Cover and inside cover photos:  Municipal solid waste is dumped into the wet-pulper
at the Franklin plant.  Water is  added to improve  handling  in the resource recovery

ERA'S Franklin, Ohio
Demonstration Project
This summary report (SW-47d) on work performed under
Federal solid waste management demonstration grant No. G06-EC-00194
to the Gty of Franklin, Ohio,
was written by DAVID G. ARELLA.

             J—*•*>--••  -            ... a-trurty
             .. n                  *bf.n*\
             EDISOM, i»

An environmental protection publication (SW-47d)
in the solid waste management series

Mention of commercial products or organizations does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402

ERA'S  Franklin,  Ohio
Demonstration Project
   AT PRESENT, nearly everywhere in this country, everything that goes
into the municipal waste stream is buried, incinerated, or thrown onto open
dumps.  Large amounts of recyclable materials and energy are thus discarded.
The systematic recovery of materials and energy from wastes clearly repre-
sents a major goal in resource conservation. It also offers a means of "dis-
posing"  of wastes in an environmentally acceptable way.  And, in view of the
rising costs of conventional waste disposal methods, resource recovery systems
are more and more likely to be cost-competitive with these methods.
   As authorized by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965  and its amending
legislation, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has been aiding local governments and private enterprise
in the development and demonstration of various systems of resource recov-
ery.  The Franklin, Ohio, project is one of the  first successful efforts. This
pilot plant is a commercially operated facility that recovers paper, metals, and
glass from the city's solid wastes and disposes of the remainder, together with
municipal sewage sludge, by methods that do not pollute the land, water, or
   The city of Franklin became actively concerned about solid waste disposal
problems in 1967 when it realized that its landfill space was running out. Pro-
posals for new sites met with opposition from residents who did not want a
landfill near their property.  Spurred by this situation, the  city applied for a
Federal  grant to demonstrate the innovative process involving wet-grinding,
fluid separation, resource recovery, and incineration developed by the Black-
Clawson Company. The project was particularly attractive to the community
because  it would handle a number of the city's disposal problems and recover
resources from their solid wastes.


         WASTE PLANT
         WEEKDAYS 8AM-3PM.
         SATURDAYS 8 A M -11 A.M.
         --DUMP  FEES —
        CARS	75
        TON PICKUPS	 2?s
        ALL OTHERS       _ 683
        UNUSUAL WASTE AstfcrPriceQu*
        • -INSTRUCTIONS	
       TRUCKS- Wfeigh in, enfer thru V\fes» Cafe
           CARS* PICKUPS
        Dump ithoe instructed by Bfeigtt Master
                C-- 'tfG*&z&C"testt
    Figure 1.  The Franklin plant is the
 sole solid waste disposal facility for the
 city and adjacent areas.
   The Franklin facility has been
in operation since June 1971.  Al-
though  the  plant is  relatively
small,  it  uses' commercial-scale
equipment  and  operates  on  a
daily basis as the sole solid waste
disposal facility for the city and
adjacent areas. The plant in 1974
was recovering  ferrous  metals,
paper   fibers, and  color-sorted
glass. Recovery of aluminum and
other  nonferrous metal  is  also
being  developed.   The plant is
designed to  recover about three-
fourths of the minerals and one-
half of the paper content in the
incoming solid waste stream.
   Figure 2. The plant is one of the first EPA projects demonstrating resource recovery
from solid waste; it has been in operation since 1971.

   The project has demonstrated the technical feasibility of adding water and
pulping the solid wastes into a slurry as a way to improve the handling, proc-
essing, and separating capabilities, as well as the housekeeping, of the facility.
This technique may have significant benefits when compared to more conven-
tional dry-shredding techniques.
   The Franklin project's successes  offer the solid waste management field an
increased array of technological options to consider in implementing systems
to recover  resources from  solid waste and to reduce various waste disposal
problems.  A number of the larger  cities in this country and other countries
are considering  the project results  as possible solutions to their own solid
waste management  problems.

   The major accomplishments of the Franklin project, resulting from more
than 2 years of daily operation and development, are briefly summarized as
follows:  (1) municipal solid waste is being successfully wet-pulped and sepa-
rated; (2) the volume of material going to landfill has been reduced by over
95 percent; (3) the plant has been so reliable that it has never been necessary
to divert collection trucks to the former landfill for the disposal of Franklin's
solid wastes; (4) ferrous metals are being  magnetically separated and sold for
reuse; (5) recyclable paper fibers are being removed from the slurry and sold
to a nearby paper  plant for making felt  paper  for asphalt roofing shingles;
(6) the nonrecovered combustible material is combined with raw sewage sludge
and the mixture is being burned in the fluid bed incinerator without the need
for auxiliary fuel.  The exhaust gases from the incinerator were tested for par-
ticulates and found to be within Federal air emission standards; (7) the plant
has demonstrated  the mutual benefits that can be derived from integrating
solid waste disposal and sewage treatment; (8) a system to recover color-sorted
glass and recyclable aluminum was installed in  August 1973 and was being
evaluated in 1974; (9) projections indicate that, in terms of cost, larger plants
of this type would  be competitive with conventional incineration or with sani-
tary  landfilling where a long haul to the landfill site is required. Plants no lar-
ger than the Franklin plant would probably be uneconomical; (10) follow-on
studies and the development of auxiliary concepts and equipment are increas-
ing the applicability and flexibility of the basic wet-processing concept.


   Franklin's solid waste processing facility, with a design capacity of 150 tons
per 24 hours, is made up of three separate subsystems: a processing and dis-
posal system for solid  waste  and sewage  sludge, with recovery of ferrous
metal; a glass and aluminum recovery system; and a paper fiber recovery sys-
tem (Figure 4).
   Figure 3a.  Residential solid waste is delivered to the plant by standard collection
trucks and by private cars and trucks and deposited on a dumping pad.

Disposal and Ferrous Metal  Recovery System

   The so-called "Hydrasposal  System"  consists  primarily of a wet-pulper
("Hydrapulper"), a liquid cyclone, and a fluidized bed incinerator. Much of
the equipment in this system has been used in the papermaking industry for
many years, although various units have been modified to handle solid wastes.
Residential solid waste is fed by a conveyor into the wet-pulper. This pulper,
which might  be likened to a kitchen sink disposal unit, consists of a tub
12 feet in diameter with a high-speed cutting blade in the bottom driven by a
300-horsepower motor (Figures 5a and 5b).  Water is mixed with the solid
wastes in the pulper, and all soft and brittle rnaterials are ground into a slurry.
Large pieces of metal, cans, and other nonpulpable materials are thrown out


                         ^^a w W g"
                        '"   *    •
                                               IMtjs.' ji<» "* -^   '**'*
                                                   -. ^W^ ^ * .... -.«» j: - Sft.sJjJ-O-CSMl
    Figure 3b.  The waste is pushed by a small front-end loader into a shallow pit in one
corner of the receiving building.
     Figure 3c.   From  the pit the  wastes are fed by a conveyor into the wet-pulper.

   5.6 tons
600 Ib
4 tons
Paper   Residue   Ferrous
Fiber    4 tons    7 tons
15 tons  (landfilled)
   Figure 4.  A simplified flow chart of the process at Franklin shows the approximate
tonnage of materials that may be expected from 100 tons of solid waste with composi-
tion typical for U.S. communities (as estimated by EPA). The plant consists of three sub-
systems:  a solid waste disposal system that includes a  ferrous metal separator,  a paper
fiber recovery system, and a glass and aluminum recovery system.

   Figure 5a.  The wet-pulper  is a tub \1 feet in diameter with a high-speed cutting
blade in the bottom driven by a SCO-horsepower motor. This cutaway view shows the
blade and the perforated plate  beneath it through which  the slurry leaves the pulper.
    Figure 5b.  The wet-pulper has been fitted with a conical hood to prevent splashing.
The rectangular ports allow viewing of the pulper in operation.

 of the pulper and down a chute that leads to a specially designed bucket eleva-
 tor known as the "Junk Remover." These nonpulpable materials are washed
 and then conveyed to a magnetic belt where steel cans and other ferrous ob-
 jects are removed for recycling (Figure 6).  The nonmagnetic materials are col-
 lected and buried  in the plant's sanitary landfill.  Black-Clawson  has been
 studying the feasibility of upgrading these nonmagnetic materials for sale as
 mixed nonferrous metal.
   Figure 6.  The nonpulpable materials, such as tin cans and other metal objects, are
ejected from the pulper, washed, and then conveyed beneath a suspended magnet. The
ferrous metals are picked up by the magnet, carried from left to right, and then dropped
into the collection bin on right. The nonferrous materials are not affected by the magnet
and drop straight down into the collection bin in the center.
   The slurry, which contains almost all of the paper and organic materials, as
well as the glass, small pieces of metal, ceramics, and much of the aluminum,
leaves the pulper through a perforated plate beneath the blade (Figure 7). The
slurry is then pumped to the liquid cyclone, where the heavier, mostly non-
combustible materials, such as glass, metals, ceramics, and stones are separated
from the lighter fibrous material by centrifugal action (Figure 8).  The heavier
fraction goes into the glass and aluminum recovery system. The lighter fraction

   Figure 7.  The slurry leaves the pulper through a perforated plate beneath the rotor
blade.  The slurry contains almost all of the paper and organic materials, as well as the
glass, small pieces of metal, ceramics, and much of the aluminum.  The diameter of the
openings in the plate is about 7/8 inch.
goes into the fiber  recovery  system.   The combustible residues from both
these systems are mixed with dewatered sludge and sent to the fluid bed in-
cinerator (Figure 9).
   The incinerator is a vertical cylindrical unit with a 25-foot inside diameter.
It v/as supplied by Dorr-Oliver, Inc.  In the incinerator, air is blown upward
through  a layer of  hot sand.  The combustible  wastes are blown into  the
"fluidized"  bed of  sand, where the combustibles burn completely.  These
wastes have enough heat value to maintain their own combustion without the
need for auxiliary fuel.  The exhaust  gases pass through a scrubber that re-
moves the ash particles so that  the gases discharged to the atmosphere meet
Federal air quality standards for particulate emissions.
   Nonprocessable items and the other  nonrecovered, noncombustible materi-
als (approximately 10 percent by weight of the total incoming wastes) are dis-
posed of in a small sanitary landfill adjacent to the plant.

Sludge Disposal

   A valuable feature  of the  Franklin  facility is the tie-in  between the solid
waste handling facility  and the  adjacent sewage treatment  plant.  These  two

    Figure 8.  The liquid cyclone extracts the heavier materials, such as glass, metals, and
 stones, from the slurry. This material is further processed in order to recover the glass
 and aluminum for recycling.
              * ly
    Figure 9. The fluid bed incinerator is used to dispose of all of the nonrecovered com-
bustible materials  and sewage sludge.  This unit is about 25 feet in diameter.  The ex-
haust gases meet Federal air quality standards.

plants were constructed with lines connecting them in such a way as to com-
plement  each other's disposal needs. The most important of these connec-
tions is for pumping raw sewage sludge from the sewage treatment plant to
the solid waste processing plant. There the sludge is mixed with the combusti-
ble wastes and  mechanically  dewatered.  After dewatering, the mixture is
burned in  the fluid bed incinerator, thereby eliminating the, need for costly
sludge digestion and disposal equipment. This sludge disposal service does not
increase the cost of operating the solid waste plant and actually improves the
operation of the incinerator by helping to maintain the optimum  operating
temperature.  The sewage treatment plant pays the solid waste plant a $25 ser-
vice  fee  for every ton of sludge burned (dry weight basis). This service has
been significant  because environmentally acceptable methods for disposing of
sewage sludge are becoming increasingly expensive.  Sludge digestion, drying,
and incineration can cost as much as $40 to $60 per ton.
   There are  two additional linkages. First, the water that has been squeezed
out of the recovered paper fiber is returned to the sewage plant for treatment.
Secondly, the wet-pulping system uses clarified effluent from the sewage treat-
ment plant as make-up water in its pulping operation.
Glass and Aluminum Recovery System

   The heavier materials extracted from the slurry by the liquid cyclone are
conveyed to the  glass and aluminum recovery system, which was developed
by the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute.  This system uses a complex
series of mechanical screening and classifying operations to extract extraneous
materials and to  produce a glass-rich stream and  an  aluminum-rich stream.
The stream of glass particles is then passed through an optical sorting device,
developed by the Sortex  Company  of North America,  which separates the
glass into clear, amber, and green fractions suitable for use in making new bot-
   Any combustible rejects from this pro cess are sent to the fluid bed incinera-
tor for disposal.
Fiber Recovery System

   The lighter, combustible material leaves the liquid cyclone in a slurry and
is  piped  to a series of screening and cleaning operations that also have been
adapted  from the paper industry (Figure 11).   The longer  paper fibers are
mechanically separated from the shorter fibers and from other nonpaper ma-
terials such as paper coatings and fillers, rubber,leather, food and yard wastes,
and very small pieces of glass, dirt, and sand (Figure 12).  These nonrecovered


       Figure 10.  A central control panel regulates the operation of the entire plant.
    Figure 11.  The slurry from the liquid cyclone is piped to a series of screening and
cleaning operations which make up the fiber recovery system.             "eening and

   Figure 12. In the final step of the fiber recovery system, the slurry flows down two
rows of screens which have  very narrow horizontal slots.  The longer, more valuable
paper fibers remain on top of the screen and are washed by the sprayers into a trough in
the center.  The shorter fibers pass through the slanted screens and are collected beneath
materials are sent to the fluid bed incinerator for disposal. The recovered fi-
bers are pumped in an underground pipe to the Logan-Long Company, about a
half mile away, for use in making felt paper for asphalt roofing shingles.

   The wet-pulping/disposal system and the fiber recovery system began oper-
ating in June 1971.  These two systems are in operation daily, processing about
50 tons of municipal solid waste per 8-hour day.  This facility has been the
primary disposal method for all of the solid waste generated by the city of
Franklin and several small communities in the area.

    Figure 13. The recovered fiber is suitable for use in construction papers not subject
 to high-quality specifications.
   The project has demonstrated the technical feasibility and reliability of the
wet-pulping/disposal system.  The volume of material going to the landfill has
been reduced by about 95 percent.  Between June 1971 and this reporting
date (May 1974) the plant never had to divert collection trucks to the former
landfill for the disposal of the community's solid wastes.
   The wet-pulper has operated regularly in excess of its hourly design capacity.
Maintenance required by this unit has been significantly less than that required
by the more conventional dry-shredders. The wet-pulping operation eliminates
the dust problem inherent in dry-shredders, and the water medium absorbs the
shock of exploding aerosol cans.  These two factors have eliminated the fire
and explosion hazard that is frequently present when dry-shredders are used.
   The wet-pulping and liquid cyclone operations have produced a good sepa-
ration between combustibles and noncombustibles.  (This type of separation
is important in producing a solid waste "fuel" product with a low ash content
for generating steam or electricity.)
   Relatively small hard-to-grind items, such as tin cans, are being effectively
removed from the slurry in the wet-pulper.  About 95 percent of the ferrous
metals are recovered.  From June 1971 through March 1974 approximately
2,000 tons of ferrous metal were recovered and sold.

   Figure 14a. At the Logan-Long plant the recovered fibers are blended with other pa-
per fibers and made into thick felt-type paper.  The rolls of paper are then impregnated
with asphalt and coated with sand.
          Figure 14b.  The paper is cut into shingles and packaged for distribution.

   The  fluid bed incinerator has performed efficiently.  Its good burning
characteristics and the air pollution control equipment have reduced the emis-
sions below EPA's allowable limits.  The project has demonstrated the feasi-
bility of pneumatically transporting pulped solid wastes into the incinerator
with  minimal  transport or abrasion  problems.  (This information is valuable
for the consideration of using pulped waste as  fuel for producing energy.
Pneumatic transport is also being demonstrated as a method of introducing
waste in dry-shredded form into boilers,* but pipeline abrasion problems and
maintenance costs are still significant.)
   The project has demonstrated that raw sewage sludge from the adjacent
sewage treatment plant can be combined with the nonrecovered combustible
solid wastes, dewatered, and burned efficiently in the fluid bed incinerator,
thereby eliminating the need for costly sludge digestion and disposal equip-
   The fiber recovery system has demonstrated the technical feasibility of
recovering paper  fibers from the wet-ground solid wastes.  Between June  1971
and March 1974, about 1,000 tons of fiber had been recovered and  sold.
   Construction of the glass and aluminum recovery system was completed in
July 1973  and shakedown operations began in August  1973.  This system
also uses commercial-scale equipment,  but it  has had considerable debugging
problems.  As of March 1974, only about 40 tons of color-sorted glass had
been recovered for sale.
   The aluminum recovery  process was still  in the  technology development
stage at this writing.

   As of March 1974 the plant was recovering ferrous metals, paper fiber, and
color-sorted glass, with aluminum recovery anticipated. The plant is designed
to recover almost all of the ferrous metals, about one-half of the glass, and
one-half of the paper content in the solid waste stream. This represents a re-
covery of over 25 tons of material from each 100 tons of solid waste delivered
to the plant (Table  1). Since water contributes about 25 percent of the in-
coming weight, the amount recovered is actually about one-third of the total
available material.  The residual nonrecovered material consists of the short,
less valuable paper fibers, plastics, leather, and food and yard wastes, which
are of minimal value except as a source of energy. In future implementations
of this concept, this residual material, which is presently being incinerated at
   *Robeit  A. Lowe. Energy recovery from waste.  Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office,  1973.  24 p.


                                 TABLE 1

         Summary  of Inputs and  Outputs, Franklin Plant*
         (in tons, based on 100 tons of residential solid waste)

          Inputs                                           Outputs
Glass 9.7
Ferrous metals 10.1
Nonferrous metals 0.6
Paper 26
Plastics, leather,
textiles, wood 6.1
Food and yard waste 17
inorganics 2.5
Moisture 28

Total 100
4f Color-sorted glass
9.7 Ferrous metals
0.3| Aluminum
1 3 Paper fiber

34 Organics burned

28 Water vapor
1 1 Residue to
   *The composition of the waste (inputs) at Franklin is slightly different from that
estimated to be typical for the U.S. The outputs shown here therefore differ from those
shown on Figure 4, which are based on the national estimate.
   t Anticipated output.

Franklin, might alternatively be used as a supplemental fuel for existing utility
boilers or as the sole fuel for new steam or steam/electric boilers.  Franklin
does not employ energy  recovery because the plant operates on a single shift
while energy converting equipment operates best on a round-the-clock basis.
Also, the capital investment for energy conversion could be justified only for
a plant with a larger capacity.
   The Logan-Long Company, which buys the paper fiber for making roofing
shingles, is located about one-half mile from the solid waste processing plant.
In their manufacturing process, Logan-Long uses a variety ot liber sources to
make up  their raw material requirements, including old corrugated  boxes,
newspaper, mixed paper, sawdust, wood chips, and logs as well as the recov-
ered fiber  from the Franklin plant.  As of March 1974, Logan-Long had
bought about 1,000 tons  of fiber from Franklin. The company has been satis-
fied with the performance of the Franklin fiber and feels that it is equivalent
in quality to the combination of corrugated, mixed paper, and newspaper that
they normally use. The price it pays for the Franklin fiber is based  on the
prices of these other secondary fiber sources. Since the Franklin fiber has al-
ready been pulped, however, Logan-Long adds a premium of 10 percent. In
other words, if the average price of the corrugated, newspaper, and mixed pa-
per that Logan-Long buys is $30 per ton, then the company pays $33 per ton
for the Franklin fiber.


   Because the price for  Ihe  Franklin fiber is based  on the price of the other
secondary fibers and because in early 1974, the nation began to  experience
fiber shortages, the value of the Franklin fiber increased dramatically.  In 1971
the price hovered around $25  per ton.  During the last  quarter of 1973, the
price was nearly $34 per ton, and in April 1974 it was over $60 per ton.  The
secondary paper market has fluctuated  notoriously over the years and there-
fore  prices cannot be easily  predicted; however, the best estimates  indicate
that although prices may fall  below the  1974 record-high levels, they are not
expected to return to the depressed levels that existed in  previous years.
   Franklin's fiber recovery system was designed  to produce a secondary fiber
that would be suitable for the Logan-Long plant.  Since fiber for roofing shin-
gles can be allowed a fairly high degree of contamination, the fiber recovery
system was designed to produce only a lower grade of fiber (Table 2). Such a
fiber would also be suitable for other construction paper  grades not subject to
high quality specifications.
   The Black-Clawson Company reports that the recovered fiber could be up-
graded to  meet higher specifications.  The company estimates that the cost of
the  additional processing would be  small in comparison  to the  increase in

                                  TABLE 2

Quantities, Quality, Purchasers, and Prices of Recovered Materials,
                 Franklin Plant, June 1971-April 1974
           Amount recovered
             as percent of
              solid waste
            (dry weight basis)
                                                                     Prices per ton*
Ferrous metals
Paper fiber
                         Roughly equivalent 10 a No. 2
Generally free of nonmetallics

Density might be increased for

Generally considered a lower
grade paper fiber

Color, grease, and bacterial
contaminants are similar to
those of mixed paper but fibers
are longer and there is less
Suitable for use in making
roofing felt and other
construction papers
Contaminants can be removed
and fibers upgraded for use in
higher grades of paper

Expected to  be clean and sorted
by color
                         Quality unsure at present
                         Developmental work still underway
Armco Steel Company
Middle town, Ohio
(Junel971-March 1974)
Gillerman Steel
St. Louis, Mo.
(Since April 1974)

Logan-Long Roofing
Franklin, Ohio
                                                                       $ 13-25
                                                   Various glass bottle
                                                   manufacturing plants
                                                   in the area
 *Prices at the plant. Transportation from plant is paid for by purchaser.
 f Anticipated output.

value of the final fiber product.  Black-Clawson believes that, within limits,
the fiber recovery system can be designed to meet various purchasers' require-
ments.  EPA will be conducting tests to verify these points in late 1974.
   The ferrous metals recovered at the plant were originally sold to the Armco
Steel Company in Middletown, Ohio,  for  around  $15 per ton.   This scrap
metal was used in Armco's open hearth furnace, but since the quantities avail-
able from Franklin  were  so small (2,000 tons between June 1971'and March
1974) in comparison to their other scrap metal supplies, Armco did not per-
form any quality testing of the ferrous scrap recovered at Franklin. It ap-
pears to be  generally free of nonmetallic material. The density may not be as
high as would be desirable for steelmaking.
   In April  1974 a new arrangement for the  sale of the recovered ferrous
metals was  established with  the  Gillerman Steel Corporation of St. Louis,
Missouri.  Gillerman agreed to a purchase price which would float in relation
to other ferrous scrap prices in the scrap  metal market.  The current price
being paid by steel mills for  a No. 2 bundle (a standard unit of a particular
quality  of ferrous scrap) is published monthly in trade journals.  Gillerman
agreed to pay  Franklin at the rate of one-half the price of a No. 2 bundle mi-
nus $5 per ton for transportation.  The May  1974 price for a No. 2 bundle was
around  $60, and so, by the above formula, the Franklin plant was receiving
around  $25 per ton.  As of March 1974, no report had been received from
Gillerman on the quality of the Franklin scrap and its use.
   The  glass and aluminum products are to be evaluated during the second
half of  1974.  As of March 1974 about 40 tons of color-sorted glass had been
sold to  a number of glass bottle manufacturing plants in the area at a price of
$12 per ton. Alcoa presented a purchase order to Franklin for the aluminum
scrap ($200 a  ton), but none had been sold at this writing.  A report on the
quality  and marketing of these products was  expected by the end of 1974.
Adaptability of Modular Technology

   The type of plant demonstrated at Franklin can provide different services
and products depending upon the array of subsystems incorporated. For in-
stance, the wet-pulping/disposal system can readily operate alone as an effi-
cient incineration system for solid waste and sewage sludge. It can also oper-
ate alone to  produce a solid waste  "fuel" for producing energy.  An engi-
neering feasibility study indicated that this system could also be adapted to
burn nonaqueous liquid industrial wastes such as oils and paint sludges.
   If markets exist within a reasonable distance, the fiber and/or the glass and
aluminum recovery modules could be added. The decision to incorporate any
or all of the above variations depends on marketing factors (price, quantity,
quality required, transportation costs, etc.) peculiar to the specific locale.



   The Franklin plant has had a very positive impact on the local environment.
 Only about 10 percent by weight of the incoming waste requires land disposal;
 and because the wastes are processed, the volume that requires land disposal
 represents less than 5 percent of the incoming volume.
   The exhaust gases from the fluid bed incinerator were tested and found to
be in compliance with Federal air emission standards.  The incinerator also
serves the purpose of safely disposing of municipal sewage sludge, which often
presents a difficult and costly disposal problem.

   The Franklin plant has two wastewater streams. The ash-laden scrubber
water is pumped to the sewage treatment plant's industrial clarifier.
   Waste process water is bled  from the fiber recovery system and treated in
the sewage treatment plant. Black-Clawson  reports that future installations
could recirculate this water within the plant and thereby eliminate any water
effluent that would require treatment.

   On the basis of approximately 3 years' operating experience at Franklin,
the wet separation of solid wastes into recoverable products appears to repre-
sent an economically attractive option for resource recovery and waste dis-
posal. This judgment, of course, depends upon the costs of  other means of
disposal. Indications are that in terms of cost the system at Franklin will be
competitive with incineration and in some situations may even be competitive
with long haul to distant sanitary landfills.
   In general, the larger the solid  waste processing/recovery plant, the more
likely it  is  to be economically competitive with alternate disposal methods.
This generalization stems from  the fact that resource recovery systems are
usually capital-intensive  facilities, and their cost per ton becomes lower as the
investment costs are spread over larger throughputs.  A small plant, such as
Franklin's (150 tons per 24-hour day), would therefore have a high cost per


ton and would probably not be appropriate.   Franklin's net costs are only
about $7 per ton because the Federal grant covered two-thirds of the plant's
capital cost.
Projected Economics for a Larger Plant

   Sufficient data has been accumulated to permit reasonable projections of
the costs and revenue for Franklin-type systems with capacities much larger
than the pilot plant. Since the projections are derived from the experience at
Franklin, however, they reflect conditions specific to that area.  Actual costs
could vary significantly according to the location of the plants.
   For this report, projections were calculated for a 500-ton-per-day facility.
Operating 300 days a year, 24 hours a day, such a plant could service a com-
munity of roughly 350,000 people.  This particular size was selected for pur-
poses of illustrating the economics for a larger plant and not because it is a
model size or the size at which this system is known to become economical.
It should be noted, however, that much larger sizes are thought to be feasible-
Black—Clawson is  currently proposing plants with capacities ranging up to
2,500 tons  per day.
   For the system of waste processing/disposal and  ferrous metal recovery
alone, the projected capital cost for a 500-ton-per-day plant was $5.9 million
(Table 3).  This includes costs for design, engineering, site preparation, build-
ings, equipment, and installation at 1974 prices.  The cost of land is not in-
cluded, since it is assumed that facilities would be built on land already owned
by the city  or on land which the city would be required to purchase for any
comparable  solid waste or sewage treatment process. The projected capital
recovery and interest cost per year was calculated to be $570,000 based on an
assumed economic lifespan of 15 years and a combined interest and capital
recovery rate of 5 percent per year.  The  projected annual operating  and
maintenance cost was $ 1,140,000.  This figure was based on projections made
by the Black-Clawson Company and reviewed by A. M. Kinney, Inc., Con-
sulting Engineers, and EPA. With  revenues of $260,000 per year for ferrous
metals and  $150,000  for  sludge disposal, the  net cost per year would be
$1,300,000  or $8.70 per ton of solid waste processed.
   Using the same procedures and  assumptions, costs and revenues were pro-
jected for the systems for fiber recovery and glass and aluminum recovery.
The  capital  cost of adding on the  fiber recovery system to the basic system
would be $3.1 million ($290,000 per year); added operating and maintenance
costs would total $450,000. A price of $34 a ton for  the fiber would bring in
$800,000 a  year, resulting in a net profit of $60,000 for the fiber recovery
system. This amounts to a credit of $0.40 per ton of solid waste processed.
If the fiber  were sold for  $60 a ton, the level reached in 1974, the yearly

                              TABLE 3

 Projected Economics of the Wet-Processing/Recovery Subsystems*
                (500 tons per day, 300 days per year)




Hydrasposal system
Capital cost— $5.9 million
Operating and maintenance cost
Ferrous metals sold for $25/ton
Sludge disposal service at $25/ton
Net costs
Fiber recovery systemf
Added capital cost— $3.1 million
Added operating and maintenance cost
Paper fibers sold for $34/ton
Incremental net profit
Paper fibers sold for $60/ton
Incremental net profit
Glass and aluminum recovery systemf, $
Added capital cost-Si million
Added operating and maintenance cost
Glass sold for $12/ton
Aluminum sold for $200/ton
Incremental net profit
Revenues Cost (profit)
per year per year

$ 570,000

$ 260,000


( 60,000 )
( 610,000)


( 50,000)
Cost (credit) per
ton input


( 1.70)
( 1.00)


( 5.30)
( 0.40)
( 9.00)
( 4.10)


( 0.55)
( 0.80)
( 0.30)
   *  Projected from experience of the Franklin plant.
   f  System's economic success is a function of recovery rates, market prices, and economic lifespan
     of the hardware.
   $  Preliminary economic analysis—April 1974.
revenue would be $1,350,000, the profit for the fiber recovery system would
be  $610,0007 and the profit to be credited per ton of solid waste processed
would be $4.10.
   The cost information on the glass and aluminum recovery system was still
quite preliminary as of March  1974. Nevertheless an attempt was made to
estimate the economics for this module.  The projected capital cost for adding
on the glass and aluminum recovery system was expected to be around $1 mil-
lion, or $96,000 per year. The added operating and maintenance cost would
be  $60,000 per year.   The  projected  revenue from the sale of glass was
$85,000; for the aluminum, $120,000.  This resulted in  a net profit  of
$50,000, or a credit per ton of solid waste of $0.30.
   On the basis of  the projections, the net cost could range  from $4.20 to
$11.40 per ton, depending on the module? added to the basic disposal system
(Figure 15).  An energy recovery module might further reduce the net cost.
Obviously, the system's economic viability is a function of recovery  rates,
economic lifespan of the hardware, operating costs, and market prices for the


Net Cost per Ton in Dollars

     1      2     3     4      5      6     7     8     9     10    11     12
   Basic Wet Processing/Disposal System without Additional Modules
   Basic System plus Credit for Ferrous Metals
   Basic System and Credit (or Ferrous Metals  plus
   Credit for Sludge Disposal Service
   Basic System and Credits for .ferrous Metals, Sludge
   Disposal Service, plus Glass and Aluminum
   Basic System and Credits for Ferrous Metals,
   Sludge  Disposal  Service, Glass and Aluminum,
   plus Fiber sold at $34/Ton
   Basic System and Credits
   for Ferrous Metals, Sludge
   Disposal Service, Glass and
   Aluminum, Fiber at $60/Ton
   Figure 15. The addition of various modules to the basic wet-processing and disposal
system reduces the net cost per ton by various degrees.  The addition of an energy re-
covery module may further reduce the net cost.

   This project has been supplemented by additional studies and by the devel-
 opment of auxiliary concepts and equipment.  Some of these studies include
 the search for new markets for the recovered materials and the development
 of new subsystems to recover that fraction of the nonferrous metals that were
 being landfilled.
   The prospect of using the nonrecovered combustible material as a source
 of energy is most promising.  This fuel product has a low sulfur content and a
 dry weight heating value about two-thirds that of coal. An ongoing EPA dem-
 onstration project in St. Louis, Missouri*, and developmental efforts by var-
 ious private  concerns indicate that this material could be burned in a boiler
 for the production of steam or electricity.  Of course, the presence of mois-
 ture in solid waste reduces its effective heating value as a fuel.  In contrast to
   *Lowe, Energy recovery from waste.

the more conventional dry-processing methods, the wet-processing method
aggravates this situation, but there  are a number of apparent advantages to
wet-processing, already alluded to in this report, which may mitigate or even
outweigh the loss in available energy. After considerable testing of this con-
cept, the Black-Clawson Company has been making proposals to several cities
across the country to build systems that are like the Franklin plant but on a
larger scale and incorporating energy production. EPA has also been evalua-
ting the concept.
   Research work has  also been underway to  investigate the feasibility of
combining  solid  wastes with  sewage sludge, digesting the mixture, and cap-
turing its energy  value through the  production  of methane for use as a fuel
gas.  In this  application, wet-processing may be advantageous because small
particle sizes  and large quantities of water are needed to create optimum con-
ditions for decomposition.
   With the addition of an energy recovery component, the Franklin project
plan would provide for the  recovery of over 90 percent of the material or
energy values in the solid waste stream.  The  revenue from the sale of the
energy output could further reduce the net cost of the system.
   Studies have reportedly been done in The Netherlands on the feasibility of
composting nonrecovered organic materials similar to that incinerated at the
Franklin plant. The humus product would be used to improve the sandy soil
reclaimed from the ocean.
   Finally,  plans are well underway  to expand the Franklin facility to handle
the disposal of industrial oils and solvents.  As of this writing these were being
dumped in significant quantities into sewers and streams and onto lands that
were draining into the rivers in the  Franklin area.  Some of the liquids were
being burned improperly, contributing to air pollution.  To solve this prob-
lem, an engineering study commissioned by the local water conservancy rec-
ommended that a regional disposal facility for handling these liquid industrial
wastes be built at Franklin to take advantage of the fluid bed incinerator. The
study found that  the fluid bed incinerator can burn many of these industrial
liquid wastes  that could not  be  treated at  the sewage plant. A pretreatment
plant was established in mid 1974  which operates  in conjunction with the
sewage treatment plant, and implementation of the incineration capability was
also under development in 1974.
   Thus the Franklin project, which has brought together techniques originally
developed in  various industries  and modified them for application to solid
waste, is also serving as a basis  for  further developments in the field of re-
source recovery and residuals management.

   Figure 16.  The Franklin solid  waste processing  and resource  recovery complex
uses  equipment and concepts developed in other industries and modified for use on
solid waste.  It represents a significant advance in the state of the art in resource recovery
and residuals management.


 Herbert,  W.  Solid waste recycling at Franklin, Ohio.  In Proceedings; Third Mineral
   Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Mar. 14-16, 1972. U.S. Bureau of Mines and
   Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute.

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

 Herbert, W., and  W. A. Flower.  Waste processing complex emphasizes recycling. Public
   Works 102(6):  78-81, June 1971. Reprinted,  [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Pro-
   tection Agency, 1972.  4 p. (Environmental Protection Publication SW-97 j.)

 Neff, N. T.  Solid waste and fiber recovery demonstration plant for the city of Franklin,
   Ohio; an interim report. Environmental Protection Publication SW-47 d.i.  U.S. Envi-
   ronmental Protection Agency, 1972.  83 p. (Distributed by National Technical Infor-
   mation Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-213 646.)

 Neff, N. T.  Solid waste and fiber recovery demonstration plant for the city of Franklin,
   Ohio; final report,  v. 1, 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. (In press;
   to be distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.)