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
------- |