United Slates Off ice of Solid Waste SW 3004
Environmental Protection Washington DC 20460 1978
Agency
Solid Waste
&EPA Resource Recovery
Technology
An Implementation
Seminar Workbook
-------
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY
AN IMPLEMENTATION SEMINAR WORKBOOK
U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Revised Edition, 1978
-------
This workbook (SW-3004) contains copies of some
of the slides presented by the Resource Recovery Division
of the Office of Solid Waste at its seminars.
-------
g ฃ* \
f 2J77 I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V ,r<^ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Welcome . . .
to this resource recovery seminar presented by the Office of Solid Waste
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The purpose of the seminar is to provide an overview of the status
of resource recovery and a discussion of implementation procedures. We
believe that this information can be particularly helpful to municipal
and State agencies that are considering implementation of resource recovery.
We view this activity as augmenting the in-depth technical assistance which
is to be provided through the Resource Conservation Panels program mandated
by the recently enacted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
In utilizing our own staff for presentation of this seminar, we in
no way presume to be the foremost expert on each of the subjects presented.
However, based on our tracking of nationwide activities in resource
recovery, our experience in providing technical assistance, and our
involvement in demonstration and evaluation projects, we hope to be able
to provide a unique "third-party" perspective to this subject. We will
endeavor to be fair and even-handed, yet honest and objective in the
process.
-------
In an attempt to make available a wide range of information, we
have included references to technical reports to supplement the information
which will be presented at the seminar. In addition, we have provided
each registrant with a package of publications which includes an eight-part
EPA publication series called: Resource Recovery Implementation: A Guide for
Municipal Officials.
This is one in a series of regional seminars, and will be presented
to State and local governments on a more individual basis if requested.
We thank you for your attendance and hope that this will be an
informative and productive experience for both you and EPA.
StefffijfW. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
-------
o u_
z ^
CD o:
oi o;
CD UJ
o co
OL
O.
O
O =t
I-H o:
1 CO
a:
s; to
ce z
o o
"-" < Li l
CQ I I
O CO
UJ UJ ซC
I a. <
CO 1-1
1-1 o cj
CO Z UJ
co
i i
CO O
~~)
O 1
^ ^ ^^
a: uj
c-C ^~
^_
0
o
__l
o
z
o
UJ
1
oQ
1
z.
LLJ
CO
M UJ CO
ci CD J 1 1 1
ZC eC CO
Z
^
CO
ซ=c
. i
a:
z.
^^
Z Di
C_) CQ
-------
LIST OF EPA
REGIONAL CONTACTS
II,
III.
IV.
Dennis Huebner
Solid Waste Program
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-5775
Michael F. Debonis
Solid Waste Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-0503/4/5
C. Howard/Wm. Schremp
Solid Waste Program
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-8116
James Scarbrough
Solid Waste Section
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-3116
Karl J. Klepitsch, Jr.
Solid Waste Program
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2197
VI. Richard 0. Amber
Solid Waste Program
1201 Elm Street
First Intl. Bldg.
Dallas, Texas 75270
(214) 767-2734
VII. Morris G. Tucker
Solid Waste Section
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64108
(816) 374-3307
VIII. Lawrence P. Gazda
Solid Waste Branch
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 837-2221
IX. Charles Bourns
Solid Waste Program
215 Freemont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 556-4606/7/8
X. Tobias A. Hegdahl
Solid Waste Program
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1260
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY
AN IMPLEMENTATION SEMINAR
AGENDA
DAY 1
TIME TOPIC
8:00-9:00 am REGISTRATION
9:00-9:15 am INTRODUCTION AND STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATIONS
9:15-9:45 am IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
9:45-10:45 am MARKETS
10:45-11:00 am COFFEE BREAK
11:00-12:15 pm SOURCE SEPARATION
12:15-1:30 pm LUNCHEON
1:30-2:00 pm COMPATIBILITY
2:00-3:00 pm MECHANICAL PROCESSING
3:00-3:15 pm COFFEE BREAK
3:15-4:30 pm DIRECT COMBUSTION
-------
DAY 2
TIME TOPIC
8:30-9:45 am REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
9:45-10:00 am COFFEE BREAK
10:00-10:45 am PYROLYSIS
10:45-11:30 am CO-DISPOSAL
11:30-12:00 pm METHANE RECOVERY
12:00-1:30 pm LUNCHEON
1:30-2:15 pm INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE
AND WASTE OIL RECOVERY
2:15-2:45 pm HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
2:45-3:00 pm COFFEE BREAK
3:00-3:30 pm ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
3:30-4:30 pm CONTRACTS, RISKS AND FINANCING
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Status of Implementations
Implementation Approach
Markets
Source Separation
Compatibility
Mechanical Processing
Direct Combustion
Refuse-derived Fuel
Pyrolysis
Co-disposal
Methane Recovery
Waste Exchange and Oil Recovery
Health, Safety and Environmental Considerations
Economic Considerations
Contracts, Risks and Financing
Reading List
MARGIN INDEX - To use, bend book in half and follow margin index to the
page with black-edge marker.
-------
-------
Introduction and Status of Implementations
-------
INTRODUCTION
I. SEMINAR OBJECTIVES
A. Purpose
B. Who is it for?
II. SEMINAR MATERIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
A. Workbook
B. Publications
C. Plan for presentations
D. Schedule
III. BACKGROUND
A. RCRA mandates
B. Activities of Resource Recovery Division
C. Driving forces
IV. CURRENT STATUS
A. Source separation
B. Mechanical systems
-------
CU
ro
Q
Q.
3
co in in
10 r-. i
1 to r--.
i-- i--. r-ป
CM
r-- to to r
CTป CT> CT*
to in *j-
Is* t*ป. r^
> CT* O> CTi
O)
c
i.
cu
O
CO
10
, CU >,
O O 4J > O 4->
O O -r- CU O -i-
- S. r- U- J. .-
o
o
og CU
co
ฃ CD
J-> >>
ro >
CU
oB to
to
>) CU
4-> O
r- O
r S-
r- D-
4->
co
CO
CD
o
o
S-
a.a)
U_
L.-.c
-P4JQ-I--PQ 4->-t->4->(O-l->4JiO
O)
o
LU
r- Q
O Q.
ns I
OD
l-~.
O1
UJ JZ
x: o
1-4 S-
* =
a:
UJ
a:
o
O
00
O
>-
O O O
O O O
CM -3- r>-
o o o o o o o
un in ซ^- VD LT> ro o
LO CM i i O
o o o
CM 10 LO
r>. co r-~
o o o
o cvi o
CM CM
a>
o.
to
r-*
4-> tO
CO >,
O i
O. O
E U_ S-
O Q >,
cj oe Q-
U- ^3 O U_ 4-> Z3 U_
Q O 3 Q CD <_> O
a: s: 3 ce 3 s: a:
CJ CJ ti
333
2 3 Qi
cu
o
o
cu
Qi
, d)
c
rO
..E
4-* O
CU 3
s: 3
to
i
to
O
S-
C
o
(O
o
o
y^l
o
t 1
H-
^^
Qi
LU
Q.
O
^^
H 4
to
s:
LU
1
O
1
fO E
> <0
>^ >^
tO S-
E ro
E S
CU
Q. ro ซ
3 cu
ซ O S-
ro i i O
E E
O ซ<-
0 tO 4J
4-> O) i
i E ro
e^ ^ rf\
Q to
" 40
-a cu
E to
(O to 3
i 4-> _C CU
>, 4J O J-
S- tO CU ro T-
ro rO CO CO -C C
S >.*: ro ro O
4-> S- to ซ ZC O
E ซa; to s- o to
3 ro CU -i- 3 !-
o -s: 4J j= cu 3
CJ CU ro O 'ZZ.
r- - S
dj i CU CU ซ ** CU
S- -i- CU O1 E E CU
O > i. T3 -i- O -^
E CU 4-> -r- i 4-> 3
r- JC E S- -* CU rO
4J +J -i- CQ E > S
i >, ro ro O r-
ro i S- . i- S- -i-
CO CO CO LU ' ' O ^"
rO
E
O)
r- ro
E tO 4->
S. CO E CO
CU O 4-> fO CU
CU -^ M- -t-* -^ 3
to S- T- CU s_
to - fO 3 E
C E O -E " O
E -f- 3 O CO 4->
CU CO CU * ro CD to
h- S- 2: to to E CU
i CU tO 'I r
"> ซ"O ro 1- S-
cu cu s- s: Q. to
i ปT3 CU CO -E
1 24. ! > " O
r- i tO tO E
> O C CO 3 ro .C
-ฃ <ป- ro O CD O 4->
to i- CU i 3 i 3
(O O O (O rO T- O
'Z. 'Z. O D_ CO CO CO
o
tO T-
M- ^
tO
CO C
3 O
-a E
E 0)
O Q
CJ
i O
cu
4-> Q.
ro II
3 Q
II
CJ >
cu c
3 O
xi to
01 3
> -Q
cu o
T3
I S-
Ol n3
to r
3 3
<+- -o
cu o
az s
n H
u_ 3
Q CJ
a; s:
-------
z.
0
i i
i
h-
z.
LU
s:
LU
_J
0.
S
CO
LU
I i
1
I i
_l
I I
O
Ll_
LU
(_ CO
CO ^^
^r cn
3 "~
o fi
LU H
x ^
1 1 *
2: s
>-
LU
O
o
LU
OL
LU
O
OL
O
LU
o:
u_
o
>-
Di
(^
3T*
;gr
rs
CO
Complete
Markets Construction
^^
CO
-p
o
3
-o
o
S-
d.
>,
Px
i- Q
u o.
to I
Q.^ ^
O3
O
*
CU
Q.
>,
h?
E
O
r
+->
03
O
O
_1
Q.
__J
t
o:
i
CO
ZL
^ i
ry^
o
^yy
O
14
I
0
ZD
o:
i
CO
^^
o
o
ct:
LU
Q
~z*"
i
CO
s:
LU
1
CO
CO
00 00
1"""% r**"ป
r-N. ^o
c^
p-~ ซV
O r-
o 03
03 1 .
CU Lu CD
P Q
CO OL
0 O
0 O
0 00
^ f"
o
^se
^^
"**>.
f~) O
Qi Qi|
ปJ_J
13
O
-
0
r- CU
f ^^
P^
1 1 ซ
-a
o cu
CT)-P
03 CO
U Q.
f ^
c- CU
C_3 "T"
co co
ro cr>
ซ\
cu
Lu
"^e
*^g
\
Q Q
a: OL
\x
S-
0
E
0 3
CT) CU
CUZ
S-
o ซ
>^
*l .{_>
^ c
E O
3 O
O
o cu
E E
03 O
_i s:
---.
p*
r
r
CO T-
co -P
*o ~~*
r |
CD CO
03
CD
>^
^.
CU
>
o
o
cu
o;
ai
E
03
-E
CU
s:
^ ^,
Q
N- ^
03
r~
E
S-
o
lt-
r
r
03
<_)
ซt
3
cu
r-
^ป
E
r-
03
-P
E
3
O
s:
CO
*l
to
C/)
CO
r
*>
cu
u_
n
CO
3
O
%- S-
S- (U
M- 03
C CU
O
z.
0
^o
C/)
r *
nj
r^
s-
a?
i % i ^
CO CO
0 0
O VD
CM i
CM
C->
"^g
~g
^
Q 3
a: 3
^ .
T3
$-
/O
>j
ซ^>
ซr-
C"
co
\x . ^
i-
o - -r-
E
3---
O) C71
^ S-
1
** >ป
CO
r**~* M
i ^
03 -P
LU 3
O
03 E
S- CO
03 -P
CT) S-
p- O
z. a.
rt
^
r-
i CO
P CO
^D 03
1 i
r CD
CU
3 >
Lu r-
et
a
3 CU
CTLU
r-
1
0
o
CM
CO
r-
CO
>j
^~
O
^-
>,
*~^
t ^
*^**
03
r-
E
S-
O
t-
1
^
m
o
M
0
CT)
CU
Q
E
O3
CO
*
5-
CU
O
CO
p
(O
cu
cu
CO
^
s^_
o
-(->
o
ซo
s_
M-
cu
ry
II
i i
3
OL
n
E
O
r
4-*
CO
3
-Q
0
1
ro
3
S-
cu
P
03
3
II
3
3
* *
1
o>
3
LU
o
o>
>
r
i-
O)
o
i
cu
CO
13
t-
cu
II
Lu
o
OL
*
E
O
p
ro
S-
co
E
0
O
o
o
II
Q
rv
CU
4_>
CO
1
^
03
3
O)
4->
03
II
O
3
^^
LU
1 \
OL
A
P
r
E
:D
E
0
I
-P
t/)
Z3
-f*l
ฃ
o
C_5
S-
(X3
r
Z3 >i
-a -P
iฃ
II T-
=>
-------
Implementation Approach
-------
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
I. PRIMARY FACTORS
A. Markets
B. Waste supply
C. Technologies
D. Procurement strategy
E. Performance requirements
II. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
A. Procurement
B. Financing
III. ISSUES
A. Compatibility
B. Citizen acceptance
-------
MARKETS
I
WASTE SUPPLY
TECHNOLOGIES
"1
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
-------
D)
O
3
+ป
(0
O
O
(0
c
o
CD
c
(0
c
I .111
1$ ง5
O O O CO
c
0
ฃ
3
O
O
W
c
_^ o
*"
0)
c
o
QL C -J3
ซ .0
CC CO Z
111
cb
CO
D)
c
'E
c
JS
a.
(0
c
o
"35
O
>
0}
c
o
O o>
(Q
giซi?
ป i Iss0-!
gฃc
o oOOerE
.t. CD
-------
Markets
-------
MARKETS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. "Markets first"
B. Wasteville, USA
II. MARKETING TECHNIQUES
A. Three marketing steps
1. Identification
2. Preliminary commitment
3. Contract
B. Waste composition defines potential products
III. ENERGY PRODUCTS FROM SOLID WASTE
A. Energy products recovered from a ton of solid waste
B. Potential buyers
C. RDF
1. Capacities of potential users
2. Are electric utilities a viable market?
3. Experience in marketing
D. Steam
1. Considerations in marketing
2. Experience in marketing
-------
E. Electricity
1. Considerations in marketing
2. Experience in marketing
F. Gas and oil
1. Considerations in marketing
2. Experience in marketing
IV. MATERIAL PRODUCTS FROM SOLID WASTE
A. Ferrous metals
1. Alternative users/values
2. Buyer requirements
B. Nonferrous metals
1. Aluminum users/values
2. Mixed nonferrous users/values
C. Glass
1. Use/value as cullet
2. Use/value as aggregate
D. Paper
1. Matching of users and grades
2. Values
-------
o
H
5
o
iE
H
O
MARKET 1
"2.
O
CO
CO
D
O
CO
o
UJ
1-
<
i
H
-Z
Q
Z
<
CO
DC
UJ
CO
D
TASK
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
>
H
lico
<ฃ
Dm
rt m
-j^
<%
jtZ *
ฃ5
za
UJ UJ
O DC
OUTPUTS
DATA ON:
PROMISING BUYERS
CO
UJ
^j
^
5
^*
LU
%
X
0
DC
a_
Q.
<
QUANTITIES SALABLE
UJ
CO
l-
DC
UJ
a.
REMINDERS
USE APPROPRIATE EX
D
2L
rf
^^
^
KNOW WASTE STREAI
CO
RECOVERY POTENTIAI
BE THOROUGH
CO
Q
UJ
UJ
UNDERSTAND USER N
CO
UJ
_j
O
<
CO
CD
O
BE AWARE OF LEGAL i
-------
H
UJ
O
O
oe
<
i
LU
oc
ฑ
W
<
c/>
z
UJ
O
O
CQ
O
cd
o
u_
O
UJ
Q.
UJ
|
O
a
yj
Z
DC
UJ
O
Z
D
uj ^
K ง
S o
LL Z
O <
u
O
o
UJ
UJ
O
O
O
Z
P o
LU UJ
0
w
Q
H O
< LL
O LU
CQ
o ฃ
UJ
1C
UJ
z < o
D O O
-------
o
cc
o
o
cc
O
Li.
W
CO
z
LU
CO D
G O
M
H DC
O
O O
O Q.
2 g
< LU
CQ LU
o o
CO
a.
CO
o
O
o
co
uj
O
LU r:
I- oc
Q u
z i
1
CO
LU
Q
uu
.
a 2
g o
O
OQ
LU
CO O
= LU
LU
CO
CO
: o
9 LU
d < o
O ? cc
LJL LL Q-
-------
LU
LLJ
-------
UJ
gfe
cc <
z o
iu =s
i
u.
OH
UJ
w
i
UJ
1
O
Q
i
&
LO
I
in
O
cc
LJJ
UJ
0)
-Q
CM
ca-
o
-Q
-Q
to-
DC
-------
0)
UJ
u.
= D
CC
(0 UJ
Si
6
2
LU
o
Z
LU
D
1
J
LL
Z
CC
o
0
<
LL
CC
o
^
LL
LU
P
CO
o
0.
CJ
^ STRON
TT^
LU
O
<
2
^M
o
CO
D
CL
LU
jl
Z
LU
O
Z
O
Z
DC
O
k LITTLE
'*
LU
P
UJ
O
Z
O
5
o
Z
o
o
LU
-1
CL
CL
CO
1-
^
O
LL
Z
0
CO
o
Z
-ฑ-
'W'
1
LU
D
LL
LU
^
Z
CC
LU
1-
-J
4
|_
y
rj'
Z
o
0
>-
^
-A-
'W1
Z
o
CO
CO
X
t
Z
LU
H
co
CO
Z
o
o
CO
LU
1-
z
^
1
CC
LU
o
Z
D
A
^w
^
b
s
CO
LU
LL
_J
o
Z
I
o
LU
h-
-------
Ul
D
Q
OC
u.
O
O
<
UJ LL
LJJ -I
ZO
II
HI
s
HI
occ
CO
r
= O LL
CC LL.
0.
-------
Q
a:
ct:
LjJ
ii
o:
Q.
X
^ >
3
LU -M
O CQ
K- 1 ฃ
CC g
O- --v
b^
s^^
cc.
UJ
CO
ZD
CO
Z3
r-
<
h-
oo
^-^
CO
O CO
0 0
i_
r- CD
>->
E
re
D_
s-
cu
2
o
Q_
r~~
re
CL
P
o
p-
E
3
s:
CD
E
p
4->
fb
i.
CU
CL
o
re
s
0
i i
rt
CO
CU
F^
ซt
O
oo
o
0
CJ
E
O
to
P-
-o
LU
J=
^
P
re
cu
2
E
O
e
B
0
CJ
E
~s.
0
o
Of
^.
(C
jr
co
to
P
O
c:
r-"
1 i
ft
o
CD
re
o
i
-C
CJ
T3
CU
M
cu re
-0 T-
4->
0 0
1 CD
cu
^
0
o
i-
cu
2
o
Q_
O
CU
LU
E
CO
E
O
0
to
r-
3s
CD
E
i
4->
ro
i-
CU
ex
o
E
to
E
O
O
to
5
*ป
CD
CU
-*
3
re
s
r
r-
2:
"O
cu
+J
cu re
.a -P-
M
o o
h- CD
cu
zz
o
CJ
c
(J
cu
p
LU
o3
to
re
CD
i-
cu
+->
to
cu
-C
o
o
Of
E
o
p
4->
o
3
V
(->
00
E
o
0
.*:
s_
o
>-
s
cu
z:
ft
$
E
3
O
O
01
O
i~
E
O
o
cu
+>
cu re
jQ !-
4->
o o
h- CD
cu
z.
o
CJ
CD
E
4J
re
E
i
E
3
p
i i
-o
CU
-l->
"1
E
:D
E
O
'r
4->
(J
3
S-
4->
to
E
O
o
4->
3
CJ
p
-4-*
O
cu
ฃH
E
O
0
4->
S-
o
CL
CU
CD
-a
p-
i.
CQ
X3
CU
4->
cu re
JD -P-
-(-)
0 0
r CD
QJ
zz.
-a
cu
CL
o
"QJ
>
cu
Q
CU
J2
0
h-
i
c:
0
4->
O
3
S- !
.+-> 1
00
c !
o
(_)
o
C1
0'
o
OH
>)
+->
C
3
O
CJ
cu
c
re
_i j
-------
<
1U
UJ
UJ
o
Q.
X
C/5
. .Q
in !ZZ
O^^
Q^J
o
CC 0
Q. ^
LU
CO
D
LU
Q.
ง
LU
|
CO
0
o>
LO
CD
ICT HEATIIX
COOLING
DC
CO
O
CO
CO
LU
CC
0_
ol
LU
o
J
1
^
^
^
X
CO
&
1
JDUSTRIAL
e.
m
CO
CO
LU
CC
0.
ol
LU
X
CD
X
CO
D
CD
D
CO
0
o
CO
CD
"Z.
RICT HEATI
CO
Q
CO
CO
LU
CC
DL
CL
LU
O
_J
LU
CC
o
^>
H
m
o
o
CO
CD
~9
(ICT HEATIF
JDUSTRIAL
U_ e-
CO
o
CO
CO
LU
cc
0_
Cu
LU
0
-J
^.
o
cc
<
-------
u O
O
UJ
ฃ
a.
X
111
ui X
O ง
*ฃ
DC
LU
CO
D
0
CN
1
IX
go
is
CO 2
O "
3 3
j
s
G
LU
CO
CL
ง
LU
X
\
H-
g
cb
DC
LU
O
O.
G
CC
0
I
LL
5
LL
s
6
o
LU
G
^
G
-------
MATERIALS FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Component
Steel
Non-Ferrous
Glass
Newspaper
Percent*
8
1
10
6
Recovery
Efficiency
75-95
40-70
40-70
40-70
Gross
Value
($)
20-50
200-350
2-30
10-35
Revenue Per
Ton of Waste
($)
1.30-3.80
.80-2.45
.10-2.10
.40-1.50
^National Average
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, Resource Recovery Division, April 1977.
Notes: (1) Based on "most likely" outputs and values. Examples
outside of these ranges are possible.
(2) These are gross values and do not consider either the
cost to produce these products or the cost of transport
to a user.
-------
0)
o
1U
u.
OC
o
IL
0)
UJ
in
O
cc 2
< t;
O <ฃ
Q.
h-
DC
O
LL
CC
LLI
0)
D
O
LU
<*
LOOSE
-INCINER/
Z
O
Z
DETINNERS
-------
I
0)
o
cc
CC
cc
O
Ik
ft
u
UJ
0
E ฃ
< t;
o <ฃ
E
*>
DC
0
li-
CC
UJ
CO
D
CO
IS J
ซ LL ^
ง O io
O
UJ
cc
CO ^
2z
z
o
z
DETINNERS
UJ
CO
O
O
COPPER
RECIPITATORS
Q.
UJ
CO
Z
UJ
0
STEEL MILLS
ON FOUNDRIES
1 ฃ
i
UJ
CO
UJ
O
NTERMEDIATE
PROCESSOR
-------
MARKETS FOR NON-FERROUS METAL
Typical Price*
User Form ($/Ton)
Primary Producers
Secondary Smelters
Intermediate Processor
Clean Aluminum
Medium Aluminum
Mixed Aluminum
Mixed Non-Ferrous
300 -
200 -
200 -
200 -
350
250
250
250
York Market Price - March 1977 - F.O.B. Recovery Plants.
-------
0)
0)
5
cc
o
LJL
0)
LU
0
n
si
Q.
1-
CC
O
LL
CC
LU
CO
D
PURITY
X
g
X
CO
h-
CL
CC
LU
1-
O
o
LO
CO
1
o
CM
Q
LU
CC
O
CO
cc
g
o
o
1
cc
LU
1
o
I
o
CO
1
o
CM
Q
LU
X
cc
g
0
o
1
cc
g
o
0
I
LO
|
CM
CO
CO
-I
> o
t sฃ
D ง
0. 1
1
5 co
1
6
CO
2
cc
LU
CO
D
DO
O
I
LU
O
CC
Q.
LU
^
CC
cc
o
LU
2
-------
Q_
t
o:
Q_
CO
3:
LU
Z
CD
cr
Q
LU
1-
^
CO
ID
a:
o
o
CO
Q-l
LU _1
H~ i*
^C ^"
CO
3 Q
a: o:
Qi ^
0 0
O PQ
CD
00
OL
LU
CO
Q
LU
1
CO
z
1 1
1-
1 1
Cฃ
3:
CO
z
II
h-
z
h 1
a:
a.
CD
r-H
coo
SUJ
LU h- a:
z < LU
CO CO
LU a: LU
^ Q^ |
O
2: o
CO
_l z co
-10-1
t t l t 1
21 H~ '
OS
a: 0:0:
-------
Example of
Specification for Heavy Ferrous Metals
Composition: Miscellaneous magnetic steel of various
alloys substantially free of cans for
foods, beverages, and the like.
Dirt: Less than 1%.
Loose Organics: Less than 2%, including small amounts
of paint, paper, food wastes, etc.
Physical Description: Loose, free-flowing pieces, except for
miscellaneous lengths of wire.
Piece Size: 95% passing through an 8 x 8 inch screen,
Bulk Density: In excess of 50 pounds per cubic foot.
-------
Example of
Specification for Light Ferrous
1. Particle Size - 90% 4" or less with not more than 20%
being less than 1" nominal in size.
2. Ferrous Density - Ferrous metal density should be between
20 and 24 pounds per cubic foot.
3. The recovered ferrous metals should not be in a balled form
which would prevent MC&P's liquid chemical cleaners from
reaching 95% of the metals surface.
4. There are no restrictions on inclusions of white goods in
the recovered ferrous as long as such white goods are
processed through shredder mills prior to magnetic separation
and have a particle size not greater than 6" to 8" nominal.
5. Tramp inclusions in the recovered ferrous metal should not
exceed 6%.
-------
EXAMPLE OF
PROPOSED INDUSTRY SPECIFICATION FOR ALUMINUM
RECOVERED FROM MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
GRADE A
The scrap aluminum in mixed municipal refuse must be
separated from all other materials. If the material is
reclaimed using dry processing following thermal treatment
of the refuse, it must be baled to a density of 15-25 pounds
per cubic foot. If the aluminum is separated from raw
refuse or if wet processing techniques are used to separate
the aluminum, the aluminum must be shredded or dried prior
to baling. The shredded material must pass over a U.S.
Standard 12 mesh screen to reduce fines (dust, dirt, sand,
paint, etc.). Fines must not exceed three percent (3%) of
gross weight. The finished product must be baled to a
density of 15-25 lbs./ft. Alternatively, dry shredded
material may be shipped loose if it has a density of 15-25
lbs./ft.^ Analyses will be on the melt of a total shipment.
Each shipment shall yield after melting a total net
weight of at least 85 percent (85%) of the gross weight of
aluminum scrap received and shall contain by chemical
analysis the following maximum elements.
MAXIMUM
ELEMENT WEIGHT PERCENT
Si .30
Fe .60
Cu .25
Mn 1.25
Mg 2.0
Cr .10
Ni .05
Zn .25
Ti .05
Bi .02
Pb .02
Sn .02
Others - Each .04
Others - Total .12
Al remainder
March 1977
-------
EXAMPLE OF
PROPOSED INDUSTRY SPECIFICATION FOR ALUMINUM
RECOVERED FROM MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
GRADE B
The scrap aluminum in mixed municipal refuse must be
separated from all other materials. If the material is
reclaimed using dry processing following thermal treatment
of the refuse, it must be baled to a density of 15-25 pounds
per cubic foot. If the aluminum is separated from raw
refuse or if wet processing techniques are used to separate
the aluminum, the aluminum must be shredded or dried prior
to baling. The shredded materials must pass over a U.S.
Standard 12 mesh screen to reduce fines (dust, dirt, sand,
paint, etc.). Fines must not exceed three percent (3%) of
gross weight. The finished product must be baled to a
density of 15-25 lbs./ft.3 Alternatively, dry shredded
materials may be shipped loose if it has a density of 15-25
lbs./ft.^ Analyses will be on the melt of a total shipment.
Each shipment shall yield after melting a total net
weight of at least 85 percent (85%) of the gross weight of
aluminum scrap received and shall contain by chemical
analysis the following maximum elements.
MAXIMUM
ELEMENT WEIGHT PERCENT
Si .5
Fe 1.0
Cu 1.0
Mn 1.25
Mg 2.0
Cr .3
Ni .3
Zn 1.0
Ti .05
Bi .3
Pb .3
Sn .3
Others - Each .05
Others - Total .15
Al remainder
March 1977
-------
EXAMPLE OF
SPECIFICATION FOR NONFERROUS METALS
Contents: Miscellaneous nonferrous metals,
including non-magnetic stainless
steel.
Size: 100% retained in 1/2 inch screen.
Cleanliness: Minimum 60% by weight metal.
Form: Loose, but not balled and dry.
-------
EXAMPLE OF
SPECIFICATION FOR NON-COLOR SORTED GLASS FINES
1. SCREEN SIZING: 0% retained on 2-inch mesh screen.
10% max. through 140 mesh screen.
2. COLOR; Fines to contain only soda lime glass. No
color mix specified.
3- LIQUID; No drainage from representative sample.
Should be non-caking and free-flowing.
4. ORGANIC MATERIAL; Total paper, plastics and organic
materials max. 0.25%.
5. MAGNETIC METAL; .05% max.
.25 inch max. size.
6. NON-MAGNETIC METAL; SIZE NO. PARTICLES
+20 mesh 1 particle in 40 Ibs.
{max. size 0.25 inch)
7. SOLID INORGANIC OTHER THAN METAL:
7.1 TOTAL INORGANIC AMOUNT: Max. 0.10% (nonrefractory)
SIZE: Max. 0.25 inch
7-2 REFRACTORY งIฃE NO. PARTICLES
+20 mesh 1 particle in 40 Ibs.
(Max. size 0.25 inch)
-20+40 mesh 2 particles in 1 Ib.
-40+60 mesh 20 particles in 1 Ib.
Special note -- it is anticipated that this product will be
from flotation and size reduction processes where
non-magnetic metals and refractory particles will have
been removed.
-------
Example of
Specification for Waste Newspapers
Consists of newspaper packed in bales of not less than
54 inches in length, containing less than five percent of
other papers.
Prohibitive materials may not exceed 0.5%
Total outthrow may not exceed 2%
Source: Paper Stock Institute of America, Specification
Circular PS-72.
-------
ADVANCE LETTER OF INTENT TO BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF RECOVERED PRODUCTS
WHEREAS, the
Corporation (hereinafter called the CORPORATION) endorses resource
recovery from municipal solid waste as a means toward a cleaner
environment and preservation of natural resources; and,
WHEREAS, the CORPORATION recognizes the need to develop firm
expressions of intent to purchase materials or energy products
recovered from waste within known financial parameters as part of
the planning process for a new endeavor such as this; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Anytown (hereinafter called the JURISDICTION),
is evaluating the prospects of substituting resource recovery for the
traditional means of solid waste disposal in its area; and,
WHEREAS, the JURISDICTION recognizes the need to establish product
revenue bases for the determination of the economic feasibility of
processing up to tons per day of municipal solid waste to
produce up to tons per day of (herein-
after known as the PRODUCT) in a form usable and acceptable to the
CORPORATION according to the Specifications attached to the AGREEMENT
and made part hereof; and,
Page 1 of 7 pages
-------
WHEREAS, the JURISDICTION may wish to assign this AGREEMENT to
either public or private groups (hereinafter called the ASSIGNEE) who
may operate a resource recovery facility for the JURISDICTION and thus
have a requirement for a user of the quantity of PRODUCT herein described,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the fact that the legal authority to
sell recovered products may rest upon a requirement to advertise for the
purchase of such products, it is mutally agreed between the CORPORATION
the JURISDICTION that:
I. The CORPORATION, as an expression of its support of the
municipal solid waste recovery program, agrees to:
(1) offer herein a firm commitment to bid for the purchase
of tons per day of the recovered PRODUCT at
prices not less than those entered here should the
JURISDICTION or its ASSIGNEE be required or decide to
effect a competitive procurement; and,
(2) agrees that if public bidding is not necessary and not
the course chosen by the JURISDICTION or its ASSIGNEE,
then the conditions of the AGREEMENT may be considered
as a bona fide offer to purchase the recovered PRODUCT
at prices not less than those stated here.
Page 2 of 7 pages
-------
(3) respond, should a bid be required, with a bona fide
offer to purchase which will include the following:
(a) It will be a firm bid for five (5) years
offering an Exchange Price either fixed
or related to a commodity quote, and if
the Exchange Price is not fixed, it will
offer a Floor Price below which the
Exchange Price will not fall during the
term of the contract.
(b) The periodic price paid shall be $
less than the of the previous
period's quotations published in
(c) If the Exchange Price is not fixed, a
Floor Price will be bid which will not be
below $ per ton f.o.b. (fill in
dollar amount) the recovery facility (or
CORPORATION'S plant - choose one).
(d) The CORPORATION shall retain the right to
reject any material delivered which does
Page 3 of 7 pages
-------
not meet Specifications. Such rejection
will be at the expense of the resource
recovery plant.
(e) The bid will be subject to force majeur.
(f) It will be noted the Additional Conditions
of the CORPORATION covering general terms
and conditions of purchase, acceptance
delivery, arbitration, weights, and
downgrading not explicitly covered in
the Letter of Intent or by reference,
will be negotiated according to good
business practices and include such
Additional Conditions as are attached
to this AGREEMENT and made a part
hereof.
(g) This AGREEMENT is null and void if during
the period between its execution and the
actual bid or negotiated contract the
CORPORATION'S plant ceases operation or
ceases use of this or equivalent grade of
recovered PRODUCT.
Page 4 of 7 pages
-------
II. In accepting the assignment of this AGREEMENT, the JURISDICTION
or its ASSIGNEE agrees:
(1) to see that the recovery plant establishes
specification assurance procedures for the
recovered PRODUCT, using good industrial
quality control practices in recognition of
the CORPORATION'S use technology as practiced
in their __ plant, so as to
produce and offer the recovered PRODUCT for sale
in a form and to the required Specification,
usable in the plant with minimum alterations to
present processing technology and business
practices, and
(2) to require, should a contract be effected as a
result of this AGREEMENT, that the PRODUCT be
delivered to the CORPORATION according to
conditions and prices determined herein and
not diverted to the spot market which may on
occasion be higher than the Exchange Price
determined by the pricing relationship set
forth here or as modified by the contract.
(3) that should the CORPORATION'S plant, as
specified herein, become saturated in its
Page 5 of 7 pages
-------
ability to handle the recovered PRODUCT as
a result of other Letters of Intent issued
by the CORPORATION being converted into
firm contracts for delivery and purchase
prior to effecting such arrangements as a
result of this commitment, the provisions
of this AGREEMENT become null and void.
The JURISDICTION will consult with and obtain the approval of the
CORPORATION concerning its intent to assign this AGREEMENT to any ASSIGNEE
prior to such assignment.
The CORPORATION will communicate to the JURISDICTION or its ASSIGNEE
that information about its use, technology and business practices which
the CORPORATION at its sole discretion shall consider necessary so as to
assure receipt of the recovered material in form and cleanliness necessary
for use by the CORPORATION. Such communication shall be on a nonconfidential
basis, unless otherwise subject to a subsequent confidentiality agreement.
The JURISDICTION in executing this AGREEMENT does not represent or
bind itself to any obligation, legal or otherwise, that a resource recovery
plant will in fact be constructed or placed into operation as a result of
its present efforts.
-------
This AGREEMENT shall become null and void on without
any obligation on either party unless steps toward assignment are made
or it is mutually extended by both the CORPORATION and the JURISDICTION.
Witnessed by: JURISDICTION
By:
Date:
Witnessed by: CORPORATION
By:
Date:
ATTACHMENT
Specification for
-------
-------
Source Separation
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY THROUGH SOURCE SEPARATION
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Outline of talk
B. Waste stream composition
C. Percentage of waste stream recycled
D. Recycling centers
II. SINGLE MATERIAL RECYCLING
A. Aluminum can recycling
B. Paper recovery techniques
1. Corrugated paper
2. High-grade office paper
a. Office waste stream composition
b. Office paper separation case studies
3. Newsprint recovery
a. Separate collection - Fort Worth, Texas
b. Piggyback approach
(1) Rack - Madison, Wisconsin
-------
(2) Other piggyback methods
III. MULTI-MATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION
A. Somerville-Marblehead
B. Other multi-material programs
IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF SOURCE SEPARATION
A. Success factors
B. Contractual elements
C. Factors influencing participation rate
D. Publicity techniques
E. Management plan
-------
UJ
ฃ
UJ
UJ
co o
S3 "*
DC MI
OQ
CM
8
O
I
UJ
00
UJ
S2
EM
I
CM
ul Q-
CC
UJ
Q.
CM
CM
0
(O
o
vt-
-------
^t^mmm
O
H
o
Q.
O
in
CC
UJ
D
LU
o
0
LU
CC
Hi CC
O h-
CO CO
3* LU
- h-
p
CM
t-
1^
H
E
CL
CO
DC !^
UJ Z
Q.
CL
O
LO
CM
O
0
O
LU
o
D
CC
CC
o
o
o
CO
^r
^
CC
LU
a.
CL
LU
0
LL.
LL
O
tO O
CO CM
CM ^t
^t 00
CC
LU
CL
CL
CC
LU
X
1- CO
O CO
o
p
*"
r-m
^f
CO
0
CO
0
CC
CC
LU
LL
0 0
r-" 0
-------
oo iq co
oo c\i ui co
h- QC
o
OLO
O
LU .-
I- <
W Q-
-------
2
Ul
i
Ul
QC
1
Ul
8
LLJ
00
DC
(Q
DC
i
LLJ
DC
S S?
c>i
O
CD
C/)
O
Jb
s
2
_
h-
R
-------
SOMERVILLE-MARBLEHEAD COST ANALYSIS (1976)
Revenue
Disposal Savings
Incremental Collection Costs
Net Savings
Somerville
$32,449
36,225
70,629
(1,825)
Marblehead
$34,003
37,406
43,649
27,760
-------
Compatibility
-------
COMPATIBILITY
I. COMPATIBILITY ISSUE - DO ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES CONFLICT?
A. Source separation
B. Beverage container deposits
C. Energy and materials recovery plants
II. IMPACT OF SOURCE SEPARATION OF PAPER ON ENERGY RECOVERY
PLANTS
A. Quantity of paper recoverable
B. Impact on Btu content of solid waste
C. Impact on economics of an energy recovery plant
III. IMPACT OF CONTAINER DEPOSITS ON SOURCE SEPARATION
AND MECHANICAL RECOVERY
A. Quantity of metals and glass removed through
deposits
B. Impact on economics of mechanical recovery
C. Impact on source separation
IV. CONCLUSIONS
-------
0s
oo
CO
0s
^
00
^^^M
O
P
oc
<
Q.
LU
LLI
O
LL
LL
O
0.
I
oc
O
u.
sP
0s
00
Q
LU
DC
DC
O
O
LU
_1
CO
LU ^
O
O
LU
DC
LU
_l
CD
<
DC
LU
O
O
LU
OC
O
iy
O
a
Cfl
C/3
ซJ
O
-j
LU
o:
LU
a.
a.
DC
LU
I
h-
O
O 05
Cs!
CO
O)
-------
CO
oo
I 3Q
-
ce cc
iu
>
o
O
LU
D_
LU
OO
ce
UJ
Q_
<
0.
0
"Z*
<
ce
<
Q.
UJ
00
ce
LU
a.
<
a_
-------
CONTAINERS AS A PERCENT OF MATERIALS
IN SOLID WASTE
Containers as a Percent
of Components
Ferrous 15%
Aluminum 38%
Glass 45%
-------
IMPACT OF CONTAINER DEPOSITS ON
MECHANICAL SEPARATION ECONOMICS
Case A
Case B
Case C
Increased Costs
C$/Ton Incoming Haste)
Plants That Don't Include
Glass/Aluminum Recovery
Fe Recovery .30 - .40
Glass/Aluminum 0
.30 - .40
Plant with Glass/Aluminum Recovery
Operations with Reduced Revenues
Fe Recovery .30 - .40
Glass/Aluminum .40 - .50
.70 - .90
Plant Discontinues Glass/Aluminum Recovery
Fe Recovery .30 - .40
Glass/Aluminum .70 -2.00
1.00 -2.40
-------
Mechanical Processing
-------
MECHANICAL PROCESSING AND RECOVERY
I. INTRODUCTION - "ADD-ON" CONCEPT
II. PREPROCESSING FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY
A. Dry processing
1. Shred
2. Air classify
3. "Light" and "heavy" fractions
B. Wet processing
1. Hydropulper
2. Liquid cyclone
III. MATERIALS RECOVERY SUBSYSTEMS
A, Paper fiber recovery
1. Equipment
2. Droduct
3. Franklin, Ohio demonstration results
B. Ferrous metals recovery
] Equipment
?., Product
3. Postcombustion recovery
C. Glass and nonferrous metals concentrates
1. Trommel
-------
D. Nonferrous metals recovery
1. Recovery of a mixed nonferrous product
2. Recovery of an aluminum product
a. Concept
b. Product characteristics
3. Recovery equipment
a. Jig
b. Eddy current separator
4. Economics of aluminum recovery
E. Glass recovery
1. Recovery of glassy aggregate
a. Recovery techniques
b. Uses of aggregate
2. Gullet recovery
a. Froth flotation
(1) Equipment.
(2) Product
(3) Economics
b. Color sorting
(1) Equipment
(2) Product
(3) Franklin, Ohio demonstration results
IV, STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR GLASS AND METALS RECOVERY
V. SUMMARY OF MATERIALS RECOVERY THROUGH MECHANICAL PROCESSES
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY PROCESSING
Pre-processing
o Shredding/pulping
o Classification
Heavy Fraction
o Ferrous metals
o Nonferrous metals
o Glass
o Rocks/dirt
o Misc.
0
0
0
0
Light Fraction
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Misc.
-------
COMPOSITION OF HEAVY FRACTION1
FROM AIR CLASSIFICATION
Combustibles 37.5
Glass 28.5
Ferrous 11.4
Non-Ferrous 6.8
Other Non-Combustibles 15.8
^Average based on tests at the St. Louis RDF plant and the NCRR
Environmental Test and Evaluation Facility in Washington, D. C.
Assumes that 90 percent of ferrous metals are removed.
-------
ALUMINUM RECOVERY ECONOMICS
$/Ton Raw
Waste Input
Probable Gross Revenues 0.75 - 2.00
Probable Processing Costs 0.75 - 1.25
Net Revenues (0.50)- 1.25
-------
GLASS GULLET RECOVERY ECONOMICS
(FROTH FLOTATION)
$/Ton Raw
Waste Input
Probable Gross Revenues 0.50 - 1.75
Probable Processing Costs 1.25 - 2.00
Net Revenues (1.50)- 0.50
-------
GLASS GULLET RECOVERY ECONOMICS
(Color Sorting)
Dollars/ton
raw waste input
(500 tpd (1000 tpd
msw facility) msw facility)
Probable gross revenues (includes glass
and misc. ferrous and nonferrous
metals)
$2.78
$2.78
Probable processing and facility
amortization costs
$3.46
$2.30
NET COST (profit)
$ .68
($.48)
-------
cc
111
O
o
u ^
cc O
0)
(D
O "-
Z
ui
O
EL
IL
UJ
\
to
t
Z
-------
O
o
LU
O
cc
DC
LJJ
U.
O
(A
5
S
DC
111
Q
Z
o
o
D
DC
CO
Z
o
o
Z
o
Q
LU
CO
Z
CL
O
-------
O
u
CO
<0
a
u.
o
I
z
o
UNDER
CONSTRUCTI
O
O
UJ
Nj/
^"
Z
CO
-J
<
z
2
H**
^
sr
UJ
Q.
O
HEMPSTEAD, N
.6
13 w
^ O
ซ
5? o
^ป ซ
DC 3C
"" O
O
OH
-J DC
00
O CO
2"
^ซ
* o
NEW ORLEANS,
BRIDGEPORT, C
MONROE CO., IS
^ป.
Si
UJ UJ
EB
z j
co o
z !
2
H H
O Q
GC It
u, u.
9
0
ซ*ป_
MILWAUKEE, V\
LU
ec .
O Q Q
H" * UJ
-d O Q
< C -
m
1
2 !
UK
CO
UJ
^
ฃฃ
< 1
LU
h-
S S
-fati^ I
JซS^I J"*""
KG
oo
-------
-------
Direct Combustion
-------
DIRECT COMBUSTION OF SOLID WASTE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Systems
1. Waterwall combustion - mass burning
2. Waterwall combustion - processed waste
3. RDF
B. Variations
1. Adapt system to waste
2. Adapt waste to system
3. Adapt both
II. WATERWALL COMBUSTION - MASS BURNING
A. History
B. Terms
C. Profile
1. 260 plants world-wide
2. Size
3. Age
4. Exportable energy products
D. Description of technology
E. American experience
1. Chicago
2. Harrisburg
3. Saugus
4. Norfolk
5. Portsmouth
6. Nashville
7. Oceanside
-------
F. Implementations: Europe vs. America
1. Land
2. Energy
3. Markets
4. Commitment
III. WATERWALL COMBUSTION - PROCESSED WASTE
A. Advantages/Disadvantages
1. Fuel preparation
2. Combustion method
3. Materials recovery
B. Experience
1. Hamilton
2. Akron
3. Niagara Falls
4. Dade County
5. Hempstead
IV. SMALL STEAM GENERATORS
A. Approach: Europe vs. America
B. American technology
C. Application
D. Experience
1. Si loam Springs
2. Blytheville
3. Groveton
4. North Little Rock
5. Crossville
6. Industrial sites
-------
E. Environmental considerations
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Available technology
1. Waterwall combustion - mass burning
2. Waterwall combustion - processed waste
3. Small steam generators
B. History of success
1. Waterwall combustion - mass burning
2. Processed waste and steam generators
C. Commitment
-------
CO
o
i
rx S
S S S 1- ^ 2 o>
tt ? w "J *"
ฃ5 O ฃ z cc 1 cc
S i cc no uj
ig> ฐงSt
m iSo u m?<
N <
CO O
rx co o
(N CO ^*
<
LU
ZH
1- 1- <
0 0 LU
D DC I
MARY ENERGY PROD
HOT WATER - DISTI
STEAM - DISTRICT
ELECTRICITY
E
Q.
-------
UJ
U
U^ ^^m
O
""^^ IMH
CC 2
UJ 9
Q. 2
X*
111 S
CQ
9
i (o
^3 ^r ^
35
*1
UJ S
i
(A
Q
^
>
^^
o
2
^f
3
OCATIO
ซj
*.
<
ERATION
CL
O
o
o
(0
r-
HICAGO
O
>
DC
LU
^
O
o
LU
cc
STEAM 1
O
Z
^
1
I_I
<
ERATION
CL
O
o
CM
r%
CJ
ARRISBUR
X
>
cc
LU
^
O
O
LU
CC
STEAM 1
O
Z
1
-J
<
ERATION
CL
0
o
CM
IX
ASHVILLE
Z
*
_j
<
ERATION
Q.
0
o
o
CM
AUGUS
(O
<
ERATION
CL
O
o
(O
CO
.S. NAVY
NORFOLK
D
I
_J
<
ERATION
CL
O
0
00
X
h-
D
PORTSMO
i
mmi
<
ERATION
Q.
O
o
*a;
CM
RAINTREE
CQ
j
<
ERATION
CL
O
o
LO
CO
CEANSIDE
O
-------
UJ
O
Z
E
UJ
a.
X
2
<
O
- AMER
Z
^06
Ul
EUROPI
1
CO
WE DISPO
ALTERNAl
UJ
^^
P
LACK OF ALTERNA
ซ
G
Z
<
E/CHEAP L
AVAILABL
O
DISPOSAL/NO LAN
>
O
cr
UJ
CHEAP EN
COSTLY ENERGY
z
o
z
-------
00
o
g
8ฐ
Oui
u
cc
0.
5 o
o z
LU Q.
CC _J
X D
Q.
Z z
O uj
21 a.
D 2
2
UJ
O ?
u
(0
O
D
Q
O
o
I P
< O
UJ u
(/) UJ
r
-------
UJ
zP
UJ c/5
mm %r*
CC <
UJ >
Q. >
x o
WMmWf
uj 2
z w
tmm M ^
4 w
s w
y u
cc o
UJ CC
ฃ a.
<
CO
D
<
C/)
Q
K
I
o
^mr
<
OL
<
Z
O
h-
<
o
o
CD
^^
<
CC
LU
Q.
O
0
o
CO
Z
O
AMILT
I
Z
O
1
o
D
CC
1-
C/)
z
o
o
cc
LU
Q
z
D
O
o
^r
*~
Z
O
cc
^
<
z
o
h-
0
D
CC
K
CO
z
o
o
cc
UJ
G
Z
D
0
0
o
CN
<
LU
^^
CO
Q.
1
LU
I
Z
o
h-
0
D
CC
h-
co
z
o
o
cc
LU
Q
Z
D
o
o
o
CO
>
\-
D
O
O
LU
Q
<
Q
Z
0
h-
0
D
CC
1-
CO
z
o
0
cc
LU
G
z
D
o
o
LO
CNJ
%
_J
^
LL
<
IAGAR
Z
-------
UJ
H <
0)
(0
z
CO
UJ
Cu
X
UJ
CO
CO
UJ
111
CO
z
UJ
a.
X
UJ
-------
Z
D
I I
H ui
V> HJ
SDH
11 =
fit
3 O O
8 P u
U D tf
-I k. ui
-J C Q
^ S j
-------
to
z z z z z
o o o o o
P H P P P
< < < < <
a: ct a &. t*
in iii in m m
o. o. o. o. o.
O O O O O
z *
I
w
(9
>-
u
u
10
O
<
U
O
. *\ < z 5
^ O HH in
z ,u 5 i- j
o > ft j 3
* UU .^MM fc^
u ^^ ^^F ^^ ^C
9 ฃ Q p g
u
-------
Refuse-derived Fuel
-------
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Technology
B. Operating results
C. Review of recent implementations
II. TECHNOLOGY
A. Production of RDF
1. Types of RDF
a. Fluff
b. Powder
c. Densified
2. Characteristics of RDF vs. coal
3. Fluff RDF production system
4. Powder RDF production system
5. Densified RDF production system
B. Use of RDF as supplementary fuel
1. Existing boilers designed to fire coal
a. Suspension
b. Grate and semisuspension
2. Cement kilns
III. OPERATING RESULTS
A. St. Louis project
1. Test facility - operated intermittently from 1972-1976
2. Process system
-------
3. RDF product
4. Power plant facilities
5. Processing plant operating results
6. Power plant operating results
B. Ames project
1. Full-scale "commercial" facility
2. Process system
3. Power plant facilities
4. Processing plant operating results
5. Costs
IV. REVIEW OF RECENT IMPLEMENTATIONS
A. Plants in shakedown
1. Milwaukee - Fluff RDF
a. Process system
b. Power plant facilities
c. Americology/WEPCQ agreement
d. Status
2. Chicago - Fluff RDF
a. Process system
b. Power plant facilities
c. Status
B. Powder and densified RDF test facilities
1. Powder RDF
a. Process system
b. Test burns
-------
2. Densified RDF
a. Process system
b. Test burns
C. Plants under construction
1. Bridgeport, Connecticut
2. Lane County, Oregon
3. Monroe County, New York
V. SUMMARY
-------
U.CC
(0
OK
COD
ill -J
O"-
O
DC
>J"
DCQ
-------
u.
Q
QC
Q
O
Q.
CO
O
0)
0
ill
U
O
Q
111
N
CO
QC
uu
O
_J
GO LU
LU<
<
CQ
CD
DC
LLJ
>
O
O
LU
QC
CO
QCD
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF RDF AND COAL
Fluff Powder* Coal
Heat Value (BTU/lb) 4,500- 7,800 11,000-
6,000 14,000
Particle Size (in) ^-1% <0.015
Moisture (%) 20-30 2.0 3-12
Ash (%} 15-25 9.4 3-11
Sulfur (%} 0.1-0.5 0.1-0.6 0.5-4.3
*Data provided by CEA
RDF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
o St. Louis emissions not typical
Each situation is different
o Need air pollution control engineer
St. Louis data on resistivity, size distribution, gas flow
rates, etc.
Consider your project: ash, moisture, sulfur content of
fuels; collection efficiency; boiler operation; etc.
o If problem expected
Reduce RDF firing rate
Reduce boiler load
Beef up APC equipment
-------
LU
O
CO
ฃC CC
I-
D
O
LL U. Eg
00
h-
111
LU
ฐ5
Q _
< O Q. >< _
UJ O D ui CO
Q.
(0
LU
oc
a!
5-cc
O CD
CD X
co
งE
O CQ "-
ii
n j
-1
-------
UJ
O
2
UJ
E
UJ
Q.
X
UJ
UJ
H
ซ5
Q.
tD
PROCESSIN*
Q
Q.
h-
LO
H
D
Q.
Z
VERAGE THROUG
<
Q
LU
H
1
CO
LU
CC
LU
^
O
fASTE QUANTITY
ฃ
LU
cc
CD
^^_^_
USTY PROCESSIN
Q
^
O
QC
LU
*h^
LUMINUM RECOV
<
PERATIONAL
O
-------
AMES ECONOMICS
Cost per Ton
Capital Cost $14.50
($6.3 million, 7%, 20 years)
Operating Cost 13.00
Revenues
RDF ($7.80)
Ferrous ($3.25) (11)
Net Cost $16.50
-------
MILWAUKEE SUMMARY
o 1,200 tpd; fluff RDF
o Operational spring 1977
o Low quality RDF - slagging
o Shakedown/modification stage
o WEPCO
o Full service contract with American Can
CHICAGO SUMMARY
o 1,000 tpd; fluff RDF
o Operational 1978
o Commonwealth Edison
o EPA evaluation
o A&E; G.O. bonds; city operation
BROCKTON SUMMARY
o 20 tph; powder RDF
o CEA
o Demo/test facility
o Operational spring 1977
o Test burns at Waterbury, CT
-------
D - RDF PRODUCTION
500 tons produced
Textiles jammed pelletizer
Die wear
No problem with moisture
Power: 6-8 KW-HR/ton
Costs: $3-6/ton
Savings
D - RDF FIRING
20/40/100% of fuel requirement
No major problems
Air emissions
Particulates: No change
SOY: Decreased
A
Cl: Increased
-------
RDF PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Location RDF Size RDF User
Bridgeport, Powder 1,800 tpd UI
Connecticut
Lane County, Fluff 400 tpd UO
Oregon
Monroe County, Fluff 2,000 tpd RG&E
New York
-------
WHO HAS (WILL HAVE) EXPERIENCE?
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
St. Louis - Homer & Shifrin, Inc.
Ames - Henningson, Durham & Richardson
Chicago - Ralph M. Parsons Co.; Consoer Townsend & Associates
CONTRACTORS
Milwaukee - American Can Co.
Bridgeport, CT - Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc.; Occidental
Research Corporation
Monroe County, NY - Raytheon Service Co.
Lane County, OR - Allis-Chalmers
-------
Pyrolysis
-------
PYROLYSIS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Definition
B. Process parameters
C. Major systems
II. UNION CARBIDE PROCESS
A. Description
B. Status
III. ANDCO PROCESS
A. Description
B. Status
IV. SAN DIEGO
A. Process description
1. Preliminary processing
2. Organic pretreatment
3. Flash pyrolysis
B. Project status
V. BALTIMORE
A. Process description
1. Receiving and storage
2. Shredding
3. Storage of shredded waste
4. Waste firing
-------
5. Pyrolysis kiln
6. Afterburner
7. Steam production and distribution
8. Air pollution control equipment
9. Residue handling
B. Project status
C. Problems and solutions
VI. LESSONS LEARNED
-------
LU
o
cc
> cc
Q- o
*A
J2 CC
o
o
o
cc
0.
cc
o
cc
I
o
LITTLE OR NO OXYGEN
TEMPERATURE
TIME
PRESSURE
CATALYST
J L
\/
CHEMICAL REACTION
-------
CO
EH
EH
CO
CO
H
CO
jjj
O
ซ EH
$* O
ft D
Q
O
rt
ft
CO
CO
u
o
ซ
s
W EH
tf
O o
So
H O
EH -
Hi rH
PQ
O
*^1 S
ft W
W Q
2
W
On O
O
[ฐT| *ฃ*
Si
CO W
rtj EH
O CO
P W
EH EH
PQ H
CO
IS 1
O 2
H! O
O
0H 2
2
i^J
* * i "I
co S ft
CO
^
O
ฃ3
EH
Pd
S
D
H
Q
W
S
RBIDE)
-------
cc
cc
o
C/5
LLJ
o
o
cc
CL
-------
X
o
cc
0.
CO
CO
LLI
o
O
cc
CL
-------
-------
LU
QC
o
H
C/D
CO
LU
o
O
cc
a.
-------
-------
Co-disposal
-------
CO-DISPOSAL
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Sludge disposal methods
1. Landfill ing
2. Land application
3. Ocean dumping
4. Incineration
B, Incineration technques
1. Multiple hearth furnace
2. Fluidized bed furance
3. Other
4. Energy recovery
II. APPROACHES
A. Solid waste technology
1. Past attempts
2. Evolved systems
3. Experience
a. Germany
b. France
c. America
B. Sludge incineraters - RDF fuel
1. Fluidized bed
2. Multiple hearth
3. Experience
a. Franklin
b. Concord
-------
III. CONCLUSIONS
A. Available technology
1. Solid waste-fired steam generators
2. Being replicated
B. Developmental technology
1. Incineration with RDF
2. Pyrolysis with RDF
3. Autothermic pyrolysis
C. Integrated facilities - optimal option?
-------
o
o
X
(/I
o
I/)
S
o
o
CO
Ul
O
Z
ui
U
ui
D
a
z
Z
u
*- en
o
5 i
u ฃ o
z
^ z
o
1
o
z
<
ui
U
O
-------
o
I"1
APPROACHES
<
(ft
O
a.
THERMAL CO-DIS
>-
o
.ID WASTE TECHNOLO
1
MASS BURNING SYSTEMS
(/)
oc
O
cc
REFUSE FIRED STEAM GENE
HNOLOGY
O
DGE INCINERATOR TE
D
_j
UJ
D
LL
<
(/>
<
LL
0
CC
D BED FURNACES
UJ
MULTIPLE HEARTH/FLUIDIZ
-------
>
/n
V3
o
o
o
UJ
UJ
i_
SOLID WAS]
UJ
O
Z
UJ
E
UJ
0.
X
Ul
Q
O
I
LU
1
CD
Z
QC
SLUDGE D
^
<
LU
|_
CO
^^ ^
CO
<
o
UJ
D
LL
CC
LL
LJJ
Q.
Q.
UJ
o
^NSOIMIA, CT.
ci
CC
UL
ซi
UJ
>
cc
CO
OLYOKE, MA.
X
cc
UL
LJJ
>
D
<
LU
Q
CD
CC
LL
^
Z
UJ
CO
CO
LU
>-
LJJ
O
O
z
LU
_l
o
REFELD, F.R.G.
^
d
^k^
MGOLSTADT, F.F
fmm
Z
LU
Q
CO
Z
UJ
CO
QC
O
X
-------
s
o
O u.
if
QJ O
x <
O U
r
3 S
* O H
Z W 3
< Z -i
2 O 3
u. U O
-------
LLJ
I
D
O
-------
C/3
<
Q
w
CQ LU
LL
CD
0
D
-------
U)
O
55
>
9
is
O
u
< o 5
-------
Methane Recovery
-------
METHANE GAS RECOVERY FROM LANDFILLS
I. BIOLOGICAL DECOMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE IN LANDFILLS PRODUCES
METHANE GAS
II. MIGRATION/BUILD-UP OF METHANE GAS CAN BE HAZARDOUS
Solutions: A. Install impermeable barriers
B. Counterpumping
1. Flare gas
2. Recover gas
III. TYPICAL LANDFILL METHANE GAS COMPOSITION
Methane (CH4) 50
Carbon dioxide (C02) 48
Hydrogen (H2), Oxygen (02),
Nitrogen (N2), misc. _2
100%
IV. POTENTIAL UTILIZATION OF METHANE GAS FROM LANDFILLS
BTU/SCF
A. Onsite use (raw gas) 450-500
B. Offsite use (raw gas) in small 450-500
industrial boiler
C. Offsite use in industrial boiler, 750-900
in utility pipe line (after C02,
H20 removal)
-------
D. Onsite generation of electric power
through use of landfill gas as fuel
V. METHANE RECOVERY OPERATIONS AT LANDFILLS
A. Palos Verdes, CA
B. Mountain View, CA
C. Sheldon-Arleta, CA
D. Azusa-Western, CA
VI. ECONOMIC FACTORS
A. Quantity of landfill gas available
B. BTU content of gas
C. Cost per BTU of local natural gas and/or alternative fuels
D. Capital cost for landfill gas processing equipment
and facilities
-------
-------
Waste Exchange and Oil Recovery
-------
WASTE EXCHANGE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. What is a waste exchange?
B. How does a waste exchange work?
II. DEFINITIONS
A. Information exchange
B. Materials exchange
III. HISTORY
A. Foreign
B. Domestic
IV. SUCCESS
A. Past; present; future
B. Most likely to succeed
C. Potential partners
D. Deterrents
V. SUMMARY
-------
Waste Oil Recovery
I. Waste Oil Resources.
A. Approximately 1.2 billion gallons of waste oil are generated
each year in the United States.
B. Automotive lubricating oil accounts for the majority of the
waste oils generated.
II. Waste Oil Destinations.
A. Energy recovery accounts for over 50% of the waste oil
reuse today.
B. Approximately 10% of the waste oil is rerefined.
C. 20% is used as a dust suppressant or asphalt extender.
D. As much as 20% is dumped or incinerated without any recovery
occuring.
III. Environmental/Resource Conservation/Energy Conservation.
A. Rerefining offers the most conservation benefits.
-------
B. Energy recovery requires complete "cleaning" of the oil or
adequate pollution control technology to protect against air
pollution problems.
IV. Federal Actions.
A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
1. Hazardous Waste Management.
2. Procurement.
B. Energy Policy and Conservation Act - Labeling Containers of
Oil.
V. Examples of State and Local Activities.
A. Utah.
B. Maryland.
C. San Diego, California.
VI. What You Can Do.
A. Procurement of rerefined lubricating oil.
B. Selling of crankcase drainings to rerefiners.
C. Collection of waste oil by lube oil sellers.
D. Incentives for locating rerefiners in your region.
-------
INFORMATION EXCHANGES IN THE UNITED STATES
March 1978
California
California Waste Exchange
California State Health Department
Vector and Waste Management
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
(415)843-7900 Ex. 434
Illinois
Environmental Clearinghouse Organization
Illinois Liquid Waste Haulers Association
3426 Maple Lane
Hazelcrest, IL 60424
(312)335-0754
Iowa
Iowa Industrial Waste Information Exchange
CIRAS, Building E
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50010
(515)294-3420
Georgia
Georgia Waste Exchange
Georgia Business and Industry Association
181 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404)659-4444
Minnesota
Minnesota Waste Exchange
Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry
200 Hanover
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612)227-9591
Missouri
St. Louis Industrial Waste Exchange
St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association
10 Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
(314)231-5555
-------
New Jersey
New Jersey State Waste Exchange
New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce
5 Commerce Street
Newark, N.J. 07102
(201)623-7070
New York
Industrial Material Bulletin
EnKarn Corporation
P.O. Box 590
Albany, N.Y. 12201
(518)436-9684
Syracuse Waste Exchange
Allied Chemical
P.O. Box 6
Solvay, N.Y. 13209
(315)487-4198
Ohio
Industrial Waste Information Exchange
Columbus Industrial Association
1515 West Lane Avenue
Columbus, OH 43221
(614)486-6741
Oregon
Portland Recycling Team
1801 N.W. Irving
Portland, OR 97209
(503)228-5375
Tennessee
Tennessee Waste Swap
Tennessee Department of Public Health
Division of Solid Waste Management
230 Capitol Hill Building
Nashville, TN 37219
(615)741-3424
Texas
Houston Waste Exchange
Houston Chamber of Commerce
1100 Milam Building - 25th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
(713)651-1313
-------
Washington
Western Environmental Trade Association
Park Place Suite 314
1200 6th Avenue
Kent, WA 98101
(206)623-5235
MATERIAL EXCHANGES IN THE UNITED STATES
March 1978
California
Zero Waste Systems
2928 Popular Street
Oakland, CA 94608
(415)893-8257
Mas sachusetts
National Resources Recycling Exchange
286 Congress Street
Boston, Mass. 02210
(617)482-2727
New__York
Union Carbide
Surplus Products Group
Investment Recovery Department
270 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
(212)551-2345
-------
-------
Health, Safety and Environmental Considerations
-------
HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Any waste processing facility will have environmental
impacts
B. It is possible to satisfy all environmental requirements
C. Don't try to cut corners
D. Topics to discuss
1. Air emissions
2. Bacteria and virus
3. Fires and explosions
4. Noise
5. Water effluents
6. Solid residuals
II. AIR EMISSIONS
A. The technology is available to control emissions to
all applicable standards
B. New ESP's on waterwall combustion units are meeting
new Federal and State regulations
C. There have been problems too
-------
D. It's cheaper to do it right the first time
E. St. Louis results
1. No increase at design load of boiler
2. Two-fold increase at "normal" operating load
F. New attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
1. Conflicting objectives
2. Must offset new sources by eliminating existing
sources
G. Dust
1. Plant interior
2. Plant exterior
3. Controlling dust - can be costly
III. BACTERIA
A. Associated with high dust levels
B. High counts measured in St. Louis
1. Not in worker areas
2. No dust control
3. Sampled within ducts
C. Controlling bacteria
-------
IV. FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS
A. Two types of explosions
1. Deflagrations
2. Detonations
3. Control of explosions
V. NOISE
A. At the property line
B. Within the plant
VI. WATER EFFLUENTS
A. No unique problems
B. Conventional solutions available
VII. SOLID RESIDUALS
A. No system recycles everything
B. Still must have a sanitary landfill
C. Some residue can be recycled
-------
Economic Considerations
-------
COSTS
I. TWO COMMON QUESTIONS
A. Which system is cheapest?
B. How much will it cost?
Questions cannot be answered as stated because:
o Each situation is different
o There is no universally cheapest system
o Cost data, without details, are meaningless
II. WHICH SYSTEM IS CHEAPEST?
No answer - RDF vs. Waterwall combustion example
III. HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
A. Which cost elements are included?
1. Capital cost elements - examples of relative magnitude
2. 0 & M cost elements - examples of relative magnitude
B. Specific features of project
1. Financing method
2. Design features
3. Markets
C. Accuracy of estimates
1. Level of technology development
2. Level of system design
IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR EVALUATING COSTS
V. KEEP COSTS IN PERSPECTIVE
-------
HOW MUCH MILL IT COST?
o Which cost elements are included
o Specific features of implementation
Financing method
Design features
Markets
o Accuracy of estimate
Level of technology development
Level of system design
-------
CAPITAL COST ELEMENTS
(OOP)
Construction $26,400 57
Land and site preparation 2,100 4.5
Contingency 2,800 6.0
Engineering 4,000 8.6
Start-up 5,200 11
Interest during construction 4,500 9.7
Financing, legal, spare parts,
construction management 1,500 3.2
Debt reserve
$46,500 100
-------
0 & M COST ELEMENTS
(OOP) %
Labor (including overhead) $2,000 35
Utilities 1,100 19
Consummables (supplies, parts) 1,100 19
Replacement Equipment
Residue Disposal 530 9.3
Insurance, Taxes, Licenses 160 2.8
Management Fees 790 14
Bond Reserve Fill-up
$5,680 100
COST VS. DESIGN FEATURES
Reliability
Utilization
System Size
Products
Health and Safety Considerations
Site Conditions
Architectural Treatment
-------
CO
0
o
sP
^
CO
^
0s
CO
UJ
5
DC
i
INTERES'
in o
oj q
r^ O>
T -
w-
o o
o in
0 IX
r-
>
u) in
ฃ- CM
i-
-------
g
ง
LU
Q
z &
g <
o
Si
w
s
<5^
ง
I
3
O
CM
UJ
O
o
(/)
LL
o
111
UJ
LU
UJ
CO
LU
D
>
O
D
CO
CO
LU
O
>
DC
<
Z
00
CO
<
LU
LL
CO
UJ
a
LU
DC
O.
-------
SUGGESTIONS FOR EVALUATING COSTS
o Published costs will not apply to your situation.
o Understand the limitations of cost estimates -- ask for
ranges and accuracy limits.
o Ask for costs to be broken down in detail -- compare apples
with apples and make sure all apples are accounted for.
o Be wary of cost estimates for unproven technologies.
o Acquire proper expertise to help analyze costs.
-------
Contracts, Risks and Financing
-------
CONTRACTS, RISKS, AND FINANCING
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The implementation process
B. Outline of talk
1. Managing implementation
2. Plant procurement
3. Risk management
4. Financing
5. Developing the RFP
II. MANAGING IMPLEMENTATION
A. Elements of good management
B. Minimize conflicts of interest
III. PLANT PROCUREMENT
A. Procurement strategy
B. Procurement approaches
C. Which procurement approach is best?
D. Why it is important to select one procurement approach
and stick with it
-------
IV. RISK MANAGEMENT
A. Elements of risk management
1. Identify the sources
2. Identify the consequences
3. Identify the probabilities
4. Reduce the risk
B. Categories of risk
C. Ways to reduce risk
D. Who will accept the responsibility?
V. FINANCING
A. Options to consider
B. Making a project financeable
VI. DEVELOPING THE RFP
A. What the RFP should include
1. Technical requirements
2. Management requirements
3. Financing requirements
4. Environmental requirements
5. Contractual requirements
B. Alternative approaches
C. Selection and negotiation
-------
D. Resource recovery categories
E. Ways of reducing risks
F. Who will accept risks
1. How many involved, who has control
2. Who will accept risks
G. Cost of accepting risks
H. Conclusion
-------
0)
c
"75
nstruct |
o
O
*
Actions
>
0
*
^^
c
CO
c
iZ
c
1
r\
o|
ill
8 ง5
O O U (0
0)
ฃ
3
O
O
CO
c:
o
^ O
^
o
a c +3
ฎ o (5
Q. ^ O)
u. a> 5
DC 0) Z
LLJ
ti
<
ts
0)
"ซ
0)
o
O w
V 0)
HI 1 Sซo
5 S co h- a.
-------
ELEMENTS OF GOOD
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTMENT TO THE PROJECT
STRONG LEADER/GOOD STAFF
APPROPRIATE USE OF CONSULTANTS
COORDINATION WITH OTHER
INTERESTED GROUPS
CAREFUL PLANNING, SCHEDULING, REVIEW
-------
UJ
O
CC
UJ
CO
CC
o
O
O
CC
^
UJ
z
CC
D
1-
o
>- 1-
HU
^ j Q
o
UJ CC
O uj
0)
ฐ0
cc>
h- CC
CO UJ
Z CO
o
o
Ci Oco
ง12
QC cc>
CO nl UJ
Z 5 ^
o ซ
CO
^^
^s
^<
2|
UJ>
^ OC
-------
LU
LJJ
o
LU
CC
LU
CC
*ฃ
LU UJ
LU
O
LJJ
CC
O
LL.
ec
LU
Q.
LU
_l
DQ
%& *
o > ฃ
o
UJ
o
o
<
cc
I-
z
o
o
LJL
o
z
LU
O
Z
<
o
LU
^
CC
CO
LU
O
CO
<
CO
CO
cc
o
CO
LJJ
-J
Q.
X
UJ
CO
>.
r^
rr
CATEGOI
FACILITY
RUCTIO
h-
co
z
o
o
1
z
o
1-
<
CC
LU
Q.
O
1
S
-------
>
O
^0 in
<2 ฃ
cc ฃ
UJ
O
Q
w
CC
a o
op
.EX TECHNOl
EN TECHNOL
|o
& CC
OCL
ฐLU
CO CC
CO O
LU *;
D DESIGNER
LU
O
z
LU
EXPERI
JABILITY
ซ_i
LU
CC
z
BUILT-I
^t^M
D OPERATOP
LU
0
z
LU
EXPERI
= WASTE
fe^B
O
_J
o
dh^M
CC
1-
z
o
o
CO
LU
CC
LL
o
LU
CC
CO
EARLY
O
D
Q
PTABLE PRO
LU
0
<
MORE
1 CONTRACT
^
CC
LU
H
a
z
o
LU
O
z
Z <
O -
CC
o
o
LU
o
o
<
LU
CC
CO
LU
CO
LU
CO
z
UJ
LU
o
X
a.
O
cc
CO
o
*
-------
A. UJ
Cj 2
CO 3 ฃ
E ง 2
CC Ij
U9- D
Q. LL
(A
LLI
>-
E 2
H i >
LU LU
LJJ 5 *
k.^ in &
2 E cc
<:r -^
D H
L- 0 "-
M JL
CO
LU
>.
^
H o
cc
cc ฐ- s
o <
O
&
<
tt ^
Ho
_ p
7 o
ita w
0 =
O ฃ ฃ
o z
< 2 |8
-j J5 g '
_ 2
co n
^ i
o o
2^m
Z
0 0
z z
^
1 5
t "J
< cc
SF H-
g] w
o JS
' 9
ง
CO
LU
>
O
o
z
LU
^
DC
<
LU
CC
<
X
CO
0
o
z
CO
I
LU
>
LU
O
X
Q.
O
CC
CO
ง
^
O
-------
UJ
UJ
OC
ง
00
z ec
Z
^m^^^^^mmmm
C/)
G
Z
0
QQ
O
O
IHH^^H^MMM^HH
CO
G
O
CO
LU
D
Z
LU
LU
QC
^^i^^l^B^^HH
LU
I
H
O
-------
CO
LU
O
LU
I
CO
UJ
LU
UJ
O
CC
o
LL
DC
LU
CL
UJ
O
ฃ
UJ
CO
UJ
CO
LU
O
o
o
X
o
LU
O
O
DC
O
DC
H
O
O
CC
0
- ง 5 V57"
LL ^ x
DC ^
LU
CL
UJ ^_
o >
X
o
UJ
H
cc
z
o
o
CC
^t
o
*< -
Q
1
O
UJ
LU
CO _
CC
o
LL
CC
UJ
CL
UJ
C
z
ERFORMAI
a.
CC
*ฃ
<5J
fAJ
MARKET!
Z
X
o
LU
CC
DESIGNEl
1 CC /
\ VM 1
\~-S
>
O
ECHNOLO
H
CC
H
Z
O
o
(ง}-
CC
o
ป
ONTRACT
O
-------
Reading List
-------
FURTHER READING
ON
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
The following information is a compilation of published and
unpublished resource recovery and waste reduction information. Most
have recently been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Unless otherwise stated, for copies, please write to:
Solid Waste Information
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(Order blank attached)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
390+ DECISION-MAKERS'S GUIDE IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976. 158 p.
A series of two to five-page discussions of approximately
thirty solid waste management topics including resource
recovery and separate collection.
448 RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION: THIRD REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 96 p.
Examines policy issues, reviews technological progress,
summarizes city and States activities, and reviews EPA
studies and investigations for 1974.
600 RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION: FOURTH REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Environmental Protection Agency. January 1977. (In
preparation.)
Examines policy issues, updates solid waste generation and
summarizes city, State and Federal Government activities in
R&D, Guidelines and implementation of resource recovery and
waste reduction programs during 1975-76.
344 RECYCLING AND THE CONSUMER. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974. 12 p.
An introduction to recycling and waste reduction and
what the individual can do to promote them.
443 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATES OF POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE. Smith,
Frank. 1975. 18 p.
Presents a comparison of the quantity and composition of
municipal solid waste.
+The number at left is the number for ordering publications from
the above address.
-------
432 NATIONWIDE SURVEY OF WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES.
McEwen, L. 1977.
A summary of progress in resource recovery projects throughout
the United States. Updated periodically.
BASELINE FORECASTS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY. Midwest Research Institute.
March 1975. 376 p. Distributed by the National Technical
Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield,
Va. 22151. Publication No. PB-245 924.
Forecasts to 1990 the quantity of waste generation, the
recovery of resources from municipal solid waste, the
recovery of specific materials in solid waste, the total
recoverable quantity of seven specific materials and the
sources of generation for residential, commercial and
industrial wastes.
528 DEMONSTRATING RESOURCE RECOVERY. EPA Staff. Reprinted from
Waste Age, June 1976.
A summary of EPA's resource recovery demonstration projects.
Discusses problem encountered and gives current status.
505 WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY: THERE IS ROOM FOR BOTH.
Humber, N. Reprinted from Waste Age^ November 1975.
Defines terms and explains how resource recovery, source
separation and waste reduction can work together.
THE IMPACT OF SOURCE SEPARATION AND WASTE REDUCTION ON THE ECONOMICS
OF RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES. Skinner, J. H. Presented
at the Fifth National Congress on Waste Management Technology
and Resource and Energy Recovery sponsored by the National
Solid Waste Management Association. Dallas, Texas, December 9,
1976. Distributed by the Resource Recovery Division (AW-463),
Office of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. 20460.
II. WASTE REDUCTION
487 BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: THE VERMONT EXPERIENCE. Loube, M. 1975.
16 p.
Analyzes the impact of the Vermont beverage container
legislation.
462 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON RETURNABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS FOR BEER
AND SOFT DRINKS. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1975.
9 p.
Gives answers to frequently asked questions on deposit
legislation and its impacts.
-------
463 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT-GUIDELINES FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINERS.
Federal Register, September 20, 1976. (40 CFR Part 244.)
Guidelines for implementing a deposit system on beverage
containers sold on Federal facilities.
572 UNTRASHING YOSEMITE PARK. Pierce, C. Reprinted from EPA Journal,
October 1976.
Review of the Yosemite National Park's experience with
returnable beverage containers.
531 PRICE SURVEY OF BEVERAGES IN REFILLABLE AND NONREFILLABLE CONTAINERS.
Peterson, C, October 1976. 2-pg. press release.
Summary of price comparison survey of beverages in refill able
and nonrefillable containers.
III. MARKETS
518 MARKET LOCATIONS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS. Howard, S. 1976. 88 P.
Contains lists of actual or potential users of recycled paper,
steel, glass, and aluminum. Certain key data are presented when
available for each facility, including whether they use recycled
materials and their yearly capacity.
OVERCOMING INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO SOLID WASTE UTILIZATION AS AN
ENERGY SOURCE. Prepared for Federal Energy Administration by
Gordian Associates Inc., 1976. Distributed by the National
Technical Information Service, U. S. Dept, of Commerce,
Springfield, Va. 22151. Will be available in July 1977.
343 THE NATIONAL BUYER'S GUIDE TO RECYCLED PAPER. Environmental
Educators, Inc. October 1973. 208 p.
Directory of paper companies and their distributors who
manufacture products containing recycled paper. Products
and recycled contents are listed.
USE OF REFUSE-DERIVED SOLID FUEL IN ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILERS.
Lingle, S. A., and J. R. Holloway. Presented at the Fifth
National Congress on Waste Management Technology and Resource
Recovery sponsored by the National Solid Waste Management
Association. Dallas, Texas, December 9, 1976. Distributed
by the Resource Recovery Division (AW-463), Office of Solid
Waste, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
20460.
Discusses the status of electricity utility use of solid waste
as a supplemental boiler fuel, the concerns of the utilities
and a method for estimating value of solid waste as a fuel.
-------
IV. SOURCE SEPARATION AND PAPER RECYCLING
486 RESIDENTIAL PAPER RECOVERY: A MUNICIPAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE.
Hansen, P. 1975. 26 p.
Discusses municipal separate collection in terms of methods
of collection, public vs. private collection, success factors,
pilot vs. full-scale programs, and mandatory vs. voluntary
separation.
553 RESIDENTIAL PAPER RECOVERY: A COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. 1976.
Describes how to conduct a public education campaign
implementing a community source separation program.
This is a companion document to #486.
400 A NEW LOOK AT THE ECONOMICS OF SEPARATE REFUSE COLLECTION.
SCS Engineers and EPA Staff. Reprinted from Haste Age,
May/June 1974.
Discusses the economic implications of separate refuse
collection.
ANALYSIS OF SOURCE SEPARATE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE SOLID WASTE.
(2 vols.) SCS Engineers. 1974. Distributed by the National
Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Springfield, Va. 22151. Will be available in July 1977.
Final report of detailed case studies of separate collection
and recycling centers. Discusses economics, equipment,
public response and other influencing factors.
446 WHAT YOU CAN DO TO RECYCLE MORE PAPER. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1975. 12 p.
Guide for citizens interested in ways to recycle paper.
473 MATERIALS RECOVERY: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR
SOURCE SEPARATION. Federal Register. April 23, 1976.
(40 CFR Part 246.)
Guidelines for source separation in Federal facilities.
A NEW LOOK AT RECYCLING WASTE PAPER. Citizens' Advisory Committee
on Environmental Quality. 1976. 88 p. Distributed by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. 20402. No. 040-000-00369-0. $1.55/copy,
25% discount on orders of 100 or more.
Report on a conference held May 11, 1976, sponsored by NCRR,
involving key people knowledgeable on the subject of the
recycled paper problem.
-------
WASTEPAPER RECYCLING. 12 p.
WASTEPAPER RECYCLING FOR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. 12 p.
WASTEPAPER RECYCLING FOR CIVIC AND CHARITABLE GROUPS. 12 p.
OFFICE PAPER RECYCLING. 12 p.
Distributed by the American Paper Institute, Paper Stock
Conservation Committee, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y.
10016.
Four brief brochures outlining considerations for starting
municipal, civic, office or industrial paper collection
programs.
510 DEMONSTRATING MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION IN SOMERVILLE AND
MARBLEHEAD, MASSACHUSETTS. Hansen, P. and Resource Planning
Associates. Reprinted from Waste Age, Feb. 1976. Describes
two demonstration projects, funded in part by EPA, where
source separated materials are collected for recycling.
EVALUATION OF A COMPARTMENTALIZED REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE FOR
SEPARATE NEWSPAPER COLLECTION. SCS Engineers. 1976. 94 p.
Distributed by the National Technical Information Service,
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151. Publication
No. PB-257 969.
Presents information on the economic viability of a compart-
mentalized refuse collection vehicle for separate newspaper
collection.
575 RESOURCE RECOVERY THROUGH MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION.
Hansen, P. Reprinted from Waste Age, October 1976.
Review of Somerville and Marblehead, Mass., source
separation demonstrations.
551 SOURCE SEPARATION: THE COMMUNITY AWARENESS PROGRAM. Resource
Planning Associates. 1976. 88 p.
Describes the public education campaign conducted to
kick-off the source separation programs in Somerville and
Marblehead, Mass.
V. ECONOMICS
482 RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES. A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
OF FOUR RECENT DRY-SHREDDING DESIGNS. Smith, Frank.
October 1975. 20 p.
A standardized evaluation of cost estimates for four
dry-shredding facilities.
ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WASTE TO ENERGY SYSTEMS.
Ralph M. Parsons Co., 1977. Distributed by the National
Technical Information Service, U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
Springfield, Va. 22151.
An evaluation of existing resource recovery systems.
EPA Contract No. 68-02-2101.
-------
VI. MECHANICAL MATERIALS RECOVERY
558 COLOR SORTING WASTE GLASS AT FRANKLIN, OHIO. Garbe, Y. M.
Reprinted from Waste Age, September 1976. An evaluation
of the waste glass color sorting subsystem at the Franklin,
Ohio, resource recovery demonstration project.
A TECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE GLASS
RECOVERY PLANT AT FRANKLIN, OHIO. Systems Technology
Corporation. 1977. Distributed by the Resource Recovery
Division (AW-463), Office of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460.
VII. WATERWALL COMBUSTION
548 CAN NASHVILLE'S STORY BE PLACED IN PERSPECTIVE? McEwen, L. B,. and
S. J. Levy. Reprinted from Sgljd Waste_Management, August 1976.
An evaluation of the technical problems encountered by the
Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation's waterwall incineration
facility.
537 AIR EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS IN THE U. S.
Sussman, D. Reprinted from Waste Age, July 1976.
A list with discussion compiled from Various sources of
particulate emission data from 100 percent solid waste-fired
steam generators.
VIII. SOLID WASTE AS A SUPPLEMENTARY FUEL FOP, POWER PLANTS
538 EPA RESOURCE RECOVERY DEMONSTRATION: SUMMARY OF AIR EMISSIONS
ANALYSES. Ho'iloway, J. R. Reprinted from Wa^te__Ag_e, August
1976.
Summary of St. Louis RDF project particulate, and bacteria
and virus emissions testing at processing plant, and
particulate and gaseous emissions at power plant.
ST. LOUIS/UNION ELECTRIC REFUSE FIRING DEMONSTRATION AIR POLLUTION
TEST REPORT. Midwest Research Institute. August 1974.
Distributed by the National Technical Information Service,
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151. Publication
No. PB-237 630.
The result of EPA's air emission test conducted in December
1973 as part of the St. Louis energy recovery demonstration.
ST, LOUIS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AIR EMISSION TESTS: EVALUATION OF
UNREGULATED PARTICIPATES, VAPQSS, AND GASES IN POWER PLANT
FLUF. GASES. Ho'Moway, J. R., and S. ,.">. Levy. Distributed by
the Resource Recovery Division (AW-4o3), Office of Solid Waste,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460.
A summary of air emissions tests for unregulated substances.
-------
IX. PYROLYSIS
537 BALTIMORE PYROLYSIS PLANT STATUS REPORT. Sussman, D. Reprinted
from Waste Age. July 1976.
A status report on the Baltimore demonstration project covering
the period of January 1-June 30, 1976.
DEMONSTRATION OF PYROLYSIS AND MATERIALS RECOVERY IN SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA. Garbe, U. M. Reprinted from Waste Age.
December 1976. Distributed by the Resource Recovery
Division (AW-463), Office of Solid Waste. U. S. EPA,
Washington, D. C. 20460.
REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF PYROLYSIS AS A MEANS OF RECOVERING ENERGY
FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE. Levy, S. J. Presented at the
Third Annual U. S. - Japan Conference on Solid Waste Management
May 12-14, 1976. 29 p. Distributed by the Resource Recovery
Division (AW-463), Office of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460.
A technical review of four pyrolysis systems currently being
marketed in the United States.
X. IMPLEMENTATION
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT IMPLEMENTATION: GUIDES FOR MUNICIPAL
OFFICIALS.
A series of publications covering all aspects of the planning
and procurement process for resource recovery.
533 PLANNING AND OVERVIEW. Lowe, R. A., and A. Shilepsky.
1976. 34 p.
Discusses three major stepsstudy, selection, and
procurement--!eading to implementation of resource
recovery with emphasis on significant issues and
problems.
550 TECHNOLOGIES. Levy, S. J. and H. G. Rigo. 1976. 81 p.
A review of various technologies available to
recover energy and resources from municipal
solid waste.
496 RISKS AND CONTRACTS. Randol.R. 1976. 52 p.
Examines risks in resource recovery and possible
risk allocations. Case studies of contractual
arrangements in Milwaukee, Nashville, and
Bridgeport.
499 MARKETS. Garbe Y. M., and S. J. Levy. 1976. 47 p.
Discusses the markets for energy and material
products recovered from municipal solid waste.
-------
493 ACCOUNTING FORMAT. Sussman, D. 1976. 17 p.
Presents a standardized accounting procedure
for resource recovery facilities.
471 FINANCING. Randol, R. 1975. 20 p.
Discusses alternatives for financing resource
recovery facilities.
495 PROCUREMENT. Shilepsky, A. 1976. 66 p.
Discusses the process of preparing a Request
for Proposals and evaluating the responses.
470 FURTHER ASSISTANCE. Hawkins, D. 1975. 29 p.
Provides sources for information on resource recovery.
567 RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANNING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS. National League of Cities. 1976.
A brief discussion of issues to assist local officials
in preparing and mobilizing the investigation of local
resource recovery opportunities. This is a short version
of # 533.
552 RESOURCE RECOVERY RFP AND CONTRACT SUMMARIES. Hawkins, D. 1976.
54 p.
Summaries of 12 requests for proposals (RFP's), 5 contracts
and a letter of intent issues by cities, counties and States
for resource recovery projects.
ซUS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 265-358/6174 1-S
-------
-------
Order Blank
for
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION-
Current Reports
Name
Street
City, State, Zip
Order Nos. Publication Titles
palSSOR
SW-3004
-------
-------
|