THIRD REPORT TO CONGRESS
RESOURCE RECOVERY
AND WASTE REDUCTION
This publication (SW-161) was prepared
by the OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
as required by Section 205 of The Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
and was delivered September 3, 1975, to the President and the Congress
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
An environmental protection publication in the solid waste management series (SW-161)
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
FOREWORD
The Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272, Title II, Section 205) requires
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study the recovery of resources
from solid waste and the reduction of solid waste at its sources. This document
represents the Agency's third report to the President and the Congress on these
subjects; the previous reports were issued in February 1973 and March 1974.
This report reviews the current status of resource recovery and waste
reduction in the United States and findings of EPA studies and investigations
that have become available over the past year. It reflects the widening interest
and knowledge that are developing in these areas, as well as the various
unknowns, uncertainties, and barriers that remain.
In view of the rising level of concern about reserves of energy and materials,
about the need to restrain our impacts on the environment, and about the
growing costs of solid waste management, it seems clear that resource recovery
and waste reduction should be matters of ever-increasing priority in the years
ahead.
-RUSSELL E. TRAIN
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ui
-------
CONTRIBUTING STAFF
The information in this report was derived from a number of contractual
efforts, demonstration grants, and staff analyses. Contributing EPA staff, under
the direction of J. Nicholas Humber, included Stephen A. Lingle, Frank A.
Smith, Fred L. Smith, Yvonne M. Garbe, and Penelope Hansen, Materials
Recovery; Robert A. Lowe, Steven J. Levy, David B. Sussman, and J. Robert
Holloway, Energy Recovery; Eileen Claussen, Michael Loube, Harold Samtur,
and Charles Peterson, Waste Reduction. The manuscript was edited by Emily
Sano and typed by Nancy Zeigler, Maryellyn Bailey, Jacqualine Donaldson, and
Sharon Brady.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
Summary ....................................... «
1. Background and Perspectives on Resource Recovery and
Waste Reduction
DEFINITIONS AND POTENTIALS ...................... 1
Post-Consumer Solid Wastes Defined .................. 1
Resource Recovery ............................ 1
Waste Reduction ............................. 4
THE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF POST-CONSUMER SOLID
WASTE ..................................... 5
Estimates for 1973 ............................ 5
Future Trend Projections ......................... 8
THE BENEFITS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE
REDUCTION ................................. 11
Community Solid Waste Management ................... 11
Conservation of Natural Resources ................... 12
Environmental Protection . . . : .................... 13
REFERENCES .................................. 14
2. Waste Reduction .................................. 16
TECHNICAL OPTIONS ............................. 17
Reduced Resource Use Per Product ................... 17
Design for Longer Life .......................... 20
Reuse .................................... 22
MECHANISMS TO ACHIEVE WASTE REDUCTION ............ 24
Product Charges .............................. 25
Deposit Systems .............................. 27
Voluntary Waste Reduction ....................... 30
REFERENCES .................................. 31
3. Energy Recovery from Post-Consumer Solid Waste ........ 33
QUANTITY OF ENERGY POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE ....... 33
Theoretical Potential ........................... 33
Available Potential ............................ 33
Impact on Energy Demand ........................ 33
Projected Implementations of Energy Recovery Systems ...... 34
Effect of Paper Recycling on Energy Recovery ............ 34
TECHNOLOGY AND MARKETS ....................... 35
Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Fuels .................... 35
Steam Produced from Solid Waste .................... 40
Electricity Produced from Solid Waste ................. 42
Comparison of Energy Forms ...................... 43
EVALUATION OF AVAILABILITY OF TECHNOLOGY .......... 43
Technologies Now Available ....................... 43
Technologies in Development ...................... 44
REFERENCES .................................. 44
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND SOURCE REDUCTION
PAGE
4. Materials Recovery 45
PAPER RECOVERY 45
Background 45
Changes in Paper Recycling in 1973 and 1974 46
Projections of Domestic Wastepaper Consumption 51
Conclusions 51
GROWTH OF SOURCE SEPARATION FOR PAPER RECOVERY .... 52
Separate Newspaper Collection 53
Source Separation of Corrugated Paper 55
Office Paper Recovery 55
Conclusions , 56
STEEL CAN RECYCLING 56
Background 56
Developments in Markets for Post-Consumer Cans 56
Ferrous Recovery Technology : . . 58
Economics 58
Impact of Beverage Container Legislation 58
Conclusions 58
ALUMINUM 59
Technology Developments 59
Status of Aluminum Recovery Implementation 60
Impact of Beverage Container Legislation 60
GLASS 60
Developments in Recovery Techniques 60
Economics and Markets 61
Impact of Beverage Container Legislation 62
REFERENCES ' 62
5. Resource Recovery Plant Cost Estimates -. 63
GENERAL METHODS AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS 63
What the Data Represent 63
Standardizing the Plant Designs 64
Normalizing the Cost and Revenue Estimates 65
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF NORMALIZED CAPITAL
INVESTMENT COST ESTIMATES 67
Total Capital Cost 67
Annualized Capital Cost 68
Capital Cost Per Ton 69
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF NORMALIZED ESTIMATES FOR
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 69
SUMMARY OF TOTAL AND NET COST ESTIMATES 69
Total Cost Estimates 69
Net Revenue or Cost Results 71
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 73
REFERENCES 74
6. Status of Waste Reduction Efforts and Implementation of
Resource Recovery Systems 75
WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS 75
Industry Efforts 75
Present Activity by States and Localities 76
Support of Public Interest Organizations 77
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS 77
Environmental Impact of Resource Recovery Facilities 77
Constraints to Energy Recovery System Implementation 78
Availability of Financing 80
Present Activities in States and Cities 81
REFERENCES 86
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
Appendix-Description of Six EPA-Supported Resource
Recovery Technology Demonstrations 87
SHREDDED, CLASSIFIED WASTE AS A COAL SUBSTITUTE-ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI 87
PYROLYSIS FOR STEAM GENERATION-BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND 90
PYROLYSIS TO PRODUCE LIQUID FUEL-SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 90
PROCESSED WASTE AS A FUEL OIL SUBSTITUTE-STATE OF
DELAWARE 91
WET PULPING FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY-FRANKLIN, OHIO . . 93
MATERIALS RECOVERY FROM INCINERATOR RESIDUE-LOWELL,
MASSACHUSETTS 95
Vll
-------
-------
SUMMARY
This report, on the recovery of resources from waste and the reduction of
waste generation, examines the policy issues, reviews technological progress,
summarizes city and State activities, and reviews EPA studies and investigations
for the year 1974. The following is a chapter-by-chapter summary of the report.
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES
ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Both resource recovery and waste reduction are important waste
management techniques because they reduce the amount of waste discarded,
thus reducing collection and disposal costs. Both are also measures to conserve
natural resources and prevent environmental damage.
Definitions and Potentials
• Source separation (the separating out of recyclable material at the waste
source) has been the principal method of recovery to date. Approximately 9
million tons of materials, mostly paper, were recovered in 1973. Although the
yearly amount is expected to increase to between 15 and 17 million tons by
1985, it appears that potential recycling levels, which are much higher, will not
be realized.
• Technology for resource recovery from mixed wastes is still in the
development stage. Some technologies have been demonstrated; many have not.
Existing commitments for plant construction indicate that many systems will be
demonstrated in the next 3 to 5 years. Very little can be done to accelerate this
progress because of time required for proper planning, design, construction, and
shakedown. It appears that by 1985 about 10 percent of the nation's residential
and commercial waste will be processed by resource recovery plants. The
potential level, however, is 50 to 60 percent.
• Primary obstacles to resource recovery are weaknesses in the markets
for secondary materials, and institutional shortcomings.
• Waste reduction techniques could reduce waste generation by more than
20 million tons a year by 1985. These techniques involve the redesigning of
products or changes in societal patterns of consumption and waste generation. A
20-million-ton reduction would represent 15 percent of nonfood product wastes.
Total post-consumer waste, including food and yard waste, would be reduced by
more than 10 percent.
Post-Consumer Solid Waste Generation
Estimates for 1973 and Projections
• Half of recent increases in waste generation was contributed by
containers and packaging. According to material flow estimates, total residential
IX
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
and commercial waste generation increased from 125 million tons in 1971 to
135 million tons in 1973.
• Only 7 percent of post-consumer waste (other than junked autos) was
recycled in 1973. Most of the recycling (93 percent of total tonnage) is
accounted for by paper products—principally old newspapers, office papers, and
paperboard packaging.
• Even with projected increases in resource recovery, the amount of solid
waste disposed of annually will increase by 30 million tons by 1985. A
quadrupling in recovery of materials and energy is projected, but wastes disposed
of will still increase in the absence of new Federal incentives for resource
recovery and waste reduction.
Significance of Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction
• Both approaches are necessary to have a positive impact on the amounts
of solid waste disposed of. The philosophical debate between resource recovery
and waste reduction is not valid. Neither approach by itself will yield desired
reductions in waste levels and solid waste management costs.
• Resource recovery and waste reduction could make substantial
contributions to conservation of raw materials and energy. U.S. and foreign
growth rates in material consumption suggest that the world's natural resources
base will be subject to extreme pressures before the end of this century;
conservation measures seem imperative.
• The environmental implications of these approaches extend far beyond
the local incinerator or dump site, since they are inextricably linked to the
industrial structure of the economy. Whenever a waste reduction measure
reduces the quantity of a material consumed, the quantities of all direct and
indirect raw material and energy inputs—and their associated environmental
impacts—are also reduced. Resource recovery has similar implications: the
environmental effects of manufacturing using secondary materials are almost
always less than those of manufacturing from virgin materials.
WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction is defined here as reduction in the generation of waste
through a reduction in consumption of materials or products.
Technical Options
The major technical options in achieving waste reduction are:
• Reduced resource use per product-the designing of products so that
minimal quantities of resources are used in their construction (e.g., a
thinner-walled container). This would result in a decrease not only in the
amount of materials used but also in energy consumption. Increasing costs of
materials and energy have resulted in new designs to reduce resource
intensiveness in products such as steel cans, glass bottles, shipping containers,
and milk containers.
• Increased, product lifetime-the use of products over an extended period
of time (e.g., use of a tire with a longer service life) and the designing of
products for longer life. The availability and use of products with longer
lifetimes would clearly impact upon the waste stream. As product life increases,
solid waste generation per unit of time for the product decreases. It should be
-------
SUMMARY
noted that product lifetime is a relatively complex attribute of durable goods,
depending not only on durability but also on sociological and economic factors.
• Product reuse—the multiple use of products in their original forms (e.g.,
the use, washing, and refilling of a glass bottle) and the designing of products for
multiple use. Product reuse has significant impacts upon litter, material and
energy consumption, and waste generation. The concept applies to the broad and
increasing category of products that are now designed to be used once and
discarded. Reuse is different from recycling in that the products are not
reprocessed and refabricated but are used in their original form. Studies of
refillable beverage containers indicate that considerable savings in materials and
energy and reduction in waste generation can be achieved through use of such
products.
Public Policy Options
• Voluntary waste reduction-voluntary shifts in product design and in
consumer choices to reduce resource use and waste generation. Industries could
redesign their products to conserve resources and reduce waste, and consumers
can make purchases after considering the implications for resources and waste of
available product choices.
Voluntary programs seem to hold more promise than mandatory
programs, particularly at a time when there is a confluence of business,
environmental, and consumer interests in the area of product design. EPA is now
actively urging voluntary waste reduction and has established a program designed
to focus industry efforts on product redesign for decreased material use.
• Deposits—systems designed to provide an incentive for the reuse of
products. Deposits could apply to reusable products (e.g., refillable soft drink
bottles or tires) or to other items that could be returned for recycling (e.g., a
deposit on automobiles to decrease auto abandonment). Implementation of a
deposit system would provide an economic incentive to return a product to a
central collection point so that it could be reused with minimal recovery costs.
An economic disincentive would also be imposed on those who do not return
the product.
A great deal of public attention has been focused on deposit systems for
beer and soft drink containers. In Resource Recovery and Source Reduction;
Second Report to Congress, the impacts of deposit systems were presented in
some detail. As is pointed out in that report, a deposit system will likely result in
declines in beverage container litter and solid waste. Also, to the extent that the
deposit results in a predominantly refillable bottle system, there will be
substantial energy, material, and pollution savings.
Cost savings to the consumer are also likely to occur as a result of a shift
to a largely refillable bottle system. Beverages sold in refillable containers are
cheaper than those sold in one-way containers because cost savings attained
through multiple use are greater than cost increases added by container cleaning
and transportation.
On the basis of these indications) EPA has testified to the Congress
favoring the implementation of a nationwide mandatory deposit law for
beverage containers. However, implementation of such legislation, if enacted,
should be phased in over a substantial period of time in order to minimize
unemployment and other economic dislocations that might result.
xi
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
• Product charges—taxes designed to provide an incentive for decreased
material and product use. A study of the cost and effectiveness of product
charges in reducing the consumer packaging segment of municipal waste was
carried out. Three charge schemes were selected for analysis:
1. A tax on consumer products packaging by weight
2. A tax on the weight of consumer products packaging with an
exemption for recycled materials (i.e., a tax only on the weight of
virgin materials consumed in a package)
3. A per unit tax on all rigid containers used to package consumer
products
The study found that for each tax, the effectiveness increases as the tax
rate increases. Comparing the different product taxes, the per unit tax on
containers induces the largest reductions in solid waste generation and energy
utilization. The product tax on packaging with an exemption for recycled
materials leads to substantial increases in the recycling of post-consumer wastes
and reduces raw materials consumption. The tax on packaging by weight
without the exemption has about the same effectiveness in reducing solid waste
generation and energy utilization as the tax with an exemption, but it is
substantially less effective in reducing raw materials consumption and less
effective in increasing the recycling of post-consumer wastes.
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
In 1973, about 135 million tons of solid waste were generated by
residential and commercial sources in the United States. About 70 to 80 percent
of that waste was combustible and convertible to energy.
• Not all waste is available for energy recovery. Because energy recovery
systems must be large to achieve economies of scale, energy recovery appears
feasible only in more densely populated areas, such as Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's).
• A significant amount of energy can be recovered from municipal waste.
This energy is equivalent to 10 percent of all coal used by electric utilities in
1973 and is enough to light every home and office in the nation.
• Only 10 percent of the potential will be realized by 1980. Based on
energy recovery systems planned or under development at the present time, it is
projected that by 1980 such systems should be operating in almost 30 cities and
counties and recovering the equivalent of 40,000 barrels of oil per day, or less
than 10 percent of potential.
• Some technologies are commercially available now. These include (1) the
generation of steam (for district heating and cooling or for industrial processing)
in a waterwall incinerator fueled solely by unprocessed solid waste and (2) the
use of prepared (shredded and classified) solid waste as a supplement to
pulverized coal in electric utility boilers. Steam generation systems are being
built in Nashville, Tennessee (for district heating and cooling), and in Saugus,
Massachusetts (for industrial process steam). The use of prepared solid waste as a
supplementary boiler fuel is being demonstrated with EPA grant support in St.
Louis, Missouri, with the cooperation of and funding by the Union Electric
xu
-------
SUMMARY
Company. Supplementary fuel systems are also being implemented by many
communities across the country.
• Although technology is available, some risk exists because the operating
experience has not been substantial. These technologies are defined as
commercially available because they have been demonstrated in large-scale
facilities and because private industry is offering the systems for sale. However,
there has been relatively little experience with these systems. Consequently,
until more of them are built and operated, there will still be some risk associated
with their implementation.
• Other, and possibly more economical and more efficient, technologies
are being developed. Pyrolysis, which converts solid waste into gaseous or liquid
fuels, is being demonstrated with EPA support in Baltimore, Maryland, and San
Diego County, California, and by several private companies. Pyrolysis systems
are projected to become commercially available in the 1977 to 1980 time
period.
In addition to pyrolysis, the production of methane gas through controlled
biological decomposition (anaerobic digestion) of solid waste is about to be
performed at pilot-plant scale. Commercial implementation of this technology is
projected to begin after 1980.
MATERIALS RECOVERY
Paper Recycling
• In 1973 the amount of wastepaper recycled domestically was 21
percent of total paper and board consumption. However, of all post-consumer
paper discarded into the municipal solid waste stream, only 16 percent was
recycled. Both of these figures represent slight increases over 1972.
• Wastepaper recycling (14 million tons) could easily have been doubled
by expanding the practice of source separation. There were 44.2 million tons of
post-consumer paper discards unrecovered in 1973, including 8 million tons of
newspapers, almost 12 million tons of corrugated containers, just under 10
million tons of printing and writing papers, and almost 15 million tons of other
grades.
• Wastepaper prices fluctuated widely in the last 2 years. The demand for
wastepaper took a significant turn upward during 1973 and early 1974, then
reversed itself and has dropped severely from mid-1974 through the first quarter
of 1975. By late 1974, wastepaper prices had fallen to one-half to one-fourth the
levels of only 6 to 9 months earlier.
• Kxports of wastepaper increased significantly in 1973. They increased
by 65 percent over 1972, but still represented only about 5 percent of total
recovery of wastepaper in the United States. In 1974 wastepaper exports
continued to increase, and by midyear were double the corresponding level of
1973. However, in the latter half of 1974 exports declined rapidly. Total exports
for 1974 were 91 percent above those of 1973.
• Future trends in wastepaper demand are unclear. Industry projections
for 1974 through 1976 had suggested wastepaper consumption increases of
roughly 6 percent per year, but consumption actually fell slightly in 1974. Even
if the projections were realized, however, the recycling rate would have been
increased only slightly, if at all.
xui
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
• Source separation of wastepaper is the most prominent means of
recovering paper from municipal discards. In September 1974 there were
approximately 134 programs for separation of newspaper by homeowners for
subsequent collection on a regular basis. Only a dozen such programs existed in
1972. Source separation of corrugated containers and office paper also grew
rapidly in 1973. At least 200 office paper separation programs have been
initiated since the beginning of 1973.
• Source separation can reduce waste management costs. Data on the
economics of separate newspaper collection programs from case studies show
that many communities have broken even or achieved savings in their overall
collection operation by instituting separate collection. Program economics vary
with wastepaper price, disposal costs, type of collection used, and other factors.
Steel, Aluminum, and Glass Recycling-1973
• Less than 2 percent of the steel scrap (excluding autos) was recovered.
The technology of ferrous scrap recovery is well developed. Economics appear
favorable when shredding of waste is not being performed exclusively for ferrous
recovery and when markets are available within a reasonable distance. EPA is
aware of 25 cities that are magnetically separating ferrous metal. The major
markets for recovered ferrous scrap include the copper precipitation industry,
the steel industry, and the detinning industry. Currently, more than half the
scrap is consumed by the copper industry.
• About 3 percent of the glass was recovered, mainly through volunteer
collection centers.
• The technology for glass recovery from mixed wastes has not been
demonstrated at full scale. The technical and economic feasibility is as yet
uncertain. Technically, color-mixed glass can be obtained more easily and
cheaply than color-sorted glass, but markets are less plentiful. However, new
potential markets exist for color-mixed cullet, such as in foamed glass insulation
and in the making of bricks. These markets have not yet been developed
significantly.
• About 3.5 percent of the aluminum in the municipal solid waste stream
was recovered, primarily through collection centers.
• No technologies to recover aluminum from mixed waste have been
demonstrated at full scale. Several new mechanical techniques are being
developed, but their technical and economic viability is still uncertain. Because
of its high value, the recovered aluminum is not expected to pose any significant
marketing problems.
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES
The Environmental Protection Agency has analyzed a number of
engineering design conceptions for the next generation of shredded fuel recovery
plants based on the St. Louis prototype. Existing cost estimates prepared by
engineering consultant and system development companies are not directly
comparable with one another because of differences in estimating methods,
accounting formats, and location-specific costing factors. Therefore, five recent
preliminary design cost studies were normalized to produce comparable cost
estimates representative of the degree of consensus within the engineering
community.
xiv
-------
SUMMARY
The results indicate that differences in cost estimates among design
conceptions and engineering firms are still quite significant, even after
adjustments for location, time, and other nonstandard elements. However, the
differences are no greater than might be expected given the present state of
technological development and lack of operating commercial prototypes.
Indeed, differences in basic capital and operating costs attributable to different
technical engineering conceptions are in many respects of less consequence than
the differences introduced by the use of alternative costing methods and
location-specific cost factors.
Analysis of normalized cost estimates and alternative product selling-price
projections indicates that potential net cost projections will fall in a very broad
range from a net profit (very unlikely) to a very high cost (also unlikely). Most
cases appear competitive with current or projected landfill costs in many, if not
most, U.S. cities. All cases using low-cost (public sector) financing options,
including even the highest cost case-study plant, were competitive with
conventional municipal incineration.
Three conclusions of the analysis are of special importance:
• Shredded fueJ revenues are a major element in determining net cost;
differences between high and low estimates of these revenues are considerable.
The potential market value of the shredded fuel is the most uncertain element of
the net cost equation. The high and low estimates of shredded fuel price are $16
and $3 per ton of raw waste processed. The range between the estimates almost
dwarfs all other elements of the net cost calculation,
• High utilization of plant is necessary to prevent operating cost
escalations. Reduction in utilization from 90 percent to 60 percent can result in
operating cost increases of up to $4 per ton. This is substantial for systems that
are projected to operate at net costs of $6 to $10 per ton. This high cost of
failure to maintain reasonable utilization rates underlines the importance of
sound planning and capable management.
• The cumulative importance of "other special costs" elements must not
be discounted. This major category of costs includes property taxes, land and
unusual site work, residual disposal, fuel transportation, and non-plant overhead
charges. The "other special costs" can be higher than either of the other two
major cost categories, capital costs and operating and maintenance costs.
STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION AND
RESOURCE RECOVERY EFFORTS
Waste Reduction
• Industry activity. Resource shortages and inflation have forced many
industries to take steps that provide waste reduction benefits. Many have
reduced the variety of products (e.g., number of different container sizes
offered) that they manufacture or have redesigned products to use less
material. It is expected that industry will continue to redesign products if
shortages and price increases continue. It is significant that these product design
shifts are now becoming a requirement among product designers and marketers;
that is, resource use is now a high-priority consideration in the manufacture of a
product. Once this direction is firmly established, the impacts upon resource use,
environmental pollution, and waste generation can only be positive.
xv
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
• State activity. Packaging control legislation has been introduced in 50
State legislatures and numerous county and city councils since 1971. As of
October 1974, three States (Oregon, Vermont, and South Dakota) have passed
laws relating strictly to beverage containers; and one State (Minnesota) has
passed a law that affects all major littered items.
• Citizen activity. Basing their appeal upon both resource conservation
and solid waste management needs, citizen groups and spokesmen for the public
interest have consistently called for a national effort to decrease the quantity of
wastes generated.
Resource Recovery
• State activity. As of the end of 1974, 10 States had grant or loan
programs for the construction of resource recovery systems; 12 States are
involved in planning or regulating resource recovery activities on a statewide
basis; and 5 States have the authority to create agencies to operate resource
recovery facilities. In this last group, the Connecticut Resource Recovery
Authority is the only agency that has been funded and has committed funds to
construction.
• Municipal activity. Resource recovery systems are operating in five cities
around the country; seven other plants are under construction or in the startup
phase; approximately 20 communities are committed to building systems, and at
least 30 others are active in evaluating the feasibility of resource recovery.
This level of activity is substantial considering the low level of experience
with resource recovery technologies. As experience broadens and more
operational data become available, implementation should continue at a
reasonable rate.
Constraints to Resource Recovery
Implementation could be accelerated if certain constraints were overcome.
The major constraints include:
• Technical risks. The technical risks include uncertainties about costs and
operating performance. Additional operational experience providing necessary
data will reduce these uncertainties. The present level of implementations should
provide sufficient data.
• Marketing risks. Virtually no cities or companies have substantial
experience in the marketing of energy and secondary materials extracted from
municipal solid waste. Long-term purchase commitments are requisite to
minimizing revenue uncertainties. However, because there is little experience
with products recovered from municipal waste, few prospective purchasers are
willing to make long-term commitments. Again, this constraint can be reduced
by additional experience.
• Inadequate information. This is an impediment to any decisionmaking
process. Comprehensive information is not available. A stronger Federal
technical assistance program can develop from systems being constructed.
• State laws. There are a variety of State laws that could delay or
jeopardize the future implementation of resource recovery systems. Three
examples are laws restricting contract length, laws requiring "split bidding," and
laws that require selection of a contractor on the basis of cost alone.
xvi
-------
SUMMARY
Financing Resource Recovery
• Financing does not appear to be a problem. To date, financing has not
been a problem for well-conceived systems. Most of the focus in plant financing
has been on the public and private bond markets: municipal general obligation
bonds, municipal and industrial revenue bonds, and corporate bonds. Public
financing is more attractive than private financing to most cities because of
lower interest rates.
The capital markets have limited experience with resource recovery
systems. More experience and information development must occur to improve
the knowledge of the financial community.
In summary, most constraints can be overcome by additional experience
and information, and a strong Federal program to develop information and
provide technical assistance.
xvu
-------
-------
Chapter 1
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Resource recovery and waste reduction can be
thought of as waste management techniques since
both reduce the amount of waste discarded. From a
slightly different viewpoint, these nondisposal waste
management alternatives can be regarded also as
natural resource conservation and environmental
protection measures because they save material
resources and reduce the causes of environmental
degradation. The purposes of this chapter are to
provide background information relevant to resource
recovery and waste reduction and to discuss their
potential significance in relation to this country's
interrelated waste management, resource conserva-
tion, and environmental protection problems.
DEFINITIONS AND POTENTIALS
Post-Consumer Solid Wastes Defined
Like the first two reports, this Third Report to
Congress is focused on that portion of the nation's
total solid waste stream referred to as "post-
consumer" municipal solid wastes, i.e., those dis-
carded by the final consumer, not by raw-material
producers and manufacturers. These include both the
bulky and non-bulky wastes typically collected in
household refuse, as well as similar materials from
commercial and governmental office buildings, whole-
sale and retail trade establishments, and other general
business and service sectors of the economy.
Specifically excluded from the present definition
are wastes from "pre-consumer" sources, such as
mining, agricultural, and industrial processing re-
siduals, as well as a number of waste types that are
often considered to he in the municipal or post-
consumer category, such as demolition and construc-
tion wastes, street sweepings, and sewage sludge.
Detailed estimates of the quantity and composi-
tion of the post-consumer municipal solid waste
stream are presented later in this chapter.
Resource Recovery
"Resource recovery" is a general term encom-
passing a wide variety of technical approaches for
retrieving or creating economic values from waste
streams. In the solid waste management context,
resource recovery can be defined to include three
main categories:
1. Material recych'ng-the recovery of specific
reprocessed secondary materials, such as new
steel from steel scrap or new paper products
from wastepaper.
2. Material conversion-the recovery from waste
of new forms of byproduct-type materials,
typically for uses very different from that of
the original material. Well-known examples
include the production of highway paving
materials out of waste glass and rubber,
building bricks from incinerator residues, and
compost from mixed organic materials.
3. Energy con version-the recovery of energy
values, either directly by burning combustible
waste in a boiler to produce steam or hot water,
or indirectly by first processing the organic
waste fraction to produce a solid, liquid, or
gaseous fuel.
Resource recovery from municipal solid waste
invariably requires a sequence of collection and
processing steps to render the recovered products
available in a form, quantity, and location that would
make them economically competitive with counter-
part "virgin" products. The initial stages of this
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
sequence are analogous to the extraction and pre-
liminary processing phases for virgin materials, includ-
ing the mining of ores and harvesting of crops, as well
as the initial refining stages.
In the case of recovery from wastes, the "extrac-
tion" phase may be accomplished in either of two
ways. One is the traditional method of "source
separation"-i.e., the segregation of specific waste
products at their point of discard for concentrated
collection. The other is the newly evolving mixed-
waste processing approach whereby municipal solid
waste collected in mixed form is processed to yield
secondary material or energy products.
Regardless of which "extraction" method is
involved-source separation or mixed-waste process-
ing-the recovered material or energy product must
still be marketed in competition with a virgin raw
material or fuel.
Source Separation. Segregation of waste materi-
als at the point of discard has been the principal
method for recovering materials from the waste
stream for recycling. Source separation currently
accounts for virtually all post-consumer recycling,
estimated at about 9 million tons (of which 8.7
million tons was paper) in 1973. This amounted to
about 10 percent of gross discards of nonfood
product waste.
Relevance. Source separation is applicable to a
variety of products and materials, including at least
the following: glass and metal containers, various
types of wastepapers, tires, large household appli-
ances, and waste lubricating oils. These types of
wastes account for about 75 percent of post-
consumer gross discards of manufactured products, or
about 50 percent of total waste, including food and
yard sources.
Source separation as a means of recycling has a
number of apparent strengths. For example, it is
feasible at a small scale and is thus available to smaller
cities. Since it has very low capital requirements, it is
a flexible option that can be phased in rapidly and
modified readily over time. It also has a technical
advantage in that it produces relatively "pure"
(uncontaminated and homogeneous) products which
can have relatively high value.
There are also well-recognized limitations or
shortcomings. Source separation requires direct par-
ticipation by large numbers of people (i.e., in house-
holds, office buildings, and retail stores). Historically
its effectiveness has been mixed due to lack of
organization and incentives. Its economic feasibility is
adversely affected by fluctuating market prices,
particularly for paper and ferrous scrap. On a national
and regional basis, short-run future market demand is
distinctly limited relative to potential levels of
supply. This is particularly true for wastepaper
(almost all grades), tires, and probably waste lubri-
cants, under current and projected economic condi-
tions. Demand for steel cans is also limited in most
regions. Demand for other types of household ferrous
scrap is uncertain.
Potentials. In the absence of major Federal
initiatives, recycling through source separation is
projected to increase from about 9.4 million tons in
1973 to 16.5 million tons by 1985, according to EPA
estimates based on work by the Midwest Research
Institute. Although this indicates modest increases in
the recycling rates for most materials, they would still
fall far short of potentials.
Though often considered a purely "voluntary"
approach because of its association with local
"recycling centers," most source separation, in fact,
takes place at commercial establishments as part of
routine business activity, for profit. Another large
source separation component, newspapers from
households, is undertaken for profit by fund-raising
charities and private scavengers. Precisely how large a
portion of specific waste fractions could be extracted
under various possible local or national incentive
programs is not known. Present EPA estimates, which
are crude and represent only a first approximation,
indicate that maximum potential source separation
may be about triple the level projected for 1985.
Based on expected amounts in the waste stream of
wastepaper, glass and metal containers, tires, and
major household appliances, it is estimated that
almost 50 million tons a year could be source
separated for recycling or material conversion by
1985 under a strong program of incentives. This
50-million-ton potential should be compared with the
roughly 17 million tons actually projected for that
year, and the 9 million tons estimated for 1973. As a
"supply side" option for resource recovery, source
separation thus appears to have a great deal of unused
-------
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
potential-upwards of 30 million tons per year over
and above projected rates by 1985. A 30-million-ton
increment would amount to 20 to 25 percent of the
recyclable material in the waste stream.
With the possible exception of aluminum, the
primary constraint on significantly increasing the
recycling rates of metals, fiber, and rubber by source
separation is lack of industrial demand for secondary
materials. However, much could also be done to
improve the supply side-that is, the effectiveness of
source separation systems. In principle, source separa-
tion is potentially subject to a variety of incentives at
various levels of government. In terms of technique
and management, very little broad-scale (citywide or
countywide) experience exists, and very little serious
study has been directed to the development of
multiproduct source separation systems, including the
use of incentives to improve either supply or demand.
Mixed-Waste Processing. Mixed-waste processing
includes a variety of technologies for separating or
converting mixed municipal refuse into useful materi-
als or energy. All such systems are presently in an
early, experimental stage of development, although
many of their component parts are standard items.
Relevance. Virtually all such systems extract
ferrous metals, with up to 95-percent extraction
efficiency. All systems could include optional extrac-
tion of some kinds of paper by handpicking,
depending on economics. Systems based on wet-
pulping (like the Black Clawson plant in Franklin,
Ohio) and dry-shredding with air classification (St.
Louis) are both adaptable in principle to either fiber
recovery or energy conversion. However, little inter-
est has been shown on the part of the U.S. paper
industry thus far, and most proposed installations are
directed at some type of energy market. Components
for the recovery of glass and nonferrous metals are
also optional for most systems.
Large-scale mixed-waste processing for resource
recovery is compatible with existing waste collection
and transfer systems. For the region served, such
plants could separate or convert very large fractions
of total post-consumer waste. Most engineering design
estimates suggest that over 80 percent by weight and
over 90 percent by volume of the waste input can be
diverted from disposal by these types of systems. On
the other hand, such enterprises involve relatively
large initial capital requirements and long-term
commitments. To some extent, they also share the
future market uncertainties of source separation.
Potentials. It is not clear how rapidly resource
recovery plants would be introduced in the absence
of strong Federal incentives or what the precise
timing would be. There are simply too many major
variables involved, not the least of which is the
uncertainty of the competing technologies. Various
estimates range from 15 to 40 plants, averaging 1,000
tons per day, on line for 1980. Midwest Research
Institute has recently projected that 32 installations
with an aggregate capacity of 80,000 tons per day (24
million tons per year) would be on line by 1985; this
was given as the most likely estimate within a range
of 20 to 50 plants (50,000- to 130,000-TPD
capacity).1 This 1985 projection has been taken as a
baseline for present purposes.
On the basis of this projection and an average
recovery rate of 85 percent of raw waste processed, a
total of about 20 million tons of recyclable materials
and fuels would be recovered in 1985. This would be
about 11 percent of the waste generation projected
for the nation as a whole, and less than 50 percent of
the projected increase in annual solid waste genera-
tion between 1973 and 1985. Doubling the projected
number of plants to provide a capacity of 160,000
tons per day (48 million tons per year) would, on a
nationwide basis, just keep pace with the growth in
solid waste generation between 1973 and 1985.
At the extreme, the maximum quantity of waste
that could be processed in centralized, mixed-waste
facilities is probably limited by collection logistics
and economics to waste from the urbanized areas of
the country. For 1985, it is estimated that collected
waste in U.S. urbanized areas will amount to about
68 percent of total U.S. waste generation. If all of
this urban waste were processed at 85 percent
efficiency in conversion of material, this would
account for about 115 million tons (just under 60
percent of the U.S. solid waste stream) or about five
times the MRI baseline projection. This is, of course,
totally unrealistic in the 1985 time frame, even
assuming maximum Federal intervention. Neverthe-
less, it is useful to note that even with this maximum
conceivable implementation, fully 40 percent of the
national waste stream would not be included.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
From the national perspective, mixed-waste proc-
essing will not be of major quantitative significance
by 1980. That is, it seems unlikely that much more
than 5 percent of the nation's annual waste could be
processed in large-scale plants by that date. However,
by 1985, the baseline projection is that about 10
percent of the nation's solid waste stream will be
accounted for by mixed-waste systems, even without
any new major Federal initiatives. As noted above,
this is a relatively small quantity in relation to
technological potentials.
Waste Reduction
"Waste reduction" (or "source reduction," the
term used in the previous Reports to Congress) is
prevention of waste at its source, either by redesign-
ing products or by otherwise changing societal
patterns of consumption and waste generation.*
Three major approaches for reducing solid waste
generation have been recognized:
1. Reducing material per unit of product-
development and use of products that require
less material per unit of product or less
packaging material per unit of product. Ex-
amples could include smaller automobiles in
place of larger ones and purchasing small items
in bulk quantities in order to reduce packaging
requirements.
2. Increasing product lifetime—development and.
use of durable and semidurable goods with
greater average lifetime to reduce discards and
replacement needs. This approach could be
applied to the whole range of durable goods.
3. Increasing product reuse—substitution of re-
usable products for single-use "disposable"
products and increasing the number of times
items are reused. Examples of items to which
this principle could be applied include bever-
age containers, food service items, and certain
napkin and towel products.
These basic approaches may be carried out both
through the redesign of products on the part of
producers and by substitution among existing
products on the part of consumers. Success thus
depends not only on the availability of alternative
*The term "waste reduction" should not be confused
with "volume reduction," which is used in the solid waste
management field to refer to waste compaction or baling.
product designs but also on their acceptance by
consumers. The latter often requires extensive "sup-
port systems," e.g., maintenance and repair facilities
for durable goods, second-hand markets for reusable
items, specialized collection and storage systems for
reusable containers.
Some waste reduction measures may imply re-
duced standards of living for at least some groups of
consumers and reduced incomes for some groups of
producers. On the other hand, waste reduction in
general could well be regarded simply as sound
economics for the society as a whole, since it reduces
the national cost of providing a given level of material
well-being. It will involve some change in lifestyle and
material consumption habits for a substantial segment
of the population if it is to be of any consequence in
reducing waste flows.
Relevance. As presently understood, some of the
attributes of products and their consumption that are
of most significance to solid waste generation appear
to be single-use rather than multiple-use design,
shorter rather than longer product 'lifetime (durabil-
ity), larger rather than smaller products, more "rather
than less packaging material per unit of product, and
more rather than fewer units of products consumed
per family per year. Historically, these attributes have
been "regulated" for all of the many thousands of
products primarily by market forces. With the excep-
tion of wartime product rationing and material sup-
ply controls, the United States has never experienced
broad-scale public intervention into these dimensions
of our economic life. Currently, the major peacetime
examples of intervention relate to product safety and
public health considerations.
Although our current understanding is limited, it
appears that one or more waste reduction approaches
are potentially relevant to virtually all consumer
goods (including containers and packaging) entering
the solid waste stream. One possible exception is the
food products category, although even here one can
find examples where the application of plant and
animal genetics and various food marketing innova-
tions has altered the generation of food wastes. If one
rules out food and yard wastes, this leaves about 60
to 65 percent of the post-consumer solid waste
stream which is subject to some degree of waste
reduction at the source.
-------
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Many types of waste reduction could be initiated
at the Federal level. Since such measures would
operate primarily through the product market struc-
ture (rather than through waste collection systems),
the entire national marketing area of products would
be affected, thus reducing rural as well as urban
wastes. Many types of waste reduction can be
achieved voluntarily, with economic advantages to
the industries in question (although not necessarily to
their material suppliers). Many types could be
introduced relatively rapidly and can thus have
nationwide impact in only a very few years' time
(certain packaging design changes, for example). In
the case of some product design changes, there are no
recurring annual operating and maintenance costs,
only initial costs for the changeover in the form of
capital resource commitments.
Potentials. Waste reduction potentials are ex-
tremely difficult to evaluate in quantitative terms.
Nevertheless, a scenario has been constructed based
on a major national shift to refillable beverage
containers and a modest but pervasive program for
other nonfood products. Analysis of potential ma-
terial savings from this combination is based on the
following specifics: (1) an 80-percent shift to
(18-trip) refillable beer and soft drink containers,
with aluminum and steel cans sharing the remaining
20 percent; (2) a major increase in durability of
rubber tires based on currently evolving technology;
(3) a 10- to 15-percent reduction in the material
requirements of other products based on various
possible combinations of increased product durabil-
ity, reuse, and other consumer conservation measures.
The combined annual effects of this scenario result
in potential reductions in the 1985 waste stream on
the order of greater than 20 million tons of
product-related waste materials. This is more than 15
percent of the nonfood waste stream. Total post-
consumer waste, including food and yard waste,
would be reduced by over 10 percent.
Obviously many questions can be raised about the
feasibility of achieving such a scenario, and consider-
able additional analysis would be required to substan-
tiate these possibilities and evaluate their economic
impacts. Nevertheless, the technical assumptions
appear reasonably sound as a set of initial values, at
least as to general order of magnitude, in view of the
fact that they allow a decade for design and imple-
mentation and there is some empirical evidence from
the Oregon and Vermont beverage container exper-
ience and other specific industry product design
changes. (See Chapter 2 for further discussion of
State-level beverage container legislation and other
examples of waste reduction efforts.)
THE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION
OF POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
The Second Report to Congress (March 1974)
indicated considerable improvement in our knowl-
edge of both total quantity and composition of the
nation's post-consumer solid waste stream. For the
first time, estimates were presented detailing the
composition of the 1971 waste stream both by
material and by product type.2- P-3 The work done in
the year since that report has not provided reasons to
reject or significantly alter the bases for the 1971
estimates.3'4 They have been updated to 1973 and
additional details developed on composition by prod-
uct type, on recycling, and on projections of future
trends.
Estimates for 1973
EPA's current estimates for U.S. post-consumer
municipal waste for 1973, based on reported material
flow statistics for 1973 and earlier years, are
presented in Table 1. This table is organized in the
same format as the original table for 1971 appearing
in the last Report to Congress, with all figures
updated to 1973 values. The same definitions and
similar methods of calculation are used, so the 1973
data are directly comparable to the 1971 estimates.2
They are preliminary in the sense that they are based
in part on industry statistics for 1973 that are still
subject to revision by government and trade associa-
tion sources. The following were the more significant
changes between 1971 and 1973 (Table 2):
Total waste generation:
• Total post-consumer municipal waste increased
by 10 million tons (8 percent) from 125 to 135
million tons.
• Per capita generation increased from 3.3 to 3.5
pounds per day (6.3-percent growth).
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
fc,
o
Q
U
§
&
Q
O
CO
w
K
CO
§a
rt u
u a; O
j w 3
OQ S Q
< S
CJ Ou
Q S
ss
O
CO
t-
S
s
U.
as
s
I .-I
8-
•g
15
1
8 8,
I a
-^ ^^
I S
S o
s
o
0)
IX
O S3
I s
c
8
o a
•2 3
a o
jg +••
s I
*fl •«
O
o.
S
•n u
I!
0.
o o
0 £
I ^
2 S
" ° 2
•5--S S
* si
J3 n
3 3
6j3
a
S3
flj 4)
ff J3 |
>o to o- -, t- NO vo
ON O ON ^* CN r-H tO
10 ~H
« •«• 0. NO C- - ON
to to CM m to CN *?
in . .
co ON to CN r~ to r- r- . NO
to
cscMinoo^-o OQNON
,2S3-o«, to..
NO ~. o t- ~< CN NO or-m
QN i— i ^J* tO O O ^^ tO O O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III
a i a i i i 3 Sd a
' ^2^53 S ' '
to'rNJNbincj-oto" a a •-<
CN -H *^
to
^ i i i i i ti i a i
3
o 5)
Q +•
sj! i
8 § _g „ t, «
|||l56| |||
Pk O S cu tf E-i ?
<-H tO
r-( tO
C*" r—t
o o
NO 00
m NO
3 S
•* •*
in CN
00 CN
in
6 1
CN
S
3 i
to
3
1
I
1
13
O
O
*3
o
0
3 s
O M
H S
•8
o
It,
T* PH m °-
^1" ^* rH 0
00 i-l rH
O O O 00
i-Hr-* tO
i— 1 i-H
-H m <• o
O 00 . O
CO -H O
1— 1
00 O ON 00
t~ IT) rH ^j
0 CN tO
f— 1 l-H
in
Q
CN
CNl
CN
to
rH
to
CNJ
to
01
i
^j
^
S s
| g 8, |
H g § H
'H S
>• i
s o
m >•
>•
IH *J
O -
Hi O
til
i! rr .^^
•2 I f
- S «
§ °"
§•2
— o
o o
o
II
II
(d u
«fi
§^
«3
fill ?§
S, Q) O ^~*
*O 4.J -W .„
O< C
--2
O "
--2 8 0
"
i *
S fc
en +•> ,
2-S o
1?
°."S I
|6 a.
,W M W
O * &
t) *H
g.|lj
8 I "S
S n tf .g
-------
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 2
POST-CONSUMER NET SOLID WASTE DISPOSED OF, BY MATERIAL AND PRODUCT CATEGORIES,
1971 and 1973*t
(As-generated wet weight, in millions of tons)
Materials and products
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
Clothing and footwear
Other products
Total nonfood product waste
Food waste
Total product waste
Add: Yard and misc. inorganics
Total
1971
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
1973
44.2
13.2
12.5
(11.0)
( 1.0)
( 0.4)
5.0
3.6
1.9
4.9
85.4
22.4
107.8
25.0
1.9
134.8
11.3
46.9
2.1
3.4
1.3
20.5
85.4
22.4
107.8
26.9
134.8
Growth,
1971-73
5.1
1.2
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.3
8.5
0.4
8.9
0.9
0.1
10.0
1.0
5.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
2.1
8.5
0.4
8.9
1.0
10.0
Percent
change
13.0
10.0
5.9
3.8
25.0
6.0
19.0
9.0
5.5
6.5
11.1
1.8
9.0
3.7
5.6
8.0
9.7
12.5
0.0
6.3
8.3
11.4
11.1
1.8
9.0
3.9
8.0
1974.
*Smith, F. A., and F. L. Smith, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Data revised Dec.
tNet solid waste disposal defined as net residual material after accounting for recycled materials diverted from waste stream.
Kinds of materials:
• Total nonfood product wastes accounted for
mott of the growth-8.5 million tons, or a
11.1-percent increase.
• Paper and paperboard wastes were up by 5.1
million tons (13 percent).
• Glass up 1.2 million tons (10 percent).
• Metals up 0.7 million tons (5.9 percent).
• Plastics up 0.8 million tons (19 percent).
• No major waste material decreased in tonnage.
Product categories:
• Containers and packaging wastes increased by
5.2 million tons (12.5 percent) and in 1973
constituted 55 percent of all nonfood product
waste and 35 percent of total post-consumer
waste. (In 1971 the corresponding percentages
were 54 percent and 34 percent, respectively.)
• Waste newspapers, books, and magazines were
up by 1.0 million tons (9.7 percent).
In interpreting these growth rates, it should be
noted that 1971 was not a very strong year for many
-------
8
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
products, whereas 1973 was generally a boom year by
comparison. Therefore, the growth rates presented in
Table 2 should not be used as trends on which to base
future projections, either short-term or long-term.
Readers are also cautioned that data in this section
relate to nationwide totals, they may prove to be very
inaccurate indicators of conditions in any given State
or local area.
A much more detailed accounting of product
categories has been prepared for this report (Table 3).
This yields a considerably clearer picture of how the
waste flows originate, which should be particularly
useful in analyses of waste reduction and source
separation at the national level. In addition, Table 3
estimates the relationships between "gross discards"
(total waste generation before recycling or disposal),
"material recycled" from post-consumer gross dis-
cards, and "net waste disposed of" (final residual
waste remaining after material recovery). Table 4
provides similar estimates by material, rather than
product, categories.
It should be recognized that the quantities shown
here as recycled include only post-consumer residen-
tial and commercial wastes recovered from the
product sources listed in Table 3. They do not
include material recycled from "pre-ccnsumer" indus-
trial processing, fabricating, or converting operations
or from certain post-consumer sources such as dem-
olition or junk auto shredding. Thus, the recycling
quantities and percentages shown in Tables 3 and 4
will differ from other reported sources and estimates.
This is the first time that comprehensive estimates of
post-consumer recycling have been developed for all
major materials.
Two major conclusions regarding recycling in 1973
can be drawn from Tables 3 and 4. The first is that
very little of the post-consumer wastes (excluding
automobiles) is currently recycled. Overall, only
about 7 percent of total waste or 10 percent of
nonfood product waste was diverted from disposal to
recycling in 1973. The second conclusion is that most
of the recycling (93 percent of total tonnage) is
accounted for by paper products-principally old
newspapers, office papers, and paperboard packaging.
Of the total amount of paper discarded, 16.5 percent
was recycled in 1973. For no other material does the
recycled percentage amount to as much as 10
percent.
Future Trend Projections
EPA's most recent projections of waste generation
rates to 1990 are presented in Table 5. Unlike the
simple extrapolations in last year's Report to Con-
gress, the new projections are based mainly on a
detailed product-by-product analysis.' In addition, as
with the 1973 estimates, an attempt has been made
to project the quantities of waste that will be
recycled or otherwise recovered as resources.
The projections are "baseline" figures in the sense
that they are based on an assumption of no new
intervention by the Federal Government into the solid
waste management field via incentives for resource
recovery or waste reduction or new regulations on
disposal of municipal solid waste. The future projec-
tions do assume a continuation of average historical
growth rates for national income and gross national
product, although not necessarily for individual
product categories. Basically, the projections for
future years are based on the same type of material
flow analysis and historical data sources used to
develop EPA's 1971 and 1973 estimates.
Projection of future solid waste generation has
never been subject to greater uncertainties than under
present conditions of rising material and energy prices
and changing international bargaining relationships. It
is still too early to judge the extent to which the
materials pricing structure has been permanently
altered by the recent massive increases in fuel prices,
or whether this should significantly affect either the
total picture presented in Table 5 or the underlying
data components.
The current projection is that total gross discards
will increase quite significantly, up to 225 million
tons by 1990. Resource recovery-including both
recycling and energy conversion-is projected as in-
creasing quite dramatically, but it must be noted
•that these figures (especially those for 1985 and
1990) represent the least certain numbers in the table
since they are based in part on projections of the
number of future large-scale waste-processing installa-
tions. Thus, these numbers should be taken with great
caution, as should the net waste figures derived from
them. As a percent of gross discards, the baseline
recovery rate is projected to grow from about 7
percent in 1973 to 17 percent in 1985 and 26 percent
in 1990.
-------
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 3
POST-CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATED
AND AMOUNTS RECYCLED, BY DETAILED PRODUCT CATEGORY, 1973*
(As-generated wet weight, in thousands of tons)
Product category
Durable goods:
Major appliances
Furniture, furnishings
Rubber tires
Miscellaneous durables
Nondurable goods, exc. food:
Newspapers
Books, magazines
Office paper
Tissue paper, incl. 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
Aluminum:
Beer, soft drink :j:
Other cans
Aluminum foil
Paper, paperboard:
Corrugated
Other paperboard
Paper packaging
Plastics:
Plastic containers
Other plastic packaging
Wood packaging
Other misc. packaging
Total nonfood product waste
Add: Food waste
Yard waste
Misc. inorganic wastes
Total
oTOSS
discards
14,700
2,200
3,400
2,000
7,100
27,930
10,400
3,720
6,390
2,320
600
1,300
1,300
1,900
52,270
12,400
6,100
1,970
4,330
5,650
1,550
3,140
960
820
440
50
330
28,230
15,100
6,925
6,205
3,090
510
2,580
1,900
180
94,900
22,400
25,000
1,900
144,200
Material recycled
Quantity
300
100
0
200
0
3,770
2,450
330
990
0
0
0
0
0
5,330
275
190
25
60
60
15
35
10
35
30
1
4
4,960
3,290
1,045
625
0
0
0
0
0
9,400
0
0
0
9,400
Percent
2
4
0
10
0
13
24
9
15
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
7
2
1
18
22
15
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
7
Net waste disposed of
Quantity
14,400
2,100
3,400
1,800
7,100
24,160
7,950
3,390
5,400
2,320
600
1,300
1,300
1,900
46,940
12,125
5,910
1,945
4,270
5,590
1,535
3,105
950
785
410
45
330
23,270
11,810
5,880
5,580
3,090
510
2,580
1,900
180
85,500
22,400
25,000
1,900
134,800
% of total
waste
11
2
3
1
5
18
6
3
4
2
t
1
1
1
35
9
4
1
3
4
1
2
1
1
t
t
t
17
9
4
4
2
t
2
1
t
63
17
19
1
100
% of nonfood
product waste
17
2
4
2
8
28
9
4
6
3
1
2
2
2
55
14
7
2
5
7
2
4
1
1
t
t
t
27
14
7
7
4
1
3
2
t
100
26
29
2
158
*Smith, F.A., Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Nov. 1974.
tLess than 0.5%.
t Includes all-aluminum cans and aluminum ends from nonaluminum containers.
-------
10
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 4
POST-CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATED
AND AMOUNTS RECYCLED, BY TYPE OF MATERIAL, 1973*
(As-generated wet weight, in millions of tons)
Material
category
Paper
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonferrous
Plastics
Rubber
Leather
Textiles
Wood
Gross
discards
53.0
13.5
12.7
11.2
1.0
0.4
5.0
2.8
1.0
1.9
4.9
Material recycled t
Quantity
8.7
0.3
0.20
0.2
0.04
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Percent
16.5
2.1
1.6
1.4
4.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Net waste disposed of
Quantity
44.2
13.2
12.5
11.0
1.0
0.4
5.0
2.6
1.0
1.9
4.9
% of total
waste
32.8
9.9
9.3
8.2
0.7
0.3
3.7
1.9
0.7
1.4
3.6
% of nonfood
product waste
51.8
15.5
14.6
12.9
1.2
0.5
5.9
3.0
1.2
2.2
5.7
Total nonfood product waste
94.2
9.4
9.9
85.4
63.4
100.0
Food waste
Yard waste
Misc. inorganic wastes
Total
22.4
25.0
1.9
144.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
22.4
25.0
1.9
134.8
16.6
18.5
1.4
100.0
26.2
29.3
2.2
157.8
*Estimates by the Resource Recovery Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
t Resource recovery in 1973 included only material recycling. Energy recovery accounted for negligible amounts.
TABLE 5
BASELINE ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS OF POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE GENERATION,
RESOURCE RECOVERY, AND DISPOSAL, 1971 TO 1990*
Estimated
Total gross discards:
Million tons per year
Pounds per person per day
Less: resources recovered:
Million tons per year
Pounds per person per day
Equals net waste disposed of:
Million tons per year
Pounds per person per day
1971
133
3.52
8
0.21
125
3.31
1973
144
3.75
9
0.23
135
3.52
1980
175
4.28
19
0.46
156
3.81
Projected
1985
201
4.67
35
0.81
166
3.86
1990
225
5.00
58
1.29
167
3.71
*Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Data revised Dec. 1974. Projections for 1980 to
1990 based in part on contract work by Midwest Research Institute.
-------
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
11
The amount of net waste is shown as growing at a
decreasing rate to 1985, and then essentially leveling
off as the increase in recovery equals the increment of
gross discards.
Even at this point, however, the nation still would
be faced with disposing of an annual aggregate
post-consumer waste load about 30 million tons (23
percent) greater than at present. This increase is
projected to occur even with resource recovery
tonnage quadrupling by 1985 and increasing by more
than sixfold by 1990.
THE BENEFITS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY
AND WASTE REDUCTION
An increase in resource recovery and waste
reduction would have a positive impact on a number
of recognized national problems. Among these are
problems relating to community solid waste manage-
ment, the conservation of scarce material and energy
resources, international trade and balance of pay-
ments, and environmental protection. For the most
part, however, potential benefit relationships are still
very poorly understood, both in conceptual and
quantitative terms. The purpose of this section is to
summarize some of the more important facts and
issues regarding the potential significance of resource
recovery and waste reduction to these areas of
national concern.
Community Soh'd Waste Management
Solid waste management problems at the local
level can be grouped into three interrelated cate-
gories: (1) increasing costs of collection and disposal;
(2) increasing political and social difficulties in
locating new land disposal sites; and (3) increasing
requirements for controlling pollution from local
incinerators and landfill sites. These problems are
shared by virtually all of our cities to some degree.
They will continue to become more severe over time
so long as waste generation continues at its present
high and rising level.
CoIJection and Disposal Costs. It currently costs
$21 to collect a ton of solid waste and $5 per ton to
process and landfill it. These are national average
figures for 1974 reflecting current practices in which
a majority of communities do not provide environ-
mentally adequate disposal facilities.* From a na-
tional perspective, these average local cost figures
imply a total direct cost of about $3.5 billion to
collect and dispose of the nation's 135 million tons of
post-consumer solid waste in 1973.
It is expected that a majority of communities will
experience increasing costs over the next 5 to 10
years. These will be increases in "real" costs—i.e.,
increases over and above those expected due to
general effects of inflation on wage rates and prices of
equipment and materials. These increases will have
two main causes: pollution controls and increased
scarcity of available landfill sites.
Increased requirements for pollution control,
imposed by State and regional environmental protec-
tion agencies in conjunction with Federal guidelines,
will impact directly on both incinerator costs and
sanitary landfill costs. Increasing scarcity of available
landfill sites, brought on by suburban growth, will
also mean increased costs, not only for land itself but
also for transporting waste over longer haul distances
to outlying sites and for additional processing, such as
shredding or baling, that may be required to extend
the capacity of landfills.
It is not possible to predict accurately what the
combined impacts of these various factors will be on
average national costs over the next decade or so.
However, it is not unreasonable to expect that the
average community will face a 20- to 30-percent in-
crease in its direct real costs of solid waste disposal
by 1985, even without adding on the effects of
general inflation. This implies a national average cost
by 1985 of $8 to $12 per ton for disposal (including
transfer stations and processing) and perhaps $30 to
$35 per ton for collection and disposal combined.
The effects of general inflation on wage rates and
other cost factors would, of course, push these
estimates to higher levels. Adding on an average 4
percent per year inflation rate, for example, would
imply a 1985 collection and disposal cost for the
average city of $50 per ton.
LandfiJJ Siting. As many community leaders will
attest, obtaining new land disposal sites involves
social and political problems that go far beyond the
*Depending on local circumstances and level of services
'provided, reported collection costs vary between $10
and $30 per ton among different localities. Actual disposal
costs may range from under $1 per ton for uncontrolled land
dumping up to as high as $15 to $20 per ton for incineration
(with air pollution controls) and landfilling of the residue.
These are direct costs only and do not include any imputed
economic value for the "external" environmentally related
social costs of waste disposal.
-------
12
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
question of land cost alone. Increasingly, local zoning
ordinances and neighborhood political pressure
groups are becoming effective instruments for pre-
venting any new landfill site development within
certain political jurisdictions. The opposition stems
mainly from concern about the effects on the status,
esthetic qualities, traffic patterns, etc., of the areas
surrounding proposed sites, and the consequent effect
on property values. In a very real sense, the extent of
local opposition to new landfill sites is a proxy
measure of the implicit costs that people who live in
the vicinity of such sites typically experience. In
short, it is a reflection of expected "external costs"
of future land disposal-costs that are never reflected
in community budget figures, but which are nonethe-
less real. A community's inability to establish new
landfill sites can result in continued operation of
obsolete or inadequate incinerators or overburdening
of current landfill facilities. It can also lead to
inordinately high dumping fees at private landfills.
Such problems are becoming a primary motivating
force at the local level for resource recovery and
waste reduction programs that can reduce the amount
of waste going to landfills.
Pollution Control Requirements. Environmental
protection objectives require the control of solid
waste incineration and landfill operations for public
health, ecological, and esthetic reasons.
As of mid-1972, nearly 200 municipal-scale in-
cinerators operated in the United States, processing
waste at a rate of about 17 million tons per year.5
Incinerators produce a variety of atmospheric emis-
sions, and many are also a significant source of
untreated wastewater effluent. Historically, inciner-
ators have had a very poor air pollutant control
record. Most are in the Northeast quarter of the
nation, with over one-half being in the densely
populated eastern seaboard States. Thus, their princi-
pal contributions to pollution are in areas where the
damages are likely to be the greatest.
Most of the solid waste tonnage goes directly to
open dumps and landfills. Although open dumps have
long been considered unacceptable from both esthetic
and public health standpoints, the greater part of
municipal waste is probably still disposed of in this
manner. As recently as the summer of 1972, it was
determined that more than 14,000 disposal sites
classified as dumps still operated in the United States.
And although sanitary landfills have usually been
considered environmentally acceptable, very few have
been designed to control leachate. There is increasing
evidence that potential underground leachate
problems are more serious than previously thought,
with adverse implications for the quality of both
ground and surface waters.6
There are real questions regarding how rapidly
local agencies can progress toward environmentally
acceptable incinerators and landfills in the face of
rising waste loads and rising costs of implementing
the desired controls. To the extent that such progress
is made, it will be reflected in steeply higher costs of
waste disposal. To the extent that control implemen-
tation lags, environmental quality will deteriorate
further due to the increasing per capita solid waste
generation rates.
Conservation of Natural Resources
By a variety of measures, we are becoming an
increasingly "material-intensive" society. Not only
have we increased our per capita consumption of
goods and services, in many cases we have also
increased our rate of material use per unit of product
consumed. This is reflected both in the waste flow
estimates and in basic production and consumption
statistics. For example, U.S. consumption of most
classes of raw materials has been growing by 20 to
40 percent per decade in the 20th century, and there
is some evidence of an increasing rate of growth
during the most recent decades.*1 p'I0 EPA's projec-
tions indicate 10- to 60-percent increases in consump-
tion of various raw materials and fuels by 1985 over
1972 levels. Typical projections by independent
resource economists forecast at least a doubling in
U.S. consumption of most raw materials by the year
2000.7- 8
Along with increasing material consumption has
come an apparently increasing dependency on foreign
mineral resources during the post-World War II era.9
This undoubtedly has been largely a function of the
economics of supply rather than our own "running
out of resources" in any absolute sense. An important
factor here was the overvaluation of the dollar in
international trade during most of the past three
decades. However, it also reflects the fact that for
some raw materials (such as tin and nickel) the
-------
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
13
United States does not possess known commercial-
scale deposits, and that for some others (such as iron
ore) most of our higher grade and more accessible
deposits have already been largely depleted.
In the context of international trade, a new system
of floating exchange rates together with new in-
stances of nationalization and cartelization of the
world's natural resources has to a significant degree
created new ground rules regarding access to foreign
raw material and energy sources. At the same time,
the structure of competition for foreign resources has
drastically changed with the rapid economic growth
of the U.S.S.R., Japan, and a number of other
nations.
The general conclusion is that the world's natural
resource base, including that of the United States,
will be subject to increasingly extreme pressures over
time, and that the international system of distributing
these resources will be less favorable to U.S.
consumption than in the past. This implies an altered
future price structure, with the United States facing
generally higher world market prices for many if not
most of its imported raw materials and fuels. Under
such circumstances, the natural response will be to
turn increasingly inward to domestic sources, where
possible, in order to reduce adverse effects on specific
product prices and foreign trade balances, and to
preserve national political autonomy. Our policy of
domestic energy development-Project Independ-
ence-is a case in point.
From a domestic economic standpoint, the key
issues relate to possibilities of future shortages of
important industrial raw materials and fuels with
attendant decreases in material welfare. These short-
ages could occur from a technological inability of the
United States and other countries to develop new
low-cost raw material supplies in pace with rising
world demands. They could also result from trade
restrictions associated with international power strug-
gles, or simply from attempts of key supplying
nations to maximize their returns from trade.
The extent and timing of future shortages is
subject to much conjecture and debate.10"12 Because
there is no adequate way at present to assess the
relative quantitative importance of these perceived
problems, there is no satisfactory basis for quantify-
ing the present social value of resource conservation
in monetary or other terms. Nevertheless, few would
deny that conservation values are important even
though we may not be able at this time to quantify
them.
Last year's Report to Congress indicated the
approximate contributions that a maximum feasible
nationwide resource recovery effort might make
toward meeting current demands for materials.2'11''4
Those EPA estimates suggested that 6 to 11 percent
of current annual U.S. production of various major
metals and up to 20 percent of current paper
production could technically be supplied by recycling
materials from the post-consumer solid waste stream
(as defined in Table 1). Additional resource conserva-
tion and foreign trade benefits would stem from
waste reduction measures.
More recent work has focused on quantifying the
potential national energy savings associated with
material recycling, conversion of organic waste into
fuels, and waste reduction approaches.13 The calcula-
tions indicate that energy savings well in excess of
1,000 billion Btu (between 1.5 and 2.0 percent of
total U.S. energy requirements) could have been
achieved in 1972 through waste reduction and
resource recovery measures using currently available
technology. This suggests the relative order of
magnitude of future national potentials for energy
conservation through improved solid waste manage-
ment.
Although such magnitudes could not be con-
sidered, by themselves, to be ultimate solutions to
our resource supply problems, they would neverthe-
less represent substantial contributions in both raw
material and energy terms.
Environmental Protection
The preservation and improvement of environ-
mental quality represents a third set of problems for
which resource recovery and waste reduction can
contribute some measure of solution. Degradation of
the environment involves physical, chemical, and
biological damages from such causes as: the physical
destruction of land surfaces by mining and construc-
tion, soil erosion from improper forestry and agricul-
tural practices, the contamination of air and water by
industrial effluents, the eutrophication of lakes and
ponds, toxic chemicals introduced into biological
food chains, and accumulations of industrial and
-------
14
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
municipal solid wastes as litter or at dump sites.
Environmental degradation adversely affects virtually
all of the measures of human welfare—health,
economic, and esthetic.
Resource recovery and waste reduction most
obviously can affect the direct environmental impacts
of waste collection and disposal, as discussed earlier.
However, the environmental implications of these
nondisposal approaches extend far beyond the local
incinerator and dump site, since they are inextricably
linked to the industrial structure of the economy.
Thus, for example, whenever a waste reduction
measure reduces the quantity of a material consumed,
the quantities of all direct and indirect raw material
and energy inputs-and their associated environ-
mental impacts-are correspondingly reduced to some
extent. These direct and indirect industrial impacts
include not only the raw materials physically in-
cluded in the final product (such as the iron,
aluminum, tin, and lead in a tinplated can) but also
the ancillary process chemicals and the fuels required
for heat, power, electricity, and transportation. The
reduced demands extend back through the material
refining stages to crude material preparation and
extraction from the earth. They could in some
instances also extend indirectly through the industrial
structure to capital equipment requirements and the
industries that supply them.
Resource recovery has similar implications, except
that some offsetting adverse environmental effects
can be expected, both in mixed-waste recovery and
subsequent industrial processing of the recovered
material (such as secondary smelting). Thus far,
research results indicate that the environmental
effects of recycling are almost always significantly
less-usually only a small fraction-compared with
those resulting from virgin production.14"18 With rare
exceptions, this holds for all air and water pollutants
(both process and energy-related) as well as solid
waste generation and degradation of land surfaces.
At this time it is not possible to predict how
environmental benefits of particular actions, in the
form of reduced environmental impacts from indus-
try, will be distributed across geographic areas and
industry groups. Small increments of waste reduction
or recovery may have no observable impact at all,
since many effects of industrial processes may be
insensitive to small changes in material throughput.
One of the real difficulties in evaluating the total
environmental significance of waste reduction and
resource recovery efforts is the diffusion of individual
effects across many different industries and geo-
graphic regions. As with material and energy conser-
vation benefits, these environmental benefits are not
likely to appear either obvious or of much real
significance to those at the local decision-making
level. In fact, the national industrial pollution control
benefits from any one State or local resource
recovery or waste reduction project are likely to be so
small as to be virtually undetectable. Nevertheless,
the total benefits from a multitude of individual local
actions can add up to results of national significance.
REFERENCES
1. Franklin, W. E., et al. [Midwest Research Institute].
Base line forecasts of resource recovery,
1972 to 1990. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Resource Re-
covery Division, Mar. 1975. 376 p. (Unpub-
lished report.)
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. Smith, F. L., Jr. A solid waste estimation procedure;
material flows approach. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-147. [Washing-
ton] , U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 1975. 56 p.
4. Smith, F. A. Comparative estimates of post-consumer
solid waste. Environmental Protection Publi-
cation SW-148. [Washington], U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, May 1975. 18 p.
5. Achinger, W. C., and R. L. Baker. Environmental
assessment of municipal-scale incinerators.
Environmental Protection Publication
SW-111. [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973. 31 p. [Open-file
report, restricted distribution.]
6. Garland, G. A., and D. C. Mosher. Leachate effects of
improper land disposal. Waste Age, 6(3): 42,
44-48, Mar. 1975.
7. Ridker, R. G. The economy, resource requirements, and
pollution levels. In U.S. Commission on
Population Growth and the American Fu-
ture. Population, resources, and the environ-
ment. Washington, U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1972. p. 35-37. (Commission
Research Reports Vol. 3.)
8. National Commission on Materials Policy. Towards a
national materials policy; basic data and
issues—an interim report. Washington, U.S.
-------
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVES ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
15
Government Printing Office, Apr. 1972.
63 p.
9. U.S. Department of the Interior. Mining and minerals
policy, 1973; second annual report of the
Secretary of the Interior under the Mining
and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (P.L.
91-631). Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, June 1973. 73 p.
10. Meadows, D. H., et al. The limits to growth. New York,
Potomac Associates, 1972. 207 p.
11. Fischman, L. L., and H. H. Landsberg. Adequacy of
nonfuel minerals and forest resources. In
U.S. Commission on Population Growth and
the American Future. Population, resources,
and the environment. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972.
p. 77-101. (Commission Research Reports
Vol. 3.)
12. Goeller, H. E. An optimistic outlook for mineral
resources. Presented at University of Minne-
sota Forum on Scarcity and Growth; To-
wards a National Materials Policy, [Minne-
apolis], June 22-24, 1972. Oak Ridge, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory-National Sci-
ence Foundation Environmental Program.
23 p., app.
13. Lowe, R. A., M. Loube, and F. A. Smith. Energy
conservation through improved solid waste
management. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-125. [Washington], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
39 p., app.
14. Yaksich, S. M., et al. [Calspan Corporation]. Environ-
mental impacts of virgin and recycled steel
and aluminum. Washington, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Feb. 1974.
116 p. (Unpublished report.)
15. Gordian Associates, Inc. Environmental impacts of
production of virgin and secondary paper,
glass and rubber products. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
(In preparation.)
16. Hunt, R. G., and W. E. Franklin. Environmental effects
of recycling paper. MRI 1106. Presented at
73d National Meeting of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, Minne-
apolis, Aug. 27-30, 1972. Kansas City,
Midwest Research Institute, [July 1973J.
34 p.
17. Haller, G. L. [Monsanto Company]. Resource utilization
and environmental impact of alternative
beverage containers. Presented at Sympo-
sium: Environmental Impact of Nitrile Bar-
rier Containers, Hartford, Conn., July 19,
1973.2v.
18. 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.
-------
Chapter 2
WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction (or "source reduction") includes a
variety of means to control and prevent waste
generation through product redesign and change in
consumer behavior. It is a unique approach to solid
waste management based on the thesis that solid
wastes are the unwanted residuals of our production
and consumption processes-as are airborne and
waterborne wastes-and that the generation of such
residuals should be reduced. As presently understood,
some of the major choices in production and
consumption that are relevant to solid waste genera-
tion are:
1. Single-use versus multiple-use design
2. Shorter versus longer product lifetime (durabil-
ity)
3. Larger versus smaller products
4. More versus less packaging material per unit of
product
5. More versus fewer units of product consumed
per family per year
In the past decade, there has been considerable
progress in the development of systems for the
storage, collection, transportation, processing, and
disposal of solid waste. More recently, several systems
for the recovery and utilization of material from solid
waste have also been developed. However, little
attention has been focused (by either the private or
public sectors) on a third approach to solid waste
management—reducing the generation of waste.
Nor has much consideration been given to moder-
ating the demand for materials and products in order
to reduce energy and materials consumption. While
the Federal Government has long sought to increase
the available supply of raw materials, its efforts have
been directed generally toward the short-run exploita-
tion of natural resource assets. The Mining Law of
1872, depletion allowances, and Federal subsidies for
resource exploration and technology are some of the
principal ways in which public policy has encouraged
the increase of raw materials supply. Such efforts to
increase supply, however, also have the effect of
encouraging consumption of materials and spurring
the growth in consumption which can in some ways
be related to current energy and materials shortages.
While in past years proponents of waste reduction
have been limited generally to the "gloom and doom"
prophets of the environmental community, recently
the concept has been accorded wider credence.
Energy and material shortages have created market
pressures for decreased consumption of raw materials.
Industry has responded by developing new product
designs that utilize resources more efficiently. At the
same time, new public policies have been announced
that urge decreased consumption of fossil fuels. The
nation's cities have also become more and more
concerned about solid waste management practices
and generation rates, particularly as the use of
landfills becomes more costly and politically difficult.
A recent survey of cities indicated that waste
reduction was perceived to be one of the major solid
waste management issues that needs to be addressed.
The questions that now arise, therefore, go beyond
the issue of whether waste reduction is desirable.
They now center on the extent to which feasible
'approaches for decreasing material consumption and
waste generation can be developed and implemented.
As an approach to material shortages, waste
reduction is unique in that it results in the
preservation of the quality of the physical environ-
ment whereas many other approaches involve the
relaxation of environmental standards. Similarly,
while most approaches to waste management have
dealt with the means of disposing of wastes without
16
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
17
considering the environmental pressures generated in
the creation of wastes, waste reduction would
decrease environmental effects from the time of the
extraction of raw material through to the final
disposal stage.
The Second Report to Congress described the
waste reduction concept in general terms and
provided specific information on the growth of
packaging waste. This chapter is intended to describe
in more detail the technical options that can be
utilized to achieve waste reduction and the types of
actions that can be undertaken by the Federal
Government to encourage a reduction in the use of
energy and materials and in waste generation.
TECHNICAL OPTIONS
Three technical options have been identified as
means of achieving waste reduction:
1. Reduced resource use per product-the de-
signing of products so that minimum quantities
of resources are used in their manufacture (e.g.,
a thinner-walled container).
2. Increased product lifetime-the use of products
over an extended period of time (e.g., use of a
tire with a longer service life), and the designing
of products for longer life.
3. Product reuse—the multiple use of products in
their original forms (e.g., the use, washing, and
refilling of a glass bottle) and the designing of
products for multiple uses.
The following describes each of these options and
presents data on the potential impact of each option
on particular products selected as examples.
Reduced Resource Use Per Product
The Concept. This approach will result in a
decrease in the amount of materials used in the
manufacture of a product. It is likely to decrease
energy consumption (due to reductions in the energy
required both to produce the raw material and to
fabricate the product) and solid waste generation.
Reduced resource use is also a major means of cutting
industry costs and, as such, is often accomplished by
the working of normal market forces.
A number of factors have, however, served to slow
improvements of this type. These include a general
resistance to change, producer investment in current
practices and technologies, and inadequate data and
information to assess the impacts of particular design
changes. Also, manufacturers generally do not take
potential reductions in pollution and solid waste into
account when designing a product, and these benefits
have not heretofore served as effective inducements
to change.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that cost reductions
can accrue to both the producer and consumer from
this option. A reduction in resource use per product,
particularly during a time of rapidly increasing raw
material prices, can be of substantial aid in reducing
overall production costs. If these savings are then
passed on to the consumer by means of lower prices,
they will also result in significant anti-inflationary
benefits. To the extent that materials are imported,
reducing resources consumed can also affect favorably
our balance-of-payments burden. It is possible,
however, that in some cases decreased natural
resource use will be offset by increases in labor costs
and that no actual dollar savings will occur.
Applicability and Extent of Impact. Insufficient
data exist at the present time to assess accurately all
the products that could be redesigned to conserve
resources. Theoretically, however, every manufac-
tured product could be considered from the perspec-
tive of minimizing material use.
In steel can design, for example, it has been
estimated that by replacing the currently used
soldered three-piece steel can with a two-piece drawn
and ironed can, a steel savings of 25 to 30 percent
will occur.1' p'7 If this design change, for which the
technology is now becoming available, were applied
to all cans used to contain food, it would result in a
savings of approximately 1 million tons of steel and
tinplate per year at 1973 production levels.*
Other design changes have also been identified. A
lightweight but strong glass bottle has been designed
that would use 20 to 25 percent less raw material.2
Design changes in paper packaging are also possible.
One sporting equipment company has recently
reported a savings of 30 percent on packaging
requirements;3'Pi 43 a glass bottle shipper has esti-
*EPA estimate based on: Kalina, J. F. Now it's
seamless steel cans for food. Modern Packaging,
47(10):7-8, 16, Sept. 1974.
-------
18
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
mated a savings of 48 percent on corrugated by
removing interior separators and changing the sizes of
the shipping carton.4 Additional paper savings could
be obtained by using thinner gauge paper in
newspapers and tape; this is now being done on a
small scale.
One major design change that would significantly
reduce resource usage would be the redesign of the
automobile to make it smaller and lighter. In 1973
over 9.5 million domestically produced automobiles
were sold in the United States.5 If each car were
only 300 pounds (8 percent) lighter on the average, a
savings of about 1.5 million tons of material would
occur. And recent drops in sales of big cars (over
3,500 pounds) show how swiftly buyers will switch
to smaller automobiles when fuel is scarce and
costly.6
Numerous other examples could be cited of
possible design changes and resultant savings in
materials. Two design options for which data on
resource utilization and environmental effects have
been developed in detail are a new half-pint milk
container and the packaging of products in larger
rather than smaller amounts.
The Half-Pint Milk Container. Milk is now
purchased by consumers in four major container
sizes: gallons, half gallons, quarts, and half pints. In
1973, an estimated 7,056 million gallons of milk were
consumed in the United States.7 Of that amount,
approximately 11 percent was packaged in half-pint
containers (Table 6). The modern paperboard milk
container, used for all container sizes, came into the
market in 1935. While improvements have been
made, such as the replacement of wax coatings with
plastic coatings, the standard half-pint container has
not been changed significantly in shape since its
introduction.
Recently, however, a new design has been intro-
duced and is being marketed in several parts of the
country. This design change reduces the size of the
base of the container from a square of 2% inches to
one of 2% inches.8 By thus changing the shape of the
container, the material consumed in packaging each
half pint of milk is reduced substantially. The new
container with the smaller base has been estimated to
use 31 percent less paper and 16 percent less
low-density polyethylene than the old container. If
TABLE 6
USE OF DIFFERENT-SIZED CONTAINERS FOR MILK,
BY PERCENT OF VOLUME OF MILK SOLD, 1973*
Size
Percent
of milk volume
Gallon
Half gallon
Quart
Pint
Half pint
Bulk and other
Total gallons consumed
35
39
8
2
11
5
Too
7,056 million
*Milk Industry Foundation. Unpublished data.
all half-pint containers now produced were made
using this new design, an estimated annual savings of
59,000 tons of paper and 4,000 tons of polyethylene
would result (Table 7). These reductions in materials
can be translated directly into reductions in solid
waste—a total decrease of some 63,000 tons annually.
In addition, reductions in energy use and pollution
would result from the need to process less raw
material into final products. The extent of the
pollution reduction depends, of course, on the level
of operating pollution controls. Based on anticipated
1976 control standards for air and waterborne
pollutants, air emissions would be reduced by about
1,600 tons and waterborne wastes would be reduced
by over 600 tons as a result of the paper savings alone
(Table 8). Energy saved by not producing the paper
would amount to over 2.3 trillion Btu annually.* This
is equivalent to 1,100 barrels of oil per day.
While these values are small compared to national
pollution problems and resource needs, it is impor-
tant to point out also that the design change will
likely result in dollar savings to both producer and
consumer. Based on current paperboard and polyeth-
ylene prices, it has been estimated that a savings of
some 10 million dollars would accrue to the
purchasers and fillers of the milk cartons,8 and this
could be reflected in lower prices for the consumer.
*EPA estimate based on unpublished data provided by
International Paper Company.
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
19
TABLE 7
MATERIALS USED IN STANDARD AND NEW HALF-PINT MILK CONTAINERS*
Standard half pint
New half pint
Material conserved
Paper
488
336
152(31%)
Pounds per 1 ,000 gallons
Polyethylene
62
52
10(16%)
Total
549
388
161 (29%)
Total
(1,000 tons)
213
150
(63)
*International Paper Company. Unpublished data.
Package Size. For virtually all products studied,
the use of a larger package size meant that less
packaging material was required per unit of weight or
volume of the product. The 7-ounce returnable glass
bottle requires about twice as much glass per ounce
of soft drink as the 32-ounce size.9 Similarly, the
3-ounce toothpaste tube (including the cap) requires
50 percent more material per ounce of toothpaste
than the 7-ounce size.10 Also, the "8Z tall" can
(approximately 8-ounce capacity) for processed vege-
tables, which contains about one-half the volume of
the "No. 303" can, requires 25 percent more steel per
ounce of product.*
How the weight-to-volume ratio drops as container
size increases has been examined in detail for the
cylindrical high-density polyethylene containers in
which liquid bleach and other household products are
sold (Table 9). The consumer may buy 128 ounces of
bleach by purchasing one 128-ounce container or ten
12-ounce containers and one 8-ounce container. In
the former case, 120 grams of polyethylene are
required; in the latter case, 303 grams are required, or
153 percent more plastic packaging material.11
Of course, the savings in materials also represents a
reduction in air and water pollution and solid waste
associated with the manufacture, distribution, and
disposal of these materials. The extent of reduction
of these environmental impacts is not strictly
proportional to the container material savings. Energy
requirements for some processes, such as container
filling and transportation, are dependent on other
TABLE 8
ESTIMATES OF REDUCTIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS THAT WOULD OCCUR DUE TO REDUCED
PAPER CONSUMPTION IF ALL HALF-PINT MILK CON-
TAINERS WERE OF THE NEW DESIGN*
Air emissions
(tons)
Water pollutants
(tons)
Industrial solid waste
(tons)
Energy usage
(million Btu)
Reduction per
1 ,000 tons of
folding boxboard
conserved
26.67
10.50
90.45
39,336
Total reduction
(59,000 tons of
paper conserved)
1,574
620
5,337
2,320,824
*EPA estimate based on: Gordian Associates, Inc.
Environmental impacts of Production of Virgin and Sec-
ondary Paper, Glass and Rubber Products. Washington, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. (In preparation.)
TABLE 9
EFFECT OF SIZE INCREASES ON THE WEIGHT/
VOLUME RATIO OF A HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
CONTAINER*
*EPA estimate based on data from: The Almanac of
the Canning, Freezing, Preserving Industries. Westminster,
Md., Edward E. Judge & Sons, Inc., 1973. 586 p.
Volume of
product contained
(oz)
4
8
12
16
32
128t
Average weight
of container
(grams)
12
23
28
34
52
120
Weight/volume
ratio
3.00
2.88
2.33
2.12
1.62
0.94
*Owens-Illinois Corporation. Unpublished data.
tThis container includes a handle.
-------
20
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
factors, such as the number of containers or the
stacking volume of the containers. However, the
major environmental impacts of container manufac-
ture occur during the acquisition and processing of
the raw materials. For these activities, the reductions
in environmental impacts are virtually proportional to
material savings.
The savings in materials that result when 32-ounce
returnable glass soft-drink bottles are used instead of
the 7-ounce size amounts to 51.6 percent of
packaging material per ounce of beverage. The re-
ductions in other inputs and outputs have also been
calculated (Table 10).
Mainly because of the material costs saved by
switching to larger sizes, a trend toward larger sizes
has developed during the past few years for many
products, such as bottled soft drinks. A leading
market research organization has found a significant
shift to larger sizes for a representative sample of
household, food, and toiletry items. The trend is
evident in the industrial sector as well, where, for
example, the 66 2/3-pound shipping bag is beginning
to replace the conventional 50-pound bag. The
advantage of reducing packaging is exemplified in the
wholesale costs of electrolytic metal cans for proc-
essed vegetables. For packaging the same total
volume, "No. 3 cyl." cans (80.5 cubic inches) are half
as expensive as "8Z tall" cans (13.48 cubic inches).
The cost of the package is a significant share of the
total cost for numerous products, so the package
savings in larger sizes often is reflected in a lower
per-ounce purchase price for the product. The trend
to larger sizes has also been spurred by the
convenience to consumers of making fewer trips to
market and by new product designs such as resealable
closures and lighter weight containers.
There are, however, many limitations to convert-
ing to larger sizes. Some products have limited shelf
life. Others may spoil quickly once the package seal is
broken. Many consumers have limited storage space,
particularly for foods which must be refrigerated. The
consumer may also value the convenience of handling
a smaller container.
Design for Longer Life
The Concept. Product lifetime is the length of
time household consumer goods remain in use from
purchase to final discard. The useful lifetime of
TABLE 10
REDUCTION IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULT-
ING FROM USE OF 32-OUNCE INSTEAD OF 7-OUNCE
SOFT DRINK BOTTLES*
Category
Reduction per ounce
of beverage contained
Thermal energy requirement (Btu)
Electrical energy
Transport energy
Process water pollutants (Ib)
Process air emissions
Power generation air emissions
Transport air emissions
Process solid wastes
Paper packaging
(e.g., corrugated)
51.0
50.5
40.3
51.6
51.5
50.5
38.7
51.5
(No significant reduction
in this case)
*EPA estimate based on data supplied by Glass
Container Manufacturers Institute.
products clearly impacts upon the waste stream. As
product life increases, solid waste generation per unit
of time for the product decreases. And, along with its
recyclability and its recoverability from the waste
stream, the useful lifetime of a product will influence
where and when that product will end up as waste.
It should be noted that product lifetime is a
relatively complex attribute of goods. It depends not
only on the durability aspects of the original design,
but also on such sociological and economic factors as
obsolescence, styles and fashions, cost of replace-
ment, ease of repair, household space limitations, and
possibly also cost of disposal.
Applicability and Extent of Impact. The concept
of extended useful life can be applied to relatively
short-lived products, such as paper towels and
throwaway paper and plastic tableware. For present
purposes, however, discussion will be limited to
extending the lifetime of certain durable goods.
All household durable goods currently comprise
no more than 10 to 15 percent of collected solid
wastes. National Industrial Pollution Control Council
data indicate that major household appliances con-
tributed about 2.2 million tons in 1971 to the
nation's solid waste stream.12 p- 22 This is less than 2
percent of municipal waste by tonnage or compacted
volume. Tire wastes represent an additional 2.6
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
21
million tons. Automobiles represent a focus of heavy
resource utilization, although most auto hulks are
eventually recycled and do not enter the municipal
waste stream. Some possible impacts of the extended
lifetime option are indicated by the following
information on tires and automobiles.
Passenger Car Tires. The rubber industry records
that, in 1970, it enjoyed sales of $11 billion annually,
employed 500,000 people, and consisted of more
than 2,000 manufacturing plants operated by 1,500
companies.12>p- 1S Tires represent 70 percent of total
rubber industry sales volume. In 1973, 192.6 million
passenger car tires were produced in the U.S.13 In the
same year, 35 million used tires were retreaded, 17.5
million went to reclaiming plants, and 3.7 million
were used up in tire splitting, reef building, or other
applications.14 An estimated 144 million waste tires
therefore either accumulated or found their way into
dumps or landfills. This figure, compared with an
estimate of 112 million tires discarded 10 years
earlier, reflects a growth in tire wastes of 3 percent
annually. ls'p-14
There are three general categories of passenger
tire: bias, belted bias, and radial ply. The bias tire is
the most inexpensive initially and should provide
satisfactory performance for 15,000 to 20,000 miles.
Longer mileage (approximately 30,000) and greater
blowout protection can be provided by the more
expensive belted bias tire. The top of the tire line
both in price and performance is the belted radial ply
tire, which should deliver satisfactory performance
for greater than 40,000 miles.
The passenger tire market can be broken down
into two segments: original equipment (30 percent)
and replacement tires (70 percent). A significant
trend in tire sales is the shift in replacement sales
away from bias ply tires toward longer lasting belted
bias tires (Table 11). Even more dramatic is the trend
in original equipment sales toward long-lasting radial
ply tires.
The trend toward longer life tires represents a new
opportunity in tire waste management. It has been
estimated, for example, that a shift in original
equipment tire purchases exclusively to radial ply
tires would result in a decrease of 38 percent in tire
wastes currently generated each year.15 •p-144
TABLE 11
TIRE SALES BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE, 1972-75*
Construction type
Percent of sales
1972 1973 1974t 1975t
Replacements (70%):
Bias
Belted bias
Radial
54
38
8
45
42
13
42
39
19
38
38
24
100 100
100
100
Original equipment (30%):
Bias
Belted bias
Radial
16
78
6
18
64
18
13
46
41
9
30
61
100 100
100
100
*Domestic tire market profile. Modern Tire Dealer,
55(6):54-70, Jan. 1974.
tData for 1974 and 1975 are projections.
Table 12 presents the results of an analysis of the
resource conservation and waste reduction effects of
a hypothetical 100,000-mile tire. Such a tire is not
currently available, but some experts feel that its
development is not unfeasible in the foreseeable
future. Table 12 depicts a scenario where all original
equipment tires purchased after 1978 would last for
100,000 miles, and all replacement tires are retreaded
TABLE 12
THE EFFECT OF A HYPOTHETICAL NEW 100,000-MILE
TIRE UPON TIRE WASTES AND REPLACEMENT TIRE
SALES*
(In millions of tires)
Tire wastes
Year
1974
1978t
1980
1985
1990
Baseline,
without new tire
192
207
201
234
246
Projected,
with new tire
192
207
203
129
103
Reduction
in
sales/wastes
-
-
2
105
143
*EPA estimates based on: Westerman, R. G. The
Management of Waste Passenger Car Tires. Dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1974. 239 p.
tProgram initiated in 1978 consisting of all 100,000-
mile tires as original equipment and 27,000-mile retreaded
tires as replacement tires.
-------
22
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
100,000-mile tires that would last for an additional
27,000 miles. Under these circumstances annual tire
waste and consumption would be reduced by 143
million tires by 1990.15'p'144
Such a reduction in tire consumption would
represent a savings to the country of 23 million
barrels of oil, 1.75 million tons of rubber, and 525
million pounds of carbon black.* There would also be
further positive environmental impacts associated
with decreases in the production of these materials.
Solid waste savings also would be significant. Assum-
ing a disposal cost of 25 cents per tire (including
shredding), decreased solid waste generation will
result in savings approaching $35 million in 1990.*
Cost advantages for the consumer and disadvantages
suffered by industry are less clear and would depend
to some extent upon projected prices of the original
tire. The long-term economic effects resulting from
decreased replacement tire sales should be the subject
of further study. Furthermore, as noted, the technical
feasibility of 100,000-mile tires has not been demon-
strated, and the safety characteristics of such tires
have not been evaluated.
Automobiles. The auto industry consumed 20
percent of the steel, 9 percent of the aluminum, 8
percent of the copper, 50 percent of the malleable
iron, 65 percent of the rubber, and 33 percent of the
zinc consumed in this country in 1972.5'p'53In all,
the industry used over 22 million tons of metals and
rubber in 1972. The motor vehicle and allied
industries account for one-sixth of the country's gross
national product and employ about 13 million
workers.5'p'52 These figures are of particular signifi-
cance when one considers projected growth rates in
the auto industry. In 1950, an estimated 7.5 million
automobiles were purchased.16 By 1970, this figure
had risen to 8.2 million. Projections indicate that by
1990, approximately 14.3 million cars will be
purchased each year in the United States.16
The useful life of a car in the United States is
currently very similar to what it was 20 years
ago-approximately 10 years.16 (In other countries,
however, the lifetime of U.S. automobiles is often
more than doubled.) Current automobile weights
have, however, risen significantly. Thus, between
1960 and 1972, the average weight of a composite
middle-sized automobile rose 9.7 percent, from 3,574
pounds to 3,923 pounds. 17'p'10 This has meant
increased resource use per car despite the fact that
lifetimes have remained virtually constant.
Automobiles with longer lifetimes could, however,
significantly impact upon the amount of resources
used in automobile manufacture. If we assume that
current weights (and material compositions) remain
constant, we can project material savings for a car
with a 12-year life.
If all cars sold in 1980 were designed for a 12-year
lifetime, then by 1990 (assuming a steady-state
situation has been reached) new car sales would
decrease by approximately 20 percent to 11.5 million
units.' The resource and solid waste savings through-
out the phases of the automobile life cycle would be
an estimated 6.7 million tons annually. By specific
material, this would translate into 5.5 million tons of
steel, 151,000 tons of aluminum, and 142,000 tons
of zinc.5
While it appears that longer life automobiles would
result in resource savings and reduced waste genera-
tion rates, the economic and technical performance
factors of increased automobile durability and life-
time have not been evaluated to date.
Reuse
The Concept The principle of reuse should be
considered in relation to the broad and increasing
category of products that are now designed for
one-time use. Reuse is different from recycling in that
the products are not reprocessed and refabricated but
are used in their original form. Product reuse has
significant impacts upon litter, material and energy
consumption, and solid waste generation.
Applicability and Extent of Impact. The design
and manufacture of products that are reusable is only
one determinant of the feasibility of reuse. Obvi-
ously, the behavior of the users will determine the
number of times a particular item will be reused.
There are two general cases where product reuse
could occur. In the first case, the use and reuse of
the product is internal to the organization (e.g.,
*EPA estimate based on Westerman, Waste Passenger
Car Tires, 1974.
t Calculation based on data from: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Motor Vehicle Distribution, Production, and
Scrappage, Jan. 1973.
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
23
reusable corrugated shipping containers employed by
moving companies, cloth napkins used by a home-
owner, etc.)- In the second case, the use and reuse of
the product requires handling by different individuals
(e.g., the refillable bottle is reused by a bottler but
used once by an individual consumer). In both cases,
some system must be implemented to retrieve the
product undamaged and ready for reuse. The incen-
tives required to achieve the desired behavior would
differ substantially, however.
Beverage Containers. In 1972, almost 56 billion
beer and soft drink containers were produced and
used in the United States.18 This resulted in the
generation of approximately 8.2 million tons of solid
waste, or approximately 10 percent of the nonfood
product waste stream, and the use of an estimated
388 trillion Btu of energy.* A shift to a refillable
bottle system would remove 5 to 6 million tons of
material from the waste stream, and decrease bever-
age container litter by 60 to 95 percent.! In addition,
the shift to an all-refillable system would reduce air
emissions and waterborne wastes, and would save an
estimated 218 trillion Btu of energy per year (Table
13). This energy savings is equivalent to over 108,000
barrels of oil per day. (For the effects of a system in
which 90 percent of the containers are refillable, see
Table 21.)
ReusaWe and Paper Plates. Another example
studied was reusable versus disposable paper plates.
Paper plates are made from SBS (solid bleached
sulfate) board, a high-grade paper product. It is
assumed that 15 percent of the board by weight is
lost as trim in making a plate. The estimated weight
of 1,000 nine-inch standard plates ranges from 21 to
24 pounds.19 Each plate will require .025 to .028
pound of solid bleached sulfate board, including the
15-percent loss.19
Data on the environmental and energy impacts of
*EPA estimate based on: 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.
tEPA estimate based on: Bingham, T. H., and P. F.
Mulligan [Research Triangle Institute]. The Beverage Con-
tainer Problem; Analysis and Recommendations. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1972. 190 p. (Distrib-
uted by National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Va.,asPB-213341.)
TABLE 13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM CURRENT MIX OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
AND FROM ALL-REFILLABLE SYSTEM, BASED ON 1972 DATA*
Current system
Raw materials
(million Ib)
Energy
(trillion Btu)
Water use
(billion gal)
Industrial solid waste
(million cu ft)
Atmosphere emissions
(million Ib)
Waterborne waste
(million Ib)
Post-consumer waste
(million cu ft)
10-trip
refillable
3,578
50
35
20
216
80
27
One-way
glass
15,375
131
75
68
532
115
84
Bimetal
can
7,482
146
93
253
605
94
9
Aluminum
can
1,619
61
12
29
263
48
2
Reductions
All refUlables
Total
28,054
388
215
370
1,616
337
122
12,280
170
121
70
741
274
94
Amount
15,774
218
94
300
875
63
28
Percent
56
56
44
81
54
19
23
*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.
-------
24
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
SBS manufacture are summarized in Table 14 on a
per 10,000-plate basis. To the production-associated
wastes were added the land-use impacts of disposing
of the plates through landfilling. To the extent that
the plates are disposed of by incinerators, additional
air pollution would be expected over that reported in
the table.
TABLE 14
ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACTS OF PAPER PLATE
MANUFACTURE AND DISCARD*
Range per 10,000
platest
Air pollutants (Ib):
Particulates
SOX
Other sulfur compounds
CO
NOX
Water pollutants (Ib):
BOD
Suspended solids
Solid wastes:
Manufacturing waste (Ib)
Plate disposal (Ib)
Total landfill requirement (acres)
Energy requirements (Btu):
Grosst
Fossil fuelf
2.20-2.50
3.80-4.20
1.20- .40
.40-1.45
1.74-1.95
1.25-1.40
1.38-1.54
82.20-92.06
240-280
.20-.22
5,350,000-5,990,000
2,470,000-2,760,000
*Gordian Associates, Inc. Environmental impacts of
production of virgin and secondary paper, glass and rubber
products. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1975. (In preparation.) Table CFB V2-A.
tThe fossil fuel requirement is lower than the gross
requirement because some of the energy consumed in
manufacturing is generated at the mill from process wastes.
To evaluate the environmental impact of a
reusable plate, the effects of producing and discarding
the required replacement fraction (one plate every
6,000 washings)* and the effects of washing the plate
were evaluated. The latter are by far the dominant
effects since each plate is washed after each use.
To determine the energy effects of washing, it was
assumed that the dishes would be washed in a
single-tank commercial washer. If the dishes were
washed by hand, energy use would be expected to be
lower. A single-tank commercial dishwasher will proc-
ess 56 racks holding 25 dishes each per hour. Water
requirements are 100 gallons per hour assuming a
10-second rinse at 180 degrees F. The energy
requirements to heat this water are 168,000 Btu per
hour or 168 cubic feet of natural gas.20 In addition,
the washer would require a 1-horsepower motor or
1.5 kilowatt-hours. The energy equivalent of this
quantity of electricity is 11,365 Btu. Thus, the total
energy requirements of washing 1,400 dishes (25 x
56) is 179,365 Btu. t
Table 15 contains estimates of environmental
impacts and energy consumption associated with
reusable plates; these may be compared with the
estimates for paper plates in Table 14.
It should be obvious that the above analysis is
based on several assumptions and is not in any way a
comprehensive evaluation of disposable and reusable
plates. However, it is useful to indicate the order of
magnitude of some of the environmental and resource
conservation impacts and their causes. Clearly other
aspects of disposable and reusable products, such as
cost and sanitation, also need to be considered. EPA
currently has underway a more complete study of a
series of disposable and reusable products to identify
product shifts that may be desirable from an
environmental point of view and to assess the
economic and other impacts of such shifts.
MECHANISMS TO ACHIEVE WASTE REDUCTION
There are three types of public policy approaches
currently being considered at the Federal level to
achieve waste reduction:
1. Product charges to provide an incentive for
decreased use of materials and products
2. Deposits as an incentive for the reuse of
products
3. Encouragement of voluntary actions to reduce
resource use and waste generation through
shifts in product design
•''EPA estimate based on data provided by Single
Service Institute.
fEPA estimate based on data provided by Gas Appli-
ance Manufacturers Association.
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
25
TABLE 15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REUSABLE DISHES
(10,000 dishes, used and washed once)
Washing*
Manufacture!
Total
Air pollutants (Ib):
Participates
SOX
CO
NOX
Water pollutants J
Solid wastes (Ib):
Indirect
Direct
Energy requirements (Btu)
.024
.468
1,280,000
.001
.005
.015
.279
1.666
.012
.025
.005
.484
.279
1.666
1,292,000
*Based on burning 168,000 Btu of gas to heat water per 1,400 plates, or 120 Btu per plate. Emission data were obtained
from: Gordian Associates, Inc. Environmental Impacts of Production of Virgin and Secondary Paper, Class and Rubber Products.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. (In preparation.)
t Based on a 1-pound glass plate, averaged over 6,000 uses.
J There may be some water pollution resulting from food particles left on the plates after scraping that are removed in the
dishwasher. We were unable to get enough information to estimate the magnitude of this impact. In any case, food particles left on
paper plates that are subsequently landfilled could end up in water sources through leaching and would be totally untreated.
The following describes these three approaches in
terms of both resource and environmental benefits,
and, where sufficient analysis has been completed,
economic and social impact.
Product Charges
As described in the Second Report to Congress,
product charges can be used to induce both waste
reduction and resource recovery. These charges may
be of value when two conditions exist. First, there
must be a divergence between the private and social
costs of production and consumption and, second,
the administrative costs of implementing the product
charge must not exceed the social benefits.
Generally, prices in a free-market economy al-
locate resources to maximize economic welfare. This
will not occur, however, if the costs that a producer
faces (private costs) understate the costs imposed on
society (social costs).
For example, the private costs of packaging do not
reflect the costs imposed on society in the collection,
disposal, and litter cleanup of solid waste generated
by packaging. Also, to the extent that environmental
damages are not completely controlled, the environ-
mental costs to the society incurred by direct
materials use and indirect energy consumption and
materials use are not reflected in the costs paid by the
packager. Furthermore, the long-run value to society
of all the resources used to make packaging may not
be fully registered in the private costs of these
resources, either because of ignorance of the effects
of current consumption rates or because the demand
of future generations is not felt in today's market.
The goal of a product charge would be to
internalize these social costs at the point in the
production process where decisions are made to
maximize economic welfare. To the extent that
internalization of social costs is feasible, the economy
would become more efficient and would move
toward the socially optimal level of waste reduction
and resource recovery. Other benefits that might also
result include improved balance of trade through
reduced imports, and reduced environmental damages
associated with production and waste management.
In order to obtain a better perspective on the costs
and effectiveness of a product charge system, an
analysis of the impact of product charges on the
consumer packaging segment of municipal waste was
carried out.
-------
26
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Scope of Study. The study evaluated the costs
and effectiveness of Federal product taxes that may
be used to influence the quantity and composition of
consumer product packaging and the use of recycled
materials in the manufacture of such packaging.
Packaging was chosen to be reviewed because it is the
largest single product class in the municipal waste
stream, accounting for about one-third of all munici-
pal waste. About two-thirds of the weight of all
packaging waste is consumer product packaging (the
remainder is shipping packaging such as corrugated
boxes or pallets).
The analysis provides an initial basis for policy
decisions regarding the desirability of product charges
as a possible means for waste reduction and resource
recovery. Other benefits that might result, such as
natural resource savings, environmental savings, bal-
ance-of-trade improvements, and increased efficiency,
are not included in the study. The administrative
costs of the various options were also excluded.
Three consumer packaging tax schemes were
selected for analysis:
LA tax on the weight of consumer product
packaging
2. A tax on the weight of consumer product
packaging with an exemption for recycled
materials (i.e., a tax only on the weight of
virgin materials consumed in a package)
3. A per unit tax on all rigid containers used to
package consumer products
The study concentrated on 30 consumer products
and 9 packaging materials (Tables 16-18).
Study Findings. A summary of the estimated
effectiveness and costs of the three types of product
taxes at different rates is shown in Table 19. For each
tax, the effectiveness increases as the tax rate
increases. Among the three types of taxes, the per
unit tax on containers induces the largest reductions
in solid waste generation and energy utilization. The
tax on packaging weight with an exemption for
recycled materials leads to substantial increases in the
recycling of post-consumer wastes and reduces con-
sumption of raw materials. The tax on packaging by
weight without the exemption has about the same
effectiveness in reducing solid waste generation and
energy utilization as the tax with an exemption, but
the former is substantially less effective in reducing
raw materials consumption and less effective in
increasing the recycling of post-consumer wastes.
In order to gain some insight regarding the relative
cost and effectiveness of different product taxes,
cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. The results
show the cost (in terms of lost consumer surplus) per
unit of effectiveness (reduced solid waste, reduced
use of raw materials and energy, and increased
recycling) for each type of product tax (Table 20).
Only one average value for each type of tax was used
since the ratios of costs to benefits are not very
sensitive to changes in the rate.
TABLE 16
PACKAGING MATERIALS INCLUDED IN PACKAGING
TAX STUDY
(Standard industrial code number in parentheses)
I. Flexible paper and paper closures
Waxed and oiled paper (26412)
Laminated paper (26415)
Bag paper (26431)
Glassine (2643)
Paper closures (26451/81)
2. Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Cellophane (2821)
Polyethylene (2821)
Polypropylene (2821)
Plastic sheet (2821)
Polystyrene and other thermoformed (2821)
Plastic closures (30794/71)
3. Metal closures
Metal caps (34616)
Metal crowns (34617)
4. Flexible aluminum
Aluminum foil-flexible (3352)
5. Rigid paper
Folding boxes (2651)
Setup boxes (2652)
Sanitary food board (2654)
Fibre cans, tubes (2655)
6. Rigid plastics
Plastic bottles (3079)
Plastic cups, jars, tubes, boxes, baskets (3079)
7. Glass
Jars (3221)
Refillable bottles (3221)
Nonrefillable bottles (3221)
8. Steel
Cans(3411)
Aerosol cans (3411)
9. Rigid aluminum
Aluminum plates (3352)
Cans(3411)
Collapsible tubes (3496)
The study did not consider the costs of administer-
ing or enforcing these product taxes, nor did it deal
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
27
with distribution of the money after collection. It
appears likely that a unit tax on packaging would
have the lowest administrative and enforcement costs,
while the packaging tax with an exemption for
recycled materials would have the highest costs.
Deposit Systems
One mechanism that could be used to encourage
product reuse is a deposit system. Deposits could
apply to reusable products (e.g., refillable soft drink
bottles or tires), or to other items that could be
returned for recycling (e.g., an automobile deposit to
decrease auto abandonment). Implementation of a
deposit system would provide an economic incentive
TABLE 17
AMOUNTS OF NATURAL RESOURCES USED TO MANU-
FACTURE PACKAGING FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS,
1970 (BASIC DATA FOR PACKAGING TAX STUDY)*
Packaging
material
Natural resource
Amount
Paper Raw materials (1,000 metric tons):
Wood pulp 6,406
Chlorine 125
Caustic 144
Soda ash 77
Sodium sulfate 317
Lime 154
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 23,497
Plastics Raw materials (1,000 metric tons):
NLG feed stocks 1,766
Field condensates 104
Refinery feed stocks 1,082
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 1,942
Glass Raw materials (1,000 metric tons):
Glass sand 6,802
Limestone 2,224
Soda ash 2,214
Feldspar 775
Prepared saltcake 10
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 26,334
Steel Raw materials (1,000 metric tons):
Iron ore and agglomerates 5,905
Coke 2,372
Fluxes 1,360
Mill cinder and scale 168
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 19,374
Aluminum Raw materials (1,000 metric tons):
Bauxite 2,266
Lime makeup 62
Soda ash makeup 250
Petroleum coke 264
Pitch 85
Cryolite 22
Aluminum trifluoride 13
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 8,859
Total raw materials (1,000 metric tons) 40,685
Total energy (equivalent million kWh) 80,005
*Bingham, T. H., et al. [Research Triangle Institute].
An evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of regulatory and
fiscal policy instruments on product packaging. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-74c. Cincinnati, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 301 p.
TABLE 18
CONSUMER PRODUCT CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN
PACKAGING TAX STUDY
A. Food and kindred products
Perishables-
1. Baked goods
Bread and rolls; crackers and cookies;
sweet goods
2. Dairy products
Cheese; eggs; milk; butter
3. Frozen foods
Ice cream; frozen desserts and baked
goods; meat, fish, poultry; prepared
foods; vegetables, fruits, juices, drinks
4. Fresh and cured meat
5. Fresh and cured fish and seafood
6. Fresh and cured poultry
7. Produce
Beverages—
8. Distilled spirits
9. Wine
10. Beer
11. Soft drinks
12. Prepared beverages
Cocoa; coffee; tea; breakfast drinks
Nonperishables and kindred products—
13. Candy and chewing gum
14. Canned foods
Vegetables; meat, fish, and poultry;
fruits and vegetables; soups; baby foods;
juices and fruit drinks; milk
15. Cereals, flour, and macaroni
16. Pet foods
17. Tobacco products
18. Other foods
B. General merchandise
Household supplies—
19. Soaps and detergents
20. Other cleaning supplies
Dry cleaners; laundry supplies; waxes
and polishes; other cleaners and cleansers
21. Pesticides
22. Other household supplies
Health and beauty aids-
23. Packaged medications
24. Oral hygiene products
25. Cosmetics and hand products
26. Hair products
27. Shaving products
28. Other beauty aids
29. Other health aids
Other general merchandise—
30. Other general merchandise
-------
28
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
r— t
W
m
t-
*
z
3
jj
a.
E-
C-)
|3
Q
O
K
a.
§
00
u
b.
O
00
W
PX,
£
W
w
PS
e
[L,
o
00
U
Q
00
00
Z:
W
i
&
w
HH
E-i
0
<£
^|
g
00
V
'.§
I t
O C
QJ
t-i o
fl) ^_^
&
(0
t-
^.^
G
o. J3 £
ex t. .3 „
3 ^ "a S «
! 1, 3 s 2
§1 11 i
X >» X ^J» S
p_j o
J°
cs"
r-H
to
CS
s
i-H
cs
"1
1— 1
CO
in
CO
o
1
i— I
CO
c?
f— t
5
rt
o
cs
G
o
2
£
fectiveness:
Reductions in solid waste ger
(thousand metric tons)
a
•«
o
Increases in the consumption
0
0
o
o
to
o
0
cs
co"
I— 1
r-H
C*
in"
1
to
0
o
o
o
«
«
post-consumer waste mater:
(thousand metric tons)
to
i-H
O
l-H
to"
l-H
O
to"
o
in
"i.
5
r^
in"
CO
cs"
0
vO
•S)
t-"
O
CO
CO_
3
cs"
CO
i-H
c-
m
to
cs
D.
g
vt
a
o *~*
Reductions in raw materials c
tion (thousand metric tons
Q
m_
co"
^
CO
r>"
•o
in
o\
in
^
oo_
to"
m
vO
M"
o
o
cs"
to
cp
i-H
CO
i-H
in
co
o
m"
vO
in
l-H
l-H
O
in
c
0
Reductions in energy utilizati
(equivalent million kWh)
in
8
l-H
00
to
"
^
t~
C)
vO
to
cs
CO
CO
p-t
in
m
in
l-H
to
in
vO
to
cK
cj;
i-H
^
O
st (million dollars):
Losses in consumer surplust
3
to
q.
cs
cs
> *
° *
ffl O
3 t«H
^ o. S.
l°2
•a a> %
t5 ~ a*
» c?"0
Pi
ll g
*S ^> 6
.S is i
TT W *•*
CU O
5 c ,S£
G ^H ft
C^ cu *5
.2 CJ Xj M
^i s 8
0 JQ TJ *O
CO (H Si W
4) /?
Q) '.0 CD T*
(V m T3 -
*Bingham, T. H., et al. [
ivironmental Protection Public
•(•"Consumer surplus" is
irket price increase results in a
u S
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
29
to return a product to a central collection point so
that it could be reused with minimal recovery costs.
An economic disincentive would also be imposed on
those who do not return the product. A deposit
system can thus be thought of as a means of
waste. Also, to the extent that the deposit results in a
predominately refillable bottle system, there will be
substantial savings in energy and materials and
reductions in pollution. The environmental impacts
from the current mix of beverage containers and from
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF THE COSTS (LOSSES IN CONSUMER SURPLUS) PER UNIT
OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREE TYPES OF TAXES ON PACKAGING*t
Dollars per metric ton of
solid waste reduced
Dollars per metric ton of
increased use of post-
consumer waste materials
Dollars per metric ton of
reduced raw material use
Dollars per thousand kilowatt-hours
of reduced energy use
$2-19
1-14
1-7
Amount of cost
Measure of cost per unit
of effectiveness
Tax on
packaging
by weight
Tax on packaging
by weight
with an exemption
for recycled materials
Tax per
container
$148-190
8-24
6-15
57-73
$7-52
5-38
3-20
*Bingham, et al. [Research Triangle Institute]. Effectiveness and costs of regulatory and fiscal policy instruments, 1974.
tApproximate values, not additive.
internalizing costs to society that are not presently
accounted for by private costs (litter costs and solid
waste management, environmental, and resource
depletion impacts).
A great deal of public attention has been focused
on deposit systems for beer and soft drink containers.
In the Second Report to Congress, the impacts of
deposit systems were presented in some detail. Data
that have been accumulated since that report are
presented here.
The mandatory deposit system proposed most
often would require that all beer and carbonated soft
drink containers carry a refund value, or deposit, of 5
cents. The retailer would be required to pay the
deposit to the consumer for every empty container
turned in. The retailer would be required to accept
any empty container of any kind, size, and brand of
beverage sold by that retail outlet. Retailers, in turn,
could return empty containers to the distributor, who
would also be required to pay the 5-cent refund.
Implementation of a deposit system would likely
result in declines in beverage container litter and solid
an all-refillable system were compared in Table 13. A
comparison of current impacts with those from a
system in which 90 percent of the containers are
refillable is presented in Table 21.
Cost savings to the consumer are also likely to
occur as a result of a shift to a largely refillable bottle
system. This is because nonrefillable containers,
which are more expensive to use than refillables,
will be available only in small quantities. The effect
of rising raw material prices is of significance here.
During the past year, can prices rose an estimated 34
percent while refillable glass prices rose only 16
percent.21 This has widened the gulf between the
wholesale prices of beverages in refillable bottles and
of those in cans. Even with the addition of a IVa-cent
retail charge for handling the refillables, there is a
clear price saving for the consumer, ranging from V& to
3% cents per container.*
*EPA estimate based on data supplied by selected
brewers and retailers.
-------
30
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM CURRENT MIX OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
AND FROM A SYSTEM WITH 90 PERCENT REFILLABLES,
BASED ON 1972 DATA*
Raw materials
(million Ib)
Energy
(trillion Btu)
Water use
(billion gal)
Industrial solid waste
(million cu ft)
Atmosphere emissions
(million Ib)
Waterborne waste
(million Ib)
Post-consumer waste
(million cu ft)
Current system
28,054
388
215
370
1,616
337
122
90% refillable
11,060
153
109
63
668
246
85
New system
10% one-way
3,199
50
22
42
210
39
12
Reductions
Total
14,259
203
131
105
878
285
97
Amount
13,795
185
84
265
738
52
25
Percent
49
48
39
72
46
15
20
*EPA estimate based on data from: 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-91 c. Washington,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 178 p.
Implementation of a mandatory deposit system
for beer and soft-drink containers would also have
some penalties, however. Paramount among these is
an employment dislocation. For although a deposit
system is likely to create an estimated 60,800 jobs
in the retail and distribution sectors of the economy,
it is also likely to eliminate some 60,500 jobs in the
container industries, and the jobs lost would be more
skilled than those gained.
To offset these losses, it is recommended that a
mandatory deposit system be phased in over time.
Phasing in such a system by 1980, for example,
would reduce the employment dislocations by 32
percent.22 This would mean an average of less than
7,000 employees dislocated per year. Further reduc-
tions in unemployment could be achieved by an even
more lengthy phase-in period. If, for example, a 90-
percent refillable bottle market were to be achieved
by 1985, an estimated 16,000 employees would be
affected, less than 3,000 per year.22
On the basis of these data on environmental and
economic effects, and in order to decrease the
inequities arising from a patchwork of State and local
legislation, John Quarles, Deputy Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provided
testimony to the Congress in May 1974 favoring the
implementation of a nationwide mandatory deposit
law for beverage containers, phased in over a
substantial period of time.23 EPA is currently
carrying out an analysis of methods of phasing in a
deposit system in order to minimize economic
dislocations.
Voluntary Waste Reduction
Voluntary actions for waste reduction can be
undertaken at either the producer or consumer level.
Industries can redesign their products to conserve
resources and reduce waste, and consumers can make
purchases after considering the implications for waste
of available product choices.
Current economic conditions have made voluntary
waste reduction actions far more acceptable-and, for
some individuals, necessary-than in the past. Con-
sumers have become more cost conscious in their
purchases. This has led to increased demands for
larger package sizes and for durable goods that last
longer. At the same time, rising energy and material
costs have resulted in the redesigning of a number of
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
31
products so as to require less material and energy in
their manufacture. Indeed, it has been suggested that
the quest for higher productivity may shift away
from an effort to substitute energy for people toward
an increased emphasis on what could be called ma-
terials and energy productivity. Obviously, such
reorientation will benefit the environment as well as
conserve resources.
This phenomenon of shifting priorities in the
manufacturing industries has been noted throughout
the recent literature. An article in Business Week has
suggested the need for caution in relying exclusively
on the private sector, however:
For industry, the adjustment to high energy
prices could reverse some long-standing prac-
tices. Some products may have to be redesigned
for easy repair, easy recycling, and even longer
life .. . [but] none of this will come about
quickly, and some regulation may well be
needed to shore up incentives for conservation
if market forces prove too weak.24
Broad-scale intervention by the Government, on
the other hand, should be viewed with extreme
caution. Such intervention would have a profound
impact on the market system because it involves
direct control by the Federal Government of what
has traditionally been a private market process. Some
decisions regarding design changes could also poten-
tially result in significant economic dislocations and
job losses.
Voluntary programs seem to hold more promise,
particularly at a time when there is a confluence of
business, environmental, and consumer interests in
the area of product design. EPA is now actively
urging voluntary waste reduction and has established
a program designed to focus industry efforts on
product redesign for decreased material use.
REFERENCES
1. Kalina, J. F. Now it's seamless steel cans for food.
Modern Packaging, 47(10):7-8, 16, Sept.
1974.
2. Late break; significant news as we go to press. Modern
Packaging, 47(2):70, Feb. 1974.
3. Winning cartons with a luxury look. Modern Packaging,
47(5):42-43, May 1974.
4. Rule 41 will stay. Modern Packaging, 47(7): 12, July
1974.
5. 1973/74 Automobile facts and figures. Detroit, Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association, [1974|.
72 p.
6. Autos; Detroit struggles to think smaller. Business Week,
(2348): 147-149, Sept. 14, 1974.
7. Personal communication. A. T. Rhoads, Milk Industry
Foundation, to M. Loube, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Resource Re-
covery Division.
8. Personal communication. J. Cannon, International Paper
Company, to M. Loube, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs Resource Re-
covery Division.
9. Personal communication. Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute and Brockway Glass Company to
E. Claussen, Office of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs, Resource Recovery
Division.
10. Confidential industry correspondence.
11. Personal communication. M. Freidman, Owens-Illinois,
Plastic Products Division, to H. Samtur,
Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, Resource Recovery Division.
12. National Industrial Pollution Control Council. The
disposal of major appliances. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, June
1971. 22 p.
13. RMA tire report; statistical highlights-December 1973.
New York, Rubber Manufacturers Associa-
tion, Feb. 19, 1974. 3 p.
14. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource
Recovery Division. Unpublished data.
15. Westerman, R. R. The management of waste passenger
car tires. Dissertation, University of Pennsyl-
vania, Philadelphia, 1974. 239 p.
16. Motor vehicle distribution, production, and scrappage.
Washington, U.S. Department of Transpor-
tation, Federal Highway Administration,
Jan. 1973. 1 p. (Unpublished report.)
17. Dean, K. C., J. W Sterner, and E. G. Valdez. Effect of
increasing plastics content on recycling of
automobiles. Bureau of Mines Technical
Progress Report 79. Washington, U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, May 1974. 14 p.
18. Midwest Research Institute. Unpublished data collected
under U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy Contract No. 68-01-0793 (1974).
19. Personal communication. Single Service Institute to F. L.
Smith, Jr., Office of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs, Resource Recovery Divi-
sion.
20. Personal communication. Gas Appliance Manufacturers
Association to F. L. Smith, Jr., Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, Re-
source Recovery Division.
21. Personal communication. Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute to E. Claussen, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Resource Re-
covery Division.
22. 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.
-------
32
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
23. Quarles, J. R., Jr. Statement of Honorable John R.
Quarles, Jr., Deputy Administrator, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, before the
Subcommittee on the Environment, Com-
mittee on Commerce, United States Senate,
May 7, 1974. Cincinnati, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, National Envi-
ronmental Research Center, 1974. 14 p.
24. Shepard, S. G. Commentary; the end of the cowboy
economy. Business Week, (2307):22, Nov.
24, 1973.
-------
Chapter 3
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM
POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
The Second Report to Congress documented a
turning point in resource recovery. When that report
was prepared, techniques for recovering energy and
materials from the waste stream were just beginning
to be demonstrated on a large scale; and only a few
communities were preparing to build systems.
The interval since then has witnessed the construc-
tion of three demonstration facilities (including
EPA's energy recovery demonstration in Baltimore);
the completion of the Nashville, Tennessee, district
heating and cooling system; the start of construction
of five full-scale, locally funded recovery systems; and
the continued development and evaluation of EPA's
demonstrations in Franklin, Ohio, and St. Louis,
Missouri.
Today, as development of new technologies
continues, the implementation of a resource recovery
system has become for many communities a serious
concern and a major activity. This Third Report to
Congress presents a summary of resource recovery in
the context of the progress that has been made over
the past year.
This chapter presents estimates of the amount of
energy potentially recoverable from solid waste, a
description of the technology and of the markets for
the recovered energy, and an evaluation of the
availability of technology for energy recovery.
QUANTITY OF ENERGY
POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE
Theoretical Potential
In 1973, approximately 135 million tons per year
of residential and commercial solid waste were
generated. About 70 to 80 percent of this waste was
combustible, having an average energy content of
about 9 million British Thermal Units (Btu) per ton.
Theoretically, if all solid waste in the U.S. had been
converted into energy in 1973, about 1.2 quadrillion
Btu per year would have been generated. This is equal
to more than 564,000 barrels per day of oil
equivalent (B/DOE) or 206 million barrels per year of
oil equivalent (B/YOE). Growth in population and
per capita waste generation would cause these figures
to increase to 1,440 trillion Btu per year by 1980, or
about 680,000 B/DOE or 248 million B/YOE. These
and other findings are summarized in Table 22.
Available Potential
Not all waste is available for energy recovery.
Energy recovery systems require large quantities of
waste (at least 200 to 250 tons per day) delivered for
processing at one site in order to achieve economies
of scale. For this reason, energy recovery appears
feasible only in more densely populated areas, such as
most Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(SMSA's). If energy recovery had been practiced in all
SMSA's in 1973, almost 900 trillion Btu would have
been recovered. This is equal to more than 424,000
B/DOE, or 154 million B/YOE. By 1980, the energy
potentially recoverable from the SMSA waste stream
is projected to be about 1,085 trillion Btu per year,
the equivalent of more than 512,000 B/DOE, or 187
million B/YOE.
Impact on Energy Demand
The quantity of energy potentially available from
the waste stream of more densely populated areas
(SMSA's) is significant. For example, the 424,000
barrels per day of oil equivalent that was available in
SMSA's in 1973 is equal to:
4.6 percent of fuel consumed by all utilities in
1973 (9.2 million B/DOE)
33
-------
34
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Table 22
ENERGY POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE*
1973
1980
Theoretical
AvailableU
Projected
recovery
Btut
(trillion)
1,194
899
—
B/DOE*
(thousand)
564
424
—
B/YOE§
(million)
206
154
—
Btu
(trillion)
1,440
1,085
85
B/DOE
(thousand)
680
512
40
B/YOE
(million)
248
187
15
*These estimates are a function of (1) population; (2) the average amount of residential and commercial solid waste
generated per person, and (3) the energy content of the waste (4,500 Btu per pound). The heating value of 4,500 Btu per pound (9
million Btu per ton) is generally accepted for "as received," unprocessed waste as delivered by. a collection truck to a processing or
disposal facility.
tBtui British thermal unit.
* B/DOE: Barrels per day of oil equivalent. (Assuming 5.8 million Btu per barrel of oil and 365 days per year.)
§ B/YOE: Barrels per year of oil equivalent.
f Based on all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's).
NOTE: Different waste processing methods have different recovery efficiencies. For example, a shredding/air classification
waste processing system loses some potential energy by removing heavy combustibles from the fuel fraction, while
high-temperature incineration with no prior classification would lose far less potential energy. However, no adjustment was made to
allow for such processing losses or energy conversion efficiencies (of, say, steam or electricity) because no prejudgment can be made
as to which energy recovery method would be used in any given situation.
10 percent of all the coal consumed by utilities in
1973(4.1 million B/DOE)
28 percent of the oil projected to be delivered
through the Alaskan pipeline (1.5 million
B/DOE)
1 percent of all energy consumed in the United
States in 1973 (35.6 million B/DOE)
The energy recoverable from SMSA's can light
every home and office building in the country and is
equivalent to twice the gasoline savings estimated for
the 55-miles-per-hour fuel conservation program in
1973-74.
Perhaps more significant is the impact on energy
needs of individual users. For example, many
industrial plants can generate at least half the process
steam they use from solid waste fuel, thus reducing
dependence on fossil fuels.
Projected Implementations
of Energy Recovery Systems
Based on energy recovery systems existing or
planned at the present time, it is projected that by
1980 almost 30 cities and counties around the
country should be operating the equivalent of about
thirty-six 1,000-ton-per-day plants, recovering an
estimated 85 trillion Btu per year, or 40,000 B/DOE,
or 15 million B/YOE.
Effect of Paper Recycling
on Energy Recovery
Wastepaper can be recycled as a fiber source, or it
can be converted to energy. From a national
perspective, recycling of wastepaper could reduce the
amount of energy potentially recoverable from the
waste stream by 5 to 10 percent or more, depending
on the quantity and type of paper recycled. However,
EPA studies show that existing paper recycling levels
could be increased significantly without seriously
affecting the fuel characteristics of the remaining
solid waste.
Because these options—recycling or energy recov-
ery-are mutually exclusive with respect to waste-
paper at the time of disposal (although recycled paper
can be converted to energy later), there can be a
problem at the local level for those making decisions
about resource recovery systems. The effect of
recycling paper on the fuel value of solid waste varies
with the level of recycling rates. If newspaper
recycling efforts were increased to their maximum
practical levels, the as-fired heating value, burn-out
level, and sulfur content of the fuel would change by
-------
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
35
not more than 6 percent. If total paper recycling
levels were doubled, the burn-out and sulfur content
would change by less than 3 percent; the as-fired
heating value would decrease by 9 percent; and the
ash content would increase by 14 percent. Although
paper recycling rates are far below their maximum
practical levels at the present time, if such levels were
approached, the effect on solid waste fuel characteris-
tics would become more pronounced. Therefore, the
design of energy recovery plants should take into
account the effects of potential paper recycling levels.
TECHNOLOGY AND MARKETS
Many different approaches to recovering the
energy value of solid waste are presently being
examined. Waterwall incinerators are being used to
generate steam in a number of U.S. cities. A new
waterwall incinerator was constructed in Nashville,
Tennessee, in mid-1974. A contract was signed in
1974 for the sale of steam produced at the Braintree,
Massachusetts, incinerator. A waterwall incinerator to
generate steam for industrial processing is under
construction at Saugus, Massachusetts. In Baltimore,
with financial support from an EPA solid waste
demonstration grant, a pyrolysis system that will
generate steam is beginning operation. EPA's St.
Louis project is currently demonstrating a system
that uses the shredded, combustible portion of solid
waste as a coal substitute in a utility boiler. Chicago,
Ames, Iowa, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, are build-
ing similar systems. Several other communities are
considering similar systems and extension of the
concept to oil-fired boilers, as well as use of
wet-pulped or pelletized solid waste as a fuel.
Pyrolysis systems are being developed to convert
solid waste into liquid and gaseous fuels. Two of
these systems are the Garrett Research and Develop-
ment Company's system for producing an oil-like
fuel, which is being demonstrated with grant support
from EPA in San Diego County, California, and
Union Carbide's system for producing a gaseous fuel,
which is being tested by that company at its plant in
South Charleston, West Virginia. The recovery of
methane from landfilled solid waste is being practiced
at a pilot plant in Los Angeles and will be
demonstrated at Mountain View, California, with
grant support from EPA. Electrical power generation
using a gas turbine is being explored in a research
project conducted by the Combustion Power Com-
pany with EPA support.
These technologies enable solid waste to be
converted into a number of different energy forms,
including gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels as well as
steam and electricity. The energy recovery system
that should be employed in any particular com-
munity depends upon the market for the product.1
The market value of a solid waste energy product
should be equivalent, on the basis of heat produced,
to the value of the fuel which it replaces, less any
additional costs incurred in its use. The current
energy crunch has significantly increased the value of
these products and has reduced the need to provide
special incentives to enhance their marketability.
To be marketable, however, the solid waste energy
products must have qualities acceptable to the user.
Steam and electricity produced from solid waste are
equivalent to those products from other sources, but
fuels produced from solid wastes are physically and
chemically different from their fossil fuel counter-
parts. Characteristics such as ash content, heat value,
corrosiveness, viscosity, and moisture content have to
be acceptable to the user. For all energy products
derived from solid waste, such factors- as reliability,
quantity, and availability are also important.
The following is a review of the characteristics of
the major energy products recoverable from solid
waste, the status of technology for recovery, and the
potential markets.
Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Fuels
Solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels can be produced
from solid waste by a number of systems currently
under development. These fuels can be used as a
supplement to their fossil fuel counterparts: coal,
petroleum, and natural gas.
Mixed municipal solid waste has a heating value of
approximately 4,500 Btu per pound. The heating
value of solid waste is compared to that of fossil fuels
in Table 23.
Systems for Producing Fuels. The technology for
converting solid waste into fuel is very new but
developing rapidly. All of the systems under consider-
ation today were conceived of since 1968.
Prepared Solid Waste as a Supplemental Fuel. The
city of St. Louis, with demonstration grant assistance
from EPA, is producing a dry, shredded solid waste
-------
36
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Table 23
APPROXIMATE HEATING VALUE OF FUELS
Fuels
Heat value
Coal
No. 6 heating oil
Natural gas
Municipal solid waste
8,000 to 14,000 Btu per pound
150,000 Btu per gallon
1,000 to 1,100 Btu per cubic foot
4,500 Btu per pound
fuel which is used to supplement pulverized coal in an
existing Union Electric Company suspension-fired
boiler. Three hundred tons of solid waste fuel
provides 10 percent of the energy used each day in
the 125-megawatt boiler.
The process is divided into two distinct opera-
tions: fuel preparation and firing. A fuel transporta-
tion system is also required in St. Louis because the
fuel is prepared 18 miles from the powerplant. At the
processing plant, municipally collected solid waste is
shredded in a horizontal hammermill and fed into an
air classifier which separates the material into heavy
(dense) and light fractions. The heavy fraction is
passed over a magnetic belt to remove ferrous metals
that are processed further before sale to the Granite
City (Illinois) Steel Company for recycling. The light,
mostly combustible material is stored temporarily in
a bin and then loaded into 75-cubic-yard transfer
trailers for the trip to the powerplant (Figure 1). At
the powerplant the prepared fuel is transferred to a
smaller bin from which it can be pneumatically blown
into the boiler (Figure 2). 2"4
More information on the St. Louis demonstration,
including the results of the first series of air emission
tests conducted as part of the project, is presented in
the Appendix.
Similar systems are already being implemented in
several other communities, even though the concept
is still being tested. The Union Electric Company has
announced a $70 million program to expand the
demonstration operation to serve the entire metropol-
itan St. Louis area. In Ames, Iowa, a prepared solid
waste fuel will be used in a municipally owned
powerplant. In Chicago, it will be used by the
Commonwealth Edison Company.
Various studies by EPA are investigating other
possibilities for solid fuel prepared from solid waste:
as a supplemental fuel in oil-fired boilers; preparation
by a wet-pulping method; and pelletizing for use in
grate-fired boilers.
Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition
of materials in the absence or near-absence of oxygen.
The high temperature and the "starved-air" situation
cause a breakdown of the materials into three parts:
(1) a gas consisting primarily of hydrogen, methane,
and carbon monoxide; (2) a liquid fuel that includes
organic chemicals such as acetic acid, acetone, and
methanol; (3) a char consisting of almost pure
carbon, plus any glass, metal, or rock that may have
been processed. The design of the individual system
determines which of these outputs will be the
predominant product.5
Two pyrolysis systems currently under develop-
ment show promise of producing fuel of sufficient
quality and yield to be marketable. The Garrett
Research and Development Company's "Flash Pyrol-
ysis" system, which is being demonstrated by EPA in
San Diego County, California, will produce a liquid
fuel. A gaseous fuel will be produced in a Union
Carbide system that the Linde Division of the
company is testing at its 200-ton-per-day test facility
in South Charleston, West Virginia.
The demonstration plant for "Flash Pyrolysis" is
expected to produce an oil-like liquid that will be
used by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company as a
supplemental fuel in an existing oil-fired boiler. This
fuel, which is produced at the rate of 1 barrel per ton
of solid waste, has a heating value of about 94,000
Btu per gallon, or about 65 percent of the heating
value of No. 6 fuel oil on a volumetric basis. It has a
higher moisture content and a higher viscosity than
No. 6 oil.6
The Garrett process consists of a complex prepara-
tion system followed by a relatively simple pyrolysis
reaction (Figure 3). To prepare the solid waste for the
reactor, it must first be shredded. An air classifier
then separates a light combustible fraction which,
after being dried, is shredded again, this time to a
particle size of one-sixteenth of an inch. This material
is then introduced into the reactor, where it is mixed
with hot, glowing char in an inert atmosphere. The
material is pyrolyzed in less than a second, at a
temperature of 900 F. The resulting gas is condensed
to recover the oil. The process char is recirculated as
the energy source to pyrolyze the incoming material.
-------
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
37
(0 :z
re O ra ^*
ll Is II ,p"CJ
~J C O. D T P '/
—Ifc sf = I t ./ _
•a
c
o
u
c
o
~5> o
• c
2 B
Q) (0
o S.
S a
5 >
* L cc
LU
O
U
LU
DC
1 _J
1 ^
1—
O UJ
7 = s
/ E g
i — r s °
f?T~
in
ILLJ
S s cc
3 o cc
T *- LU
T) u.
1 (D "•
1 I
1 JC
r 1
1
VI < ,
3
O
cu
£
«T
•3
O
to
o
>,
•o
•o
-------
38
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
UNLOADING OPERATION
FIRING SYSTEM
RECEIVING BIN
TRAILER TRUCK *
TANGENTIALLY FIRED BOILER
Figure 2. In the St. Louis project, the shredded solid waste fuel is delivered to the powerplant, where it is fired
pneumatically into boilers as a supplement to coal.
PRIMARY
SHREDDER
AIR
CLASSIFIER
SECONDARY
SHREDDER
FINE SHRED
PYROLYSIS
REACTOR
PRODUCT
RECOVERY
FUEL
TO UTILITY
Figure 3. In the Garrett "Flash Pyrolysis" process being demonstrated in San Diego County, an oil-like liquid fuel is
produced from solid waste. The fuel will be used by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company as a supplemental fuel in an existing
oil-fired boiler. In addition to the fuel, ferrous metal and glass will be recovered.
-------
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
39
More information on this EPA demonstration is
presented in the Appendix.
The key element of the Union Carbide system is a
vertical shaft furnace (Figure 4). Solid waste is fed
into the top of the furnace. Oxygen entering at the
base of the furnace reacts with the char that is one of
the products ultimately formed from the solid waste.
This reaction generates a temperature high enough to
melt and fuse the ash, metal, and glass. This molten
substance drains continuously into a water-filled
tank, where it solidifies as a hard granular material.
The hot gases formed by reaction of the oxygen
and char rise up through the column of solid waste
and pyrolyze it, transforming it to gas and char. In
the upper portion of the furnace, the hot gas also
dries the incoming solid waste. The gases produced
from the pyrolyzed solid waste exit the furnace at a
temperature of about 200 F. This exhaust gas
contains considerable water vapor, some oil mist, and
minor amounts of other undesirable constituents,
which are removed in a gas-cleaning system.
The resultant gas is a clean-burning fuel compara-
ble to natural gas in combustion characteristics, but
with a heating value of about 300 Btu per cubic foot,
or about 30 percent of the heating value of natural
gas. It is essentially free of sulfur compounds and
nitrogen oxides and burns at approximately the same
temperature as natural gas. This gas can be substitu-
ted for natural gas in an existing facility; the only
plant modification necessary would be enlargement
of the burner nozzle so that the volumetric flow rate
could be increased.
One limitation on the use of this gas is the cost of
compressing it for storage and shipment. Since a
larger quantity of this gas is required to yield the
same amount of energy as natural gas, compression
costs per million Btu will be three times greater for it
than for natural gas. Therefore markets for the gas
should be within 2 miles of the producing facility,
and only short-term storage can be contemplated.
Methane Production. When solid waste decom-
poses in an anaerobic (oxygen-free) environment, it
REFUSE
FEED HOPPER
OXYGEN
COMBUSTION _
ZONE
FUEL GAS
PRODUCT
j
GAS CLEANING
SYSTEM
RECYCLE
WASTEWATER
WATER QUENCH
GRANULAR
RESIDUE
Figure 4. The key element of the Union Carbide pyrolysis process is a vertical shaft furnace. The fuel gas produced
has about 30 percent of the heating value of natural gas but is otherwise comparable in combustion characteristics.
-------
40
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
produces methane and carbon dioxide. Programs are
currently underway to recover the methane that is
produced by the natural decomposition of solid waste
in a sanitary landfill and by the accelerated decom-
position of solid waste in a mechanical digester.
In the sanitary landfill recovery program, a well is
drilled through the fill and lined with perforated pipe.
The gases are pumped out of the fill, and the carbon
dioxide is removed using membrane filtration or
cryogenic separation techniques. A study and evalua-
tion of this process is being conducted by the city of
Mountain View, California, with funding by EPA.
The NRG NuFuel Company is installing gas recovery
systems in landfills operated by the county of Los
Angeles and the city of Phoenix. Both of these sites
possess very specific characteristics that are necessary
for the process to be feasible. Any potential site must
be examined to determine whether this process is
practicable for the specific location.
The U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration is supporting the construction of a
50- to 100-ton-per-day pilot plant to produce
methane through controlled anaerobic digestion of
solid waste.
Potential Markets. Most markets for solid waste
fuels will be either large utilities or industrial users
that could blend 10 to 30 percent (by heating value)
solid waste fuel with conventional fuels and still use
sufficient quantities of solid waste fuels to justify the
costs of special storage and firing facilities. Steam-
electric powerplants, because of their large fuel needs
and proximity to urban areas, represent an attractive
market opportunity for solid waste fuels. Major
industrial operations (such as cement plants, steel-
mills, and papermills) and district heating and cooling
plants also represent potential market outlets.
Marketability. Fuels derived from municipal solid
waste have different physical and chemical properties
than conventional fuels and thus have different
handling and combustion characteristics. In order to
analyze the potential markets for these fuels, it is
necessary to identify these characteristics and evalu-
ate the constraints they will place on using the fuel
products.
There are a number of general characteristics that
determine the marketability of fuels derived from
solid waste regardless of whether they are solid,
liquid, or gaseous. These include heating value,
quality, and quantity of the fuel produced, plus
reliability of supply.
Solid fuels derived from solid waste are being used
currently as a supplement to coal in suspension-fired
utility boilers. They are also being considered for use
in conjunction with oil-fired units and as a fuel
supplement in cement kilns. Some factors that
influence the marketability of solid fuels derived
from solid waste are particle size, ash content, and
moisture content.
Liquid fuel produced from solid waste through
pyrolysis could be used as a supplement to No. 6 fuel
oil in large industrial or utility boilers. Some factors
that will influence its marketability include viscosity,
heating value per unit of volume, chemical stability,
and special handling requirements.
Most gaseous fuels produced from solid waste have
a lower heating value than natural gas because they
contain significant quantities of carbon dioxide and,
in some systems, nitrogen. The distance over which
they can be economically transported is limited by
the cost of compressing and pumping. As the energy
content per cubic foot decreases, transportation costs
become increasingly significant in relation to the
market value of the gas.
Steam Produced from Softd Waste
The most important properties of steam are
temperature and pressure. Steam temperatures gener-
ally range from 250 F to 1,050 F, and pressures range
from 150 to 3,500 pounds per square inch (psi). The
strength of the materials used to construct the system
places limitations on temperature and pressure. In
electric powerplants the greatest efficiency is
achieved at the highest temperatures and pressures. In
steam distribution systems, temperatures are kept as
low as possible to minimize heat loss in the delivery
system and pressures are kept as low as possible to
reduce cost and minimize danger from bursting pipes.
In systems that use solid waste as the sole or
primary fuel, the steam is usually produced at 600 psi
or less in order to minimize slagging and corrosion of
the boiler tubes. The steam can be processed further
in separate units to bring it to the pressure at which it
will be used.
Available Systems. Systems available for the
generation of steam from solid waste include waste-
-------
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
41
heat boilers, waterwall incinerators, and refuse-fired
support boilers.
Waste-Heat Boilers. A waste-heat boiler package is
one that is placed in the flue (exhaust gas passage)
following the secondary combustion chamber of a
conventional refractory-lined, mechanical grate incin-
erator. In addition to being used in many industrial
processes, waste-heat boilers were used in the early
design of heat recovery incinerators in this country.
The poor operating characteristics of refractory-lined
incinerators have made this approach generally
obsolete.
A waste-heat boiler is employed quite effectively,
however, as part of the new pyrolysis system being
operated in Baltimore with EPA demonstration grant
support.7 The plant, designed by Monsanto, has the
boiler following a pyrolysis kiln (Figure 5). Heat
cannot be recovered from the kiln directly because it
is used to accomplish the pyrolysis of the solid waste.
Once the pyrolysis gases are formed, they are
combusted in a separate afterburner. The heat that is
released is recovered as steam using a package-type,
waste-heat boiler. The system will generate 200,000
pounds per hour of steam from processing 1,000 tons
of solid waste per day. The steam will be transmitted
by pipeline three-fourths of a mile to an existing
distribution system that is operated by the local
utility. More information on this EPA demonstration
is presented in the Appendix.
Waterwall Incinerators. Waterwall furnaces have
almost entirely replaced refractory-lined combustion
chambers in current incinerator design. In this type of
construction, the furnace walls consist of vertically
arranged metal tubes joined side-to-side with metal
fins (braces). Radiant energy from the burning of
solid waste is absorbed by water passing through the
tubes. Additional boiler packages, located in the flue,
control the conversion of this water to steam of a
specified temperature and pressure.
This construction is also advantageous because it
acts as an efficient method of controlling the
temperature of the unit. The heat released by
combustion is transferred to the water; consequently,
less air is needed to keep the operating temperature
of the incinerator at an acceptably low level. This, in
turn, reduces the required size of the combustion
unit, and thus the capacity of its air pollution control
equipment has to be only about 25 percent that of
equipment for an air-cooled, refractory unit. So
effective is this means of temperature control that
waterwall construction has become standard even in
incinerators not designed for energy recovery.
In addition to the plants in Nashville, Saugus, and
Braintree, waterwall incinerators are operating in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Chicago. The steam
generated by the latter plants is not being sold.
STEAM
STACK
RESIDUE
RECEIVING
WATER
QUENCHING
MAGNET
4
FERROUS
METAL
Figure 5. The Monsanto system being demonstrated in Baltimore recovers steam with a waste-heat boiler following the
pyrolysis of municipal solid waste. The steam is to be used for downtown heating and cooling.
-------
42
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Solid-Waste-Fired Support Boilers. In Europe many
municipalities combine waterwall solid-waste-fired
units with separate fossil-fuel-fired units in one
facility. Steam from the two separate units is
integrated to drive one turbine generator system.
One reason this concept is widely applied in
Europe but not at all in this country is that many
European municipal governments, unlike most
American counterparts, are responsible not only for
solid waste disposal but also for power generation,
distribution of steam for district heating, and the
operation of electrically powered transportation
systems.
Electricity Produced from Solid Waste
The systems described for producing fuel and
steam can be extended to include power generation if
the revenue produced from the sale of electricity is
sufficiently high to offset the additional costs of the
equipment needed to produce it. Like steam,
electricity produced from solid waste would be
indistinguishable from electricity produced by any
conventional method.
The direct generation of electricity from solid
waste combustion is being explored through a
research project funded by EPA. The Combustion
Power Company has developed a completely
integrated solid waste combustion and power
generation system known as the CPU-400 (Figure 6).
A 100-ton-per-day pilot plant is currently in the
development phase.
In this system, incoming municipal solid waste is
shredded and air classified to remove noncombusti-
bles. Metal and glass are separated for recovery. The
combustible fraction is pneumatically transported to
an intermediate storage facility and from there into a
FLUID BED
COMBUSTOR ls,
/ SEPARATOR
CLASSIFIER
SOLID WASTE PROCESSING
GENERATOR
EXHAUST DUCTS
Figure 6. The CPU-400 pilot plant, developed by the Combustion Power Company and now in the development phase,
generates electricity from solid waste by means of a gas turbine.
-------
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
43
pressurized fluid bed combustor. The hot, high-
pressure gases from the combustor pass through
several stages of air-cleaning equipment (separators)
to remove particulates. The cleaned gases are passed
through a gas turbine that drives a 1,000-kiiowatt
generator. The pilot plant operates at only 45 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig); commercial plants would
operate at pressures in excess of 100 psig.
Performance problems have caused accelerated
deterioration of the turbine blades and thus have
slowed the development of this process. The deterio-
ration and other problems must be solved before this
approach becomes a technically and economically
feasible system for energy recovery.
Another electrical generation concept, the burning
of solid waste to generate steam to drive an electric
turbine, has been proposed in several communities,
including Hempstead, New York; and Dade County,
Florida.
Potential Market. The major concern in marketing
electricity is that it can be marketed only to the
electric utility serving the area because, within that
service area, the utility is generally exempt from
competition. The only exception to that situation
would be a municipally owned utility, but only a
small fraction of the nation's electric generating
capacity falls in this category.
The price that a utility will pay for electricity will
depend upon whether it is used to satisfy base-load or
peak-load demands. Peak-load electricity commands a
much higher price than base-load, but it requires a
much higher capital investment in equipment. A
municipality would need to sell electricity on a
continuous basis (i.e., as base-load) in order to
maintain a continuous solid waste disposal operation
at the lowest possible capital cost.
A municipality considering the sale of electricity to
a utility could seek to establish a floating price for
the electricity whereby the price would rise as the
demand on the utility increased. The price would be a
function of the incremental direct costs the utility
would incur in producing the additional electricity.
Comparison of Energy Forms
The key to marketing energy from solid waste is
producing a form of energy that can be sold and used
without significant inconvenience to the user. In
addition, the energy should be storable and transpor-
table so that the solid waste facility can be built and
operated independently of the energy market.
Steam and electricity satisfy the first objective but
neither can be stored, and steam can be transported
only very short distances.
The waste-derived solid and liquid fuels can be
transported and can even be stored for brief periods
of time (several days to several weeks). However,
both fuels require the user to install special storing
and firing facilities. In addition, the user must follow
special handling procedures to minimize problems of
air pollution and corrosion.
Waste-derived gaseous fuels are less likely to
require special handling or need separate facilities for
storage and firing, but those currently being produced
cannot economically be compressed for extended
storage and shipment. The best of the gaseous fuels
cannot be shipped more than 2 miles.
EVALUATION OF AVAILABILITY
OF TECHNOLOGY
Solid waste disposal systems must operate reliably
and with a minimum of technical risk. Furthermore,
the system must operate without degrading the
environment and at a reasonable cost. Risk and
reliability are usually evaluated through examination
of existing, full-size systems in actual operation.
Although no energy recovery system is presently
risk-free, two methods are commonly considered
"commercially available." Other, possibly better,
technologies are being developed and are projected to
become commercially available throughout the 1977
to 1982 period.
Technologies Now Available
The technology that is now commercially available
includes (1) the generation of steam (for district
heating and cooling or for industrial processing) in a
waterwall incinerator fueled solely by unprocessed
solid waste and (2) the use of prepared (shredded and
classified) solid waste as a supplement to pulverized
coal in electric utility boilers. As noted earlier, there
are already many waterwall incinerators in the United
States. The use of prepared solid waste as a
supplementary boiler fuel is being demonstrated in
St. Louis and similar systems are being implemented
by communities across the country, including: Chi-
cago; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Ames, Iowa; Wilming-
ton, Delaware (with EPA solid waste demonstration
-------
44
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
grant support); Monroe County, New York (Roches-
ter area); and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
These technologies are defined as commercially
available because they have been demonstrated in
large-scale facilities and because private industry is
offering the systems for sale. While there is little risk
of technical failure for waterwall incinerators, their
long-term reliability has not been established. Solid
waste has been used as a supplement to coal or oil in
steam or steam-electric boilers in Europe for about 20
years. However, the practice is relatively new in the
United States because most of our steam-electric
boilers, unlike European boilers, fire fuels in suspen-
sion, and therefore the solid waste must be processed
before it is fired as a supplementary fuel into the
boiler. The St. Louis project has provided the only
experience with this technology thus far. Until more
systems are actually built and operated, there will
continue to be some risk associated with their
implementation. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of
the constraints to implementation of resource re-
covery systems.)
Technologies in Development
Other, possibly superior, technologies are being
developed. Pyrolysis, which converts solid waste into
gaseous or liquid fuels, is being demonstrated with
EPA solid waste demonstration grant support in
Baltimore and San Diego County, and without
Federal support in South Charleston, West Virginia.
These systems are expected to become fully opera-
tional during the 1977 to 1980 period.
In addition, the production of methane gas
through controlled biological decomposition (anaero-
bic digestion) of solid waste is about to be performed
at pilot-plant scale. Commercial implementation of
this technology is projected to begin in the 1980 to
1982 period.
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. Lowe, R. A. Energy recovery from waste; solid waste as
supplementary fuel in power plant boilers.
Environmental Protection Publication
SW-36d.ii. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973. 24 p.
3. Sutterfield, G. W. Refuse as a supplementary fuel for
power plants; November 1973 through
March 1974; interim progress report. Envi-
ronmental Protection Publication SW-
36d.iii. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, July 1974. 25 p.
4. Shannon, L. J., et al. St. Louis/Union Electric refuse firing
demonstration air pollution test report.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974. 107 p.
5. Levy, S. J. Pyrolysis of municipal solid waste. Waste Age,
5(7):14-15, 17-20, Oct. 1974.
6. Levy, S. J. San Diego County demonstrates pyrolysis of
solid waste to recover liquid fuel, metals,
and glass. Environmental Protection Publica-
tion SW-80d.2. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1975. 27 p.
7. Sussman, D. B. Baltimore demonstrates gas pyrolysis;
resource recovery from solid waste. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-75d.i.
Washington, U.S. Governmental Printing
Office, 1975. 24 p.
-------
Chapter 4
MATERIALS RECOVERY
The materials in municipal solid waste offer a
significant potential for recovery and could contrib-
ute substantially to the material needs of this
country. The Second Report to Congress discussed
the fraction of total domestic consumption of various
materials that could be supplied from municipal solid
waste.' That report also discussed opportunities and
constraints in recycling the waste components that
are the prime candidates for recovery. These compo-
nents together constitute 50 percent of the waste
stream and include: paper (32.8 percent), steel (8.2
percent), glass (9.8 percent), and aluminum (0.7
percent) (Table 1).
This chapter discusses technical and economic
factors affecting extraction, reprocessing, and reuse
of these materials, with the major focus on develop-
ments over the past year.
PAPER RECOVERY
Background
Generation and Recovery. In 1973, 44.2 million
tons of paper entered the solid waste stream and were
disposed of, up sharply from 39 million tons in 1971
(Figure 7). This was 72 percent of the 61.4 million
tons of paper and board (excluding the construction
grades) consumed in the United States that year. The
remaining 28 percent was either scrap generated in
converting bulk paper and board into finished
products (6 million tons), paper diverted from the
solid waste stream such as tissue paper and file
records (2 million tons), or paper recovered from the
municipal waste stream (8.7 million tons).*
*Based on data published in: Statistics of Paper and
Paperboard, 1974. New York, American Paper Institute, July
1974. 70 p. Estimates of the fractions generated as industrial
scrap, delayed or diverted, and recovered from municipal
waste are from: Smith, F.L., Jr. A Solid Waste Estimation
Procedure; Material Flows Approach. Environmental Protec-
tion Publication SW-147. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 1975. 56 p.
In total, 14 million tons of paper were recycled in
1973. Added to the 8.7 million tons recovered from
post-consumer municipal solid waste was about 5
million tons of wastepaper recovered from the 6
million tons generated in industrial converting opera-
tions. The recovery rate for industrial converting
operations was thus over 80 percent, but the
post-consumer recovery rate was only 16.4 percent,
which was nevertheless a slight increase over the 15.9
percent rate attained in 1971.
The traditional index used to measure the extent
of wastepaper use is the ratio of wastepaper
consumed domestically to total domestic consump-
tion of paper and board-this is the "recycling rate."
In 1973, the rate was 20.6 percent. There has been a
steady decline in the recycling rate from the high of
over 35 percent in 1944 (before that the rate had
trended upward) to a low of 18.2 percent in 1972
(Table 24). For the last several years, however, the
rate has ceased to decline, and preliminary 1973
statistics show a slight increase over 1972.
Recovery Potential. There were 44.2 million
tons of paper disposed of as post-consumer solid
waste in 1973. In evaluating the potential for further
recovery, it is useful to examine the product structure
of this paper that is not now being recovered (Table
25). The 44.2 million tons were composed of 8
million tons of newspapers, almost 12 million tons of
corrugated containers, slightly less than 10 million
tons of printing and writing papers, and almost 15
million tons of packaging or other grades.
The first three product groups are the primary
categories for additional recovery because of their
degree of concentration at the point of generation
and the relative ease of separating them from other
wastes. The estimated potential for recovery through
source separation would indicate that, from a supply
standpoint, it would be possible to double present
45
-------
46
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
PAPERMILL
61 4
1 2 TO DISPOSAL
CONVERTER
51 RECYCLED
55 '
22 DIVERTED OR DELAYED
FINAL CONSUMER
442 TO DISPOSAL
87 RECYCLED
(IN MILLIONS OF TONS)
Figure 7. This shows the flow of paper from the mills through to disposal, estimated for 1973. Based on statistics compiled
by the American Paper Institute as reported in Statistics of Paper and Paperboard, 1974. New York, American Paper Institute, July
1974. 70 p.
quantities of paper recovered without relying on new
technology (Table 25). The market developments
that would be required to consume this additional
fiber are discussed later in this chapter.
Use of Wasrepaper. The major portion of waste-
paper consumption is in the domestic paper industry.
Those paper or board mills consuming wastepaper can
be divided into two types: the "dedicated" mill that
relies on wastepaper for all or most of its fiber input,
and the "supplemental-use" mill that uses wastepaper
as a small fraction of its overall fiber furnish. For
recycling to increase, either mills now using little
wastepaper must increase their wastepaper consump-
tion or new mills must be built that consume more
secondary fiber than the mills now operating. That is,
recycling can expand only if the industry intensifies
its use of secondary fiber, either by changing existing
operating practices or by investing in new secondary
fiber mills.
The manufacture of tissue, recycled board, and
construction paper and board consumes the major
part of the wastepaper that is recycled, while very
little goes into unbleached kraft packaging paper and
kraft board (Table 26). High-grade wastepaper is
consumed largely in the printing and writing or tissue
categories. The bulk grades-news, corrugated, and
mixed paper-are consumed mostly in the recycled
board category. Another important market for
corrugated is the production of semichemical corru-
gating medium. Corrugated wastepaper makes up
about 20 percent of the fiber used in this sector. A
market of increasing importance for old news is
newsprint manufacture. Both old news and mixed
paper are consumed in large quantities in the
construction paper and board industries.
Changes in Paper Recycling in 1973 and 1974
Domestic Demand. Domestic wastepaper con-
sumption increased by 9 percent or just under 1
million tons in 1973, according to statistics compiled
by the American Paper Institute; the Bureau of
Census estimates are slightly less (Table 27). This was
the largest year-to-year percentage increase in many
years. The largest increase by grade was for old
corrugated containers—nearly 12 percent. Increases in
other grades were more moderate. The pattern of
increases by grade is consistent with that of the past
several years, as Table 27 shows.
To place these increases in context, it is necessary
to consider also the availability (potential supply) of
each wastepaper grade. For example, although the
recovered tonnages of news and corrugated have
increased significantly, their respective recovery rates
increased only slightly because of increased produc-
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY
47
TABLE 24
DOMESTIC PAPER RECYCLING RATE: 1944 TO 1973
Year
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Total paper
consumption
(1,000 tons)
19,445
19,665
22,510
24,749
26,083
24,695
29,012
30,561
29,017
31,360
31,379
34,719
36,495
35,270
35,119
38,725
39,138
40,312
42,216
43,715
46,385
49,102
52,680
51,944
55,664
58,915
57,940
59,557
64,386
67,240
Wastepaper consumption
(1,000 tons)
Census data* Industry datat
6,859
6,800
7,278
8,009
7,585
6,600
7,956
9,070
7,881
8,531
7,857
9,041
8,836
8,493
8,671
9,414
9,031
9,018
9,075
9,613
9,843
10,231
10,564
9,888
10,222
10,939 11,969
10,594 11,800
11,000 12,100
11,703 12,915
12,374 13,880
Recycling rate based on—
Census data
35.3
34.6
32.3
32.4
29.1
26.7
27.4
29.7
27.2
27.2
25.0
26.0
24.2
24.1
24.7
24.3
23.1
22.4
21.5
22.0
21.2
20.8
20.1
19.0
18.4
18.6
18.3
18.5
18.2
18.4
Industry data
20.3
20.4
20.3
20.1
20.6
*U.S. Bureau of the Census. Pulp, paper, and board: 1973. Current Industrial Reports Series M26A(73)-13. Washington, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1975. 21 p.
tAmerican Paper Institute, Statistics of paper and paperboard, 1974.
tion and the resulting increase in discards. The
recovery rate of news has gone from about 19.8
percent to 20.6 percent over the period 1968-73,
based on Bureau of the Census statistics. The
recovery rate of corrugated has increased from 25.0
to 26.3 percent over the same period. Thus, the
increased recycled tonnage achieved in 1973 did not
substantially increase the recycling rate.
Indeed, the amount of paper entering the solid
waste stream has increased steadily each year. For
example, although corrugated recovery increased
from 3.3 million tons in 1968 to 4.5 million tons in
1973, total consumption of corrugated products
increased by over 5 million tons in the same period.
As long as product consumption increases in this
manner, recycled tonnages must increase rapidly in
order to hold the recycling rate constant. Yet the
recycling rate must increase if solid waste generation
is to be held constant. As an illustration, the 1973
recycling rates for corrugated would have had to
surpass the 1967 rate by 50 percent to keep
corrugated wastes generation constant. The wastepa-
-------
48
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 25
POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL RECOVERY OF PAPER FROM
POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE THROUGH SOURCE SEPARATION, BY TYPE OF PAPER, 1973*
(In millions of tons)
Category of
wastepaper
Newspaper
Corrugated
Printing/writing
Packaging and other
Total
Total
8.0
11.8
9.7
14.7
44.2
Paper disposed of
Urban areas
6.2
9.2
7.6
11.5
34.5
Percent
55-65
55-65
30-40
5-10
Potential recovery
Amount
3.4-4.0
5.1-6.0
2.3-3.0
.6-1.2
11.4-14.2
*The estimates in this table are based on statistics published by the American Paper Institute in their annual publication
Statistics of Paper and Paperboard, 1974. The methodology employed is described in: 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.
TABLE 26
END USES FOR WASTEPAPER, BY GRADE OF WASTEPAPER USED, 1973*
(In thousands of tons)
Grades of paper stock
End product
Total paper:
Newsprint
Printing, writing, and related
Unbleached kraft pkg., industrial converting,
special industrial, and other
Tissue
Total paper board:
Unbleached kraft and solid bleached
Semi chemical
Recycled
Total
U.S.
production
26,750
3,430
13,500
5,840
3,980
29,570
17,430
4,260
7,880
Total
wastepaper
consumption
2,870
490
938
263
1,179
9,858
449
849
8,560
Mixed
paper
317
17
44
47
98
2,136
50
77
2,009
News-
paper
594
482
-
14
98
1,657
1
19
1,637
Corru-
gated
140
-
-
15
125
4,916
355
747
3,814
Pulp substitutes
and high-grade
deinked
1,938
-
893
187
858
1,151
44
7
1,100
Construction paper and board, molded
pulp, and other
5,700
1,591
919
327
235
109
Total
Percent distribution
62,020 14,439
100.0
3,371 2,578
23.5 17.2
5,292
37.0
3,199
22.3
*Caparity 1973-1976, with additional data for 1977-1979; paper, paperboard, woodpulp, fiber consumption. New York,
American Paper Institute, 1974. 25 p.
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY
49
TABLE 27
DOMESTIC WASTEPAPER CONSUMPTION BY GRADE, 1968-73
(In thousands of tons)
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Data
source
Census*
Industry t
Census
Industry
Census
Industry
Census
Industry
Census
Industry
Census
Industry
Total
10,222
-
10,590
-
10,594
12,021
11,000
12,323
11,703
13,132
12,374
14,439
Mixed
3,130
-
3,196
-
3,140
2,639
3,237
2,776
3,393
3,054
3,554
3,371
News
1,995
-
2,118
-
2,073
2,235
2,040
2,174
2,118
2,317
2,299
2,578
Corrugated
3,254
-
3,448
-
3,511
4,080
3,796
4,277
4,244
4,722
4,454
5,292
High
grades
1,843
-
1,829
-
1,870
3,067
1,927
3,097
1,949
3,037
2,066
3,199
*U.S. Bureau of the Census. Pulp, paper, and board. Current Industrial Reports Series M26A, [Section] 13. Washington, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1969-1974.
tThe American Paper Institute's series Capacity. . . Paper, Paper-board, Woodpuip, Fiber Consumption for 1970 to 1973.
per market expansion that would be necessary for
this did not occur.
Thus, the increased tonnages of recycled wastepa-
per in 1973 cannot be viewed with great optimism.
Indeed, the markets for all paper grades have changed
little over the last 4 years-the use patterns shown
in Table 26 have remained essentially the same since
these data were first collected in 1969. Although the
total tonnage of secondary fiber used has grown, total
paper and board production has also increased. As a
result, the amount of wastepaper used per ton of
paper produced has changed little.
Unfortunately the increased wastepaper demand
of 1973 and early 1974 reversed in mid-1974 and
decreased steadily. By the last quarter of 1974
monthly wastepaper consumption was well below
comparable periods of a year earlier. Preliminary
unofficial data suggested that, for 1974 as a whole,
wastepaper consumption declined slightly in absolute
tonnage from 1973.
Foreign Demand in 1973.2 Exports historically
have represented a small proportion of total waste-
paper recovery in this country (Table 28). The
percentage has increased from less than 2 percent in
the early fifties to 5.2 percent in 1973, but the
pattern has been erratic. In 1973, wastepaper exports
increased by 65 percent after remaining essentially
unchanged for the previous 3 years. This increase in
exports accounted for about 20 percent of the total
U.S. wastepaper recovery increase m 1973.
The impact of exports on domestic markets varies
widely by region. By far the greatest impact of 1973
export increases occurred on the West Coast, where
increased consumption by Asian countries sent
export volume soaring. Seventy-four percent of the
increased exports in 1973 occurred from the West
Coast. Export increases in other regions were rela-
tively minor by comparison. The regional importance
of such export increases can be demonstrated by
expressing regional exports as a percent of total
regional wastepaper recovery (Figure 8). Exports
were 16 percent of the total recovery on the West
Coast in 1973 while in other regions they constituted
only a small portion of total recovery.
In 1974 exports at first expanded rapidly and by
midyear were double the amount for the correspond-
ing period of 1973. However, in the latter half of the
year, particularly the last quarter, exports dropped
significantly. For the whole year exports totaled 1.3
million tons, 91 percent above 1973.
The future of exports is very difficult to predict;
nonetheless, the increases of the past several years
suggest that they may provide an expanding market
for U.S. wastepaper.
-------
50
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 28
DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION AND EXPORTS
OF WASTEPAPER, 1950-73
(In thousands of tons)
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Exports*
120
206
142
114
126
167
190
131
107
128
153
215
209
230
272
292
246
262
253
289
408
418
413
683
Domestic
consumption t
7,596
9,070
7,881
8,531
7,857
9,041
8,836
8,493
8,671
9,414
9,032
9,018
9,075
9,613
9,843
10,231
10,564
9,888
10,222
10,939
10,594
11,000
11,703
12,374
Total
recovery if
7,716
9,276
8,023
8,645
7,983
9,208
9,026
8,624
8,778
9,542
9,185
9,233
9,284
9,843
10,115
10,523
10,810
10,150
10,475
11,228
11,002
11,418
12,116
13,057
Exports as
percent of
recovery
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.8
2.1
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.7
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.6
3.7
3.7
3.4
5.2
*U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. exports—domestic
merchandise; (series) EM-522, sect. 2 (schedule B sect.).
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va.)
tStatistics of paper. New York, American Paper
Institute, 1964. 106 p. Statistics of paper and paperboard.
New York, American Paper Institute, 1973. 70 p.
^Preliminary Department of Commerce estimate,
adjusted by EPA to reflect normal difference between
preliminary and adjusted Commerce estimates.
Wastepaper Supply Changes in 1973. The waste-
paper supply system exhibited severe fluctuations in
1973 as wastepaper exports increased dramatically,
domestic use increased steadily, and alternate fiber
sources, particularly market pulp, became scarce.
Inventories of wastepaper decreased as firms faced
increasingly tight supply markets; some mills even
faced periodic production losses. These factors led to
a very rapid rise in wastepaper prices to the highest
levels since the Korean War (Figure 9).
This situation was viewed as a crisis in the
industry. Considerable doubt was expressed as to
whether the supply system could meet this increased
demand. Extreme measures, such as curtailing ex-
ports, were advanced as short-term solutions to what
was viewed as a failure of the supply system.
In retrospect, the response of the supply system to
these price increases was very encouraging, especially
when one considers the inevitable lag in expanding
wastepaper supply that results from the need to
arrange new collection agreements with waste genera-
tors and to add equipment to haul and process such
material.
In Figure 9, the rise of wastepaper prices in
1973-74 indicates that demand grew more rapidly
than supply in this period. However, supply appears
to have expanded rapidly in response to these price
signals. Declining wastepaper inventories were stabil-
ized by the fall of 1973 and, within the next few
months, rose to all-time highs.* This buildup was
achieved despite increased demand from both domes-
tic and export markets throughout the period and
suggests a robust supply system. Prices soon stabil-
ized, and then declined, apparently because inven-
tories were replenished and supply again exceeded
demand.
The major factor behind the sharpness of the rise
and fall of wastepaper prices, however, was not the
activity of wastepaper suppliers but rather the entry
into and exit from the U.S. wastepaper market by
domestic and foreign buyers who are generally not in
that market. Their entry was a short-term response to
the inadequate supply of virgin pulp in the 1973-74
period; wastepaper was their fiber of last resort.
The decreased wastepaper demand of the latter
half of 1974, coupled with an overcharged supply
system, caused wastepaper prices to fall to one-half to
one-fourth those of early 1974, and once again made
wastepaper recovery uneconomical for many poten-
tial supply sources.
EPA thus believes that paper recycling is limited
by demand rather than supply. There is plenty of
wastepaper available for recovery whenever a stable
*National wastepaper inventories are reported in the
Monthly Statistical Summary from the American Paper
Institute in New York.
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY
51
Figure 8. Wastepaper exports as a percent of total
wastepaper recovery in 1973 are shown for the different
sections of the country. The West Coast shows the greatest
impact due to increasing consumption by Asian countries.
Source: EPA calculations based on data in: U.S. Bureau of
the Census. U.S. exports—domestic merchandise; (series)
EM-522, sect. 2. (Distributed by National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Va.) and Capacity 1972-1975 with
additional data for 1976-1978; paper, paperboard, wood
pulp, fiber consumption. New York, American Paper
Institute, 1973. 25 p.
market can be guaranteed. The problem is that the
market expansion that would be necessary to provide
such guarantees has not occurred.
Projections of Domestic Wastepaper Consumption
The future course of domestic wastepaper use is
unclear. A positive sign is that manufacture of
linerboard, a traditionally virgin fiber product, is
projected to use increasing quantities of old corru-
gated as a fiber supplement through 1977. Use in this
sector in 1973 increased by approximately 40 percent
over 1972, a rate exceeding the expected growth in
overall corrugated board production.3 Another posi-
tive sign for use of old corrugated is that the capacity
to produce combination medium, a grade within the
recycled board category, is projected to increase by
almost the same tonnage as the capacity to produce
virgin medium over the next 4 years. This is a
dramatic improvement over prior years during which
virgin mills accounted for almost all growth in
medium capacity. Capacity growth is also anticipated
for mills producing newsprint from old newspapers.
There are also less favorable indications. Waste-
paper use per ton of output in the construction paper
and board sector is declining, apparently because
construction paper-a large wastepaper consumer-is
showing little growth in comparison with construc-
tion and insulation board-products using little or no
wastepaper. This problem is exacerbated by the
general slump in construction activity at the present
time.
Capacity to produce combination folding box-
board, another grade within the recycled board
category and one of the major markets for secondary
fiber, is projected to grow more slowly than the
capacity for producing virgin folding boxboard. This
is a continuation of a trend of the past 10 years.
Virgin boxboard production increased 50 percent
from 1960 to 1973. In that period, combination
boxboard production increased by only 3 percent.
These positive and negative indications together
give a mixed view of the future. In the past, the
failure of traditional markets to expand and of new
markets to emerge has meant that the recycling rate
would decline or, at best, remain constant. The level
of wastepaper use projected in 1973 by the American
Paper Institute in their annual capacity survey was
encouraging. They estimated year-to-year increases as
follows: 5.5 percent in 1974, 6.6 percent in 1975,
and 6.4 percent in 1976; Table 29 shows the
projected wastepaper usage by grade. However, as
noted earlier, the preliminary data for 1974 indicate a
slight decline in wastepaper consumption. And if
total paper and board production expand as antici-
pated, 6-percent annual increases in wastepaper use,
should they be realized, would improve the recycling
rate only slightly, and the quantity of paper in solid
wastes would continue to grow.
ConcJusions
The history of wastepaper markets prior to 1973
offered little hope for increased recycling. Thus, as
reported in the Second Report to Congress, EPA
evaluated several subsidies that might be employed to
expand wastepaper demand. At the time of the
writing of the Second Report-fall of 1973-the
market expansion of 1973-74 was well underway and
it appeared possible that the paper industry might
have shifted permanently to more intensive use of
wastepaper. In retrospect, it appears that few, if any,
basic changes have yet occurred in the industry.
Despite selective encouraging signs in some areas of
wastepaper use, the overall market is still small
relative to the potential supply. As a result, millions
-------
52
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
350--
300--
50
1950
1955
1960 1965
(1967= 100)
1970
1974
Figure 9. The wastepaper wholesale price index for 1950-74 shows a jump in price during 1973 and early 1974 to a level
unprecedented since the time of the Korean War, followed by a steep drop in the latter part of 1974 because of decreased demand
coupled with high inventories. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wholesale prices and price indexes. (Code 09-12:
Wastepaper.)
TABLE 29
1973 PROJECTIONS OF WASTEPAPER CONSUMPTION
IN 1973-77, BY GRADE*
(In thousands of tons)
Wastepaper grades
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Mixed
papers
3,371
3,522
3,588
3,739
3,687
News-
papers
2,456
2,504
2,617
2,711
2,754
Corru-
gated
5,292
5,796
6,447
7,095
7,308
Pulp substitutes and
high-grade deinked
3,199
3,281
3,449
3,569
3,746
*American Paper Institute, Capacity
p. 20-21, 1973.
1972-1975,
of additional tons of wastepaper will enter the solid
waste stream each year for the foreseeable future.
The most appropriate form of Federal policy
intervention to improve this situation has not been
determined. The costs of each alternative, whether
financial incentives, product charges, regulations, or
even Federal example-setting, must be weighed
against the benefits of greater recycling of paper.
These alternatives will be evaluated over the coming
year.
GROWTH OF SOURCE SEPARATION
FOR PAPER RECOVERY
Source separation is the setting aside of recyclable
waste materials at their point of generation by the
generator. Separation is followed by the transporting
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY-
53
of these materials to a secondary materials dealer or
directly to a manufacturer. Transportation is pro-
vided either by the generator, by city collection
vehicles, by private haulers and scrap dealers, or by
voluntary recycling or service organizations.
Wastepaper has flowed back into the production
cycle through source separation for decades. Charita-
ble, service, and religious organizations have long
been active in this area. In recent years they have
been joined by thousands of recycling centers across
the country. In the last 2 years, separate collection
of news and mixed paper from homes, corrugated
containers from commercial and industrial establish-
ments, and high-grade papers from offices has
increased dramatically.
Separate Newspaper Collection
Separate newspaper collection is the curbside
collection of used newspapers on a regular basis by
municipal or private waste collectors. Newspapers are
kept separate from other waste in the household,
bundled and tied, placed at the curb, and collected
regularly like other solid wastes. In September 1974,
there were 134 such programs in the country,
according to an EPA telephone survey. The growth in
number of programs was as follows:
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Number
2
6
12
37
93
134
Of the 134 programs, 55 percent utilized city
collection forces and 45 percent were conducted by
private contractors.
Two methods are presently used to collect the
newspaper. In the first, separate trucks are dispatched
to pick up newspaper only. They are usually regular
compaction trucks, but open-bodied trucks can also
be used. Of the existing programs, 85 percent employ
this method; approximately half of these collect
paper weekly, with the remainder equally divided
between biweekly and monthly collections.
In the second method, metal compartments to
store the newspaper are installed beneath the bodies
of standard collection trucks. The newspaper and
other refuse are collected simultaneously. This is the
so-called "piggyback" or rack method of separate
collection.
The success of separate newspaper collection
programs depends heavily on four factors:
(1) Available markets. Markets must be available
within a reasonable distance. They should be investi-
gated in advance and assured by contract (39 percent
of the participating communities have such con-
tracts).
(2) Publicity campaign. Whether the program is
mandatory or voluntary, citizen cooperation must be
thoroughly solicited by making sure that citizens
know of the program's existence and purpose and the
exact nature of their requested participation. This
requires an active publicity campaign.
(3) Planning. The changes in the existing collec-
tion procedures that will be required must be
properly planned and carried out, including provi-
sions for handling the newspaper after it is collected.
(4) Antiscavenger ordinance. A special ordinance
may have to be drafted to prevent any party other
than the municipal collection crew (or contracted
private hauler) from picking up old newspapers when
placed at the curb (about half the cities have such an
ordinance).
Another key to success is the extent to which the
program can be carried out with existing labor and
equipment. At first glance, it would seem that
additional equipment and personnel would be
needed. However, of the cities now practicing
separate collection, EPA knows of only three that
have purchased new trucks for the program. Very few
new employees have been hired because of separate
collection, although the length of time spent on the
collection routes by present employees has generally
increased. In other words, most cities practicing
separate collection have found underutilized equip-
ment and labor to carry out the program and have
thus increased the productivity of existing labor and
equipment.
The equipment and labor costs of separate
newspaper collection must be balanced against the
proceeds from the sale of the newspaper and the
savings in disposal costs.
Generalizations about costs or savings are difficult
because of the city-to-city variation in the market
-------
54
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
price for old newspapers, disposal costs, type of
collection used before and after initiation of separate
collection, and other factors. Each community must
estimate the economics under the conditions that
exist in that community.
By the end of 1973, mills in many parts of the
country were paying $50 to $60 per ton for baled
newspaper. Discussions with municipal officials indi-
cated that most municipalities were receiving $20 to
$40, with an average of $32, from wastepaper dealers
for loose newspaper. In the last half of 1974 and first
quarter of 1975, paper prices declined. Buying prices
of mills averaged near $15 per ton in December 1974.
For the most part, industry has tried to maintain
prices that allow city programs to break even, in
order to keep this supply source viable.
Recent EPA case studies have examined the effect
of separate collection (using separate trucks) and sale
of newspaper on the collection costs of 10 communi-
ties.4-5 (Table 30). In both the "before" and "after"
cases, collection and disposal costs varied widely.
However, the study results suggest an encouraging
economic picture for separate news collection. When
communities were averaging $25 per ton for newspa-
pers, they were able to reduce their total collection
and disposal costs by about 5 percent. Even when
paper revenues were a low $8 per ton, the costs for
the study communities, on the average, increased by
only about 1.5 percent.
The participation rate-the percentage of house-
holds setting out their newspapers separated as
requested-has an important bearing on system
economics. It is of prime importance that as many
householders cooperate as possible. Participation
rates rise over time with a good publicity campaign.
There are indications that participation rates in an
ongoing program will rise above 50 percent on a
purely voluntary basis. This is probably due in part to
the desire of many citizens to contribute to environ-
mental improvement. Furthermore very little
extra effort is required to separate newspapers. An
EPA study shows that only about 2.3 minutes per
week of the householder's time is needed for extra
handling of the newspapers.4'5
TABLE 30
IMPACT OF SEPARATE NEWSPAPER COLLECTION ON OVERALL RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT COSTS IN 10 CITIES (SEPARATE TRUCK METHOD)*
Collection and disposal cost
per ton after implementation
of separate collectiont
Case study
location
Collection and disposal
cost per ton prior to
separate collection
Low wastepaper
price
(average $8 per ton)
High wastepaper
price
(average $25 per ton)
Cost
% change
Cost
% change
Dallas, Texas
Ft. Worth, Texas
Great Neck, N.Y.
Green Bay, Wis.
Greenbelt, Md.
Marblehead, Mass.
Newton, Mass.
University Park, Texas
Villa Park, HI.
West Hartford, Conn.
$12.10
13.50
36.00
38.70
27.20
23.10
32.40
14.70
13.50
26.30
$11.60
14.10
38.70
37.70
27.40
25.30
32.20
14.90
13.40
26.50
-4.1
+4.4
+7.5
-2.6
+0.7
+9.5
-0.6
+1.4
-0.8
+0.8
$ 9.30
11.80
36.50
37.10
26.30
24.10
31.60
13.10
12.40
25.20
-23.1
-12.6
+1.4
-4.1
-3.3
+4.3
-2.5
-10.9
-8.1
-5.7
*SCS Engineers, Inc. Analysis of source separate collection of recyclable solid waste; separate collection studies.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-95c.l. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 157 p. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239 775.)
tCredit given for diverted disposal costs and revenue generated from the sale of separately collected wastepaper.
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY
55
Source Separation of Corrugated Paper
In contrast to newspapers, which are discarded
primarily from residences, used corrugated containers
are discarded primarily from commercial and indus-
trial sources. Recovery from these sources has been
practiced for many years and has been carried out
primarily by wastepaper dealers rather than through
volunteer channels. Some supermarkets and other
commercial and industrial generators have separated
and baled their corrugated containers, but waste
haulers have also obtained large quantities in the past
through hand separation of corrugated paper from
other waste at disposal sites or processing stations.
In the past 2 to 4 years, source separation of
corrugated paper has increased in importance. Most
of the country's major supermarket chains now
separate corrugated paper from other waste for
recycling, as do many auto assembly plants and other
commercial and industrial establishments. There are
two major methods. The first is baling by the
generator, using any of a number of techniques which
differ in the size of bales produced, method of
storage, and method of collection. Large bales are
suitable for direct consumption by a papermill; small
bales, generally under 500 to 700 pounds, have to be
rebaled by a hauler or wastepaper dealer prior to
shipment to a mill.
A second method depends on the use of station-
ary compactors-large metal containers attached to a
stationary hydraulic ram-for storage of the corru-
gated. The hauler or wastepaper dealer empties the
container and bales the corrugated paper. If the
generator has mixed other waste with the corrugated
paper, then hand-sorting must also be done. In the
latter case, the generator has in fact done little or no
source separation.
The method that is most attractive to a particular
generator depends on the quantity of paper gener-
ated, the space available for handling the paper, and
other factors. In a recent study of supermarket waste
management practices sponsored by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, baling was found to be the most
economically attractive method among large super-
markets for handling corrugated paper. Many large
warehouses and large industrial generators also have
found baling to be the most attractive approach.
However, some other generators, such as large
department stores, prefer stationary compactors,
leaving the baling and perhaps the separation to the
hauler.
Baling results in a higher price for the paper but
generally requires more effort on the part of the
generator. Use of compactors requires little change in
normal waste discard procedures but results in less
revenue for the paper.
The economic attractiveness to the generator of
separation of corrugated is influenced by numerous
factors, including quantity generated, type and size of
store, method of regular waste storage and removal,
type of separation system used, and local markets.
In 1973, market prices of corrugated at the mill
rose to over $60 per ton in most parts of the country.
Under these conditions many generators found the
economics for separating corrugated to be very
favorable. For example, many generators received
enough revenue from separated corrugated to pay for
the cost of a baler in a single year and, at the same
time, reduce their waste-hauling costs. However, in
1974 prices dropped to less than half the 1973 level.
Nevertheless, baling or otherwise separating corru-
gated paper continues to be a waste management
technique of considerable appeal to many commercial
generators.
Office Paper Recovery
Separation of high-grade office paper is the newest
of the source separation phenomena and is growing
rapidly. With the exception of computer tab cards
and printout paper which, because of their high value,
have usually been recycled, relatively little office
paper has been source separated in the past. However,
in the last 2 years, over 300 companies have
implemented office paper separation programs. The
majority of these systems utilize the desk-top tray or
container into which each worker places his recycla-
ble wastepaper.
Since most of the systems have been implemented
only recently, EPA has developed little economic
data on office paper recovery. Preliminary results
indicate, however, that office paper separation is not
only economically viable but quite profitable. Gains
are derived both from revenue received for the paper
and from disposal cost savings. For example, one
major California firm reports that waste disposal
quantities and costs have been reduced by one-third
-------
56
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
because of their highly successful office paper
separation program. After 6 months of operation, a
major aerospace manufacturer has received revenues
of $250,000, experienced costs of only $55,000, and
reintroduced some 2,500 tons of high-grade paper
into the manufacturing cycle.
The potential for expanding office paper separa-
tion appears very favorable where programs can be
properly planned and set up and publicity is
continuous to keep employees motivated.
Conclusions
Source separation is presently the most feasible
means of removing paper from the waste stream for
recycling. Newspaper, corrugated containers, and
certain types of papers from offices typically accumu-
late in relatively high concentration and homogene-
ous form at the points of generation. Their separation
from other waste will usually be of only slight
inconvenience to the generator and may result in
savings to them in waste disposal costs.
The most significant new opportunities for source
separation lie in municipal programs for source
separation and separate collection of old newspapers
from residences, in separation of corrugated contain-
ers by commercial and industrial establishments, and
in separation of high-grade paper in offices. However,
communities and businesses must consider markets
and economics on a local basis.
STEEL CAN RECYCLING
Background
Ferrous materials constitute approximately 7
percent of municipal solid waste (excluding automo-
biles). About 50 percent of the ferrous fraction is
steel cans. It is estimated that, in 1973, approxi-
mately 5.6 million tons of cans entered the solid
waste stream. About 70 percent, 4.0 million tons,
were generated in Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, where recovery is more likely to be economi-
cally feasible. The current rate of recovering cans
from municipal solid waste is low. In 1973, approxi-
mately 70,000 tons of cans were recycled, less than 2
percent of discards.
Ferrous scrap is extracted from mixed solid waste
magnetically. Magnetic separation can be carried out
at landfill sites, incinerators, transfer stations, and
comprehensive resource recovery facilities. To recover
ferrous scrap suitable for most markets, the mixed
waste must be shredded prior to magnetic separation.
Although magnetic separation is gaining acceptance,
EPA is aware of only 25 cities that are presently
doing it. At least 18 additional facilities are planned.6
Developments in Markets
for Post-Consumer Cans
The Second Report to Congress contained a
description of the major markets for post-consumer
cans as well as a definition of the supply poten-
tial.7' p" S2~54 The copper precipitation industry was
cited as the single largest user of scrap cans,
accounting for 65 percent of all cans recovered in
1972. Two other industries, the steel industry and the
detinning industry, were cited as having the most
potential for growth in the consumption of scrap
cans. The following will provide an update on these
latter markets as well as the current status and
techniques for recovering steel cans.
The SteeJ Industry. The steel industry represents
the largest potential market for steel cans recovered
from municipal waste. They can be used in both the
blast furnace (where ore is reduced to iron) and also
the basic oxygen and electric furnaces (where iron is
refined into steel). In 1972, about 34 million tons of
iron and steel scrap were purchased by the industry
for use in steel manufacture. The 4 million tons of
post-consumer cans generated in Standard Metropoli-
tan Statistical Areas is equivalent to about 12 percent
of this amount. Quantities of steel cans presently
recovered are far below this rate of generation and are
not great enough to use in steelmaking furnaces on a
continuous basis.
Contaminants in scrap steel cans are a major
barrier to their use in steel manufacture. The lead,
tin, and aluminum present in can scrap may cause
furnace damage or degrade the quality of the finished
product. The seriousness of these contaminants is
greatly reduced, however, if scrap cans are used as a
small percentage of the total furnace charge.
The American Iron and Steel Institute's Commit-
tee of Tin Mill Products Producers has estimated that
5 percent of the scrap charge to the basic oxygen
(steelmaking) furnace could be scrap cans.8 This
would be equivalent to 1.5 percent of the total steel
produced or a potential demand of 3 million tons a
year. This Committee has also stated that scrap cans
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY
57
could possibly replace about 5 percent of the iron ore
in the blast furnace. Thus, the blast furnace and basic
oxygen furnaces alone could consume more scrap
cans than presently exist in municipal solid waste.
Even large percentages of cans are acceptable in
electric furnaces when relatively lower grade products
such as reinforcing bars are being manufactured.
It is by no means obvious, however, that use of
scrap steel cans in the manner described would
actually occur even if sufficient quantities of recov-
ered cans were available. Individual mills may be
reluctant to use cans at these levels. Furthermore,
there has been so little experience to date in use of
cans in these ways that the viability of continuous use
is difficult to assess at this time. Nevertheless some
specification guidelines can be given. Scrap used in a
basic oxygen furnace should be visibly free of plastics
and contain less than 1 percent dirt and no more
than 3 to 5 percent organics. A small amount of
organics will burn off during the melting of the steel
and therefore does not interfere with the steelmaking
process. However, the organics do constitute an
additional load on the air pollution equipment.
Aluminum, lead, and tin are potentially troublesome
but may not be a problem in the steelmaking process
if sufficient hot metal (virgin iron) is available to
dilute the elements. In addition, the scrap should be
baled and have a minimum density of 70 pounds per
cubic foot.
The recommended specifications for can scrap
used for blast furnace feed include less than 1 percent
dirt content and less than 2 percent loose organics. It
should be in loose, free-flowing, balled form with a
density in excess of 70 pounds per cubic foot.
The EPA demonstration of solid waste as a
supplemental fuel in coal-fired utility boilers in St.
Louis includes the extraction of ferrous materials
from the solid waste. The recovered ferrous materials
are being used in a blast furnace. This is the first
instance in which scrap has been processed in a blast
furnace other than for industry tests.
Quantities of cans presently recovered from
municipal solid waste are too small to make an
accurate assessment of the practical potential for use
of recovered cans in the steel industry. The alumi-
num, lead, and tin content of cans is certainly
undesirable even if it can be diluted. However, the
undesirable contaminants can be reduced to an
acceptable level by detinning. The resulting steel is a
readily marketable, premium material classified as a
No. 1 bundle, which in 1973 commanded a price of
approximately $100 to $174 per ton.
The Detinning Industry. Detinning is a chemical
process in which tin is recovered from tinplate. Most
of the 3,000 tons of tin salvaged annually from scrap
cans is extracted from scrap generated in can
manufacturing plants. This is a reflection not only of
low municipal recycling levels but also the difficult
tolerance levels for contaminants in can scrap. The
major contaminant in post-consumer can scrap is
aluminum tops from bimetal beverage cans. This
aluminum is not present in scrap from manufacturing
plants. When present at levels greater than 4 per-
cent, the aluminum undergoes a chemical reaction
during detinning which causes foaming (boil-overs)
and the production of hazardous hydrogen gases.
Removal of the aluminum adds significant cost-
approximately $10 per ton of cans processed-to the
detinning process. Entrapped paper and other organ-
ics exceeding 5 percent may also be troublesome
because they hinder the chemical reaction of the
detinning solution with the tinplate.
Unlike the scrap for steelmaking, scrap cans for
detinning should not be balled or otherwise flattened
to a form that interferes with the access of the
detinning solution to the tinplate surface or that does
not allow easy drainage afterwards. This is an
important consideration to the municipal official
choosing a shredder for ferrous recovery. Incinerated
cans are unacceptable because incinerators can cause
the formation of oxides on the tinplate surface that
are difficult to remove. The detinning industry is
showing increased interest in post-consumer cans
despite the contaminants. The industry has indicated
possible interest in building detinning plants wherever
30,000 tons of can scrap are guaranteed yearly.
Facilities processing 2,000 tons per day or more of
municipal solid waste would probably produce
enough scrap to meet this quota. The 1974 market
value for can scrap for detinning ranged from $30 to
$100 per ton, depending on quality of the material
and geographical location. This value is up sharply
from the 1971 figure of approximately $10 per ton.
Traditionally, detinning has been a batch, rather
-------
58
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
than a continuous, process. Fourteen detinning plants
employing this process operate in the United States.
They are located in Baltimore; East Chicago, Indiana;
Elizabeth, New Jersey; Gary, Indiana; Gardena,
California; Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, San
Francisco, and El Paso, Texas.
A new plant located in Wilmington, Delaware, is
operating a continuous detinning process for the first
time. The capacity of the plant is 200,000 tons of
steel cans annually. The system includes a shredder,
air classifier, and several separation and cleanup
processes prior to detinning. It is capable of
processing incinerator residues with aluminum con-
tent exceeding industry specifications, and organic
content up to 7 percent. A major portion of the scrap
cans going into this process comes from Delaware,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
Ferrous Recovery Technology
Ferrous recovery technology is fairly well devel-
oped. Two approaches are the magnetic separation
from incinerator residue and the magnetic separation
from shredded municipal waste.
Incinerator Residue Recovery. This approach is
presently being employed in Amarillo, Texas; Atlan-
ta; Chicago; Melrose Park, Illinois; Stickney, Illinois;
and Tampa, Florida. The recovered metal waste is
separated and shipped to commercial shredders in
preparation for sale to the copper industry or is sold
directly for use in ferroalloy production. The
difficulty with using incinerated waste is that often
the ferrous material is altered by the high tempera-
tures. Incinerators operating at lower temperatures
(1,OOOF to 1,400 F) will oxidize but not melt
aluminum. At higher temperatures (1,400 F to
2,000 F), practically all the aluminum is melted off
and removed, but most of the tin and copper are
absorbed into the steel. Most incinerators operate at
around 1,500 F to 1,700 F.
Recovery from Shredded Waste. This technology
has been proven to be successful and is practiced in
several locations around the country. The technology
is relatively simple. Incoming municipal solid waste is
passed through a shredder for size reduction and is
then passed under a magnetic separator for removal
of the ferrous fraction. Once extracted, the ferrous is
cleaned by washing or air separation, magnetically
separated again to reduce contamination, and com-
pacted to increase density. Because of variations in
specifications from industry to industry, it is ex-
tremely important that research on local ferrous
markets be completed before a recovery system
design is selected.
Economics
An excellent opportunity for ferrous material
extraction exists wherever shredding of waste is
required-to prepare waste for comprehensive materi-
als and energy recovery plants; to reduce waste
volume in order to extend landfill life; or to increase
freight payloads at transfer stations.
Shredding of waste solely for ferrous material
extraction is generally not economically feasible,
however. At prices of $20 per ton for cans and $12
per ton for other miscellaneous ferrous materials,
revenues from ferrous material extraction would total
less than $1.25 per ton of refuse processed. Typical
shredding costs exceed $1.25 per ton. However, in
systems already using shredders for densification or
recovery of other materials, the incremental costs of
adding magnetic separation equipment should be
easily covered by the revenues.
Impact of Beverage Container Legislation
Several types of legislative proposals to reduce
generation of solid waste materials are being intro-
duced in State and local legislatures. One of the more
popular of these requires a mandatory deposit for
beverage containers; this would have an impact on the
amount of steel, aluminum, and glass containers
discarded in the waste stream. Steel cans would
probably be reduced by 15 percent and waste
aluminum and glass by 30 to 35 percent, respectively.
A 1,000-ton-per-day facility recovering ferrous scrap
could realize a "yield loss" of approximately 2,000
tons of ferrous scrap a year. At a price of $20 per ton
for scrap cans, the annual revenue losses would
amount to $40,000. For each ton of raw waste input,
revenue from ferrous materials extraction would be
reduced from $1.25 to approximately $1.06. This
decrease is not substantial. Most profitable ferrous
recovery systems would remain profitable.
Conclusions
The copper precipitation industry consumes more
than half the scrap steel cans reclaimed from solid
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY
59
waste. Consumption in detinning and steelmaking is
increasing. Detinning offers the most potential for
steel can recycling. It upgrades the cans to a form of
high-grade steel scrap and recovers a valuable re-
source, tin, which would otherwise be considered a
contaminant. Significantly, the economics of detin-
ning plants are such that new small-scale plants could
be built near cities or resource recovery plants where
cans are generated.
Steel cans may contain tin, aluminum, or lead in
addition to steel. The processes in both of the major
potential uses of the cans, steel manufacture and
detinning, are adversely affected by these other
materials. So far, improvements in processing technol-
ogy rather than changes in can design are being
pursued by industry to improve scrap marketability.
ALUMINUM
In 1973, discards of aluminum into the municipal
solid waste stream totaled 1.0 million tons, or 0.7
percent of the total solid waste stream. Half of the
aluminum discards were cans, about one-third were
foils, and the remainder was largely from major
appliances.
About 34,000 tons of aluminum, or 3.5 percent of
the amount discarded, were recovered in 1973. This
tonnage consisted primarily of cans recovered
through recycling collection centers, many of which
are operated by the aluminum industry. Roughly 15
cents a pound is paid for aluminum cans brought to
such centers. The Aluminum Association reports that
about 17 percent of the all-aluminum cans produced
in 1974 were recovered.
The future of aluminum recovery depends partly
on the rate of expansion of the collection centers. It
also depends a great deal on the development of
technology to extract aluminum mechanically from
solid waste and on the possible reduction of the
aluminum content of waste as a result of legislation
mandating deposits on beverage containers.
Another factor is the substantial variation in
aluminum content of waste from State to State.
About 78 percent of the aluminum cans are
concentrated in five States: New York, California,
Texas, Florida, and Washington.
Technology Developments
Three techniques being developed currently for
mechanical recovery of aluminum are briefly de-
scribed below. The techniques are eddy current
separation, dense media separation, and electrostatic
separation. These techniques are applied only to a
small fraction of the input to a recovery plant, the
heavier fraction of glass and metals that constitutes
approximately 15 to 20 percent of the raw waste
input. Several preconcentration steps, such as grind-
ing, screening, and washing, are necessary to prepare
the waste for these separation processes. It should be
noted that aluminum separation and glass separation
are usually combined into a single "module" since
separation of either of these materials yields a
fraction rich in the other.
Eddy Current Separation. In this procedure a
waste stream rich in nonferrous metals is subjected to
a time-varying magnetic field while moving along a
conveyor. This produces an electromotive force that
creates eddy currents within the nonferrous metals.
The eddy currents create their own magnetic fluxes
that oppose the original magnetic field, creating a
repelling force. Nonmetallics are not repelled. Repul-
sion of the metals varies by type. Aluminum is
repelled most strongly and, thus, is separated from
the remaining materials. Initial tests suggest that the
process is capable of yielding a product that is 90 to
97 percent aluminum. Eddy current separators are
still in developmental stages and have not been used
commercially. However, a commercial-scale test unit
exists. In addition, a smaller unit is being evaluated at
EPA's Franklin, Ohio, demonstration of glass and
aluminum recovery. Test data are not yet available.
Dense Media Separation. This technique is based
on the principle that elements making up solid waste
have different densities and can be separated by
sinking or floating in selected liquid media. The
purity and types of materials recovered are deter-
mined by the original composition of waste being
processed, the specific gravity of the media used, and
the number of dense media stages applied.
Dense media separation is an established industrial
process, but it has not yet been utilized in commer-
cial operations for separation of aluminum or other
materials from municipal solid waste. There are
several commercial operations where dense media
separation is being used to separate various nonfer-
rous metals from shredded automobile scrap. This
-------
60
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
technique appears promising for application to
municipal solid waste, particularly for larger scale
systems.
Electrostatic Separation. In this separation meth-
od, waste materials moving along a conveyor are
charged by means of an electrode. Wastes that have
the physical property of conducting charges, such as
metals, fall off the.conveyor at the end of the belt in
a normal fashion, while nonconductors (glass, rock,
organics, etc.) maintain the charge and are pinned to
the conveyor, much as the "static" in a sweater being
taken off will cause it to cling to the body.
An electrostatic separator might be used in
combination with dense media separation to make a
final separation of a stream containing only glass and
aluminum, or as a preconcentration step to separate
and produce a glass-rich stream and a metals-rich
stream, both of which would be processed further for
purification of the products. An electrostatic separa-
tor is being used in EPA's Franklin demonstration to
separate a glass-rich stream from a nonferrous metals
stream. The glass stream is then put through a
color-sorting process. The separate stream rich in
nonferrous metal is channeled to an eddy current
separation process. Test data are not yet available.
All of these new developments in technology are
unproven at this stage, although all show a great deal
of promise. The key question is whether they can
separate out the aluminum at high levels of purity,
yield, and throughput. The answers will ultimately
determine the economic viability of aluminum separa-
tion.
Status of Aluminum Recovery Implementation
Although the economic viability of mechanical
aluminum recovery is uncertain at present, there are
plans to include it in some of the resource recovery
facilities which will be built within the next 2 to 3
years. These include a dry separation resource re-
covery plant to be built in New Orleans in 1975 for
recovering glass, metals, and paper; and a dry
shredded fuel recovery facility in Bridgeport, Con-
necticut, scheduled to begin operation in 1976.
Impact of Beverage Container Legislation
A beverage container deposit would reduce alumi-
num content in waste by 30 percent, ferrous content
by 15 percent, and glass content by 35 percent. For a
1,000-ton-per-day recovery plant, a reduction of 30
percent of the aluminum content would amount to
roughly 300 to 400 tons per year of "yield loss" of
aluminum, which, at $300 to $400 per ton, translates
to $90,000 to $160,000 of lost revenue. On the basis
of tonnage of raw waste input to the plant, a
reduction in revenue of $0.34 to $0.61 per ton would
be experienced. At this point, the economics of
aluminum recovery are too uncertain to accurately
judge the impact of such legislation on aluminum
recovery feasibility.
GLASS
Glass accounts for approximately 9 percent by
weight of total municipal solid waste. In 1973, over
13 million tons of glass products were discarded, and
less than 3 percent, or 350,000 tons, were recovered
and recycled.
The only technique currently being used for
recovering glass is volunteer collection centers. The
future of glass recovery naturally depends in part on
the expansion of these collection centers; however,
wide-scale recovery will probably not occur without
new developments either in source separation and
collection of glass or in new mechanical separation
techniques.
Developments in Recovery Techniques
Source Separation. Home separation and collec-
tion of glass has been practiced only on a limited
scale. However, a new and perhaps improved tech-
nique of separate collection involves the use of a two-
or three-chambered vehicle which could collect
glass, cans, and paper simultaneously. This technique
has not yet been implemented and evaluated, but
feasibility studies indicate that it should have
significant advantages over use of the standard
compaction truck. A key question regarding the
success of this recovery technique concerns the
willingness of residents to separate their waste into
three or more components. There is only limited
information on this subject at present.
Mechanical Separation. Most of the technology
for mechanical separation of glass is still being tested;
none has been proven. As noted in the previous
section, glass recovery and aluminum recovery are
natural complements; the recovery of one material
usually renders a separate stream rich in the other.
Therefore, aluminum and glass recovery are usually
-------
MATERIALS RECOVERY
61
combined in one subsystem; the series of preconcen-
tration steps preceding aluminum recovery would
then be the same for glass recovery.
Three of the more promising mechanical processes
being developed for the recovery of waste glass from
municipal solid waste are the following:
Froth Flotation. Froth flotation has been used for
several years by the mineral processing industry and
can be applied to the recovery of glass cullet from
municipal solid waste. To date, however, no commer-
cial operations exist.
Froth flotation separation is based on the phenom-
ena of surface chemistry of particles. A chemical
compound is added to a tank containing a preconcen-
trated stream rich in finely ground glass suspended in
water. The chemical adheres to the glass particles,
creating a nonwetting surface property. Air bubbles
are released from the bottom of the tank and become
attached to the glass particles, causing them to float.
Nonglass particles become wet and sink, thus provid-
ing the desired separation.
Although froth flotation techniques offer the
advantages of a potential 95 percent recovery rate
and high purity, it is uncertain whether the product
can consistently meet the very stringent specifications
which glass container manufacturers require. Another
limitation is that the glass is not color-sorted-
markets for mixed-color cullet are not as abundant as
for color-sorted cullet. Froth-flotated glass cannot be
color-sorted easily because the particles are generally
too small to be separated efficiently.
Dense Media Separation. Dense media separation is
based on the principle that materials of different
densities can be separated by sinking or floating in
selected liquid media. (See section on aluminum
recovery.)
Many of the glass particles recovered in this
process are large enough (3/16 to 2 inches) to make
color-sorting possible.
There are presently no commercial operations
where de'nse media separation of glass is taking place.
However, a resource recovery facility now under
construction in New Orleans will include dense media
separation of a glass product that can be color-sorted.
Color-Sorting. A glass-rich concentrate containing
1/4- to 3/4-inch particles may be sorted by color. The
concentrate would first be passed through a transpar-
ency sorting device for final removal of stones,
ceramics, and residual metals. The glass would then
pass through an electronic color-sorter in which a
series of photocells match each glass particle with
backgrounds corresponding with flint, amber, and
green colors. Jets of air deflect the particles into
appropriate receiving bins.
Color-sorting improves the marketability of re-
covered glass. However, this procedure is still in early
stages of development and demonstration. Its feasibil-
ity is uncertain. The electronic transparency or
color-sorting devices may require constant adjustment
to perform properly. Organic residuals are apt to
"cloud" or create a film on glass surfaces that often
causes incorrect color or transparency readings. In
addition, the method is limited to particle sizes of 1/4
to 3/4 inch, thus glass processed by froth flotation
processes and some glass from dense media separation
cannot be color-sorted. Another barrier to success is
that processing losses of up to 50 percent may occur
because shredding can break the glass into undersized
particles.
In the Franklin demonstration project, an electro-
static separation process is producing a glass-rich
stream that is fed into a color-sorting process. The
color-sorting of mixed cullet has been operating since
the fall of 1974. Adjustments to the sorting
equipment are still being made.
Economics and Markets
Clean cullet is an attractive raw material. Demand
exists at prices comparable to those for virgin
materials. Color-mixed cullet is currently valued at
$20 per ton. Color-sorted cullet may sell for more,
depending on the market location. The real advantage
to color-sorted glass is that there are at least twice as
many markets for this material as for color-mixed
glass. Almost all glass furnaces can utilize color-sorted
glass, while only furnaces making colored glass can
use color-mixed cullet. Potential markets exist for
color-mixed glass in construction materials, such as
foamed glass insulation or bricks, but these have not
yet been developed to a significant degree.
Glass cullet is in some ways preferable to virgin
raw materials because its use reduces fuel consump-
tion and refractory wear. The glass industry generally
limits the use of glass cullet in the glass formula to
approximately 20 percent by weight, although 80 to
100 percent cullet formulations have been used.
-------
62
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
The contaminants associated with color-mixed
cullet removed from municipal solid waste includes
the numerous color-formers (e.g., nickel oxides, iron,
manganese, copper cobalt, elemental carbon). These
chemicals produce a variety of colors that are
difficult to control as the percent of cullet used
increases. Also, inorganic contaminants that may be
present (e.g., stones, rocks) will not flux. This causes
defects in the glass product. Organic contaminants
can act as reducing agents and cause color change of
the melt.
Impact of Beverage Container Legislation
It is estimated that legislation requiring a deposit
for beverage containers could result in a 35-percent
reduction of glass in the solid waste stream. The
impact on a 1,000-ton-per-day resource recovery
plant could include yearly "losses" of approximately
5,000 tons of waste glass. At current market prices
($20 per ton), this reduction in glass recovery would
represent $100,000 in revenue losses each year, or
$0.40 per ton of raw waste processed. At this point,
the impact of this loss on glass recovery feasibility is
uncertain since the basic economics are not yet
known with certainty.
REFERENCES
1. Resource conservation, environmental, and solid
waste management issues. In U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs. Resource recovery and
source reduction; second report to
Congress. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-122. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office,
1974. p. 1-18.
2. Smith, F. L., Jr. Trends in wastepaper exports and
their effects on domestic markets.
Environmental Protection Publica-
tion SW-132. [Washington], U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
1974. 17 p.
3. Capacity 1973-1976, with additional data for
1977-1979; paper, paperboard,
woodpulp, fiber consumption. New
York, American Paper Institute,
1974. 25 p.
4. SCS Engineers, Inc. Analysis of source separate
collection of recyclable solid waste;
separate collection studies. Environ-
mental Protection Publication
SW-95c.l. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1974. 157 p. (Dis-
tributed by National Technical In-
formation Service, Springfield, Va.,
as PB-239 775.)
5. SCS Engineers, Inc. Analysis of source separate
collection of recyclable solid waste;
collection center studies. Environ-
mental Protection Publication
SW-95C.2. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1974. [75 p.] (Dis-
tributed by National Technical In-
formation Service, Springfield, Va.,
as PB-239 776.)
6. Resource Technology Corporation. Solid waste
processing facilities. Technical Re-
port 103701, Rev. A. New York,
American Iron and Steel Institute,
May 1974.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs.
Resource recovery and source reduc-
tion; second report to Congress.
Environmental Protection Publica-
tion SW-122. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1974.
112 p.
8. Progress report on recycling. Washington, Ameri-
can Iron and Steel Institute, Com-
mittee of Tin Mill Products Pro-
ducers, [1974]. 8 p.
-------
Chapter 5
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES
Economic cost is a key factor in local government
decisions to implement large-scale resource recovery
plants. Cost is also likely to be a major consideration
in formulating State and Federal policies regarding
such implementation. Thus, it is very important that
cost estimates for resource recovery plants be as
reliable and comparable as possible.
Unfortunately, very little economic data are
available. As of August 1975, no full-scale mixed-
waste separation plants were yet in regular operation.
In the absence of operating data, cost projections
must be derived from preliminary estimates by
consulting engineers and system development com-
panies; these estimates are based upon experience
with pilot-scale operations and price quotations by
equipment suppliers.
A major problem in evaluating costs has been the
general lack of comparability among cost estimates.
There are two apparent causes for this. First,
different cost-accounting methods are employed by
various designers, making it difficult even to compare
cost projections in proposals from companies bidding
on the same contract. Secondly, most estimates have
been site-specific, reflecting economic factors such as
labor rates, operating schedules, and product costs
that vary from place to place.
This chapter reports on the findings of a recent
cost evaluation by EPA.1 The first objective of the
evaluation was to provide a better understanding of
the site-specific variables that affect costs by develop-
ing a cost-accounting method to facilitate compari-
sons. The second objective was to provide meaningful
cost estimates for one particular type of mixed-waste
processing technology: the system based on two-stage
shredding and air classification, similar in concept to
EPA's demonstration plant in St. Louis but on a
somewhat larger scale. Although generally considered
in the fuel or energy recovery category of plants, this
technology is also potentially adaptable to recovery
of fiber for recycling. It may also be considered as a
first-stage unit in an integrated steam or electricity
generating facility.
The shredded-fuel system is only one of several
material and energy recovery technologies being
considered for implementation. Although the cost
estimates presented in this chapter apply only to the
specific technology under review, the cost evaluation
methods and accounting procedures are generally
applicable to all systems.
Following a brief introduction to the primary data
sources, methods, and design assumptions, compara-
tive results will be presented for capital investment
costs, plant operating and maintenance costs, other
special cost factors, product revenues, and a final
synthesis of net processing costs for a number of
recent shredded-fuel plant designs.
GENERAL METHODS AND DESIGN
ASSUMPTIONS
What the Data Represent
The capital and operating cost estimates presented
below are derived from a comparative review of five
recent preliminary engineering designs. The plant
designs selected are typical of improved versions of
shredded-fuel plants patterned after EPA's St. Louis
demonstration. The first of such "second generation"
plants is scheduled to be on line by early 1976. All
five could be considered to be either the medium
(750 to 1,000 tons per day) or large (1,200 to 2,000
tons per day) size class by current standards.
The technical designs themselves were partially
modified as necessary to reflect a more standardized
"flowsheet" including: handsorting of paper, two-
stage shredding (or milling) with one-stage air
63
-------
64
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
classification to produce a marketable fuel product,
and magnetic separation of ferrous metals. Glass and
aluminum recovery components were explicitly ex-
cluded due to insufficient data from most of the
sources. In addition, original cost estimates were
"normalized" to adjust for a number of differences
among the original studies in terms of estimating
methods, accounting formats, and site-specific cost
factors.
The five original plant designs and cost estimates
are attributable to the following sources.
1. The National Center for Resource Recovery
(NCRR): an engineering feasibility study
(December 1972)2 as revised in the winter of
1973-74 in connection with a request for
proposals for a plant to be constructed in New
Orleans.3 (The EPA modified version is referred
tobelowasNCRR/EPA.)
2. Midwest Research Institute (MRI): a project for
the Council on Environmental Quality, com-
pleted in the summer of 1972,4 with estimates
updated and revised during the autumn of
1973. (The modified version is referred to
belowasMRI/EPA.)
3. The General Electric Company (GE): a prelimi-
nary plant design prepared under contract with
the Department of Environmental Protection,
State of Connecticut, completed in the spring
of 1973; hypothetically sited in Hartford,
Connecticut.5 (Modified version referred to as
GE/EPA.)
4 and 5. Two confidential proposals actually
submitted to a city in 1974. These two designs
have been merged into a composite "Plant X"
as a means of preserving the confidentiality of
proprietary information. (Referred to as
X/EPA.)
Before presenting the comparative cost results,
further comments on the standard plant design and
the issues in normalizing costs are necessary to define
the scope and meaning of the estimates.
Standardizing the Plant Designs
Because some of the original plant designs varied
considerably in terms of process and product-lines
included, it was deemed necessary to standardize the
designs for purposes of cost comparison. This
involved either adding or subtracting building space
and equipment items. The object was to standardize
the basic processing sequence and "product lines"
while preserving variations in original design concep-
tions such as structural plant features, throughput
and storage capacities, number of primary process
lines, and certain other special characteristics con-
sidered important by the original designers. After
standardization, the designs still represented different
conceptions of the same general type of resource
recovery facility.
In order for the cost estimates to be meaningfully
comparable, it is desirable to be able to standardize
the technical assumptions or design conditions relat-
ing to plant capacity, annual operating schedule, and
raw waste input composition. "Capacity" turns out
to be a very ambiguous variable in the current design
literature. For present purposes, the rated hourly
design throughput tonnage is accepted as given by the
original source. For a definition of daily design
capacity, it was assumed that the plants will all
operate on a full two-shift (16 hours per day)
processing schedule. To facilitate calculating annual
fixed costs per ton, maximum annual capacity was
based on an assumed 5,000 hours of operation at
average design capacity.* Differences in specifications
regarding assumed number of hours per day and total
hours per year for plant operation typically vary
among designs of the same nominal capacity by a
factor of two or more.
The estimates presented here also assume that the
composition of the raw waste input at each plant is
the same as the national average (Table 1, Chapter 1),
aid that the following recovery efficiency factors
hold:
1. 25 percent efficiency in handpicking old news
and corrugated
2. 90 percent efficiency in recovering organic
material as fuel
3. 90 percent efficiency in recovering ferrous
metal as steel scrap
*Five thousand hours is roughly equivalent to 312
days per year (6 days per week times 52 weeks) times 16
hours per day. For a 1,000-ton-per-day plant (62.5 tons per
hour times 16 hours per day), this implies a maximum annual
capacity of 312,000 tons.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES
65
Normalizing the Cost and
Revenue Estimates
In addition to technical design and operating
features, a very large number of nontechnological
variables and costing procedures also can have a
strong influence on the estimates. To the extent
feasible, these were also "normalized" to derive the
present estimates.
This means that the design costs given in the
original sources were recalculated on the basis of
standardized prices and other costing assumptions. As
noted below, a number of special cases were
identified where a cost factor is both quite significant
and variable over a wide range. For many of these,
alternative calculations are presented to illustrate the
particular influence of the variable at both high and
low values.
The following notes describe the significance of
these individual cost items and their treatment in the
present context.
Items Affecting Capital Cost. These items affect
either initial capital investment cost or annualized
capital cost per ton.
1. Land cost. May or may not involve initial direct
financing. May or may not be accounted for
explicitly in engineering cost estimates. Could
amount to a million dollars or more. For the
evaluation, land cost was excluded from basic
capital cost and included under "other special
cost" items.
2. Site preparation cost. Extremely site specific.
Demolition of existing structures could amount
to several hundred thousands dollars. Site prep-
aration was excluded from these capital cost
estimates and treated separately with land.
3. Regional construction cost differentials. Direct
capital costs typically vary among cities be-
tween 75 percent and 115 percent of the U.S.
national average. Plant costs were adjusted to
national average base using regional construc-
tion cost indices.
4. Indirect construction contractor overheads and
fees. May or may not be explicitly included by
different estimators. Can be 25 percent or more
of direct construction costs. In addition, archi-
tect and engineering fees typically are 6 to 8
percent of direct costs. Adjusted to common
basis where possible.
5. "Contingencies." May or may not be explicitly
itemized in estimates. Included as a hedge
against unforeseen circumstances in construc-
tion. Not a real cost unless some unforeseen
circumstance materializes. Excludes labor and
equipment cost escalations per se. May be 8 to
15 percent of total plant and equipment costs.
Not possible to normalize on basis of available
data.
6. Construction cost escalations. In effect, another
type of contingency-estimated cost increases
for labor, material, and equipment during
construction period. Varies both with length of
construction period and annual percentage
increase assumed. Differences among estimating
factors can cause multimillion dollar differences
in capital cost estimates. Estimates for the
evaluation were normalized by converting them
to a common base period (January 1974).
7. Plant startup and working capital. May or may
not be included. EPA estimates were normal-
ized at 4 months of operating costs capitalized
with other initial investment.
Items Affecting Operating and Maintenance
Costs. O and M costs are defined here to include
only direct, plant-related labor, parts, materials and
supplies, and utilities. Other annual costs are included
under "Other Special Costs."
1. Regional price differentials. Operating wage
rates in different regions of the country can
vary by more than ±15 percent of the national
average. Electric utility rates can vary by a
factor of more than 50 percent geographically;
fuel prices per Btu can vary by a factor of three
or more. The O and M cost figures presented
here reflect conversions to national averages.
2. Cost escalations. These are calculated different-
ly by different estimators; usually adjusted to
first year of plant operation from base date of
original quote. Differences in original date,
projected startup date, and assumed rates of
increases can mean a difference of over 50
percent in total O and M cost estimates among
different sources. Standard base date of EPA
normalized estimates was January 1974.
-------
66
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
3. Transport costs. Costs of transporting recovered
materials were accounted for here either in
estimating net selling prices or in "other special
cost" category. In various published sources,
they have been included under general capital
and 0 and M accounts or ignored altogether.
Other Special Costs of Operations. Five special
cost items have been identified which, under various
conditions, can each have values ranging from zero to
over $1.00 per ton of raw waste processed (i.e.,
$300,000 per year based on a 1,000-ton-per-day plant
operating 300 days per year). Such wide variations
can be either locational or institutional in origin.
"High" estimating options are indicated in the
descriptions of these items below.
1. Local property taxes. Resource recovery facili-
ties usually have been viewed in the same
category as public waste disposal sites; property
taxes seldom have been included in the cost
accounts. Some State and regional systems do
include an equivalent payment in lieu of taxes,
based on assessed value.* An annual charge of
4.0 percent on total value of property was
taken as a "high" cost factor in the compari-
sons below.
2. Residual waste disposal costs. About 20 percent
of weight (perhaps 5 to 8 percent of volume) of
raw waste input is not sold as product under
present assumptions. If disposed of as waste, a
disposal cost of $5.00 per ton was assumed to
be "high" for this type of compact, shredded
material (equivalent to $1.00 per ton of total
raw waste input). At the other extreme, the
glass and aluminum content of this fraction
might make it marketable.
3. Nonplant overheads. These are costs chargeable
to plant operation for off-site services by either
a private or public sector central management
agency. Could include bookkeeping, marketing,
engineering or other functional services, or
general overhead. For extreme comparisons, a
*The use of payments in lieu of taxes is also a means
of reducing local prejudice against the location of a regional
facility in a particular city. It is also a partial means of
compensating a community for additional implicit costs such
as increased truck traffic, noise, etc.
range from zero to $1.00 per ton may be
assumed.
4. Management fees (profit). Payable to private
operator of a publicly owned or leased facility.
(None for a publicly operated facility.) One
dollar per ton of waste processed would seem
to be a "high" fee (exclusive of corporate
overhead expenses).
5. Shredded product transportation costs. De-
pending on who pays, could be accounted for
as reduction in selling price. Treated here as
separate item chargeable to shredding plant
operation. For plants located adjacent to user's
boiler, transport cost can approach zero. A
"high" cost for reasonably long distances (say,
25 miles) would be $3.00 per ton of output
material ($2.00 per ton raw wet input basis).
Since this is a very large volume item, signifi-
cant annual costs are involved.
Normalized Product Revenue Estimates. Given
raw waste input composition and recovery efficien-
cies (discussed above) and assuming that markets for
the recovered products are available, then product
revenues will be determined by selling prices, less any
relevant discounts and transport costs.
Product selling prices easily constitute the greatest
source of uncertainty in the entire resource recovery
picture. They exhibit the largest variations among
geographic regions at any point in time and histori-
cally have been subject to extreme fluctuations.
Future negotiable prices for recovered fuels and
metals are subject to some additional uncertainties
due to technical questions about product quality. (An
important issue, not dealt with here, is the possible
types of long-term contractual arrangements that may
be developed with user-industries. These might
eventually be able to dampen cyclical price fluctua-
tions and also lead to higher product grade ratings
than would otherwise be achievable in the general
spot markets.)
For these reasons it was decided to develop new
"high" and "low" product revenue estimates rather
than use those found in the original source docu-
ments. The estimated revenue schedules are presented
in Table 31. The basic assumptions and derivations of
the values for the three products are summarized in
the notes to that table.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES
67
TABLE 31
NET PRICES RECEIVED PER TON OF PRODUCT AND REVENUE PER TON OF RAW WASTE PROCESSED:
"HIGH" AND "LOW" ESTIMATES (1974)*
Product
Shredded fuel:):
Paper §
Ferrous metal f
Total
Net price per
ton of product
output t
"High" "Low"
$15.50 $ 2.50
40.00 20.00
50.00 12.00
-
Recovered
product as a
percentage of total
(wet-weight basis)
67.0
4.0
7.7
78.7
Net
revenue per
ton of total waste
"High"
$10.40
1.60
3.85
$15.85
input
"Low"
$1.70
0.80
0.90
$3.40
*U.S. EPA estimates, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division.
tPrices received by seller net of transport or other discounts.
$ Based on Btu value of shredded fuel at 10 million Btu per ton, 30 percent moisture, less $2.50 per ton estimated firing cost
to user. "High" net price based on $18.00 per ton of fuel (equivalent to $1.80 per million Btu average U.S. contract price for utility
grade residual fuel oil in spring, 1974). "Low" price based on $5.00 per ton of fuel (equivalent to coal at $0.50 per million Btu or
$11.00 per ton), less $2.50 firing cost.
§Average combined prices of old news and corrugated, F.O.B recovery plant, assuming buyer pays freight. "High" $40.00
price is U.S. average in spring, 1974. "Low" $20.00 price is U.S. average in winter of 1972-73. Official Board Markets quotes.
f Average scrap steel grade better than No. 2 Bundle grade, less $10.00 per ton freight paid by seller. Gross "high" price of
$60.00 is spring, 1974, U.S. average. Gross "low" price of $22.00 is winter, 1973, U.S. average. American Metal Market quotes.
The prices for both ferrous and paper are stated as
values received by the seller (processing plant) net of
all transport charges. Shredded fuel prices, however,
are defined net of a powerplant firing cost discount
(assumed at $2.50 per ton of fuel) but without
deducting costs of transporting the shredded fuel to
the powerplant. As previously noted, because it can
be such a large and variable element, the cost of
transporting the fuel has been singled out for special
note under the "other special costs" category.
The net product selling prices are combined in
Table 31 with the product-yield assumptions to
calculate revenue per ton of total raw waste input.
Thus, adding all the "high" product estimates results
in a total maximum revenue of $15.85 per ton of
waste processed. This contrasts sharply with the
minimum total revenue receivable under the present
assumptions of $3.40 per ton of waste processed.
It should be emphasized that the "high" and
"low" estimates represent neither the maximum nor
the minimum conceivable under all present or future
circumstances. Rather, they simply represent the
results of a combined assessment of assumptions
relating to product grading (quality) specifications,
current U.S. average fuel prices, and material prices
experienced within the past 2 years. The estimates
assume no future increase in prices, but the low
values assume that wastepaper and steel scrap prices
will not fall very much below their lowest levels of
the past 2 years. The true worst case is where no
market exists for the shredded fuel or other product.
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF NORMALIZED
CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST ESTIMATES
Total Capital Cost
The total capital investment costs in Table 32
reflect both the flowsheet revisions and the cost-
estimating revisions previously discussed. Otherwise,
they continue to reflect the differences in design
conception of the original design teams.
The normalized estimates exhibit a much closer
grouping of values than the original capital cost
figures. However, remaining differences in capital
cost, especially those between the GE and NCRR
plants, may still seem surprisingly large to many
readers.
Although all the differences among the estimates
could not be explained on the basis of available
documentation, most of the $8.8 million difference
between the normalized GE and NCRR capital cost is
readily attributable to technical and architectural
design differences. For example, the GE design has
-------
68
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 32
NORMALIZED CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST ESTIMATES FOR
FOUR DRY-SHREDDED-FUEL PROCESSING PLANT DESIGNS*!
Plant capacity and investment
cost measures
NCRR/EPA
MRI/EPA
GE/EPA
X/EPA
Plant capacity factors:
Number of process lines
Design tons per hour
Design tons per day (16 hours)
Design tons per year (5,000 hours)
One
62.5
1,000
312,500
One
62.5
1,000
312,500
Two
62.5
1,000
312,500
Two
100
1,600
500,000
Normalized capital investment
(in thousands):
Total:
1974 dollars
1976 dollars*
Total per ton of daily capacity:
1974 dollars
1976 dollars*
Annualized capital cost:
@ 10% per year:
1974 dollars
1976 dollars*
@> 25% per year:
1974 dollars
1976 dollars*
Capital cost per ton of raw
waste processed (1974 dollars):
@ 10% capital charge, and
annual capacity utilization at—
90%
75%
60%
@> 25% capital charge, and
annual capacity utilization at—
90%
75%
60%
$ 5,200
5,980
5.2
5.98
520
598
1,300
1,495
$1.85
2.20
2.75
4.60
5.55
6.85
$11,600
13,340
11.6
13.34
1,160
1,334
2,900
3,335
$ 4.15
4.95
6.10
10.35
12.35
15.25
$14,000
16,100
14.0
16.1
1,400
1,610
3,500
4,025
$ 5.00
5.95
7.35
12.50
14.90
18.40
$15,500
17,830
9.7
11.14
1,550
1,785
3,875
4,460
$ 3.45
4.15
5.15
8.60
10.35
12.90
*Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Based on original plant design cost estimates by
the National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR), Midwest Research Institute (MRI), the General Electric Co. (GE), and other
proprietary sources ("X").
tAll plants utilize two-stage shredding and air classification, with magnetic separation of ferrous material and handpicking of
paper. Not included: glass and nonferrous recovery options, shredded fuel transport facilities, and land costs.
*1976 values escalated by 1.15 x 1974 values to account for inflation to midpoint of construction period.
two completely independent process lines, consider-
ably more material storage space (a particularly costly
item for these plants), a pit-and-crane material feed
system, and nearly twice the fully enclosed building
area (exclusive of input and output storage) of the
NCRR design. A significant part of the higher cost of
plant X is, of course, due to its larger design capacity.
Annualized Capital Cost
Annual capital cost is presented on the basis of
two alternative fixed charge (capital recovery) rates: a
low 10-percent rate to illustrate the public sector
financing option, and a high 25-percent rate to
illustrate annual capital cost allocation under a
private industry financing option. It should be
emphasized that the 25-percent private rate includes a
built-in profit return on the equity portion of the
original investment. The low 10-percent rate includes
only interest and amortization for an investment
wholly financed by long-term, tax-free borrowing.
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES
69
The apparent differences between these two
institutional approaches to plant financing are quite
substantial-a factor of 2.5 in the amounts. It should
be pointed out that part of this difference represents
a Federal tax subsidy for local public-sector loans,
i.e., the tax-free nature of local government bonds.
Capital Cost Per Ton
Capital cost per ton is shown in Table 32 on the
basis of the two alternative fixed charge rates and
three alternative capacity-utilization rates. The latter
are based on a somewhat arbitrary maximum design
capacity utilization of 5,000 hours per year. Ninety-
percent capacity utilization probably represents a
high design rate from a practical standpoint. The
various lower rates can reflect a combination of an
intentionally restricted operating schedule (fewer
hours per day or days per week), additional equip-
ment downtime for unscheduled repairs, or restricted
throughput rates due to low raw waste deliveries or
output market bottlenecks.
Other things being equal, unit capital costs will be
about 20 percent higher at a 75 percent capacity rate
than at a 90 percent rate, and about 25 percent
higher still if the plant utilization rate falls to 60
percent. Overall, the difference between achieving
only a 60 percent rate as opposed to the 90 percent
rate is a capital cost per ton penalty of 50 percent. As
shown in Table 32, this penalty varies in absolute
dollar terms from a low of just under $1.00 per ton
(NCRR/EPA at 10 percent capital charge) up to a
high of almost $6.00 per ton for the high-capital-cost
GE/EPA plant (under the 25 percent capital charge
rate). At the 10 percent charge rate, this factor alone
accounts for differences of up to $2.00 or more per
ton for the MRI and GE designs. Even the outwardly
small differences of 75 versus 90 percent or 60 versus
75 percent capacity utilization result in cost differ-
ences of $0.35 to $1.60 per ton for the plants in our
sample group. At the higher 25-percent fixed charge
rate, the effect of differences in utilization rates is
magnified 2.5 times.
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF NORMALIZED
ESTIMATES FOR OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
Table 33 provides a comparison of the operating
and maintenance (O and M) cost estimates for the
four preliminary designs, adjusted to account for
certain design standardizations and revised to reflect
1974 base-year average national labor and utility cost
factors. (It should be recalled that O and M costs do
not include an item for capital charges, or "capital
recovery." Nor do they at this point reflect any
adjustments either for dump fees charged to those
delivering solid wastes or revenues received from
product sales. In other words, they represent only the
on-site labor, material, and utility costs of the
processing facility.)
Two features of the resulting normalized O and M
cost estimates are especially worth noting. The first is
the relatively close grouping of the estimates for the
different plants. Thus, for a given base year, say
1974, and a given relative operating level (say the
90-percent capacity rate), the unit cost estimates
differ by not more than about $1.00 per ton (20
percent). This represents a surprisingly close agree-
ment among the different sources, especially since
there is so little real operating experience upon which
to base estimates.
The second general conclusion is that if the
estimates for the several plant capacity utilization
rates are accurate, the unit operating costs are
moderately responsive to changes in operating levels.
Thus, the O and M cost variation for a given plant
over its operating range between 60 and 90 percent of
its rated capacity was estimated at about $1.00 per
ton (in 1974 dollars) for all four of the plants.
However, the engineering data on which the O and M
cost penalties for undercapacity utilization are based
are quite sketchy. There are no published estimates or
analyses of this relationship, but it apparently
warrants more attention.
SUMMARY OF TOTAL AND NET COST
ESTIMATES
The final synthesis of cost and revenue estimates is
presented in two steps. The first step, summarized in
Table 34, combines the three categories of costs
(capital, O and M, and "other special costs") into a
range of total cost estimates for each of the four
designs in our sample. The second step combines the
total cost and revenue estimates into a set of net cost
(or net revenue) results (Table 35).
TotaJ Cost Estimates
In the first part of Table 34, capital costs from
Table 32 are combined with basic O and M processing
-------
70
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 33
NORMALIZED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR
FOUR DRY-SHREDDED-FUEL PROCESSING PLANT DESIGNS*
Plant capacity and O and M
cost measures
NCRR/EPA
MRI/EPA
GE/EPA
Plant X
Plant capacity factors:
Number of process lines
Design tons per hour
Design tons per day (16 hours)
Design tons per year (5,000 hours)
Total annual O and M costs
(in thousands):
In 1974 dollars, with annual
capacity utilization at—
90%
75%
60%
In 1976 dollars,t with annual
capacity utilization at—
90%
75%
60%
O and M costs per ton of waste
processed:
In 1974 dollars with annual
capacity utilization at—
90%
75%
60%
In 1976 dollars,t with annual
capacity utilization at-
90%
75%
60%
One
62.5
1,000
312,500
$ 1,288
1,128
1,045
1,540
1,351
1,254
4.60
4.80
5.50
5.50
5.75
6.60
One
62.5
1,000
312,500
$ 1,330
1,175
1,083
1,596
1,410
1,302
4.75
5.00
5.70
5.70
6.00
6.85
Two
62.5
1,000
312,500
$ 1,554
1,363
1,264
1,862
1,533
1,520
5.55
5.80
6.65
6.65
6.95
8.00
Two
100
1,600
500,000
$ 2,205
1,931
1,740
2,655
2,325
2,085
4.90
5.15
5.80
5.90
6.20
6.95
*Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Based on original plant design cost estimates by
the National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR), Midwest Research Institute (MRI), General Electric Co. (GE), and other
proprietary sources ("X").
t Inflation of 10 percent per year assumed for 2-year escalation factor of 20 percent.
costs from Table 33. The resulting "total processing
costs" are unique for each of the four preliminary
plant designs. Basic processing costs are estimated to
be from $6.45 per ton for NCRR/EPA to $10.55 for
GE/EPA at the low 10-percent capital charge and the
high 90-percent utilization rate. At the other extreme
(high capital charge and low utilization rate), these
basic costs are 90 to 150 percent higher, depending
on design, and range from $9.20 to $25.05.
Total process cost differences among the four
plants represent differences within the engineering
design community as to the capital and operating
resource requirements to process mixed waste at the
indicated scales. These are differences remaining after
our recalculations to standardize design and costing
parameters. Considering the state of technological
development, the differences in process cost estimates
among the four designs are less than might have been
expected. In fact, the differences among plants by
different designers are less than the differences for
any given plant due to alternative capital charge and
operating rate assumptions.
As previously discussed, the "other special cost"
items may or may not be relevant under particular
locational and institutional circumstances. Thus, each
of these cost items may have zero values for
particular cases, or they each may add substantial
annual and per ton expense to the recovery opera-
tion. The values included in Table 34 are our EPA
"high" cost estimates. They do not necessarily reflect
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES
71
TABLE 34
SUMMARY OF NORMALIZED COST ESTIMATES FOR FOUR DRY-SHREDDED-FUEL
PROCESSING PLANT DESIGNS*
(Per ton of raw waste input, 1974 cost base)
Cost categories
Public sector finance option
@ 10% annual capital charge:
Capital cost
O and M cost
Subtotal process cost
Total other possible
special costst
Total cost per ton
Private sector finance option
@ 25% annual capital charge:
Capital cost
O and M cost
Subtotal process cost
Total other possible
special costst
Total cost per ton
NCRR/EPA
Capacity utilization
90%
$1.85
4.60
6.45
5.15
11.60
4.60
4.60
9.20
5.15
14.35
60%
$2.75
5.50
8.25
5.65
13.90
6.85
5.50
12.35
5.65
18.00
MRI/EPA
Capacity utilization
90%
$4.15
4.75
8.90
6.05
14.95
10.35
4.75
15.10
6.05
21.15
60%
$6.10
5.70
11.80
7.00
18.80
15.25
5.70
20.95
7.00
27.95
GE/EPA
Capacity utilization
90%
$5.00
5.55
10.55
6.40
16.95
12.50
5.55
18.05
6.40
24.45
60%
$7.35
6.65
14.00
7.50
21.50
18.40
6.65
25.05
7.50
32.55
"X'VEPA
Capacity utilization
90%
$3.45
4.90
8.35
5.65
14.00
8.60
4.90
13.50
5.65
19.15
60%
$9.15
5.80
10.95
6.40
17.35
12.90
5.80
18.70
6.40
25.10
*Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Based on original plant design cost estimates by
the National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR), Midwest Research Institute (MRI), the General Electric Co. (GE), and other
proprietary sources ("X").
tSum of "high" estimated values for all five of the following "other possible costs," including: (1) property taxes at 4.0% of
total investment; (2) land and unusual site work of $1.6 million at 7.0% per year interest; (3) residual waste disposal at $5.00 per
ton of waste ($1.00 per raw input ton); (4) shredded fuel transport at $3.00 per ton ($2,00 per raw input ton); and (5) nonplant
overhead charges of $1.00 per ton of raw waste processed.
either the particular values or, in some cases, even the
same categories of costs estimated in the original
design source documents. Rather, they have been
applied to all the designs in our sample as an added
means of normalizing the estimates for comparative
purposes.
Thus, the "other special cost" elements, taken as a
group, can add up to any value from zero to some
significant cost. The maximum value for our com-
parative cases varies between $5.15 and $7.50 per
ton, depending on plant capital cost (a variable in the
property tax cost function) and level of capacity
utilization. In the very special case where "other
special costs" are all zero, then total processing cost is
the only cost to be balanced against product revenues
to determine the net cost or- revenue from plant
operation.
Net Revenue or Cost Results
The final step in the cost-estimating procedure
combines total product revenues with total costs to
yield net revenue (profit) or cost (dump fee). Table
35 presents four sets of net cost calculations for each
of the four case study designs to show the various
combinations.of: high revenue with low cost; high
revenue with high cost; low revenue with low cost;
and low revenue with high cost.
The first two net revenue calculations for each
plant represent the low and the high cost possibilities
as developed in Table 34 in conjunction with the
"high" ($15.85 per ton) total revenue estimate from
Table 31. The first net revenue line (for Case 1)
indicates positive net revenues for all plants. Thus, so
long as "high" revenues can be combined with costs
that do not exceed standard process cost by
substantial amounts, all four plants appear profitable
at the current estimated value for Case 1 conditions.
Even when a maximum "other special cost" sum (see
Case 2, Table 35) is charged, NCRR/EPA remains
profitable even at the 60-percent capacity utilization
rate, and both MRI/EPA and Plant X continue to
show net revenue at high utilization rates.
-------
72
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 35
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE NET REVENUE (COST) CALCULATIONS FOR FOUR
PRELIMINARY PLANT DESIGNS AT TWO ALTERNATIVE CAPACITY
UTILIZATION RATES*
(Per ton of raw waste input, 1974 cost base)
NCRR/EPA
Capacity utilization
High-revenue cases:
Case 1 : High-revenue estimate
with process cost only
Total product revenue
Less: total process costt
Less: min. other special
costs
Equals: net revenue
Case 2: High-revenue estimate
with maximum other special
costs
Total product revenue
Less: total process costt
Less: max. other special
costs
Equals: net revenue
(cost)
Low-revenue cases:
Case 3: Low-revenue estimate
with process cost only
Total product revenue
Less: total process costt
Less: min. other special
costs
Equals: net revenue
(cost)
Case 4: Low-revenue estimate
with maximum other special
costs
Total product revenue
Less: total process costt
Less: max. other special
costs
Equals: net revenue
(cost)
90%
$15.85
6.45
-
$ 9.40
$15.85
6.45
5.15
$ 4.25
$ 3.40
6.45
—
($ 3.05)
$ 3.40
6.45
5.15
($ 8.20)
60%
$15.85
8.25
-
$ 7.60
$15.85
8.25
5.65
$ 1.95
$ 3.40
8.25
-
($ 4.85)
$ 3.40
8.25
5.65
($10.50)
MRI/EPA
Capacity utilization
90%
$15.85
8.90
—
$ 6.95
$15.85
8.90
6.05
$ 0.90
$ 3.40
8.90
—
($ 5.50)
$ 3.40
8.90
6.05
($11.55)
60%
$15.85
11.80
—
$ 4.05
$15.85
11.80
7.00
($ 2.95)
$ 3.40
11.80
—
($ 8.40)
$ 3.40
11:80
7.00
($15.40)
GE/EPA
Capacity utilization
90%
$15.85
10.55
-
$ 5.30
$15.85
10.55
6.40
($ 1.10)
$ 3.40
10.55
—
($ 7.15)
$ 3.40
10.55
6.40
($13.55)
60%
$15.85
14.00
-
$ 1.85
$15.85
14.00
7.50
($ 5.65)
$ 3.40
14.00
-
($10.60)
$ 3.40
14.00
7.50
($18.10)
"X'VEPA
Capacity utilization
90%
$15.85
8.35
-
$ 7.50
$15.85
8.35
5.65
$ 1.85
$ 3.40
8.35
—
($ 4.95)
$ 3.40
8.35
5.65
($10.60)
60%
$15.85
10.95
—
$ 4.90
$15.85
10.95
6.40
($ 1.50)
$ 3.40
10.95
-
($ 7.55)
$ 3.40
10.95
6.40
($13.95)
*Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division. Based on original plant design cost estimates by
the National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR), Midwest Research Institute (MRI), General Electric Co. (GE), and other
proprietary sources ("X").
tSum of capital cost and O and M cost from Table 34. Capital cost based on 10-percent annual fixed-charge rate (capital
recovery).
-------
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT COST ESTIMATES
73
For the low-revenue ($3.40 per ton) Cases 3 and 4,
net revenue disappears, even where low costs are
involved. Results for Case 3 show net costs of about
$3.00 to $7.00 per ton at 90-percent utilization rates
and $5.00 to $11.00 at low capacity rates. It is
noteworthy that the net costs in this line are still
generally competitive with landfill costs in many, if
not most, highly urbanized areas.
The final "bottom line" (Case 4 of Table 35)
represents the worst situation with respect to
resource recovery-i.e., low revenue combined with
highest possible cost for the plant cases presented.
Even the results for this worst-case resource recovery
alternative are encouraging, however, because net cost
estimates for all plants remain competitive with
conventional incineration.
A number of caveats must be made. The first is
that the results in Table 35 all assume the low (public
sector) 10-percent capital recovery rate. Costs in-
crease under a strict private-enterprise rate of return
formulation. However, a privately financed facility, if
well managed and strategically located, could be
profitable under some realistic locational and market
circumstances. Another point that must be kept in
mind is that all the basic cost estimates are themselves
subject to substantial possibilities for error. No such
plant has yet been constructed or operated, and all
costs are based on preliminary design estimates rather
than final detailed design figures. Further, a serious
effort has been made to present costs on a national
average basis, and many of our urban areas will have
costs at least 10 to 15 percent higher than these
estimates on the basis of location alone.
Finally, it should be noted that the present
analysis does not evaluate the question of "economies
of scale" for plants of different design capacities.
Generally one would expect that, other things being
equal, plants smaller than those in the study sample
would show higher capital and operating costs per ton
than the estimates presented here. Conversely, larger
plants might result in somewhat lower unit costs.
However, an analysis of the economies of scale is
beyond the scope of this study.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Environmental Protection Agency has ana-
lyzed a number of engineering design conceptions for
the next generation of shredded-fuel recovery plants
based on the St. Louis prototype. Existing cost
estimates prepared by engineering consultant and
system development companies are not directly
comparable with one another because of differences
in estimating methods, accounting formats, and
location-specific costing factors. Therefore five recent
preliminary design cost studies were normalized to
produce comparable cost estimates representative of
the degree of consensus within the engineering
community.
The results indicate the differences in cost
estimates among design conceptions and engineering
firms are still quite significant, even after adjustments
for location, time, and other nonstandard elements of
costing procedure. However, the differences are no
greater than might be expected given the present state
of technological development and lack of operating
commercial prototypes. Indeed, differences in basic
capital and operating costs attributable to different
technical engineering conceptions are in many re-
spects of less consequence than the differences
introduced by the use of alternative costing methods
and location-specific cost factors.
Analysis of normalized cost estimates and alterna-
tive product selling-price projections indicates that
potential net cost projections will fall in a very broad
range from positive to negative. The results suggest
that there could be some favorable cases where
operation of this type of processing plant will yield a
profit from sales of product, exclusive of dump fees.
Intermediate cases-i.e., those which combine either
high revenue with high cost or low revenue with low
cost-generally appear competitive with current or
projected landfill costs in many if not most U.S.
cities. All cases using low-cost (public sector) financ-
ing options, including even the highest cost case-study
plant, were at least competitive with conventional
municipal incineration.
From a project planning and evaluation stand-
point, three conclusions of the analysis merit special
emphasis:
1. The relative importance of total revenue, and
the very large absolute differences between high and
low estimates of revenue. The most significant aspects
of uncertainty relate to the potential market value of
the largest volume product, the shredded fuel.
Differences between "high" and "low" shredded-fuel
-------
74
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
selling price estimates account for most of the
difference between a $16.00 and a $3.00 total
product revenue per ton of raw waste processed. This
price difference dwarfs almost all other elements of
the net cost and revenue estimates.
2. The significance of maintaining reasonably high
capacity utilization rates. This is evident in the
comparisons for individual plants where differences in
net cost of $2.00 to over $4.00 per ton consistently
result for estimates at the 90 percent versus 60
percent capacity utilization rates. The high cost of
failure to maintain high capacity utilization levels
underlines the importance of sound planning and high
quality management.
3. The cumulative importance of "other special
cost" elements. If costs are divided into three
categories as in Table 34, it comes as something of a
surprise that "other costs" can be larger in total than
either the standard capital cost or the operating-and-
maintenance processing cost categories. The potential
cumulative effect of these items on the overall net
cost picture suggests that they are worthy of
considerable attention by planners and designers.
REFERENCES
1. Smith, F. A. An evaluation of the cost of recovering
dry-shredded fuel and material resources
from mixed community solid waste. Wash-
ington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Resource Recovery Division, Aug.
20, 1974. various pagings. (Unpublished
report.)
2. Materials recovery system; engineering feasibility study.
Washington, National Center for Resource
Recovery, Inc., Dec. 1972. various pagings.
3. Cost analysis for the New Orleans resource recovery and
disposal program, Washington, National
Center for Resource Recovery, Inc., 1974.
108 p.
4. Franklin, W. E., et al. Resource recovery processes for
mixed municipal solid wastes; part I—techni-
cal review and economic analysis. [Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-101.]
[Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1973. 67 p.
5. Godfrey, D. E., et al. [General Electric Company.]
Preliminary design of a solid waste separa-
tion plant; final report. Hartford, Conn.,
State of Connecticut Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection, July 1973. 208 p.
-------
Chapter 6
STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
The foregoing chapters presented technical de-
scriptions of waste reduction measures and resource
recovery systems. This chapter discusses the status of
waste reduction efforts by private industry, States,
and localities, and the status of resource recovery
system implementation and the issues that affect the
rate of implementation.
WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS
The emergence of waste reduction as an issue of
significance in both resource and waste management
planning has been aided by two concurrent but
unrelated forces: the growth and widespread accept-
ance of the environmental ethic proclaimed on Earth
Day 1970, and the energy and material shortages that
became apparent in late 1972. These forces have
resulted in some important achievements during the
past several years. A number of legislative actions
have been taken at both the State and local level to
achieve waste reduction, and representatives of
several major governmental and public interest organi-
zations have called for waste reduction actions as a
major approach to solving our nation's resource
conservation and waste management problems. Addi-
tionally, many industries have either reduced the
variety of products they manufacture or redesigned
their products to conserve the resources that are in
short supply. More universal adoption of the waste
reduction ethic nevertheless has been hampered both
by a lack of information on methods for accomplish-
ing waste reduction and by the long-established habit
of viewing resources as readily available and in-
expensive.
Industry Efforts
Perhaps no development has caught industry more
off guard than the epidemic of resource shortages and
resultant price rises on basic commodities that struck
the United States economy in late 1972 and 1973
and continues through to the present. By mid-1973,
shortages had been reported for such basic materials
as paper, steel, plastics, aluminum, and crude oil.
Since 1972, price increases of between 30 and 40
percent have been reported for aluminum, steel, and
petrochemicals. Crude oil prices alone have risen by
over 100 percent since the beginning of 1972.
These shortages can be attributed to a number of
factors, including the quantity of materials exploit-
able at current technology and price levels, lack of
capacity in the materials processing industries, and
continued pressure resulting from increasing material
and product demand. The critical question that arises
is whether these shortages will continue throughout
the decade. If the world economy remains sluggish,
capacity shortages may well be significantly reduced
and prices could level off. On the other hand,
shortages and spiraling prices could reappear as soon
as economic growth accelerates.
It is a combination of uncertainty coupled with
current resource shortages and price levels that have
caused many industries to reconsider their product
designs and selections. Some of the changes have
begun to occur already. Product lines are being
pruned and consolidated as more and more com-
panies discard products with lower profit margins.
The Aluminum Company of America, for example,
recently announced that it will no longer manu-
facture aluminum foil, despite the fact that it
previously produced an estimated 20 percent of the
$200 million market. Similarly, the foods division of
Castle & Cooke, Inc., has reduced its number of fruit
cuts and can sizes from 27 retail items to only 11 in
just two can sizes, 20-ounce and 8-ounce.
The inflation of costs is a major factor in forcing a
corporate shift in emphasis away from volume growth
75
-------
76
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
and toward profit growth. In the 1960's and early
1970's, when production costs were relatively stable,
greater volume meant more profit as soon as fixed
costs were covered. However, this has changed as
nearly all production costs continue to rise and profit
margins shrink. The result is that many manufacturers
are now discarding high-volume, low-margin products
in favor of those items with higher margins and lower
volumes. Thus increased costs are already tending to
force industry to implement waste reduction prac-
tices.
As many companies have begun to pare down their
product lines, others have chosen to look carefully at
individual product designs in hopes of redesigning
them to use fewer resources. Thus, the Campbell
Soup Company has designed and begun to market a
new tinplated drawn-and-ironed can with a tin-free
steel end for its dog food line. It is estimated that this
can uses 30 percent less material, which results
directly in cost savings. As of September 1974, a
conventional three-piece, soldered-seam tinplate can
cost approximately $31.70 per thousand, while the
drawn-and-ironed can cost $23.25 per thousand, a
savings of approximately 36 percent.
There are many other redesign efforts being made
to conserve resources and cut rising costs. The St.
Regis Paper Company, for example, has noted that
obtaining more product from less material is now a
mandate because of paperboard shortages and mount-
ing costs. Thus the company has suggested many new
package designs to reduce board use, including the
replacement of top-loading with end-loading con-
tainers, the increased use of single-die-cut containers
instead of containers with multiple interior com-
ponents, and the standardization of container sizes.
It is expected that industry will continue to
redesign products if shortages and price increases
continue. It is significant that these product design
shifts are now becoming a requirement among
product designers and marketers; that is, resource use
is now a high-priority consideration in the manu-
facture of a product. Once this direction is firmly
established, the impacts upon resource use, environ-
mental pollution, and waste generation can only be
positive.
Present Activity by States and Localities
Packaging control legislation has been introduced
in 50 State legislatures and numerous county and city
councils since 1971. As of October 1974, three States
(Oregon, Vermont, and South Dakota) had passed
laws relating strictly to beer and soft drink con-
tainers, and one State (Minnesota) had passed a law
that affects all major littered items. Legislation
affecting beverage containers has also been passed at
the local level-for example, in Oberlin, Ohio,
Loudoun County, Virginia, and Bowie, Maryland,
although in the latter two localities the laws have not
been implemented due to legal challenges. A brief
discussion of the major pieces of State legislation
follows:
Oregon. A mandatory deposit law has been in
effect in Oregon since October 1, 1972. The
legislation requires a minimum 2-cent refund to
purchasers on the return of "certified" containers of
beer, malt beverages, and carbonated soft drinks, and
a 5-cent refund on the return of all other containers
for those beverages. Certified containers are defined
as those used by, and accepted for reuse by, more
than one manufacturer. In addition, the law outlaws
the sale of flip-top or pull-tab beverage containers.
A preliminary review of the effects of the Oregon
law is contained in the Second Report to Congress.
Since that time, a comprehensive report on the law
and its results has been released in draft form by the
State of Oregon. That report indicates that (1)
beverage container litter has been decreased by an
estimated 66 percent, (2) nonrefillable containers
have declined to 12 percent of the soft drink market
and 6 percent of the beer market, (3) sales of beer
and soft drinks have neither declined below the level
of the year prior to enactment nor increased as in
previous years, (4) the price of beer and soft drinks to
the consumer has been lowered on the average, (5)
refillable soft drink containers are being returned at a
rate of 96 percent and refillable beer containers at a
rate of 85 percent, (6) the law has decreased
container manufacturing and canning industry profits
substantially due to the transition from nonreturn-
able to returnable containers, (7) significant job losses
have occurred in the container manufacturing and
canning industries, and (8) significant numbers of
jobs have been created in the brewing, soft drink, and
retail sectors of the economy.
Vermont. A mandatory law has been in effect in
Vermont since September 1, 1973. The legislation
requires a deposit and refund of a minimum of
-------
STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS 77
5 cents on the purchase and return of all containers
for beer, malt beverages, and carbonated soft drinks.
The law also requires that a handling charge
equivalent to 20 percent of the deposit be paid by the
distributor to the retailer.
This law has not been in force long enough to
allow an evaluation of its effectiveness. However,
preliminary reports suggest a reduction in beverage
container litter, a sales decline for both beer and soft
drinks, an increase in employment (primarily in the
product distribution and retail industries), and a
heavy burden on retailers, particularly those located
close to the border with New Hampshire, which does
not require a deposit on beverage containers.
South Dakota. In February 1974, the South
Dakota Legislature passed a law prohibiting the use of
beverage containers that are not "reusable" or
"biodegradable." Definitions for these terms will be
provided by the State Secretary of Commerce. The
law becomes effective July 1, 1976.
Minnesota. In May 1973, the State of Minnesota
enacted a law designed to reduce the amount and
change the characteristics of its solid wastes. The
legislation applies specifically to packaging wastes. It
grants the State Pollution Control Agency the
authority to prohibit the introduction of new
package designs into the Minnesota market. Despite
considerable difficulty, guidelines under which the
agency shall operate under this law were adopted by
the State Pollution Control Board in October 1974.
No actions have yet been taken under these newly
adopted regulations.
Washington. Legislation was passed in Washing-
ton in May 1971, placing an annual assessment upon
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of products
found in litter, including containers and packaging,
newspapers and magazines, and food and beverages.
The rate of the special tax is $0.00015 per dollar of
sales made within the State. Funds collected under
the statute are used for public education on the
subject of littering, studies of the effect of the
legislation on littering behavior, and the placement of
litter receptacles in all public places.
Support of Public Interest Organizations
Perhaps the strongest support for the implementa-
tion of waste reduction policies has come from
citizens groups and spokesmen for the public interest.
Basing 'their appeal upon both resource conservation
and solid waste management needs, these groups have
consistently called for a national effort to decrease
the quantity of wastes generated.
The National League of Cities and U.S. Conference
of Mayors, for example, have urged a strong Federal
role in waste reduction. Claiming that the private
sector alone cannot restrict excessive waste genera-
tion, these two groups have called for the adoption of
regulatory measures directed at products that result
in excessive solid waste and increased disposal prob-
lems. Similarly, an environmental spokesman has
noted that "We can no longer afford to ignore the
broader implications of the solid waste disposal crisis
facing cities across the country. It is a crisis of raw
materials and energy management and policy-making
that will affect the country for years to come."
The efforts of such groups have been hampered by
a lack of specific information on the types of
mechanisms most applicable to waste reduction. The
only specific waste reduction measure supported by a
large number of public organizations, including the
National League of Cities, the National Association of
Counties, the League of Women Voters, and all the
major environmental organizations, ,is a mandatory
deposit mechanism for all beer and soft drink
containers. Support for the mechanism by public
interest groups has been very vocal, and they have
testified in favor of legislation to establish mandatory
deposits at local, State, and Federal hearings.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE
RECOVERY SYSTEMS
One important factor in the implementation of
resource recovery systems, plant cost, was discussed
in the preceding chapter. Other important factors,
including environmental impact, technological risks,
market risks, legal constraints, availability of informa-
tion, and availability of financing, are discussed in
this section; a summary of activities in selected States
and communities is also presented.
Environmental Impact of Resource
Recovery Facilities
The environmental impact of resource recovery
facilities will vary with the different types of systems.
The systems can be analyzed in two parts: (a)
feedstock preparation, including materials recovery,
and (b) energy conversion. Feedstock preparation
refers to the handling (receiving, conveying, and
-------
78
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
storage) and processing (shredding, pulping, and
classification) for recovery of materials and prepara-
tion of the waste for energy conversion. Energy
conversion is the chemical process (combustion,
pyrolysis, or biodecomposition) that converts the
waste into energy.
Feedstock Preparation and Materials Recov-
ery. Feedstock preparation includes receiving, size
reduction (shredding or pulping), classification, and
storage facilities. Potential emissions to the air, water,
and land, including noise and odor, are like those of
other light industry and can be controlled by
relatively simple techniques. The most significant
emissions are: dust emitted to the air from cyclone
separators, waterborne contaminants resulting from
wash-down of waste-handling areas, noise from
delivery truck traffic and from processing equipment,
and odors. The dust can be controlled by dust
collectors, the waterborne contaminants by filtration
and discharge to sanitary sewers, the noise by
selective routing of trucks and enclosures for equip-
ment, and the odors by means of enclosures for all
areas in which wastes are handled.
Energy Conversion. There are four predominant
types of energy conversion units:
Waterwall Incinerators. Federal standards of per-
formance for new stationary sources (SPNSS) have
been promulgated to control emissions from incinera-
tors. All incinerators built after 1971 must comply
with SPNSS. Federal water pollution control stand-
ards also apply to the potential pollution associated
with water used for cooling bottom ash and for
operating air pollution control devices (scrubbers).
Powerplant Boilers. SPNSS have not been devel-
oped for firing solid waste in combination with fossil
fuels in utility or industrial powerplant boilers.
SPNSS specifically indicate that retrofitting an
existing boiler (defined by SPNSS as a boiler in
service or under construction in 1971) to fire solid
waste does not constitute a "modification" which
would require a boiler to comply with SPNSS.
Therefore, retrofitted existing boilers shall continue
to be under the authority of State and local ambient
air quality standards.
Air emission tests have been conducted at only
one location: the Union Electric Company's Meramec
Plant, where solid waste is burned with coal as part of
an energy recovery demonstration supported by an
EPA grant to the city of St. Louis. A summary of the
results of those tests is presented in the Appendix.
There is a potential for water pollution from
settling ponds that receive ash removed by water
(sluiced) from the bottom of the furnace. Analysis of
settling pond effluents has not been completed.
Pyrolysis Reactors. Pyrolysis reactors were devel-
oped to convert waste to energy using little or no
ambient (excess) air, thus minimizing or eliminating
discharge of gases to the environment. Tests of
pilot-scale systems indicate that SPNSS can be met,
and all full-scale systems will be required to meet
SPNSS for incinerators.
Anaerobic Digesters. Anaerobic digesters have not
been developed to- a scale sufficient for testing the
potential air and water emissions. Based upon
laboratory experience, however, air emissions appear
to be negligible and water emissions appear to be
controllable.
Constraints to Energy Recovery
System Implementation
The systems discussed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are
being evaluated for possible implementation by many
communities across the country. The experiences of
communities in implementing resource recovery
systems indicate that there are a number of con-
straints, some of which are discussed below.
Technical and Market Risks. Resource recovery
technologies and economics have not been com-
pletely demonstrated and evaluated, although systems
are currently being marketed and constructed. Some
technologies have been projected to operate at an
economically attractive cost relative to other solid
waste management alternatives. Since most systems
have not yet been operated on a full-scale, however,
there is some uncertainty about their long-term
technical and economic feasibility. This uncertainty
results in difficult negotiations over the sharing of
risks among the parties concerned. The two major
types of risks are technical and marketing risks.
Technical Risks. Technical risks include costs and
system operating performance, i.e., the ability of the
system to perform as designed at the estimated cost.
These uncertainties can be reduced only through
-------
STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
79
operation of the system at full scale on a continuous
basis.
Marketing Risks. The economic success of a
recovery system depends on continuing revenues
from product sales. If the product cannot be sold or
can be sold only at a discount, the projected net cost
will not be realized. This could jeopardize a system's
ability to meet bond payments.
Long-term market commitments must therefore be
sought from the purchasers of recovered energy and
materials. These commitments are difficult to secure
because potential buyers have had little experience
with products recovered from mixed municipal waste.
Frequently buyers will stipulate a trial period before
signing a long-term contract. Thus "chicken-and-
egg" situations develop: A system cannot be con-
structed until bonds are sold. Bonds cannot be
sold unless long-term market commitments are signed
with buyers of recovered products. Buyers will not
sign long-term market commitments until the system
has actually operated and produced over a trial
period.
Marketing risks and barriers are not altogether
related to the quality of recovered products; some
may be more institutional than technical in nature.
For example, utilities may be reluctant to purchase
shredded waste for use as a fuel because of the
industry's traditional use of fossil fuels, their regu-
lated economic structure, or uncertainties as to future
air pollution standards for burning of solid waste as a
fuel.
In summary, risk related to technical, economic,
and market uncertainties is by itself a sufficiently
strong force to impede or delay many future
implementations, especially because procurements are
determined by public works departments that typi-
cally have not dealt before with similar risks. Risk
will be reduced when more full-scale systems become
operational and the information from these systems is
made available.
Inadequate Information and Planning. Inade-
quate information is an impediment to any decision-
making process, but it may be a special hindrance in
resource recovery implementation because of the
rather complex technological, economic, and market-
ing considerations. Lack of information impacts at
the critical phases of planning, system selection,
procurement, and financing. Although comprehensive
information based on actual operations is not yet
available on the different recovery systems, decision-
makers considering resource recovery as a solid waste
disposal option can and should be aware of the range,
general applicability, and stage of development of the
technical alternatives that are being demonstrated
today.
The selection of an appropriate resource recovery
system for a specific locality is a complicated
endeavor involving analyses of marketing, manage-
ment, financial, technical, and legal issues. The failure
of municipalities to recognize the importance of the
planning process, hire appropriate consultants to
guide them, and carry out the planning properly has
slowed or impeded system implementation.
Legal Constraints. There are a variety of State
laws that could delay or jeopardize the future im-
plementation of resource recovery systems. Three
specific types are particularly important:
Laws Restricting Contract Length. Cities often are
prohibited from signing long-term contracts for (a)
the purchase of a service or (b) the sale of a product.
Laws outlawing such contracts effectively preclude a
city from entering into a turnkey contract or a
full-service agreement by which a corporation offers
to build, operate, and manage a resource recovery
system for the life of the facility.
Laws Requiring "Split-Bidding." In split-bidding
of construction work, the wiring, the plumbing, the
bricks and mortar, etc., are bid for separately. This
complicates the procurement of proprietary systems.
Competitive Bidding Laws. "Lowest responsible
bidder" laws require that procurements be awarded
on a cost basis. Awarding contracts on a cost basis
alone makes it difficult for a city to compare other
important relative measures such as a firm's financial
capability and its technical, marketing, and operating
experience.
"Lowest responsible bidder" and other procure-
ment laws were instituted for public-sector purchase
of risk-free, off-the-shelf technology. They do not
work particularly well when applied to the procure-
ment of a somewhat risky resource recovery system
because such a purchase, by its nature, almost
requires a negotiating period before final signing of
the contract. During the negotiation period, risk
apportionment (between public and private sector)
and specifications for the products and waste
-------
80
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
processing can be determined. Unfortunately, reallo-
cation of risk alters costs. Competitive bidding
requirements usually make negotiations and revisions
of cost illegal.
Although some laws may act as impediments, they
usually are not absolute barriers to system implemen-
tation. In many cases where laws would adversely
affect contract finalizations, cities may petition
States for changes in laws or exceptions to the laws.
Availability of Financing
There are two basic sources of capital to finance
resource recovery plants: equity financing and debt
financing. Thus far, the economic return on invest-
ments in resource recovery plants has been too low to
attract equity capital. Therefore, most of the focus in
plant financing has been on bond market sources of
funds: general obligation (GO) bonds of State and
local governments, municipal or industrial revenue
bonds, and corporate bonds (Table 36).
In times of relative capital shortages, debt financ-
ing for recovery plants is very difficult to obtain
unless the debt is viewed by investors as "secure,"
i.e., backed by a municipality (GO bonds) or by a
corporation with large financial assets.
Also, the capital markets, especially the debt
"track record" must be developed before extensive
solid-waste-related industries. Information and a
"track record" must be developed before extensive
revenue bond financing of resource recovery systems
will be available.
Corporate Bond Financing. Recent studies and
selected examples suggest that resource recovery
plant financing through corporate bonds may be
difficult to obtain. Numerous public and private
authorities project capital to be in short supply for
the next 10 years. For example, the New York Stock
Exchange estimated that by 1985 cumulative de-
mands for capital expenditures in the private sector
would be $4.7 trillion, while cumulative capital
supply would total $4.05 trillion. This indicates a
$650 billion cumulative shortfall over that period.
When capital is scarce, projects or corporations
that have less than Aa or A bond ratings will have a
progressively more difficult time in raising substantial
amounts of money in the market. For example, in
1974 (a tight money period), Baa corporations,
corporations that have been rated relatively "risky"
by the bond-rating agencies, were not able to float
any bonds over $50 million, according to a leading
investment banking firm. These "risky" corporations,
including such firms as Jones and Laughlin, White
Motors, Western Union, and Western Pacific Railroad,
are better established and have better bond ratings
than all but a few firms currently marketing resource
recovery systems.
TABLE 36
BOND FINANCING OPTIONS FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANTS
Type
Issuer
Security
Corporate bond
General obligation bond
Municipal revenue bond
Industrial revenue bond
(Pollution control revenue bond)
Private company
State or local government
State or local government
or special authority
State or local government
Faith and credit
of the company
Faith and credit
of the government
entity
Project revenues
Faith and credit
of the
corporation*
* Traditionally these bonds have financed pollution control facilities that in reality have no revenue stream. The "revenue"
aspect of the bond is the periodic payment from the corporation to the city to retire the obligation. Legally the corporation is
responsible to the bondholder. However, with both these bonds and municipal revenue bonds, a contractual agreement may be
drawn up in which the municipality pledges an unconditional "put or pay," i.e., agreement to pay a set amount whether waste is
delivered or not, and also to escalate dump fees in the event of reduced plant output sales or cost increases. If a city will "put or
pay," these bonds are viewed essentially as general obligation bonds.
-------
STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS 81
General Obligation Bond Financing. Though sev-
eral indicators point to possible shortages of private
capital over the next 10 years, the funding of
resource recovery plants through municipal general
obligation bonds remains a possibility. There does not
appear to be any significant prospect of a major
shortage of funds for GO bond markets at State or
local levels. Thus, public agencies that are willing to
extend their general obligation debt for these
purposes should not have difficulty in obtaining
capital. Decisions of municipal officials on GO bond
financing of recovery plants are dependent on several
questions. One is simply whether the city is willing to
assume the full capital responsibility and associated
risk for a plant. Some municipalities have been willing
to assume this risk, while others have been reluctant.
The Municipal Financial Officers Association re-
ports that most cities are not near their statutory
debt ceiling; thus, this factor should not constrain
municipal GO bond financing. However, financing of
a recovery plant with GO bonds would generally
require voter approval and might require an increase
in taxes, a politically unpopular action.
The potential impact on the overall general
obligation bond markets of increased municipal
recovery plant financing can be predicted. The
Federal Reserve predicts a total outstanding State and
local debt obligation in 1980 of $370 billion and in
1985 of $548 billion, up from $189 billion in 1973.
This is the predicted level of State and local funding
considering both demand and supply of capital.
Assuming that 30 municipally financed plants costing
an average of $50 million each are constructed by
1980, capital requirements would total only $1.5
billion, a negligible fraction of total outstanding debt
by 1985. On a yearly basis, the Federal Reserve
prediction suggests an increase annually of about $25
billion in outstanding debt (net increase taking into
account new obligations and retirements). Even if as
many as 15 plants were financed in a single year (an
unlikely occurrence), the recovery plant financing
would constitute only 3 percent of the increase in
State and local debt in that year. Thus, it appears
unlikely that general obligation bond financing of
recovery plants would have any significant impact on
municipal bond markets in the aggregate.
Revenue Bond Financing. Revenue bonds are
similar to general obligation bonds except that they
are guaranteed by the revenues of a project, not by
the full faith and credit of a State or local
government. Because resource recovery technology is
relatively unproven and realization of projected
revenues is uncertain, revenue bonds are somewhat
more difficult to sell, unless they are backed by the
full faith and credit of a public or private corpora-
tion. However, if private, the corporation must be
large and well financed to attract potential bond
purchasers, who are not willing to take risks on new
technology with small corporations. In the case of a
public corporation, a city or State must agree to
guarantee the bonds in order to reduce the bond-
holders' risk in financing a new technology.
Availability of State Financing. A final factor
that can influence recovery plant financing is State
programs for such financing. The funding levels of
many of these programs are small relative to resource
recovery plant costs. To date only one State, New
York, has grant funds sufficient to influence plant
financing significantly, and only one State, Connecti-
cut, has a large bond authorization.
Summary. It appears that financing of recovery
plants through corporate bonds or revenue bonds
over the next 5 or 10 years could be difficult.
However, general obligation bond financing should be
possible. Pollution control revenue bond financing
should be available if backed by a major corporation
or if tied (by contract) to a guaranteed coverage of
plant costs by cities. States will provide some
financing but the amount is unclear. Thus, there is
evidence to indicate that there is not, nor will there
be, a major capital availability problem for resource
recovery systems.
Present Activities in States and Cities
Developments in technology combined with envi-
ronmental and economic pressures described earlier
continue to encourage initiatives at the State and
local levels.'
State Activities. As of March 1975, 10 States
had grant or loan programs for the construction of
resource recovery systems (Table 37); 12 States were
involved in planning or regulating resource recovery
activities on a statewide basis; and five States had the
authority to create agencies to operate resource
recovery facilities. In this last group, the Connecticut
Resources Recovery Authority is the only such
-------
82
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 37
SUMMARY OF STATE INITIATIVES IN RESOURCE RECOVERY, MARCH 1975
States with grant
or loan programs
California
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Washington
States involved in planning
or regulation
California
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin
States with operating
authority
Connecticut
Florida
Michigan
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
agency that has been funded and has committed
funds to construction. A summary of activities in
selected States follows:
California. In 1972, the California Legislature
enacted the Solid Waste Management and Resource
Recovery Act. The Act established a Solid Waste
Management Board, required all counties to adopt
solid waste management plans to be approved by the
State board, placed priority upon resource recovery,
and mandated the Solid Waste Management Board to
develop a State resource recovery plan. A draft has
been completed and is being circulated for public
review.
Connecticut. As a result of a comprehensive State
plan developed by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, the State legislature cre-
ated the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority
(CRRA). The Authority is implementing the plan,
which calls for the construction of 10 resource
recovery facilities by 1985 that will process 84
percent of the State's waste. CRRA has been given
$250 million bonding authority for facility construc-
tion. During formulation of the plan, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency funded a study
which gave the State an independent commentary of
the proposed legislation, provided a framework for
evaluation of proposed projects, made management
and organization recommendations, and recom-
mended financing mechanisms. Garrett Research and
Development Company has been selected to build the
first plant in Bridgeport, and Combustion Equipment
Associates, Inc., has been selected to build the second
plant in New Britain to serve the Greater Hartford
area.
Florida. In mid-1974, Florida enacted legislation
creating a Resource Recovery and Management
Advisory Council and mandating a State resource
recovery program. The Council is currently develop-
ing the plan.
Hawaii. In 1971, the Hawaii Legislature enacted
legislation calling for the development of a Hawaii
State Plan for Solid Waste Recycling. This plan,
completed in 1973, is currently being implemented.
The State has set aside land in the harbor area of
Honolulu as a centralized park and has invested in the
design of a plant to convert organic wastes to oil. A
pilot plant is expected to be constructed sometime in
1976.
Illinois. The State Division of Land Pollution
Control is initiating a $3 million grant program for
solid waste management planning and resource
recovery demonstrations.
Massachusetts. The Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts is implementing a resource recovery plan.
Proposals have been requested for a plant in the
Greater Lawrence area, the first implementation
region. The plan features a system of privately
financed, privately operated, State-controlled re-
source recovery plants.
Maryland. The Maryland Environmental Service
(MES), a State agency responsible for sewage and
solid waste management, is authorized to provide
grants or loans for resource recovery facilities. In
1972, MES loaned $4 million to the city of
-------
STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS 83
Baltimore to construct the $16 million EPA-
supported resource recovery demonstration plant.
Michigan. Late in 1974, the State enacted legisla-
tion to develop a State resource recovery plan by
1978 and to authorize the State to construct and
operate facilities, to contract for services, to issue
revenue bonds, and to make loans to local govern-
ments.
Minnesota. A $3.5 million solid waste disposal and
resource recovery grant program, which was author-
ized by the State legislature in 1973, is being
implemented by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Authority. Grants totaling approximately $800,000
have been made to support solid waste planning and
resource recovery feasibility studies.
New York. In 1972, New York State voters
approved a $1.1 billion Environmental Bond, which
included $175 million for solid waste disposal and
resource recovery facilities. The regulations provide
for State funding of up to 25 percent of the cost of
solid waste disposal projects and up to 50 percent of
the cost of resource recovery projects. To date, $116
million has been appropriated for 17 resource
recovery projects. Funds will be released to each
grantee upon completion of contractor selection and
system design.
Pennsylvania. In 1974, the Pennsylvania Legislature
enacted the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Resource
Recovery Development Act, creating a State loan
program for local resource recovery projects. Rules
and regulations for the program are now being
drafted. The program will make $20 million in loans
available for design and construction of resource
recovery facilities.
Rhode Island. In 1974, the Rhode Island Legisla-
ture created the Rhode Island Solid Waste Recovery
Management Corporation. The legislation that created
the corporation is the result of the State Solid Waste
Management Plan and is modeled after the Connecti-
cut resource recovery legislation. The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, through a grant to Rhode
Island, assisted in preparation of the State plan. The
corporation, which would arrange for construction
and operation of facilities, has not been funded.
Tennessee. In early 1974, the State legislature
authorized a $10 million resource recovery loan
program. Regulations are being drafted for the
implementation of this program with technical
assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Vermont. The State solid waste plan calls for
mandatory separation of wastes by the householder
and the construction of four regional resource
recovery facilities. The proposed implementation
legislation failed to pass in 1973, but could be
reintroduced this year. Chittenden County is planning
a pilot implementation of the proposed plan that
should be operational in 1976.
Washington. The State is implementing a 6-year,
$30 million resource recovery loan and grant pro-
gram. Grants have been made to several communities
to support solid waste planning and small-scale
materials recovery operations.
Wisconsin. The State created a Solid Waste
Recycling Authority with powers to plan, design,
finance, construct, acquire, lease, contract, operate,
and maintain resource recovery facilities within
designated recycling regions. Three initial recycling
regions, encompassing 11 counties, have been estab-
lished. Funds have been appropriated for the au-
thority's initial costs. The law also establishes bonding
authority for construction of facilities. The authority,
which is now being formed, is awaiting a Wisconsin
Supreme Court decision on technical issues of its
legislative charter. Full funding and operation are
expected by fall 1975.
Local Activities. Resource recovery systems are
operating in five cities around the country (Table 38);
another seven are under construction or are in the
startup phase; and at least 50 other communities are
active in studying or implementing resource recovery
systems. A summary of activities in selected commun-
ities follows:
Ames, Iowa. The city is building a 200-ton-per-day
(TPD) resource recovery facility that will produce a
shredded fuel supplement for the city-owned electric
utility plant. The plant will also recover ferrous
metals, aluminum, and a glass-rich aggregate.
Baltimore, Maryland. With demonstration grant
assistance from EPA and a loan from the Maryland
Environmental Service, the city is in the startup phase
of its 1,000-TPD pyrolysis plant to generate steam for
heating downtown buildings. For more information,
see Appendix.
-------
84
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 38
SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RECOVERY SYSTEMS, AUGUST 1975
Systems in Systems under Communities
Systems selected* .
operation construction comnuttedt
Braintree, Mass. Ames, Iowa Hempstead, N.Y. Akron, Ohio
11 South Charleston, § Baltimore, Md. Monroe County, N.Y. Cleveland, Ohio
W.Va. Bridgeport, Conn. New Britain, Conn. Dade County, Fla.
§ Franklin, Ohio Chicago, 111. St. Louis, Mo. (expansion) Housatonic Valley, Conn.
Nashville, Tenn. Milwaukee, Wis. §San Diego, Calif. Lane County, Oreg.
§St. Louis, Mo. New Orleans, La. Lawrence, Mass.
Saugus, Mass. Lexington, Ky.
Memphis, Tenn.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Montgomery County, Ohio
New York, N.Y.
Onondaga County, N.Y.
Portland, Oreg.
Seattle, Wash.
Westchester County, N.Y.
gWilmington, Del.
Communities with
expressed interest |
Albany, N.Y.
Allegheny County, Pa.
Auburn, Maine
Brevard County, Fla.
Boston, Mass.
Charlottesville, Va.
Chemung County, N.Y.
Dallas, Tex.
De Kalb County, Ga.
Denver, Colo.
Detroit, Mich.
Dubuque, Iowa
Erie County, N.Y.
Fairmont, Minn.
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Hackensack, N.J.
Hamilton County, Ohio
Hennepin County, Minn.
Knoxville, Tenn.
Little Rock, Ark.
Long Beach, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Madison, Wise.
Montgomery County, Md.
Middlesex County, N.J.
Newark, N.J.
Niagara County, N.Y.
Peninsula Planning
District, Va.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
Pinellas County, Fla.
Richmond, Va.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Southeastern Virginia
Planning District, Va.
Springfield, Mo.
Toledo, Ohio
Washington, D.C.
*Winner of request for proposals has been selected or a construction contract has been awarded.
t Communities have issued an RFP, have a design study underway, or have made construction funding available.
If. Includes communities that have completed or are conducting feasibility studies.
SEP A solid waste demonstration grant.
11 Large-scale private test facility.
Braintree, Massachusetts. The city has been operat-
ing a 240-TPD waterwall incinerator since 1971. It
was not until recently that the city developed a
market for the steam. In late 1974, a contract was
signed for the sale of steam to the Weymouth Art
Metal Company.
Bridgeport, Connecticut. Garrett Research and
Development Company has been selected to design,
construct, and operate a 1,200-TPD resource re-
covery system, the first facility financed by the
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority. Shred-
ded waste fuel will be sold to United Illuminating
Company and used as a supplement to oil to generate
electricity.
Chicago, Illinois. A 1,000-TPD shredded fuel
system is being constructed by the city. The plant's
output will be used as a supplementary fuel by the
Commonwealth Edison Company to generate electric-
ity.
Dade County, Florida. With technical assistance
-------
STATUS OF WASTE REDUCTION EFFORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
85
from EPA, the county commissioners have evaluated
bids from 10 private corporations to build a
3,000-TPD energy recovery facility to produce
electricity for sale to Florida Power and Light Co.
The county has started negotiations with the two
finalists, Black Clawson Company and Universal Oil
Products Corporation.
Franklin, Ohio. With demonstration grant support
from EPA, the city built a 150-TPD plant that has
been recovering paper fiber, ferrous metals, and glass
since 1971. For more information, see Appendix.
Hempstead, New York. The town has selected
Black Clawson Company to build and operate a
2,000-TPD system to generate electricity for sale to
Long Island Lighting Company. The process will
involve a wet-pulping technology similar to that used
at the Franklin, Ohio, plant.
Lowell, Massachusetts. Until mid-1975, the city
was planning to build a system to recover metals and
glass from 250 TPD of incinerator residue (the
equivalent of 750 TPD of unburned waste) with EPA
demonstration grant support. In July, however, the
city requested withdrawal from the demonstration
following its decision to close down the incinerator
rather than undertake very expensive capital improve-
ments for air pollution control. Additional informa-
tion on the project is provided in the Appendix.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The city has signed a
contract with Americology, a subsidiary of American
Can Company, to build a 1,000-TPD facility to
recover shredded fuel, ferrous metals, and corrugated
paper. The Wisconsin Electric Power Company has
signed a contract with Americology for the purchase
of the shredded fuel, which will be fired as a
supplement to coal to generate electricity.
Monroe County, New York. The county legislature
is negotiating a contract with the Raytheon Corpora-
tion to design, supervise construction, startup, and
operate for 5 years a 2,000-TPD shredded fuel
facility. The fuel will be sold to the Rochester Gas
and Electric Company.
Nashville, Tennessee. The Nashville Thermal Trans-
fer Corporation (Thermal) owns and operates a
facility to produce steam for heating and cooling
buildings in downtown Nashville. The system is
designed to burn 720 tons of solid waste per day as
the primary fuel; oil or gas can be used in
emergencies. No dump fee is charged to the city,
which is responsible for ash removal and disposal. As
of August 1975, the waste-burning boilers were
unable to operate in compliance with the New Source
Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act. Thermal
has agreed to a compliance plan calling for the
installation of electrostatic precipitators to reduce air
pollution, replacing the inadequate water spray
chambers.
New Britain, Connecticut. Combustion Equipment
Associates has been selected to design and build a
system to produce 1,800 TPD of "EcoFuel II"
(shredded fuel) for the Wallingford Power Plant,
which is owned by the city. The shredded waste will
be fired as a supplement to fuel oil.
New Orleans, Louisiana. Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI), has begun construction of a 650-TPD facility
to recover glass, ferrous and nonferrous metals, and
paper. The remaining fraction, approximately 80
percent by weight of the incoming waste, will be
disposed of on the land. WMI will own and operate
the facility. The National Center for Resource
Recovery, Inc., designed the plant and will serve the
city as technical consultant.
St. Louis, Missouri. With demonstration grant
support from EPA, the city of St. Louis has been
operating a plant that processes waste for use as a
supplementary fuel in the coal-fired boilers of the
Union Electric Company. Union Electric has provided
the use of its boilers and almost $1 million. Ferrous
metals are being sold to the Granite City (Illinois)
Steel Company. For more information, see Appendix.
St. Louis Area. Because of the success of the EPA
demonstration, the Union Electric Company is
designing and ordering equipment for a $70 million
system to process 8,000 tons of solid waste per day
from the Greater St. Louis area. Fuel will be
recovered and used as a supplement to coal in several
boilers at two plants.
San Diego County, California. With demonstration
grant support from EPA, the county is going to build
a 200-TPD pyrolysis system designed by Garrett
Research and Development Company. The liquid fuel
produced will be used as a supplementary fuel by San
Diego Gas and Electric Company. For more informa-
tion, see Appendix.
-------
86
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Saugus, Massachusetts. RESCO, Inc., a joint
venture of DeMatteo Construction Company and
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., is constructing a 1,200-TPD
waterwall incinerator. The steam generated will be
sold to the General Electric Company plant in Lynn,
Massachusetts. Construction is scheduled to be
completed in mid-1975.
South Charleston, West Virginia. Union Carbide
Corporation owns and operates a 200-TPD test
facility that produces fuel gas using a pyrolysis
process.
Wilmington, Delaware. The State, with solid waste
demonstration grant support from EPA, is preparing
to build a 500-TPD facility to produce shredded fuel,
humus, metals, and glass. The fuel will be fired as a
supplement to oil in the boilers of the Delmarva
Power & Light Company. The facility will accept
sewage sludge and selected industrial wastes in
addition to residential and commercial solid waste.
For more information, see Appendix.
REFERENCES
1. 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.
[Updated periodically.]
-------
APPENDIX
• DESCRIPTION OF SIX EPA-SUPPORTED
RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS
SHREDDED, CLASSIFIED WASTE AS A
COAL SUBSTITUTE-ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
The city of St. Louis operates facilities to separate
shredded organic material from residential solid waste
for use as fuel. The fuel is burned with coal in electric
utility boilers of the Union Electric Company.
Ferrous metal is also recovered and sold to a steelmill.
Midwest Research Institute is under contract with
EPA to conduct an independent evaluation of the
project.
The time and cost schedule for the demonstration
is presented in Table 39.
TABLE 39
TIME AND COST SCHEDULE,
ST. LOUIS PROJECT
Activity
Time period
Federal share
Total cost .
of cost
Design and July 1970 to $3,288,544 $2,180,026
construction April 1972
Operation and May 1972 to
evaluation June 1975*
Total
600,000
400,000
$3,888,544t $2,580,026
*The project has been extended for additional tests.
tUnion Electric Company is to provide $950,000 and
the city of St. Louis the remaining $358,518 of the
non-Federal share. In addition, EPA is spending about
$750,000 to evaluate the project.
The Processing System
The system currently accepts solid waste from
residential sources. It was designed to exclude
oversized bulky wastes, such as tires, appliances,
furniture, engine blocks, and land-clearing and demo-
lition wastes. This limitation is a function of the
capacity of the shredders and the fuel quality
objective.
The system was designed to handle 325 tons of
waste in one 8-hour processing shift and three 8-hour
fuel-firing shifts. Raw solid waste is discharged from
packer-type collection trucks onto the floor of the
receiving building. Front-end loaders push the waste
to a receiving belt conveyor. From the receiving
conveyor, the waste is transferred to the hammermill,
a shredding device.
Shredding reduces residential raw waste to parti-
cles that are relatively uniform in size and therefore
easier to separate mechanically into salable com-
ponents. It also reduces odors and facilitates handl-
ing.
In the St. Louis shredder, 30 large metal hammers
swing around a horizontal shaft, grinding the waste
against an iron grate until the particles are small
enough to drop through the grate openings. The
design calls for a nominal particle size of 1% inches.
Preliminary data show that over 90 percent by weight
of the incoming waste is reduced to particles not
greater than 1 inch in any dimension.
Single-stage milling (all shredding in one pass
through the shredder) was selected for the prototype
system to minimize capital costs. For future applica-
tions, however, experts recommend a two-stage
shredding operation, with air classification between
the two stages. The first shredding would reduce the
waste to a particle size of about 4 to 8 inches. After
removal of the heavier materials by the air classifier,
the second shredding would reduce the particle size
of the light fraction to 1 or 2 inches.
In the present St. Louis system the shredded waste
is conveyed from the hammermill to the air classifier.
The air classifier separates the heavier, mostly
noncombustible particles from the lighter ones in a
vertical chute where a column of air blowing upward
87
-------
88
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
carries the lighter materials to the top. The heavier
materials drop to the bottom. By varying the air
velocity and the cross-sectional area of the chute, the
percentage split between heavy and light fractions can
be controlled. The St. Louis air classifier is operated
to permit 75 to 80 percent of the shredded waste to
be separated into the light fraction for use as fuel.
The light fraction is composed of paper, light
cardboard and plastics, textiles, light food wastes, and
other organics. There is also a small percentage of
light noncombustibles like aluminum foil in this
fraction. It also contains small particles of heavier
materials, such as pulverized glass, that stick to pieces
of organic material.
The heavy fraction contains ferrous and nonfer-
rous metals, glass, dirt, and other noncombustibles.
Certain heavier combustible materials, such as citrus
fruit rinds and heavier pieces of cardboard, plastics,
woodchips, and rubber, also drop into the heavy
fraction.
Removal of both the combustible and noncom-
bustible heavy materials from the waste produces
three benefits: an increase in the heating value of the
waste as. fuel, an increase in the transportability of
the fuel through the pneumatic pipelines, and a
decrease in the boiler's bottom ash. The presence of
the small bits of glass and other noncombustible
materials remaining in the fuel does not have a
significant effect.
The light materials are carried pneumatically from
the separation chute to the cyclone separator, where
they are removed from the air stream and allowed to
fall onto the conveyor leading to the storage bin.
The heavy fraction is passed under a magnetic belt
to extract the ferrous metals, which are then
densified in a nuggetizer. After passing under a
magnetic drum for a final cleanup, the ferrous metals
are transported to the Granite City Steel Company
where they are used in a blast furnace. The
nonmagnetic materials are hauled away to be land-
filled.
By recovering fuel and ferrous metal, the city of
St. Louis has reduced its landfill volume requirements
by 95 percent of the solid waste processed.
At scheduled intervals, quantities of the solid waste
fuel are removed from the storage bin at the
processing plant and loaded onto trailer trucks for the
18-mile trip to the powerplant. At the powerplant the
fuel is unloaded into a receiving bin, which is in turn
unloaded continuously into a pneumatic pipeline
transport system. These pneumatic pipelines dis-
charge the fuel into a surge bin. The surge bin uses
four drag-chain unloading conveyors to move the
solid waste fuel to four separate feeders that
introduce the supplementary fuel into the pneumatic
pipeline system. The pipelines, each about 700 feet
long, blow the fuel to firing ports in each corner of
the boiler furnace.
The ownership and operating responsibility of the
city ends at the point where the city's pneumatic
pipelines discharge the fuel into the surge bin owned
by the utility.
Operating Experience
Until September 1974, the processing plant op-
erated at about 20 percent of design capacity.
Downtime was caused by a variety of factors,
including waste collection stoppages resulting from
strikes and bad weather, mechanical problems with
almost every piece of equipment in the system, and
system modifications. Since September 1974, how-
ever, the system has operated consistently at 150 to
300 tons per day, 5 days per week, depending upon
the requirements of the testing and evaluation
program and the availability of the boilers.
Boiler Modification and Operation
Two identical boilers at Union Electric Company's
Meramec Plant near St. Louis have been modified to
burn prepared solid waste. They are 125 megawatt
tangentially suspension-fired boilers that were origi-
nally designed to burn pulverized coal or gas. There
are now four coal-firing, one solid-waste-firing, and
five gas-firing ports in each corner of each boiler.
Other than installing a solid-waste firing port in
each corner of the furnace, no modifications to the
boilers were made. The prepared solid waste is burned
in suspension in the same flame pattern as the
pulverized coal.
As is typical of large utility boilers, the furnaces
have no grates. Fuels are burned in suspension at
temperatures of 2,400 F to 2,600 F. The retention
time of 1 to 2 seconds in suspension is not long
enough for the heavier particles of combustible
materials to be consumed, and they fall to the
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SIX EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS
89
bottom ash hopper along with the noncombustible
materials.
The two boilers are 20 years old and are small
compared to newer units in the Union Electric
Company system. They are of modern reheat design,
however, and burn 56.5 tons of Illinois coal per hour
at rated load.
At rated load, the quantity of solid waste burned
in each boiler is equivalent in heating value to 10
percent of the coal and amounts to about 12.5 tons
per hour, or 300 tons per 24-hour day. Solid waste is
fired 24 hours per day, but only 5 days per week,
because city residential solid waste collections are
scheduled on a 5-day-per-week basis.
The boiler operators and shift superintendents
report that solid waste firing has had no discernible
effect on the boiler furnace or convection passes.
(Convection passes are hot gas passages containing
heat-transfer surfaces between the boiler furnace and
the air pollution control equipment.) Frequent and
sudden interruptions of the solid waste feed have not
required any change in operating techniques. Existing
boiler combustion controls easily accommodate the
variations in solid waste quantity and quality by
varying the amount of pulverized coal fired into the
boiler.
The boiler's efficiency or power-producing capabil-
ity when firing solid waste in combination with coal
is reduced slightly compared to "coal only" perform-
ance.
Firing solid waste significantly increases the
quantity of bottom ash produced, requiring the boiler
operators to remove the ash from the hopper more
frequently than when coal is fired alone.
Air Emissions from Combined Firing
of Waste and CoaJ
Air emission tests were performed independently
by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) from October
through December 1973 as part of EPA's comprehen-
sive evaluation of the project. The Union Electric
Company (UE) also performed air emission tests
during the same period. MRI employed the EPA-
approved testing method to measure paniculate and
gaseous emissions. Union Electric employed the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers testing
method to measure particulates only.
The results of the MRI tests are summarized in the
St. Louis/Union Electric Refuse Firing Demonstra-
tion Air Pollution Test Report, September 1974,
available from the National Technical Information
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.
From the MRI tests it appears that gaseous
emissions (sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen
chlorides, and mercury vapor) are not significantly
affected by combined firing of waste and coal.
Both MRI and UE tests found that particulate
levels per cubic foot of exhaust gas at the inlet to the
air pollution control device (the electrostatic precipi-
tators) were not affected by combined firing;
however, total inlet particulate levels did increase
because of increases in the stack gas flowrate.
The MRI tests did not find an increase in
particulate emissions when solid waste was combined
with coal. The UE tests, however, did find an increase
in such emissions. Therefore, the report is not
conclusive on this subject. Also, there is evidence to
indicate that neither set of tests provides an optimum
representation of combined firing of solid waste and
coal. It appears that the electrostatic precipitator was
not properly conditioned prior to the tests and could
have been tuned for better particulate collection
performance.
The report recommends that further tests be
conducted to complete the characterization of par-
ticulate emissions and to support the development of
Federal and State air emission control standards. In
response to this recommendation, a second series of
tests, conducted independently by EPA and UE, were
initiated in late 1974 and are expected to be
completed by late 1975.
Economics
The cost of the facilities was about $3 million
when they were constructed in 1971. Gross operation
and maintenance costs (excluding amortization and
interest) for the city and Union Electric Company,
based on operating experience from July 1972 to
November 1974, are $5.90 per ton of solid waste
processed, and $8.50 per ton of solid waste fuel
burned, respectively. During this time, the facilities
operated at about 30 percent of the 5-day-weeK
single-shift capacity. Consequently, the unit operating
costs could be expected to be substantially lower
when the plant is operated at design capacity.
-------
90
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
However, a higher capital investment would probably
be required to achieve greater reliability.
These figures are not at all representative of the
cost of a supplementary fuel system to be built
elsewhere. In addition to the effect of inflation
(about 15 to 20 percent per year for many
construction materials), site-specific factors will dic-
tate the economic feasibility of a system. The cost
would range from as little as $5 or $8 per ton, to a
prohibitively high figure. The major site-specific
factors are: characteristics of waste fuel market
(distance to boiler, boiler size, load factor, air
pollution control equipment, price of primary fuel);
characteristics of markets for recovered metals and
glass (distance, price, stability, quantity in waste
stream); plant capacity (waste available, equipment
redundancy, operating shifts per day, operating days
per year); method of financing (public or private
capital); and the cost of alternative means of waste
disposal.
A more comprehensive discussion of the econom-
ics of resource recovery systems is presented in
Chapter 5.
PYROLYSIS FOR STEAM GENERATION-
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
With the aid of an EPA demonstration grant, the
city of Baltimore owns and operates a 1,000-ton-per-
day solid waste pyrolysis plant developed by Mon-
santo Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc. The system was
designed and constructed by Monsanto under a
turnkey contract with money-back performance
guarantee provisions. Monsanto has guaranteed plant
availability at 85 percent, particulate emissions to
meet local and Federal standards, and the putrescible
content of the residue to be less than 0.2 percent.
Monsanto's maximum payback liability is $4 million,
about 25 percent of the contract price. The time and
cost schedule for design, construction, operation, and
evaluation is given in Table 40.
The plant is designed to handle mixed municipal
solid waste, including tires and white goods. All
incoming wastes are shredded to a 4-inch particle size
and then conveyed to a rotary pyrolysis kiln. About
7.1 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil per incoming ton of
waste is combusted to provide heat for the pyrolysis
reaction. In addition, about 40 percent of the amount
of air theoretically required for complete combustion
is added to the reactor to allow some of the pyrolysis
gases to combust and add additional heat to the unit.
The remaining pyrolysis gases leave the kiln and are
then combusted in an afterburner. The hot after-
burner exhaust gases pass through waste heat boilers
that generate 200,000 pounds of steam per hour for
sale to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
(Table 41). The steam is used for downtown heating
and cooling. Boiler exhaust gases are scrubbed,
dehumidified, and released to the atmosphere.
Although the system uses about 7.1 gallons of No.
2 fuel oil per ton of incoming waste, the steam
generated from each ton of incoming waste will
conserve 39.1 gallons of fuel oil, for a net savings of
32 gallons.
The pyrolysis residue is water-quenched, and
ferrous metals are separated for recycling by Metal
Cleaning and Processing Company, Inc. Water flota-
tion and screening processes separate the char residue,
which is landfilled, from a glassy fraction which will
be used as aggregate for city asphalt street construc-
tion. Sixteen tons of char with 50 percent moisture is
produced for every 100 tons of solid waste input. Air
emissions are monitored and controlled to meet local
and Federal standards; no wastewater is discharged.
The projected economics for this system, based on
February 1974 data, are summarized in Table 42.
PYROLYSIS TO PRODUCE LIQUID FUEL-
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
San Diego County will build and operate a
200-ton-per-day pyrolysis plant with the aid of an
EPA demonstration grant. The time and cost schedule
is presented in Table 43.
The key component of this plant will be a flash
pyrolysis unit developed by the Garrett Research and
Development Company. Mixed municipal solid waste
will be shredded coarsely to a 3-inch particle size and
then separated mechanically into two fractions: a
"light" fraction consisting mostly of paper and plastic
and a "heavy" fraction consisting of glass, metals,
wood, and stones.
The light material will be dried and shredded
again, to a very fine particle size (practically a
powder) and then pyrolyzed at a temperature of
about 900 F. This process produces a gas, which is
condensed into an oil-like liquid with a heat value
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SIX EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS
91
TABLE 40
TIME AND COST SCHEDULE, BALTIMORE PROJECT
Activity
Time period
Total cost*
Federal
share of
cost
Design and
construction
Shakedown, operation,
and evaluation!
January 1973 to December 1974
January 1975 to December 1976
$16,177,000
$6,000,000
*Baltimore is to provide $6,177,000 and Maryland Environmental Services is to provide $4 million of the non-Federal share.
t Length of shakedown period and cost of possible plant modifications cannot be estimated accurately at this time.
TABLE 41
ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS AND MARKET VALUES,
BALTIMORE PROJECT
Product
Steam
Ferrous metal
Glassy aggregate
Tons per
100 tons of
waste input
240
7
17
Market value
per ton sold
$ 4.66
22.00
2.35
about 75 percent that of No. 6 fuel oil. It will be used
as supplementary fuel in an existing San Diego Gas
and Electric Company boiler.
From the heavy fraction, ferrous metals will be
separated by an electromagnet and glass will be
separated as a mixed-color glass cullet by a froth
flotation process. The anticipated outputs and prices
are summarized in Table 44.
When operating at capacity (200 tons per day), 11
tons of char as well as 32 tons of other residuals will
require landfilling each day. Exhaust gases will be
monitored and controlled to meet local and Federal
standards, and wastewater will be discharged into a
sanitary sewer.
This system requires no external fuel and produces
a storable, transportable fuel that should have good
national marketability.
The projected economics of the system are
summarized in Table 45.
PROCESSED WASTE AS-A FUEL OIL
SUBSTITUTE-STATE OF DELAWARE
With the aid of an EPA demonstration grant, the
State of Delaware will enter into a full-service
TABLE 42
PROJECTED SYSTEM ECONOMICS FOR
BALTIMORE PROJECT, BASED ON
FEBRUARY 1974 DATA*
Item
Value
Capital investmentt $20,000,000
Annual cost:
Amortization and interest 1,720,500
Operation and maintenance 2,556,000
Total annual cost $ 4,076,500
Costs and revenues per input ton of solid
waste:
Cost before revenue $13.15
Revenues:
Steam 11.18
Ferrous metal 1.55
Glassy aggregate .40
Total revenues 13.13
Net cost $ 0.02J
*Based on a 1,000-ton-per-day operation in which
310,000 tons of raw solid waste are throughput per year.
t Using February 1974 dollars, $20 million of capital is
required.
t Because these are estimates based only on pilot plant
experience, the actual costs and revenues may be significantly
different.
contract with a single company that will design,
construct, and operate a resource recovery facility to
be located in Wilmington. The contractor will be
selected competitively after proposals are solicited.
The contractor will guarantee plant performance and
capital, operating, and maintenance costs.
The plant will be designed to process daily 485
tons of municipal solid waste, 15 tons of industrial
-------
92
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 43
TIME AND COST SCHEDULE, SAN DIEGO PROJECT
Activity
Design
Construction
Operation and
evaluation
Total
Time period
December 1974 to April 1975 )
August 1975 to May 1976 j
June 1976 to December 1977
Total cost
$7,423,244
1,457,795
$8,881,039*
Federal share
of cost
$3,562,710
_
$3,562,710
*San Diego County is to provide $1,817,329, and Garrett Research and Development Company is to provide $3,500,000.
TABLE 44
ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS AND PRICES,
SAN DIEGO PROJECT
(200 TPD PLANT)
Product
Oil
Ferrous metal
Glass
Quantity
per day
172 barrels
23.7 tons
10. 4 tons
Price
$4.33 per barrel
18.20 per ton
6.40 per ton
TABLE 45
PROJECTED SYSTEM ECONOMICS, SAN DIEGO PROJECT*
Capital investment $6,344,000
Annual costs:
Amortization and interest 553,069
Operation and maintenance 916,351
Total annual cost $ 1,469,420
Costs and revenues per input ton of solid
waste:
Cost before revenue $ 23.70
Revenues:
Oil 3.80
Ferrous metal 2.30
Glass .40
Total revenues 6.50
Net cost t$ 17.20
*Based on a 200-ton-per-day operation in which
62,050 tons of raw solid waste are processed per year.
t Because these are estimates based only on pilot plant
experience, the actual costs and revenues may be significantly
different.
waste, and 230 tons of digested sewage sludge
containing 8 percent solids. Incoming municipal solid
waste will be shredded to a 6- to 8-inch particle size.
The shredded waste will be air-classified into two
fractions: a "light" combustible waste fraction
containing about 60 to 75 percent of the incoming
waste and a "heavy" waste fraction containing
metals, glass, wood, heavy plastics, textiles, rubber,
and rocks.
The light fraction will be shredded again to a
1-inch particle size. Most of the light fraction will
then be sent directly to Delmarva Power and Light
Company for use as supplemental fuel in existing
oil-fired boilers. The remaining light fraction will be
mixed in aerobic digesters with partially dewatered
sewage sludge for use as compost or supplemental
powerplant fuel, or both, depending upon market
conditions.
The heavy fraction will be processed to remove
ferrous metals for recycling. The remaining heavy
materials will be mixed with selected industrial wastes
and pyrolyzed. Heat from the pyrolysis gases will be
used to help dewater the sewage sludge. Aluminum
and glass will be recovered from the pyrolysis residue.
The remaining residues will be landfilled (about 10
percent by weight of the incoming waste).
The State of Delaware has projected the econom-
ics of the system based on a preliminary design by
Black, Crow, and Eidsness, Inc. EPA has used these
projections as a basis for the updated estimates given
in Tables 46 and 47. The actual costs of the system
will not be known until the fixed price contract is
signed in early 1976.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SIX EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS
93
TABLE 46
PROJECTED SYSTEM ECONOMICS
WILMINGTON PROJECT*
TABLE 47
ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS AND MARKET VALUES,
WILMINGTON PROJECT*
Item
Value
Capital investment! $25 million
Annual costs:
Amortization and interest | 2.2 million
Operation and maintenance § 1.7 million
Total annual costs $ 3.9 million
Costs and revenues per input ton of solid
waste: H
Cost before revenue $29.60
Revenues:**
Humus (compost) 1.10
Solid waste fuel 10.00
Ferrous metal 2.80
Nonferrous metal .80
Glass .35
Paper .10
Sludge disposal credit 1.45
Total revenues 16.60
Net cost $13.00
*These are rough projections by EPA based on earlier
estimates developed by Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., for
the State of Delaware.
tUsing 1977 dollars, calculated by escalating 1974
projections at 15 percent per year; includes projected cost of
processing plant, fuel transport facilities, fuel receiving and
firing facilities, boiler modifications, and air pollution control
equipment modifications to the utility's boiler.
t Assumes capital paid back at 6 percent interest over
20 years.
§Using 1979 dollars, calculated by escalating 1974
projections by 10 percent per year.
f 130,000 tons of waste are to be processed per year.
**Using 1974 dollars.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be
about $28 million, with the EPA grant covering $9
million of the costs (see Table 48 for cost and time
schedule). If the full-service contract is initiated on
schedule by August 1976, the system should be fully
operational by April 1980.
WET PULPING FOR MATERIALS RECOVERY-
FRANKLIN, OHIO
The objective of this project is to demonstrate a
refuse disposal and resource recovery system capable
of processing municipal refuse and producing metals,
color-sorted glass, and paper fiber in a recyclable
form. Nonrecoverable combustible materials are in-
cinerated in a fluidized bed reactor. Noncombustible
Product
Humus (compost)
Solid waste fuel
Ferrous metal
Nonferrous metal
Glass
Paper
Sludge disposal
Tons per day
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;
uses 1974 dollars.
tAssumes fuel oil costs $2.00 per million Btu, and
that solid waste fuel has a heat value of 5,000 Btu/lb, 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 (a conservative figure, based on EPA
conversations with boiler manufacturers).
rejects are landfilled. The time and cost schedule for
design, construction, and operation is given in Table
49.
The total system, with a design capacity of 150
tons per 24-hour day, contains three separate
subsystems: a processing and disposal system for solid
waste and sewage sludge with recovery of ferrous
metal, a glass and aluminum recovery system, and a
paper fiber recovery system.
The disposal system consists primarily of a wet
pulper ("hydrapulper"), a liquid cyclone, and a
fluidized bed incinerator. Ferrous metal is recovered
through magnetic separation and sold as scrap to a
steelmill.
The glass and aluminum subsystem uses a complex
series of mechanical screening and classifying opera-
tions to extract a glass-rich stream and an aluminum-
rich stream from the heavier materials in the waste.
Optical sorters separate the glass into flint, green, and
amber particles for use in making new bottles.
The fiber recovery subsystem recovers paper fiber
from the lighter combustible materials in the waste
stream. Fiber is recovered through the use of several
screening and cleaning operations. It is then pumped
in slurry form to a nearby papermill through an
underground pipe. The fiber is used in making felt
paper for asphalt roofing shingles.
-------
94
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 48
TIME AND COST SCHEDULE, WILMINGTON PROJECT
Activity
Design and
construction
Startup
Operation and
evaluation
Total
Time period
August 1976 to August 1979
August 1979 to April 1980
April 1980 to April 1981
Total cost
$25,000,000
328,000
2,700,000
$28,028,000
Federal share of cost
$6,755,000
245,000
2,000,000
$9,000,000
TABLE 49
TIME AND COST SCHEDULE, FRANKLIN PROJECT
Phase and activity
Hydraposal and fiber recovery systems:
Design
Construction
Operation and evaluation
Subtotal
Glass and Aluminum Recovery System:
Design
Construction
Operation and evaluation
Subtotal
Total
Time period
March 1969 to February 1970
March 1970 to June 1971
June 1971 to August 1972
July 1971 to May 1972
May 1972 to July 1973
July 1973 to February 1976
Total cost
$ 165,000
1,970,000
500,000
2,635,000
20,000
360,000
90,000
470,000
$3,105,000*
Federal share
of cost
$ 110,000
1,300,000
350,000
1,760,000
60,000
257,000
77,000
394,000
$2,154,000
* Approximate non-Federal contributions: the city of Franklin, $500,000; the Black Clawson Company, $200,000; and the
Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, $150,000.
System outputs are shown in Table 50,
All combustible residues, as well as sludge from an
adjacent sewage treatment plant, are disposed of in
the fluidized bed incinerator.
All noncombustible rejects (approximately 10
percent by weight of the total incoming wastes) are
disposed of in a small sanitary landfill adjacent to the
plant. Air emissions from the fluid bed incinerator
have been found to be below the Federal standards.
All water effluents from the plant are discharged into
the adjacent sewage treatment plant.
TABLE 50
PRODUCT OUTPUTS AND PRICES,
FRANKLIN PROJECT
Product
Ferrous metal
Paper fiber
Glass (color -sorted)
Aluminum
Tons per
100 tons of
waste input
9
20
4
.3
Price per ton sold
$ 25
42
20
200
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SIX EPA-SUPPORTED RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS
95
The projected system economics for a 500-ton-per-
day facility are summarized in Table 51.
TABLE 51
PROJECTED ECONOMICS FOR
500-TON-PER-DAY FRANKLIN-TYPE
SYSTEM*
Item
Value
$10,600,000
1,350,000
1,286,868
$ 2,636,868
$ 20.42
2.40
8.06
1.75
12.21
Capital investment
Annual costs:
Amortization and interestt
Operations and maintenance
Total annual costs
Costs and revenues per input ton of solid
waste:
Cost before revenue
Revenues::):
Ferrous metal
Paper fiber
Sewage sludge disposal credit
Total revenues
Net cost
*Based on a three-shift operation in which 150,000
tons of raw solid waste are throughput per year. The Franklin
plant processes approximately 50 tons per day.
t Based on 20-year depreciation.
tDoes not include glass and aluminum recovery.
MATERIALS RECOVERY FROM INCINERATOR
RESIDUE-LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS
In this project, the city of Lowell was to build a
full-size processing plant capable of recovering materi-
als from 250 tons of incinerator residue, which
represents about 750 tons of raw waste, each 8-hour
day (Table 52). In July 1975, however, the city
requested withdrawal from the demonstration, and
the project was therefore terminated. The reason for
the withdrawal was that the city decided to close
down their incinerator rather than undertake very
expensive capital improvements for air pollution
control.
The primary objective of the project was to
demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of
a mechanical separation system for recovering metals
and glass from the noncombustible portion of solid
wastes. Initially, these products were to be recovered
from incinerator residues, but the system was also
designed to handle noncombustible solid wastes that
have been separated from the combustible fraction by
air classification or some other means.
The design for the plant was prepared by the
Raytheon Company using the system piloted by the
U.S. Bureau of Mines at College Park, Maryland. The
system uses a series of screens, shredders, classifiers,
and other ore-processing equipment to extract steel,
nonferrous metals, and glass from the incinerator
residue. The project plans for Lowell called for
recovery of more than 40,000 tons of products
annually which would result in revenues of some
$700,000 a year (Tables 53 and 54). Depending on
the level of burnout in the incinerator residue, about
5 tons of solid residue per 100 tons of incinerator
residue input would be landfilled. No gaseous
pollutants would be emitted from the processing
plant, and process water would be treated in the plant
before being discharged into the city's sanitary sewer
system.
TABLE 52
TIME AND COST SCHEDULE, LOWELL PROJECT (CANCELLED JULY 1975)
Activity
Design, construction management
Construction
Operation and evaluation
Total
Time period
February 1973-December 1974
January 1975-March 1976
April 1976-March 1977
Total cost*
$ 798,000
3,321,000
734,000
$4,853,000
Federal share of cost
$ 325,000
1,434,000
625,000
$2,384,000
*The State of Massachusetts was to provide a total of $615,000, and the city of Lowell, $1,854,000 plus $180,000 in land
value for the facility site.
-------
96 RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION
TABLE 53 TABLE 54
ESTIMATED SYSTEM OUTPUTS AND PRICES, PROJECTED SYSTEM ECONOMICS,
LOWELL PROJECT LOWELL PROJECT*
Tons per Itel« Value
Product 100 tons Price per ton sold
Capital investment $4,119,000
of input*
Annual costs:
Ferrous metal 30 $ 33 Amortization and interest 424,000
Aluminum 2 250 Operation and maintenance 754,000
Copper/zinc 1 330 Total annual costs $1,158,000
Glass 30 23
Aggregate 32 2 Costs and revenues per ton of input (incin-
==1^===^==:^=:^=== erator residue):
incinerator residue. Cost before revenue $17.80
Revenues:
Ferrous metal 4.80
Aluminum 3.12
Copper/zinc 2.08
Glass 6.75
Aggregate .50
Total revenues 17.25
Net cost $ 0.55
*Based on a one-shift, 250-ton-per-day operation in
which 65,000 tons of incinerator residue are throughput per
year.
Aiffl213
ft U. S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1975 '632-475/553
------- |