United States Region VIII July, 1980
Environmental Protection 1860 Lincoln Street
Agency Denver, Colorado 80295
Solid Waste
&EPA A TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM REPORT
NORTH DAKOTA RESOURCE
RECOVERY STRATEGY
ANALYSIS
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REPORT:
NORTH DAKOTA RESOURCE RECOVERY STRATEGY ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
July, 1980
-------
Public Law 94-580 - Oct. 21, 1976
Technical assistance by personnel teams. 42 DSC 6913
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel,
including Federal, State, and local employees or contractors (herein-
after referred to as "Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels") to
provide States and local governments upon request with technical
assistance on solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource
conservation. Such teams shall include technical, marketing, financial,
and institutional specialists, and the services of such teams shall be
provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project
Officer, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer
-------
The Fred C. Hart Associates Project Manager for this report was
R. Michael Stanwood. Other personnel providing substantial assistance,
review and comment included John J. Gaudette, Wayne K. Tusa, and
James A. Rogers. Substantial assistance was received from the personnel
of the North Dakota Department of Health and other State agencies, and
from the many citizens throughout the State who have shown substantial
interest in and knowledge of resource recovery. The assistance of
William Rothenmeyer and other Environmental Protection Agency Region
VIII personnel is also greatly appreciated.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Executive Summary 1
I. Background and Introduction 9
Project Background 9 .
Introduction 10
II. North Dakota Solid Waste Situation 13
The Need to Evaluate Resource Recovery 13
Characterization of Wastes 13
Landfill Use and Availability 15
Landfill Costs 20
RCRA Effects on Landfills and Solid Waste
Management 22
III. Resource Recovery Options and Technologies 25
Recycl ing 25
Conversion 27
Waste Heat and Cogeneration 29
Integration of Resource Recovery Options 30
IV. Application of Resource Recovery Options in North Dakota . 32
Recycl ing 32
Conversion 37
Cogeneration and Waste Heat 41
V. Economical/Financial Feasibility and Issues 42
Economic Competitiveness of Resource Recovery 42
Need and Desirability of Incentives
and Subsidies 44
Appropriate Scale of Development 47
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis 49
Financial Options and Tax Considerations 50
VI. Institutional Arrangements and Constraints 53
Federal and State Institutions, Policies and
Legislation 53
Existing Institutional Constraints 57
-------
VII,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Conclusions and Recommendations for a State
Resource Recovery Strategy 62
Summary of the Existing Situation 62
The Recommended Resource Recovery Framework 66
State Agency Resource Recovery Policies and
Procedures 66
Encouragement of Local Application of Legislation ... 71
References . 74
APPENDIX A: North Dakota Resource Recovery Resolution 75
APPENDIX B: Existing State Resource Recovery Programs 78
APPENDIX C: Estimation of Landfill Costs Within North
Dakota 86
APPENDIX D: North Dakota Scrap Processors 90
APPENDIX E: Potential Recovered Material Markets by SIC Code .. 93
APPENDIX F: Materials Markets for Recovered Resources 97
APPENDIX G: Generalized Resource Recovery Cost 103
APPENDIX H: Indiana Market Survey 107
APPENDIX I: Florida Resource Recovery Legislation 113
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Charges to Consumers by North Dakota
Regulated Utilities
Expected Ranges in Mixed Municipal Refuse
Composition
Approximate Waste Composition and Generation Rates
for Selected Waste Generators
Suitability Classification of North Dakota Sanitary
Landfills
Resource Conservation and Recovery Program
Requirements in the State Solid Waste Plan
Degree of Commercialization of Energy and Materials
Recovery Technologies
Growing Importance of Mineral Imports to the
United States
Current Resource Recovery Activities of Significance
in North Dakota
Costs and Benefits of Centralized Resource
Recovery
Effect of Tax Credit for Gasohol
State Agencies with Potential Roles in Resource
Recovery
Assessment of Resource Recovery Potential in North
Dakota
Page
14
16
17
21
24
26
31
33
43
46
56
63
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure . Page
1 Factors Affecting Resource Recovery
Implementation 12
2 Energy Forms Producible with MSW Energy Systems 28
3 The State Pol icy Framework 67
4 Organizational Chart 68
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resource recovery is a term used in resources and energy management
to describe the retrieval of economically usable energy and materials
from solid or other wastes. As an alternative to traditional solid
waste management techniques such as landfill disposal, resource recovery
conserves valuable resources, reduces the need for landfill, and lessens
environmental problems associated with landfill disposal.
To date, resource recovery has had a relatively low priority at the
national level. There are hopeful signs, however, of an increasing
awareness of the benefits of resource recovery by the Federal
government. For example, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) examines the whole range of management alternatives, and
specifically encourages the development of resource recovery facilities
through technical and financial assistance to state and local govern-
ments, and through research, development, demonstration, and evaluation
of resource recovery technologies. As part of this effort, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region VIII has directed Fred C. Hart
Associates, the prime Region VIII Technical Assistance Panels contractor
under RCRA, to perform this State of North Dakota Resource Recovery
Strategy Analysis. The Analysis consists of three main efforts: (1) a
survey of current resource recovery activities-within the State (see
Table S-l), arid a brief assessment of resource recovery potential; (2)
an evaluation of the factors affecting resource recovery development
within the State; and (3) the formulation of recommendations for State
resource recovery policies or legislation which best meet the needs of
North Dakota.
Conclusions from the analysis and assessment of the current
situation include:
RCRA requirements, increasing solid waste generation and
associated landfill disposal needs, increasing landfill and
traditional energy resource costs, and the conservation ethic
are the major thrusts behind the consideration of resource
recovery as an alternative to other solid waste management
techniques;
t North Dakota has made substantive efforts to meet RCRA solid
waste requirements through its efforts to close open dumps and
convert solid waste management throughout the state to a
system of regional sanitary landfills; however, increasing
volumes of municipal, agricultural, industrial, and other
wastes, and the uncertainty of the long term adequacy of some
existing sanitary landfill sites, create the potential for
future management problems;
the major competitor to most resource recovery options is
landfill disposal, and current landfill disposal costs within
the State are typically $5.00 - $7.50 per ton, which will be
the least cost solid waste management alternative in almost
all cases;
-------
TABLE S-l
CURRENT RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
OF SIGNIFICANCE IN NORTH DAKOTA*
Resource Recovery Option
Source Separation and Recycling
Energy Recovery from Municipal
Solid Wastes
Energy Recovery from Agricultural
Wastes and Products
Activity
aluminum recycling in Bismark
and Fargo
paper recycling in Fargo
waste oil recycling in Bismark-
Mandan, with plans for expansion
State Abandoned Auto Act
fly ash scrubbers by Square Butte
Electric Coop
market and feasibility studies in
Fargo area
community support and existing
equipment in Valley City
recommendation for feasibility
study in Bismark
e small-scale ethanol production
on farms from cull potatoes
plans for corn-to-ethanol plant
in Forman **
sunflower hull supplemental fuel
tests by Basin Electric
* does not include activities of scrap dealers, or of reuse of bio-gas in sew-
age treatment facilities (which is a long-established standard operating
procedure).
*** technically, corn-to-ethanol is not a resource recovery activity since it is
not utilizing "wastes"; however, this activity is significant in the respect
that it may stimulate interest in and study of waste-to-alcohol projects.
SOURCE: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-------
there exist several energy recovery options which may be
applicable in North Dakota in the short-term, most notably
modular incineration of municipal or institutional solid
wastes, use of sunflower hulls as supplemental fuel for
co-firing with coal in existing coal power plants, and conver-
sion of organic wastes to various energy forms such as
ethanol;
the most immediate potential for energy recovery from
municipal solid wastes consists of small-scale, institutional
applications in the Bismarck and Fargo areas, primarily
because of a higher level of awareness and previous study in
these areas; however, other population centers of Minot, Grand
Forks, Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston hold similar
small-scale potential for direct incineration and possibly for
co-firing of wastes with coal in existing boilers;
t there exist few viable markets for recovered materials with
the possible exceptions of the existing scrap industry, and
aluminum and paper in Bismarck and Fargo;
public and private sector cooperation and partnership in
resource recovery implementation are desirable;
the scrap industry and utilities have potentially important
roles in providing markets for recovered resources;
private sector leadership in resource recovery implementation
is most appropriate, although under current circumstances,
private sector involvement in many cases must be encouraged
through incentives, subsidies, and other public policies;
the appropriate scale of resource recovery development will
depend on a number of case-specific factors, although there is
a trend toward small-scale development to avoid high capital
costs and institutional constraints;
unknown waste stream composition, an assured supply of wastes,
long-term market commitments, and technological and economic
uncertainties are some of the major factors contributing to
the risk of implementing resource recovery;
there are several options available for project financing, the
most attractive of which may be Municipal Industrial
Development Act (MIDA) bonds; and there are existing State and
Federal tax incentives which can improve the economic
viability of specific projects;
t EPA has the major Federal role in establishing national
resource recovery policies and standards; the Department of
Commerce and the Department of Energy also have important
roles through the identification and stimulation of markets,
and research, development, and financial incentives,
respectively;
-------
several North Dakota agencies have potential resource recovery
roles, with the Department of Health expected to have the
major role through its solid waste advisory and enforcement
responsibilities (see Table S-2);
there exist several institutional constraints (non-economic
and non-technological) to resource recovery implementation
within North Dakota; and although interest in resource
recovery within the State remains high, the most basic
institutional constraint to be overcome is informational (both
retrieval and dissemination).
Table S-3 displays an overall assessment of the potential for resource
recovery in North Dakota by technology.
Using the analysis and assessment as a basis, a recommended State
of North Dakota framework to encourage resource recovery activity is
shown in Figure S-l. This framework consists of two major thrusts:
the development of internal policies and procedures, primarily
within the State Department of Health, and
the encouragement of local application of legislation giving
governmental entities specified organizational, administra-
tive, and marketing powers.
The first thrust centers on the need for improved information flow. The
Division of Environmental Waste Management and Research of the
Department of Health should expand its current resource recovery program
and serve as an information clearinghouse. The second thrust consists
of State encouragement of local governments to use existing statutory
authority for resource recovery planning and implementation. Such
implementation might involve other municipalities and/or the private
sector and require basic authority in the areas of organization,
administration, and marketing. Extensive changes in existing legis-
lation do not appear to be necessary at this time, although minor
amendments in the State Solid Waste Law would clarify resource recovery
authority. The resource recovery framework is a flexible mechanism that
allows the State to adapt to changing future conditions, such as
increasing landfill and energy cost.
In North Dakota, the consideration of resource recovery as a solid
waste management alternative is certainly not a situation of crisis
management, but rather one of sound planning for the future. However,
current or near-term resource recovery opportunities should not be
missed, and the effort to encourage resource recovery should begin now.
-------
TABLE S-2
STATE AGENCIES WITH
POTENTIAL ROLES IN RESOURCE RECOVERY
State Agency
Department of Health
Energy Management and Conser-
vation Office
Department of Agriculture
Public Service Commision
Business and Industrial Develop-
ment Department
Bank of North Dakota
t Governor's Office
Highway Department
Construction Superintendent
State Procurement Agent
Attorney General
Rule
Advisory and Regulatory rule for
Solid Wastes
Gasohol and other Alternative
Fuels
Agricultural, Dairy and Feed lot
Wastes
Waste Heat and Cogeneration
Resource Recovery and Economic
Development
Small-scale loans
Energy Resources, Development
and Impacts
Uses of fly ash, glass and tires
Building codes and approval of
recovered material re-use
State Procurement of recovered resources
Interpretation and Legality of Legis-
lation and Policy
SOURCE: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc,
-------
TABLE S-3
ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCE RECOVERY
POTENTIAL IN NORTH DAKOTA
Resource Recovery
Alternative
Source Separation and Recycling
en
Assessment of Potential
in North Dakota
excellent for aluminum
good for paper
fair for ferrous (primarily through
existing scrap industry)
uncertain for fly ash
poor for glass cullet
poor for tires in the short-term;
better in long-term
fair for waste oil
Comments
"up and down" markets for
paper and ferrous
fly ash reuse dependent
upon potential environmental
problems
few known material markets
for North Dakota recovered
resources
tire reuse dependent upon
expanded markets and removal
of institutional constraints
organizational, institutional
and market problems hinder
waste oil recycling; however
politically acceptable with
extensive support
Energy Recovery from Municipal
Solid Waste
poor for large-scale, centralized
incineration systems
good for modular incineration
with heat recovery in institutional
settings
poor for pyrolysis, refuse derived
fuel and other high technologies
low volumes of waste make
large-scale impractical
keys to modular feasibility
are rising landfill costs
and increasing energy prod-
uct credits
-------
TABLE S-3 (continued)
poor for methane from landfills
Federal government plays a
major role in determining
future potential through R & D
and financial aid
utility and private sector
acceptance would increase
potential significantly
Energy Recovery from
Agricultural Wastes
good for sunflower hull supple-
mental fuel
good for alcohol fuels
poor for anaerobic digestion
reuse of sunflower hulls appears
to be acceptable politically
and has utility support
alcohol fuels enjoy Federal
and State tax breaks and is
acceptable politically
anaerobic digestion potential
limited by competing uses
of wastes and low volumes
Waste Heat and Cogeneration
uncertain
t needs further study
t potential has been greatly
increased by Federal requirement
that utilities buy power from
cogeneration
SOURCE: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-------
Figure S-l
The State Policy Framework
State Agency
Policies and Procedures
i
Improve
Information Flow
Encouragement of
Resource Recovery
Encourage Local
Application of Existing
Legislation
I
Basic Powers for Local
or Other Governments
develop and maintain essential
contacts
serve as information clearinghouse
establish public education effort
obtain waste characterization
and other data
conduct and update a detailed
market survey
i
Funding sources for studies,
personnel, and other resources
Federal grants-EPA and DOE
general tax revenues
solid waste tax
portion of severance tax
control of waste movement
multi-jurisdictional organizations
own, operate, and lease
sell recovered resources
e enter into long-term contracts
utilize Federal, State, and other funds
Fred C. Hart Associates
-------
I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Project Background
The 1977 North Dakota Legislative Assembly, in recognizing the
potential benefits of resource recovery, enacted a Resolution (shown in
Appendix A) directing the North Dakota State Department of Health to
study the feasibility of economic incentives and legislation which may
encourage resource recovery. The study was delayed because of limited
resources and lack of technical expertise in resource recovery planning,
implementation, and policy within the Department of Health.
However, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976
has provided funding and other resources to aid the State of North
Dakota through the Technical Assistance Panels (TA Panels) program,
managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under this
program, EPA utilizes the knowledge and expertise of in-house staff and
consultants in solving solid waste management problems. Support from
the TA Panels program is available to provide advice on a wide variety
of subject areas to state and local governments as they develop stra-
tegies and plans and implement programs to achieve the goals and ob-
jectives of RCRA. In light of North Dakota's commitment to resource
recovery activities, EPA approved the state's request for this study.
EPA directed Fred C. Hart Associates, the primary TA Panels contractor
for Region VIII EPA, to perform the required analyses.
This project was originally to center upon the recovery of
resources from municipal solid waste, primarily from high-technology,
centralized systems. Preliminary discussions with State of North Dakota
Health Department personnel and citizens throughout the state demonstra-
ted that the high-technology, centralized systems were only one of a
number of resource recovery options which may be appropriate for the
State. Other options included the production of alcohol fuels (for use
as a supplement to gasoline to form gasohol); the reuse of fly ash,
and/or the recovery of materials from fly ash; methane production from
anaerobic digestion and methane recovery from landfills; use of waste
heat for space heating and/or the production of electricity; and
recycling source separation efforts. Generally, all of these
resource recovery options face a number of technological, economic and
institutional barriers to implementation.
This study is not intended to be a statewide comprehensive analysis
of solid waste management alternatives or a site specific analysis of
resource recovery options. This study will present an analysis of why
resource recovery should be considered in the solid waste management
decision-making process and how resource recovery can be encouraged
through State of North Dakota actions. The specific goals of the study
are noted below:
briefly assess the existing solid waste situation in North
Dakota;
identify resource recovery options and their applications in
the State, and make a brief evaluation of their potential;
-------
0 discuss the economic competitiveness and financial options for
resource recovery on a generalized (not site-specific) basis;
assess and evaluate any institutional (non-technical and
non-economic) barriers to implementation and development; and
most importantly,
t recommend any necessary State policies or legislation which
may be desirable in light of an expected move toward resource
recovery development in upcoming years.
Introduction
Solid waste management has become a problem of increasing national
concern in recent years. Municipal solid waste (residential,
commercial, and institutional sources) amounted to about 130 million
metric tons in 1976. This is expected to increase by almost 50 percent
to 180 million metric tons by 1985. Nationwide the average person
generates 1,300 pounds per year. Industrial waste generation is
estimated at 344 million metric tons per year, with a growth rate of
three percent per year. Municipal waste water treatment at 18,000
plants result in five million metric tons (dry weight) of sludge per
year. This is expected to double in the next eight to ten years due to.
higher levels of treatment. Agricultural, mining and power plant wastes
amount to billions of tons yearly.
Many solid waste disposal problems are today occuring in urban,
high density areas, thereby creating interest in and study of resource
recovery primarily in the more populated areas of the nation. North
Dakota, although not now faced with major solid waste problems, can
minimize future problems by planning now for programs and policies en-
couraging resource recovery implementation.
Resource recovery is a term used in resources and energy management
to describe the retrieval of economically usable energy or materials
from solid or other wastes. Resource recovery is an alternative to more
traditional solid waste management techniques, such as landfill
disposal. The two principal approaches to resource recovery consist of
conversion, e.g., the recovery of energy through the use of wastes for
heat and fuel; and recycling, e.g., separation of a waste material which
can then be reused. Benefits from resource recovery include:
conservation of valuable and scarce energy and material
resources;
t reduction in the quantity of solid wastes which must be
disposed by a community;
reduction in the environmental problems of solid waste
disposal such as water contamination, the use of land for
disposal sites, and aesthetic considerations; and
energy conservation through substitution of recycled materials
for virgin materials (less energy is required to produce
10
-------
most industrial materials from scrap than from virgin
sources).
Under most circumstances, conversion will involve relatively
large-scale, high-technology facilities designed to supply energy
sources for large-scale users such as utilities or manufacturing
facilities. These large-scale facilities can take advantage of economies
of scale. Recycling, however, is appropriate in very low-technology,
small-scale efforts such as collecting newspapers and metals prior to
their entrance into the solid waste stream. It has been estimated that
roughly half of all municipal solid waste generated nationwide could be
recycled, or burned, to recover its fuel value, assuming appropriate
large-scale systems could be implemented. About one-fourth of municipal
solid wastes could be reclaimed, through sorting out salvageable
materials before discarding them. Unfortunately, these figures describe
potential recovery. Major shifts in public policies, along with
technological improvements, would be necessary to attain these goals.
In addition to resource recovery from municipal solid wastes, organic
wastes, e.g. from agricultural and animal feedlot facilities represent a
largely untapped energy source.
Many communities and individuals in North Dakota have expressed
interest in the implementation of resource recovery technologies. How-
ever, progress in this new approach to energy and resource management
has been slow. Such problems as unforeseen technological difficulties;
lack of available capital; lack of facility operating experience;
limited availability of data for municipal decisionmakers; uncertain
product markets; and legal, political and institutional factors (see
Figure 1) have led to only a limited amount of participation at the
municipal level. Local officials and many citizens view resource
recovery as an attractive alternative to traditional solid waste
management techniques, despite the uncertainties and high risks
associated with resource recovery ventures.
To date, resource recovery has had a relatively low priority at the
national level. There are hopeful signs, however, of an increasing
awareness of the benefits of conversion and recycling at the Federal
level. For example, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. RCRA examines the whole range of
management alternatives, and specifically encourages the development of
resource recovery facilities through technical and financial assistance
to state and local governments, and through research, development,
demonstration and evaluation of resource recovery technologies. This
stimulus has only recently reached the state and local levels. Many
States are beginning to play aggressive roles in encouraging resource
recovery activities through State programs and legislation, as shown in
Appendix B. The Department of Energy has taken over a large portion of
Federally-funded energy resource recovery research and development
(formerly a function solely of the Environmental Protection Agency), and
is in the process of soliciting proposals for two programs: (1)
site-specific resource recovery feasibility studies; and (2) commercial-
ization of alternative fuels. Recently, several State of North Dakota
agencies have begun exploring various resource recovery alternatives.
11
-------
Figure 1
Factor Affecting
Resource Recovery Implementation
Waste Characterization
(Quantity and Quality)
Assured Waste
Supply
Technological
Uncertainties
Environmental
Uncertainties
Resource Recovery
Feasibility
Institutional
Barriers
Economic and
Financial
Uncertainties
Market
Uncertainties
Administative/
Organizational
Uncertainties
Fred C. Hart Associates
-------
II. NORTH DAKOTA SOLID HASTE SITUATION
The Need to Evaluate Resource Recovery
Resource recovery is becoming an increasingly attractive
alternative to traditional solid waste management practice. Increasing
energy costs, the difficulty of new landfill siting, anticipated impacts
from RCRA, and the social ethic of resource conservation all support a
close look at resource recovery options.
For example, natural gas prices to consumers from regulated
utilities have increased from 50 to 70 percent over the two year period
from December 1, 1977 to December 1, 1979, as shown in Table 1. While
electricity costs have not increased as fast as natural gas costs, the
prices to consumers of both of their traditional energy sources will
continue to show sharp increases in the future, thereby making
alternative sources of energy such as resource recovery a more viable
energy option.
The approximately 650,000 people residing in the State of North
Dakota generate approximately 475,000 tons of municipal solid waste per
year requiring environmentally safe and economically acceptable
disposal. This figure is projected to increase to 600,000 tons by 1985.
Other wastes (industrial, mining, agricultural, etc.) will also require
proper disposal. The siting of new sanitary landfills for disposal has
met with community opposition. Local residents object to landfill's
lack of aesthetic appeal and the threat of lowered property values,
production of unpleasant odors animal/pest attraction, and loss of
valuable agricultural lands, especially in the eastern section of the
state where land costs are at a premium.
Costs of constructing and operating landfills have increased
because of guidelines introduced through the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The guidelines (promulgated to carry out
RCRA Sections 1008 and 4004) were proposed in order to prevent signifi-
cant adverse impacts to the environment or public health. However, the
guidelines require the closure of open dumps, reduce the number of areas
suitable for landfills and increase the costs associated with present
landfill sites. For these reasons, alternative disposal methods such as
resource recovery are becoming more attractive.
In addition, beyond the practical reasons mentioned above, it is
the social ethic of resource conservation which can be the driving force
behind the operation of low-technology recycling centers in North
Dakota. Resource recovery encourages the conservation of valuable and
scarce resources and reduces the quantity of solid waste which must be
disposed by a community.
Characterization of Wastes
In evaluating the potential for resource recovery, the quantity and
quality of generated wastes must be characterized. This is important in
determining potential markets and technologies for resource recovery
implementation. Although very little detailed information has been
13
-------
TABLE 1
CHARGES TO CONSUMERS BY NORTH DAKOTA REGULATED UTILITIES
Electricity (1.000 KWH) Dec. 1. 1977 Dec. 1, 1979
Montana - Dakota $41.50 . $43.32
Northern States $37.55 $39.80
Otter Tail $40.92 $41.82
Natural Gas (10 MCF) Dec. 1. 1977 Dec. 1, 1979
. Montana - Dakota $18.18 $30.93
$20.68 $33.33
Northern States $36.83 $49.95
Great Plains Gas $39.38 $53.08
Source: North Dakota Public Service Commission
14
-------
compiled on wastes within the State of North Dakota, some generali-
zations applicable to this study should be noted. General catergories
of solid wastes include municipal (primarily residential and
commercial), industrial, and agricultural.
Mixed municipal solid waste can be thought of as the mixed solid
materials resulting from household, commercial and institutional garbage
and trash collections, but excluding special industrial wastes, larger
demolition and construction wastes, and specialty loads of like items
(e.g., rubber tires, junk cars and sewage sludge). The composition of
these municipal wastes has been shown to be highly variable according to
geographic location, climate, season and community socio-economic
characteristics. Table 2 shows the expected ranges of major mixed
municipal solid waste constituents, although determination of quantity
and quality for each site-specific instance will vary. Detailed
determination of waste characteristics can only be accomplished through
actual waste sampling and analysis, preferably on a seasonal basis.
Table 3 shows typical waste composition from several specific sources
before entering the mixed municipal solid waste stream.
Agricultural activities which include dairies and feedlots within
the state generate another important source of organic materials which
can be converted into energy resources. It is important to distinguish
between wastes, residues and energy crops. Wastes include all organic
materials that accumulate at specific locations and whose collection and
disposal is mandatory and carries an associated cost. Examples include
inferior agricultural products, and animal manures. Residues are plant
materials which are left in the field after harvesting crops.
Generally, there is no cost associated with these materials because they
result directly from harvesting process and need not be collected,
transported and disposed of as "wastes". However, residues which are
collected for purposes of resource recovery are then subjected to the
cost limitations associated with collection and transportation. (The
amount which can be collected for use as an energy resource ultimately
will be limited to that quantity which is not required for continued
proper maintenance of the crops and soil.) Energy crops are those
products which are specifically cultivated for their fuel content (e.g.
growing corn specifically for ethanol production), although in periods
of slack food product markets, crops intended for use as food could also
be converted to energy.
Other major waste categories which must be dealt with through some
form of solid waste management include power plant wastes, construction
wastes, mining wastes, oil and gas production wastes, water plant
sludge, hazardous wastes (chemicals, pesticides, etc.) and industrial
wastes. To date, only a few of these wastes have realized any resource
recovery applications.
Landfill Use and Availability
Almost all solid wastes generated within the State of North Dakota
are disposed of in sanitary landfills. Sanitary landfilling is an engi-
neered method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner than
minimizes environmental hazards and nuisances. At a site that is care-
15
-------
TABLE 2
EXPECTED RANGES IN MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION
Component
Percent composition as received
(dry weight basis)
Anticipated
Range
Nominal
Paper
Newsprint
Cardboard
Other
Metal! ics
Ferrous
Non ferrous
Food
Yard
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Miscellaneous
Moisture content:
Range (percent) 20-40
Nominal (percent) 30
37-60
7-15
4-18
26^37
7-10
6-8
1-2
12-18
4-10
1-4
6-12
1-3
55
12
11
32
7.5
1.5
14
5
4
9
1
3
100
Source: U.S. EPA
16
-------
TABLE 3 APPROXIMATE WASTE COMPOSITION AND GENERATION RATES
FOR SELECTED WAST£ GENERATORS
Percent of Total (Height Basis)
Airport Regional
Passenger Shopping
Type of
Paper
Material Terminal Center Hospitals Prisons
71
Corrugated
Glass
Metal
4
6
Plastics 5
Organics 5
Wood
Miscel
3
laneous ' 6
28 |4Q 37
52 J 22
1 6 1
3 2 16
8 15 8
2 25 10
2 1 1
12 6
' 1 I
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
Overall
Waste 0.5 Ib 200 Ib 2 to 4.5 4.5 Ib
Generation Rates per per 1000 Ib per per
passenger sq
per day of
. ft. paid inmate
gross staff per day
Multi-Unit
Universities Residences
55 J35
10
8 12
7 10
3 5
10 27
1 1
7 11
J J
100 100
1 Ib per 2.7 Ib
student per
per day resident
per day
leasable member
Office Small
Buildings Cities
1 87 129
J J
1 10
7 10
1 3
V
38
, 4 4
6
100 100
1.5 Ib 3.5 Ib
per per
office person
worker per day
per day
area per per day
week
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
fully selected, designed, and prepared, the wastes are spread in thin
layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and, at least at the
end of each operating day, covered with earth. Landfills will always be
needed on a local or regional basis, even with resource recovery
implementation.
Several techniques are utilized in sanitary landfill operation in
North Dakota. The most common is the trench/fill method in which a
narrow trench is excavated, filled with refuse, and covered by soil from
the excavation. Another method involves placing the refuse on the
ground surface and covering it with material excavated from a nearby
slope. Another method of landfill operation involves dumping refuse
into narrow ravines and covering it with soil obtained from the sides of
the ravines. The ravine is gradually filled as the operation
progresses. Existing man-made depressions are often used for sanitary
landfills. Such depressions include unreclaimed coal strip mines and
abandoned sand and gravel pits. These depressions are attractive to
operators because they eliminate the need to excavate a pit for the
refuse. Cover material is obtained either from the mining spoils or
from the sides of the pit. Of the above described methods, the
trench/fill method is probably the best from a geological standpoint
provided that the materials and hydrogeologic setting are satisfactory.
However, it should be noted that trench/fill operations may not be best
from an efficiency standpoint. Landfills built on ground surface may be
satisfactory if they are not located on steep slopes or in flood-prone
areas. Ravines are generally poor sites for landfills because of flood
potential. Abandoned coal mines may be acceptable for landfill sites,
but the groundwater systems in the area should be investigated prior to
use. Abandoned sand and gravel pits are generallly poor sites for
sanitary landfills.
Because of its rural character, North Dakota has not experienced
the serious solid waste disposal problems occurring today in more urban
states with higher population densities. However, changing conditions
within the state (i.e., population increases, energy development, etc.)
and RCRA impacts dictate a need for improved and more efficient methods
of solid waste management, as well as an examination of the potential
for using these wastes in beneficial ways.
In recognizing the state-wide importance of solid waste management,
the North Dakota State Legislature enacted the Solid Waste Management
and Land Protection Act of 1975, administered by the State Department of
Health. Specifically, the law provides for the state to:
t plan for and regulate the storage, collection, transportation,
and disposal of solid wastes in order to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare and to enhance the environment for
the people of the state;
t establish and maintain a cooperative state program of planning
and technical assistance for solid waste management;
provide the authority to and require persons to plan and
provide efficient, environmentally acceptable solid waste
management;
18
-------
t provide the authority for the review of plans and facilities
for solid waste management;
provide the authority to issue permits for the operation of
solid waste management activities;
promote the application of resource recovery systems which
preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land
resources; and
t, promote and assist in the development of markets for recovered
and recycled materials.
Some waste management regulations were promulgated to carry out
these goals. These regulations are primarily concerned with the proper
storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of solid wastes in
order to protect the public health, safety, welfare and environment of
the people of North Dakota.
The act has generally been effective in forcing a conversion of
undesirable land disposal sites, primarily open dumps and inadequate
landfills, to sanitary landfills. In 1971, each of the 359 North Dakota
cities had some sort of refuse disposal site. 80% of these sites were
classified as unsightly and unsanitary. In contrast, by the end of
1976, a total of 195 cities, representing 88%.of the population in North
Dakota cities, were disposing of their solid waste in approved sanitary
landfills.
This has been accomplished through an increasing number of regional
solid waste management systems. These generally consist of multi-com-
munity, multi-county collection services (usually by a private hauler)
and disposal into a centralized sanitary landfill. In this way, open
dumps are closed and the largest landfill site(s) are upgraded to meet
minimum state standards. Several of the Regional Planning Councils have
been active the past few years in examining regional collection and
disposal alternatives:
t South Central Regional Council, Jamestown. A feasibility study
forsolidwaste collectionanddisposal was completed for
Dickey, Emmons, Lamoure, Logan and Mclntosh Counties;
Lake Agassiz Regional Council, Fargo. A major inventory study
of solid waste collection and disposal practices was completed
for the region; and
Roosevelt- Custer Regional Council, Dickinson. A review of the
suitability of various sites in southwestern North Dakota for
use as sanitary landfills was conducted.
Additionally, a multi-community solid waste collection and disposal
system model for North Dakota communities has been prepared. The model,
although very limited in scope with regards to resource recovery, does
assist communities that are interested in the formation of a regional
solid waste system for the collection and sanitary landfill disposal of
19
-------
their municipal solid wastes. Of special note in this regard is the
Northwest Solid Waste Management Council. This successful regional
operation is composed of approximately fifty communities which have
contracted out to a private hauler for collection and disposal into a
leased landfill site in Noonan.
To further clarify the appropriateness of existing sanitary
landfill sites, and to provide a basis for evaluating future proposed
sites, a North Dakota sanitary landfill inventory was carried out by the
North Dakota Geological Survey in 1977. Based on existing geological
(including geomorphic and hydrogeological) criteria and professional
judgment, the approximately 75 existing sanitary landfills have been
classified as to their geological acceptability for present uses, as
shown in Table 4. Twenty-seven sites were judged to have unfavorable
geologic settings, meaning that a potential for surfacewater or ground-
water pollution exists, even though such contamination may not be
occurring at the present time.
With the development of an aggressive inspection and enforcement
program in 1978, the Division of Solid Waste Management has continued to
conduct landfill inspection and enforcement activities. The inspection
of North Dakota's 77 sanitary landfills is performed chiefly through
monthly aerial inspections. Ground inspections and visitations of
landfills and open dump sites are also conducted. The photographs taken
during the inspections, along with inspection reports, are sent to the
landfill operator, and recommendations are made for possible areas of
improvement in the operation. A total of 377 municipal landfill
inspections and 183 private landfill inspections were conducted from
July 1, 1977 through June 30, 1979.
From the above analysis of the existing North Dakota solid waste
situation, it is clear that the stage has been set for examination of
the resource recovery alternative. This examination is the next step in
the logical progression towards a progressive and environmentally sound
waste management program for the State of North Dakota.
Landfill Costs
As will be further discussed in Chapter 5 of this report, the costs
of solid waste disposal in sanitary landfills is a primary determinant
of the economic viability of many of the resource recovery options
available in North Dakota. Generally, landfill ing is the least ex-
pensive form of solid waste disposal today, however, it must be realized
that a strictly economic analysis does not consider the non-quantifiable
benefits of resource recovery.
Appendix C consists of a description of three landfill estimating
techniques, along with North Dakota case examples to estimate current
landfill disposal costs within the state.
These landfill cost estimating techniques are simplified analyses,
and site-specific landfill costs can only be determined through a
detailed economic analysis. However, the figures calculated above are
realistic ballpark costs, and a range of present costs of $5.00 - $7.50
20
-------
TABLE 4 SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF NORTH DAKOTA SANITARY LANDFILLS*
POSSIBLE CHEMICAL WASTE SITE
ACCEPTABLE FOR PRESENT USE
NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR PRESENT USE
NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION
Grafion
Grand Forks AFB
Joe Bader (Emerado)
Marvin Brager (Finley)
Fargo
Ron Dole (Cwinncr)
Devils Lake
Jack Lloyd (Fessenden)
Cordon Fish (Harlow)
Moluill
Bowman
Grand Forks
Langdon
Park River
Valley Landfill Assoc.
(Hamilton)
Marvin Brager (McVille)'
Dennis Paintner (Cooperstown)
Hunter
Reuben Janke (Kulm)
Ellendale
Jamestown
Edmore
Bottineau
Minot AFB
Orville Ellison (Emmet)
Dakota Sanitation (Bismarck)
Geving Sanitation (Noonan)
Stanley
Robert Meyers
(Golden Valley County)
Ilettinger
Ed Pulver (Underwood)
Watford City
Killdeer
* Based solely on geological criteria
Walhalla
Harold Jensen (Neche)
llarley Camperud (Thompson)
Larimore
Mayville
Hillsboro
Casselton
Harlan Fraedrich (Enderlin)
Cavalier
Valley City
Milnor
Central Disposal (Carrington)
Harvey
Rubgy
Minot
Gordon Fish (Sheridan Co.)
Bismarck
Mandan
Burleigh Co. (Sterling)
Ed Mittleider (Kidder)
Linton
Arnold Brummond (Oakes)
Kenmare
New Town
Dickinson
Fort Yates
Mantador
Great Plains Con. (F.dinbur
George Berry (LaMoure)
New Rockford
Carrington
Lewis McDnniel (VeJva)
Paul Reichonburg (Beulah)
Dwight McCinnJs (Wilton)
New Salem
Columbus
Williston
Beach
Mott
Glen Ullin
Flasher
Bowbells
Tri-City Sanitation
(New Leipzig)
Source: North Dakota Geological Survey
-------
per ton can be expected for most North Dakota landfills. A more
detailed analysis of Fargo's landfill costs, performed in 1979,
estimated a cost of $5.74 per ton. Based on a $6.00 per ton figure,
approximately $2,850,000 was spent in 1979 in landfill disposal of
municipal solid wastes alone.
RCRA Effects on Landfills and Solid Waste Management
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 legis-
lates a potential solution to the environmental problems resulting from
improper landfill disposal by requiring identification and upgrading of
those sites responsible for threats to the public safety and welfare.
Guidelines promulgated by EPA in this respect provide descriptions of
alternative siting, design, operating leachate control, surface runoff
control, and monitoring approaches and technologies, which may be
utilized to meet site-specific levels of environmental protection.
In order to determine economic impacts of these guidelines on
existing landfill operations, EPA contracted with Fred C. Hart Asociates
to estimate landfill upgrading costs to meet RCRA standards. Existing
costs range from approximately $3.95 to $11.15 per ton. The analysis
indicated that increases in landfill disposal costs from approximately
40 to 90 percent could be expected.
Although a detailed evaluation of the compliance of existing North
Dakota sanitary landfills with the proposed RCRA guidelines has not been
made, most informed observers believe that the RCRA landfill guidelines
will not substantially affect the current landfill operations in the
state in most cases. Overall, it appears that the state has made
substantive efforts to upgrade solid waste disposal practices to minimum
RCRA requirements; however, RCRA also encourages taking proper waste
management to the next level, specifically resource recovery.
While RCRA effects on municipal landfills are now relatively well
defined, the effects of this legislation on other wastes (e.g., utility
wastes, mining wastes) are still not known. Utility and some mining
wastes are tentatively classified as "special wastes". EPA proposed
guidelines define these wastes as having some hazardous qualities and
are of sufficient volume to need special attention, yet are not
hazardous enough to warrant the "cradle to grave" treatment of proven
hazardous wastes. Special wastes are currently under study by EPA, and
the types of acceptable handling and disposal practices for these wastes
may not be known for some time. Agricultural wastes used as soil
conditioners or fertilizers are exempt from RCRA regulations, while coal
mining wastes and overburden covered by a mining and reclamation permit
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act are exempted from
RCRA control.
Another important section of RCRA (Section 4002) emphasizes a
regionalized approach to solid waste management and compels the states
to prepare state solid waste management plans. The state plan must
address all solid waste in the state which poses potential adverse
effects on health and the environment or provides opportunity for
resource conservation or resource recovery, and consider the best
22
-------
management practices to insure proper collection, transportation,
storage, transfer, processing (including resource recovery), treatment,
and disposal of wastes. Specific requirements and recommendations with
regard to development of a resource recovery program within the state
plan are listed in Table 5. These requirements will most likely
necessitate some additions to the existing solid waste management
regulations for resource recovery. The resource recovery section in the
current state regulations only addresses the prevention of public
nuisances.
23
-------
TABLE 5
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS IN
THE STATE SOLID WASTE PLAN
Requirements
1) Policy and strategy for encouragement of resource conservation
and recovery activities
2) Local governments must be allowed to enter into long-term
contracts for the supply of solid waste to resource recovery
facilities.
Recommendations
1) Provide for technical assistance, training, information
development and dissemination, financial support programs,
market studies, and market development programs .
2) Review of state and local laws and regulations pertinent to
resource recovery contracting (procurement, waste supply, etc.)
which provide for the removal of legal barriers, and allow for
enactment of necessary laws or regulations.
3) Encouragement of state procurement of products containing
recovered materials
4) Encourage resource recovery development as the preferred means
of solid waste management whenever technologically and econo-
mically feasible
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates
24
-------
III. RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES
There exists today a number of resource recovery options and
technologies which are at various stages of commercial readiness, as
shown in Table 6. Each alternative is discussed below, while specific
North Dakota applications are treated in the next section. Although the
alternatives discussed below are the major resource recovery options
which may be applicable for use in North Dakota either today or in the
near future, resource recovery must be considered a dynamic process.
Other technologies and materials, now considered "solid wastes", may be
considered as economic resources in the future as research, development
and commercialization efforts progress;
Recycling
Recycling is the separation of materials from other wastes and
processing it so that it may be used as a raw material for new products.
This can be accomplished in two ways: (a) separation prior to entering
the waste stream (source separation) and (b) separation of materials
from the mixed solid waste stream. Recycling can be applied to
municipal, industrial and other categories of wastes.
The primary targets of source separation have been paper, aluminum,
glass and ferrous metals from residential, commercial and industrial
sources. Another waste which has generated considerable resource
recovery attention in North Dakota is fly ash. A significant amount of
fly ash is generated from coal-fired power plants, and disposal of this
waste product has become a solid waste disposal problem of major
concern. In recent years, however, research on ways to utilize this
material has indicated several potential beneficial use of fly ash.
These include the use of fly ash as a replacement for lime or limestone
used in scrubbing sulfur dioxide from flue gas, and as supplemental
(filler) material in road construction, concrete and other manufactured
products. Additionally, there are indications that valuable materials
(originally trace elements within the coal) may be recovered from fly
ash. Although none of these options is readily available today due to
several uncertainties and barriers to acceptance, they may become viable
alternatives to disposal in the next few years.
Recovery of potentially valuable materials from the solid waste
stream can be accomplished through various means, ranging from a
labor-intensive, low-technology process through capital-intensive,
highly mechanized processes, such as those discussed below:
Composting. Compost is a humus product used as a soil conditioner and
fertilizer. Compost can be made by mixing organic solid waste with a
binder, such as sawdust or wood-chips, and allowing the mixture to
decompose through natural processes. Large-scale composting efforts are
generally considered impractical because of market uncertainties and the
availability of cheaper substitutes.
Ferrous Metal Recovery. Ferrous metals can be a potentially significant
source of revenue due to relatively stable markets in the steel, copper
precipitation, and de-tinning industries, although the economics of such
25
-------
TABLE 6
DEGREE OF PROVEN COMMERCIALIZATION OF ENERGY RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES
Commercially Operational Technologies
Waterwall combustion
Small-scale modular incineration with heat recovery
Solid fuel RDF (wet and dry processes)
Developmental Technologies
Low Btu gas pyrolysis
Medium Btu gas pyrolysis
Liquid pyrolysis
Biological landfill conversion
Experimental Technologies
Biological anaerobic digestion
Waste-fired gas turbine
Research Technologies
Hydrolysis systems
DEGREE OF PROVEN COMMERCIALIZATION OF MATERIALS RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES
Commercially Operational Technologies
Composting
Magnetic recovery of ferrous metals
Fiber recovery by wet separation
Developmental technologies
Aluminum recovery
Glass recovery
Experimental Technologies
Nonferrous recovery
Paper recovery by dry processes
Source: Office of Technology Assessment
26
-------
operations are still inhibitive. These metals are normally recovered
through readily-available magnetic separation processes. It is
important to note that recovered ferrous metal resources vary in
quality, and care must be taken to ensure that upgrading or processing
can be accomplished to meet the specifications of the buyer.
Paper Recovery. In addition to source separation of paper, such as
recycling of newsprint or cardboard, low-grade paper fiber can be
recovered through two mechanical processes, wet separation and dry
separation. Both technologies have been demonstrated on a limited
commercial basis. Recovered paper markets fluctuate seasonally
effecting the economic viability of investments in paper recovery.
Alternatively, the fiber can be used as insulation material, or could be
utilized directly as a fuel.
Aluminum and Glass Recovery. Processes to recover aluminum and glass
from mixed waste streams are still considered developmental, as their
technological and economic viability is unproved. Aluminum has a
relatively strong and stable market and potentially can be an important
segment of a resource recovery plan. The market for cullet (the
recovered glass material from which to make new products) is uncertain
because of strict technical buyer specifications on color and
contaminants. Processes which recover glass and aluminum usually
require a pre-concentrated, materials-rich stream, which implies prior
removal of organics, ferrous metals and paper. Final recovery from
these streams has focused on froth flotation (pure, small-particle,
non-color-sorted product) and optical sorting (large-particle,
color-sorted product) for glass and specially adapted electromagnetic
devices (referred to as "aluminum magnets") for aluminum.
Conversion
Mixed municipal solid wastes, in addition to yielding potentially
valuable materials from recycling, are composed primarily of various
types of combustible components. Additionally, agricultural and feedlot
wastes are potentially valuable organic materials. These materials can
be used as direct sources of energy (through combustion processes) or
can be processed to yield gaseous, liquid or solid energy sources, as
shown in Figure 2. These energy resource recovery options are discussed
below.
VJaterwall Incineration. In this commercially available process, un-
processed solid waste is burned in a specially designed furnace,
surrounded with water-filled tubes, and additional boiler tubes to
recover heat. The heat is recovered as steam, which can be used
directly or converted to electricity. Research is being conducted on
variations of this technology involving shredding of the wastes prior to
burning and mechanical introduction of the wastes to the combustion
chamber. The direct combustion of unprocessed wastes is often referred
to as "mass-burning".
Modular Incinerators. Small scale (100 tons or less) versions of in-
cineration processes are called modular incinerators. Most applications
of modular incineration with heat recovery to date have been in hospi-
27
-------
Figure 2
ENERGY FORMS PRODUCIBLE WITH MSW ENERGY SYSTEMS
INPUT
UNICIPAL
SOLID mmm
WASTE
PROCESS OUT
INCINERATION WITH WffmmM
mm^mm^mmm ^^BMB nc
1^^^ FU
FUEL PROCESS 1
1 ' . |- - «'
AN
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION m*m\
PUT
EAM
ECTRICITY
FUSE DERIVED
EL
EAM
ECTRICITY
S
EAM
ECTRICITY
ELINE GAS
THANOL
1MONIA
S
FrTniriTV
Source: General Accounting Office
-------
tals, schools, etc., and have utilized their own solid waste stream.
Several modular units can be installed in tandem in order to accept a
larger waste stream.
Refuse Dervied Fuel (RDF). This process, often referred to as a "supple-
mental fuel" system, employs size reduction and classification of waste
to produce both a combustible or "light" fraction and a "heavies" frac-
tion which would be processed to recover other materials, such as metals
and glass. The combustible portion would be available for use by utili-
ties and industries as a supplement to existing boiler fossil fuels.
There are currently several RDF plants operating in the United States.
RDF is most often found in flake or briquette form.
Pyrolysis. This term includes a variety of processes in which either
processed or unprocessed wastes are thermally decomposed, in the absence
of oxygen, to yield gaseous, liquid and char products. The design of
the system determines the specific proportions of these products. The
fuel components can be used on-site to produce steam, or can be trans-
ported for use elsewhere. This technology appears to be near commer-
cialization. It has the advantage over other energy recovery methods in
that it produces liquid fuel.
Biological Conversion. This technology is either indirect, that is, the
recovery of methane formed by natural, biological decomposition of
organic wastes in landfills, or direct, that is, the production of
methane through man-induced actions in an anaerobic digestion plant.
The desired methane product (methane is the major component of natural
gas) would have a ready market in many locations, although the gas
produced in either process is contaminated, and requires processing and
upgrading before use in most gas burners. Recovery from landfills has
been demonstrated on a limited basis in California, and small-scale
controlled digestion systems have been implemented in various locations.
Wide-scale commercial applications are still unproved.
Alcohol. Fuel alcohols consist of two major types, ethanol (grain
alcohol) and methanol (wood alcohol). Ethanol can be made from anything
containing starch or sugar, and the higher the starch or sugar content,
the higher the alcohol potential of the crop. Ethanol production
consists of two steps, fermentation and distillation. Methanol is made
by heating wood wastes, stalks, etc., under relatively low heat and high
pressure, followed by purification of the product via use of fraction-
ating columns. Alcohol can be burned straight or mixed with gasoline to
form gasohol.
Waste Heat and Cogeneration
A special category of resource recovery which deserves special
attention is that of waste heat utilization. Waste heat can, in some
cases, be "recycled" for direct use as space heating. Cogeneration is
the local, simultaneous production of both useful heat and electricity
from a combustible fuel. In this way, waste heat is salvaged from the
electricity generating process in order to satisfy thermal needs such as
heating, cooling and processing steam and/or hot water, thereby
increasing total generation system efficiency. Cogeneration can also
29
-------
refer to systems that generate electricity from heat or steam left over
from an industrial process.
Integration of Resource Recovery Options
A regional or municipal waste management program might include
several of the above resource recovery options. The appropriate scale
and technology mix will depend upon the needs and desires of the
municipality or region and the economics of a particular option. The
above technologies and options are not, in most cases, mutually
exclusive. However, it is clear that in some instances, one chosen
option will affect the viability of another. For example, an intensive
source separation effort will affect the amount of materials which are
recoverable in a centralized, high-technology resource recovery
facility, and/or the heat content of the solid waste stream. These
factors must be considered in determining the appropriate option for
each site-specific circumstance.
Two recent resource recovery trends should also be noted. First,
there has been a significant emphasis on energy recovery development as
opposed to material recovery development. Energy availability and
rising energy costs are, and will continue to be for quite some time, of
prime national importance. However, as illustrated in Table 7, the IKS.
supply of minerals and metals is becoming increasingly dependent on
foreign suppliers and thus increasingly vulnerable to the vagrancies of
international politics and economics. The second trend consists of a
movement toward small-scale, lower-technology energy and material
recovery systems.
30
-------
Table 7
GROWING IMPORTANCE OF MINERAL IMPORTS
TO THE UNITED STATES
Material
Manganese
Cobalt
Bauxite
Chrome
Tin
Nickel
Zinc
Tungsten
Iron ore
Aluminum
% Imported
19711978
96
75
92
89
64
66
45
1
27
2
98
97
93
92
81
77
62
50
29
10
Source: U.S. Department of Interior
31
-------
IV. APPLICATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS IN NORTH DAKOTA
The importance of securing stable resource recovery markets before
committing large sums of money for implementation cannot be
overemphasized. The general rule of "markets first, then technology"
must be followed. Potential markets should be surveyed first in order
to ascertain the economic market for recovered resources. The results
of this survey assist in determining which resource recovery options
may be applicable to site-specific situations. These market
arrangements are normally secured initially through letters of intent
for purchase, and ultimately through legal contractual arrangements.
However, obtaining long-term contracts can be difficult, thereby
increasing project risk.
Brief analyses of the various resource recovery alternatives as
they may apply to North Dakota, along with a description of current
resource recovery activities underway within the State, are discussed
below. Table 8 provides a quick summary of current resource recovery
activities in the State.
Recycling
Source Separation. Source separation efforts have sprung up in several
cities in North Dakota, most notably in Fargo and Bismarck. Of the most
common materials which eventually enter the solid waste stream, aluminum
and paper have been the primary source separated materials. Aluminum
recycling efforts are generally sponsored and promoted by various
beverage companies and distributors, with some scrap dealers also
willing to purchase aluminum cans because of the existing strong
aluminum market. Existing recycling centers include McQuade's in
Bismarck and Beverage Wholesaler's, Inc. in Fargo.
Paper and corrugated cardboard recycling is economically feasible
only in the eastern section of the state because of fluctuating markets
and high freight costs to the nearest markets, located in Fargo or in
Minnesota. Fargo appears to have a relatively stable buyer for source
separated newspaper and corrugated in Thermo-Pak, Inc., which uses the
newsprint to produce insulation material and other products for
distribution in North Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota.
The scrap metal industry in North Dakota can serve two purposes in
purchasing scrap metals from industry of other sources. First, these
businesses act as a "middleman" willing to purchase small amounts of
waste from a large number and wide variety of sources, thereby keeping
resource recovery efforts viable. Second, scrap processors can assume
the role of preparing and upgrading materials which are contaminated,
not sorted as to quality, or otherwise not meeting the specifications of
industries which may be able to reuse the materials. In this respect,
the Abandoned Automobile Act of 1973 has attempted to solve the junk
auto disposal problem by providing an incentive to scrap processors to
encourage them to collect and recycle junk cars. The.pi an that evolved
from this law calls for counties, following county-wide surveys, to
contract with scrap iron processors for the collection, reduction
(crushing), and transportation of auto bodies and other bulky scrap
32
-------
TABLE 8
CURRENT RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
OF SIGNIFICANCE IN NORTH DAKOTA*
Resource Recovery Option
Source Separation and Recycling
Energy Recovery from Municipal
Solid Wastes
Energy Recovery from Agricultural
Wastes and Products
Activity
aluminum recycling in Bismarck
and Fargo
paper recycling in Fargo
waste oil recycling in Bismarck-
Mandan, with plans for expansion
State Abandoned Auto Act
fly ash scrubbers by Square Butte
Electric Coop
market and feasibility studies in
Fargo area
community support and existing
equipment in Valley City
recommendation for feasibility
study in Bismarck
small-scale ethanol production
on farms from cull potatoes
t plans for corn-to-ethanol plant
in Forman **
sunflower hull supplemental fuel
tests by Basin Electric
* does not include activities of scrap dealers, or of reuse of bio-gas in sew-
age treatment facilities (which is a long-established standard operating
procedure).
*** technically, corn-to-ethanol is not a resource recovery activity since it is
not utilizing "wastes"; however, this activity is significant in the respect
that it may stimulate interest in and study of waste-to-alcohol projects.
SOURCE: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
33
-------
metals to smelters or other recycling facilities. Counties are
reimbursed by the State Department of Health for both the costs of the
surveys and the subsequent amount of the contracts. Monies for the
program are derived from a $3.00 fee on each initial North Dakota
certificate of title issued to passenger and truck motor vehicles. Some
50,000 tons of junked automobiles have been collected through the
program from 1973 to 1979. Appendix D lists known North Dakota scrap
processors which purchase many types of scrap metals and other materials
for upgrading and/or selling to factories, plants or other large-scale
re-users of scrap materials. This expertise should be used by local and
State governments where feasible. Appendix E includes other potential
resource recovery buyers according to the SIC code.
Generally, attempts to source separate and recycle other materials
such as glass and plastic are not occurring in North Dakota today. How-
ever, two materials, tires and oil, need further examination within the
scope of this report. Tires pose especially difficult disposal problems
because when landfilled, tires resist compacting and burying and, over
time often rise to the surface, where they pose potential problems as
breeding places for vectors and fire hazards. Today, the only tires
being separated and recycled are those that are still in a condition to
be recapped. Two short-term possibilities for tire reuse may be as an
additive to asphalt for road-building and repairing, and as a supple-
mental fuel for power plants after shredding. Longer range alternatives
include the processes of destructive distillation and carbonization (two
forms of pyrolysis) which yield solid, gaseous and liquid, fuels, and the
process of hydrogenation, which converts scrap rubber to chemicals from
which new rubber can be synthesized. Waste oil can be source separated
and reused as a fuel, or as lubricating oil after re-refining of the
contaminated waste oil.
Although a number of problems exist with these options, a firm in
the Bismarck-Mandan area has recently begun an oil collection and reuse
system, and hopes to expand statewide. This firm, ECON, Inc., has
recently been engaged in a project to set up 10 central collection
points in the State, using the regional concept. At least one main
collection point for deposition of waste oil will be located in each of
eight regions in the State. Numerous contracts between ECON, Inc. and
cooperating service stations, garages, etc. are being drawn up in each
of the regions. The Corporation is purchasing waste oil from partici-
pating entities and private individuals at the rate of 15 cents per
gallon. Participating entities (such as service stations) can be
recognized by a special placard posted in a conspicuous location on the
premises.
As noted by the State Department of Health, the concept of re-
cycling waste oils into a reusable fuel product appears to be an ex-
cellent exercise in resource recovery although some concerns and ques-
tions have arisen. There is speculation that the finished product may
contain excessive levels of lead, which, when burned, could cause
environmental problems. Additionally, there exists the possibility that
PCB contaminated waste oils may be inadvertently collected and mixed
with other collected oils. Such a possibility would necessitate some
system of routine testing of the contents of transport vehicles as they
come into the ECON facility.
34
-------
A 1979 project by students at Concordia College in Moorhead,
Minnesota examined the feasibility of solid waste recycling in the
Moorehead and Clay County area which includes a part of the Fargo metro-
politan area. The study focused on the reduction of solid waste enter-
ing the landfill, and the provision of purposeful training and employ-
ment of the mentally handicapped. Information gathered by the students
applicable to this project include:
signs of signifcant community support for recycling in the
Fargo/Moorhead area, and
data on current markets for aluminum, ferrous metals, paper
and glass, summarized in this report in Appendix F.
Appendices D, E and F, then, consist of known markets for the more
common recovered materials, such as glass, metals and paper. These
sources should be used to give interested parties a start on their
market search. A detailed state-wide market survey is the next logical
step in determining other buyers, as further discussed in Chapter 7.
However, considering the low-density nature of North Dakota and its
surrounding areas, large numbers of potential recovered material buyers
just do not exist today. This fact is easily understood from an
economic-geographical analysis of the region. None of the four largest
population centers of Fargo-Moorhead, Bismarck-Mandan, Grand Forks and
Minot can provide the economic base for extensive industrial and other
activities which generate large demand for recovered materials. Com-
mercial and residential waste generation in these areas also are just
not of sufficient volume to provide widespread opportunity for material
recycling within the state's borders.
To the west, the population centers of Missoula, Helena, Butte,
Great Falls and Billings in Montana are all in the far western or
central part of the State, and all are at least 400 miles from the
nearest major North Dakota population center of Bismarck. To the south,
South Dakota has a similar low-density, low-industrial development
character to North Dakota and provides few significant buyers of
recovered resources. To the east, several Minnesota towns, most notably
Minneapolis-St. Paul (275 miles from Fargo) provide some of the more
important resource recovery market opportunities as listed in Appendix
F. To the north lie the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. The major population center of Winnipeg (150 miles from Grand
Forks and 225 miles from Fargo) has several major scrap dealers and a
seasonal paper recycler. The majority of cans in Canada are not made
from aluminum, so there does not exist the emphasis on aluminum re-
cycling that exists in the United States. The provincial government of
Manitoba reports that the province is in a very similar situation to
North Dakota with regards to materials recovery potential; i.e., that
interest is high but local or regional markets just do not exist in most
cases.
A detailed study concerning reuse of waste tires in the Canadian
prairie provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) was performed in
1977. The final report concluded that there existed an extensive
potential in the region for waste tire reuse in road applications and
35
-------
production of energy through incineration or pyrolysis. However, little
of this potential has been realized, and the majority of waste tires in
the region are landfilled. Overall, then, existing regional materials
markets cannot support an extensive resource recovery effort at this
time. Transportation of materials to more distant population centers is
generally not feasible because of extensive transportation costs. Any
detailed study to determine the feasibility of materials recycling
should take an especially hard look at both current and projected trans-
portation costs.
Citizen and community organization involvement in materials
recycling is minimal at the present time, although an occasional paper
drive or aluminum recycling effort is organized in the major North
Dakota cities. One community effort worthy of note is the Var collec-
tion center in Grand Forks. This organization collects cardboard, paper
and aluminum on a volunteer basis from the community. It does not pay
citizens for these materials. Proceeds from the sale of these wastes
support the programs of the Valley Association for Retarded Citizens.
Several community organizations have shown interest in resource
recovery, most notably the League of Women Voters. Local chapters of
the League can supply valuable information and seem to be knowledgeable
and experienced in community endeavors. Many individual citizens have
developed a "hobby" of collecting aluminum cans for sale to local buyers
such as McQuade's and Beverage Wholesalers. Groups such as Homemakers
Clubs or 4-H Clubs have been encouraged to become involved in the county
survey phase of County Abandoned Auto efforts under the Abandoned Auto
Act. Other groups have shown interest in recycling, but have been
plagued by lack of information or uncertain markets. For example, the
State Department of Health reports that a women's group of the Bethel
Lutheran Church in Wahpeton engaged in a paper drive for some months
several years ago. The group had plans to sell their waste paper to a
facility near Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. However, the market "dried up"
and the Church then was forced into storing approximately 50,000 pounds
of the material. For these citizens and community groups interested in
more information on recycling efforts, the very successful Portland
(Oregon) Recycling Team has compiled a handy guide for EPA entitled
"Operating a Recycling Program: A Citizen's Guide".
North Dakota is one of the national leaders in exploring and
assessing the feasibility of re-utilization of fly ash (primarily pro-
duced today from coal fired power plants, but with another potential
large source in North Dakota from high-BTU coal gasification plants) for
beneficial purposes. Professor Oscar E. Manz of the University of North
Dakota has been a pioneer in fly ash re-use in a number of areas.
Additionally, Gary Anderson of the Mercer County Energy Development
Board has begun a research program exploring various uses of this
material.
The major current uses of fly ash consist of supplements to Port-
land cement and asphalt road building material. For example, there have
been several lignite fly ash-line-aggregate base (poz-o-pac) road
building projects in North Dakota, and the North Dakota Highway Depart-
ment, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, approved
the substitution of 3 percent lime on a sub-grade A-7 soil stabilization
project on 1-29 in Eastern North Dakota. However, only 6 percent of the
36
-------
fly ash produced is currently being utilized for these purposes. This
limited use is primarily due to institutional (non-technical and
non-economic) constraints, which will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Research efforts have shown a much higher potential utilization, if these
obstacles can be overcome, although the possible public health problem
from the leaching of heavy metals within fly ash must be considered
further. A recent variation of fly ash use research consists of a mix
of fly ash, crushed glass, clay and grout to produce a very strong
ceramic-like material.
Applications of fly ash use to replace some or all of the lime or
limestone used in coal power plant sulfur dioxide scrubber systems look
very promising. Anticipated benefits of a fly ash scrubber system could
include one waste stream rather than two, lower capital and operating
costs, and lower energy and water requirements. As of mid 1979, there
were nearly 2,600 MWs of electricity generating capacity in Western
States that utilize fly ash, or fly ash supplemented with lime or lime-
stone in a wet scrubber system. One of these facilities, the Milton R.
Young Unit 2 generator run by the Square Butte Electric Coop, is located
in North Dakota.
The concept of direct recovery of materials from fly ash is being
increasingly discussed today since the technology does exist for
recovery of aluminum, titanium, iron and several other materials. A
number of uncertainties and problems impact this technology, including:
accurate analysis, of the trace element content in coals is
difficult because of the small quantities involved;
concentrations of elements vary tremendously vertically and
horizontally within a seam; and
uncertain economic viability.
It should be noted that some of the above described fly ash uses may be
mutually exclusive, and much additional research and anaysis of
materials recovery from fly ash is needed before any determination of
viability can be made.
Conversion
Municipal Solid Waste Most discussion and analysis of centralized
resource recovery systems has centered upon feasibility and implementa-
tion in the Fargo-Moorhead, Minnesota area. In 1976, with only two
years of expected landfill life in Fargo remaining, area communities
commissioned a study to investigate alternative solid waste management
options which could be implemented on a local or regional basis. This
study indicated that a centralized system to recover the energy content
of the municipal solid waste stream might prove to be an acceptable
alternative if adequate markets were available. As a follow-up to this
analysis, a consultant was retained by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to assist the City of Fargo in conducting a market study for
recovered energy products. Completed in early 1979, this market study
37
-------
concluded that the maximum market potential for recovered energy prod-
ucts significantly exceeds the amount of products which could be pro-
duced from the solid waste currently disposed of at the Fargo landfill.
However, the actual market is substantially smaller than this maximum
potential due to seasonal variations in demand, plant siting considera-
tions, and the institutional resistance of users to become involved in a
resource recovery project. The most feasible option was determined to
be the construction of a refuse-to-steam plant at North Dakota State
University. During the course of the study, Fargo completed negotia-
tions on the purchase of land adjacent to the existing landfill, which
extended the landfill lifetime 16 years at current waste generation
rates. This eliminated the immediate pressures to implement the
resource recovery alternative. However, the City of Fargo"s interest in
centralized resource recovery remains high, and the next step in the
feasibility process, a detailed waste generation study to determine
precisely the amount and type of solid waste generated in the
Fargo-Moorehead area (including seasonal variations), may begin in 1980.
The City of Bismarck has also recognized the potential benefits of
-energy recovery. A sanitary landfill study prepared in early 1979
analyzed a series of landfill disposal options, but it also included a
brief examination of resource recovery options and recommended that a
feasibility study be undertaken if state or federal funding could be
obtained.
In late 1979, the community of Valley City began exploring the
feasibility of utilizing municipal solid wastes to generate electricity.
It is hoped that an existing steam turbine and 3MW generator can be used
for this purpose. Community and city support for implementation is
strong. City officials are searching for outside funding to conduct a
feasibility study.
Methane recovery from landfills is just beginning to be explored as
a national energy resource. Methane generation in landfills may pose a
dilemma for many communities in North Dakota. Under certain conditions,
this methane is allowed to accumulate and migrate to adjoining proper-
ties, and thus can cause fires and explosions endangering human life and
property. Methane, however, is also a valuable fuel source, and can be
recovered directly from the landfill and used on- or off-site, thereby
alleviating the safety hazard and using the methane for beneficial
purposes.
Although a number of site-specific criteria need to be examined to
assess the potential of landfills for methane generation and collection,
generally accepted minimum criteria that a landfill should meet in order
to be considered a commercially viable methane producer include:
contributing population: 200,000;
minimum capacity: 2,000,000 tons;
average depth: 30 feet;
38
-------
size: 30 acres; and
t disposal rate: 500 tons per day.
It is obvious that no landfill sites within North Dakota meet these
criteria. Smaller landfills, however, do have some potential for
limited methane recovery. Landfills at Bismarck and Fargo may hold some
potential for the future because of site-specific criteria. It should be
noted that it is the biodegradation of paper and other organic waste
components in the municipal solid waste stream which produces the
methane in landfills. Therefore, other resource recovery options which
utilize these components may restrict the potential of methane recovery
from landfills in some situations.
Agricultural Wastes. Conversion of low-grade crops or agricultural
wastes to methane is a still developing technology. Although this
process has been widely practiced in India in small scale applicatons
for many years, U.S. efforts have centered upon determining the
feasibility of larger-scale uses. Generally, feedlot, dairy, and crop
wastes which might be useable for byconversion at this time are of too
low a density for large-scale North Dakota applications. The costs of
collection and transportation to a centralized location would most
likely too excessive. However, a grass-roots movement promoting
small-scale plants has arisen in recent years, which may be more
applicable to the rural, low-density situation in North Dakota.
Competing uses of these resources for other purposes (e.g. conversion to
ethanol, food products, fertilizer, etc.) may limit the amount of
biomass available for conversion to methane through anaerobic digestion.
The production of ethanol within the State is taking both large and
small scale directions. The North Dakota .State Office of Energy Manage-
ment and Conservation recently sponsored a workshop which centered on
small-scale (generally, farmers making alcohol fuels for their own use)
applications of alcohol fuels and other renewable resource technologies.
Several farmers are currently producing ethanol from cull (inferior)
potatoes on their own farms. Rising energy costs and energy dependence
on others are viewed as two of the major problems facing American
farmers today. However, the direct use of ethanol as fuel (in this
situation, ethanol is not mixed with gasoline to produce gasohol)
requires a number of engine modifications. Most farmers do not have the
requisite mechanical skills nor the time'for this, and would prefer to
have a more readily useable fuel source.
There is a limited amount of gasohol which is being sold at the
pump in North Dakota today. The alcohol component of this gasohol is
being transported from Decatur, Illinois. As might be expected, plans
are being made to produce ethanol on a more localized, large-scale basis
to meet the anticipated increasing gasohol demand. The American Energy
Corporation in Forman (a farmer's co-op) is in the advanced feasibility
study and design phase for a plant which would produce ethanol from
corn. Financing for this project has reportedly been secured. There
are a number of uncertainties which will confront a local ethanol
industry, including such factors as uncertain markets for the
high-protein by-product (which could be used as part of a cattle feed
39
-------
ration), uncertainty of continued subsidization of ethanol production
through Federal and State tax exemptions when gasohol is sold at the
pump (farmers making alcohol for their own use are not eligible for
these subsidies); uncertainty over gasohol net energy (some claim it
takes more energy to produce gasohol than what amount of energy can be
derived from the gasohol); competition from other fuels (renewable and
non-renewable); and public acceptance. Generally, however, ethanol
production should increase in upcoming years, although it is uncertain
at what rate and at what scale this growth will occur.
Although most discussion of alcohol fuels has centered upon
ethanol, methanol production from municipal solid wastes, stalks and
other wastes is receiving increasing attention. It is too early to tell
if this interest will result in substantial methanol production.
Another agricultural resource which holds significant resource
recovery potential is the sunflower hull. The sunflower has developed
from a minor crop to a major crop in North Dakota in the last decade.
With great potential for still further growth, the North Dakota State
Legislature passed the Sunflower Industry Promotion Act in 1979, which
established a Council to assist in industry development. To support the
activities of the Council, all sunflower grown and sold in the state
will be assessed one penny per hundred weight. A number of activities
are underway which are exploring the resource recovery potential of
sunflowers. The sunflower consists of two parts, the seed and the hull.
The seed, when crushed, yields sunflower oil and a high-protein mash
which can be used as a feed supplement. Generally, the sunflower seed
is not dehulled prior to crushing in this country, although in Russia,
dehulling prior to crushing has been practiced for some time, with the
hulls used to provide energy to run the plant. Dehulling before crush-
ing has several advantages, then, including:
a higher protein mash product;
higher efficiency relating to product transport (less volume);
less wear and tear on equipment; and
resource recovery potential of hulls.
There are several small-scale dehulling plants operating today, and
in North Dakota, the hulls are being coverted into logs (for use in
fireplaces, etc.). Currently, plans are progressing for several
large-scale combination de-hulling/crushing plants in North Dakota,
including sites near Fargo and Minot. In association with the potential
Minot site, Basin Electric has conducted tests to assess the feasibility
of burning hulls at the Wm. J. Neal generating station in Velva. Addi-
tional tests were also conducted at the Department of Energy Grand Forks
Energy Research Center in mid-1979. Hulls for the tests described above
were obtained from the CSP Foods Limited oil seed processing plant in
Altona, Manitoba. Basin Electric officials generally believe that the
concept of burning the hulls as a supplemental fuel is feasible, and are
exploring potential business arrangements with the de-hulling/crushing
facility operators.
40
-------
Cogeneration and Waste-Heat
The potential cogenerator normally requires a relatively high
volume of electricity and/or process heat to benefit from cogeneration.
In many ways the same power demand factors that strongly affect overall
capacity needs and costs of large central utilities are also relevant
here. Operations that have fairly steady electricity needs by
time-of-day and season, with relatively high load factors are best able
to use the full potential of cogeneration systems and avoid the costs of
excess generating capacity to meet peak requirements. For operations
completely removed from the utility's power grid (frequently done to
avoid capacity or back-up charges that might otherwise be incurred), the
ability to level off demand peaks through appropriate load management
techniques will affect the size of both the base and backup systems.
Facilities, therefore, that operate on a 24-hour basis (e.g., hospitals
and three-shift industrial plants), and/or find an appropriate balance
for the uses of the system's "waste heat" (e.g., cooling in summer,
heating in winter) will be in the best position to take advantage of
cogeneration installations.
While generally unfavorable today due to economic and institutional
constraints, cogeneration potential is substantial. For example, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has recently adopted final rules
which should eliminate one of the major institutional barriers. Elec-
tric utilities are now required to buy power from, and sell power to,
cogeneration and small production facilities.
41
-------
V. ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND ISSUES
Economic Competitiveness of Resource Recovery
Table 9 displays the probable costs and benefits (both quantifiable
and non-quantifiable) of resource recovery implementation. The consid-
eration of these costs and benefits presents several implications for
public and private decision-makers. Generally, private industry
investment decisions are based upon the highest profit or least cost
motive, while governmental investment decisions are based upon the need
to solve a problem of public concern and/or to protect the health and
welfare of citizens in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Both
sectors respond to economic signals, but the public sector must also
consider non-economic signals in providing for the public good. In the
case of resource recovery options, the private sector can be expected to
implement the options discussed previously only if a profit can be made;
however, governmental bodies may choose to implement a resource recovery
option to solve immediate or long term solid waste disposal problem or
to acquire the non-quantifiable benefits of implementation.
When the public sector is making this implementation decision, it
must consider the cost of alternatives. The major alternative to most
of the energy and material recovery options is disposal by landfill ing.
In North Dakota this costs approximately $5.00-$7.50 per ton of waste.
(See Appendix G for a general discussion of current resource recovery
costs.) Therefore, the governmental decision to implement one of these
resource recovery options (which is competing with landfill disposal)
must be based upon:
current economic competitiveness with landfill disposal;
anticipated economic competitiveness with landfill disposal in
the near future (particularly with respect to RCRA
implementation costs); or,
t the need to solve a problem, even if the resource recovery
option is not now, and may not be in the near future, eco-
nomically competitive with landfill disposal.
Collection costs will be necessary whether solid wastes are disposed
of in a landfill or are used for centralized resource recovery, and
the costs of waste collection are therefore not directly applicable
to the determination of the economic competitiveness of resource
recovery. These costs, however, will become important in the
consideration of a number of solid waste management alternatives
(including resource recovery alternatives), in which the proper
scale of operation must be determined. A discussion of the factors
affecting the appropriate scale of resource recovery implementation
can be found later in this Chapter.
42
-------
TABLE 9
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF CENTRALIZED RESOURCE RECOVERY
Direct Costs
Planning and design
Investment in plant and equipment
Site purchase and preparation
Transportation and transfer
Operating labor, maintenance, supervision
Residue disposal
Auxiliary fuels
Direct Benefits
Revenues from sale of materials and energy
Indirect Costs
Interjurisdiction coordination
Loss of flexibility to respond to changed waste characteristics
Air and water pollution from facility operation including residue
disposal
Health and safety hazards to workers and adjacent population
Indirect Benefits
Avoided cost of landfill or other disposal costs
Avoided water pollution from landfill or dumping
Reduced health and safety hazards to workers and population
adjacent to landfills or dumps
Reduced costs to collectors of dumping in controlled surroundings
Public relations benefits for participating communities and firms
Source: Office of Technology Assessment
43
-------
If resource recovery is economically competitive with landfill
disposal, then it can be expected that the private sector will enter the
market although government projects can also be expected in this case,
especially in light of the traditional governmental role in providing
waste disposal. Since there are no known immediate solid waste disposal
problems in North Dakota today, governmental involvement in resource
recovery based on near term problems cannot be expected at this time,
although this may be a justifiable basis for implementation in the
future. There are, however, resource recovery options, not now
economically competitive with disposal by landfilling, which may be
competitive in the coming years. Gradually rising landfill costs, and
increased recovered energy and material values to potential buyers,
signal the future viability of non-traditional waste disposal options.
Governmental implementation of resource recovery, then, can be based
upon planning for this future. The actual decision to implement cannot
be made before such factors as technological readiness, availability of
secure markets and a host of other factors are considered in addition to
economic justification. The private sector involvement in planning for
the future can be encouraged through the use of economic subsidies and
other incentives.
In those resource recovery options which are not directly com-
petitive with the landfill disposal alternative (e.g., use of waste
heat, organic wastes, etc.), the principles stated above remain valid.
The private sector can only be expected to implement an option if it
receives an acceptable rate of return.
Need and Desirability of Incentives and Subsidies
A number of factors influence the marketability of recovered
resources:
t the supply of the resource;
the demand for the resource;
the quality of the resource, including the degree to which it
meets the needs of any potential buyer;
the cost of producing and transporting the resource to the
buyer;
the price and availability of alternative or substitutes to
the recovered resource;
any other factors (i.e., additional cost, technical modi-
fications, etc.) which must be considered in substituting the
recovered resource for virgin resources.
These factors can be influenced by a number of exogenous actions,
most notably the implementation of Federal and State governmental
policies and legislation. These policies and laws can provide for
several types of incentives and subsidies, which ultimately affect the
supply or demand for recovered resources as discussed below:
44
-------
Shifting the Demand. Incentives which shift the demand for
recovered energy and materials are designed to make these
resources more economically competitive with their virgin,
substitute resources, either through decreasing the price of
the recovered resource, increasing the price of the virgin
resource, or both. Such incentives may include direct
subsidies (tax credits, price guarantees, etc.) to those who
purchase recovered resources, excise taxes (or "product
charges") placed upon virgin resources, or removal of tax
incentives (e.g., depletion allowance, investment credits,
etc.) for production of virgin resources.
Shifting the Supply. Supply incentives for recovered
resources affect the viability of plant implementation, either
through making a project feasible which would otherwise not
be, or through reducing the economic risk associated with
investing in an uncertain project. In the first case, the
technical and economic performance of a proposed project is
well known, the costs exceed the revenues, and the incentive
makes it possible to proceed with implementation despite
unfavorable economics. In the second case, the revenues are
uncertain, and the incentive will reduce the potential loss to
an investor who may otherwise consider the project too risky.
Incentives in these cases take the form of loan guarantees,
low interest loans, direct grants, guaranteed purchase,
guaranteed prices, tax credits, and several others.
Generally, stimulation of recovered resource demand is more important
than stimulation of the supply, although policies can be used in tandem
to accomplish both goals. A demand shift will inherently lead to a
supply shift after a certain lag period. An increase in the value of
recovered resources will lead to increased research and development
leading to technological innovation and the move of potential suppliers
into the marketplace to meet the increased demand. Affecting the
economic competitiveness of resource recovery with landfill disposal or
other options in the short run, through increasing the value of
recovered resources in the marketplace can be an important public policy
initiative.
As an example of how the supply of a product can be stimulated
through incentives, the case of ethanol production (for mixing with
gasoline to produce gasohol) can be examined. In this situation, the
demand does not need stimulation because of the already-existing high
demand for gasoline and its gasohol substitute. Table 10 displays three
sets of data comparing estimated late-1980 costs of (a) gasohol with
Federal and State tax credits; (b) gasohol without these tax credits;
and, (c) regular gasoline. In examing these data, keep in mind that the
actual numbers are not as important as relative prices among the three
options and the concept of how incentives work. As shown in the last
line of the Table, gasohol with the existing tax credits could be sold
for $1.31 per gallon, while gasohol without the tax credits would sell
for $1.39. Essentially, these tax credits subsidize ethanol production
at the rate of $0.80 per gallon. (One gallon of ethanol will mix with
45
-------
TABLE 10
EFFECT OF TAX CREDIT FOR GASOHOL
Gasohol
with
Tax Credit
Gasohol
without
Tax Credits
Unleaded
Gasoline
Gallon of Alcohol in North Dakota
(approximate current cost of ethanol
transported into the state)
9 Gallons Gasoline at $1.00/gallon
10 Gallons Gasoline at $1.00/gallon
Federal Tax at $0.04/gallon
State Tax at $0.OS/gallon
Less Federal Tax Credit on Gasohol
at $0.04/gallon
Less State Tax Credit on Gasohol
at $0.04/gallon
Jobber Cost (10 gallons)
Cost to Mix Gasohol at $0.02/gallon
Jobber and Retailer Profit Margin at
$0.15/gallon
Total Cost for 10 Gallons
Retail Cost per Gallon
$2.00
9.00
(.40)
$2.00
9.00
-
.40
.80
(.40)
-
.40
.80
_
10.00
.40
.80
_
11.40
.20
1.50
$13.10
$1.31
12.20
.20
1.50
$13.90
$1.39
11.20
-
1.50
$12.70
$1.27
SOURCE: Colorado Energy Research Institute, updated by Fred C. Hart Associates
46
-------
nine gallons of gasoline to produce ten gallons of gasohol.) These two
prices can be compared to the price of unleaded gasoline at $1.27.
Assuming that consumers know the non-quantifiable benefits of gasohol
use (reduced air emissions, reduced gasoline comsumption, energy
independence, etc.), many consumers will opt to purchase the gasohol at
$1.31 (gasohol with tax credits) instead of the unleaded gasoline at
$1.27 even though the gasohol is four cents more expensive.
Essentially, the consumer will feel this extra four cents required for
the gasohol purchase is compensated for by the non-quantifiable benefits
of gasohol use. On the other hand, consumers would not be expected to
buy the $1.39 gasohol (gasohol without tax credits) when unleaded is
available at $1.27. This situation (in which consumers buy gasohol
priced slightly higher than regular gasoline) has been documented in
several farm-belt states, most motably in Iowa and Nebraska.
Additionally, as the real price of gasoline rises faster than the real
price of ethanol, or if ethanol is produced in North Dakota instead of
purchased out-of-state (therby saving transportation costs), and
assuming the tax credits remain in effect, gasohol may soon be equal to
or less than the price of its pure gasoline competition.
While the use of incentives and subsidies to make an energy al-
'ternative economically viable, when it would not otherwise be
competitive with traditional energy sources, can be seen from the above
example, the use of incentives to aid in commercialization efforts
should not be overused. Incentives are best used in order to reach a
specific goal which has been formulated. This is yet to be the case for
resource recovery, and market distortions always have the potential of
signalling incorrect signs to consumers. However, most mining and major
energy sources used today (primarily virgin minerals and fossil fuels)
have enjoyed a number of Federal subsidies and incentives for many
years. Emerging technologies such as resource recovery will most likely
need similar incentives to stimulate their ability to compete with their
virgin material and energy counterparts. As these newer technologies do
become more competitive and begin to replace traditional resources in
the marketplace, a strong case can be made for removal of any incentives
used to stimulate commercialization, with pure market (supply and
demand) forces then determining appropriate consumption and price.
Appropriate Scale of Development
Whether a resource recovery system is implemented by the public
sector, the private sector, or a combination of the two, the appropriate
scale of operation must be determined through the consideration of a
number of factors:
technological reliability,
available volume of wastes;
institutional factors (non-economic and non-technological
factors; e.g. social, political and legal); and
economic factors, including the consideration of transporta-
tion, storage, and landfill costs; the market price of the
47
-------
recovered products; and process economies of scale (the
reduction in average unit cost associated with the increase in
the size of plant or activity up to a point, and thereafter an
increase in such cost).
Determination of the optimum resource recovery system for an area will
depend upon the analysis and subsequent balancing of the above factors.
In general, because of the rural, low density orientation of North
Dakota, the small-scale approach will be more practicable than the
larger-scale centralized approach to implementation.
Although determination of scale has traditionally been determined
primarily from technological and cost factors (the optimum resource
recovery system from the economist's viewpoint is one that manages a
region's waste at the lowest net cost per ton; while technologically,
the optimum system will produce the quantity and quality of marketable
goods which best meets the needs of buyers with little or no risk),
other factors have played an increasing role in this determination in
recent years. This recent trend has consisted of a movement toward
small-scale implementation, which has occurred for a variety of reasons,
as discussed below.
t Emerging Social Trends. Several social movements, including
interest in decentralized, "appropriate" or "soft"
technologies rather than centralized large-scale technologies,
and the desire to keep technology human-oriented and within
citizen control, have surfaced with widescale, grass-roots
support.
Reduction of Risk. The implementation of small-scale systems
reduces some of the monetary and technical risks and
uncertainties associated with more capital-intensive and
technologically unreliable larger-scale systems.
Institutional Constraints. Small-scale facilities many times
avoid the administrative, political and jurisdictional
problems which confront multi-jurisdictional, regionalized
large-scale facilities.
Operation Advantages. In addition to large cash outlays
required to design and construct high-technology resource
recovery options, these large-scale facilities also require
extensive cash outlays for continued operation and mainte-
nance. Operator availability and training are also major
uncertainties which are faced by high-technology facilities.
These parameters combine to offer small-scale systems signifi-
cant operating advantages over larger, more sophisticated
systems.
However, potential conflict exists with the movement toward small-scale,
low-volume implementation, not only on economic grounds, but also
because RCRA indirectly emphasizes the regional approach to solid waste
management (as exhibited in North Dakota) and resource recovery
implementation. This regionalized approach is favored to share the
48
-------
costs and risks among communities, introduce mixed private and public
responsibilities for waste management, and minimize facility siting
problems. These issues are further dealt with in Chapter 6.
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Risk can be thought of as the chance for encountering loss.
Resource recovery risk most often results from the uncertain
availability or cost of process inputs and outputs. As discussed to
some extent previously, some degree of risk is inherent in all activi-
ties, and in the case of resource recovery, risk can be a potentially
serious constraint to implementation. For private sector
decision-makers, implementation of a high risk project will normally
result in the expectation of a greater reward. This could adversely
affect the economic competitiveness of resource recovery with other
waste management options. For public sector decision-makers, a high
risk project may be abandoned because the commitment of taxpayer's money
cannot be justified under these circumstances. Reduction of risk is
essential before wide-scale growth of these new technologies can be
expected.
i terns:
Resource recovery uncertainty and risk centers around the following
t Technological Uncertainty. As discussed in Chapter 3, each of
the resource recovery technologies are at differing levels of
technological readiness and reliability. Implementation of a
still-developing technology to meet the needs of a particular
buyer may result in unexpected plant obsolescence; in break-
downs, necessitating backup sources of power or materials to
fulfill commitments and additional landfill space for disposal
while the facility is "down"; or in the production of inferior
products not up to buyer specifications. Risk reduction stra-
tegies include Federal government research and development (in
the long run, this may involve delaying the implementation
decision until a particular technology is reliable); the use
of only those technologies which are reliable today (which may
not match the needs of anticipated buyers, thereby violating
the "markets first, then technology" rule); and, the securing
of performance guarantees from system vendors.
Market (Buyer) Uncertainty. Market uncertainty takes two
forms: the availability of a buyer for the recovered products,
and the price at which these products will be purchased.
Inappropriate consideration of these two factors could be
disastrous. Risk reduction strategies center around the
securing of long-term contracts with buyers which specify the
quantity, quality and price arrangements agreed to by the
seller and buyer. However, this cannot always be accomplished
to a satisfactory degree, thereby making implementation unwise
under some circumstances.
Waste Uncertainty. Waste uncertainties take three forms: the
availabilityof the necessary quantity of the waste input
49
-------
(e.g., municipal solid waste, agricultural wastes, etc.); the
appropriate quality (composition) of these wastes; and the
price which will be paid by the resource recovery facility to
purchase these wastes. As with market uncertainty, risk
reduction is normally accomplished through the negotiation and
signing of long term contracts specifying the quantity,
quality, and price of the waste to be delivered to the
resource recovery facility.
0 Economic Uncertainty. In addition to the price uncertainties
of resource recovery inputs and outputs discussed above, other
economic uncertainties will include final determination of
capital and operating costs. Although detailed engineering
design and cost estimates will be made as a preliminary step
to implementation, the cost estimates are subject to modifi-
cation because of the limited operating experience of most
resource recovery technologies. A sensitivity analysis can
identify the critical variables which have the potential to
seriously affect economic viability. Risk management
techniques to reduce economic risk (which were also discussed
earlier in this Chapter) include guaranteed government loans,
spreading the risk among several entities, tax credits,
guaranteed prices, direct grants or subsidies, and several
others.
Environmental Uncertainty. The environmental and health
impacts of most resource recovery options are only currently
being defined, and it is uncertain if some of these
technologies can meet existing environmental rules and
regulations. Additionally, as with other emerging energy
technologies, resource recovery facility operators face an
uncertain future regulatory climate, including a complex maze
of permits, clearances and approvals. This is further dealt
with in Chapter 6.
Administrative/Jurisdictional Uncertainty. If a resource
recovery system involves a number of jurisdictions, and/or is
involved in a complex arrangement between the public and
private sectors, the continued involvement of all parties is
uncertain. Although contracts and agreements may be signed
among municipalities and firms, the possiblity of a juris-
diction pulling out from the agreement, or other associated
administrative problems, are real possibilities.
Financial Options and Tax Considerations
Many resource recovery systems will require a large front-end
capital investment to begin facility construction. This can be a
formidable obstacle to most communities and small businesses, and many
times require the use of borrowed funds rather than current revenues.
The determination of the most attractive financing arrangement for a
specific project will depend upon a number of case-specific conditions
50
-------
and circumstances, and a comprehensive financial analysis should be
performed. The North Dakota Business and Industrial Development
Department (BIDD) will play an important role in making detailed
financial and tax information available to municipalities and industry.
The State of North Dakota has shown its desire to aid industry
development within the state. The North Dakota Minicipal Industrial
Development Act (MIDA) was passed in 1955 as a result of the need to
encourage industrial development. After several revisions of MIDA, the
act now gives participating industries three incentives:
interest from general obligation and revenue bonds is exempt
from both North Dakota State and Federal income tax on issues
of less than one million dollars;
corporate income attributable to business done on leasehold
premises may be exempt from North Dakota taxation for a period
of five years; and,
real property may be exempted from taxation after negotiation
with any city or county and approval of the State Board of
Equalization.
MIDA bonds (essentially Industrial Development Bonds) can normally
be sold at a lower rate of interest than private bonds, lowering the
cost to the developer. Use of MIDA bonds results in public ownership of
a facility until the money is raised, at which time the municipality
either leases or sells (outright or on lease purchase arrangement) the
facilities to the participating industry. Benefits of this arrangement
accrue to both industry and the municipality. The industry receives the
benefits of tax-free bonds and facility ownership for tax purposes
(depreciation and investment tax credit for Federal corporate income
tax). An additional 10 percent (above the normal 10 percent) investment
tax credit is now available for many resource recovery technologies
through the Energy Tax Act of 1978. The municipality benefits by
sharing some of the risks associated with resource recovery
implementation with an experienced private firm. Municipalities may
also issue general obligation or revenue bonds for the purpose of public
ownership and operation.
Leveraged leasing is a relatively new concept for obtaining capital
in which a private financial intermediary (corporation or individual) is
interposed between a long-term source of capital (a municipality) and an
operating firm. This intermediary carries out all financial
arrangements between the two parties and uses the ownership advantages
of depreciation and tax credits to receive a sufficient after-tax return
on the initial investment. The long-term capital source supplies 60-80
percent of the necessary capital through tax free bonds, while the
operating company is hired and committed to a long-term lease.
For the purpose of encouraging and promoting agriculture, commerce
and industry, the State of North Dakota has also engaged in the business
of banking. The State Bank of North Dakota is under the supervision of
51
-------
the North Dakota Industrial Commission which is composed of the
Governor, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Agriculture. The
bank is the depository of all State funds as well as funds from several
political subdivisions. It accepts time and checking accounts from
individuals as well as corporations, but is prohibited from making
private commercial loans. Direct loans from the Bank of North Dakota
are limited by law to departments of state government, political
subdivisions or in connection with G.I., FHA and SBA loans insured by
the federal government. Other banks and financial institutions can be
approached for loans by either public or private entities.
With respect to capital financing, then, there exists three main
sources of external funds available for resource recovery development:
(a) bank borrowing, (b) revenue from public or private bonds, and (c)
leasing arrangements. Although a case-specific determination of the
proper financing arangements will depend upon a number of factors
(including the magnitude of the project, credit ratings, community
attitude, legal constraints, etc.), the key to the financing decision
may be the desired level of private sector involvement in resource
recovery.
In addition to securing funds for initial planning and
construction, capital to cover operating and maintenance costs may also
be of concern in some instances. If the direct costs of resource
recovery operation exceed the revenue from the sale of recovered
resources plus credits for any subsidies and incentives, additional
funds will be necessary for continued operation. These funds could come
from a number of municipal or state tax sources (e.g., ad valorem
property tax, sales tax, utility tax, or a special assessment of some
type), or from a tipping fee system (similar to landfill tipping fees)
in which the resource recovery facility would charge an appropriate fee
to those haulers depositing wastes for processing. This fee would be
incorporated into the existing charge and billing system (whether the
hauler is public or private) so that a "user pays" system is put into
effect.
52
-------
VI. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS
Federal and State Institutions, Policies and Legislation
A number of Federal policies and laws affect the development of
resource recovery projects. The major agencies involved in carrying out
these policies are the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of Commerce, and the Department of Energy. As more fully discussed in
Chapter 2, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 encourages
implementation of resource recovery, and requires its consideration as
an alternative to other solid waste management methods. RCRA provides
the impetus for the following EPA programs:
Resource Recovery Seminars. Seminars designed for state and
local officials and interested citizens provide an overview of
the technological, economic, institutional and other aspects
of resource recovery feasibility.
State Resource Recovery Capability. Under the planning
guidelines mandated by Section 4002, the development at the
state level of a capability to assist communities in resource
recovery implementation is encouraged.
Planning and Procurement Grants to Local Governments. As part
of the Urban Policy Program, communities are eligible to
receive grants for feasibility studies to aid in the
implementation of resource recovery.
Technical Assistance Panels. Under Section 2003 of RCRA, each
EPA Regional Office has the responsibility to provide
expertise (through in-house staff and contracting
arrangements) on solid waste management problems, including
resource recovery. In addition, a peer-matching program
allows local or State officials who have a specific problem to
meet with officials who have faced similar problems in the
past.
Data Base. EPA is charged with the responsibility of
developing an information base on the technology, economics,
and environmental performance of operating resource recovery
systems.
The Department of Energy has shown increasing interest in energy
recovery from solid wastes and is studying the possibility of estab-
lishing a local guarantee program to finance construction of resource
recovery facilities. The Department of Commerce has been charged with
the responsibility of locating and stimulating recovered resource
markets and promoting and encouraging commercialization of proven
technologies. To stimulate increased demand for recycled materials, all
Federal agencies are required to procure items composed of the highest
percentage of recycled materials practicable. State and local
governments and contractors must abide by this rule when purchasing with
Federal funds.
53
-------
The biggest problems with Federal involvement in resource recovery
have been (a) lack of coordination of the various programs, and (b)
inadequate funding to carry out these activities in an effective manner.
In an effort to solve these problems, EPA has assumed the lead role in
the establishment of an interagency committee to formulate a five year
resource recovery plan to be released in 1980. The plan is to focus on
coordination of efforts to remove barriers to implementation, deter-
mination of the proper role of Federal involvement in resource recovery
activities, and the assessment of alternatives to utilize available
Federal resources (money, personnel, etc.) in the best way.
It is clear that the Federal government will play a major role in
how and when resource recovery industry development occurs. Some areas
of continued and expanded Federal resource recovery programs can be
expected as follows:
0 Research and Development. Research and development efforts
will center upon the development of reliable technologies, and
to a lesser extent the uses of recovered resources (some
resources, e.g., energy fuels, aluminum, and ferrous metals,
will enter already established markets).
Federal Procurement and Stockpiling. Continued expansion of
Federal purchasing of recovered resources will develop and
stimulate markets, as well as accomplish other social goals
such as strengthening small business and encouraging
competition. As a step in developing resource recovery as a
national goal, the Federal government may choose to establish
a recovered material stockpile system, in which the government
would buy materials when prices and quantities purchased are
low and sell when prices and quantities are high.
Technical Assistance. Continued and expanded support of the
T.A. Panels concept to supply information and skills to local
governments can be expected.
Financial Assistance. Because of the strong national
popularity and political acceptability of resource recovery,
Federal lawmakers can be expected to provide a number of
economic incentives and subsidies to make resource recovery
more economically viable.
Revision of Freight Rates. Although the potential for im-
proving the markets for recovered resources through Federal
freight rates adjustments is limited . in the short-run,
revisions can be expected because of the widely-held belief
that these resources are discriminated against by the existing
freight rate framework.
The above policies will certainly not remove all barriers to
implementation, and may create additional problems when local and state
governments are forced to deal with the Federal bureaucracy. However,
such steps are, most likely, necessary prerequisites to wide-scale
resource recovery development. Federal control over this development
54
-------
will dwarf any type of State of North Dakota control unless the state
takes a proactive (rather than a reactive) approach to consideration of
resource recovery as a waste management alternative. This doe not mean,
however, that some Federal activities (e.g., R & D) are not best dealt
with at the Federal level.
With respect to existing North Dakota State agency involvement with
resource recovery, the State Department of Health, as the agency
responsible for administration and enforcement of the state solid waste
program, currently retains the primary role in all facets of solid waste
management and planning. The Department of Agriculture can play a
prominent role in resource recovery development through its role as an
information source and agriculture/livestock promotor. Waste conversion
to energy sources may become a primary interest of the State Energy
Management and Conservation Office along with its role as an information
source for technical and social energy conservation methods. The Public
Service Commission, as the primary state regulatory and plant siting
enforcement agency, plays a key role in future energy production and
conversion plant development. The Governor's Office, as might be
expected given North Dakota's future role as a major energy supplier,
has shown a special interest in energy development of all kinds. The
roles of several other state agencies (e.g., the Business and Industrial
Development Division, which aids private sector/municipality joint
projects; the Bank of North Dakota, which supplies funds through loans
to divisions of state government and/or in connection with loans secured
by the Federal government; etc.) were previously discussed. See Table
11 for an overview of State agencies having potential resource recovery
roles.
Generally, with respect to existing State of North Dakota
legislation and policies, there is little that discourages resource
recovery development. On the other hand, there is also little that
encourages this development. The State Solid Waste Management and Land
Protection Act recognizes the benefits of resource recovery by declaring
two purposes of the Act to be:
promote the application of resource recovery systems which
preserve and enhance the quality of air, water and land
resources; and
promote and assist in the development of markets for recovered
and recycled materials.
The Act also gives broad powers and responsibilities to the State
Department of Health, including the promotion, planning and
determination of applications of resource recovery. However, given the
current circumstances within North Dakota (lack of existing solid waste
management data base; lack of State and other funds for feasibility
studies and management analysis; the rural, low-density character of
North Dakota population settlement and industrial development; lack of
technical expertise, etc.), resource recovery innovation and development
in North Dakota has been forced into a position of low priority. This
situation can only be changed through appropriate organization,
commitment and public policy.
55
-------
TABLE 11
STATE AGENCIES WITH
POTENTIAL ROLES IN RESOURCE RECOVERY
State Agency
Department of Health
Energy Management and Conser-
vation Office
Department of Agriculture
Public Service Commision
0 Business and Industrial Develop-
ment Department
Bank of North Dakota
Governor's Office.
0 Highway Department
0 Construction Superintendent
0 State Procurement Agent
0 Attorney General
Rule
Advisory and Regulatory rule for
Solid Wastes
Gasohol and other Alternative
Fuels
Agricultural, Dairy and Feed lot
Wastes
Waste Heat and Cogeneration
Resource Recovery and Economic
Development
Small-scale loans
Energy Resources, Development
and Impacts
Uses of fly .ash, glass and tires
Building codes and approval of
recovered material re-use
State Procurement of recovered resources
Interpretation and Legality of Legis-
lation and Pol icy
SOURCE: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc,
56
-------
Existing Institutional Constraints
Institutional constraints can be thought of as those non-techno-
logical and non-economic factors which act as barriers to resource
recovery implementation. These constraints are frequently caused by (a)
unintentional results of actions geared to meet other needs; (b) the
existing framework of institutions, laws and policies; or (c) social,
political or attitudinal characteristics of a municipality, region or
higher level unit. Institutional constraints are not unique to resource
recovery; they also confront many other emerging technologies. It is
becoming more common to base planning and implementation decisions on
the goal of avoiding institutional barriers. Factors such as markets,
risk and uncertainty, and financing, are frequently included in an
institutional analysis; however, for purposes of this report, these
factors were considered to be in the realm of economic viability, and
were discussed in Chapter 5. Further discussion of institutions (and
their potential to act as resource recovery contraints) over which the
State of North Dakota has at least some degree of control is necessary
as a prerequisite to public policy formulation. These institutional
constraints apply to situations within North Dakota and include:
Informational Constraints (Availability and Dissemination).
It is clear that interest in exploring various resource
recovery options is high throughout North Dakota; however, it
is also clear that there exists an inadequate data base from
which to make the necessary comparisons and analyses to
determine resource recovery viability. This situation is
certainly not unique to North Dakota, and has resulted from
the facts that (a) there is very little resource recovery
experience from which knowledge has been gained to make
development a relatively low risk, (b) lack of adequate
resources (funds, personnel, etc.) in North Dakota, (c) the
existence of only minor immediate solid waste disposal
problems within the State, and (d) for that information which
is known within various state government agencies, there is no
mechanism for information dissemination to interested citizens
and developers.
Jurisdictional Constraints. Jurisdictional problems may be
the most complex and most difficult to overcome of all
institutional constraints. These problems can be subdivided
into the following issues and concerns which must be analyzed
and resolved before many resource recovery concepts can be
implemented.
t Proper Roles for Public and Private Sectors. As discuss-
ed in Chapter 5, resource recovery can become a reality
through public sector involvement, private sector
involvement, or a combination of the two. Different
areas of North Dakota have different needs and resources,
making each resource recovery decision dependent upon
case-specific and/or site-specific characteristics and
conditions. Private and public investors base their
decisions on different criteria, and under current
57
-------
circumstances, the public sector will have to create a
positive framework for private sector investment in
resource recovery if wide-scale private sector
involvement is assumed to be desirable.
Fragmented and Overlapping Jurisdictions. A viable
resource recovery facility may require the cooperation
and coordination of several units of local government.
This may result in the necessity for legal agreements
which spell out specific responsibilities, leading to the
formation of a complex administrative framework and a
"critical path" which is easily interrupted. If a
multi-jurisdictional arrangement is necessary, the
determination of an equitable and effective method for
sharing the costs of waste transportation, transfer and
processing is difficult.
Waste Flow Control. The responsibility for, and
ownership of, wastes after discard can be a significant
constraint to the economic feasibility of resource
recovery. To avoid this problem, some resource recovery
plant operators have sought the establishment of
ordinances which guarantee delivery of a local
government's entire supply of solid waste, and
prohibition of skimming of the high-value wastes for sale
to scrap processors by private collectors. (A similar
problem is faced by source separation programs, which
are subject to scavenging when materials are left at
curbsides or at centralized drop-off areas.) The
enactment of waste flow control laws essentially, then,
shift some risk from the resource recovery facility
operator to other involved (public and private) parties.
However, such a law may also forestall competition in
resource recovery and encourage inefficient operation.
Resource Recovery Specifications and Procurement. Specifi-
cations for recovered resources are established by a number of
private entities and one Federal agency. The most important
of these standard-setters are the American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) and the Office of Recycled Materials
within the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS effort
is a part of the Department of Commerce responsibility (from
RCRA) to examine and stimulate resource recovery markets.
Development of guidelines and specification research are
currently focusing on three major areas:
the organic fraction of municipal solid waste;
the recovery of metals, glass, plastics,
construction materials and rubber; and
the recycling of waste oil.
58
-------
The ASTM program is much broader in scope and includes all of
the above plus fly ash (as a filler product) and refuse
derived fuel. (Specifications for other energy products such
as steam, gas and electricity are negotiated amonq producers
and users according to established specifications.) The ASTM
standards have broad impact upon potential markets in North
Dakota (and most other states) through their incoporation into
uniform building codes and state procurement policies. For
example, the amount of fly ash for use in cement and bricks is
limited by the ASTM standards in building codes, although
research has shown that a higher fly ash composition is
potentially acceptable. The State Department of Highways has
shown its interest in use of recovered resources through (a)
its use of fly ash in roadbuilding, (b) its current tests on
the use of recycled rubber material as a highway sealant to
prevent cracks, and (c) an interest in testing finely-crushed
glass as a roadbuilding filler. It too, however, is limited
in transforming these concepts into realities through codes,
specifications and "accepted practices".
Political, Social and Attitudinal Constraints. Although the
encouragement of resource recovery implementation could be
considered as a progressive, "thinking ahead" attitude, it
must be realized the political, social and attitudinal
realities within a state such as North Dakota will constrain
actual implementation to some degree. This is due to the
realities of:
general resistance of change among institutions;
conservative nature and political climate of the
State;
t receipt of resource recovery benefits is not
distributed evenly, nor will be received by all
citizens;
t lack of pressing solid waste disposal problems;
a "wait and see" attitude adopted by many municipal
and utility decision-makers to avoid potential
financial, technical, regulatory, administrative and
political problems (essentially, these
decision-makers may be thinking "let others take the
risks, we'll learn from their mistakes").
Inter-State Planning Constraints. As discovered during the
recent planning and study phases for a centralized resource
recovery facility in the Fargo-Moorhead, Minnesota area,
coordination of inter-state institutions, policies and
planning is difficult. These types of problems were
anticipated within RCRA, which authorizes two or more states
to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts for:
59
-------
cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the
management of solid waste or hazardous waste (or
both) and the enforcement of their respective laws
relating thereto, and
the establishment of such agencies, joint or
otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making
effective such agreements or compacts.
North Dakota, then, will need to explore in detail the desira-
bility and need for such agreements with the states of Montana
and, more importantly, Minnesota. The resource recovery
management alternative should be a major part of such an
agreement.
Environmental Constraints. Generally, very little is known
about the qualities and quantities of air emissions and water
effluents resulting from the operation of resource recovery
conversion facilities. For example, utilities are very
concerned about potential violations of environmental
restrictions from the use of refuse derived fuel as a
supplement to coal supplies. Although some data is being
gathered from a few currently operating demonstration
facilities, the uncertainties of potential environmental
violations is an obstacle which needs further examination. An
additional constraint consists of plant siting difficulties.
As with a landfill, some citizens would object to being
subjected to the nuisances of a large-scale resource recovery
facility. However, siting options are limited in many cases
because of the transportation limitations of cost and
availability and the geographic distribution of potential
users.
Public Policy Issue Constraints. Opinions as to the best
public policy approach to solid waste management and control
differ widely. For example, some of the major unresolved
public policy issues include:
t Waste Reduction vs. Resource Recovery. What are the
relative costs and benefits of policies emphasizing
waste reduction (reducing the volume of wastes
generated through changes in packaging, processing
and other "throw-away" habits and attitudes) vs.
policies emphasizing resource recovery? Are the
approaches compatible?
High Technology vs. Low Technology. Should the
resource recovery emphasis be on centralized,
high-technology, highly-mechanized approaches, or on
local, low-technology, labor-intensive approaches?
Are the two approaches compatible in the overall
plan?
60
-------
Incentives vs. Free Market. Should policies be
formulated to remove economic barriers to resource
recovery implementation through subsidies, guar-
anteed loans, grants and other means, or is the
commercialization best left to market forces?
t Roles of Federal, State and Local Governments. What
is the appropriate mix of participation among these
three levels of government? Which types of policies
(incentives, removing barriers, land-use decisions,
regulations, etc.) are best suited to each level?
t Policy Formulation Criteria. What role should
non-quantifiable parameters (perceptions of quality
of life, environmental health and welfare, cultural
and social factors, conservation of resources, etc.)
play in the formulation of resource recovery public
policies? What is the appropriate role of
quantifiable parameters (comparative economics,
fiscal impacts, etc.)?
61
-------
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
A STATE RESOURCE RECOVERY STRATEGY"
Summary of the Existing Situation
Chapters 1 through 6 of this report have concentrated on assessing
the current solid waste situation, resource recovery activities, and
factors affecting the potential for future resource recovery implementa-
tion within the State of North Dakota. Brief generalizations which can
be drawn from this assessment include:
factors such as RCRA requirements, increasing solid waste
generation and associated landfill disposal needs, increasing
landfill and traditional energy resource costs, and the
conservation ethic are the major thrusts behind the considera-
tion of resource recovery as an alternative to other solid
waste management techniques;
t North Dakota has made substantive efforts to meet RCRA solid
waste requirements through its efforts to close open dumps and
convert solid waste management throughout the state to a
system of regional sanitary landfills; however, increasing
volumes of municipal, agricultural, industrial, and other
wastes, and the uncertainty of the long term adequacy of some
existing sanitary landfill sites, create the potential for
future management problems;
the major competitor to most resource recovery options is
landfill disposal, and current landfill disposal costs within
the State are typically $5.00 - 7.50 per ton, which will be
the least cost solid waste management alternative in almost
all cases;
there exist several energy recovery options which may be
applicable in North Dakota in the short-term, most notably
modular incineration of municipal or institutional solid
wastes, use of sunflower hulls as supplemental fuel for
co-firing with coal in existing coal power plants, and conver-
sion of organic wastes to various energy forms such as ethanol
(see Table 12);
the most immediate potential for energy recovery from
municipal solid wastes consists of small-scale, institutional
applications in the Bismarck and Fargo areas, primarily
because of a higher level of awareness and previous study in
these areas; however, other population centers of Minot,
Grand Forks, Jamestown, Dickinson, and Williston hold similar
small-scale potential for direct incineration and possibly for
co-firing of wastes with coal in existing boilers;
there exist few viable markets for recovered materials with
the possible exceptions of the existing scrap industry, and
aluminum and paper in Bismarck and Fargo (see Table 12);
62
-------
TABLE 12
ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCE RECOVERY
POTENTIAL IN NORTH DAKOTA
Resource Recovery
Alternative
Source Separation and Recycling
01
CO
Assessment of Potential
in North Dakota
excellent for aluminum
good for paper
fair for ferrous (primarily through
existing scrap industry)
uncertain for fly ash
poor for glass cullet
a poor for tires in the short-term;
better in long-term
fair for waste oil
Comments
"up and down" markets for
paper and ferrous
fly ash reuse dependent
upon potential environmental
problems
few known material markets
for Nor:h Dakota recovered
resources
tire reuse dependent upon
expanded markets and removal
of institutional constraints
organizational, institutional
and market problems hinder
waste oil recycling; however
politically acceptable with
extensive support
Energy Recovery from Municipal
Solid Waste
poor for large-scale, centralized
incineration systems
good for modular incineration
with heat recovery in institutional
settings
poor for pyrolysis, refuse derived
fuel and other high technologies
low volumes of waste make
large-scale impractical
keys to modular feasibility
are rising landfill costs
and increasing energy prod-
uct credits
-------
TABLE 12 Cont.
poor for methane from landfills
Federal government plays a
major role in determining
future potential through R & D
and financial aid
utility and private sector
acceptance would increase
potential significantly
Energy Recovery from
Agricultural Wastes
good for sunflower hull supple-
mental fuel
good for alcohol fuels
0 poor for anaerobic digestion
reuse of sunflower hulls appears
to be acceptable politically
and has utility support
alcohol fuels enjoy Federal
and State tax breaks and is
acceptable politically
anaerobic digestion potential
limited by competing uses
of wastes and low volumes
Waste Heat and Cogeneration
uncertain
t needs further study
potential has been greatly
increased by Federal requirement
that utilities buy power from
cogeneration
SOURCE: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-------
t public sector involvement and/or private sector involvement,
is possible in resource recovery implementation depending upon
the case-specific circumstances;
the scrap industry and utilities have potentially important
roles in providing markets for recovered resources;
private sector involvement in implementation is desirable,
although under current circumstances, private sector involve-
ment in many cases must be encouraged through incentives,
subsidies, and other public policies;
t the appropriate scale of resource recovery development will be
dependent upon a number of case-specific factors, although
there is a definite trend toward small-scale development to
avoid high capital costs and institutional constraints;
unknown waste stream composition, an assured supply of wastes,
long-term market commitments, and technological and economic
uncertainties are some of the major factors contributing to
implementation risk;
there are several options available for project financing, the
most attractive of which may be MIDA bonds; and there are
several existing State and Federal tax incentives which can
make a specific project more economic;
t EPA has the major Federal role in establishing national
resource recovery policies and standards, with the Department
of Commerce and the Department of Energy also playing
important roles through the identification and stimulation of
markets, and research, development, and financial incentives,
respectively;
several North Dakota agencies have potential resource recovery
roles, with the Department of Health' playing the major role
through its solid waste advisory and enforcement responsibil-
ities; and
t there exist several institutional constraints (non-economic
and non-technological) within North Dakota; and although
interest in resource recovery within the State remains high,
the most basic institutional constraint to be overcome is
informational (both retrieval and dissemination).
This assessment leads to the general conclusion that landfill disposal
is the most viable waste management alternative for the large majority
of specific cases within the State at the present time. This is due
primarily to the existing costs of landfill disposal and energy sources.
This does not mean, however, that the resource recovery option should
not be examined on a site-specific basis, or that a statewide framework
to encourage resource recovery cannot or should not be formulated and
implemented by the State. Such a framework should aid in the choice of
resource recovery implementation over other alternatives in an efficient
and effective manner when conditions warrant such implementation. The
fiC
-------
impact of State policies will be limited since the State has little or
no control over many of the factors affecting site-specific resource
recovery feasibility.
The Recommended Resource Recovery Framework
A framework to encourage resource recovery activities would, ideal-
ly, be politically expedient, economically feasible, and socially
acceptable. In this regard, the framework should be "appropriate" for
North Dakota given current conditions.
The recommended framework, as depicted in Figure 3, consists of two
major thrusts:
the formulation of internal policies and procedures within the
State Department of Health and other agencies, and
State encouragement of the local application of existing
legislation which gives governmental entities specified organ-
izational, administrative, marketing and other powers neces-
sary for resource recovery implementation.
The level or degree of framework development and implementation can be
adjusted to the needs of the State now and in the future as conditons
change.
The framework will allow the State to retain its regulatory and
advisory roles over solid waste management activities. However, this
policy and legal framework will also allow the State to encourage
resource recovery through the consideration of resource recovery as an
alternative to other waste management and energy resource options.
Additionally, the framework will allow resource recovery activities to
occur in a public sector - private sector cooperative atmosphere through
the encouragement and promotion of private sector involvement in
resource recovery planning and implementation.
The consideration of resource recovery as an alternative in North
Dakota is certainly not a situation of crisis management, but rather one
of sound planning for the future. However, current or near-term
resource recovery opportunities should not be missed, and the effort to
encourage the consideration of the resource recovery alternative should
begin now.
State Agency Resource Recovery Policies and Procedures
The most immediate need within the State centers around information
flow. This includes information retrieval, availability and dissemina-
tion. Although interest in resource recovery within North Dakota is
high, little information on resource recovery options is being distrib-
uted at the present time. Several management actions could be taken by
the State to improve this situation. For example, the Division of
Environmental Waste Management and Research of the Department of Health
could act as the coordinating point in any effort to encourage resource
recovery. Current organization of this Division is shown in Figure 4.
66
-------
Figure 3
The State Policy Framework
State Agency
Policies and Procedures
I
Improve
Information Flow
Encouragement of
Resource Recovery
\
Encourage Local
Application of Existing
Legislation
I
Basic Powers for Local
or Other Governments
develop and maintain essential
contacts
serve as information clearinghouse
establish public education effort
obtain waste characterization
and other data
conduct and update a detailed
market survey
I
Funding sources for studies,
personnel, and other resources
Federal grants-EPA and DOE
general tax revenues
solid waste tax
portion of severance tax
control of waste movement
multi-jurisdictional organizations
own, operate, and lease
sell recovered resources
e enter into long-term contracts
utilize Federal, State, and other funds
Fred C. Hart Associates
67
-------
. FIGURE 4
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Dlvinlon-
Divlolon of Environmental Waoto
Management and Research
I
Jay H. Crawford, Director
Martin R. Gohock, Aao't. Director
Administrative/
Secretarial Support-
Program-
Public
Participation
1
tori tundo
1
Environmental 1
Effects 1
i
Occupational
Health & Safety
Seer o to i
Scrvic
' 1
Florence
rial
29
Flcgol
1 5
Waste
Management
cr>
oo
Program Manager
Branch--
Drnnch Manager-
Staff
Dconch Activltloo-
Martin R. Schook
P. Leo lluber
doll Knatterud
Robert T. Angola
_ I
A/0 Model
Development
& Evaluation
Special Air '
Ouallty/Moteor-
ologlcal studies
Environmental
Standarda Review
and Analysis
COP Linlaan
Joyce nurno
On-Sito Consulta-
tion Project
Toxic Chemical
Review
Technical
Assistance
Solid Haatcs
Management
Hazardous
Ha ate
Management
Energy/
Resource
Recovery
Lon Revail
Municipal Solla
Waoto Project:
Plan
Inspection and
Enforcement
Training o£
Solid Waste
Disposal Site
Operators
Sma11 Commun1ty
Alternatives
Project
I
Timothy Link
Inventory of
Disposal Sites
Special UBO
Disposal
Permits
Toxic Chemical
Impact Assess-
ment
Technical Assist-
ance .
bnva Switllck
Aunndoncu Auto
Project
Resource Recovery
Project
Haste Energy
Recovery Project
-------
Essentially, the Division would serve as a resource recovery information
clearinghouse, and its functions in this role would include:
developing and maintaining formal contacts with other State
agencies, Federal agencies, the scrap industry, utilities,
large energy and materials consumers, sources of financial aid
and technical expertise, and any others,who have primary roles
in current resource recovery activities ;
2
developing resource recovery expertise and serving as a point
of contact for North Dakota local governments, regional waste
management systems, the private sector, and any others who
need resource recovery information;
formulating a public education effort in the form of a bro-
chure or packet of information which refers all those involved
or interested in resource recovery to the Division;
obtaining site-specific information on the waste management
practices and costs and the quantity, quality and availability
of wastes within the State, and using this information to make
recommendations of sites worthy of detailed resource recovery
feasibility studies; and
t conducting and updating a detailed market survey of potential
buyers of recovered energy and material resources (see Appen-
dix H for an example of such a survey in Indiana).
State procurement actions are also a possible incentive to resource
recovery. The possibility of State procurement of recovered resources
has been reviewed within the Office of the State Purchasing Agent. At
this time, State procurement of these resources is limited because of
the relatively small quantities of goods purchased by the State. A
formal analysis of a state procurement policy to encourage resource
recovery should be made. The development of State resource recovery
procurement policy would be a very positive step in the establishment of
an overall State framework.
This could be done through the establishment of a Resource Recovery
Advisory Council with representation from all involved groups. One of
the major roles of this Council would be to stay aware of those key
factors affecting resource recovery feasibility (rising landfill
costs, increasing energy product credits, etc.) which will be changing
in the near future. Using this awareness and dialogue as a basis,
further State policy recommendations can be made which fit the needs
of these changing conditions.
2
The most immediate need is familiarity with EPS's Decision-Making
Guides for Resource Recovery and with the EPA Resource Recovery Plan-
ning Model, which provides a step-by-step framework for performing
feasibility analyses to arrive at "go/no go" decisions at signifi-
cant points in the planning process.
69
-------
Another possible State resource recovery action might include a
voluntary paper recycling program in Bismarck, provided that a stable
paper buyer was available in the area. Certainly, tires and oil from
State vehicles should be integrated into any future recycling programs.
Therefore, in addition to State procurement policies, the State could
also take a positive step through the establishment of policies which
would ensure that its own waste streams were made available to those
parties who were engaged in reputable and constructive resource recovery
activities.
State agencies such as the Department of Highways and the State
Construction Superintendent could facilitate the reuse of fly ash,
crushed glass, and tires, but are bound by the limitations of standard
practices, building codes,.and other guidelines and standards. These
external factors severely limit the ability of these agencies to make
any major commitment to recovered resources. However, the Department of
Health Solid Waste Group can keep these agencies aware of research and
development opportunities (most likely in association with Federal
agencies) and of changes in these limitations as experimental test
trials become accepted and commercial practices.
The Department of Agriculture, the State Energy Management and
Conservation and the Governor's Energy Office should be key contacts for
encouragement of conversion of organic substances into energy. The
primary resource recovery emphasis of these three agencies, based on
existing conditions, would be on the use of sunflower hulls as a supple-
mental fuel and conversion of wastes to alcohol fuels. The Department
of Health must become aware of and utilize these potential information
sources and encourage coordination of resource recovery efforts. Addi-
tionally, the Department of Health can work with the Public Service
Commission in coordinating an effort to promote the reuse of waste heat
for space heating and cogeneration, especially in institutional set-
tings, universities, and office buildings.
These efforts and objectives obviously will take additional per-
sonnel, money, and other resources. The second basic recommendation,
then, concerns the need for financial resources. In the near term the
State is most likely limited to Federal sources of funding (primarily
EPA and DOE) for resource recovery feasibility studies, market assess-
ments, and other site-specific studies. Competition for these Federal
funds will be stiff, and a more aggressive effort must be made by the
State to enable it to obtain the necessary planning funds. The best
opportunities for funding will be from EPA's T.A. Panels program (which
is funding this report) and from DOE's expected emphasis of synthetic
fuels. This emphasis includes the conversion of wastes into energy.
Funding potential from the latter source would be greatly bolstered by a
greater involvement from private industry than what exists today. In
this respect, the State of North Dakota must solicit this involvement
from the private sector and become aware of current Federal governmental
tax and financial incentives and programs. It is not anticipated that
North Dakota will be involved in the President's Urban Policy Program.
The National Association of Oil Recovery Coordinators could provide
significant assistance to North Dakota in providing the necessary
70
-------
expertise for waste oil recycling programs. The organization serves as
a clearinghouse of information and can provide case-specific expertise
through a peer-match program. Additionally, the Department of Energy
(State and Local Grants Program) has awarded recent grants to Kentucky
and Indiana for oil recycling projects. Other funding may be available
if Senate Bill 2412 is enacted. This bill would specifically amend RCRA
to include State funding for waste oil recycling programs.
The formulation of an expanded resource recovery program within the
Department of Health will require additional State funds, most likely
from general revenues. A commitment from the State. Legislature for
gradual phase-up of the resource recovery program is necessary to accom-
plish the objectives of the State framework. Additional funding could
come from a solid waste tax system (a "users fee" arrangement whereby
those who generate the solid wastes would subsidize resource recovery
activities), or from an increase in the State severance tax, in which
those who utilize non-renewable fossil fuels would subsidize the conver-
sion to renewable energy resources. These latter two approaches repre-
sent two viable funding sources which have worked well in other states
and may be applicable for North Dakota.
The Business and Industrial Development Department and the Bank of
North Dakota are the two key state contacts for the Department of Health
in the financial area. The use of resource recovery activity as a type
of economic development may be a stimulus which might otherwise go
unnoticed without coordination between BIDD and the Department of
Health. The Bank of North Dakota could provide limited sources of funds
for capital costs.
It is out of the scope of the North Dakota State government at this
time to provide funds for research and development of resource recovery
technologies or to provide extensive subsidies and incentives to the
private sector. Both of these roles, although necessary for the contin-
ued development of resource recovery as a viable option, are of national
interest and are best handled by the Federal government, except in very
specialized situations.
Overall, then, these recommendations for internal State policies
and procedures center on two items: information flow and financial
resources. Most of the burden for information gathering and dissemina-
tion, governmental coordination, and encouragement of resource recovery
implementation would be placed upon the Department of Health, Division
of Environmental Waste Management and Research. The resource recovery
program management functions could be readily absorbed into the existing
structure of this division. The phase-up of such a program could take
place over several years.
Encouragement of Local Application of Legislation
The second portion of the State resource recovery framework would
consist of the encouragement of local application of resource recovery
legislation. The basic organizational, administrative, and marketing
powers which are necessary for some types of resource recovery study and
implementation involving governmental entities include:
71
-------
control of waste movement within the jurisdiction;
formulation of multi-jurisdictional resource recovery organ-
izations, structures, and financing plans;
ownership, operation, and leasing of resource recovery facili-
ties;
marketing of recovered resources to other governmental
enti-ties and to the private sector;
development of long-term waste supply and recovered resource
procurement contracts with other governmental entities and
with the private sector; and
utilization of Federal, State or other funds for the purpose
of determining the feasibility of and implementing resource
recovery activities.
A broad interpretation of existing State legislation (primarily Chapter
54-40 and Section 11-11-14) appears to allow multi-jurisdictional
resource recovery implementation in most cases as long as a county is
involved in the organizational structure. Chapter 54-40 is concerned
with the joint exercise of governmental powers, while Section 11-11-14
delineates the power of the board of county commissioners. Among these
powers (11-11-14-14) includes the "operation and maintenance of one or
more sanitary landfill sites, or other types of processing sites for the
disposal of trash and garbage".
While this existing legislation specifically allows multi-juris-
dictional organizations and, through a broad interpretation, implies the
county authority to: (1) control waste movement within a county; (2)
own, operate and lease a resource recovery facility; and (3) enter into
long-term agreements for the purchasing of wastes and the selling of
recovered resources, there does exist some uncertainty over the legality
of these implied powers. Ultimate determination of this authority may
require an interpretation from the State Attorney General's office
and/or a court decision. For this reason, it is recommended that the
State Solid Waste Management and Land Protection Act of 1975 be amended
to clarify existing statutory authority. This amendment could readily
be adopted into the existing resource recovery section, and would
specifically give those basic resource recovery powers specified
previously to "governmental units" within the meaning of 54-40-01.
The feasibility of incorporating waste oil and discarded tire
requirements into the State Abandoned Auto Act was also to be examined
within the scope of this study. Amendments to the Abandoned Auto Act to
include waste oil and tires do not seem appropriate at the present time.
Rather, the recommended management approaches for these two wastes,
based on existing conditions, are:
Waste Oil: Service stations should be encouraged to accept
waste oil which can then be sold to ECON, Inc. (see Chapter 4)
or other future markets for waste oil. The public should be
72
-------
encouraged through education efforts to dispose of. their waste
oil at these service stations. The success of this voluntary,
free market system should be carefully observed by the Depart-
ment of Health for re-evaluation. If the voluntary program is
unsuccessful, all service station owners could be required to
accept waste oil through amending the Abandoned Auto Act, a
system which has worked reasonably well in other States.
Discarded Tires: The constructive reuse of tires is limited
by the lack of existing markets, although the potential for
future reuse is much greater than what exists today. For this
reason, it is recommended that discarded tires be stored above
ground in carefully-maintained special use areas (landfills or
other designated areas) for future reclamation.
Additionally, expansion of the Abandoned Auto Act to include other
metals in which the private sector is not currently active does not
appear desirable at this time. The past success of this program clearly
has been at least partially due to the competitive and free-enterprise
spirit of the public sector/private sector cooperative atmosphere. If
there exists a market for other metals in sufficient quantity to
generate interest from the scrap industry, this will be acted upon by
the private sector. The experience and expertise found within the scrap
industry should be utilized by resource recovery projects to as great an
extent as possible within the limitations of providing a competitive
atmosphere for private enterprise.
As with the other thrust of the State framework, the legislative
intent to encourage resource recovery study and implementation can be
developed to a much greater extent than what is required in North Dakota
at the present time. For example, the State of Florida has developed
solid waste legislation (presented in Appendix I) geared to the con-
sideration and implementation of resource recovery wherever feasible.
It would be within the prerogative of the Department of Health and/or
the Resource Recovery Council to become aware of an re-evaluate further
legislative needs as conditions change.
73
-------
REFERENCES
Colorado Energy Research Institute, 1979. Short-term Commercialization
Strategies for Gasohol.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Decision-Makers Guide in Solid
Waste Management, SW-500.
, 1976. Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Guides for Municipal
Officials. SW-157.
, 1979. Municipal Solid Waste: Resource Recovery, Proceedings of
the Fifth Annual Research Symposium.
, 1979. Resource Recovery and Haste Reduction Activities: A
Nationwide Survey, November.
, 1979. Resource Recovery Management Model, September, SW-768.
General Accounting Office, 1979. Conversion of Urban Waste to Energy:
Developing and Introducing Alternate Fuels from Municipal Solid Waste,
EMD-79-7.
Gordian Associates, 1979. Market Study for Recovered Energy and Materials
Products in Fargo, North Dakota, prepared for EPA.
North Dakota State Government, various documents and personal communications.
Office of Technology Assessment, 1979. Materials and Energy from Municipal
Waste.
Wulff, Keith, et a!, 1979. Initiating Community Recycling: A Feasibility
Study, Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota.
74
-------
APPENDIX A
NORTH DAKOTA RESOURCE RECOVERY RESOLUTION
75
-------
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3073
(Swiontek, McCaffrey, Kretschmar)
SOLID WASTE RECYCLING STUDY
A concurrent resolution directing the State Health Department to
study economic incentives for the return, reuse, and re-
cycling of packaging materials, to study controls for the
amount and environmental quality of packaging, and to
study systems of solid waste recycling and reuse.
WHEREAS, our society is experiencing shortages of energy
and basic raw materials due to misuse and wasteful practices;
and
WHEREAS, the citizens of this country generate over 3.5
billion tons of refuse each year, a large part of which is
produced through the use of wasteful methods in the distribution
of commercial products to the consumer; and
WHEREAS, common sense dictates that we must take steps to
conserve the raw materials basic to our society and to our
standard of living; and
WHEREAS, the technology already exists to convert our solid
waste materials into a resource we can never use up; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Dakota would be acting in the
best interests of its citizens to study and to enact laws that
prevent problems of sanitation, damage to the environment, land
use, and shortages of basic raw materials necessary to our
economy and our standard of living; and
WHEREAS, the State Health Department will be able to conduct
this study with no further appropriated state funds needed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:
That the State Health Department is hereby authorized and
directed to study economic incentives for the return, reuse,
and recycling of packaging materials; to study standards for
controlling the amount and the environmental quality of
packaging; and to study methods of solid waste recycling and
reuse; and
76
-------
1469 HOUSE COXCURREXT RESOLUTIONS
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Health Department
study the feasibility of legislation that follows the concept
of resource recovery, capturing and reprocessing materials in
the waste stream so they can be reused rather than be
permanently discarded;, study methods of recycling material to
return it to its original use as a raw material; and study
methods of converting solids to energy by using waste as fuel
or by recycling solids into new uses by chemical processes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Health Department
study the laws in effect in other states; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Health Department
encourage the participation of the general public in their
hearings; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Health Department
may call upon all departments, agencies, institutions, and
political subdivisions of the state for such aid, information,
and assistance as it may deem necessary in carrying out such
study and review; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Health Department
make its report and recosaendations, together with any legislation
required to carry out such recommendations, to the Forty-sixth
Legislative Assembly.
Filed April 21, 1977
77
-------
APPENDIX B
EXISTING STATE RESOURCE RECOVERY PROGRAMS
78
-------
State
SUMMARY OF STATE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
Agency Planning Legislation
Implementation
Alabama
(contacted, 07/78)
Alaska
(02/78)
Arizona
(03/78)
Arkansas
(07/78)
California
(03/78)
Colorado
(10/78)
Connecticut
(01/78)
State Department of Public
Health
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Dept. of Health Services
Dept. of Energy and
Environmental Policy
Dept. of Pollution Control
and Ecology
State Solid Waste
Management Board
State Dept. of Health
Connecticut Resource
Recovery Authority
No significant activity
No significant activity
No significant activity
Feasibility studies of energy
recovery from solid wastes
Resource Recovery Planning
Section opened in DPCE
Local feasibility and market
studies under way. six are
State-funded
State Resource Recovery Plan
being updated
Educational packages on
waste reduction developed
Legislation for RCRA
compliance under study
"Requests for Approaches"
sent for second major
resource recovery (RR)
facility; construction to
begin December 1978
Beverage container
legislation (bev. cont.
legis.) and litter bills
introduced
Bev. cont. legis. pending
Bev. cont. legislation
introduced; little chance
due to Beverage Industry
Recycling Program (BIRP)
Waste oil recycling bill
introduced
Litter bill passed 1977
Bev. cont. legis. introduced
Tax on litter-producing
businesses
Oil Recycling Bill; passed,
01/78
Bill passed providing 5% cost
preference for recycled
paper in State
procurement
Bev. cont. legis. recently
defeated
CRRA established; given
bonding authority
No significant activity
No significant activity
Office paper separation pilot
program
Several small-scale energy
recovery systems operating
Statewide Office Building
Paper Separation Project
State Park Recycling Project
(one park)
Telephone book recycling in
Denver
Paper recycling at Defense
Department installations
Construction 30% complete
on CRRA first RDF facility
-------
oo
o
Delaware
(04/78)
District of
Columbia
(04/78)
Florida
(07/78)
Georgia
(07/78)
Guam
(05/78)
Hawaii
(05/78)
Idaho
(02/78)
Illinois
(09/78)
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
Dept. of Environmental
Sciences
Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
Resource Recovery Council
Dept. of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection
Division
None
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Health and Welfare
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Planning for State-owned co-
disposal plant at
Wilmington; market studies
Talks with utility about use
of RDF
Participating in National
Center for Resource
Recovery pilot project
21-county survey of solid
waste legal authority
Statewide energy recovery
feasibility study
Regional resource recovery
feasibility studies
Study of recycling waste oil
from State vehicles
No significant activity
State-funded feasibility and
bonding studies for refuse-
to-energy project
Some investigation of
secondary materials
markets
Feasibility study for S4.2M
(State grant) RDF demo
plant proved negative
Established DSWA. 1974.
Comprehensive authority
over solid waste
Passed mandatory deposit,
contingent upon suburban
legislation
RR Bill of 1978 offers
appropriations to counties
and tax incentives for RR.
Out of committee
Act establishing local
Resource Recovery
Authorities with bonding
and contracting power
Bev. cont. legis. proposed
Proposed law encouraging
State procurement of
recycled materials drafted
Wilmington project in design
stage
No significant activity
RRC publishes information
on technology and State
activities
State Office Paper Separation
Program
DNR to purchase only
recycled paper
State-funded source
separation project
No significant activity
Site acquired for one-county
refuse-to-energy project
Bev. cont. legis. introduced Some technical assistance
No significant activity
No State projects; Chicago
has two RR facilities
-------
State
Agency
SUMMARY OF STATE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
Planning Legislation
Implementation
00'
Indiana
(09/78)
Iowa
(05/78)
Kansas
(05/78)
Kentucky
(07/78)
Louisiana
(07/78
Maine
(01/78)
Maryland
(04/78)
Indiana State Board oi Health
Dept. of Environmental
Quality
Dept. oi Health and
Environment
Dept. oi Natural Resources
and Environmental
Protection
Oiiice oi Science,
Technololgy and
Environmental Planning
None
Maryland Environmental
Service
Assisting in communications
network ior marketing
recovered materials irom
source separation
Monitoring planning in other
parts oi State
Researching wastes ior
recovery
Encouraging resource
recovery planning
Maintaining Statewide
survey oi secondary
materials purchasers
No significant activity
Preliminary planning ior 3600
TPD energy and materials
recovery plant
Updating State Solid Waste
Plan
Feasibility study ior
proposed project
State assistance in preparing
county plans
Amendment on ownership oi
local waste stream to be
introduced
Bev. cont. legis. introduced
Legislation defining
ownership of solid waste
passed
Bey. cont. and litter bills
introduced
Litter bill passed House
Bill to enable State
cooperation in funding
resource recovery
Little progress
Bev. cont. deposit law
passed November 1976
Requires 25% of State paper
purchases to be recycled
material by 1981, and 45%
by 1985
Active program of lectures on
solid waste legislation
Developing paper recycling
ior State Board oi Health
State-sponsored oil recycling
project
Encouraged industrial waste
exchange at Iowa State
University
Waste oil program in capital
Encouraging purchase oi
recycled materials
No signiiicant activity
NCRR operating Resource
Recovery I at New Orleans
Kaiser Aluminum operating
aluminum recovery project
No signiiicant activity
State participation in two
operating plants
State Oiiice Paper Separation
Program
-------
Massachusetts
(01/78)
State Bureau of Solid Waste
Disposal
oo
ro
Michigan
(09/78)
Minnesota
(09/78)
Mississippi
(07/78)
Missouri
(05/78)
Montana
(10/78)
Nebraska
(05/78)
Michigan Dept. of Natural
Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
State Board of Health
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Dept. of Environmental
Control
State Bureau directing
regional RR projects in four
metro areas: one close to
construction, three into
planning
Feasibility study in progress
for entire State
Market study completed
Providing technical
assistance to several
communities
Several RR facilities are
developing
Drafting market survey
Grant program disbursed
$1.2M for feasibility studies
No significant activity
Participating in numerous
feasibility studies
DNR completed market
survey
State funds solid waste
studies, requiring
consideration of resource
recovery
State Bureau supporting
renewed effort for bev.
cont. bill
Bev. cont. legis. passed, 1976
Bill passed 1974 to conserve
resources and regulate RR
projects
Legislation passed to
facilitate cities' role in RR
projects
Pop-top cans banned by
State law
Packaging legislation bans
certain types of packaging
Waste Oil Bill, passed
January 1976
Bonding authorization for RR
facilities pending
Some legislation pending
No significant activity
No significant activity
Assisting RR planning in two Litter law pending
cities
Completing market survey
for secondary materials
State technical assistance
given to planning 3000 TPD
plant in Detroit
Abandoned motor vehicle
program
Some plant activity without
State involvement
DNR sponsoring paper
recycling programs
Abandoned auto program
One local curbside
newspaper collection
Sludge composting project
Supports "Keeping Omaha
Beautiful Recycling
Program"
-------
State
Agency
SUMMARY OF STATE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
Planning .Legislation
Implementation
oo
CO
Nevada
(05/78) '
New Hampshire
(01/78)
New Jersey
(05/78)
New Mexico
(07/78)
New York
(05/78)
Dept. oi Conservation and
. Natural Resources
State Dept. of Energy
Dept. oi Environmental
Protection
Dept. of Energy
Environmental Improvement
Agency
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
North Carolina
(07/78)
North Dakota
(10/78)
Dept. of Human Resources;
Division of Health Services
State Dept. of Health
No significant activity
No significant activity
Some technical assistance
given to Newark and
counties
Planning beverage container
recovery, waste oil
recycling, sludge farming,
tire recycling
State assistance (technical
and financial) for planning
RR facilities in cities and
counties
Extensive market surveys for
recovered materials
State Comprehensive
Resources Recovery and
Solid Waste Mgmt. Plan.
draft, February 1978
State source separation grant
program
No significant activity
Limited technical assistance
provided
Bev. cont. law pending
No significant activity
Solid Waste Mgmt. Act. 1975,
requires max. feasible RR
Little activity
Resource Recovery Act, 1977,
encourages resource
recovery
Legislation passed, 1972,
providing $175 million for
construction of RR facilities
Legislation allowing
certification of RR facilities
None
No significant activity
State demo projects on
sludge composting, rural
recycling, and regional
planning
No significant activity
Source separation active in
three cities
Some experimentation with
paper recycling
Assistance given to several
operating RR facilities
No facilities constructed;
40 certifications issued
Successful Statewide
abandoned auto program
-------
oo
-p.
Ohio
(09/78)
Oklahoma
(07/78)
Oregon
(02/78)
Pennsylvania
(04/78)
Puerto Rico
(05/78)
Rhode Island
(01/78)
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Oklahoma Dept. of Health
Dept. of Environmental
Quality
Dept. of Environmental
Resources
Environmental Quality Board
Rhode Island Solid* Waste
Management Corporation
Continuing work on State
Plan
Technical assistance, and
funding to several projects
Conducting market survey for
recovered materials
Tulsa planning RDF plant
Source separation and
resource recovery
identified as key State
priorities
Conducted five metro area
market studies
Grants made available to
locals for feasibility
studies and
implementation
Resource Recovery and
Source Separation Task
Forces set up
RISWM Corp. receiving
proposals for RR facility at
Providence
Bill passed, 1977, allowing
contracts without
competitive bidding for RR
projects
None
Mandatory deposit on
carbonated beverage
containers, 1972
No significant activity
No significant activity
RISWM Corp. given bonding
authority
Akron facility under
construction, some State
funds
Successful source separation
program at Fort Sill
Grant/loan program set up for
implementing regional and
local solid waste
management plans
Statewide Recycling
Information Office set up
No significant activity
No significant activity
Providing technical
assistance on recycling to
communities
South Carolina
Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
DHEC administering RR
grant program
Beverage container and litter
control legislation pending
No significant activity
South Dakota
(10/78)
Tennessee
(07/78)
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Dept. of Public Health
No significant activity
No significant activity
Bev. cont. legis. passed
Resource Recovery Loan Law.
passed, 1974
Limited activity
No significant activity
-------
State
Agency
SUMMARY OF STATE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
Planning Legislation
Implementation
Texas
(07/78)
Utah
(10/78)
Vermont
(01/78)
Virgin Islands
(05/78)
Virginia
(04/78)
Washington
(02/78)
West Virginia
(04/78)
Wisconsin
(09/78)
Wyoming
(10/78)
Texas Dept. of Health
Utah Division of Health
None
Dept. of Public Works
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Ecology
Making overall study of RR to
find most effective large-
scale implementation
method
Inventories of large-city
waste streams being taken
No significant activity
No significant activity
Feasibility study for energy
recovery in St. Thomas
Grant program for all solid
waste activities
Developed marketing plan
for recovered materials
Updating Resource Recovery
Plan
State Solid Waste Authority No significant activity
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Solid Waste
Recycling Authority
Wyoming Dept. of
Environmental Quality
WSWRA contributing $10M to
construction of 3-county
RDF plant
Market survey completed,
1973
No significant activity
Law requires State agencies
to recycle office paper
No significant activity
Bev. cont. legis. passed,
September 1973
No significant activity
No significant activity
Testing and small-scale
activity
Some newspaper recovery in
larger cities
No significant activity
State initiated waste oil
recycling program
No significant activity
No significant activity
Litter law levies charge on Statewide Recycling Hotline
manufacturing of potential Grant Program for solid
litter waste plans
Establishment of SSWA, 1977 No significant activity
1974 creation of WSWRA to
develop, finance and
implement RR facilities
No significant activity
WDNR suggested changes in
Americology's Milwaukee
plan
Scattered recycling of waste
oil, office paper and
newspaper
Government office paper
recycling program
-------
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATION OF LANDFIU COSTS WITHIN NORTH DAKOTA
86
-------
In instances where detailed cost analyses are not appropriate to
estimate landfill disposal costs, or when available landfill information
is sparse, rough cost estimates can be made using readily available
information. Three different estimation methodologies have been
developed for this study. Each methodology has been applied to one
community. This will provide a cross section by which to estimate a
range of landfill disposal costs appropriate for North Dakota. The
first method, applied to Williston, uses a landfill operating budget as
the basis for cost estimation. The second method, applied to the
Gwinner landfill, uses a tipping fee as its basis. The third method,
applied to Bismarck, uses the waste collection and disposal rate charged
to residential customers. Results of these cost analyses show an esti-
mated landfill disposal cost in Williston of $7.50 per ton, $5.00 per
ton at the Gwinner landfill, and $7.50 per ton in Bismarck. Although
each site-specific instance will vary, this range of $5.00-$7.50 per ton
is believed to be realistic of 1980 conditions in most North Dakota
landfills. More detailed cost estimations must be made when conducting
site-specific resource recovery feasibility studies.
87
-------
Landfill costs can be roughly estimated in three ways, as discussed
below.
1) Data from a Public Works Department budget may specify the total
sanitary landfill budget. If this cost data is available, the
figure can be divided by the quantity of solid wastes deposited
into the landfill to obtain a cost per ton figure. Since scales
are not commonly available at North Dakota landfills, an estima-
tion of solid waste generation for a community must be made
based on population and a waste generation rate. The waste
generation rate used here will be four pounds per person per day.
This figure includes residential and commercial refuse, (the
estimated national waste generation rate is commonly considered
to be 3.5 pounds per person per day. However, recent data suggest
a higher rate is a more accurate estimate for North Dakota.)
Using Williston as an example, approximate landfill costs can
be calculated as follows:
Williston 1979 Landfill Budget $66,000.00
Williston Population
(1970 census was 11,250) 12,000
Waste Generation/Year
(4 x 12,000 x 365) 4. 2000 = tons/year 8,760 tons
Landfill Costs
(Budget + tons) = $/ton $ 7.50
However, public works budgets for many municipalities are not
broken down into specific landfill budgets. This necessitates
using other data to estimate landfill costs.
2) Using a rate charged to haulers for dumping solid wastes at
landfills (this charge is referred to as a tipping fee), landfill
costs can be estimated as follows (using Dakota Landfill Company
charges at the Gwinner landfill as an example):
Tipping Fee $ 2.00
($/cubic yard)
88
-------
Weight of Cubic Yard 800 pounds
(this will vary, but 800 Ibs.
can be considered a realistic average)
Landfill Costs
(2000 i800) x $2.00 = $/ton $ 5.00
The use of this method implies that the tipping fee accurately
reflects actual costs of landfill operation and maintenance
(plus a profit if the landfill is privately owned). Although
some tipping fees do not reflect actual costs (a landfill owner
may, in some cases, choose a tipping fee similar to what other
landfills charge rather than calculating actual costs), it is
believed that the above example is reflective of actual landfill
costs.
3) The collection and disposal rate charged to residential customers
can also be used to estimate landfill costs. Assumptions
necessary in this case include:
t the average residence consists of 2.5 persons
of the four pound per person per day generation rate, it is
assumed that one-third is generated from the commercial
sector, while two-thirds is actually generated at the residence
landfill disposal costs account for approximately 25 percent
of the total collection and disposal fee.
Using Bismarck as an example, approximate landfill costs can be
calculated as follows:
' «.
Collection and disposal cost charged $ 3.00/month
to residential customers
Disposal Cost" $ .75/month
($3.00 x 25%)
Residential waste generation (Ibs) 200 pounds
per month
(4 x 2/3 x 2.5 x 30)
Landfill Costs $ 7.50
(2000 i 200) x $ 0.75 = $/ton
Again, the use of this method implies that the fee charged to
residential customers accurately reflects actual costs of landfill
operation and maintenance (plus a profit if the landfill is privately
owned).
89
-------
A.PRENDIX D
NORTH DAKOTA SCRAP PROCESSORS
90
-------
Location
Scrap Processors
Bismarck
Carrington
Crosby
Devils Lake
Dickinson
East Grand Forks
Eldridge
Ellendale
Fargo
Grafton
Harvey
Hettinger
Jamestown
Mandan
Porter Brothers - Bismarck/Mandan Division
223-0339
Billington Salvage Yard'
223-2979
Carrington Hide and Fur
652-2301
Crosby Hide and Fur
965-6939
Porter Brothers - Devils Lake Division
662-2723
Dickinson Hide and Fur
225-5911
Minnkota Iron and Steel Supply Co.
.773-2439
Eldridge Salvage
763-6144
Ellendale Iron and Metal
349-3588
Fargo Iron and Metal
232-2429
Grafton Iron and Radiator
352-0370
Porter Brothers - Harvey Division
324-2684
Hettinger Hide and Fur
567-2768
Westend Hide Fur and Metal Co.
252-0150
Dakota Fur and Metal
663-7476
Mandan Iron and Metal
663-6491
91
-------
Location
Mantador
Mi not
Roll a
Rugby
Valley City
Willisten
Scrap Processors
Jerry Gutzmer
242-8292
Hovde Salvage
852-6860
Dakota Hide and Fur - Porter Brothers
852-4441
Roll a Fur and Metal
477-3421
Rugby Wrecking and Salvage
776-5412
Valley City Hide and Fur Co.
845-2812
Dakota Hide and Fur - Porter Brothers
572-5493
92
-------
APPENDIX E
POTENTIAL RECOVERED MATERIAL
MARKETS BY SIC CODE
93
-------
Industry No. 3441 - Fabricated Structural Metal
Fargo Foundry Steel Mfg. Co. (E) 232-8831
92 NP Ave.t Fargo 58102 Foundry
Fargo Structural Steel & Supply Co. (B) 282-2345
4401 W Main
Fargo 58102 Fabricated Steel Products
Steel Structures Equipment Co. (A) 293-6070
Suite 410, Gate City Bldg.
Fargo 58102 Foundry
Welk Steel Co., Inc. (C) 663-9891
Box 202, Mandan 58554 Structural Steel
Industry No. 3295 - Minerals, Ground and Treated
Supercrete Industries (C) 663-6457
P.O. Box 117
Mandan 58554 Lightweight Blocks
Industry No. 3251 - Brick and Hollow Tile
Hebron Brick.Co. (D) 878-4428
Washington Ave. E, Hebron 58638 Brick, Tile
Industry No. 3271 - Concrete Blocks and Brick
Beaudoin Concrete Products (A) 225-3101
E of City, Dickinson 58601 Concrete Products
Concrete, Inc. (B) 772-6687
P.O. Box 908
Grand Forks 58201....Prestressed Concrete Burial Vaults, Septic Tanks
Miller Concrete Products (A) 838-3658
US 2 & 52 Bypass, Minot 58701 Concrete Products
Nodak Block Co. (A) 252-0631
1313 SE 18th Ave.
Jamestown 58401 Concrete Products
North Dakota Cement Co. (A) 772-3438
Box 1737, Grand Forks 58201 Concrete Products
North Dakota Concrete Products Co Concrete Products
601 Bismarck Ave., Bismarck 58501 (D) 223-7178
SE 10, Jamestown 58401 (A) 252-4811
5th Ave. & 14th St. NE, Minot 58701 (A) 838-9591
Peterson Products, Inc. (A) 282-4502
W. Fargo 58078 Pre-cast Steps, Feed Troughs
94
-------
Industry No. 3271 - Concrete Blocks and Brick Continued:
Red River Cement Products (B) 775-8144
3602 Gateway Dr.
Grand Forks 58201 Concrete Cattle Guards
Supercrete, Inc. (C) 663-6457
P.O. Box 117, Mandan 58554 Concrete Products
West Fargo Concrete Products (A) 282-4148
Union Stockyards Rd.
W. Gargo 58078 ..Concrete Products
Industry No. 3272 - Concrete Products except Block and Brick
Concrete Sectional Culvert Co Concrete Products
Hwy. 57, Devils Lake 58301 (B) 766-4381
1910 1st Ave. N, Fargo 58102 (C) 237-9800
W Hwy. 2, Grand Forks 58201 (B) 775-6342
Fargo Wilbert Vault Co. (A) 235-6669
R.R. 1, Fargo 58102 Concrete Burial Vaults
Fettig Vault & Concrete Co. (A) 223-4625
1919 Lovett Ave., Bismarck 58501......Concrete Vaults, Laundry Tubs, Feed
Bunks, Septic Tanks
Jamestown Wilbert Vault Co. (A) 252-0221
1101 SE 10th, Jamestown 58401 Burial Vaults
Monarch Products Concrete Products
300.Mandan Ave., Mandam 58554 (A) 663-6481
1300 NW 15, Minot 58701 (A) 852-0307
Industry No. 2951 - Paving Mixture and Blocks
Bitucote Products Co. (A) 235-7834
233 N. 25th, Fargo 58102....Asphaltic Paving
Bradshaw Gravel (C) 594-5651
Arvilla 58214 Asphaltic concrete
Conoco Asphalt (A) 282-4610
Box 696, Riverside 58078 Asphalt
Kost Bros. Ready Mix of N.D., Inc. (B) 624-3371
607 S 4th, Wahpeton 58075 Asphaltic Concrete
Lake Asphalt,.Inc. (B) 662-5126
Hwy. 19 W, Devils Lake 58301 Asphalt Mix
Industry No. 2653 - Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes
Hoerner-Waldorf Corp., Fargo Div. (C) 293-6606
725 N 25th, Fargo 58102 - Paper Products
95
-------
Industry No. 7534 - Tire Retreading
Speedy's Tire Center (A) 663-7426
422 Main, Mandan 58554... Tire Rebuilding
Employees Number Code Letters
A - Under 10 Employees
B - 10 to 25 Employees
C - 26 to 50 Employees
D - 51 to 100 Employees
E - Over 100 Employees
96
-------
APPENDIX F
MATERIALS MARKETS FOR RECOVERED RESOURCES
Q7
-------
Information on materials markets on the following pages are taken
from a recent report authored by graduate and undergraduate students at
Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota under the direction of Faculty
Advisor Keith Wulff. Prices quoted are from a mid-1979 survey, and
distances shown are from the Fargo-Moorhead area. A 250 mile radius was
designated as the maximum distance materials could be handled due to
transportation cost limitations. Transportation costs were based on
trucking costs only. Shipping by rail was found to be cost prohibitive
(82 cents per hundred weight) at the time of this analysis.
98
-------
ALUMINUM AND STEEL MARKETS *
COMPANY: Earth Sciences
Biwabik, Minnesota
DISTANCE: 250 miles
PRICE: 27c/lb. locally; lower price/lb. non-local businesses
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Aluminum should be clean and crushed.
2. Aluminum cans accepted, as well as pie tins,
t.v. dinner trays, etc.
COMPANY: Reynold's Aluminum Recycling Co.
St. Paul, Minnesota
DISTANCE: 250 miles
PRICE: 20c/lb.
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Cans and other clean household items (pie
plates, foil, etc.) accepted
2. Aluminum cans should be crushed.
3. Household items should be placed in plastic
bags and top tied.
4. Other aluminum items such as storm doors,
window frames, lawn furniture tubing, etc.
are.accepted if properly prepared.
5. These items must be free of all foreign
materials (glass, insulation, steel), cut
to lengths not exceeding 3 ft., and bundled
tightly at both ends.
6. In addition, these items should never be mixed
with cans.
7.. Unacceptable items include cast aluminum,
borings, turnings," shavings, screen wire,
hubcaps.
COMPANY: North Star Steel Co.
St. Paul, Minnesota
DISTANCE: 260 miles
PRICE: Unprepared #1 $89.00 per ton
Unprepared #2 $85.00 per ton
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Receive unprepared #1 and #2 only.
2. No galvanized, no aluminum.
3. May be delivered by truck or rail, but
North Star does not cover delivery costs.
* all distances shown in this appendix are from the Fargo-Moorhead area
Source: Wulff
99
-------
PAPER MARKETS
COMPANY: Thermo Pak Manufacturers, Inc.
Fargo, North Dakota
DISTANCE: 10 miles
PRICE: Newsprint $15/ton
Cardboard $10/ton
Office paper $15/ton
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Newsprint, cardboard and office paper accepted.
2. Computer paper products and magazines not accepted.
3. Paper must be clean and dry.
4. Contracts available.
5. Delivery costs not covered.
COMPANY: Hoerner-Waldorf Paper Co.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
DISTANCE: 250 miles
PRICE: Newsprint $8/ton
Small bales or loose corrugated cardboard $25/'ron
Large bales corrugated cardboard $55/ton
Tab cards $95/ton
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Newsprint, cardboard, office paper and tab cards
accepted.
2. Paper must be clean and-dry.
3. Paper is accepted baled or unbaled, but baled is
preferred.
-4. Cardboard must be free of tapes, plastics, wire
and nylon. .
5. Chemical testing is conducted to determine various
grades of office paper.
6. Freight provided at a reduced rate for 21 tons or
more.
7. Contracts not available at the present time.
8. Accepted material:
a. Letterhead stationery, tablet sheets, white
tissue paper. . _
b. Typing paper, plain bond carbon paper.
c. Bond and carbonless computer print-outs.
d. Carbonless and miscellaneous business forms.
9. Unacceptable material:
a. Paper envelopes, color and carbon paper.
b. Rubber bands, plastics, paper clips.
c. Newspaper, magazines, glossy or slick paper.
d. Chipboard, chemically coated paper, gummed
labels, adhesives, tablet bindings.
COMPANY: Metro Paper, Minneapolis, Minnesota
DISTANCE: 250 miles
PRICE: Tab cards $130/ton
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Computer tab cards only.
Source: Wulff
100
-------
GLASS MARKETS
COMPANY: Brockway Glass Company
Roscmount, Minnesota
DISTANCE: 245 miles
PRICE: $35.00 per ton '
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Accepts only green, amber and flint glass
containers or window glass.
2. Must be clean.
3. May be crushed.
4. Color separated.
5. Must be in containers such as boxes, bags or
drums (preferably 55 gallon).
6. No contracts available.
7. Accepted six days a week with appointment.
Call for an appointment.
Monday-Friday, 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M.
Saturday, 8:00-12:00 P.M.
COMPANY: Midland Glass Company
Shakopee, Minnesota
DISTANCE: 242 miles
PRICE: $40 per ton
SPECIFICATIONS: 1. Accepts amber and flint bottle glass.
2. Color separated.
3. Metal removed, labels may be left on.
4. Crushed or otherwise.
5. Does not need to be clean.
6. 55 gallon drum containers preferable.
7. No contracts available.
8. Call one day in advance.
Source: Wulff
101
-------
TRANSPORTATION COSTS PER YEAR FOR VARIOUS MATERIAL MARKETS
o
ro
MARKET NAME
Thermo Pak
American Shredded
Boise Cascade
Thermo Pak
Boise Cascade
Hoerner-Waldorf
Thermo-Pak
Boise Cascade
Hoerner-Waldorf
Reynold ' s
Beverage Wholesalers
McQuade's
Energy Sciences
Brockway
Midland
LOCATION
Fargo, ND
Anoka, MN
Int'l Falls, MN
Fargo, ND
Int'l Falls, MN
St. Paul, MN
Fargo, ND
Int'l Falls, MN
St. Paul, MN
Little Canada, MN
Fargo, ND
Bismarck, ND
Biwabik, MN
Rosemount, MN
Shakopee, MN
MILEAGE SALEABLE
TYPE 'TO MARKET LOADS/YR3
News
News
News
Corrugated
Corrugated
Corrugated
Office Paper
Office Paper
Office Paper
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Glass
Glass
10
240
245
10;
245
250
10
245
250
245
10
240
290
260
240
5
5
5
25b
25b
25b
17b
17b
17b
lc
. 1C
1C
1C
10
10
SHIPPING...
COST/MILE*
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
TOTAL
COST/YR
60
2000
2000
300
7700
7800
200
5200
5300
300
10
300
400
3000
3000
Based on 20 ton truck and tonnages for .drop-off method. Rounded to nearest.load.
.Based on voluntary recoverable tonnages.
"Figured as one load for transportation purposes.
Wu
-------
APPENDIX 6
GENERALIZED RESOURCE RECOVERY COST
103
-------
As can be seen from Table G-l, the total processing costs (capital
and operating costs) for various resource recovery alternatives (on a
generalized, not site-specific basis) are greater than anticipated
revenues from the sale of recovered resources. This situation results
in the need for a tipping fee ranging from $3.00 to $21.00 per ton to
make up the cost difference.
Figure G-l displays the comparative economics of two resource
recovery alternatives in the Fargo, North Dakota area with landfill
costs. The Fargo area probably represents the highest resource recovery
potential within urban areas of the State because of its larger popula-
tion, proximity to Minnesota materials markets and availability of
relatively high-volume users of energy. Using the stated assumptions to
project future landfill disposal and resource recovery system
construction and operation costs, along with projections of solid waste
generation volumes and revenues from recovered energy resources, the
steam recovery system for the Fargo-Morehead area would be at an
economic break-even point with landfill disposal in 1986. Similarly,
the break-even point for steam recovery in the Fargo area only would be
1995.
104
-------
TABLE G-l
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND MINIMUM TIPPING FEES
FOR VARIOUS RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Waterwall incineration to steam
Refuse-derived fuel with materials
recovery
Refined refuse-derived fuel with
materials recovery
(ECOFUEL-II)
Wet process refuse-derived fuel
with materials recovery
Gas pyrolysis
o Purox
o Torrax
Modular incineration with heat
recovery
Total
Processing
Cost
($/ton)
$26
15
22
21
32
29
Energy
Revenues
($/ton)
$9-17
5-9
9
5-9
11
9-17
Ferrous
Revenues
($/ton)
-
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
Minimum
Tipping
fee
($/ton)
$9-17
4-10
10-12
9-16
18-20
12-21
21
9-17
3-12
Source: Office of Technology Assessment
105
-------
tn
O
CJ
c
o
cr>
14.00-
13.00-
12.00-
11.00-
.10.00-
9.00-
8.00-
. 7.00-
6.00-
5.00-
4.00-
3.00-
2.00-
FIGURE 6-1
PROJECTED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
1979
Steam Recovery Fargo Only
Landfill
Steam Recovery
Fargo-Moorhead
.1985 1990
Year .
1995
.Assumptions:
. Real operating costs for landfill and resource recovery system escala
at. two percent per year.
. Real energy' prices increase at five percent per year through 1985, an
one percent per year thereafter.
Solid waste generation increases at two percent per year.
Source: Gordian Associates Incorporated
I
106
-------
APPENDIX H
INDIANA MARKET SURVEY
107
-------
Indiana Market Survey Report
of Commonly Recycled Materials
Found in Municipal Refuse
Solid Waste Management Section
Division of Sanitary Engineering
Indiana State Board of Health
May 1, 1979
108
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Market Survey Report was compiled from a State-wide survey
of 494 Indiana Industries and from information found within the Solid Waste
Management Section files. The companies listed have expressed interest in
purchasing recycled materials, but have not guaranteed to make any purchase.
Contact must be made with each individual company to learn of their specific
materials needs, specifications, conditions of delivery, and current market
value.
When using this survey be sure to keep these points in mind:
1. This survey may not be complete as many other companies might be
interested in recycled products but did not respond to the survey.
This survey is only intended to give you a start on a market
search.
2. Specifications listed here for materials indicate the most pre-
ferred material quality, but are not necessarily absolute for all
products. Various contaminants, depending on type and volume,
may be tolerated. Also, be prepared to receive a proportionally
lower price for highly contaminated materials.
3. The greater level of preparation of recycled material will
generally produce a higher market value. Baling for in-plant
handling is required at a minimum for primary production
facilities. Middlemen, such as brokers, generally prefer to
process your materials themselves, but purchase those materials
at lower prices.
4. Current prices for materials can be found in:
a. American Metals Market Index
Fairchild Publishers, Inc.
Seven East 12th Street
New York, NY 10003
b. Official Board Market, "Yellow Sheet."
(See City of Interest, e.g., Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh)
c. Commodities Markets
(e.g., Chicago Mercantile Exchange, New York Merchantile
Exchange, etc.)
5. Other publications and sources that may help you identify potential
markets are"
a. "Waste Trade Directory"
.Atlas Publishing Company
130 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
109
-------
-2-
b. "The Indiana Industrial Directory," 18th Edition
Indiana State Chamber of Commerce
Second Floor, Board of Trade Building
Indianapolis, IN 46204
c. "1979 Annual ASTM Standards"
American Society for Testing and Materials
1961 Race Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
110
-------
-3-
KEY
A. MATERIAL PROCESSED
AC = Aluminum Cans PN = Newsprint
AM = Aluminum Miscellaneous Forms PC = Corrugated Paper
(e.g., turnings, ingots, etc.)
PM = Mixed Paper
FB = Bi-metal Cans
(i.e., steel body with aluminum PH = High Grade Paper
tops)
TS = Steel Belted Tires
GF = Flint Glass (clear)
TR = Radial Tires
GA = Amber Glass (brown)
TB = Bias-ply Tires
GG = Green Glass
RM = Misc. Types of
GM = Mixed Glass Rubber (butyl innertubes)
0 = Oil (used lubricating)
B. PREPARATION REQUIRED FOR SHIPPING
C = Crushed
L = Loose, Whole
B - Baled
S = Shredded
0 = Other
A = Any Form
111
-------
lompany/
Contact Person
Acme Iron & Metal Co.1
20CC Dewey Street
Box 2275
Anderson, IN U6011
Marshall Schlossberg
317/6U2-3751
Acme Paper Stock Co,
Incorporated
lUl N. 2nd St.
Louisville, KY U0202
502/587-6823
Allied Scrap Co, Inc.*
2U55 Yandes Street
Indianapolis, IN U6205
Sol Stein, President
317/923-2U23
Aluminum Company of
America* (ALCOA)
WarricX Operations
Newburgh, IN U7630
R.L. Parsons, Manager
Environmental Control
812/853-^506
Alton Boxboard Co.*
1520 North 5th Avenue
Evansville, IN U7710
Russell Throgmorton,
Manager
812/U25-6279
T
Material Processed
Alum.
AC
AM
AM
AC
Iron
FO
Oil
Paper
PN .
FN
PC
PM
PH
Rubber
Glass.
CL
JC
1C
o
^
D.
OJ
Ou
C
L
B
L
B
L
B
B
L
3
S
Allowable %
Contamination
o
c
rt
oc
»-.
C
f <
cd
4-1
U
^
0)
o-
cu
u.
(U
O
,_!
i
rt
Comments
Mncludes 1979 Survey Response
Will Negotiate Contracts
Secondary Materials Dealer
*v
vN
1
T
30 Day Contracts
Provide Hoppers
Contact Also:
ALCOA Recycling Corporation (ARC)
ALCOA Building 1501
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Contracts Available
-------
APPENDIX I
FLORDIA RESOURCE RECOVERY LEGISLATION
113
-------
PART II j STATE RESOURCE RECOVERY AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
17-7.20 Declaration and Intent. The Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation does
hereby establish a State Resource Recovery and
Management Program under the authority granted by
Chapter 403.705 F.S. as follows:
"403.705 State resource recovery and
management program.
(1) The state resource recovery and
management program shall provide guidelines for the
orderly collection, transportation, storage, separation,
processing, recovery, recycling and disposal of solid
waste throughout the state, encourage. coordinated
local activity within a common geographical area, and
investigate the present status of solid waste
management in the state with positive proposals for
local action to correction deficiencies in present
resource recovery and management processes."
All counties and municipalities are required to
adopt a local Resource Recovery and Management
Program pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
403.706 F.S. as follows:
"403.706 Local resource recovery and
management programs.
(1) Within two (2) years after the department
adopts the state resource recovery and management
program, all counties and municipalities shall adopt,
either solely or in cooperation with other counties
and municipalities, a local resource recovery and
management program which shall be approved by the
department, and shall implement the provisions of
the state program by adequately providing for the
collection, transportation; storage, separation,
processing, recovery, recycling, or disposal of solid
waste generated or existing within the boundaries of
the county or incorporated limits of the municipality
or in the area served thereby."
All counties and municipalities are encouraged
to explore the advantages of multi-city and/or
multi-county solid waste systems.
Substantial economic advantages may be
achieved by forming regional agencies. The legal
mechanism to establish such an agency is already
available in .Chapter 163 F.S. on Inter-local
Agreements. A region may consist of adjacent cities,
all cities, towns and rural areas within a county,
adjacent counties or any reasonable combination
thereof. The development of a regional agency is the
responsibility of the participating political entities
who should establish their conditions and boundaries
by mutual agreement.
The requirements that follow direct what a
local or regional program shall accomplish.
How the program is to be accomplished is the
22E
114
-------
CHAPTER 17-7
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
Sunn. N«. «»
responsibility of the public agency or agencies
involved.
The ultimate goal of the program is:
Development and implementation of a
continuing state-wide resource recovery and
management program to recover all usable materials
and energy contained in solid waste, with proper
disposal of residual and hazardous wastes.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
403.705. 4O3.706 FS. HistoryNew 7-2O-76.
17-7.21 Definitions. The following words,
phrases or terms as used in this Chapter, unless the
context indicates otherwise, shall have the following
meaning:
(1) "Agricultural Waste" means the solid waste
that results from the rearing and slaughtering of
animals and the processing of animal products,
orchard and field crops which are stored, transported
or disposed of as an unwanted waste material and
which may be a potential pollution source.
(2) "Available Market" means any person, user
or enterprise, willing to enter into a long-term
contract or agreement to purchase materials or energy
recovered from solid waste.
(3) "Baling" means a method of reducing and
restraining solid waste volume by mechanical
compaction to achieve high density per unit volume
to affect cost savings in transfer, hauling and disposal.
(4) "Bulky Wastes" means items whose large
size or weight precludes or complicates their handling
by normal collection, processing, or disposal
methods.
(5) "Council" means the Florida Resource
Recovery Council.
(6) "Dead Animals" means animals that have
died from any cause and which are left on public or
private property without proper burial.
(7) "Designated Areas" means those areas
which are recommended by the Resource Recovery
Council pursuant to Section 403.710(4) FS., to plan
for and engage in recycling or resource recovery
programs, and are designated in Section 17-7.24,
FAC.
(8) "Energy Recovery" means the conversion
of solid waste into energy or a marketable fuel.
(9) "Generation" means the act or process of
producing solid waste, or a marketable energy fuel.
(10) "Implement" means to carry out,
accomplish, give practical effect to and ensure actual
fulfillment by concrete means or provide instruments
or means of expression for.
(11) "Implementation Schedule" means a
timetable for carrying out a local plan.
(12) "Local Agency" means a county or a
municipality.
(13) "Local Solid Waste Program" means a
local resource recovery and management program as
described in Section 17-7.23 of this rule which
includes a plan and an implementation schedule.
(14) "Materials Recovery" means any manual
or mechanical process in which one or more of the
various components in solid waste are separated,
concentrated, and reused.
(15) "Non-Designated Areas" means those
areas which are not recommended by the Resource
Recovery Council to plan for resource recovery.
(16) "Planning Area" means the area defined
.by .a. local agency or agencies for solid waste
management and resource recovery management
planning.
(17) "Postcollection Recovery" means manual
or mechanical separation and recovery of material";
from mixed municipal solid waste upon delivery at a
resource recovery and management facility.
(18) "Promiscuous Dump" means an
unauthorized site where indiscriminate deposits of
solid waste are made by unknown persons.
(19) "Recoverable Resources" means
post-consumer materials which still have useful
physical or chemical properties after serving a specific
purpose and can be reused or recycled for the same or
other purposes.
(20) "Regional Agency" means one or more
public agencies joining together by in tar-local
agreements for a stated period of time or by special
Act of the Legislature, to assume the responsibility
for resource recovery and management. General
Authority. Chapter 163, F.S.
(21) "Rural Containerized Collection System"
means a collection system which involves
mechanically serviceable containers, strategically
located throughout an area (much like road-side litter
barrels) that are picked up on a regular schedule by a
truck and their contents delivered to a transfer
station, solid waste processing or disposal facility.
(22) "Sanitary Nuisance" means the
commission of any act by a person, or the keeping,
maintaining, propagation, existence or permission of
anything by a person by which the health or lives of
individuals may be threatened or impaired or by
which disease may be caused.
(23)- "Shredding" "means a process of reducing
the particle size of solid waste through use of
grinding, shredding, milling or rasping machines.
(24) "Sludge" means a semi-liquid sediment.
(25) "Source Separation" means the setting
aside of separated recyclable waste materials at their
point of generation (household or commercial) by the
generator.
' (26) "Special Wastes" means those wastes that
require extraordinary management. They include, but
are not limited to, abandoned automobiles, white
goods, used tires, waste oil, sludges, dead animals,
agricultural and industrial wastes.
(27) "State Program" means the Resource
Recovery and Management Program described in
Chapter 403.705 and 403.706, F.S. and this rule.
(28) "Ton" means a short ton, 2000 pounds.
(29) "Transfer Station" means a facility where
solid waste from several relatively small vehicles is
placed into one relatively large vehicle before being
transferred to a solid waste processing or disposal
facility.
(30). "Treatment" means the process of
altering the character, physical or chemical condition
of the waste to prevent pollution of water, air or soil
to safeguard the public health or enable the waste to
be recycled.
(31) "Vector" means a carrier, usually an
arthropod, that is capable of transmitting a pathogen
from one organism to another.
(32) "Volume Reduction Plant" includes, but
is not limited to, incinerators, pulverizers,
compactors, shredding and baling plants, transfer
stations, composting plants and other plants which
accept and process solid waste for recycling or
disposal.
(33) "Waste Oil" means all types of waste oils,
including waste automotive lubricants, industrial
22F
115
-------
Supp. No. 69
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 17-7
waste oils, and other that may be a potential
pollution source.
(34) "Yard Trash" means vegetative matter
resulting from landscaping maintenance such as tree
and shrub trimmings, grass clippings and palm fronds.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
403.705 FS. History-New 7-20-76.
17-7.22 State Agency Responsibilities.
(1) Department of Environmental Regulation.
The Department shall:
(a) have responsibility for the implementation
and enforcement of the provisions of the Florida
Resource Recovery and Management Act and the
requirements of this rule.
(b) provide technical assistance to all local
agencies in the development of their local programs.
(c) prepare and adopt by rule the State
Resource Recovery and Management Program to
guide local agencies in the preparation of local plans.
(d) review the design of and issue permits for
the operation of resource recovery and management
facilities.
(e) have responsibility for receiving, reviewing
and approving local resource recovery and
management programs submitted in accordance with
Chapter 403.706(1) F.S., using the criteria in
Sections 17-7.23, 7.24 and 7.25 of this rule.
(2) Resource Recovery Council. The Council
shall:
(a) specifically recommend to the Department
those counties, municipalities, or regions which will
generate sufficient solid waste to make it
economically practical to plan for recycling of solid
waste and which therefore should be required to
engage in recycling or resource recovery programs.
(b) provide technical assistance to those areas
designated to plan for resource recovery.
(c) review local programs that are submitted to
the Department for approval and. make whatever
recommendations and findings it deems necessary.
Specific Authority 403.704-4.03.707, 403.710 FS. Law
Implemented 403.704-403.707, 403.710 FS. HistoryNew
7-20-76.
17-7.23 Guidelines for Resource Recovery and
Management Programs. Each local agency shall
submit to the Department its local Resource
Recovery and Management Program pursuant to
Section 403.706 and Sections 17-7.24, 7.25 and 7.26
which is consistent with and implements the
following guidelines:
(1) Storage of Solid Waste Prior to Collection.
(a) In all cases in which garbage and rubbish
are combined, the standards for garbage shall prevail.
The property owner or occupant shall store solid
waste on his premises or property or shall require it
to be stored or handled in such a manner as to
prevent the propagation, harborage, or attraction of
vectors, or the creation of a nuisance.
(b) All garbage and putrescible matter or
mixed garbage and rubbish shall be deposited in
containers which are either non -absorbent,
water-tight, vector resistant, durable, easily cleaned
and designed for safe handling; or in paper or plastic
bags having sufficient strength and water tightness
and which are designed for the containment of refuse.
(c) Containers shall be of an adequate size and
in sufficient numbers to contain without overflowing
all the refuse, except'yard trash, that a household or
other establishment generates within the designated
period of time between collections. All containers
shall be maintained in a sound, clean condition freo
from putrescible residue.
(d) Containers shall be free of all sharp edges '
and any inside structures which would prevent the
free discharge of the contents.
(e) External stationary storage bins for
putrescible solid waste shall be prohibited from being
built or added on to existing or new buildings. New
installations of underground receptacles shall be
prohibited. Existing receptacles may continue in use
until they become impractical to repair.
(f) Hazardous wastes shall be stored in such a
manner and in such a container as to preclude
transmission of disease or cause injury to collection
and disposal personnel and the general public.
(g) Each refrigerated room and/or refrigerator
used for the storage of putrescible wastes shall be
thoroughly cleaned after each removal of putrescible
waste. Waste water from such cleaning shall be
disposed of by a sanitary method.
(h) Mechanically serviced containers (bulk
containers) shall be designed or equipped so as to
prevent spillage or leakage during on-site storage
and/or transport. The container shall be easily
cleanable and located on firm, level ground or a
concrete pad, and shall be easily accessible by the
collection vehicle.
(2) Collection and Removal of Solid Waste.
(a) Frequency of solid waste removal. The
owner or tenant of any premises, business
establishment or industry shall be responsible for the
satisfactory removal of all solid waste accumulated
by him on his property or his premises.
Where a residence is located on the normal
route of an organized collection service, public or
private, the occupant shall subscribe to the service.
Excepting disruptions in normal collection schedules,
putrescible wastes shall be collected a minimum of
two times per week to prevent propagation,
harborage, or attraction of flies, rodents or other
vectors, and the creation of nuisances. More frequent
removal of putrescible wastes may be required by
local agencies.
(b) Regulation of Collection Operators. Each
person providing residential, commercial, or industrial
solid waste collection service shall comply with all
local government licenses, permits, or written
approval requirements applicable to the jurisdiction
in which such services are provided. Each local
agency, or regional agency, if any, shall maintain a
complete listing of all persons holding written
approvals to provide solid waste collection services
within their jurisdiction. The listing shall contain the
name and address of each such person, its office
telephone number, and the number and types of
vehicles used by such person in providing solid waste
collection services.
(c) Collection Operator Qualifications. Local
or regional agencies which authorize or designate
persons or firms to provide solid waste collection
services to the general public within their jurisdiction
through contract or franchise, shall obtain sufficient
information to show that such person or firm has
adequate financial resources and experience to
properly conduct the operation authorized.
(d) Equipment used in collection and
transportation of solid waste shall be .constructed,
operated and maintained in such a manner as to
22G
116
-------
CHAPTER 17-7
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
Supp. No. 69
minimize the health and safety hazards to solid waste
personnel and the public. Equipment shall be
maintained in good mechanical condition and kept
' clean to prevent propagation and attraction of vectors
and the creation of nuisances..It is recommended that
they meet the standards established by the American
National Standard Institute (ANSI Section 245.1,
Safety Standards for Refuse Collection Equipment)
as of the effective date(s) established in ANSI Section
245.1.
(e) All vehicles and equipment used for
collection and transportation of solid waste shall be
enclosed or adequate provisions shall be made for
suitable cover to prevent contents from escaping in
accordance with Chapter 316 F.S.
(f) Where the backyard, carry-out system of
collection is used, the common practice of collection
personnel dumping garbage at the curb in any manner
other than in an acceptable container for household
refuse shall be prohibited.
(g) All rural collection systems shall be
operated in a safe, efficient manner, and shall be in
compliance with all applicable local and state
regulations.
(3) Transportation Transfer Stations. These
standards shall not apply to container stations which
are provided to serve as community or
multi-residence receptacles for residential refuse, nor
do they apply to storage receptacles for commercial
solid wastes; a container used to store construction or
demolition wastes at places of generation; or
containers used to store salvaged materials.
(a) Transfer stations shall not be constructed
or operated without a Department permit issued in
accordance with Part I of this rule and specifically
Chapter 17-7.09 and 17-7.05(2)(e)(f)(g)(h).
(b) The transfer facility shall be provided with
operational appurtenances necessary to maintain a
dean and orderly operation. The appropriate
minimum features given in Part I of this rule Chapter
17-7.05(2)(e)(f)(g)(h) shall apply.
(c) The transfer station operator shall keep
accurate records of materials handled at the station.
Such records should include weights or volumes of
waste handled in a manner and form approved by the
Department. Accurate records should be kept for
operational control and resource recovery planning.
The records shall be open to inspection by
Department representatives, health inspectors and
other authorized regulatory and enforcement agencies
during normal business hours.
(d) The transfer station shall be properly
staffed do deal with all aspects of the station
operation. Adequate supervision of personnel shall be
provided.
(e) Transfer stations open to the public shall
have an attendant on duty during operating hours to
insure that health, fire or safety problems are not
inflicted upon or caused by the public.
(f) Transfer stations shall be operated and
maintained to comply with all applicable regulations.
Proper operation shall include unloading of wastes to
prevent them from becoming a hazard or nuisance;
cleaning of all loose materials or litter daily or on a
cleaning schedule approved by the Department;
removal of all solid wastes every 48 hours or in
.. accordance with an approved schedule.
(g) Salvaging in a controlled manner is allowed
provided it does not interfere with other aspects of
the transfer station operation. Uncontrolled
scavenging is prohibited.
(4) Public Recording of Disposal'Sites.
The location of all solid waste disposal sites
shall be made a matter of record in the County
property recording office for future reference in the
event any problem arises concerning the sites.
(5) Hazardous Waste. Hazardous and infectious
waste as defined, shall be handled and disposed of
only in accordance with Chapter 17-7.04(3)(4) and
the following:
(a) Any solid waste facility accepting
hazardous waste for treatment, storage or disposal
shall provide protection for the quality of the air,
surface and subsurface waters and for the protection
of the health and welfare of the public.
(b) The owner of hazardous waste that cannot
be recycled, reprocessed, or treated to render it
innocuous shall provide the Department with
evidence that it cannot be treated and request
disposal guidance.
(c) Any facility that disposes of known
hazardous wastes following approval by the
Department shall record the date, quantity, chemical
and trade names, chemical properties, name and
address of the source and transporter of the waste.
The facility operator shall have authority to reject
any waste that is not properly identified.
(d) Records designating the location of buried
hazardous wastes within a landfill site shall be
maintained during the life of the site by the agency
responsible for operation of the site. These records.
shall be reviewed by the Department during facility
inspections. Records shall be submitted to the
Department and appropriate local office of legal
jurisdiction upon closing of the site.
(e) Monitoring wells shall be installed at all
land disposal sites that are designated for hazardous
waste disposal. A sampling and analysis program
approved by the Department shall be conducted to
determine if any pollution problem is created by the
deposited wastes.
(f) Hazardous waste shipping requirements:
(I) When shipping hazardous wastes, the
generator or owner of the hazardous wastes shall
package, identify and label such materials in
accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 49, Transportation, Parts 100-199, Oct. 1, 1974,
which are hereby incorporated and made a part of
this rule.
(ii) The generator of hazardous wastes shall
provide the transporter and driver of any truck, a
crew member of any train, or the captain of any
vessel or aircraft carrying such hazardous wastes with
a list setting' forth the hazardous waste carried, the
amount of such waste and the general physical and
chemical properties of such wastes. Such list, when
appropriate, should include information on antidotes,
first aid, or safety measures to be taken in case of
accidental contact with the particular waste being
carried. The person carrying or handling the
hazardous waste shall have the list in his possession
while carrying or handling the hazardous waste and
shall release the list to a person responsible for the
treatment or disposal of the hazardous waste at the
time of delivery. The list shall be a matter of record
at the disposal facility. Such list shall be shown on
demand to any Department official, officer "of the
Florida Highway Patrol, or any local law enforcement
22H
117
-------
Supp. No. 73
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 17-7
officer.
(g) Hazardous waste storage requirements:
(j) Hazardous wastes whose uncontrolled
release into the environment would cause acute
and/or chronic effects on air and water quality; on
fish, wildlife, or other biota; and on the health and
welfare of the public shall be stored only in special
facilities where due regard has been given to the
hazardous nature of the waste, protective enclosures,
and operating procedures, and where adequate
measures are taken to assure personal safety, accident
prevention, and detection of potential environmental
damages.
(ii) Rules of the State Fire Marshal Chapter
4A-2, 4A-20, et al., pertaining to explosives and
hazardous chemicals should be consulted where
applicable.
(6) Special Wastes.
(a) Dead animals.
1. Dead animals on public property shall be
collected and disposed of promptly to prevent them
from becoming a sanitary nuisance.
2. The local agency should establish a service
to assure prompt pickup and disposal of dead
animals.
3. If an animal is known or suspected to have
died of a communicable disease, the handling and
disposal of the carcass shall be in accordance with
Chapter 823.041 F.S.
(b) Abandoned Vehicles. The local agency
should provide for the removal of abandoned vehicles
from public and private property, title release, pickup
and removal authority, the designation of a storage
area and a recycle or disposal system.
(c) White Goods. The local agency should
provide for collection, disposal or recycling of white
goods.
(d) Sludges. Sludges which may be hazardous
due to their chemical composition shall be disposed
of in accordance with Chapter 17-7, Part I, Section
17-7.04(3). Other sludges shall be disposed of in
accordance with Chapter 17-7, Part I, Section
17-7.06(1).
(e) Industrial Waste.
. The disposal of industrial waste shall be the
responsibility of the producer of such waste and shall
be in accordance with applicable state and local
regulations.
(7) Processing and Recycling of Solid Waste.
(a) All residual solid wastes resulting from a
recovery process shall be disposed of in a sanitary
landfill or by other approved methods.
(b) All processed water or wastewater shall be
treated' as required by approved methods before
discharge into receiving waters.
(c) All gaseous emissions shall be in compliance
with air quality standards.
(d) Recovered materials shall be stored in a
controlled area, designed and operated to prevent
environmental contamination.
(e) All solid waste, recovered materials or
residues handled at a volume reduction plant shall be
stored in a manner so as not to constitute a fire or
safety hazard or a sanitary nuisance, and shall comply
with all applicable local and state regulations.
(f) Volume reduction plants shall have
adequate storage areas, cleaning and maintenance
schedules as outlined in Chapter 17-7.06(4)(d).
(g) All volume reduction plants shall provide a
suitable system for the collection and treatment when
necessary of all leachate and other liquid wastes such
as wash-down water produced as a result of the
operation of such a facility. Discharge to an available
sanitary sewer is acceptable.
(h) Volume reduction plants shall be designed
so as to divert surface water away from all open
storage areas.
(i) Alternate or sufficient overcapacity waste
handling capability for proper disposal of solid waste
shall be provided in the event of diminished
operational quality or overloads due to breakdowns
or natural disasters.
(j) Volume reduction plants shall be operated
so as to handle solid wastes on a first-in, first-out
basis. At no time shall any stored solid waste be
allowed to remain unprocessed for more than
forty-eight (48) hours unless adequate provisions are
made to control flies and odors.
(k) Adequate fire control facilities shall be
provided at all volume reduction plants.
(8) Title to Solid Wastes and Quantity
Guarantees.
(a) Local agencies that undertake construction
and operation of a material or energy resource
recovery facility shall guarantee delivery of solid
wastes generated within their jurisdiction to insure
uninterrupted facility operation. Guarantees must be
supported by contracts with local collection services
or as a condition of inter-local agreements.
(b) The title to solid wastes subject to
collection by a collection service operator shall be
subject to local ordinance, act, or contract
conditions.
(c) Property rights in materials or substances
having commercial value, collected or held for reuse,
recycling or resale, that have not been discarded, will
not be infringed upon or restricted by a local agency.
(d) The producer of hazardous waste may be
liable for any damage or injury caused by hazardous
waste introduced by him into a solid waste collection
system regardless of title conveyance as in (b) above.
(9) Maintenance and Monitoring of Disposal
Sites. Local agencies shall provide for continuous
maintenance and monitoring of land disposal sites
after the sites are no' longer used for disposal.
Maintenance shall include vegetative cover, erosion
control, prevention of ponding and preventing the
deposited wastes from becoming a hazard or
nuisance. Monitoring shall include sampling,
collection and treatment of leachate for as long as the
leachate may be a possible pollution source.
Additional maintenance and monitoring may be
required by the Department depending on specific
circumstances.
(10) More Stringent or Extensive Local
Programs Possible. Nothing in these minimum
standards shall be construed to prevent the governing
body of any county or municipality from providing
by ordinance or regulation, requirements which are
stricter or more extensive than those imposed by this
Section.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
403.705. 403.706 FS. HistoryNew 7-20-76.
17-7.24 Resource Recovery Area Designations.
The Resource Recovery Council had determined the
economic value of the energy contained in_ the solid ..
waste generated by the major population areas of the
221
118
-------
CHAPTER 17-7
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
Supp. No. 7.1
state and the potential markets for that energy. The
economic factors were determined on a county basis
but resource recovery programs should be developed
to encourage coordinated local activity within a
common geographic area rather than by political
jurisdiction. Local agencies shall determine the
planning arrangement which will best provide the
coordination and flexibility under varying local
circumstances to plan for and engage in resource
recovery.
The following designated counties,
recommended to the Department of Environmental
Regulation by the Resource Recovery Council,
including each municipality located therein, shall
submit to the Department singularly, or in
coordination with other local or regional
governmental entities, a local resource recovery and
management program required by Section 403.706(1)
F.S. whcih includes provisions for recycling or
resource recovery:
Alachua
Bay
Brevard
Broward
Dade
Duval
Escambia
Hills borough
Lee
Leon
Manatee
Orange
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Seminole
Volusia
All areas not listed are "non-designated" areas
which are not presently required to plan for an
engage in resource recovery. This does not preclude
those local jurisdictions from undertaking resource
recovery if they so choose.
The resource recovery area designations above
are based on the best evidence available to the
Department on the date of adoption of this rule. If a
designated area determines, at some future time, that
the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is not
economically practical to plan for and to engage in
recycling and resource recovery, it may file a petition
to amend this rule pursuant to Section 120.54(4) F.S.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
403.705.403.706.403.710(4) FS. HistoryNew 7-20-76.
Amended 11-16-76.
17-7.25 Local Agency Responsibility.
(1) Local Program Adoption. Each local
agency, within two (2) years after adoption of the
State Resource Recovery and Management Program,
shall either solely or in cooperation with other
counties and/or municipalities, prepare and adopt a
local resource recovery and management program.
The program adopted by the local agency shall
implement the provisions of the state program for
either "non-designated areas" or "designated areas" as
appropriate, by adequately providing for the
collection, transportation, storage, separation,
processing, recovery, recycling, or disposal of solid
waste generated or existing within the boundaries of
the county or incorporated limits of the municipality
or in the area served thereby.
(2) Programs for Non-Designated Areas. The
comprehensive resource recovery and management
program prepared by the appropriate local agency for
submission to the Department of Environmental
Regulation for its approval shall include the following
documentation:
" (a) a description of existing solid waste
management practices, population, solid wastr
generation sources, quantities and characteristics.
(b) the solid waste management systems
preferred by the local agency, projected population,
and waste generation sources, quantities and
characteristics. Proposed systems may combine
several storage, collection, transportation and disposal
methods.
(c) comparison of proposed systems on an
economic basis, including costs and benefits of public
health and environmental protection. An analysis of
the systems shall consider the capacities, costs, source
of revenue for system operation, functions,
organization, general location, operating method,
design considerations, required permits and licenses,
and staging of construction. Financial and
management structure and public information
programs shall be included in the analysis.
(d) consideration of the use of private industry
in the solid waste management system.
(e) investigation of cooperation with other
jurisdictions and development of intergovernmental
agreements to form regional solid waste management
agencies that may be mutually beneficial.
(f) the acquisition of suitable land with
appropriate zoning for solid waste management
facilities.
(g) the inclusion of special waste and
hazardous waste control.
(h) a disaster plan which shall be an integral
part of the total program.
(3) Programs for Designated Areas. A resource
recovery and management program shall be prepared
by the appropriate agency in accordance with the
requirements contained in Subsection (2) above
applicable to non-designated areas, but shall also
include a resource recovery element which contains
the following:
(a) existing resource recovery and recycling
activities, both public and private.
(b) a study of available and potential stable
long-term markets for recovered materials and refuse
derived .fuels, transportation and associated logistical
factors.
(c) an analysis of the economics of technology
options.
(d) an analysis of the economics of waste
reduction options.
(e) selection of a reliable technology
compatible with local circumstances.
(f) an assessment of energy requirements,
financing, management, operation, and environmental
factors pertinent to the chosen technology.
(4) Implementation Schedules. Each program
shall show how and when the various phases of the
local program will be implemented.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
403.705, 403.706 FS. History-New 7-20-76.
17-7.26 Local Program Submittal.
(1) Resource Recovery and Management
Programs, prepared and adopted in accordance with
Section 17-7.23 and 17-7.24 shall be submitted by
local agencies to the Department for approval. Prior
to submittal, the programs shall be reviewed by all
local and regional planning agencies involved in the
programs. Prior to Department approval, the Council
shall review the. resource recovery and management
programs and make recommendations and findings it
deems necessary. Upon -review-by the Council.and .
22J
119
-------
Supp. No. 73
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 17-7
approval by the Department, the program shall be
implemented by the local agency.
(2) Local agencies shall adopt and submit their
respective programs to the Department for approval
no later than July 1, 1978. The programs shall be
submitted in accordance with the following:
(a) Provide four (4) copies on BVt by 11 inch
paper. Oversize maps or drawings may be folded to
this size.
(b) Comments from all appropriate planning
agencies and copies of inter-local agreements from
involved local agencies shall accompany the programs
.submitted.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
4O3.70S. 403.706 FS. History-New 7-20-76.
17-7.27 Extension Procedures. The time limit
stated in Section 17-7.23 for the preparation and
submittal of a local resource recovery and
management plan may be extended upon application
to the Department by the local agency. Applications
for a time extension shall not be granted unless they
are supported by evidence that good faith efforts by
the local agency to meet the requirements of this rule
have been and are being made.
Specific Authority 4O3.705 FS. Law Implemented 403.706
FS. HistoryNew 7-2O-76.
17-7.28 Permitting. Rules governing the
permitting of resource recovery and management
facilities are contained in Chapter 17-7 Part I of this
rule.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
403.706(5). 403.707(1) FS. HistoryNew 7-20-76.
17-7.29 Amendment to an Approved Program.
(1) The procedure for amendment of a
program approved by the Department shall be as for
approval of the original program. A specific
amendment is one that proposes to change methods
of handling, practices, technologies, or financial and
management arrangements contained in the program.
(2) Minor corrections, updates, or
modifications of the program shall not be considered
specific amendments.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. Law Implemented
4O3.705 FS. HistoryNew 7-20-76.
17-7.30 Approval of Local or Regional
Resource Recovery and Management Programs. The
Resource Recovery Council will review and the
Department evaluate and approve, local or regional
programs based on evaluation of information which
shall be contained in each program. Information on
the following topics is considered essential to enable
proper evaluation of each program.
(1) Background Data
(a) Jurisdiction: definition of the scope and
authority of the planning area.
(b) Physical Conditions: description of
environmental conditions, geology, soils, climatology,
drainage basins, other pertinent physical features.
(2) Existing Conditions: description of specific
existing conditions affecting management of solid
wastes.
(a) Storage practices, collection practices and
routes.
(b) Quantities and types of wastes generated
and collected;i.e., residential, commercial, hazardous,
industrial, municipal, sludges. .
(c) Disposal and processing facilities.
(d) General management practices; i.e..
manpower, waste collectors (public, private), terms of
contracts, equipment utilization.
(e) Population served, size and density.
(f) Land use and zoning; i.e., residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, extractive,
recreational, solid waste facilities and other major
land uses.
(g) Transportation routes; roads, railroads,
bargeways; available for use in solid waste
management.
(h) A public relations plan to create a public
awareness about solid waste problems and service
requirements.
(i) Expenditures for solid waste management,
collection, transportation, disposal, and costs for each
in labor, fuel, maintenance, overhead, capital
equipment, supervision.
(j) Public finance practices.
(k) Status source and amount of revenues to
support the solid waste management system.
(1) Other significant conditions related to
existing solid waste management practices in the.
jurisdiction.
(3) Future conditions, problems and
requirements: Information obtained in (2) can be
used to forecast future conditions, problems that may
arise due to those conditions and what may be
required to resolve those problems.
(a) Anticipated conditions:
1. Population projections;
2. Solid waste generation increase (decrease)
by type source and quantity;
3. Land use changes, zoning modifications.
(b) Future problems defined in terms of
location, extent, persistence and control difficulties:
1. Environmental
2. Financial
3. Technical
4. Institutional
5. Legal
6. Political
7. Other.
(c) Future requirements or objectives:
1. Solid waste management organization
structure.
2. Implementation of state criteria and
guidelines.
3. Collection system and disposal facilities
requirements; vehicles, transfer stations, container
collection system, operating equipment.
4. Land acquisition for future installations:
environmental requirements; soil surveys,
hydrogeological studies, other.
5. Intergovernmental agreements or special acts
to form local" agencies or regional authorities to
manage solid waste functions.
6. How municipal plans and county plans
complement each other.
7. Public relations plan to inform citizens
about the solid waste management system.
8. Development of local ordinances en-
regulations to enforce the local program.
9. Development of an area disaster plan.
(4) Resource Recovery Plan. Those areas
designated to plan for and engage in resource
recovery shall be evaluated by the following criteria
which shall be a part of their resource recovery and
"management program. ...
(a) A brief description of resource recover}'
objectives.
22K
120
-------
CHAPTER 17-7
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
Supn. No. 73
(b) An indication of current waste composition
in the planning area.
(c) An evaluation and selection of markets for
the recovery of energy or material, location, type,
characteristics and estimated revenues.
(d) A summary description of technologies or
resource recovery methods to be used.
(e) An assessment of the economic feasibility
of the proposed resource recovery program.
(f) Provision for disposal of residuals, including
site location, volume and type of residuals.
(5) Cost Estimates for Each Element of the
Local Resource Recovery and Management Program
Shall be Included in the Program. Include cost
estimates for:
(a) Background research.
(b) Planning efforts.
(c) Development of solid -waste management
organization
(d) Land acquisition.
(e) Collection and transportation system
17-7 JO Application for Permit.
1. Capita) costs for vehicles, processing
equipment, transfer stations.
2. Operation and maintenance costs:
manpower, utilities.
(f) Disposal
1. Landfill development.
2. Landfill, operation, maintenance,
equipment, labor, utilities.
3. Processing equipment.
4. Resource recovery facilities or systems
capital and operation costs.
(6) Schedule and Priorities for Program
Implementation. A resource recovery and
management program shall contain a reasonable time
schedule and an order of priority for each element of
the program. Each element of a program shall be
assigned a time period for planning, design, each stage
of construction or accomplishment, and actual
implementation or operation of that program
element.
Specific Authority 403.704(1) FS. LAW Implemented
403.705(1). 403.706 FS. HistoryNew 11-16-76.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL.
CONSTRUCT( )
APPLICATION TO A SOLID WASTE
OPERATE ()
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT FACILITY
Applicant:
(Owner or authorized agent)
Street Address:
Mailing Address:
(If different from above)
(City)
(County)
Location of Site:
(Township, Range, Section, & Lat., Long.
(Name of Access Road and Crossroad)
Towns and Areas to be Served:
Population Served:.
.Area of Site:.
.Acres
Date Site Ready to Receive Refuse:
General Requirements
A permit is required for each Resource Recovery and Regional Office of the Department of Pollution
Management Facility. Separate applications for each Control. Complete appropriate sections' of the
permit, four copies each, should be submitted to the application for the type of facility proposed: sanitary
22L
121
-------
Supp. No. 73
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 17-7
landfill, incinerator, volume reduction plant, etc.
Each application shall be accompanied by an
application fee of S20.00 payable by check drawn in
favor of "State of Florida, Department of Pollution
Control."
Applicant has the responsibility to provide copies of
the application to appropriate city, county and/or
regional pollution control agencies, established
pursuant to Section 403.182 Florida Statutes.
Applicant shall also clear the application through
appropriate local planning agencies. Comments from
any of these agencies shall be forwarded with the
application to the Department.
Information contained in the application shall
conform to requirements of Chapter 17-7 F.A.C. All
entries should be typed or printed in ink. If
additional space is needed, separate, properly
identified sheets of paper may be attached.
All documents submitted to support the application
should be on 8.5" x 11" paper.
Processing of the application will begin when the
foregoing requirements have been met.
Permit Number.
.Issue Date.
Review Date.
. Expiration Date.
(1) Statement by Applicant and Engineer
A. Applicant
The undersigned owner, or authorized representative*,
nf is aware that statements
nude in this form and attached exhibits are an application
tor a Permit from the Florida Department
of Pollution Control and certifies that the information in this
application is true, correct and complete to the best of his
knowledge and belief. Further, the undersigned agrees to
comply with the provisions of Chapter 403 Florida Statutes
and all the rules and regulations of the Department. It is
understood that the Permit is not transferable, and, if granted
a permit, the Department will be notified prior to the sale or
legal transfer of the permitted establishment.
Signature of owner or agent
Name and Title
Date:
Attach letter of authorization
B. Professional Engineer Registered in Florida
This is to certify that the engineering features of this resource
recovery and management facility have been
designed/examined by me and found to conform to
engineering principles applicable to such facilities. In my
professional judgement, this facility, when properly
maintained and operated, will comply with all applicable
statutes of the State of Florida and rules of the Department.
It is agreed that the undersigned will provide the applicant
with a set of instructions for proper maintenance and
operation of the facility.
Signature-
-Mailing Address:.
Name: Telephone No.:
(please type)
Florida Registration Number Date:
(please affix seal)
(2) Sanitary landfill including milled refuse disposal sites
requirements. Required Attachments
(Submit in the order listed)
1. Maps
A. A location map drawn to a scale of one
inch equals one half mile showing the
contours and elevation of the area
surrounding the site.
B. -A-topographic map of the site drawn to a
scale not to exceed one inch equals two
hundred fret showing rxistinc an<1 fins'
grades.
2. Drawings which shall include:
A. Property lines
B. Land use including existing habitations:
other structures: public roads and
highways; shallow and deep wells: trees:
etc..
C. Area and depth of the proposed fill
D. All borrow areas
E. Location and elevation of surface and
highest ground waters
F. A wind rose to show prevailing winds
G. Special provisions for surface and
subsurface drainage and erosion control
H. Leachate treatment and control provisions
I. Necessary provisions for gas control
J. Method of operation and completion
K. Cross sections showing typical lifts not to
exceed ten feet compacted depth of refuse
L. The necessary grade for proper drainage of
each lift and the final grade of the
completed operation
M. Locations of stockpiled cover material
N. Access routes, approach roads and on-site
roads
O. Fencing, direction and information signs
P. Weighing facilities, locker room; toilet and
shower facilities: equipment shelter, aad
wash-put facilities
Q. Locations of existing and proposed utilities
R. Fire Control and potable water supply
locations
3. Hydrogeological Report which shall include:
A. Thickness and character of the overburden
(soil)
B. Character of bedrock
C. Depth of the water table and
potentiometric surfaces
D. Depth to the shallow ground water aquifer
and artesian aquifier
E. Local and regional- ground water flow
systems
F. Chemical quality of surface and ground
water. (See Page 24 A Handbook for
Sanitary Landfills in Florida for list of
substances to be tested for.)
G. Frequency and extent of flooding of the
area.
H. Nature and volume of the waste materials
to be buried
4. Soils Survey which shall include
A. Depth to seasonal high watertable
B. Soil Series
C. Soil Drainage Class
D. . Flooding
E. Permeability
F. Slope
G. Soil Texture (dominant to depth of 60")
H. Depth to bedrock
I. Stoniness Class
J. Rockiness Class
5. Equipment Discuss
A. Present - types, sizes, numbers
B. Proposed - types, sizes, numbers
6. Discuss projected amount of waste to be handled
including basis for projection.
7. Operating procedures - explain methods of
A. Controlling the length and width of the
working face
B. Disposing of large items, special industrial.
and hazardous wastes
C. Confining papers to the site
D. Waste handling in the wake of a natural
disaster
E. Emergency provisions for insect and rodent
control
F. Providing adequate site supervision
G. Controlling unauthorized fires
H. Maintaining an all weather access road
I. Posting operating hours, fee schedule.
waste restrictions, the name, address and
phone number of the operating agent
J. Locating signs to direct traffic
8. Land Disposal Data Form
NOTE: . . Additional information may be required
as determined by the Department.
22M
122
-------
CHAPTER 17-7
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
Sui>P. N'.
(3) Land Disposal Site Data Form
LANO DISPOSAL SITE DATA FORM
CONTROL NO.
1.
COUNTY
STREET ADDRESS
5.
LOCATION UTM
in ii in ana cnecx CHOCKS as appropriate. J
HUi.' '
CHANGE I
INACTIVE ,
2.
SITE
3.. 1
DATE 1
I
TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION !
6.
RESPONSIBLE OPERATING AUTHORITY ,
7.
OWNERSHIP
9.
PHONE NO.
11.
NO. OF ACRES
13. (a) QUARRY
TOPOGRAPHY (b) BORROW
12. (a)
METHOD OF OPERATION (bj
D (C) STRIPMINEQ
PITQ (d) HILLSIDE LJ
8. i
ADDRESS 1
10.
POPULATION SERVED . ;
TRENCH D (c) WETLAN3 D
AREA Q (d) HIGH-RISE D
(e) GULLY Q (g) MARSH L7-
(f) LEVEL AREAQ
(e) DUMP a
(f) OTHER a
14. YES G
SCALES NO D
15.
SURROUNDING LAND-USE
(a) RESIDENTIAL
(b) COWERC1AL
[j
H
(c
(d)
AGRICULTURAL
INX/STRIAL
G
H
(e) VACANT Q
16. (a) RESIDENTIAL
ZONING (b) COMMERCIAL
18. (a)
PLAMD FINAL USE (b)
19. (a)
TYPES OF WASTE RECEIVED (b)
(c)
(d)
21.
DAYS OPEN FOR DISPOSAL
23.
DEPTH OF WATER TABLE
25.
NO. OF WELLS WITHIN ONE MILE
(C) AGRICULTURAL D (e) VACANTG 17. :
LJ (d) INDUSTRIAL d YEAR BEGUN j
PARK Q (c) BUILDING CONSTRUCTION G. (e)NONE Q
PARKING LOTLJ (d) AIRPORT p (f) OTHER f]
RESIDENTIAL G (e) SEPTIC TANK PUHPINGS Q (i) HAZARDOUS, CLINI-G 20. YES U
COMMERCIAL Q (f ) SEWAGE SLUDGE Q CAL, HOSPITAL BURNING NO Q
INDUSTRIAL Q (g) INCINERATOR RESIDUE Q (j) WATER TREATMENT, Q
AGR I CULTURAL LJ (h) DEAD ANIMALS D SLUDGE
22.
S M T w T F s FREQUENCY OF COVER
24.
SOIL PERMEABILITY
NONELJ S M T W T F S
26. (a) NONE G (c) OCCASIONAL U
SHALLOW DEEP FLOODING (b) RARE LJ (d) FREQUENT Q
27. 28.
NO. OF ROADWAYS ADJACENT TO SITE SLOPE OF SITE
29.
NO. OF RESIDENCES OR BUSINESSES
30.
WITHIN 1000 FEET SOIL SERIES
51. (a) SAND D U) LOAMY-SAND G («) SANDY CLAY LOAM G 32. YESQ
SOIL TEXTURE (b) SANDY- LOAM n (d) SANDY CLAY G (f) CLAY C FENCED NO C
33. NO G
MONITORING WELLS YES G
35. YES D
DUMPING IN WATER NO D
38. (a) PLASTIC G
LINER TYPE (b) ASPHALT Q
40. YES Q
OXIDATION POND NO D
43.
EVIDENCE OF LEACHING
34. (a) IMMEDIATE G (c) LOWQ
POTENTIAL WATER POLLUTION (b) HIGH G
36. YES G
PERIMETER DITCH NO D
(C) BENTONITEQ (e) OTHER G
(d) CLAY n (f) NONE P
37 . YES G
LINER NO n
k39. YESG
ELL POINT SYSTEM NO G
41. 42.
POND AREA DEPTH OF SOILS TO BEDROCK
YES G «4 . YES L^
NO LJ FINAL LEACHATE TREATMENT NEEDED NO LJ
45. (») CHLORINATION Q (c) OZCNATIONG (e) OTHER G
FINAL TREATMENT (b) AERATION H (d) ADVANCED C ffl NONE d
47. (a) CANAL ,_
DISCHARGE (b) DITCH L~
49.
CELL DEPTH OF REFUSE
52.
BLOWING PAPER CONTROL
54.
ALL WEATHER ACCESS ROAD
(C) STREAM G (e) OTHER r
(d) LAKE Li (f) MARSHC
46. NO G
RODENT PROBLEM YES Q
48. NO ;
IROOENT CONTROL YESL:
SO. YESQ 51. YESG
INSECT PROBLEM NO G INSECT CONTROL NO C3
YESG S3.
NO D FULL TIME ATTENDANT
YESQ 55.
NO G GAS CONTROL
YES a
NO n
YESG
NO LJ
56. YESQ
SPREADING OF REFUSE IN 2 FT. LAYERS NO U '
57.
ONE (1) FT. INTERMEDIATE COVER APPLIED WITHIN ONE (1) WEEK CELL COMPLETION
TWO (2) FT. FINAL COVER APPLIED
58.
WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR CELL COMPLETION
YES L
NO E
YES a
NO n
59. (a) CRAWLER TRACTOR Q (c HYDRAULIC BACK HOELJ (e)PAN SCRAPER G (g)BRUSH HOC G
EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE DAILY (b) RUBBER TIRED TRACTORG (d)UVOFILL COMPACTOR^" ('iDIAGLI1* LJ (h)TRASH PUMPS L"j
60.
PROPOSED COST OF OPERATION
S/CU. YD.
S/TCN
i
61. ]
NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM
62. 63. 64.
REVIEW DATE . PERMIT NO. ISSUE DATE
65. i
EXPIRATION DATE !
i
Hit
4-74
22N
123
-------
Supp. No. 69
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 17-7
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE
"LAND DISPOSAL SITE DATA FORM"
The purpose of these instructions is to provide information
to those fillinc out the "Land Disposal Site Data Form" so
that the data is complete and it can be processed in
Tallahassee without delay. This form is designed for
computerization to as to enable the Department to have
instant access to information on all registered land disposal
sites operated in the State of Florida. This data form must be
completed by the applicant as follows:
The control number and the delete, add, change and inactive
block are for the Department's use only.
1. County This is self-explanatory.
2. Site The name of the land disposal site not to
exceed 30 spaces. Abbreviate if neccessary.
3. Date The date of this report shall be expressed as the
month, day. year, in numbers, (i.e.. 1-1-73).
4. Address The actual address of the land disposal site
or the route by which access to the site is made, not to
exceed 70 spaces.
5. Location The location of the disposal site in both
UTM Co-ordinates and the township, range and section.
6. Responsible Operating Authority The authority
responsible for the operation of the disposal site.
Abbreviate where necessary so as to not exceed 4O
spaces.
7. Ownership The agency or individual who owns or
leases this particular site. Abbreviate if neccessary. so
as not to exceed 30 spaces.
8. Address The mailing address of the agency shown in
Item 7. Abbreviate if necessary so as not to exceed 30
spaces.
9. Phone Number The phone number of the agency
shown in Item 7.
10. Population Served The population which this
disposal site is estimated to serve.
11. Number of Acres The total number of acres of land
purchased or leased for the operation of this site.
12. Method of Operation More than one item may be
checked.
13. Topography The topography of the area in which the
site is located. Check one only.
14. Scales Check whether scales are available at the site
to determine the weight of the waste received.
15. Surrounding Land-Use Check as many blocks as are
appropriate to give the predominant land use within
the immediate area of the site. If there is no specific
surrounding land use then (e) Vacant would be
checked.
16. Zoning Check if the site is located in an area which is
zoned. If there is no zoning in the area, then (e) Vacant
shall be checked.
17. Year Begun Year in which the operation of this site
is to be begun or was begun.
18. Planned Final Use Check if there is a planned final
use which is listed: however, if there is no final use
established for the site, check (e) None: or if the final
use is not listed, then check (f) Other. Check only one.
19. Types of Waste Received Check all types of waste
received at this site.
20. Burning Chapter 17-5 prohibits open burning:
however, check to denote whether new sites plan to use
air curtain incinerators to handle land clearing waste.
21. Days Open for Disposal Circle the days on which the
site is open for disposal.
22. Frequency of CoverCircle the days on which the site
receives a 6 cover of compacted earth. If the site
receives cover at intervals less frequently than once per
week, then check none.
23. Depth of Water Table Indicate the depth to the
seasonal high shallow ground water aquifer in feet.
24. Soil Permeability Indicate the rate at which water
will percolate through the soil in terms of inches per
hour.
25. Number of Wells Within One Mile Indicate the
number of private water supply wells within one mile
of the site to the left of the word Shallow. Indicate
the number of public water supply wells or drrp well*
within one mile of the site to the left of the word -
Deep.
26. Flooding Periods when the water-table rises above
the surface If two per/yr. or greater, check (d)
Frequent. If one per/yr., check (c) Occasional. If less
than once in (2) .two years, check (b) Rare.
27. Number of Roadways Adjacent to Site
28. Slope of Site Indicate the general slope of the site
area expressed as a percentage.
29. Number of Residences or Businesse* Within 1000 Feet
30. Soil Series Indicate the predominant soil series at the
site to a depth of at least 60 . This information may be
obtained from the required soils survey.
31. Soil Texture Check the one which best describes the
general soil texture at the site.
32. Fenced This refers to permanent fencing surrounding
the site.
33. Monitoring Wells Check to Indicate whether test
wells exist to monitor any degradation of groundwaler
quality.
34. Potential Water Pollution This should be evaluated
on the basis of the relationship between the bottom of
the landful and the water table: the types of underlying
soils: the type and amount of material used for cover:
and types of materials being disposed of at the site.
35. Dumping In Water This is self-explanatory.
36. Perimeter Ditch This indicates the existance of a
suitable ditch surrounding the site for the interception
of surface and subsurface waters which would normally
flow through or from the site; the collection of
leachate. and runoff, and the transmission of these
liquids to receiving waters or to a treatment pond.
37. Liner Indicate whether an impervious material is
being placed on undisturbed earth on which solid waste
is deposited to retard the movement of leachate into
the shallow groundwater aquifer.
38. Liner Type Check one of the materials listed which is
being used for a liner.
39. Well Point System Indicate whether there is a well
point system used to lower the water table in the
immediate area of the landfill.
40. Oxidation Pond Check whether or not there exists a
pond to receive liquids collected in the perimeter ditch
and/or leachate collection, system to oxidize or
otherwise treat these liquids and remove settleable
solids.
41. Pond Area Indicate area in acres.
42. Depth of Soils to Bedrock Indicate the measured
depth of soil in feet between the surface and bedrock.
This information may be obtained from the required
geological survey.
43. Evidence of Leaching Leaching often manifests itself
in the form of springs of dark liquid coming from the
sides of land disposal sites or through the
contamination of nearby shallow water wells. On new
sites, this has to be a judgement evaluation based on
designs under **""'»» conditions.
44. Final Treatment Needed Indicate whether liquids
collected from existing or proposed sites will need final
treatment prior to discharge.
45. Final Treatment If final treatment is indicated in
Item 44. then check this item to enable the
Department to determine if the proper type of
treatment is to be provided. It may be either a single
type or a combination of methods: however, if a single
method is to be used other than those listed, then
check (e) Other. If is is a combination of (a) (b) or (c).
in addition to spray irrigation, then check (d) Advanced.
46. Rodent Problem Indicate whether a proposed or an
existing site has or will have a need for rodent control
measures.
47. Discharge Check the receiving waters into which the
collected liquids from the perimeter ditch or oxidation
pond are discharged. Do not check more than one.
48. Rodent Control. This is to be used in conjunction
with Item 46 to indicate whether rodent control is
being adequately provided.
49. Cell Depth of Refuse Vertical depth in feet of refuse
between the base and the top surface of compacted
refuse before cover material is added.
50. Insect Problem The same basis as Item 46.
51. Insect Control The same basis as Item 48.
52. Blowing Paper Control Indicate control if the site is
policed daily and a portable snowfence or other
measure is used to help control blowing papers.
53. Full Time Attendant This is self-explanatory.
54. All Weather Access Road This is self-explanatory.'
55. Gas Control Are special relief devices provided to
2 2O
124
-------
CHAPTER 17-7
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
Supp. No. r.!>
collect and disperse methane and other gasses?
56. Spreading of Refuse in 2 Feet Layers When
constructing a refuse cell in a sanitary landfill, the
refuse should be spread in two foot layers and
compacted to a thickness of one foot in order to
achieve maximum compaction.
57. One Foot Intermediate Cover Applied Within One
Week of Cell Completion This is self-explanatory.
58. Two Foot Final Cover Applied Within One Year of Cell
Completion This is self-explanatory.
59. Equipment Available Daily The types of equipment
available daily for sanitary landfill operation. Check as
many as are applicable.
60. Proposed Cost of Operation This should be an
estimate of the cost of operation at an existing site or
projected cost of operation at a proposed site.
61. Name of Person Completing Form This is
self-explanatory.
Items 62, 63, 64, and 65 are for Department use
only.
(4) Volume Reduction Plant Requirements.
These pertain to incinerators, pulverizers,
compactors, shredding and haling plants, transfer
stations, composting plants and other plants which
accept and process solid waste for recycling or
disposal.
1. Maps
(a) Location map drawn to a scale of one inch
equals one half mile, showing general geographic
features of the area surrounding the site.
(b) Topographic map of the site drawn to a
scale of one inch equals 200 feet, showing existing
and final contours.
2. Drawings, to include:
(a) Property lines, site dimensions.
(b) Land use, including habitations and other
structures, roads, wells, vegetation, etc.
(c) Equipment used in the operation with
equipment components shown in sufficient detail to
indicate method of operations.
(d) Process flow, materials handling and
storage.
(e) Location of existing and proposed utilities.
(f) Access routes, approach roads and on-site
roads.
3. Process description to show:
(a) Method of operation.
(b) Type and volume of materials processed.
(c) Population and area served.
(d) Employee facilities.
(e) Provisions for disposal of residual waste
after processing.
(f) Type of materials recovered and disposition
of same.
(g) Process water and treatment after use.
(h) Auxiliary fuel.
(i) Schedule of operations.
(j) Site management.
(k) General maintenance procedures.
4. Emergency procedures
(a) Alternate waste handling procedures in ihe
event of equipment breakdown, natural disasters.
(b) Corrective or alternate procedures in the
event of diminished operational quality.
.Specific Authority 403.061 FS. Law Implemented 403.021,
403.031. 403.061. 403.087. 403.701 through 403.713 FS
Chapter 74-342. HistoryNew 10-1-74.
22P
125
-------
Supp. No. 69
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 17-7
(5) Volume Reduction Plant Data
VOLVXE REDUCTION PLANT DATA
Control No. (Dept. fsc)
1. County 2. Site
Name
3. Date
4. Street
Address
5. Location, UTH
or Lat. t Long.
6. Operating
Authority
7. Owner
9 . Phone
No.
11. Adjacent (a) Residential
Land
Use
(b) Commercial
12. Operations
Hours /Day
14. Type
of . (a) Incineration
Operation
(b) Baling
(c) Compacting- ___
15. Waste Received
Tons/Day
Township Range Section
8. Address
10. Population
Served
(c) Agricultural (e) Other
(d) Industrial
13. Days Operated S K T N T F S
(d) Shredding (g) Pyrolysis
(e) Composting (h) Other
(f) Transfer Stn.
or Cu. Yds. /Day
RESOURCE OR ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY
16. Material Recovered, Tons /Week
(a) Paper
(b) Ferrous Metals
(c) Alundniun
(d) Plastics
17. Energy Recovery
(a) Hi-Pressure Steam Lbs. 'Hr.
(b) Lew-Pressure steam Lbs.-'Hr.
(c) Electricity KK/Hr.
(d) Chilled Water Gal/Hr.
(e) Glass ..... .
(f) Non-Ferrous Ketals
Iql Rubber
(h) Other
(e) Gas, Cubic Ft./Hr.
(f) Gas, B7V/HT.
(g) Oil, Galy'Kr.
(h) Oil, BT.YHr.
(i) Other Q-jar.tity
18. Process Water
(a) Discharged To
(b) Treatment
<) p.cycl.4
20. Supplementary Fuel
(a) Type
(b) Quantity/Mr.
19. Final Residue
(a) \ of Waste Received
(b) Disposal To
21. Estimated Operating Cost
(a) Total/Waste Ton
(b) Material Salvige Valup
Net Opera-i^g Cost
S
S
22Q
126
------- |