Agricultural Wastes         (804416)      of Technology
    Investigation of physical
    methods for the upgrading of
    oils produced from the pyroly-
    sis of agricultural and munici-
    pal wastes to produce products
    of improved marketability.
 Conversion of Char to Useful          Interagency
 Products                            agreement
    Investigate and develop a           (IAG-D5-
    process for char gasification        0646)
    as a feedstock for chemicals
    or fuels production.

Development of Methods for           Grant
Stabilization of Pyrolysis Oils           (R-804440)
   Research investigations of
   chemical mechanisms influ-
   encing oil viscosity during and
   just after oil production.
               ERDA, Los Alamos
               Scientific Labora-
               tories
              Atlanta Univer-
              sity
                     $243,000
                9/75    8/77
                    $ 65,000
               6/76    8/78

-------
128
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
   Title and description
        Type
Performing
organization
                                           Amount
            Beginning
            date
Ending date
or current
status
   U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:  MUNICIPAL
   ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
   CINCINNATI, OHIO (CONTINUED):
   Environmental Assessments of Waste-
   as-Fuels Processes
      A long-term contract to provide
      continuing services:  (a) to es-
      tablish environmental assess-
      ment methodology; (b) to
      identify, and develop as needed,
      measurement techniques; (c)
      to perform evaluations of se-
      lected processes.
                                        Contract
                                                       To be selected
                                                                            N. A.
                                                           9/76    9/78
   Control Technology for Emissions
   from Resource Recovery Systems
      Assess and develop pollution
      control technology for waste-
      as-fuels processes, including
      preprocessing and conversion
      systems.
                                        Contract
                                                       To be selected
                                                                            N. A.
                                                                                        N. A.
                                                                                                    N. A.
   Incentive Pricing of Collection
   Services as a Resource Recovery
   Tool
      Develop an experimental design to
      determine the effects of incremen-
      tal pricing on solid waste manage-
                                        Contra ct
                                                       To be selected
                                                                            N. A.
                                                           8/76    10/77
   Futures Markets for Reclaimed
   Materials
      Investigate the feasibility of
      establishing scrap futures
      markets for selected reclaimed
      materials.
       Grant
       (R-804309)
Environmental
Law Institute
$ 67,000
                                                                                            6/76    8/77
   Technical/Economic Assessments
   of Waste-as-Fuel Processes
      Evaluate technical and economic
      aspects of competing waste-as-
      fuel processes, based on state-
      of-the-art knowledge of the en-
      vironmental characteristic's of
      the processes.  Competing waste-
      as-fuel processes options includ-
      ing co-firing of waste and fossil
      fuels, waste incineration with
      heat recovery, direct conversion
      of waste to electricity, pyrolytic
      conversion, byconversion, etc.,
      will be assessed.
                                        Contract
                      Ralph M. Parsons
                      Co.
                     $267,000
                                                                                            5/75
                         12/76
                         Draft report
                         due in Oct.

-------
            LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                      129
Title and description

Type Performing
organization

Amount Beginning
date

Ending date
or current
status
 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:  MUNICIPAL
 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY AND INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY,
 CINCINNATI, OHIO (CONTINUED):
 Technology Transfer Reports on
 RDF/Coal Co-Firing
    Reports that will aid in trans-
    ferring the technology to poten-
    tial users.
 Contract
               To be selected
                                    N.A.
                                               N. A.
                                                           N.A.
 Single-Cell Protein Production         Contract       Ebon Research
 by Byconversion of Waste            (68-03-2395)    Systems
 Materials
                                   $  20,000     3/23/76
                                            12/27/76
                                            Draft report
                                            under review
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
 Characterization of Paper Pulp
 Fibers
   The energy consumed in paper-
   making can be reduced by re-
   cycling of more scrap. To do
   this, however, requires the
   development of better and
   faster pulp characterization
   methods. The project is
   developing the optical and
   analytical means for doing this.
 In-house
               National Bureau
               of Standards
                     $ 87,000
                     (ERDA
                     funding)
            FY 1976
                        FY 1981
                        (Report
                        due Oct.
                        1976)
Materials Flows Analysis
   Development of comprehen-
   sive data bases and supporting
   computer programs to provide,
   for selected production sectors,
   a systematic array of process
   steps, input materials, labor,
   and power, and output products
   and process residuals. Process
   detail considers use of residuals
   as secondary materials inputs
   and distinguishes use of primary
   materials, prompt residuals,
   and obsolete recovered materials.
   Processes considered to date are
   for aluminum, ferrous scrap,
   and leather.
 In-house       Quantitative Analy-
               sis Division, Bureau of
               Domestic Commerce
                                July 1975
                       Oct. 1977
                       or later
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF MINES:
Environmental Evaluation of
Municipal Refuse as an Energy
Resource
   Evaluation of the environmental
   impact of municipal refuse
Internal
research
College Park
Metallurgy
Research Center,
College Park, Md.
$100,000    FY 76
FY77
In progress

-------
130
                                   RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
     Title and description
Type
Performing
organization
                                                                              Amount
Beginning
date
Ending date
or current
status
     U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF MINES (CONTINUED):

         combustibles by determining
         the concentration of significant
         elements.
     Ferrous Scrap—Demand vs.             Contract
     Newly Available Supply, 1975-         (JO155146)
     1985
        To develop on a regional and
        periodic basis the require-
        ments and future availability
        of ferrous scrap to determine
        whether balance, shortage, or
        surplus situations are expected
        during 1975-85.

     Government Barriers to the Use of      Contract
     Secondary Ferrous and Nonferrous      (JO155126)
     Materials
        To identify possible govern-
        mental barriers to the use of
        domestic secondary ferrous and
        nonferrous materials and to
        develop legislative proposals
        to eliminate these barriers.

     Mathematical Modeling of Raw         Contract
     Materials and Energy Needs of the      (SO122079)
     Iron and Steel Industry in the
     U.S.A. Phase V
        Three major activities are
        planned:  (1) effect of using
        direct reduction materials rather
        than pig iron as primary metal-
        lic supply for new steelmaking;
        (2) effects on scrap supply and
        energy requirements when steel
        industry operates at less than full
        capacity; and (3) effects on
        scrap supply and energy require-
        ments if the steel industry is not
        able to increase capacity to meet
        anticipated rising demand for
        steel.

     Metallurgical Application of Mag-       Internal
     netic Fields                          research
        The project is directed toward
        advancing the technology of
        solid/solid and solid/liquid
        separations using ferrofluids
        by improved designs of separa-
        tors and innovations in fluid
        preparation.
                A. T. Kearney, Inc.,
                Chicago
                      $ 49,666
                                                                                             5/1/76
             7/1/76
             Final report
             in clearance
             process
                JACA Corporation,
                Fort Washington,
                Pa.
                      $145,020     6/30/75
             6/30/77
             In progress
                Massachusetts
                Institute of Tech-
                nology, Dept. of
                Materials Science
                and Engineering
                      $ 43,500
                                                    6/1/76
             5/31/77
             In progress
                Twin Cites Metal-
                lurgy Research
                Center
                       $155,000    FY 1976
              FY 1977
              In progress

-------
            LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                         131
 Title and description
  Type
 Performing
 organization
 Amount     Beginning   Ending date
             date        or current
                         status
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF MINES (CONTINUED):
 Recovery of Nonferrous Metals
 From Auto Shredder Refuse
    Development of hydrometal-
    lurgical methods for separat-
    ing mixed nonferrous metals,
    mainly zinc, aluminum, and
    copper, obtained from the
    nonmagnetic refuse generated
    during the shredding of junk
    automobiles.
 Contract
 (G0133080)
 Stanford University    $ 27,298     6/30/73
                         10/1/76
                         In progress
 Recycling Automotive and
 Other Scrap
    Development of improved
    methods and equipment
    for the recovery and subsequent
    recycling of metals and plas-
    tics from junked automobiles
    and other scrap sources.
Internal
research
Salt Lake City
Metallurgy Re-
search Center
$287,000    FY 1975
FY 1976
In progress
 Refining Secondary Nonferrous
 Metals
   Development of improved
   extractive processing methods
   that will increase the utiliza-
   tion of secondary non-
   ferrous metals and advance
   resource recovery tech-
   nology.
Internal        College Park Metal-
research        lurgy Research
               Center
                     $362,000   FY 1971     Continuing
Secondary Resource Recovery
   The project is directed toward
   the adoption of resource re-
   covery as a system for solid
   waste management by
   demonstrating the technical
   and economic feasibility of
   continuous mechanical systems
   for separating incinerator resi-
   dues, urban refuse, including
   white goods  and bulky refuse,
   into its metal, mineral,
   and energy values, and to
   upgrade crude products
   into forms suitable for re-
   cycling.
Internal        College Park Metal-
research        lurgy Research
               Center
                     $663,000   FY 1970
                        FY 1977
                        In progress
Utilization of Mining and Milling
Wastes
   Investigation of the utilization
   and/or disposal of copper, lead-
   zinc tailings, iron ore waste
   products, coal fly ash, phos-
   phate slimes, redmuds from
   bauxite processing, steel slags,
   foundry dusts, steelmill dusts,
Contract       ITT Research
(JO155141)    Institute,
               Chicago
                     $ 30,410
              6/4/75    1/3/77

-------
132
                                   RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
    Title and description
 Type
Performing
organization
Amount     Beginning   Ending date
            date        or current
                        status
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF MINES (CONTINUED):

        nonferrous metal industry dusts,
        and a host of metal- and mineral-
        based waste products such as
        waste glass, tin cans, junk cars,
        metal plating wastes, and
        other metal- and mineral-
        containing solutions and sludges.
     U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION:
     Activated Carbon for Sludge
     Digestion
        Laboratory and small pilot-scale
        development of a process to
        enhance anaerobic digestion
        by addition of activated car-
        bon. Methane yield increased
        3-6 times by process. If
        successful, several agencies
        may conduct full-scale tests.
Contract
Battelle Pacific
N.W. Lab.
$467,000   April 1976   Oct. 1977
     Ammonia From Urban Wastes
        Support for preliminary design
        and feasibility work of what
        will be a $101 million project
        using the Union Carbide "Purox"
        pyrolysis process to produce a
        fuel gas rich in hydrogen and
        carbon monoxide which will
        feed an ammonia synthesis plant.
Contract
(E45-1-2331)
City of Seattle
$500,000   May 1976     Jan. 1977
     An flow
        Joint project between ERDA,
        the Norton Co,, and the City
        of Oak Ridge to install a
        packed bed anaerobic digester
        at the city's sewage treatment
        plant. On a laboratory scale,
        process shows promise of
        reducing drastically the cost
        of sewage treatment plants
        and the waste sludge disposal
        problem. Technology can be
        extended to industrial wastes,
        and, by tailoring organisms, it
        can produce alcohols and other
        chemicals.
Contract
(05-ENG-26)
Oak Ridge
National Lab.
$670,000   April 1976   Sept. 1978

($520,000
ERDA)
     Cofiring in Cement Kiln
        Light fraction of urban solid
        waste will be reduced to ash,
        analyzed, and its effect on
        cement clinker determined.
        In addition, light fraction of
        urban waste will be burned
        on an extended basis (72 hours
        vs. 8 hours to date) in a cement
        kiln fired with natural gas.
Contract
(E40-1-5150)
 Browning-Ferris
 Inc., Portland
 Cement Assn.,
 Gulf Coast Port-
 land Cement Co.
$670,000   July 1976    Jan. 1978

-------
            LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH-PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                         133
Title and description
 Type
Performing
organization
Amount
             Beginning
             date
Ending date
or current
status
U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED):
Conversion of Cellulosic and Waste      Contract       Arizona State
Polymer Material to Gasoline           (El 1-1-2982)    University
   Laboratory research to develop
   a two-stage process: (1)  py-
   rolytic conversion of wastes to
   produce an optimum mix of off
   gases; (2) synthesis reaction
   to produce a liquid fuel.

Digester Mixing Tests                  Contract       Systems Tech-
   Project uses an existing anaero-      (E40-1-5175)    nology Corp.
   bic digester and urban waste
   separation plant to develop a
   high solids concentration (10%)
   substrate.  Principal project
   thrust is in mechanical mixing
   at high solids content.  Is
   coordinated with EPA project
   on gas mixing at low solids content.
                                     $ 80,000   June 1976    June 1978
                                     $ 90,000    Sept. 1976   July 1977
Development of a Glass-Polymer
Sewer Pipe from Waste Glass
   Laboratory research to supple-
   ment current limited data by
   fabrication of additional speci-
   mens and tests.  Field instal-
   lations will be evaluated;
   energy and economic impact
   will be determined.
Contract
(30-1-0016)
Brookhaven
National Lab.
$  75,000   April 1976   Aug. 1977
Energy and Protein Production from
Pulp Mill Wastes
   Laboratory research to convert
   spent sulfite liquor to a biode-
   gradable form. Ozonation will be
   used to desulfonate the lignin,
   thus promoting follow-on bio-
   logical digestion. Three digestion
   processes will be optimized: yeast
   protein production, methanization,
   and anaerobic digestion of final
   residues. Engineering-economic
   data for design scale-up will be
   determined.
Contract
(El 1-1-2983)
Michigan Techno-
logical University
$235,000   May 1976    May 1979
Enzymatic Hydrolysis
   Process uses an enzyme pro-
   duced by a yeast-like organism
   to convert cellulose to glucose.
   The glucose may be fermented
   to ethanol, converted to sor-
   bitol, digested to methane, or
   used as a chemical feedstock.
Contract
(E49-28-
1007)
U.S. Army Lab-
oratories, Natick
$1,390,000  Jan. 1976    Sept. 1977

-------
134
                                  RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
     Title and description
 Type
Performing
organization
                                    Amount
            Beginning
            date
Ending date
or current
status
     U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED):
     High Rate Anaerobic Digestion
        Laboratory work to explore
        the theory of the rate limita-
        tion of anaerobic digestion
        being the transfer phase of
        methane, and to explore
        means to improve that phase
        to include less viscous fluids
        and operation under a vacuum.
Contract
(El 1-1-
2900)
Natural Dynamics
$183,000    June 1976   May 1978
     Household System
        Development of a system
        to provide partial home heat-
        ing and cooling from household
        wastes and to reduce water
        consumption. A study to cata-
        log and assess the available
        systems for individual homes
        and define the institutional
        barriers that should be more
        deeply assessed.
Contract
(El 1-1-30 36)
General Electric
$100,000    Sept. 1976   March 1977
     Methane Production from the
     Anaerobic Treatment of Indus-
     trial Wastewater
        Laboratory research to evaluate
        a selected set of organic indus-
        trial wastes in terms of methane
        yield.
                                         Contract
               Drexel Uni-
               versity
                     $69,000
                     (FY76
                     funded by
                     NSF)
            July 1974   June 1977
     Pompano Beach:  Advanced System
     Experimental Facility
        Urban waste is shredded and the
        light and heavy fractions separated
        in an air classifier. The lights
        (mostly organics) are then fed
        with 5% sewage sludge solids
        and nutrients to an anaerobic di-
        gester where a biological process
        converts them to methane-rich
        gas.
Contract
(Ell-1-2770)
Waste Manage-
ment Inc.
$2.96
million
(construction
phase only;
2-4 yr. test
phase to
follow)
                                                                                         June 1975   Nov. 1977
     Regional Study
        A study of the effect of
        various elements on waste
        characterization and quantifi-
        cation and to recommend
        future ERDA research.
Contract
(Ell-1-4011)
Resources Plan-
ning Associates
$15,000
                                                                                         June 1976    Dec. 1976.
     European Assessment
        Tne contractor will first
        assess the status of European
        technology, primarily waterwall
        incinerators. Then case histories
        and economic, operating, and
        technical data will be gathered
Contract       Resources
(E49-18-2103)  Planning
               Associates
                      $100,000   June 1976   Jan. 1977

-------
            LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                         135
 Title and description
 Type
 Performing
 organization
 Amount     Beginning   Ending date
             date        or current
                         status
 U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED):

    on the Munich systems and at
    least three others. Finally, the
    economics will be translated to
    the U.S. if implementation seems
    feasible.
 Support of Equipment Test and
 Evaluation Facility
    The equipment test and evalua-
    tion facility assembles and tests
    various components of trash pre-
    processing equipment.  In addition,
    the contractor works with resource
    users to develop specifications
    for recovered materials to op-
    timize use.
 Contract
 (E49-1-3851)
 National Center
 for Resource
 Recovery
$250,000    Sept. 1976   May 1978
Tests of Pyrolysis Gases
   Pilot size (2,000 CFM) gas con-
   ditioning train and shift reactors
   will be installed and operated
   on the fuel gas produced by a
   200-TPD Purox pyrolysis
   reactor. This phase aims at
   re-forming the resultant hydro-
   gen to ammonia.
 Contract
 (E49-1-2116)
 Union Carbide,
 Linde Division
$1 mil-
lion
Aug. 1976   July 1977
Utilization of Waste Carbon
Monoxide as a Chemical
Feedstock
   A study to determine the feasi-
   bility of, and opportunities
   for, utilizing waste CO from
   basic industries as a replace-
   ment for natural gas as a chemical
   feedstock.  Industrial sources
   will be identified and eval-
   uated. The most promising
   configurations will be subject
   to economic analysis.
Contract
(45-1-1830)
Battelle Pacific
N.W. Labs.
$380,000   April 1976   May 1978
Characterization, Measurement,
and Monitoring of Organic and
Inorganic Pollutants Derived
from Energy Generating Sources
   Laboratory study and field
   confirmation to develop tech-
   niques and instrumentation
   needed for characterizing organic
   and inorganic pollutants in
   effluents from energy-generating
   sources, with special emphasis on
   the Ames Solid Waste Recovery
   System and Municipal Power
   Plant use of refuse-derived fuel
   as a supplemental fuel with coal.
Contract
(W-7405-
ENG-82)
Ames Laboratory,
Iowa State Univ.
$120,000    7/1/75
            Oct. 1978

-------
136
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
    Title and description
       Type
Performing
organization
Amount
            Beginning
            date
            Ending date
            or current
            status
    U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED):
    Atmospheric Sciences—Environ-
    mental Effects of Solid Wastes
       Program conducted in coopera-
       tion with EPA and the City of
       Ames Municipal Power Plant
       and Solid Waste Recovery System
       for the purpose of determining
       the environmental effects of
       change in fuel composition. Parti-
       cular emphasis is placed on
       organics in stack emissions and on
       the effect of boiler size, type of
       fuel injection and burners, and
       type of particulate removal system
       in relation to the fuel composition
       and boiler load.
      Contract
      (W-7405-
      ENG-82)
Ames Laboratory,
Iowa State Univ.
$136,000    7/1/75
            Oct. 1978
    Study of Microbiological Air Quality
    in Relation to the Ames Municipal
    Solid Waste Disposal and Energy
    Recovery System
       Microbiological samples will be
       taken at 11 locations throughout
       the Ames solid waste recovery
       facility to determine the total
       number and types of bacteria,
       yeasts, molds, and viruses that
       may be present and  to determine
       whether any may be potentially
       pathogenic. Ambient levels around
       Ames will also be determined.
      Contract
      (W-7405-
      ENG-82)
Ames Laboratory,
Iowa State Univ.
$69,000
10/1/76
Oct. 1978
    Environmental Control Requirements
    in Solid Waste Processing and Energy
    Recovery Facilities (Water Pollution)
       Paper study to assess the efficacy
       and practicability of water pollution
       control equipment to treat process
       water for urban waste utilization
       systems. Recommendations will be
       made to ERDA for further studies,
       surveillance activities, and/or needed
       RD&D programs.
      Contract
      (W-7405-
      ENG 82)
Ames Laboratory,
Iowa State Univ.
$100,000
(Proposed)
10/1/77     Sept. 30, 1978
     FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION:
    Energy and Economic Impacts of       Contract
    Mandatory Deposits                  (CO-04-
       Examines energy, capital, jobs,      50175-00)
       and labor earnings impacts
       of mandatory deposits for
       beverage containers.
                     Research Triangle
                     Institute
                     $100,000
                         Fall 1976
                         Final report
                         under review

-------
            LISTING OF MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESEARCH PROJECTS AND STUDIES
                                                                          137
Title and description
Type
Performing
organization
Amount     Beginning   Ending date
             date         or current
                         status
 FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED):
Feasibility in Modular Integrated
Utility System
   As part of its MIUS program,
   HUD is constructing a demon-
   stration site consisting of 486
   multi-family dwelling units
   in six structures, two schools,
   swimming pool, and 50,000
   square feet of commercial
   area in Jersey City, N.J. FEA
   has contracted with HUD to
   examine the feasibility of and
   design a waste heat recovery
   incinerator to be installed in the
   Jersey City site.
Interagency
agreement
(14-01-
0001-2056)
Department of
Housing and
Urban Development
$150,000    6/28/74
            Fall 1976
            Draft final
            report under
            review
Feasibility of Utilizing Agricultural
Wastes as an Energy Source
   The latent energy in agricul-
   tural wastes, crop residues,
   and manures that are dissi-
   pated each year is approxi-
   mately 6 quads.  However,
   because of the dispersion of
   the wastes it may be feasible
   from both an economic and
   energy standpoint to process
   only a small percentage of
   the wastes. This study has
   been subdivided into five
   smaller studies:
Interagency
agreement
(CG-04-
50097-00)
Agricultural Re-
search Service,
U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture
$250,000
(Including
$100,000
from FEA
and
$150,000
from
National
Science
Foundation)
5/23/76
Fall 1976
Draft final
reports in
preparation
or review
   1. Small-scale processes
      that an individual
      farmer could use to
      extract energy from
      wastes.
               West Virginia
               University
   2. Ways energy could be ex-
      tracted from rice hulls.
               University of
               California
               at Davis
   3. Anaerobic methane
      fermentation.
               Iowa State Uni-
               versity
   4. Production of methane or
      alcohols from bagasse.
               University of
               Florida
   5. Process for converting
      forest residues to energy
      products.
               U.S. Forest
               Service

-------
138
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
     Title and description
       Type
Performing
organization
                                                                              Amount
            Beginning
            date
            Ending date
            or current
            status
     FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED):
     Overcoming Institutional Barriers
     to Solid Waste Utilization as an
     Energy Source
        The purpose of this study is
        to identify the institutional
        barriers preventing the utili-
        zation of urban refuse as an
        energy source and develop
        initiatives  to overcome these
        barriers.
       Contract
       (CO-04-
       50172-00)
Gordian
Associates
$92,000     6/4/75
             Fall 1976
             Final report
             in preparation
     Resource Recovery From Muni-
     cipal Solid Waste—Feasibility
     Study
        The study is examining the
        feasibility of adapting one or
        more of TVA's steam plants
        to burn refuse as a supple-
        mentary fuel as in St. Louis.
        TV A is the largest steam
        utility in the country and
        would be a trend setter. One
        aspect of the study is also
        examining the economic
        feasibility of generating
        methane or methanol from
        the waste and using it as
        peaking turbine fuel.
      Interagency
      agreement
      (CG-04-
      50063-00)
Tennessee Valley
Authority
$400,000
(Utilities—
$40,000;
EPA-
$100,000;
FEA-
$40,000;
TVA-
$220,000)
5/2/75
Fall 1976
Revised final
report in
preparation

-------
                                        Appendix E
                  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ON ENVIRONMENTAL  AND
               NATURAL RESOURCE  IMPACTS OF PRODUCTS
                                      AND  MATERIALS
     The application of material and energy balance
concepts to broad  sectors of the economy-entire
industries, consuming sectors, or the economy as a
whole-has  given rise since the late 1960's to a new
literature on the comparative natural resource and en-
vironmental implications of alternative raw materials,
fuels, and product designs. The broader systems view-
point has brought an increasing awareness to both
public  and  private sector decision-makers of  the
extremely complex and  interrelated nature of our
various  systems of production  in terms  of their
impacts  on resource  demands  and environmental
quality.
     The emerging  body of literature  includes a
variety of types.  Some  authors  have focused on a
particular raw  material  or energy form, others  on
finished products  or groups of products; some have
been concerned primarily  with  particular  residuals
(air or water pollutants or solid wastes), while others
have dealt  with a broad  spectrum of emissions and
effluents. Some have  been directed at material and
energy use from a conservation or supply, rather than
an environmental quality, viewpoint.
     The more comprehensive  studies  have  some-
times been referred to as "resource and environmental
profile analyses" (REPA) of materials and products.
They all deal with relatively broad conceptual systems
that attempt to trace material and energy flows from
raw  material and energy extraction to some later
point of product manufacture and even, in many
cases, through product use and disposal. Some have
focused  on comparative  sequences for  virgin  and
secondary raw  materials supplies or single-use  versus
multiple-use products and containers.
     The following bibliography was prepared by an
EPA consultant, Dr. Arthur Purcell of George Wash-
ington University, in late  1975. It is considered to be
a reasonably complete listing of nonproprietary re-
search published through 1975 on the comparative
 natural resource, energy, and environmental impacts
 of materials and products which are significant in the
 municipal solid waste stream.


   FINISHED PRODUCTS:  PAPER, PLASTICS,
  STEEL, GLASS, ALUMINUM, COMBINATION,
     AND OTHER (WOOD, CONCRETE, ETC.)
Bailie, R. C., B. T. Riley, Jr.,and R. Zaltzman. Environmental
              impact assessment of polyvinyl chloride as a
              packaging material for distilled spirits. Wash-
              ington, U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau
              of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1973.
              257  p. (Distributed by National Technical
              Information  Service, Springfield, Va.,  as
              EIS-AA-73-0477-F-2.)
Berry, R. S., and H. Makino. Energy thrift in packaging and
              marketing. Technology Review, 76(4):33-43,
              Feb. 1974.
Berry, R. S., and M. F. Pels. The energy cost of automobiles.
              Science and Public  Affairs-Bulletin of the
              Atomic  Scientists,   29(10): 11-17, 58-60,
              Dec. 1973.
Bingham,  T. H., et  al. [Research  Triangle  Institute]. An
              analysis of the materials and natural resource
              requirements and  residuals  generation  of
              personal consumption  expenditure  items.
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (In
              preparation; to  be  distributed by National
              Technical  Information Service, Springfield,
              Va.)
Cross, J. A., et al. [Midwest Research Institute]. Plastics; re-
              source  and environmental profile analyses.
              Washington, Manufacturing Chemists Asso-
              ciation, June 28, 1974. 104 p.
Dane, C. W. Energy requirements for wood and wood sub-
              stitutes and the "energy crises." Corvallis,
              Oreg., U.S. Forest Service, Division of Forest
              Economics and Marketing Research, June 1,
              1972. 17 p. (Unpublished report.)
Energy and technical  development.   Greenwich, Conn.,
              American  Can Company, 1975.  14 p., app.
              [Slide narrative.]
Gordian Associates, Inc. An energy analysis of the production
              of selected products in six  basic material
              industries.  U.S. Environmental  Protection
              Agency, 1975. (In preparation; to be distri-
              buted by  National  Technical Information
              Service, Springfield,  Va.)
Gordian Associates, Inc. Environmental impacts associated
              with selected options for the recycling of
              materials, reuse of products and recovery of
              energy from solid waste. U.S. Environmental
                                                 139

-------
140
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
                Protection Agency. (In  preparation;  to  be
                distributed by National  Technical Informa-
                tion Service, Springfield,  Va.)
 Gordian Associates, Inc. Environmental impacts of produc-
                tion of virgin and secondary paper, glass and
                rubber products. Environmental Protection
                Publication SW-128c. U.S. Environmental
                Protection Agency. (In  preparation;  to  be
                distributed by National  Technical Informa-
                tion Service, Springfield,  Va.)
 Haller, G. L. Critique of specified beverage container environ-
                mental studies; final  report  to  Monsanto
                Company. URIC Report  74-63. Wallingford,
                Conn., University Research Institute of Con-
                necticut, Inc., Sept. 1974. 24 p.
Haller, G. L. [Monsanto Company].  Resource utilization and
               environmental impact of alternative beverage
               containers. Presented  at  Symposium:  Envi-
               ronmental  Impact  of  Nitrile  Barrier  Con-
               tainers, Hartford, Conn.,  July 19, 1973. 2 v.
Hannon, B. System energy  and recycling; a study of the
               beverage industry. CAC Document No. 23,
               rev. Urbana, University  of Illinois, Center
               for Advanced Computation, Mar. 17, 1973.
               26 p.
Hickman, H. J., R. Lewis, and J. Salomonson. [University  of
               Minnesota,  Institute  of  Technology].  A
               study of the environmental impact of  poly-
               styrene vs. paper pulp egg cartons and meat
               trays. Hopkins, Minn., Red Owl Stores, Inc.,
               Mar. 1972. 14 p., app.
Hunt, R. G., et al. [Midwest Research Institute]. Resource
               and environmental  profile analysis of nine
               beverage container alternatives; final report.
               v. 1-2. Environmental Protection Publication
               SW-91c. Washington,  U.S.  Environmental
               Protection Agency,  1974. 178 p.
Hunt, R. G., and  R. O. Welch. [Midwest Research Institute].
               Resource and environmental profile analysis
               of plastics  and non-plastics containers; a
               summary. New York, The Society of the
               Plastics  Industry,  Inc.,  Nov.  1974.  36  p.
An investigation of the effects on society and  the environ-
               ment  of alternative methods  of  food and
               beverage packaging. Presented at 1st Annual
               Meeting, Student Originated Studies Groups
               of the National Science  Foundation,  Phila-
               delphia, Dec. 29, 1971. Urbana-Champaign,
               University  of  Illinois, N.S.F/S.O.S. Project.
                [60 p.], app.
 Makhijani,  A. B., and A. J. Lichtenberg. Energy  and well-
               being.  Environment,   14(5): 10-18,  June
                1972.
 Makino, H.,  and R. S. Berry. Consumer goods; a thermo-
                dynamic analysis   of  packaging,  transport
                and storage. [Chicago], Illinois Institute for
                Environmental Quality, June 1973. 162 p.
 Midwest Research Institute. Environmental impact analysis
                of eight beverage  container systems; final
                draft report, v. 1. Washington, U.S. Environ-
                mental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid
               Waste Management Programs, Aug. 9,  1973.
                39 p.
 Midwest Research Institute. Environmental impact profiles
                for selected beverage containers; final report.
                Wilmington, Del., E. I. du Pont de Nemours
                & Company, Inc., Apr. 30, 1973. 2 v.
                            Sundstrom, G. Beverage containers and energy; investigation
                                            of energy requirements from raw material to
                                            garbage  treatment  for  four Swedish  beer
                                            packaging alternatives. Bjarred, Sweden, G.
                                            Sundstrom AB. 1 v. (various pagings).

                                       METALS:  BULK PRODUCTS
                            Bravard, J. C., H. B. Flora, II, and C. Portal. Energy expendi-
                                           tures  associated with  the  production  and
                                           recycle of metals. Report No. ORNL-NSF-
                                           EP-24.   Oak  Ridge,  Tenn.,  Oak  Ridge
                                           National Laboratory, Nov. 1972. 87 p.
                            Franklin, W. E., et al. [Midwest Research Institute]. Potential
                                           energy conservation from recycling metals in
                                           urban solid wastes; final report. Washington,
                                           The Energy Policy Project, May 30, 1974.
                                           75 p.
                            Makhijani,  A. B., and A. J.  Lichtenberg. An assessment  of
                                           energy  and   materials  utilization in  the
                                           U.S.A. Berkeley, University  of California,
                                           Electronics   Research   Laboratory,  Sept.
                                            1971. 42 p.
                            Ziegler, R. C., et al.  [Calspan Corporation]. Environmental
                                           impacts  of  virgin and recycled steel  and
                                           aluminum. Environmental Protection Publi-
                                           cation SW-117C. U.S. Environmental Protec-
                                           tion  Agency,  1976. 125  p. (Distributed by
                                           National  Technical  Information  Service,
                                           Springfield, Va., as PB-253 487.)

                                       PLASTICS:  BULK PRODUCTS
                            Baum,  B.,  and C. H. Parker [DeBell & Richardson, Inc.].
                                           Plastics   waste management,  Washington,
                                           Manufacturing Chemists  Association, Oct.
                                           1974. 113 p., app.
                            Berry,  R. S., T. V. Long, II, and H. Makino. Energy budgets:
                                           5. An international comparison of polymers
                                           and their alternatives. Energy Policy, 3(2):
                                           144-155, June 1975.
                            Kaufman, F.  S., Jr. Opportunities for plastics in  resource
                                           recovery.  Presented  at  National  Materials
                                           Conservation Symposium  No. 1, Resource
                                           Recovery and Utilization, National Bureau
                                           of Standards, Gaithersburg, Md.,  Apr. 29,
                                           1974. 15 p.
                            Proceedings; Symposium on Environmental Impact of Nitrile
                                           Barrier Containers;  LOPAC:  a  case study,
                                           Hartford, Conn., Rensselaer Polytechnic In-
                                           stitute,  July  19,  1973. Hartford, Conn.,
                                           Monsanto Company and the University Re-
                                           search Institute of Connecticut. 178 p.

                                         PAPER:  BULK PRODUCTS
                            Arthur D. Little, Inc. Energy consumption in the production
                                           of   selected   grades   of   paperboard.
                                           [Kalamazoo,  Mich.],  Boxboard  Research
                                           and Development  Association,  June 1973.
                                           12 p.
                            Franklin, W.  E.  Paper recycling—the art of the  possible,
                                           1970-1985.  New  York,  American  Paper
                                           Institute, 1973. 181 p.
                            Franklin, W. E., R. G. Hunt, and J. B. Maillie. [Midwest Re-
                                           search Institute]. Environmental impacts of
                                           paper manufacture. In  Policy  background
                                           study  on  resource  recovery—comparative
                                           economic and environmental  analysis  of

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS OF PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS      141
               materials recycling vs. virgin materials manu-
               facture for paper, glass and steel. Washing-
               ton, Council on Environmental Quality, Dec.
               1971. p.  48-92. (Unpublished  draft report.)
Hunt, R. G., and W. E. Franklin. Environmental effects of
               recycling paper. MRI  1106.  Presented  at
               73d National Meeting of the American Insti-
               tute of  Chemical Engineers, Minneapolis,
               Aug. 27-30,  1972.  Kansas City, Midwest
               Research Institute, [July 1973]. 34 p.
An investigation of the economic and environmental benefits
               of  recycling  as  exemplified in corrugated
               box manufacture. New York, Gordian Asso-
               ciates, Feb. 1, 1973. 64 p., app.
Midwest  Research Institute.  Combination paperboard and
               solid bleached kraft paperboard—comparison
               of costs and environmental impacts; final re-
               port. Kalamazoo, Mich., Boxboard Research
               and Development Association, Dec. 1, 1972.
               44 p.
Reding, J. T., and B. P. Shepherd [Dow Chemical Company].
               Energy   consumption:  paper,  stone/clay/
               glass/concrete, and food industries; final re-
               port Aug.  1974-Mar.  1975. U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, Apr. 1975. 60 p.
               (Distributed by National Technical Informa-
               tion Service,  Springfield, Va., as PB-241
               926.)

         RELATED PAPERS OF INTEREST
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Economic impact of anticipated paper
               industry  pollution abatement costs.  Pt. 3.
               Economic analysis. Washington, Council on
               Environmental Quality, Nov. 1971. 70 p.
               (Distributed by National Technical Informa-
               tion Service,  Springfield, Va., as PB-207
               146.)
Atkins, P. R. Recycling can cut energy demand dramatically.
               E/MJ  [Engineering and  Mining Journal],
               174(5):69-71, May 1973.
Ayres, R., J. Saxton, and M. Stern  [International Research
               and  Technology Corporation],  Materials-
               process-product model; a  feasibility demon-
               stration based on the bottle manufacturing
               industry; final report 1RT-305-FR. [Wash-
               ington] ,   National   Science   Foundation,
               July 9, 1974. 1 v. (various pagings).
Bailie, R. C., B. T. Riley, Jr., and R. Zaltzman. PVC bottles
               score in environmental test. Modern Plastics,
               50(7):52-58, July 1973.
Ballard, D.  W. An American view of problems of materials
               conservation. ASTM [American Society for
               Testing   and  Materials]  Standardization
               News, 3(l):26-32, Jan. 1975.
Bever, M. B. Raw materials: energy and environmental con-
               straints.  Science, 185(4146):99,  July  12,
               1974. [Letter to  the editor.]
Bower,  B.  T.,  and D.  J. Basta. Residuals-environmental
               quality management; applying the concept.
               Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, Center
               for Metropolitan Planning and  Research,
               Oct. 1973. 88 p.
Brooks, D. B., and P. W. Andrews.  Mineral resources, eco-
               nomic   growth,   and  world  population.
               Science, 185(4145):13-19, July 5, 1974.
Bullard, C. W., Ill, and R. A. Herendeen. Energy impact of
                consumption decisions. CAC Document No.
                135.  Urbana, University of Illinois, Center
                for  Advanced  Computation, Oct.  1974.
                32 p.
Claussen, E. L. Packaging source reduction; can industry and
                government cooperate? Environmental Pro-
                tection Publication  SW-136. Washington,
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct.
                1974. 17 p.

Conservation in materials utilization; a report of the Federa-
               tion of Materials Societies for the National
               Commission on Materials Policy. Materials
               Evaluation, 31(4):lr-28r, Apr.  1973.
Duke, J. M. Patterns of fuel and energy consumption in the
               U.S. pulp and paper industry.  [New York],
               American Paper Institute, Mar. 1974. 23 p.,
               app.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Energy manage-
               ment  in manufacturing;  1967-1990. v.  1.
               Summary  report. Washington, Council on
               Environmental Quality, Aug. 1, 1974. 84 p.
Folk, H., and B. Harmon. An  energy,  pollution and employ-
               ment policy model. CAC Document No. 68.
               Urbana, University  of  Illinois, Center  for
               Advanced   Computation,  Feb.  10,  1973.
               18 p.
Gordian Associates Inc. Potential for energy conservation in
               nine  selected industries;  the data  base.
               Washington, U.S. Federal Energy  Adminis-
               tration, June  1974. 505 p.
Gyftopoulos,  E. P., L. J. Lazaridis, and T. Widmer. Potential
               fuel  effectiveness in industry. Cambridge,
               Mass.,  Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974.
               89 p.  (Energy  Policy Project of the Ford
               Foundation.)
Harris, J.  F.  Role of total process concepts  in evaluating
               pulping research. Madison, Wis., U.S. Forest
               Service, Forest  Products  Laboratory, Apr.
               1975. 7 p., app.
Hunt, R. G., and T. C. Kennel. The concept of total environ-
               ment impact  analysis for competitive mater-
               ials and uses and environmental costs  of
               selected  packaging   plastics.  Presented  at
               74th National Meeting, American Institute
               of Chemical  Engineers and the 7th Petro-
               chemical  and  Refining  Exposition,  New
               Orleans, Mar. 15, 1973. 15 p.
Impact of energy costs, environmentalist!!, and technological
               change upon raw  materials  competition.
               Enfield, Conn., DeBell  & Richardson, Inc.,
               June 1974. 1  v.  (various pagings).
Lowe,  K.  E.  Recyclers claim  environmental benefits  for
               secondary  fibers. Pulp and Paper,  48(1):
               70-72, Jan. 1974.
Lowe, R. A.,M. Loube, and F. A. Smith. Energy conservation
               through improved solid waste management.
               Environmental  Protection  Publication SW-
               125. Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protec-
               tion Agency,  1974. 39 p.
Meyers, P. G. The potential for energy conservation in the
               pulp  and  paper  industry.   Paper Trade
               Journal, 159(7/8):68-71, Feb. 17/24, 1975.
Midwest Research Institute. Studies assessing Federal energy
               research and development programs in the

-------
142
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
               areas of environmental effects, environmen-
               tal control technology and energy conserva-
               tion. Washington, Council on Environmental
               Quality, Apr. 9, 1975. 13 p., app.
No deposit,  no return; a  report  on beverage containers.
               Albany, N. Y., State Senate, Task Force on
               Critical Problems, Feb. 1975. 106 p., app.
Myers, J. G. et al. Energy consumption in manufacturing.
               Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger Publishing Com-
               pany,  1974. 656 p. (Energy Policy Project
               'of the  Ford Foundation.)
Newman, D. K., and D. D. Wachtel. The American energy
               consumer.  Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger Pub-
               lishing  Company, 1975.  384  p. (Energy
               Policy Project of the Ford Foundation.)
Poole, A.  Potential  energy recovery  from  organic wastes;
               first draft. [New York], Ford Foundation,
               Energy Policy Project, June 13,1974. 143 p.
               (Unpublished report.)

Samtur,  H. R. Glass recycling and reuse. IES  Report 17.
               Madison, University of Wisconsin, Institute
               for  Environmental  Studies,  Mar.  1974.
               100 p.
                            Schipper, L. Energy conservation: its nature, hidden benefits
                                           and hidden barriers. In American Chemical
                                           Society.  Energy   and  environment:  the
                                           chemical viewpoint. (In preparation.)
                            Simms, W. C. Ecology ratings—a new frontier. Modern Pack-
                                           aging, 47(7): 18-21, July 1974.
                            Slinn, R. J. Sources and utilization of energy in the U.S. pulp
                                           and paper industry. New  York, American
                                           Paper Institute, 1973.17 p.
                            Stanford Research Institute. Patterns of energy consumption
                                           in  the United States.  [Prepared  for the
                                           Office of Science and Technology, Executive
                                           Office of the President.] Washington, U.S.
                                           Government  Printing  Office, Jan. 1972.
                                           156 p., app.
                            Welch, R. O., W. E. Franklin, and R. G. Hunt. Resource and
                                           environmental profile analysis  of solid waste
                                           disposal and resource recovery options. MRI
                                           Reprint 1158. Kansas City, Mo., Midwest
                                           Research Institute,  June 1974. 30 p.
                            Williams, R., ed. The energy conservation papers. Cambridge,
                                           Mass., Ballinger Publishing Company, 1975.
                                           416 p. (Energy Policy Project of the Ford
                                           Foundation.)
                                                                                                            pa!360
                                                                                                            SW-600
                                                                      « U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977 720-116/5719

-------