United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-79-099
December 1979
Research and Development
Small-Scale and
Low-Technology
Resource Recovery
Stu   '

-------
                 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
"•g'ories were established to facilitate further development and  application of en-
 vironmental technology. Elimination  of  traditional grouping  was  consciously
 planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
 •The nine series are:

       1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
       2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical  Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

 This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
 NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
 onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
 vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
 provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
 of pollution sources to  meet environmental quality standards.
 This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
 tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                            EPA-600/2-79-099
                                            December 1979
SMALL-SCALE AND LOW-TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE RECOVERY STUDY
                          by

         Gary L. Mitchell and Charles Peterson
                     SCS Engineers
                Reston, Virginia  22091

           Esther R. Bowring and Brian West
                     SCS Engineers
             Long Beach, California  90807
                Contract No. 68-03-2653
                    Project Officer

                  Donald A. Oberacker
      Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
      Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
      MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
          OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

-------
                                DISCLAIMER
   This report has been reviewed by the Municipal  Environmental  Research
Laboratory, U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  and approved for publi-
cation.  Approval  does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation  for use.
                                    11

-------
                              FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of
pollution to the health and welfare of the American people.
Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony
to the deterioration of our natural environment.   The complexity
of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.

     Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solution and it involves defining the problem, measur-
ing its impact, and searching for solutions.  The Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and improved
technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and manage-
ment of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste  pollutant dis-
charges from municipal and community sources, for the preserva-
tion and treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to
minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic
effect of pollution.  This publication is one of  the products of
that research; a most vital communications link between the  re-
searcher and the user community.

     This report reviews the technical and economic feasibility
of resource recovery from selected waste streams  which generate
100 tons per day or less.  In addition, several research and
developments options are suggested.
                               Francis T.  Mayo, Director
                               Municipal  Environmental  Research
                               Laboratory
                                11

-------
                             ABSTRACT


     A study was conducted to assess the applicability of various
approaches to resource recovery to selected waste generators.
The resource recovery systems and technologies were limited to
those operating in the small-scale range, defined as less than
100 tons per day input, or those approaches considered to be low
technology, defined as having more than 50 percent of operation
and maintenance costs associated with labor, i.e., labor inten-
sive.   The generators included institutions, commercial sources,
office building complexes, multi-unit residences and small  cities.

     An evaluation of seven potential systems led to the conclu-
sion that two approaches were apparently technically and econo-
mically feasible for application to the waste generators.  The
two systems identified were modular incineration with energy
recovery and source separation.  A detailed analysis of the
application of these two systems to the waste stream generators
led to determination of applicability of either or both approaches
to resource recovery to each of the generators.  It was found
that modular incineration is generally applicable to only the
largest examples of the waste generators studied.  Similar con-
clusions were associated with source separation; however, this
approach was found more applicable to smaller situations than
was modular incineration.  Recommendation for future research
and development included more thorough waste characterization of
the sources studied, investigation of the effects of building
design on resource recovery feasbility, and a further study of
systems not currently considered as proven technology.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.
68-03-2653 by SCS Engineers under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  The report covers the period
January 6, 1978 to December 27, 1978.  Work was completed as of
January 15, 1979.
                                IV

-------
                                 CONTENTS

Foreword	  i i i
Abstract	  iv
Figures..	  vi
Tabl es	vi i i

     I.   Introduction	    1
     11.  Waste Stream Generators	  16
     III. Technology System Evaluation	  40
     IV.  Applicability of Selected Systems to Waste Generators	  79
     V.   Research and Development Needs	  116

  Appendices

     A.   Conversion Table for Metric Units of Measure	  122
     B.   Topical Bibliography	  123
     C.   Small-scale and Low Technology Resource Recovery Outside
            the United States 	  188
     D.   Summary of Information from Equipment Manufacturers	  193
     E.   Component Descriptions	  198
     F.   Energy Analysis of Alternative Resource Recovery Systems...  223
     G.   Modular Incinerator Selection Guide	  243

-------
FIGURES
Number
1

2


3


4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12

13

14
15
16
17
18
Process Flow Diagrams - Ferrous Recovery and
Compost Preparation 	
Process Flow Diagrams - Compost Preparation with
Ferrous Recovery and RDF Preparation with
Ferrous Recovery 	 ,...,.
Process Flow Diagrams - Incineration with Energy
Recovery and Incineration with Energy and
Ferrous Recovery 	
Process Flow Diagram - Source Separation 	
Air Freiaht Areas- Corrugated Recovery. 	
Airport Maintenance Base - Corrugated Recovery . .
Shopping Centers - Corrugated Recovery 	
Poisons - Corrugated Recovery 	
Universities - High-grade Paper Recovery 	
Office Building - High-grade Paper Recovery ....
Small Cities - Baled vs Non-baled Newsprint
Recovery 	
Small Cities - Newsprint, Glass, Ferrous, and
Aluminum Recovery 	
European Drop-off Container for Source Separated
Glass 	
Air Classifer - Vertical and Horizontal 	
Rotary Drum Air Classifer and Air Knife 	
Typical Controlled Air Incinerator 	
Solid Waste Incinerator with Heat Recovery , , , ,
Vertical Hammer Shredder 	 , , , , .
Page

45


51


58
65
93
94
96
102
104
107

112

113

192
201
202
212
214
217

-------
19   Shear Shredder	•	     218

20   Rotary Trommel Screen	     219

21   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for Small
       Cities	     246

22   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for Airports,     247

23   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for
       Shopping Centers 	     248

24   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for Office
       Buildings	     249

25   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for Garden
       Apartments	     250

26   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for
       Universities 	     251

27   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for Prisons .     252

28   Modular Incineration Selection Guide for
       Hospitals	     253
                             vii

-------
                               TABLES



Number                                                         Page
1

2

3
4
5

6
7
8

9

10

11

12

13


14

15
16

Approximate Waste Composition and Generation Rates
for Selected Waste Generators 	
Example Cost Analysis: Modular Incinerator with
Energy Recovery (100 TPD) , , 	
System Rating Criteria 	
System Rating 	
Feasibility of Resource Recovery Systems to Waste
Generators 	 , 	
Composition of Airport Wastes 	
Composition of Shopping Center Wastes 	
Cost Analysis for A Representative Ferrous Recovery
System (100 TPD) 	
Cost Analysis for A Representative Aerobic Compost
Plant (100 TPD) 	
Cost Analysis for A Representative Aerobic Compost
Plant with Ferrous Recovery (100 TPD) 	
Cost Analysis for A Representative Refuse-Derived
Fuel (RDF) and Ferrous Recovery System (100 TPD) . .
Cost Analysis for A Representative Modular
Incinerator with Energy Recovery (100 TPD) 	
Cost: Analysis for A Representative Modular
Incinerator with Energy and Ferrous Recovery
(100 TPD) 	
Typical Preparation Requirements for Recyclable
Materials 	
Assumptions for Source Separation Cost Analysis . , .
Cost Analysis for A Representative Small City Source
Separation Program (100 TPD) 	

4

8
11
12

14
19
22

46

49

53

56

60


62

66
70

71
                               v i i i

-------
17   System Rating Criteria .  .  ,	73
18   System Rating	75
19   BTU  and Fuel Savings Adjustment Factors	87
20   Resource Recovery Applicable to Airports 	 ,  .   ,  91
21   Resource Recovery Applicable to Shopping Centers  ....  95
22   Resource Recovery Applicable to Hospitals  	  98
23   Resource Recovery Applicable to Prisons  	 100
24   Resource Recovery Applicable to Universities 	 103
25   Resource Recovery Applicable to Office Buildings  , ,  ,   . 106
26   Resource Recovery Applicable to Garden Apartments  .  .   . 109
27   Resource Recovery Applicable to Small Cities 	 Ill
28   Energy Expenditure and Conservation for Selected Solid
       Waste Systems  .	224
                               IX

-------
                          SECTION I

                        INTRODUCTION


    Approaches to the recovery of materials or energy from
municipal wastes have been in operation for several years.  This
is particularly true of source separation and incineration with
energy recovery.  Most examples of these systems are associated
with metropolitan areas with populations exceeding 100,000.
Little information has, however, been compiled on procedures for
recovering resources from specific waste generators within
metropolitan areas or in smaller cities.

    Section 8002(d) of the Resource Recovery and Conservation
Act of 1976 (RCRA) required the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to conduct a study of small-scale and low technology
resource recovery.  This report contains the findings of that
study.

    The purpose of the project were:

    • To compile a comprehensive bibliography on small-scale
      and low technology resource recovery systems

    • To determine solid waste characteristics and collection
      and disposal practices of selected small waste generators

    • To analyze small-scale and low technology resource recovery
      systems and evaluate applicability of the most feasible
      systems to the various waste generators

    t To make recommendations for future research and develop-
      ment efforts

DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF PROJECT

    Small-scale systems were defined as technologies which
operate at a maximum capacity of 100 tons per day with less than
50 percent of the operating and maintenance costs devoted to
labor.*  Thus, these sjnal 1-seale systems are essentially smaller
versions of high technology approaches to resource recovery.

* Metric units of measure were not used in this report.   It was
felt that the user community was more accustomed to English units
and that the degree of actual use of this report would decrease
if metric units were reported.  The use of English units in lieu
of metric was approved by the Project Officer.  A conversion
table is included as Appendix A.

                                1

-------
The small-scale systems' input would be mixed wastes from the
sources identified with the output including separated materials
and/or recovered energy.

     Low technology systems were defined as having 50 percent or
more of the operating and maintenance costs associated with
labor.  No limitations were placed on the input capacity of low
technology systems.  The principal low technology system in the
United States is source separation; however, many approaches
to material recovery could fit the definition if they were
oriented to manual labor rather than mechanized operations.

     The project focused on several types of small volume waste
generators including the following:

     • Institutions

       --  Hospitals
       --  Prisons
       --  Universities

     • Office Buildings.

     t Commercial Sources.

       --  Airports
       --  Shopping Centers

     • Multi-unit Residences

       --  Garden or Low-rise Apartments
       --  Mobile Home Parks

     • Small  Cities

     The inclusion of some of these waste generators was. required
by the legislation directing this study.  Others were included
because it was felt th.at they were potential candidates for
resource recovery operations.  Some of the above sources had
easily segregated portions of the waste streams containing
materials amenable to recovery.  Examples include the recovery
of corrugated cardboard from, prisons, universities, and shopping
centers.   Some of the waste generators were considered as likely
on-site consumers of energy recovered from the incineration of
their wastes.  These included hospitals, prisons, universities,
airports, shopping centers and low-rise apartments.  Small cities
were included essentially to complete the scope of potential
resource recovery from municipalities.

-------
APPROACH

Waste Characteristics and Generation Rates

    In order to assess the applicability of resource recovery to
these waste generators, information was needed on solid waste
generation rates, waste composition, and typical  collection and
disposal practices.  A search of the literature yielded very
little information on the generators with the exception of small
cities, office buildings, and hospitals.  This lack of published
data necessitated limited, informal, on-site waste characteri-
zation studies supplemented by telephone surveys.

    The literature review and data collection efforts yielded
the approximate waste composition and generation  rates shown
in Table 1.  It should be noted that some of the  waste generators
were  divided  into subcategories, e.g., four different types of
operations at airports and three different sizes  of shopping
centers; however, only one example of each source is shown in
Table 1.  Of particular interest were th.e units of measure
associated with overall waste generation rates.  Most of the
literature reported some factor of waste generation per day or
week, related to a measure of size or level of activity at the
facility.  The size measurement was often based on the number of
persons using the facility, but also included floor areas (for
shopping centers) and number of paid staff (hospitals).  Compo-
sition data was taken from a limited number of sources in most
cases, as was the overall waste generation rates.  The effort
to collect information on waste stream generators and applicable
resource recovery technologies led to the development of a
topical txibl iography (Appendix B).

    The generation rates were found to be quite variable,
depending upon the type of activity conducted.  This was.
especially true of hospitals and prisons.  Within hospitals such
"heavy care" units as surgery and maternity had high, generation
figures, whereas, "light care" units such as psychiatric and
administrative units generated much, less waste.  The generation
rate for prisons is: associated with the residential and admini-
strative aspects of these institutions and did not include any
wastes generated by industrial or agricultural activities.  The
fairly extensive use of disposable items is reflected in the
generation rate and the quantities of paper and plastics.

    The generation rate at universities depends upon the types
of wastes included.  The generation rate shown does, not include
wastes from agricultrual or medical schools or landscaping,
demolition, and construction wastes.  Likewise, it was noted that
sources of recyclable materials at universities,  particularly
paper, were easy to identify, with approximately 80 percent of
all paper coming from office and classroom areas; a high per-
centage of this paper is recy<:la&le.

-------
TABLE 1.  APPROXIMATE WASTE COMPOSITION AND GENERATION RATES
                FOR SELECTED WASTE GENERATORS

                     Percent of Total  (Weight Basis)


Type of Material
Paper
Corrugated
Glass
Metal
P 1 as t i cs

Organ ics
Wood

Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Overall Waste
Generation Rates


Airport
Passenger
Terminal
I71
J
4
6
5

5
3

6
100
0.5 Ib
per
passenger
per day
Regional
Shopping


Center Hospitals Prisons
28
52
1
3
8

2
2

4
^
100
,40 37
22
6 1
2 16
15 8

25 10
1
,12 6
1 J
100 100
200 Ib 2 to 4.5 4.5 Ib
per 1000 Ib
per per
sq. ft. paid inmate



Multi-Unit
Universities Residences
55 J35
10
8 12



7 10
3 5

10 27
1

J
1
7 111
1
100 100
1 Ib per 2.7 Ib
student
per day
of gross staff per day
per
resident
per day
leasable member




area per per
week
day






Office Small
Buildings Cities
187 J29
J J
1 10
7 10
1 3
N
38
> 4 4

6
100 100
1.5 Ib 3.5 Ib
per per
office person
worker per day
per day



-------
     Office buildings are notable for the very high percentage
of paper.  Much of this is high-grade paper and computer cards
and printout which often command premium prices.   Numerous
office buildings of governmental agencies and private firms
practice source separation of high-grade paper.  A relatively
small  amount of organics is generated by office buildings without
food service facilities.  The percentage of organics increases
significally for office buildings with food service facilities.

     Relatively large quantities of organics are  shown coming
from multi-unit residences and small cities.  This is due to
the fact that both garbage and landscaping wastes are included.

     The data in Table 1 are derived from a relatively small
sampling of information from the specific sources, with the
exception of hospitals, office buildings, and small cities.
Thus,  in assessing the feasibility of resource recovery in a
specific situation, a waste characterization study should be
completed to determine the composition and quantity of wastes
being  generated at that location.

Technology System Evaluation

System Criteria--
     The next step in this study was to collect information and
evaluate the current state-of-the-art approaches  to resource
recovery for their applicability to the waste generators selec-
ted.  Information concerning the state-of-the-art, applicability,
and costs associated with material processing components was
obtained from a variety of sources including published material
and through direct contact with equipment users and manufactuers.
No site visits to resource recovery operations were made during
this project.  Gathering of information was not limited to the
United States.  As part of the project, the First World Recyc-
ling Congress was attended.  The five-day Congress was held in
Basel, Switzerland and included technical papers  and equipment
displays from some 20 countries worldwide.   A synopsis of the re-
sults  of attending the Congress is included as Appendix C.

     Unit process components considered technologically proven
at the 100 ton per day level or less were assembled into resource
recovery systems applicable to the waste generators.  Operational
and technical aspects of each system were analyzed and a cost
analysis developed which was used to estimate net disposal  costs
per ton of input.

     For purposes of the study components of resource recovery
systems were considered technologically proven, if, at 100 tons
per day or less, the component has:

     •  Operated at full scale for a least one year

-------
     •  Produced the desired product in a marketable form.

     This definition eliminated components in the pilot scale or
in shake-down tests.  Likewise, it eliminated those components
generating a product that is not marketable; i.e., no market
exists for the material  or has existed in the very recent past.
The above definition was applied to various resource recovery
system components.  The  components of smal1-seale systems  ini-
tially considered include the following:
     acid hydrolysis conversion units
     air classifiers
     aluminum magnets
     composting equipment
     froth flotation units
     magnetic separators
methane digesters
modular incinerators
pyrolytic units
shredders
trommel screens
     Application of the criteria for a component to be technologi
cally proven prior to further consideration led to the elimina-
tion of several components.  These are listed below along with
the reason for elimination:

     •  Acid hydrolysis conversion unit -- considered to be
        in experimental or pilot stage.

     t  Aluminum magnets -- unable to assess effectiveness of
        the one operational unit due to small amounts of
        aluminum in waste stream.   Other installations con-
        sidered to be in shake-down status.

     t  Froth flotation -- considered to be in shake-down status.
        Although high purity product (99%) has been achieved, it
        still does not meet container industry specifications.

     •  Methane digesters -- pilot scale plant for solid wastes
        and sewage sludge is in operation.  No system in opera-
        tion at commercial scale.

     •  Pyrolysis  -- two small  operating units considered to
        be in demonstration or  shake-down status.

The remaining components were "assembled" into six, small-scale
systems  for further analysis:

     •  Ferrous Recovery

     •  Compost Preparation

     •  Compost Preparation with Ferrous Recovery

     •  RDF Preparation with Ferrous Recovery

-------
     •  Incineration with Heat Recovery

     •  Incineration with Heat and Ferrous Recovery

Application of System and Cost Analyses--
     Next, scenarios were developed describing the features of
each of the above systems, their limitations, and their appli-
cability-   This led to the development of a cost analysis of
each.  In  order to evaluate the systems as uniformly as possible,
common assumptions were applied, as follows:

     •  All systems to be operated at 100 tons per day input.

     •  Hauling and disposal costs for non-recovered waste
        from the processing facility were estimated at $7
        per ton.

     •  Uniform costs for labor were applied.

     •  An average mid-1977 market value for recovered material
        was used.

     •  The value of energy recovered was equated to the cost
        of the least expensive fossil fuel from which the
        same amount of energy could be recovered.

     An example cost analysis is shown in Table 2.  Specific
assumptions associated with modular incineration are shown in
the table.

     In the area of low technology systems only source separation
was considered, and a scenario was developed describing a typical
source separation program applicable to a small city.  The great
variability of source separation and its applicability to several
of the waste generators precluded the development of scenarios
and the resulting cost analyses of more than one source separa-
tion program.

Overall Evaluation--
     As a result of an overall evaluation considering costs and
other factors, modular incineration with heat recovery (without
ferrous recovery) and source separation emerged as the highest
rated systems.  Additionally, these were the systems with the
lowest cost per ton.  An area of potential concern for modular
incinerators is air pollution control.  While several installa-
tions have met State standards, it is possible that some units
will require external air pollution control devices.  The
approach used in evaluating the systems is described below.

-------
                     TABLE 2.  EXAMPLE COST ANALYSIS:

            MODULAR  INCINERATOR WITH ENERGY RECOVERY1  (100 TPD)


                                                          Amortization
                                         Initial    Life     Factor    Annual
                                          Costs   (Years)      (8%)      Costs
CAPITAL COSTS ($1,000)
Incinerator and boiler, complete
Auxiliary Equipment
Small Front-End Loader
Office Furniture, Refuse Bins
Construction & Land
Building: 9500 ft2 @ $30/ft2
Site Development: 20% of bldg.
Land: 5 acres @ $10,000/acre
in place2 $1800 15
50 5
40
10
396 20
288
58
50
0.117 $210
0.250 13

0.101 40

                     TOTAL

 OPERATING COSTS ($1,000)

 Labor:3
                                $2246
4 operators @
1 supervisor @ $16
Supplies:  3% of labor & maint.

Energy:4   Supplemental  fuel
           Mobile loader
           Lighting
           Heat building

Maintenance:    3% of total  capital  costs
                                           $36.0
                                             3.2
                                             0.7
                                             1.3
Miscellaneous:  (taxes, licenses, insurance, administrative
                and management costs) 1% of total initial
                capital costs

                   TOTAL

TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS ($1,000)

COSTS/REVENUES PER TON ($/ton)

   System Cost
   System Revenue  5
   Net System
   Landfill  6
   Total  Net
$263



  64


   3
                                                             41

                                                             66



                                                             22
                                                           $196

                                                           $459
                                                           $  17.65
                                                            _8.08
                                                              9.57
                                                              2.11
                                                           $  11.68

-------
                          TABLE 2.  (Continued)
Footnotes:
1 Data calculated by SCS Enginners from literature and vendor sources.
2 Includes 5 25-TPD units.   Incinerators are designed to operate on a 24-hour
  basis.   The extra unit provides reserve capacity for maintenance.
3 Operators are on duty for 8-hour shifts.   The shifts are split to allow for
  continuous operation, 5 days per week.  Wage rate is $5.80 per hour, which
  includes fringe benefits of 15 percent.  The supervisor is on duty for one
  8-hour shift at $7.80 per hour.
4 Energy:  Supplemental fuel  is consumed at a rate of 5 percent of the  BTU
  value of the input refuse.   Operating conditions:
•  Thermal value of refuse
•  Supplemental fuel
t  Cost of gas
•  Thermal value of therm
                                            5,000 BTU/pound
                                            Natural  Gas
                                            $0.2776/therm
                                            100,000  BTU
  Mobile Equipment - operation conditions are:
  •  Gasoline Consumption
     -  Cost
5 Revenue Factors:
  t  Percent combustibles in wastestream
  •  Recovery rate
  a  Market value: substitute value of
     coal
6 Cost Factors:
  0  Weight Reduction
  •  Cost to haul to landfill and
     disposal
                                          2.5 gallons/hour
                                          $0.60/gallon
                                          80%
                                          90%
                                          $1154/100 tons of combustible
                                          refuse @ 5000 BTU/pound
                                          70%

                                          $7/ton

-------
     Those systems  with apparent technical  and economic feasi-
bility and desirability for application to  the waste stream
generators were subjectively evaluated.  In order to evaluate
the systems, rating criteria were selected  that represent the
characteristics (other than economics)  of greatest concern to
small waste generators.  Site-specific  factors, such as public
acceptance, were not rated, although they are extremely impor-
tant.  The criteria selected were essentially qualitative in
nature and thus were rated accordingly.  Three major categories
of criteria were performance, environmental acceptability, and
marketability of recovered product.   These  were further sub-
divided into more detailed criteria; an explanation of the
approach used to rate each is shown  in  Table 3.

     Consideration  of information available in the literature
and through contacts with system owners and operators lead to
the evaluation of the systems using  the above criteria.  The
results are shown in Table 4.  A review of  the ratings in
Table 4 led to the  elimination of several systems from further
evaluation as to their applicability to the waste stream genera-
tors.  Reasons for  eliminating these systems are summarized
below:

     t  RDF -- high costs, market uncertainty, and possible
        problems associated with storage and transport of
        the material

     •  Ferrous recovery -- high costs  and  price fluctuations
        for recovered ferrous

     t  Compost --  high costs, large capital investment and
        virtually no market for the  product.

Application of Technologies to Waste Stream Generators

     The applicability of modular incineration or source separa-
tion or a combination of the two to  any of  the waste stream
generators was then evaluated on the basis  of overall system
costs.  The inclusion of resource recovery  was considered appro-
priate and feasible in all situations where the overall waste
management costs with the inclusion  of  resource recovery were
equal to or less than the waste management  costs prior to any
change.   Costs for  collection and disposal  of wastes from all
sources  except small cities was estimated to be $28 per ton,
which includes rental of bulk waste  containers.  For small cities
the disposal costs  of $7 per ton was used.   It was assumed that
the city would have to collect the wastes whether they used land-
fill disposal  or hauled it to a resource recovery facility; thus,
only the cost of disposing of unrecovered material impacted on
this analysis.  The results of this  analysis indicated situa-
tions for waste stream generators in which  one or the other or
                               10

-------
                        TABLE 3.   SYSTEM RATING CRITERIA
 I.   PERFORMANCE

     A.   Reliability:   System and components  proven to perform dependably and
                       with minimum down-time.

         Rating          Description

         High            Proven  performance with high  reliability
         Medium          Adequate performance with  adequate reliability
         Unacceptable     Inadequate performance with inconsistent reliability

     B.   Degree of Waste Volume  Reduction
         Rating          Description

         High            >60%
         Medium           30-59%
         Low               0-29%

     C.   Freedom from  Maintenance/Simplicity
         Rating          Description
         High            Simple; minimal  skills required for operation; few or
                         no moving parts
         Medium          Moderate; intermediate in  mechanical  complexity; oper-
                         ation requires some  degree of skill and/or training
         Low             Complex; involves sophisticated mechanical  equipment;
                         skilled and trained  operators required

 II.   ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY

      A.   Meets all minimum standards for air, noise,  water and land pollution
          Rating         Description
          Acceptable     Complies with minimum standards
          Unacceptable   Does not meet standards
      B.   Maximizes resource recovery within  technological  limits
          Rating         Description

          High           Recovers maximum number of resources; >60% of waste
          Medium         Recovers moderate number of resources; 30-59% of waste
          Low            Recovers few resources; <29% of waste stream


III.   MARKETABILITY OF RECOVERED PRODUCT(S)
          Rating         Description

          High           Product(s) have ready markets
          Medium         Product(s) are somewhat marketable, but prices subject
                         to cyclical swings
          Low            Product(s) difficult to market or have very low value
                                       11

-------
                                  TABLE 4.  SYSTEM RATING
                       Waste
        Rating Criteria
Freedom from
                                                               TPD System)
                       Volume      Maintenance;    Environmental  Resource  Marketability     Net
        Reliability  Reduction  i.e. , Simplicity    Standards    Recovery  of Product(s)  Cost/Ton*
Ferrous
Recovery

Compost

Compost with
Ferrous
Recovery

RDF with
Ferrous
Recovery

Incineration
with Energy
Recovery

Incineration
with Ferrous
and Energy
Recovery

Source
Separation
Medium

Medium



Medium



Medium



High




Medium


Medium
Medium

Med i urn



High



High



High




High


Medium
Low

Low



Low



Low



Medium
                                     Low
                                     High
                                                  Acceptable      Low         Low

                                                  Acceptable      Medium      Low
                                                  Acceptable
                                                  Acceptable
                                High
                                High
                                                  Acceptable**    High
             Acceptable**    High
Acceptable
                                Medium
Low
Medium
                                            High
                                            Medium
Medium
                                        $15.38

                                         26.70



                                         26.05



                                         13.61



                                         11.68
             11.95
                                                       8.16
 * Cost of operating system minus revenues plus disposal of non-recovered material.

** May require external air pollution control equipment.

-------
both approaches to resource recovery was less expensive than
current disposal and thus considered feasible.  Overall feasi-
bility is shown in Table 5.
                                                   i
     As can be seen from the table, there are only a few situa-
tions in which either modular incineration or source separation
or a combination of both were unequivocally considered feasible
for a particular waste generator.  In most instances, resource
recovery was considered viable only for the largest examples of
each waste generator, thus exemplifying some economies of scale
associated with these operations.  For those waste generators
where the combination of both approaches to resource recovery
was indicated as feasible, it should be understood that the
decision was based upon meeting the more stringent of the re-
quirements for either incineration or source separation.   For
example, both modular incineration and source separation  would
be considered feasible in office buildings if there is at least
4,000 employees.	
     Only multi-unit residences (low-rise apartments and mobile
home parks) were not considered amenable to resource recovery.
Neither normally has enough residents to generate the required
quantity of materials or mixed wastes.  Likewise, there are
virtually no examples of situations where recovered energy could
be used in the mobile home park or in an apartment building,
except possibly a large apartment complete with a central  boiler/
hot water system.                                   	

     Particular note should be made of the indicated feasibility
of modular incineration to small cities.  The disposal  cost of
$7 per ton was used for small cities because it was used earlier
in the cost analyses of the seven systems originally considered
technologically proven.  This cost may be too low, particularly
for small disposal operations; e.g. 100 TPD, that are truly
sanitary landfills.  Likewise, the value of the energy  recovered
at any particular location may be greater than the $1 per  million
BTU assumed in Table 2.  Several small cities are cost-effec-
tively using this method of resource recovery.

     It cannot be overemphasized that the feasibility of any
approach to resource recovery is highly site-dependent.  The
evaluations made in the report were based upon assumed  costs
for solid waste management and values of recovered energy  and
materials.  There are, and will be, exceptions to the findings
of this report.  Thus, it is imperative that any waste  generator
evaluating resource recovery make an individual feasibility study
conducted by competent, experienced personnel prior to  making any
commi tments.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

     The final objective of the project was to make recommenda-
tions  for further expenditures of efforts and funds in  the area

                               13

-------
        TABLE  5.   FEASIBILITY OF  RESOURCE RECOVERY  SYSTEMS

                          TO  WASTE  GENERATORS
Waste
Generator
Small Cities
Modul ar
Incineration w/
Energy Recovery
If disposal costs
Source
Separation
Newspaper—above
Both
No
Office Buildings
Airports
Low-rise
Apartments

Mobile Home
Parks

Prisons
Hospitals


Universities
                  are more than $12
                  per ton
If more than  4,000
employees

At major airports
Shopping  Centers   Yes
 No
 No

 Only the largest;
 1,500+ inmates

 If more than  500
 beds

 If more than  5,000
 students
13,000 population @
30% participation

Fe, Al,  glass and
newspaper—above
22,000 population @
30% participation

High-grade paper
down to  75 employees

Corrugated, some-
times

Corrugated
No


No

Corrugated


No


High-grade paper
Yes


Yes


Yes


 No


 No

Yes


 No


Yes
                                    14

-------
of research and development associated with small-scale and
low technology resource recovery.  Three areas were recommended
for further study:

     t  In-depth waste characterization studies of small
        waste generators included in this study, especially
        shopping centers, prisons, universities, and airports.

     •  Studies to determine how changes in building design
        could facilitate and encourage resource recovery.
        Shopping centers appear to be the most fruitful area
        for these efforts.

     •  Analysis of resource recovery systems in the develop-
        mental stage with a likelihood of successful applica-
        tion to small generators.  The systems recommended
        for further analysis include production of RDF and the
        application of vermicomposting to solid waste manage-
        ment.  When the production of RDF at large resource
        recovery facilities increases and the use of this
        fuel increases, markets for RDF will develop and
        become stable.  This may give rise to situations where
        small generators (probably small cities) near markets
        can economically produce RDF.  Vermicomposting is
        essentially the only low technology resource recovery
        system that is applicable to mixed wastes.  Little
        is known about this approach which appears applicable
        to such waste stream generators as prisons, universi-
        ties, and small cities.
                               15

-------
                          SECTION  II

                   WASTE  STREAM  GENERATORS


     This  study  concentrates  on  specific  waste  generators in five
areas:

     •   Commercial  Waste  Streams

        Airports

        Shopping Centers

     •   Institutional  Waste Streams

        Hospitals

        Pri sons

        Universities

     •  Multi-unit Residential  Waste  Streams

        Garden or Low-Rise Apartments

        Trailer  Parks

     •  Office Complex Waste Streams

     •  Small City Waste  Streams

     These waste streams  were selected because  little work has
been done on the applicability  of small .scale and low technology
resource recovery systems to specific waste streams of this
nature.

     There is a  major problem in trying  to characterize these
solid waste generators.   The problem  is  the significant variations
in the factors which determine  waste  generation and composition
within  each generator.  These factors are outlined for each waste
generator later  in the chapter.   The  result of this problem is the
difficulty of defining a  representative  generator in each category,
This limitation  should be noted by readers when examining the
waste stream characteristics.  The figures listed are felt to be
representative,  but there is considerable variation from these
numbers.  Such variations will, of course, affect the economic
                                 16

-------
viability of any recovery systems, which might be used by those
generators.

COMMERCIAL WASTE STREAMS

Airports

Waste Stream Characteristics--
     The quantity and composition of the solid waste generated
at an airport is affected by several variables.  The significant
ones are:

     •  Size

     t  Volume of air freight

     t  Volume of passenger loading

     •  Amount and level of construction, demolition, and
        maintenance activities taking place at the airport

     Wastes  can also be classified by type of service within an
airport complex.  Typical categori.es are:

     •  Passenger terminals

     t  Air  freight area, including mail service facilities

     t  Aircraft service centers, providing aircraft supplies,
        such as food, and minor maintenance, as well as interior
        cleaning services

     •  Aircraft maintenance bases, providing services for major
        repairing and overahaul of aircraft

     Published studies on solid waste generation rates in the
four categories indicate the average rates are (1),  (2):

     •  Passenger terminals        -   0.5 pounds per passenger

     •  Air  freight area           -   7 pounds per  ton of cargo

     t  Aircraft service center    -   1 pound per passenger
        (Note:  the generation rate on flights with  food
        service average 2.5 pounds per passenger; whereas
        flights without food service average 0.5 pounds
        per  passenger.)

     •  Aircraft maintenance base  -   2 pounds per  employee per
                                       day
                               17

-------
These generation rates were substantiated  through  personal  contact
with solid waste managers of four airport  complexes located in
Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Maryland,  and Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
(Personal communications.  Jack Stewart, Federal  Aviation Agency,
Dulles International  Airport, Virginia.   May 11,  1978; Pete
Williams, National Airport, Washington,  D.C.  May 12, 1978;
Date Watten, State Aviation Administration,  Baltimore-Washington
International  Airport, Maryland.   May 9, 1978;  and Ted Meyer,
Waste Management, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin.   May 15, 1978).

     Paper is  the dominate waste  material  in each service cate-
gory, except for aircraft service centers, Table  6.  Organics,
primarily food waste  from passenger meals, was  the major compo-
nent from the  aircraft service  centers.

Typical Collection Practices--
     In-house  handling of waste generally  is performed by each
tenant (airlines and  vendors).   The major  exception is the
common areas of the passenger terminal,  such as ticket counters
and restrooms  which are serviced  by airport  maintenance person-
nel.  Wastes are stored initially at generation sites, then
collected by custodial personnel, and again  stored at an inter-
mediate accumulation  point such as dumpsters,  barrels, or com-
pactors prior  to final collection by truck.   One  exception  is
in the aircraft service center.  Garbage generated during
in-flight meal service is separated from other  waste materials
and fed into garbage  disposals.

     Frequency of collection varies by  area  in  an  airport com-
plex.  The passenger  terminal has the most frequent collection
of wastes.  At high volume airports, the terminal  area might be
serviced as often as  four to five times  per  day,  while other
areas within the complex may be serviced several  times a week.

     A survey  of 36 airports found that  58 percent were serviced
entirely by private contractors,  33 percent  were  serviced by a
combination of private handlers and airport  maintenance crews,
and the remaining nine percent  were serviced by a  public waste
management agency or  by airport personnel  (3).   The survey  also
reported that  61 percent of the airport  tenants were responsible
for arranging  for their own waste collection;  8 percent had
an airport authority  negotiated contract with  the  tenants and the
remaining 23 percent  of the airports reported  some other method
of arranging for refuse collection.

Typical Disposal Practices--
     No quantitive studies have been done  which show how airport
wastes are disposed.   However,  landfill  appeared  to be the  most
common method  of disposal.  In  addition, solid  waste at some
airports is incinerated at either on-site  or municipal incinera-
tors.
                               18

-------
                             TABLE 6.  COMPOSITION OF AIRPORT WASTES

Type of Material
Paper
Glass
Metal
Plastic
Wood
Organics (e.g., food waste)
Miscellaneous

Passenger
Terminal
71
4
6
5
3
5
6
Percent of Total
Air
Freight
46
3
8
10
17
3
13
(Weight Basis)
Aircraft
Service Center
32
4
12
10
2
34
6

Aircraft
Maintenance Bases
51
10
6
10
5
15
4
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
Source:  Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  Analysis of airport solid waste and collection systems.
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.  C. 1973.  pp 40 (Available from
         National Technical Information Service [NTIS],  5285 Port Royal  Road.,  Springfield,
         Virginia 22161 as PB 219-372).

-------
 Shopping  Centers

 Waste  Stream  Characteristics--
     Shopping  centers  can  be  classified  by  size  and  type  of
 function.   Standard  classifications  are  (4):

                           Average Size               Range

                         Sq Ft of Gross            Sq  Ft of Gross
 Classification            Leasable Area            Leasable Area

 Neighborhood                  50,000                30,000-100,000

 Community                   150,000               100,000-300,000

 Regional                    400,000            300,000-1,000,000+

     Solid waste generation rates and composition  vary by shop-
 ping center classification due to the different  types of  services
 typically offered.  Neighborhood shopping centers  are designed
 primarily for the sale of food, convenience goods, and personal
 services.  The principal tenant in terms of gross  leasable area
 is commonly a supermarket.   A less than full-line  department
 store  and a supermarket are usually the principal  tenants in a
 community shopping center.   Regional shopping centers are charac-
 terized by one or more full-line department stores of at  leas
 100,000 square feet of gross  leasable area, and  a  variety of
 other  stores offering a range of services.   Larger centers,
 particularly regional centers, tend to have consistent mix of
 tenants.  Therefore,  the quality and composition of the waste
 generated at these shopping centers is relatively  consistent.
 The types of tenants  are more varied in the smaller centers than
 in the  regional  centers.   Waste stream characteristics from
 smaller shopping  centers  also  tend to be more variable.

     In addition  to size and type of tenants, other variables
 which affect the  quantity and composition of shopping center
 sol id waste  are:

     •   Sales  volume

     •   Number of hours of  operation

     •   Number of employees

     Published studies  of solid waste management at shopping
 centers provided  limited  and vague data on  waste characteristics
 lo,o,7).   Therefore,  an informal  telephone  survey of waste col-
 lection contractors was conducted in the Washington,  D.C., New
Brunswick, New Jersey,  and  Milwaukee, Wisconsin areas.  On-site
visits  were  also  made to  five  shopping centers  in the Washington,
                               20

-------
D.C. area, (Personal communications.  Ted Meyer, Waste Manage-
ment, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  May 15, 1978; Gene Conlon,
Jersey Sanitation, New Brunswick, New Jersey.  May 16, 1978;
Sam Ziff, Browning-Ferris Industries, Merrifield, Virginia.
May 17, 1978; and Edward Bailey, B and B Trash Service, Waldorf,
Maryland.  May 17, 1978).  Survey data indicate a weekly waste
generation rate of approximately 200 pounds per 1000 square feet
of gross leasable area in regional shopping centers.  Based on
on-site observations and surveys, the weekly waste generation
rate per 1000 square foot of gross leasable area for community
and neighborhood shopping centers was estimated to be approxi-
mately 175 pounds .and 150 pounds respectively.

     Corrugated was the primary constituent in all these cate-
gories of shopping centers, Table 7.  The percentage of corruga-
ted to the other components in the waste stream did vary by
category.  The highest percentages were at neighborhood regional
centers which receive more bulk shipments.

Typical Collection Practices--
     Wastes usually are accumulated at the initial point of
generation within a store.  The wastes then are transported by
a store employee to an intermediate storage point located either
outdoors or, in the newer regional shopping centers, in the
underground truck tunnel loading dock area.  The shopping center
management is responsible for collecting the trash produced in
the common areas, such as parking lots and shopper's walkways.

     Generally, the intermediate storage points are dumpsters
and compactors.  The principal tenants in shopping centers,
particularly in community and regional centers, use individual
compactors as these tenants are high volume retail outlets,
generating significant quantities of waste.  Collection/disposal
charges are on a per pull basis with the compactor bodies pulled
at regularly scheduled intervals whether full or not.

     Some shopping centers provide stationary compactors for the
use of all tenants.  Waste management charges are assessed each
tenant according to  usage  of the compactor.   Each tenant is
given a different key to the compactor and is  charged for each
time the compactor is activated using their key.  This approach
encourages reduction of the amount of waste taken to the compac-
tor and thus could be incentive to resource recovery.   However,
it also may encourage littering and the use of public  (shoppers')
waste containers by tenants.

     Shopping centers are serviced by waste handlers in either
of two ways: (1) each tenant arranges for waste collection
independent of the other tenant or (2) the shopping center man-
agement contracts for one waste hauler to service the  entire
center.  The first option is the traditional  method.  The trend,
particularly at the new regional shopping centers, appears to
                               21

-------
       TABLE  7.   COMPOSITION  OF  SHOPPING  CENTER  WASTES
                               Percent  by  Total  (Weight  Basis)
Type of Material
Paper
Corrugated
Glass
Metal
Plastic
Wood
Organics (e.g., food waste)
Miscel laneous
TOTAL
Neighborhood
25
45
4
5
6
2
4
9
100
Community
25
50
2
4
7
2
4
6
100
Regiona
30
50
1
3
7
3
2
4
100

Source:   SCS  Engineers.   On-site  inspection  of  shopping  center
discards in the  Washington,  D.C.  metropolitan  area.   May,  1978.
                               22

-------
be toward single contractual arrangements.  This is due to the
limited space available in the underground delivery area.  This
area can become congested while deliveries are being made and
the presence of several waste handlers in the truck tunnel during
this period compounds the congestion.  A single contract hauler
enables the shopping center management to coordinate the times
when refuse will be collected.  Scheduling of waste collection
at off-peak times for merchandise delivery reduces congestion
i n the truck tunnel.

     At several of the shopping centers surveyed, corrugated was
segregated for recycling.   This activity takes place primarily
at supermarkets in neighborhood and community shopping centers.
Although significant quantities of corrugated are discarded at
regional shopping 'Centers, none of the centers surveyed were
separating this material  for recycling.  The primary obstacles
appear to be a lack of suitable storage space and the problem of
arrangements with multiple contractors.

Typical Disposal Practices--
     No quantitative studies have been done which show how solid
wastes from shopping centers are disposed.  However, landfill
appeared to be the most common method of disposal.

INSTITUTIONAL WASTE STREAMS

Hospi tals

Waste Stream Characteristics--
     Numerous studies have been done on solid waste generation
and handling practices in hospitals, see Bibliography.  These
studies indicate that many variables affect the quantity and
composition of the solid waste generated.  This variability
results from a number of factors:

     •  Number of beds

     t  Community population characteristics

     •  Presence of specialized facilities and services

     •  Utilization of hospital (number of surgical procedures,
        live births, outpatient visits, etc.)

     •  Number of employees and trainees

     •  State license and accreditation by the Joint Commission
        on Accreditation of Hospitals (both tend to correlate
        with increasing quantities of wastes)

     •  Use of disposables and single-use items
                               23

-------
     Studies on waste generation in hospitals have shown an
extremely wide range of generation rates,  The range was from
3 pounds per patient per day to 20 pounds per patient per day
or more (8).  Researchers at the University of Minnesota devel-
oped the concept of "equivalent population", in order to develop
a more reliable indicator of solid waste generation which
accounts for the variability among hospitals (9).   The concept
is based on the average population present in a hospital for
each 8-hour shift over 24 hours a day 7 days a week counting
out-patients at one-half value.  The "equivalent population"
figure allows for esimation of waste generation for hospitals
of different sizes and different types of medical  care.   On this
basis, waste generation nationwide averaged between 2 and 5.5
pounds per capita per day.

     The equivalent population method permits hospital designers
to predict the amounts of waste generated for various types of
hospitals.  This method cannot predict the quantity of wastes
produced by the individual  units of each hospital.  A study by
a research team at West Virginia University derived a series of
simple mathematical equations that predict wastes  for units
within hospitals (10).  The main variable for most patient-care
units proved to be the total paid staff for a 24-hour period
including nurses, aids, clerks, orderlies, housekeepers, and
maids but excluding doctors.  A correlation was found between
the number of staff and the quantity of wastes produced  which
is indicated below:

     Source                          Generation Rate (1b per day)

Heavy-care units (surgery,            4.47 times number of paid
burns, maternity)                    staff for those units

Light-care units (psychiatric,       2.77 times the number of
neurology)                           paid staff for those units

Administration and support            2.11 times the number of
units                                paid staff for those units

X-ray, emergency room, central       0.48 times number of
supply                               patients treated

Laboratory and clinics               0.19 times number of tests
                                     or patients

Kitchen, cafeteria                   1.5 times the number of
                                     meals served

     Due to the variability among hospitals in the use of dis-
posable and single-use items, the composition of hospital solid
waste are highly variable.   In general, paper products compro-
mise the largest portion of the waste stream, see  below.  These
                               24

-------
products are mainly single-use disposable items.  A large num-
ber of single-use items are made from plastic, which is the third
largest component of hospital waste.  Organics, primarily food
wastes from patient meals, makeup the second largest percentage
of the waste stream (11).

                                      Percent of Total
     Type of Material                  (Weight Basis)

       Paper                                 40

       Glass                                  6

       Metal                                  2

       Plastics                              15

       Organics (e.g., food waste)           25

       Mi seel 1aneous                         12
       TOTAL                                100

     Approximately 4 percent of the waste is infectious, a great
deal of which is mixed with the combustible rubbish.  In addition,
there are various hazardous wastes, i.e., biological, radioactive,
and chemical wastes, plus sharp items such as disposable needles,
that require separate and special handling.  Because attempts to
separate these special wastes often fail, all hospital  wastes are
considered potentially contaminated.

Typical Collection Practices--
     In-hospital waste handling includes waste collection from
points of generation and transport to one or more central
storage locations.  Most waste is initially deposited in small
receptacles located near the points of generation.  In recent
years, most of these receptacles have been equipped with dis-
posable plastic liners which facilitates more efficient transfer
of waste.  At suitable intervals, the waste is transferred,
usually by housekeeping personnel, to larger containers, or
intermediate accumulation points, such as garbage cans, empty
oil drums, laundry hampers or carts.  This intermediate storage
may be located in utility rooms, trash rooms, or janitor's
closets .

     Alternate systems to collect and transport waste from inter-
mediate accumulation points to central storage locations include:

     •  Manual system

     •  Gravity chute/manual system
                                25

-------
     •  Gravity chute/pneumatic tube system

     0  Pneumatic tube system

     Most hospitals use manually propelled carts while only a
few hospitals use the more sophisticated mechanical systems.
However, inability to thoroughly clean carts and problems with
chutes such as contamination, fire hazards, spilling of wastes
during loading, blockages, difficulties in cleaning, and odors,
have resulted in a trend towards more sophisticated and expen-
sive collection and handling systems.  Stationary compactors
and dumpsters are the most common approaches to the central
storage of hospital wastes prior to collection.

Typical Disposal Practices--
     Hospital wastes are disposed in a number of ways, usually
by the hospital's maintenance or engineering department.  Infec-
tious or pathological wastes typically are incinerated on-site
in a specially designed unit.  Some portions of the non-infec-
tious waste stream are also often burned in the same or other
incinerator.

     A survey of 80 hospitals in 1973 found that 70 used incin-
erators to dispose of some wastes (12).  In recent years, the
use of incineration has declined, primarily to the inability of
older on-site incinerators to meet air pollution standards.
Newer starved air incinerators, which can meet air quality
standards in some states, appear to have reversed this trend
away from incineration.

     No quantitative studies have been done on how hospitals
ultimately dispose of their wastes.  Landfill  appeared to be
the most common method of disposal.

Pri sons

Waste Stream Characteristics--
     The quantity and composition of the solid waste generated
at a correctional institution is affected by several variables:

     •  Number of inmates

     •  Staff size

     •  Type  and level  of activity within the institution
        (e.g., prison industry and level of security)

     The waste generated at a correctional  institution can be
divided into  three categories; residential  waste, industrial
waste, and support services waste.  Residential and support
services wastes  will  be generated at all correctional  facilities
                                26

-------
Industrial wastes are only produced at those institutions which
sponsor such activities.

     Included in the residential category are such items as
food preparation wastes and wastes from daily prisoner activity.

Overall, the residential wastes are similar to residential
wastes from civilian communities.   However, there are identif-
iable sources of each constituent  of this waste stream.   Food
preparation areas and dining halls are sources of garbage, cor-
rugated, metal  cans, and glass.  Most garbage is disposed through
garbage grinders.  Wastes from cell blocks and other prisoner
areas tend to have a high content  of paper and plastic including
newspaper, food wrappers and disposable items such as cups.  The
composition of discarded industrial materials is dependent on
the type of industrial activity, if any, taking place within the
institution while the support services include wastes from ad-
ministrative offices, medical or other services.

     Only one published study contained data on the characteris-
tics of solid waste from correctional institutions (13).  This
study examined the five correctional institutions managed by the
County of Los Angeles.  None of these facilities were involved
in any industrial activity.  The average daily rate of solid
waste generated was 3.6 pounds per inmate with a range of 2.4
to 5.1 pounds per inmate per day.   However, this information
may be dated, as the study was published in 1972.

     Current data on waste generation were collected from the
Bureau of Prisons of the U.S. Department of Justice and  the
Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia.  The
data from the Bureau of Prisons, which operates at least one
industrial activity at each prison, indicated the average daily
solid waste generation rate is 9.6 pounds per inmate.  Daily
waste generation per inmate ranged from a low of 6.8 to  a high
of 11.5 pounds.  These figures include industrial as well as
residential and support service wastes (14).

     To derive estimates for residential and support service
wastes characteristics, a site visit was conducted at the
Washington, D.C. correctional facility.  Residential and support
service wastes generated at this facility were estimated to
average 4 to 5 pounds per inmate per day (15).   Solid waste
managers at four Federal facilities felt that this figure approx-
imates -generation rates at their facilities, (Personal communi-
cations.  R. McFenie, Bureau of Prisons, Alderson, West  Virginia.
May 5, 1978; C. Brown, Bureau of Prisons, Morgantown, West
Virginia.   May 5, 1978; Sharon Gill, Bureau of Prisons,  Danbury,
Connecticut.  May 8, 1978; Philip  Loprisette, Danbury Cartering,
Danbury, Connecticut.  May 8, 1978; and G. Marshall, Bureau of
Prisons, Petersburg, Virginia.  May 9, 1978.)
                              27

-------
     Paper is the largest component of residential and support
 services wastes in prisons, see below.  The other major compo-
 nents are corrugated shipping boxes, which result from bulk
 shipment of supplies, and metals from food and beverage con-
 tainers.  An extensive use of disposable items associated with
 food service was noted during the visit to a prison.  This is
 reflected in the relatively high percentage of paper and plastics
 It also helps explain-the relatively high generation rate for
 prisons as does the fact that the generation rate is based on
 the number of inmates when, in fact, administrators, guards,
 and other support personnel also generate waste.

                                        Percent of Total
     Type of Material                    (Weight Basis)

       Paper                                  37

       Corrugated                             22

       Glass                                   1

       Metal                                  17

       Plastics                                8

       Organics (e.g.,  food waste)             10

       Miscellaneous                           5
       TOTAL                                 100

     Industrial  activities  were also surveyed during the site
visit and conversations with Federal prison solid waste managers.
However, because these activities  are highly site specific, no
generalizations  can  be made concerning industrial waste genera-
tion .

Typical  Collection Practices--
     Refuse initially is stored in cans or barrels in the areas
of waste generation,  such as the kitchen and shops.   On a regular
basis,  the containers are transported (usually on hand carts) to
intermediate storage  containers prior to pick-up.  This transport
of wastes usually is  done by inmates.  Dumpsters are the predomi-
nant method of storage prior to collection.  Collection service
is provided on a contract basis at the majority of the institu-
tions  surveyed.   The  frequency  of  collection varies  by section
of the  institution.   In some sections such as the kitchen,
refuse  is collected  daily,  while collection rates of once a week
or less  occur in some shop  areas.
                               28

-------
Typical Disposal Practices--
     No quantitiave studies have been done on how prisons dis-
pose of their wastes.  Landfill appears to be the most common
method of disposal.  In the past, prisons operated their own
landfill but due to stricter regulations, use of municipal or
privately owned landfills is increasing.  Many of the prisons
surveyed practiced some recycling of industrial  wastes on a
limited basis.  A unique recovery process - vermicomposting - is
scheduled to handle the wastes from the Chester County,
Pennsylvania jail.  This process uses earthworms to convert
organic wastes to a soil conditioner, (Personal  communication.
Robert Koke, GTA, Incorporated, Wilmington, Delaware.  Decem-
ber 27, 1978).

University Hastes

Waste Stream Characteristics--
     Many variables affect the quantity and composition of the
solid wastes generated at universities.  Much of this variability
results from differences among universities and include such
factors as:

     •  Size

     •  Location (urban, rural)

     •  Type of schools within the university (medical,
        agricultural, engineering)

     •  Number and type of university services (health services,
        libraries)

     •  Amount of construction, demolition, 1andscapping ,
        and other related activities

     •  Proportion of students in university residence halls
        compared with commuters and off-campus residents

     Wastes can also be classified by source within the univer-
sity.  Typical categories follow:

     t  Residence halls and food service facilities

     •  Offices, classrooms, labs and libraries

     •  Physical plant operations

     •  Special sources such as agricultural research areas

     Published studies of the solid waste characteristics at
four universities showed a range in solid waste generation rates
                                29

-------
from 0.86 pounds per student per day to' 2 pounds per student per
day (16), (17), (18), (1.9).   Th.is variability can be explained
by the presence of special  category wastes at some schools, but
not at others.   For example,  the University of Illinois generated
2 pounds per student per day.   This figure includes wastes from
the agricultural school, the veterinary school  (animal carcasses,
manure and bedding)  and landscaping, demolition and construction
wastes.   To supplement the  published data, a telephone survey
was conducted, (Personal communication.  Elwood Gross, Univer-
sity of  Maryland,  College Park, Maryland.  May  9, 1978; R. Hud-
son, American  University, Washington, D.C.  May 9, 1978;  and
Ted Meyer, Waste Management, Inc.,  Milwaukee, Wisconsin.   May 15,
1978).  The average  solid waste generation rate from the  first
three typical  waste  categories  was  determined to be about 1
pound per student  per day.   The average could increase by 0.5 to
1 pound  per student  per day  depending on the nature and quantity
of special wastes  produced.   This adjustment factor should be
determined for each  university  on an individual basis.

     Paper is  the  major constituent of university wastes, see
below.  The largest  component  of the paper segments is recyclable
paper, mainly  high-grade office paper.  The second largest con-
tributor to university wastes  are organic materials.  These
materials are  primarily food wastes.

                                      Percent of Total
     Type of Material                  (Weight  Basi s)

        Paper                                65

          Recyclable Paper                30
          Non-recyclable Paper            25
          Corrugated                     10

        Glass                                 8

        Metal                                 7

        Plastics                             3

        Organ i c s (e.g., food waste)         10

        Miscellaneous                        7
        TOTAL                              100

     These percentages represent the average for all wastes pro-
duced.   However,  waste composition in each generator category
can vary significantly from these averages.   For example, office
and classroom wastes are roughly 80 percent  paper, 65 percent of
which is recyclable.  Residence halls and food service facilities
produce wastes that are approximately 50 percent paper and 15
percent organics.

                               30

-------
Typical Collection Practices--
     Collection procedures vary by the type of activity taking
place within a building.  Three types of activities were identi-
fied as having different collection procedures: (1) office/class-
room, (2)  residential hall, and (3) food service.

     All wastes from these activities, except from food service,
initially are deposited in waste baskets.  Food waste in the food
service area typically is discarded into the sewer system via a
garbage disposal.   The other discards are put into waste con-
tainers.  The custodial staff collects the waste in the baskets
and transfers it to a central storage area.  Transfer of residen-
tial hall  waste from student rooms to an incinerator was common
prior to the advent of clean air legislation.  In  a few locations
this waste still is incinerated.  The collected waste is stored
in a central area prior to removal from the building.  The mate-
rial usually is stored in refuse bins or compactors, depending
on the quantity of waste generated in the building.  Frequency
of refuse removal  varies also depending on the quantities of
waste generated, as well as on the storage container used.

Typical Disposal Practices--
     No quantitative studies have been done on how universities
dipose of their wastes.  Indications are that the  majority of
the wastes disposed by universities is landfilled.  Two other
disposal options used by universities are incineration and
garbage maceration.

MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS

Garden or Low-Rise Apartments

Waste Stream Characteristics--
     The quantity and composition of the solid waste generated
at a garden or low-rise apartment is affected by several vari-
ables:

     •  Number of apartment units

     •  Number and size of families

     t  Average age of tenants

     t  Income level

     No published studies on the characteristics of solid waste
specifically from garden or low-rise apartments were found.  In-
formation was collected through telephone surveys  in the Washing-
ton, D.C., New Brunswick, New Jersey and Milwaukee, Wisconsin
areas, (Personal communications.  Ted Meyer, Waste Management,
Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  May 15, 1978; Gene Conlon, Jersey
                               31

-------
Sanitation, New Brunswick,  New Jersey.   May 16, 1978; and
S. Johnson, Mt. Vernon Square Apartments, Alexandria, Virginia.
May 25, 1978).   The survey  indicated that the daily average
quantity of solid waste generated per person in a garden or
low-rise apartment is essentially the same as the average resi-
dential waste generation rate.   The major difference is the
quantity of yard waste generated.  The  waste managers contacted
felt that per capita yard waste was lower for residents in gar-
den apartments  than single-family home  dweJlers.   An EPA staff
study estimated an average  generation of 3.5 pounds per person
per day of residential and  commercial waste in 1976 (20).  About
0.8 pounds per  person per day of this can be attributed to
commercial sources; thus residential generation rate was 2.7
pounds per person per day.   An  adjustment factor  of 0.2 was sub-
tracted from the national average residential generation rate
to account for  the decrease in  yard wastes.  The  generation rate
for garden apartments was assumed to be 2.5 pounds per person
per day.

     The composition of the solid waste generated in garden
apartments was  estimated to correspond  to the composition of
average residential waste,  except for yard wastes.  The esti-
mated composition was derived from EPA  data and the information
survey.  The estimated composition of waste from  garden apart-
ments is:

                                     Percent of Total
     Type of Material                  (Weight Basis)

       Paper                               35

       Glass                               12

       Metal                               10

       Plastic                               5

       Organics (e.g., food and yard
                 wastes)                   27

       Miscellaneous                       11

       TOTAL                              100

Typical Collection Practices--
     The solid  waste generated  in garden apartments is stored
initially in conventional in-house containers.  In apartments
equipped with garbage disposal  units, food waste  is disposed into
the sewerage system.  Tenants are usually required to transport
the waste to an intermediate storage container.  This container
was^found to range in size  from a 30-gallon container to a multi-
cubic yard dumpster.  One complex surveyed used another approach.
                               32

-------
Tenants are given plastic bags in which to store their wastes.
The bags may be set outside the front door of the apartment any
weekday morning for collection and the ground crew takes the
bags to the curb for collection by the apartment's  ground crew.

     Another source of solid waste is the refuse that results
from maintaining the grounds and building.  These wastes are
stored by the apartment management and collected at the same
time as the tenant's waste..

     The majority of garden apartments surveyed were serviced by
private haulers on contract with the apartment complex.  Some
larger and older complexes provide their own refuse collection
service.

Typical Disposal Practices--
     No quantitative studies have been done on how garden apart-
ments dispose of their wastes.  Landfill, however,  appears to
be the common method of disposal.  At one time, on-site incinera
tion of waste in large garden apartment complexes was common.
This practice has been phased-out with the advent of stricter
air pollution control laws.

Trailer Parks

Waste Stream Characteristics--

     The quantity and composition of the solid waste generated
at a trailer park is affected by several variables.   The signif-
icant variables are:

     •  Number of trailers

     •  Family size

     t  Average age of residents

     •  Income level

     •  Number and type of park services and community buildings

No published studies on the characteristics of solid wastes from
trailer parks were found.  The characteristics of solid waste
from trailer parks were investigated through telephone surveys
in the Washington, D.C. and Milwaukee, Wisconsin areas, (Per-
sonal communications.  Ted Meyer, Waste Management, Inc.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  May 15, 1978; and M. Waples, Mobile
Home Estates, Fairfax, Virginia.  May 25, 1978).  The survey
indicated that the daily average quantity of solid waste genera-
ted per person in a trailer park is essentially identical to the
average residential waste generation rate.  The EPA average
residential waste generation rate of 2.7 pounds per person per


                                33

-------
day was used for trailer parks.  The major difference between
average residential waste and refuse from trailer parks is
composition.  Nonfood-nondurable product waste from trailer
parks is identical to waste from other types of residences with
comparable demographic characteristics.  The difference is the
larger proportion of food waste in refuse from trailer parks.
The general lack of garbage disposal units is trailers is the
reason for the high food waste level.  The other difference is
the lower level  of durable goods discards, in particular white
goods.  Home appliances are discarded, but are smaller, on the
average, than those used in the typical residence.

     The composition of the solid waste generated in the average
trailer park is  estimated to closely correspond to the composi-
tion of average  residential  waste.   This estimate was based on
EPA data and the information survey.  The estimated composition
of solid waste from trailer parks is:

                                           Percent of Total
     Type of Material                        (Weight Basis)

        Paper                                     34

        Glass                                     12

        Metal                                     12

        Plastics                                   5

        Organics (e.g., food and yard wastes)      25

        Mi seel 1aneous                              1 2
        TOTAL                                    100

Typical  Collection Practices--
     The solid waste generated  in  trailer parks is stored ini-
tially in conventional  in-residence containers.  If intermediate
storage  prior to collection  is  necessary, a trailer resident
typically has two options:   transfer of the waste to 30-gallon
containers outside the  trailer  or  transfer of the waste to a
dumpster.  In each of the trailer  parks surveyed, the residents
were responsible for placing their waste at curbside on collec-
tion days.  The frequency of collection varies from once to
twice a  week.  The collection rate typically depends on the
trailer  park management,  who arranges collection service for the
entire park.

Typical  Disposal  Practices--
     No  quantitative studies have  been done on how trailer parks
dispose  of their wastes.   Indications are that landfill is the
predominate method of disposal.
                              34

-------
OFFICE COMPLEX WASTE STREAMS

Office Buildings

Waste Stream Characteristics--
     A number of studies have been conducted to characterize the
waste stream from office buildings.  Many variables affect the
quantity and thus variability results from a number of factors:

     •  Type of office function

     •  Presence of a cafeteria

     EPA studies indicate that bank and insurance office opera-
tions, which generate large quantities of computer paper and
forms, can produce as much as 2.3 Ibs of solid waste per person
per day (exclusive of cafeteria wastes) of which 93 percent may
be paper (21).  EPA and SCS Engineers studies have shown that
the average office worker generates 1.5 pounds of waste per day
of which 1.3 pounds is paper and 0.5 pounds is recoverable
paper.  These figures are variable depending on the type of
office functions performed, the presence of a computer or print
shop and transfer of paper into and out of the building.  The
percentages of other waste stream materials such as metal and
glass are not wel1-documented.  However, an SCS study identified
a "typical" office wastestream from a survey of 15 office and/or
academic buildings as follows:

     Solid Waste Component               Percent by Weight

        Paper                                   87

        Metal                                    7

        Glass                                    1

        Plastic                                  1

        Miscellaneous                            4

        TOTAL                                  100

     The extent to which food wastes enter the waste stream is
dependent upon the manner in which office employees are pro-
vided meals within a building.  In buildings with no cafeteria
or nearby carryout restaurants, the percentage of food waste
entering the waste stream is not high.  In buildings where the
cafeteria functions independent of the office building opera-
tions, separate collection of garbage from solid wastes is
usually the case; whereas in office buildings incorporating the
provision of food services to employees, solid waste collection
from the cafeteria and office areas may be under the control of
                               35

-------
the same custodial  staff.   Given these variables, the percentage
of food wastes entering  the office wastestreams must be cal-
culated on an  individual  basis.

Typical Collection  Practices--
     Collection methods  utilized within office areas are directly
related to building size,  configuration and management operations,
Large industrial  complexes with  associated business management
office centers will often  employ custodians as part of their
personnel  allottment,  whereas  high-rise complexes may employ
custodial  help or contract for  the services.   Whatever the
arrangements,  basic collection  techniques  usually involve the
utilization of custodial  night  crews  to collect solid waste.
Wheeled hampers usually are used  to collect wastes from individual
waste baskets  in  each  office area within the  building.  Full
hampers are taken (via elevator) to a basement loading dock area
where they are emptied into dumpsters or stationary compactors.

Typical Disposal  Practices--
     Solid waste  disposal  services are almost always contracted
through independent companies.   The majority  of waste is dis-
posed of by landfilling.   A number of office  buildings are
implementing source separation  programs to recover high grade
paper.

SMALL CITY WASTE  STREAMS

Waste Stream Characteristics--
     Small cities are  defined  here as cities  generating up to
100 tons per day  of residential  and commercial refuse.  The
solid waste characteristics of  municipalities are extremely
difficult  to define bacause there are a number of variables
which affect quantity  and  composition:

     t  Geographic  location/climate

     •  Season

     •  Type of industrial activities

     •  Type of commercial activities

     •  Socio-economic characteristics of  population

     •  Type and  frequency of  solid waste  collection services

     •  State  of  the  economy

     Numerous  studies  have been  done  by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency which  attempt to  estimate average solid waste
generation rates  for  residential and  commercial usage.  Figures
                               36

-------
from 1976 indicate an average per capita generation rate of
approximately 3.5 pounds per person per day (20).  Typical waste
composition figures are (23):

                                       Percent of Total
     Material                           (Weight Basis)

      Paper                                    32

      Glass                                    10

      Metals                                    9

        Ferrous                        8

        Aluminum                       1

      Plastics                                  3

      Food Waste                               17

      Yard Waste                               19

      Miscellaneous (e.g., rubber, wood)       10

      TOTAL                                   100

Typical  Collection Practices--
     Municipal collection practices throughout the country are
well documented.  A variety of alternatives for collection exist:
private, public, a combination of public and private,  or home-
owner transport/collection of wastes.   Recent trends  have indi-
cated an increase in municipalities which choose private col-
lection  of municipal wastes.  Some small cities have  private
collection of certain segments of the  waste stream, generally in-
organics such as glass and metals, as  well  as paper,  with collec-
tion or  organics by municipal crews.   However, this practice is
decreasing.  A number of small cities  do not have any  municipal
collection of wastes and residents are expected to haul their
own wastes to the disposal site.   These cities are generally
quite small and located in rural  areas.  As in large  cities,
collection of commercial waste is sometimes provided  by the
municipality but is usually contracted with a private  hauler.

Typical  Disposal Practices--
     The majority of small cities landfill  their wastes, but
other disposal options are not uncommon.  These include incinera-
tion, modular incineration, and source separation.
                               37

-------
                            REFERENCES

 ].  Metcalf and  Eddy,  Inc.   Analysis  of  airport  solid  waste
    and collection  systems.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency, Washington,  D.C.,  1973,  pp.  43.  (Available from
    the National  Technical  Information Service as  PB-219  372).

 2.  Kelly,  B.C.   Solid waste generation  and  disposal  practices
    by commercial  airlines  in  the  U.S.   ed.   Susay,  R.H.  In:
    Solid  waste  studies.   Department  of  Environmental  Engineer-
    ing,  University  of Florida,  Gainesville,  Florida,  1970.   n.p

 3.  Analysis  of  airport  solid  waste  and  collection  systems.
    pp.  43.

 4.  McKeener,  J.R.  and N.H.  Griffin.  Shopping center  develop-
    ment  handbook.   Urban  Land  Institute,  Washington,  D.C.,  1977
    pp.  90.

 5.  Shopping  center  developers'  plans detail  trash  collection
    system.  Solid  Wastes Management   18  (10): 20,  22,  58,  1975.

 6.  Shopping  centers:  Chicago  site  switches  to  material  com-
    pactors. Sol i d  Waste  Management   19 (5):  68,  70,  183,  193,
    1976.

 7.  Compactor/containers improve  refuse  service  at  shopping
    mall.  Waste Age  6 (5):  30-31,  1975.

 8.  Kiefer.  Hospital wastes.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency, Washington,  D.C.,  1974.   pp,  4.

 9.  Iglar,  F.  and  R.  G.  Bond.   Hospital  solid waste  disposal
    in community  facilities.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency, Washington,  D.C.,  1973.   pp.  171-237.

10.  Burchinal, J.  C.  and P.  Wallace.  A  study of  institutional
    solid  wastes.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
    Washington,  D.C.,  1973.   pp.  22-49.

11.  Ibid,  pp.  66.

12.  Hospital  solid  waste disposal  in  community facilities,
    1973.   pp.  158-159.
                               38

-------
13.  Esco/Greenleaf,  Inc.   Solid waste handling and disposal  in
    multistory buildings  and hospitals - Volume II.   U.S.
    Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.,  1972.
    pp.  IX.1-25.

14.  Solid waste generated per day.   Bureau  of Prisons,  U.S.
    Department of  Justice, Washington, D.C.,  1977. n.p.
    (Unpublished  data) .

15.  SCS  Engineers.  Waste composition analysis at the District
    of Columbia correctional facility, Lorton, Virginia,  May  24,
    1978.

16.  Messman, A.  An  analysis of institutional wastes.  U.S.
    Environmental  Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  1971.

17.  How  to dispose of refuse for 3000 students college  and
    university business.   Mc-Graw-Hill Publication,  July  1967.

18.  Chiu, Y., J.  Eyster,  and G. W.  Gipe.  Solid waste generation
    rates of a university community journal  of the environmental
    engineering division  (proceedings ASCE)  - Volume 102,
    no.  EEG, October 1976.  pp. 1285.

19.  Ryan, C. and  M.  El-Baroudi.  Solid waste  survey  of  an
    academic institution.Compost Science  14  (3): 28-32,  1973.

20.  Smith, F.A.  Post-consumer and  commercial solid  waste
    generated and  amount  recycled,  by detailed product
    catergory, 1976.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
    Washington, D.C., 1978.  (Unpublished data).

21.  Stearns, R.P., S.E.  Howard, and R. V.  Anthony.  Office
    paper recovery:   an  implementation manual.  U.S.  Environ-
    mental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C., 1977.  pp.  2

22.  SCS  Engineers.  Analysis of source separation of solid
    wastes - office  buildings.  U.S.  Environmental Protection
    Agency,  Washington,  D.C., 1974.  pp. 6

23.  Smith, F.A.  Post-consumer residential  and commerial  waste
    generated and  amounts recycled, by type  of material,  1976.
    U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C.,
    1978.  (Unpublished  data).
                               39

-------
                         SECTION III

                TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM EVALUATION


     The current state-of-the-art approaches to resource recovery
.applicable to the parameters of this study are discussed and
evaluated in this section.  Unit processes (components) con-
sidered technologically proven at the 100 TPD level or less are
assembled into resource recovery systems applicable to the waste
generators.   Operational and technical  aspects of each system
are discussed and a cost analysis developed which reports net
disposal cost per ton of input.

     The various systems that have applicability to small waste
generators can be divided into three types:

     •  Direct Recovery of Materials

     •  Indirect Recovery of Materials

     •  Recovery of Energy With or Without Materials Recovery.

These types  of systems can produce different kinds of material
and energy outputs including the following:
       Materials Recovery
                      Energy Recovery
     Pi rect

     Glass

     Steel

     Paper

     Aluminum
Indi rect

Compost

Yeast
Pi rect

Steam

Hot Air

Hot Water
Indirect

RDF

Pyrolytic Fuel

Methane

Alcohol
     Direct recovery of materials is the separation of glass,
aluminum, steel, paper and/or other materials for recycling.
Systems separating these materials are in use on the municipal
or pilot plant level, but commercial systems are usually well
above 100 TPD in capacity.  Separated materials may or may not
go through some intermediate processing such as crushing or
flattening.
                                40

-------
     Indirect recovery of materials and energy involves most of
the direct recovery processes plus that of an additional trans-
formation step.   Economics are dependent on suitable markets and
their proximity to the waste generator.  Larger scale versions
of indirect recovery operations are less numerous than direct
recovery operations.

     Direct energy recovery is the most promising type of system
suitable for small waste generators.   Equipment is designed and
marketed expressly for such applications, and numerous facilities
up to 100 TPD are currently in operation.  The greatest advantage
of engery recovery is easy marketabi1ity.  The steam, hot water,
hot air, or other energy produced, generally, can be used either
internally or at nearby locations.  The close proximity of the
user and producer of energy makes the transportation and storage
costs of tin's recovery option relatively cheap vis-a-vis other
recovery options.  There are two potential problems with direct
energy recovery.  First, the ability of modular incinerators to
consistently meet air quality standards has yet to be proven.
In addition, siting an incinerator could be a serious problem
for some small waste generators.

DEFINITIONS AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Proven Technology

     For the purpose of this study, components of resource re-
covery systems are considered technologically proven if, at 100
TPD or less, the component has:

     •  Operated commercially for at least one year

     •  Produced the desired product in a form which has
        been sold at the projected value

     This definition eliminates components in pilot scale or
shake-down tests.  Likewise, it eliminates those components
generating a product that is not currently marketable.

Assumpti ons

     The cost analyses require several  assumptions about labor
and equipment costs and the revenues available for the recovered
materials or energy-  The systems will  later be evaluated com-
paratively to determine those most feasible for use by specific
types of waste generators based on cost and other factors.  Thus,
to the degree possible, uniform and realistic cost assumptions
will be used for all systems' cost analyses.  Unless otherwise
noted on the cost analyses tables, the  following are assumed:
                                41

-------
     t  Equipment and facilities  will  be amortized over
        their useful  lives  (5,  15,  or  20 years as indicated)
        at 8 percent  interest

     •  Small-scale systems  will  have  an input capacity
        of 100 TPD

     t  System operations  of five days per week and eight
        hours per day will  be adequate to process the 500
        tons of refuse delivered  each  week.

     •  Cost to haul  to landfill  and disposal  was assumed
        to be $7 per  ton

SMALL-SCALE SYSTEMS

Components

     Various components of  resource recovery systems for a 100
TPD operation are available, though some have  yet to be proven
in commercial operation.   The components include:

     acid hydrolysis                 methane digesters

        conversion units             modular incinerators

     air classifiers                 pyrolytic units

     aluminummagnets               shredders

     composting equipment            trommel screens

     froth flotation  units           magnetic  separators

     The components have  been combined into  several system
configurations, though not  necessarily in a  commercial operating
basis or on a small scale.   These systems have yielded various
energy and material products of differing degrees of marketa-
bility.   Detailed descriptions  of the  components are included in
Appendix D.

     Several components were eliminated based  on technical
criteria.  These are  listed  below along with the reasons for
elimi nation:

     t  Acid hydrolysis conversion  units - currently in
        the experimental  and pilot  plant stages (1).

     •  Aluminum magnets  -  an aluminum magnet  is in use in
        Ames, Iowa.  However, due to the extremely small
        amount of aluminum  in the waste stream (only 0.8
        tons have been recovered  in the past year), it
                               42

-------
is not possible to judge the magnet's effectiveness in
more representative situations.  Other aluminum magnets
have been installed at Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1978), New
Orleans, Louisana (1978), and Baltimore County, Maryland
(1978), but are still  in the shakedown phase.   Consequen-
tly, aluminum magnets  do not meet the first criterion-
commercial  operation for more than one year, and thus
were rejected.  All of these facilities were designed for
more than 100 TPD operations, (Personal communications.
Joseph Duchett, National Center for Resource Recovery,
Washington, D.C.   July 7 1978; and  Stephen  How.ard,  Envi-
ronmental Protecti on Agency, Washington ,D. C. July 7 1978).

Froth flotation units  - a unit currently is in shakedown
in New Orleans.  The recovery system under construction
in Bridgeport, Connecticut will include a froth flotation
unit.  The  U.S. Bureau of Mines is testing glass recovery
processes at its  Edmonston, Maryland facility.

Recovery rates for the glass entering the flotation unit
are estimated to  be 90 percent.  A significant quantity
of glass in the original waste stream; however, may be
lost in the early processing stages.  The purity of the
recovered glass has been estimated to be as high as 99
percent.  Even at this level of purity, the glass may be
unable to meet container industry specifications, (Per-
sonal communications.   Joseph Duchett, National Center
for Resource Recovery, Washington, D.C.  July 7 1978).
The primary contaminates are ceramics and stones, which
have a higher melting  point than glass.  These materials
will foul a production run if they are in the feedstock.
All the glass in  the run must then be discarded.  Conse-
quently, container companies do not want to purchase
cullet containing such contaminates.

Froth flotation units  were rejected on both criterion.

Methane digesters - this technology is quite old and is
well demonstrated at wastewater treatment plants.  How-
ever, the input feed in these plants is sewage sludge.
A pilot plant to process 50-100 tons per day of solid
waste mixed with sewage sludge recently has been con-
structed in Pompano Beach, Florida.  The purpose of this
plant is to test the technical and economic feasibility
of bioconversion of solid waste, (Personal communication.
Peter Ware, Waste Management, Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois.
July 12 1978; and Donald Walter, Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C.   July 12 1978).  Consequently, this
process does not meet either criterion for acceptability.
                       43

-------
        Pyrolytic  units  -  two  commercial-seale units  have
        been built -  Baltimore,  Maryland  (1000 TPD)  and San
        Diego,  California  (200 TPD).   Neither system, how-
        ever, is  in operation.   There  have been problems
        in the  scale-up  from demonstration units.   The
        Union Carbide Corporation  has  been operating  a
        pyrolysis  system in  South  Charleston,  West Virginia
        since 1974 (2").   This  plant  is  a  demonstration
        unit.  A  small  pyrolytic system is operating  at
        'an industrial site in  Arkansas.   It is still  in
        the shake-down  phase (3).   Due  to failure  to  meet
        the one year  of  commercial  scale  operation criterion,
        pyrolysis  was eliminated from  further consideration.
                                   combined
                                   di agrams
                                            into six
                                            of these
System Evaluated

     The remaining  components  were
system for further  analysis.   Flow
are shown in  Figures  1  through 3.

     t  Ferrous  Recovery
     •  Compost  Preparation

     •  Compost  Preparation  with  Ferrous  Recovery

     •  RDF  Preparation  with Ferrous  Recovery

     •  Incineration  with  Heat  Recovery

     •  Incineration  with  Heat  and  Ferrous  Recovery

Ferrous  Recovery
smal1-seale
systems
                                                        1
     This system recovers  only ferrous  material, Figure
Solid waste is  received and  fed into the shredder.   The shredded
waste passes through  the magnetic separator which diverts the
magnetic fraction (mostly  cans) to a baler or nuggetizer for
compressing into a marketable product.   Although not detailed
in the flow diagram,  transportation to  the customer usually is
required.  Scrap metal  which is delivered to a buyer brings a
higher price than that  which is picked  up (4).  The non-magnetic
portion of the  waste  stream  is landfilled without further pro-
cessing.
     The  net cost  per
TPD of input waste is
recovered ferrous  was
                      ton for a ferrous recovery system at 100
                      $15.38, Table 8.   The revenue from the
                      determined to be  $1.08 per input ton of
                               44

-------
  Ferrous Recovery
                                  Magnetic
                                 Separation
                                             Ferrous
                                       Other
                                 Disposal
                         Nuggetize
                                                         Bale
Compost Preparation
   Separation
(Air Classifier
or Trommel
Screen)
                                                       Preparation
                                                        Digestion
                                                         Curing
                    Figure  1    Process Flow Diagrams-
                  Ferrous Recovery and Compost Preparation
                                      45

-------
TABLE 8.  COST ANALYSIS  FOR  A  REPRESENTATIVE  FERROUS  RECOVERY1  SYSTEM  (100 TPD)

Amortization
Initial Life Factor
Costs (Years) (8%)
CAPITAL COSTS ($1,000)
Shredder, including dust control and
Bag House, complete in place $400 5 0.250
Magnetic Separator 30 5 0.250
Baler 30 5 0.250
Auxiliary Equipment 50 5 0.250
Small Front-End Loader 40
Office Furniture, Refuse Bins 10
Construction & land 392 20 0.101
Building: 9500 ft2 @ $30/ft2 285
Site Development: 20% of bldg 57
Land: 5 acres @ $10,000/acre 50
TOTAL $802
OPERATING COSTS ($1,000)
Labor;2 2 operators @ $24
1 supervisor @ $16
Supplies: 3% of labor & maint.
Energy:3 Stationary equipment: $ 12.0
Mobile loader 3.2
Lighting 0.7
Building heat 1.3
Maint. : 3% of total capital costs
Misc.: (taxes, licenses, insurance, administrative
and management costs) 1% of total initial
capital costs
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS ($1.000)
COST/REVENUES PER TON ($/ton)
System Cost
System Revenue1*
Net System
Landf i 1 1 5
Total Net

Annual
Costs
$100
8
8
13

39

$168
40
2
17
24
8
$ 91
$259
$ 9.96
1.08
8.88
6.50
$ 15.38
                                    46

-------
TABLE 8  -  continued
Footnotes:
1  Data calculated by SCS Engineers from literature and vendor sources.
2  Operator wage rates is $5.80 per hour which includes fringe benefits
   of 15 percent
   Supervisor wage rate is $7.80 per hour,  including fringe  benefits.
3  Energy:
     Stationary Equipment - operation conditions are:
     •  Electric Power Consumption:          18kwh/ton
        - Cost                               $1,000/month
     Mobile Equipment - Deration conditions are:
     •  Gasoline Consumption
        - Cost
14  Revenue Factors:
     •  Percent ferrous in wastestream
     •  Recovery rate
     •  Market value
5  Cost Factors:
     •  Weight reduction
     •  Cost to haul to landfill and
        disposal
2.5 gallons/hour
$0.60/gallon
90%
$15/ton FOB the receiving site

7.2%

$7/ton
                                      47

-------
refuse.   This was based on a ferrous fraction in the waste
stream of 8 percent.   The recovery rate was assumed to be 90
percent  of incoming ferrous.

Compost  Preparation

     Compost is a hunms-like material  which can enhance the
quality  of soil.   It  improves soil  quality by increasing the
soil's a-bility to retain moisture.   Compost,  however, lacks the
constituents to be classified a fertilizer.

     Solid waste  passes from the receiving area to the primary
shredder where it is  size-reduced to approximately 2 inches,
Figure 1.  The material is then sent to a  separation process,
which could be either air classification or trommeling, resulting
in organic (light) and inorganic (heavy) wastestreams.   Inorganic
material is usually disposed of in  a landfill.   About 50 percent
of the wastestream, called the organic fraction, passes to the
composting preparation stage.  The  moisture content is corrected,
with sewage sludge often being blended into the mixture.   The
prepared material  is  digested in aerated containers or placed
in open  windrows.   No windrow compost  operations using solid
waste as a feed stock are in operation in  this  country.  Several
operations have been  attempted, but they were not economic.
After a  period of time, which can vary from days to months,  the
compost  is transferred to a storage area for  curing -- actually
an extension of the digestion process.  The compost is then  ready
for use.  For some applications, further processing, such as
secondary shredding and additional  screening, is necessary.

     Although technically proven, commercial  composting operations
have never been cost-effective in the  United  States.  A facility
representative of the system depicted  in Figure 1 is in opera-
tion at  Altoona,  Pennsylvania.   This plant, which is operated
by a private firm, processes 50 TPD of raw refuse.

     The net cost per ton of input  waste at 100 TPD was deter-
mined to be $26.70, Table 9.  As previously mentioned, the major
problem  with composting systems in  the past have been the low
marketability of  the  product.  For  the cost analysis it has  been
assumed  that the  value of compost is derived  from its utility
as a topsoil substitute.   Other basic  assumptions are shown  in
the table.

Compost  Preparation With Ferrous Recovery

     Composting produces a material which  can be used to enhance
the productivity  of land, as was described under the previous
heading.  In addition, this system  recovers the ferrous fraction
of solid waste.

     This system  is the same as the one for just composting ex-
cept for the addition of a ferrous  recovery subsystem, Figure 2.

                                48

-------
TABLE 9.  COST ANALYSIS  FOR  A REPRESENTATIVE AEROBIC COMPOST PLANT1  (100  TPD)

Amortization
Initial Life Factor
Costs (Years) (8%)
CAPITAL COSTS ($1,000)
Shredder, including dust control $350 5 0.250
Air Classifier and Bag House 250 5 0.250
Compost Equipment 980 5 0.250
Auxiliary Equipment 50 5 0.250
Small Front-End Loader 40
Office Furniture, Refuse Bins 10
Construction & land 464 20 0.101
Building: 11,500 ft2 @ $30/ft2 345
Site Development: 20% of bldg 59
Land: 5 acres @ $10,000 acre 50
TOTAL $2094
OPERATING COSTS ($1,000)
Labor:2 4 operators @ $48
1 supervisor G> $16
Supplies: 3% of labor & maint.
Energy:3 Stationary equipment: $ 93.6
Mobile equipment 3.2
Lighting 0.9
Building heat 1.6
Maint.: 3% of total capital cost
Misc.: (taxes, licenses, insurance, administrative
and management costs) 1% of total initial
capital costs
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS ($1,000)
COSTS/REVENUES PER TON ($/ton)
System Cost
System Revenue1*
Net System
Landfill5
Annual
Costs
$ 88
63
245
13

46

$455
64
4
99
63
21
$251
$706
27.15
3.11
24.04
2.66
          Total Net
$26.70
                                       49

-------
TABLE 9 -  continued
Footnotes^
1  Data calculated by SCS Engineers from literature and vendor sources.
2  Operator wage rate is $5.80 per hour which includes fringe benefits of
   15 percent.
   Supervisor wage rate is $7.80 per hour, including fringe benefits.
3  Energy:
     Stationary Equipment   operation conditions are:
     •  Electric Power Consumption           45 kwh/ton
        - Cost                               $2,390/month
     •  Natural Gas Consumption              9 therms/ton
        - Cost                               $0.2776/therm
     Mobile Equipment - operation  conditions  are:
     •  Gasoline Consumption                 2.5 gallons/hour
        - Cost                               $o.60/gallon
**  Revenue Factors:
     •  Percent compostables in wastestream  69%
     •  Recovery rate                        90%
     •  Market value                         $5.00/ton FOB the recovery site
5  Cost Factors:
     •  Weight reduction                    62%
     •  Cost to haul to landfill and
        disposal                            $7/ton
                                    50

-------
                                                         Curing
                                    Market
                                                       Digestion
                              Separation
                           (Air Classifier
                           or Trommel Screen'
         Organic
                 Preparation
                               Magnetic
                              Separation
Inorganic

        Other
                   Disposal
                                     Ferrous
                                 Bale
                    Market
Compost Preparation with Ferrous Recovery
                                   Air
                                Classify
                                Magnetic
                               Separation
                                 Residue
                                Disposal
RDF Preparation with Ferrous Recovery
                    Figure  2    Process Flow Diagrams-
               Compost Preparation with Ferrous Recovery and RDF
                     Preparation with Ferrous Recovery
                                       51

-------
Ferrous is recovered following separation of the waste into light
and heavy fractions.  The heavy fraction, which contains the
ferrous, is processed through a magnetic separator.  The re-
covered ferrous would be processed further, either by baling or
nuggetizing to prepare the metal  for market.

     At 100 TPD, the.net cost per ton of input as $26.05, Table
10.  The value of the compost and .ferrous was set at $3.11  and
$1.08 respectively per ton of input waste.

Refuse-Derived Fuel  (RDF)

     Refuse-derived  fuel  is an energy source produced from the
combustible fraction of solid waste.  There are three basic
types of RDF which can be produced:  fluff, dust and densified.
The production of these three types varies, as does the burn
characteristics and  markets.

     The basic system for production of fluff RDF involves:
(1) shredding, (2) separation of  the combustible and noncombus-
tible fraction of waste by air classification, and (3)  secondary
shredding, Figure 2.  The production of dust or densified RDF
requires additonal steps.  Neither of these two types of RDF
have been included because of the lack of commercial-seale
experience.  The three RDF systems in operation (Ames,  Iowa -
200 TPD, Chicago, Illinois -  1000 TPD, and  Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin - 1600 TPD) produce fluff RDF.

     Market acceptance of RDF appears uncertain at the  present
time.  Users of RDF  must modify storage, handling and combus-
tion practices to burn the material in existing or modified
boilers.  Similarly, th'e uncertainty of future supply and quality
control makes boiler owners wary  of commitments to this type of
fuel .

     Current prices  for RDF vary  as noted below:

     •  Ames, Iowa reported a 1977 average  price for RDF
        of $9.41 per ton, (Personal communication.  Robert
        Bartolotta,  City of Ames, Ames, Iowa.   July 26, 1978).

     «  Chicago sold RDF for  $4.20 per ton, (Personal communica-
        tion.  Emil  Nigro, City of Chicago, Illinois.  July 26,
        1978).

     •  Milwaukee is getting  about 50 percent of the energy
        equivalent price of coal  of about $12 per ton based on
        the following, (Personal  comra-uni cati on .  Rosanne
        Schwaderer,  Coal  Week Magazine, Washington, D.C.
        July 24, 1978) :
                               52

-------
TABLE 10.  COST ANALYSIS  FOR  A REPRESENTATIVE AEROBIC COMPOST PLANT
                  WITH FERROUS RECOVERY1 (TOO TPD)


CAPITAL COSTS ($1,000)
Shredder, including dust control
Air Classifier and Bag House
Magnetic Separator
Baler
Compost Equipment
Auxiliary Equipment
Small Front-End Loader 40
Office Furniture, Refuse Bins 10
Construction & land
Building: 11,750 ft2 @ $30/ft2 353
Site Development: 20% of bldg 71
Land: 5 acres @ $10,000/acre 50
TOTAL
OPERATING COSTS ($1,000)
Labor:2 4 operators @ $48
1 supervisor (? $16
Supplies: 3% of labor & maint.
Energy:3 Stationary equipment
Mobile equipment
Light
Building heat
Maint. : 3% of total capital cost
Misc.: (taxes, licenses, insurance
and management costs) 1% of
capital costs
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS ($1,000)
COSTS/REVENUES PER TON ($/ton)
System Cost
System Revenue4
Net System
Landfill5
Total Net
Amortization
Initial Life Factor
Costs (Years) (8%)
$350 5 0.250
250 5 0.250
30 5 0.250
30 5 0.250
980 5 0.250
50 5 0.250

474 20 0.101

$2164


96.7
3.2
1.0
1.7

, administrative
total initial


Annual
Costs
$ 88
63
8
8
245
13

47

$ 472
64

103
65
	 22
$ '258
$730
28.08
4.19
23.89
2.16
$ 26.05
                                   53

-------
TABLE 10  -  continued
 Footnotes:
 1  Data calculated by SCS Engineers from literature and vendor sources.
 2  Operator wage rate is $5.80 per hour which includes fringe benefits of
   15 percent.
   Supervisor wage rate is $7.80 per hour, including fringe benefits.
 3  Energy:
     Stationary equipment - operation conditions are:
     •  Electric Power Consumption           50 kwh/ton
        - Cost                               $2,640/month
     •  Natural Gas Consumption              9 therms/ton
        - Cost                               $0.2776/therm
     Mobile Equipment - operation conditions are:
     •  Gasoline Consumption
        - Cost
**  Revenue Factors:
     •  Compost ($3.11/input ton)
        - Percent compostables in waste-
          stream
        - Recovery rate
        - Market value
      •  Ferrous  ($1.08/input  ton)
         -  Percent  ferrous  in  wastestream
         -  Recovery rate
         -  Market value
 5  Cost Factors:
      o  Compost:   Weight reduction
      0  Ferrous:   Weight reduction
      •  Cost  to  haul  to landfill and
         disposal
 2.5  gallons/hour
 $0.60/gallon
 69%
 90%
 $5.00/ton  FOB  the  recovery  site
90%
$15.00/ton FOB the recovery site

62%
72%
$7/ton
                                    54

-------
           Energy content of RDF ranges from 6,500 to
           8,000 BTU per pound

           Coal with 1.1 percent sulfur, 12.8 percent
           ash, and 12,000 BTU per pound costs $24 per ton

     Taking the above into consideration, and considering the
small quantities of RDF produced at a 100 TPD plant, it was
assumed that the RDF would command a price of $6.00 per ton FOB
the recovery facility.   The net cost per input ton at a 100 TPD
facility would be $13.61, Table 11.

Modular Incinerator With Heat Recovery

     Modular incinerators are now available with the ability to
recover energy in the form of steam, hot water, and hot air.
The incinerators are designed for simplicity of operation,
Figure 3.   Mixed refuse is dumped onto a tipping floor and then
moved directly into burner charging hoppers using small tractors.
The only processing normally done is the removal of bulky items.
The hot gases generated can then be passed through a heat ex-
changer or boiler to heat water or produce steam.  Residue from
the combustion process  is automatically and continuously removed
from the newer, larger  units.  Thus, 24-hour operation is pos-
sible.  However, older  designs and some current units require
a cool-down period each day, after which ashes are removed
mechanically or manually before the unit is reignited.

     Air pollution is a concern with any combustion process.
Entrainment of particles is minimized in modular incinerators
through use of the starved air concept.  Afterburners in the
secondary chamber provide additonal control in the reduction
of particulate emissions.  Gaseous emissions (e.g., nitrous
oxides and metalized salts) also are controlled because of the
low bed temperature in  the combustion chamber.  Even so, the
data are incomplete on  the ability of these incinerators to
consistently meet air quality standards.  Tests are being con-
ducted to determine the stack emissions from these units.
Stricter regulations at the Federal level may necessitate addi-
tional controls in the  future^even if modular incinerators are
able to meet local standards currently.

     Individual heat recovery modular incinerators are available
with capacities ranging from 1 to 50 TPD.  Units are often in-
stalled in groups of two, three, or four (or more) to provide
adequate capacity and back-up.  Units above 3 TPD may be designed
for 24-hour operation.

    The incinerator unit typically is located close to the user
of the energy.  The shorter the distance between the two, the
lower the transmission  loss and the higher the economic benefit
for the incinerator operator.  Steam may be transmitted in ex-
                               55

-------
TABLE 11.   COST ANALYSIS FOR A REPRESENTATIVE  REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF)
                AND FERROUS  RECOVERY1  SYSTEM [100 TPD)

CAPITAL COSTS ($1,000)"
Shrddders (2), including dust control
Air Classifier and Bag House
Magnetic Separater
Baler
Auxiliary Equipment
Small Front-End Loader 40
Office Furniture, Refuse Bins 10
Construction & land
Building: 11,500 ft2 9 $30/«2 345
Site Development: 20% of bldg. 69
Land: 5 acres @ $10,000/acre 50
TOTAL
OPERATING COSTS ($1,000)
Labor:2 3 operators @ $36
1 supervisor @ $16
Supplies: 3% of labor & maint.
Energy:3 Stationary equipment
Mobile loader
Lighting
Building heat
Maint.: 3% of total capital cost
Misc.: (taxes, licenses, insurance
and management costs) 1% of
capital costs
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS ($1.000)
COSTS/REVENUES PER TON ($/ton)
System Cost
System Revenue1*
Net System
Landfill5
Total Net
Amortization
InitiaT Life Factor
Costs (Years) (8%)
$600 5 0.250
250 5 0.250
30 5 0.250
30 5 0.250
50 5 0.250

464 20 0.101

$1424


22.7
3.2
0.9
1.6

, administrative
total initial


Annual
Costs
$150
63
8
8
13

46

$288
52
3
28
43
14
$140
$428
16.46
4.32
12.14
1.47
$ 13.61
                                 56

-------
TABLE 11  - continued
Footnotes:
1  Data calculated by SCS Engineers from literature and vendor sources.
2  Operator wage rate is $5.80 per hour which includes fringe benefits of
   15 percent.
   Supervisor wage rate is $7.50 per hour, including fringe benefits
3  Energy:
     Stationary Equipment - operation conditions are:
     •  Electric Power Consumption           35 kwh/ton
        - Cost                               $l,890/month
     Mobile Equipment - operation conditions are:
     t  Gasoline Consumption
        - Cost
 **  Revenue Factors:
     •  RDF  ($3.83/input ton)
        - Percent combustibles in
          wastestream
        - Recovery  rate
        - Market value
     •  Ferrous ($1.08/input ton)
        - Percent ferrous  in wastestream
        - Recovery  rate
        - Market value
 5  Cost Factors:
      •  RDF: Weight Reduction
      t  Ferrous:  Weight  Reduction
      •  Cost to haul  to  landfill  and
         disposal
 2.5  gallons/hour
 $0.60/gallon
 90%
 $6.00/ton  FOB  the  recovery site
 8%
 90%
 $15.00/ton  FOB  the recovery site
72.0%
 7.2%
$7/ton
                                     57

-------
                                    Market
                                       Energy
                                 Incinerate
                       Oversize and Non-Combustible
   Incineration with  Energy Recovery
                         Trommel
                         Screen  or
                         Shredder
              Oversize  and
              Non-Combustible
                         Magnetic
                        Separation
  Market
      Energy
                                      Other
Incinerate
                              Ferrous
                                                Market
Incineration  with Energy Recovery and Ferrous Recovery

             Figure  3    Process Flow Diagrams-
             Incineration with Energy Recovery
     Incineration with  Energy Recovery and Ferrous Recovery
                                58

-------
cess of 1.5 miles, if constraints preclude operation of the
incinerator closer to the energy user.   Probable uses for the
recovered energy are industrial  processes, and a connection with
an existing steam loop, augmenting the  steam generated in a
central boiler.   These situations may be present in hospitals,
prisons, airports, office buildings, and garden apartment com-
plexes.

     Depending on local regulations, the operation of these units
may not require  the presence of  a full-time stationary engineer.
Successful  operation of an incinerator  does require the presence
of trained  personnel.  Otherwise, the performance of the system
probably will  be less than desired.

     A net  cost  of $11.68 per ton of input refuse at 100 TPD was
calculated  for this system, Table 12.  The value of the energy
recovered from from the incinerated  waste was determined to be
just over $8 per input ton.

Modular Incineration With Heat and Ferrous Recovery

     It would  be possible to develop a  small-scale system com-
bining ferrous recovery with modular incinerators.  The incin-
erators are designed to accept unshredded refuse.  Although
no tests have  been done, it is possible that shredded waste
could be burned  in this type of  incinerator without adverse
affects.  Ferrous recovery could decrease maintenance costs.
The charging hoppers and rams, material transport mechanisms,
refractory, and  ash handling systems might require less mainten-
ance if ferrous  is removed from  the  waste to be incinerated.
The ferrous would be recovered following some processing (e.g.,
shredding), Figure 3.  The recovery  technique would be magnetic
separation.  The recovered metal would  be processed for marketing
either by baling or nuggetizing..

     Ferrous metals also can be  recovered from the incinerator
residue.  The  market for incinerated ferrous, however, is
extremely poor at the present time,  (Personal communication.
Howard Ness, National Association of Recycling Industries,
New York, New  York.  July 18, 1978).  Therefore, this approach
to ferrous  recovery was rejected.

     A net  cost  of $11.95 per ton of input waste at 100 TPD was
determined  for this system, Table 13.  The revenue from the
steam and ferrous is $8.08 and $1.08 respectively per input ton.

LOW TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

Source Separation

     The materials commonly recovered by a source separation
system are:


                               59

-------
TABLE  12.   COST ANALYSIS  FOR A REPRESENTATIVE MODULAR  INCINERATOR
                   WITH ENERGY RECOVERY1  (100  TPD)
                                                        Amortization
                                        Initial   Life     Factor     Annual
                                         Costs   (Years)     (8%)	Costs
 CAPITAL COSTS  ($1,000)

 Incinerator and boiler, complete in place2 $1800
 Auxiliary Equipment

   Small Front-End  Loader
   Office Furniture,  Refuse Bins

 Construction &  land
                                  50
15

 5
                       40
                       10
                                 396   20
   Building:  9500  ft2 @ $30/ft2    288
   Site Development: 20% of bldg.   58
   Land: 5 acres @ $10,000/acre     50
                     TOTAL

 OPERATING COSTS  ($1,000)

 Labor: 3
                               $2196
4 operators  @
1 supervisor @  $16
 Supplies:   3% of  labor & maint.

 Energy: 4   Supplemental fuel
            Mobile loader
            Lighting
            Heat building
                                 36.0
                                  3.2
                                  0.7
                                  1.3
 Maint.:

 Misc.:
   of total  capital  costs
(taxes, licenses,  insurance, adminstrative
and management  costs)  1% of total initial
capital costs
                     TOTAL

 TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM  COSTS ($1,000)

 COSTS/REVENUES  PER TON  ($/ton)

    System Cost
    System Revenue5
    Net System
    Landfill
    Total Net
0.117

0.250




0.101
$210

  13




  40





$263




  64

   3




  41

  66



  22

$196

 459
                                                           $ 17.65
                                                              8.08
                                                              9.57
                                                              2.11
                                                           $ 11.68
                                    60

-------
TABLE 12  - continued
 Footnotes:
 1   Data  calculated  by  SCS  Engineers  from  literature  and  vendor  sources.
 2   Includes  5  25-TPD units.   Incinerators are  designed to operate on a 24-hour
    basis.  The extra unit  provides reserve capacity  for  maintenance.
 3   Operators are  on duty .for  8-hour  shifts.  The  shifts  are  split to allow
    for continuous operation.   Uage rate is $5.80  per hour, which includes
    fringe  benefits  of  15 percent.  The supervisor is on  duty for one 8-hour
    shift at  $7.80 per  hour.
 **   Energy:   Supplemental fuel  is  consumed at a rate  of 5 percent of the
    BTU value of the input  refuse.  Operation conditions:
    •  Thermal  value  of  refuse
    t  Supplemental fuel
    t  Cost of  gas
    •  Thermal  value  of  therm
    Mobile Equipment  - operation  conditions  are:
    •  Gasoline Consumption
       - Cost
 5  Revenue Factors:
    •  Percent  combustibles in  wastestream
    •  Recovery rate
    t  Market value:  substitute value of
       coal
 6  Cost Factors:
    •  Weight Reduction
    •  Cost to  haul  to landfill and
       disposal
5,000 BTU/pound
Natural Gas
$0.2776/therm
100,000 BTU

2.5 gallons/hour
$0.60/gallon

80%
$1154/100 tons of combustible
refuse @ 5000 BTU/pound
70%

$7/ton
                                      61

-------
TABLE 13   COST ANALYSIS  FOR A REPRESENTATIVE MODULAR INCINERATOR
TABLE 13.   COM ^ALYMAND FERRQUS RECOVERyl (1QO TpD)
Initial Life Factor
ro^ts (Years) (8%)
CAPITAL COSTS ($1,000)
Incinerator and boiler, complete in place2$1800 15 0.117
Magnetic Separator 30 5
30 5 0.250
Baler
Auxiliary Equipment 50 5
Small Front-End Loaders (3) 40
Office Furniture, Refuse Bins 10
Construction & land 410 20 0.101
Building: 10,000 ft2 @ $30/ft2 300
Site Development: 20% of bldg 60
Land: 5 acres G> $10,000/acre 50 	
TOTAL $2320
OPERATING COSTS ($1,000)
Labor: 3 6 operators @ $72
1 supervisor @ $16
Supplies: 3% of labor & maint.
Energy:1* Supplemental fuel $ 36.0
Stationary equipment 3.b
Mobile loader 3.2
Lighting 0.7
Heat building 1-J
Maint. 3% of total capital costs
Misc • (taxes, licenses, insurance, administrative
and management costs) 1% of total initial
capital costs
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS ($1,000)
COSTS/REVENUES PER TON ($/ton)
System Cost
System Revenue5
Net System
Landf i 1 1 6
Total Net
Annual
Costs
$210
8
8
13
41
$280
$ 88
5
45
70
23
$231
$511
$ 19
9
10
1
$ 11
.65
.16
.49
.46
.95
                                 62

-------
TABLE 13  - continued

 Footnotes:

 1   Data  calculated  by SCS  Engineers from literature and vendor sources.

 2   Includes 5  25-TPD units.   Incinerators are desinged to operate on a
    24-hour  basis.   The extra  unit provides  reserve capacity for maintenance.

 3   Operators are  on duty for  8-hour shifts.  The shifts are split to allow
    for continuous operation.  Wage rate is  $5.80 per hour, which includes
    fringe  benefits  of 15 percent.  The supervisor is on duty for one 8-hour
    shift at $7.80 per hour.

 14   Energy:   Supplemental fuel is consumed at a  rate of 5 percent of the BTU
    value of the input refuse.  Operation conditions are:
    t  Thermal  value  of  refuse

    t  Supplemental fuel

    •  Cost of  gas

    •  Thermal  value  of  therm
5,000 BTU/pound

Natural gas

$0.2776/therm

100,000 BTU
    Stationary Equipment -  operation  conditions  are:

    •  Electric Power Consumption           5  kwh/ton

       - Cost                              $304/month

    Mobile Equipment - operation  conditions are:
    •  Gasoline Consumption

       - Cost

 5  Revenue Factors:

    •  Steam ($8.08/input ton)
       -  Percent combustibles  in waste-
          stream
       -  Recovery rate
       -  Market value:  substitute  value
          of coal


    •  Ferrous  ($1.08/input ton)

       -  Percent ferrous in wastestream
       -  Recovery rate
       -  Market value


 6  Cost Factors:

    •  Steam:  Weight Reduction

    •  Ferrous:  Weight  Reduction

    •  Cost to  haul to landfill and
       disposal
2.5 gallons/hour

$0.60/gallon
     80%

     90%

     $1154/100 tons of combustible
     refuse @ 5000 BTU/pound
     8%
     90%
     15.00/tdn FOB the recovery
     site
     72%

     7.2%


     $7/ton
                                     63

-------
     9  Newsprint

     9  Corrugated

     •  High-grade  paper

     •  Mixed paper

     •  Glass (colors  mixed  or  separated  into  clear,  brown,
        and green  glass)

     t  Aluminum

     •  Ferrous  (bi-metal  cans,  tin-coated  steel  cans,  or
        heavy ferrous  such as white  goods)

     Potentially recoverable materials  less  likely to be source
separated  due to poor  marketability,  difficulty of identifica-
tion, or low volume include:

     •  Kraft (brown)  paper

     •  Non-ferrous metal, other than aluminum

     •  PIasti cs

     •  Organics

     t  Textiles

     •  Tires

The value  of source-separated materials  always is affected by
their purity.  Thus, most  markets have  specified  maximum levels
of contaminants  that are  acceptable.   This  leads  to requirements
for the preparation, and  sometimes  storage,  of the materials,
Table 14.

     Considering the applicable  situations  and the types of
materials  that could be included, there  are  almost unlimited
variations  in source separation  schemes.   All  depend  on physical-
ly separating the  desired  material(s) from  the wastestreams.
From that  point  various combinations  of  accumulations,  proces-
sing, and  storage  are  possible  before the material reaches the
dealer, Figure 4.   The potential variability of source  separation
systems led to a differentiation between  those applicable to
resident!'al-type situations  and  those applicable to other waste-
stream generators  included in  the project.

Residential Systems--
     Separation  of  materials in  the  home  before mixing  with other
household  wastes has been  practiced  in  small cities.   Materials
commonly separated  are newspapers,  glass, and  cans (aluminum

                                64

-------
                             Discarded Materials
                                  Separation
                Recovered Materials
 Waste.
     Initial Accumulation
(Desk Top or Central  Container,
 Separate Dumpster,  Newspapers
       in Garage, etc.)
   Initial
Accumulation
                                                           Disposal
                     Storage/Processing
                      (Central Baling,
                     Storage in  Hampers,
                            etc.)
                  Intermediate Accumulation
                 (Piles of Cans or Glass on
                 Municipal  Storage Lot,  Bins
                    of Newspapers, etc.)
   Dealer  Use
             Figure   4.    Process  Flow Diagram-Source  Separation

                                 65

-------
    TABLE 14.  TYPICAL PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS*
   Newspapers:
Must be free of other kinds of paper and tied two ways
with strong cord in stacks no more than 20 inches high.
•  Corrugated Paper: Must be clean and dry with no wax,  plastic, or metal
                     contaminants, and boxed,  bundled, or baled securely.
•  Mixed Paper:

t  High-Grade
   (Office) Paper:
t  Glass:
•  Aluminum:
   Tin/Ferrous:
•  Kraft (Brown)
   Paper:

•  Non-Ferrous
   Metal:

•  Plastic:
•  Organics:
   Textiles:
Must be clean and dry with no wax or plastic contaminants,

Contains only white ledger, computer tab cards, computer
print-out, and other selected high-grade papers.  No
colored paper, carbon paper, plastic or non-paper
contaminants.

Must be clean with all metal and plastic caps, lids,
foil, rings, and coverings removed, and separated into
clear, green and amber color categories.  Glass should
not be broken, nor do paper labels need to be removed.
No pyrex, light bulbs, mirrors, flat glass, or ceramics
should be included with container glass.

Cans must be clean and flattened; foil, trays, and
twist-off bottle caps must be clean; "hard" aluminum
(lawn furniture, siding, cookware, etc.) must be free
of steel and plastic contaminants and separated from
other grades.

Cans must be cleaned and flattened, with paper labels
removed; other ferrous metal must be free of contami-
nating metals.

Must be clean and dry and free of other kinds of paper
(often included with corrugated).

Must be free of contaminanting metals and separated by
metal type (copper, lead, zinc, brass, etc.)

Must be clean and paper-free, thermoplastics only, and
separated by-type (polyethylene, polypropylene, poly-
styrene, etc.).

Food and yard wastes only; but may, for certain applica-
tions, contain paper; must be glass-, metal-, and
plastic-free.

Must be clean and free of synthetic fibers.
*  SOURCE:   Reference 5.
                                     66

-------
and/or other).   The materials are prepared as required (as shown
in Table 14 or  otherwise) and temporarily stored.

     Storage normally requires the use of cardboard boxes,
separate trash  cans, shopping bags, or no "container" at all,
as in the case  of newspapers stacked and tied in bundles.  Common
storage areas include garages, pantries, or closets, basements,
carports, or storage sheds.

     Periodically, the accumulated materials are removed from
storage at the  source and "collected".  Collection may be by
regular refuse  collection crews using modified vehicles, special
crews and vehicles, or the individual may take the materials to
a collection point -- the recycling center approach.  Collections
from homes are  usually, and optimally, made on a normal  refuse
collection day  and on a regular schedule.  This helps increase
participation by minimizing inconvenience and by establishing a
pattern for collection of the recyclables.

     The materials are hauled directly to a dealer or accumulated
until sufficient quantities are on hand to warrant transfer to
the dealer.  Newspapers are virtually the only material  collected
in large enough quantities such that a truck could economically
haul its load directly from the collection route to the  dealer.
This would require the use of a separate vehicle for newspaper
collection and  a nearby dealer.

     Other materials usually are hauled to an intermediate stor-
age point.  This point can serve simply as a transfer station
where large quantities of recovered materials can be accumulated,
and therefore,  transported to market more economically,  or where
additional processing may take place.  Different materials require
various types of processing.  Typical materials processing options
are':

     •  Paper

           shredded and baled

        -  baled

           compacted

     •  Glass

           crushed by a hammermill

           crushed in packer transport vehicle

     t  Cans

           magnetic separation

        -  baled
                               67

-------
Additional  equipment needs  for such processing include storage
bins, a building,  front-end loader, baler,  compactor, forklift,
etc.   This  processing can  increase the value of source-separated
materials many times.  A market survey conducted for recoverable
materials in Lincoln County,  Maine, for example, indicated that
loose newspaper could be sold for $20 per ton, whereas baled
newspaper would be purchased  for $60 per ton.   Likewise, loose
corrugated  had a value of  $15 per ton, and  baled corrugated $40
per ton (6).

     Usually materials are  stored in containers such as roll-off
bins  or in  piles until sufficient quantities have been accumu-
lated.   At  that point the  materials are transferred to the
dealer.  Either the materials are delivered to the dealer or the
dealer  picks up the materials at the point(s)  of accumulation.

     The variations in approaches to residential source separa-
tion  and the volatility of  the secondary materials market make it
difficult to analyze costs  for this low-technology approach and
generalize  to other situations.   One of the major problems with
source  separation  systems  is  the unpredictable nature of market
prices  for  the recovered materials.  Therefore, it is desirable
to secure long-term (1 to  5 years) contracts with a fixed price
floor.   Representative market prices for recoverable materials
for both residential and other programs during 1978 are listed
below (6),  (7), (8):

            Material                Price Range ($/ton)

     High-grade paper                    55-105

     Newsprint                           15-42

     Corrugated                          10-40

     Mixed  paper                          7-25

     Tin-coated steel cans                 24-54

     Glass                                 10-30

     Aluminum                            340-480

The wide range in  prices results from:

     •   Geographic location of market

     •   Degree of  prior processing of materials

     •   Quality/purity of  materials

     •   Point of FOB

     •   Other economic factors

                               68

-------
     In order to present a typical residential source-seperation
program, a scenario was developed for cost analysis purposes.
A small city situation was assumed with 100 TPD of refuse
generated.  It is assumed that markets have been established for
aluminum, tin-coated steel cans, mixed glass, and newspaper.
Other assumptions concerning quantities recovered and prices
are shown in Table 15.

     All the separated materials, except for newsprint, are
collected in a compartalized truck.  The newsprint is hauled in
a trailer which is attached to the truck.   Householders are asked
to place their separated materials at curbside on a regular
collection day.  A two-man crew collects the materials and hauls
them to the city's processing center.  At the center, the mixed
glass is crushed and stored in barrels.  The cans are passed
through a magnetic separator.  Steel  and aluminum cans are
separately baled and bales stored in  the processing center.
Newsprint also is stored in the processing center-  Periodically,
a heavy-duty truck is "rented" from another city agency and used
to haul the glass, metal and newsprint to dealers.

     Participation rates of 30 and 50 percent were assumed.
Total net costs for the recovery system and landfilling the non-
recovered waste were $8.16 and $7.78  per ton, respectively,
Table 16.

Other Systems--
     Source separation systems applicable to other wastestream
generators are so widely varied that  no situation could be con-
sidered typical.  Likewise, no cost analysis was accomplished
due to the extremely site-specific nature of the systems, costs,
and revenues.

ANALYSIS

System Rating Criteria

     In order to evaluate the alternative systems identified,
rating were developed, Table 17.  The criteria selected represent
the characteristics of greatest concern (other than economic) in
determining system applicability to small  waste generators.  Site
specific factors, such as public acceptability, were not rated,
although they are extremely important.  These kinds of factors
will be dealt with in detail in Section IV.

     The concerns of small waste generators in selecting a
resource recovery system are, in many ways, similar to the con-
cerns of large municipalities.  The following are important
decision factors whether facility capacity is 100 TPD or 1000
TPD:
                                69

-------
TABLE  15.    ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCE SEPARATION COST ANALYSIS
Market
Newspaper
Mixed Glass
Tin-coated steel cans
Aluminum cans
% of
Waste Stream
10
10
5
1
Price FOB
Dealer's Yard
$20/ton loose
$15/ton crushed
$40/ton baled
$340/ton baled
Distance to
Market (mi )
60
25
40
40
i TPD Pec
30%
Participation
3
3
1.5
.3
'overed i
50%
Participation
5
5
2.5
.5

-------
TABLE 16.   COSTS ANALYSIS  FOR A  REPRESENTATIVE  SMALL  CITY  SOURCE
                     SEPARATION PROGRAM1  (100 TPD)
                                                        Amortization
                                       Initial"   Life     Factor     Annual
                                        Costs    (Years)     (8%)	Costs
CAPITAL COSTS  ($1,000)

Mobile Equipment

  Compartmentalized  truck
  Trailer and  Forklift
                       12
                       12
Stationary Equipment

  Baler and Glass  Crusher         20
  Magnetic Separator              10
  Newspaper Containers  (4)         2
Misc.  Equipment and Office  Furniture

Construction & land
  Building:  3500 ft2 @  $30/ft2
  Site Development:  20% of  bldg
  Land: 1  acre @ $10,000/acre

                     TOTAL

OPERATING COSTS ($1,000)
                      105
                       21
                       10
                             $ 24
                               32
                                5

                              136
                             $197
Labor:2

Supplies:
Energy:3
2 operators

3% of labor & maint.
                             $ 5.0
                               3.1
                               0.7
 5

20
          0.250
          0.250
0.250

0.101
           Gasoline
           Heat building
           Electricity                    1.2

Maint.:    3% of total capital  costs

Misc.:     (administrative  and  management costs)
           1% of total initial  capital costs

                    TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS($1,000)

COSTS/REVENUE PER TON ($/ton)

  System Cost
  System Revenue & 30% Participation4
  System Revenue @ 50% Participation5
  Net System Cost @ 30% Participation
  Net System Cost @ 50% Participation
  Landfill @ 30% Participation
  Landfill @ 50% Participation

  Total Net Cost for System and Landfill @ 30% Participation

  Total Net Cost for System and Landfill @ 50% Participation
          $  6
 1

14
                    $  29


                    $  24

                       1
                                                           $ 38

                                                           $ 67
                                                           $
                       2.58
                       0.42
                       0.89
                       2.16
                       1.69
                       6.45
                       6.09
                                                           $  8.16

                                                           $  7.78
                                     71

-------
TABLE 16  -  continued
 Footnotes:

 1   Data calculated by SCS Engineers from literature and vendor sources.

 2   One crew member drives compartmentalized truck, while the other collects
    the materials.  Both work in the processing center.

 3   Travel on route and to dealers average 500 miles per week @ 6 mpg and
    60<£ per gallonn.  Forklift uses equivalent of 3 gallons per day.

 **   Revenue as shown in Table 15 @ 30% participation, annual revenues = $10,884

 5   Revenue as shown in Table 15 @ 50% particpation, annual
    revenues                                                          = $23,140

 6   Cost Factors:

    •  Weight Reduction                         7.8%

    •  Cost to haul to landfill  and
      disposal                                 $7/ton

 7   Cost Factors:

    t  Weight Reduction                         13%

    •  Cost to haul to landfill  and
      disposal                                 $7/ton
                                      72

-------
                        TABLE 17.  SYSTEM RATING CRITERIA
 I.   PERFORMANCE
     A.   Reliability:   System and components  proven  to  perform dependably and
                       with minimum down-time.
         Rating.          Description
         High             Proven performance with  high  reliability
         Medium          Adequate performance with  adequate reliability
         Unacceptable     Inadequate performance with inconsistent reliability
     B.   Degree of Waste Volume Reduction
         Rating          Description
         High             >60%
         Medium           30-59%
         Low               0-29%
     C.   Freedom from  Maintenance/Simplicity
         Rating          Description
         High             Simple; minimal  skills required for operation; few or
                         no moving parts
         Medium          Moderate; intermediate in  mechanical  complexity;_oper-
                         atoon requires some  degree of  skill  and/or training
         Low             Complex; involves  sophisticated mechanical  equipment;
                         skilled and trained  operators  required

 II.   ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
      A.   Meets all minimum standards for air, noise, water and land pollution
          Rating         Description
          Acceptable     Complies with minimum standards
          Unacceptable   Does not meet standards
      B.   Maximizes resource recovery within  technological  limits
          Rating         Description
          High           Recovers maximum number  of resources; >60% of waste
          Medium         Recovers moderate number of resources; 30-59% of waste
          Low             Recovers few resources;  <29% of waste stream

III.   MARKETABILITY OF RECOVERED PRODUCT(S)
          Rating         Description
          High           Product(s) have ready markets
          Medium         Product(s) are somewhat  marketable, but prices subject
                         to cyclical swings
          Low             Product(s) difficult to  market or have very low value
                                      73

-------
     •  System reliabi1ity

     •  Compliance  with  environmental  standards

     •  Reduction in the  amount of waste requiring final
        disposal

     •  Availability of  markets for recovered products.

Certain other factors are of particular importance to small  waste
generators, especially  since their primary activity or purpose
is not solid waste  management.   These  factors include infrequent
maintenance and relatively simple technology which can be operated
by persons with minimal  skills  or the  ready availability of  per-
sonnel with the necessary operation and maintenance abilities.

Ratings

     Table 18 indicates  how each of the seven systems discussed
in this chapter were rated and  summarizes the approximate cost
data.   The costs  for the  systems may appear to be high, but  it
should be kept in mind  that they also  include landfill costs for
the unrecovered solid waste.   In analyzing the rating, modular
incineration and  source  separation clearly emerge as the highest
rated  systems.  Additionally,  these are the lowest cost systems.

     Another important  factor  in assessing the feasibility of
these  systems is  the degree of  risk that must be assumed by  the
waste  generator.   Problems related to  the comparative risks  of
each system are discussed below.

RDF--
     RDF is a high-risk  system  for a number of reasons:

     •  Market uncertainty

     •  Economic  risks  due to  larger investment
        Technological  complexity
RDF production  has  been  shown  to  be feasible on  a large scale,
but at 100 TPD  the  system is  very expensive on a per ton basis.
RDF would be economically viable  on a small scale only if the
price of RDF increased  by about $4 per ton or if RDF could
command an equivalent  price  on  a  B'TU basis with  coal (which is
not likely in the  near  future).   At the present  time, RDF is not
a desirable fuel  due  to  the  inconvenience and extra expense in-
volved in its handling,  storage and use.   The high net cost and
high degree of  system  complexity  makes this system appear unat-
tractive for a  small  waste generator.
                               74

-------
                                            TABLE  18.  SYSTEM RATING
                               	System Rating  Criteria  (TOO TPD  System)  	

                                 Waste      Freedom from
                                Volume      Maintenance;    Environmental   Resource  Marketability     Net
                  Reliability  Reduction  1.e. ,  Simplicity     Standards     Recovery  of Product(s)  Cost/Ton*
Ferrous
Recovery
Compost
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Acceptable
Acceptable
Low
Medium
Low
Low
$15.38
26.70
    Compost with
    Ferrous
    Recovery        Medium      High

^   RDF with
01   Ferrous
    Recovery        Medium      High

    Incineration
    with Energy
    Recovery        High         High

    Incineration
    with Ferrous
    and Energy
    Recovery        Medium      High

    Source
    Separation      Medium      Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
High
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
                       **
High
High
High
Acceptable^*    High
Low
Medium
High
Acceptable
Medium
            Medium
Medium
26.05
13.61
11.68
             11.95
 8.16
           * Cost of operating system minus revenues plus disposal  of non-recovered material.

          ** May require external  air pollution control  equipment.

-------
Ferrous Recovery--
     The major risks involved with this  system are economic.
Because the price for ferrous fluctuates and a relatively large
capital cost is necessary for this system,  the potential  return
on investment is very low.   Even  at a market price of $40 per
ton, the net cost of this system  is $15.38  per ton.   Since the
majority of small waste generators produce  far less  than  100 TPD,
the system also cannot be justified unless  circumstances  put a
high value on volume reduction and subsequent landfill  space
savings.

Compost--
     Compost systems combine the  problems associated with RDF and
ferrous recovery.  The mechanical  processing system  requires a
high capital investment, but the  subsequent product  has virtually
no market.  Many of the waste generators in this  study, such as
universities, garden apartments,  and trailer parks,  could poten-
tially have use for compost.   However,  the  high  cost and  high
level  of processing necessary for  this  system do  not make mechani-
cal composting appear worthwhile.

Modular Incineration--
     Modular incineration has an  environmental  risk  of  potential
production of air pollution.   An  ongoing EPA study is analyzing
emissions from operation facilities.   This  study  will determine
the potential for air emissions from these  incinerators.

     Economic risk associated with modular  units  is  not as great
as that for RDF plants.   Steam produced  by  modular incinerators
is a marketable product and  is in  a form readily  acceptable to
industrial users.  The market for  the stream must be within a
couple of miles from the generator, and  the closer the  user and
generator are the higher the economic value of the steam.

     Although it is a complex technology, it is  easily  operated
by persons with moderate skills.   Processing does not require
multiple steps, and handling is minimal.  Units  are  available in
size from 3 TPD, thus making modular incinerators particularly
applicable to small waste generators.

Source Separation--
     Source separation also  has the problem of variable demand
for recovered materials.  The major advantage of  this system,
however, is the relatively  low capital  investment required.  It
is also a highly flexible system  as additional  materials  may be
recovered as they become economically attractive.  There  is a
moderate degree of inconvenience  in handling, storage,  and pro-
cessing of the recovered materials.

     Probably the major problems  with this  system is in estab-
lishing a high level of public participation and  maintaining ade-
quate  purity of the recoverd materials.   Despite  these  problems,
                               76

-------
the level of risk involved with this system is moderate.   The
degree of risk is sufficiently small enough for over 200  commun-
ities to have adopted source separation programs, (Personal
communication.  David Cohen, Environmental  Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.   August 17, 1978).

Conclusion

     Modular incineration (recovering energy but not ferrous)
and source separation have been identified  as the two most feas-
ible systems with the lowest relative costs and risks for small
waste generators.  The next section will  assess the applicability
of these systems  to the specific waste generators identified in
Section II.
                               77

-------
                        REFERENCES
1.   Ware,  S.A.   Single cell  protein and other food recovery
    technologies from waste.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency,  Washington,  D.C.   1977.  pp.  10

2.   Resource recovery activities  ---  a status report.   National
    Center for  Resource  Recovery,  Washington, D.C.  September,
    1978.   n.p.

3.   Energy recovery down on  the  farm:   Arkansas  chicken coop
    manufacturer wins $440,000 grant  to develop  pyrolysis
    system.   Solid  Waste Systems.  6(6): 14.   1977.

4.   Garbe, Y.M.  and S.J.  Levy.   Resource  recovery plant imple-
    mentation:  guides for municipal officials -  markets.   U.S.
    Environmental  Protection  Ag-ency,  Washington,  D.C.   1976.
    pp.  32.

5.   SCS  Engineers.   Analysis  of source separate  collection of
    recyclable  solid waste.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency,  Washington,  D.C.   1974.  pp.  10.

6.   Announced paperstock prices.   Office Board Markets.
    54 (26): 9.   1978.

7.   Materials newsfront.  Iron Age.  221  (23): 95.  1978

8.   Chemical Engineering.  84 (10): 99.  1977.
                              78

-------
                           SECTION IV
             APPLICABILITY OF  SELECTED  SYSTEMS TO
                        WASTE GENERATORS
     Modular incineration and source separation are the two
systems that have been selected as being most applicable to small
waste generators.  In this chapter, the feasibility of imple-
menting these systems for the specific waste generators described
in Section II will be examined.   The first part of this section
describes the general and site-specific factors that decision-
makers must consider before adoption of these systems.  The
second part presents recommendations for each waste generator,
and the third discusses the impediments to implementation of
these systems.
DECISION-MAKING CRITERIA
     When selecting any solid waste management system, numerous
decision-making criteria must be assessed, such as:
     t  Legal considerations
           Can the waste generator negotiate contracts?
           Can the waste generator enter into long-term
           contracts?
           Who has control of the waste stream?
     t  Environmental constraints
           Will the proposed system meet all applicable
           air, water and noise standards?
     t  Financial concerns
           Does the waste generator have financing capabilities?
           What type of financing method is most feasible?
     •  Institutional constraints
            Can  the waste  generator  own  the  solid waste
           management facility?
           Does the generator have the expertise, capability,
           or desire to operate the facility?
                                79

-------
        -   Are  substantial  changes  in  present solid waste
           collection  practices  necessary?

           Are  building  design  and  operations flexible enough
           to  incorporate  changes?

     •  Economic  considerations

           Is  a market readily  available  for  recovered products?

           Will the  proposed  system cost  more than  the existing
           system?

        -   What savings  will  result from  the  proposed system?

     •  Technical  feasibility

           Are  waste stream characteristics  and  quantity
           compatible  with  the  proposed system?

           Is  the  system proven?

           Is  the  system reliable?

           Can  the  system  be  run  by waste generator personnel?

     t  Community  acceptance

           Is  public participation  necessary?

           Is  the  site or  system  controversial?

     Although  some  of  these considerations  generally apply to
broad resource  recovery  issues,  and others  are site specific
characteristics,  they  must  all  be assessed  for each individual
situation.   Generally, a system  is  designed  for  a  particular site
where all  of these  variables  and  questions  can be  readily iden-
tified.

EVALUATION

     This  analysis  deals with "representative" waste generators;
therefore,  numerous  assumptions  concerning  these variables have
been made  to facilitate  the evaluation.   These assumptions pre-
suppose  certain conditions  under  which the  systems  operate and
make generalizations about the  various waste  generators.

     General assumptions made which apply to  both  source separa-
tion and modular  incinerator  systems are:

     t  The waste  generator has  the legal authority to
        negotiate  and  enter into  long-term contracts.
                               80

-------
     •   An  identifiable central  authority has  control  over
        the waste stream.

     •   All applicable environmental  standards will  be met.

     t   The waste generator has  financing capabilities.

     •   The generators are under no long-term  solid  waste
        management contracts.

     •   The generator will own and/or operate  the proposed
        system.

     •   Markets  are avaiable for recovered products  at current
        average  prices.

     t   Generators would be willing to change  solid  waste
        management systems if the proposed system is more
        economi cal.

     •   Existing system cost is  the current combined collection
        and land disposal  cost for all generators and  is  $28
        per ton.  Cost for disposal only is $7 per ton,
        (Personal communication.  Sam Ziff, Browning Ferris
        Industries, Merrifield,  Virginia.  May 17, 1978).

     •   Per day  costs are  based  on a  260 day per year  operation

General  assumptions made which apply  to modular incineration  are

     t   Modular  incinerators are assumed to be 50 percent
        efficient in converting  potential energy to  usable
        energy.

     •   Coal boilers are assumed to be 65 percent efficient.

     •   Natural  gas boilers are  assumed to be  70 percent
        efficient.

     •   Costs for energy from fossil  fuels assumed as  shown.
        Fuel costs are based on  national averages, except
        for natural gas, which is the cost in  Virginia,
        (Personal communication.  M.  Weiner, Washington  Gas
        Light Company, Washington, D.C.  July  27, 1978;
        S.  Zvindarm, American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
        D.C.  July 27, 1978; and Rosanne Schwaderer, Coal
        Week Magazine, Washington, D.C.  July  24, 1978).

                Natural Gas  =  $2.50 per 105  BTU

                Oil          =  $1.67 per 106  BTU

                Coal         =  $1.00 per 106  BTU

                               81

-------
Natural gas was selected as auxiliary fuel for
modular incinerators; however, oil could be used.
The value of the output energy was calculated based
on the equivalent BTU value for coal, making the
cost/revenue estimates very conservative.

No change in existing collection practices for any
of the waste generators was necessary unless other-
wisestated.

Labor costs, including fringe benefits, are $6.50
per hour for laborers and loaders and $7.80 per
hour for supervisors.

Modular units less  than 25 TPD require only building
modifications for installation, whereas units larger
than 25 TPD require their own buildings.

Modular unit sizes  for which costs were derived are
listed below, (Personal communication.  Lee Wiles,
Air Pollution Control Products, Alexandria, Virginia,
July 20, 1978):
        24 Hr Per Day
          Operati on

        3 - 4.3 TPD
                                         8  Hr  Per  Day
                                         Operation

                                         3.3  -  4.4 TPD
                                 4.4 -  6.4 TPD

                                 6 - 8.4 TPD

                                 8.4 -  11.2 TPD
                5.2  -  6.7  TPD

                5.6  -  8.2  TPD

                9.7  -  13.2 TPD

                25  TPD

                25  TPD

General  assumptions  made which  apply  to  source  separation  are

     •  Participation  rates  of  30  percent  and  50  percent
        for newspaper, glass,  ferrous  and  aluminum.

     •  Total  net  cost for recovery  are  $8.16  per input
        ton -  30 percent participation and $7.78  per
        input  ton  -  50 percent  participation,  Section  Ill-
        Table  9.

     •  A participation rate of 70" percent for  high-grade
        paper  recovery.

     •  A participation rate of 70 percent for  corrugated
        recovery,  unless otherwise stated.
                      82

-------
        The following prices for various materials:

        -  Newspaper (1):    $ 34 per ton, baled, delivered

                             $ 15 per ton, loose, delivered

           Corrugated (1):   $ 10 per ton, compacted,  picked-up

                             $ 30 per ton, baled, picked-up
           Glass (5) :
           Ferrous (2)

           Alumi num •
           Hi gh-Grade
           Paper (1):
$ 30 per ton, delivered
(Personal  communication.   Murray
Fox, Recycling Enterprises, Inc.,
Oxford, Massachusetts.   July 7,
1978; and  Peter Karter, Resource
Recovery Systems, Inc., Branford,
Connecticut.   July 7, 1978).

$ 40 per ton, flattened,  delivered

$340 per ton, flattened,  delivered
(Personal  communication.   Robert
Testin, Reynolds Aluminum, Rich-
mond, Virginia.  July 11, 1978).
$ 55 per ton, loose, picked-up
     •  A maximum of 100 miles distance to market for delivered
        materials .

SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS

     Matrices were  developed for each waste generator which  show
the applicability of modular incineration, source separation,
and/or a combination of the two systems.   These matrices  define
the minimum conditions under which each of these systems  are
economically feasible.  A detailed discussion of how these
matrices were developed for each system is given below.

Modular Incineration
     The procedure  used to evaluate the applicability of  modular
incineration is indicated as follows:

     Step 1:  Determine whether a market  exists for the  energy.

     Step 2:  Determine costs of incineration.

              a.  Manufacturers information was obtained  on
                  incinerator sizes available and their  costs.

              b.  Total annual costs, including capital,  opera-
                  ting, and ash collection and landfill  disposal

                               83

-------
(at $28 per ton)  were determined for each
unit size available.

The smallest energy recovery unit currently
available which operates on a 24 hour per
day basis processes 3 to 4.3 tons per day.
The smallest 8 hour per day unit processes
3.3 to 4.4 tons per day.  The 24 hour per
day units are more expensive due to additional
equipment (e.g.,  automatic ash handling)  and
operating costs necessary.  However, many
users may require 24  hour per day steam pro-
duction rather than an interrupted steam  supply

The BTU value of  the  waste stream is estab-
lished for each waste generator and is
dependent on waste stream composition.  Based
on information developed in Section II, a
typical waste stream  composition for each
generator was defined.  Various waste stream
components have the following BTU values  (3):
     Paper

     Plastic

     Organi cs

     Wood
         15.5 x 106 BTU per ton

           36 x 106 BTU per ton

            4 x 106 BTU per ton

           16 x 106 BTU per ton
Therefore,
of a waste
below:
an example of how the BTU value
stream is derived is indicated
Typical  Waste
   Stream
                BTU Value
Paper   - 35%:(15.5 x 106BTU/ton)  x 0.35
                     =  5,4 x 106 BTU/ton

Plastic - 10%:(   36 x 106BTU/ton)  x 0.10
                     =  3.6 x 106 BTU/ton

Organics- 10%:(    4 x 106BTU/ton)  x 0.10
              	=  0.4 x 106 BTU/ton
              Total=9.4 x 106BTU/ton=4700 BTU/lb

Revenues for steam vary depending on the BTU
value of the waste.   For example, a ton of
solid waste with a BTU value of 5,000 BTU per
pound has a heating  value of 10 x 106 BTU,
               84

-------
                  which at $1.00 per 1 O6  BTU equals $10.00.   A
                  ton of solid waste with a BTU value of 7,000
                  BTU per pound has a heating value of 14 x  1O6
                  BTU, and is worth $14.00.  The BTU values  for
                  the waste generators  ranges from 5,000 to
                  7,500 BTU per pound.   Therefore, revenues
                  for steam were determined for each BTU value
                  represented.

              e.   Net costs for each unit equalled the total
                  annual costs minus the  steam revenues at
                  various BTU values.  These net costs were
                  compared with the cost  of existing collection
                  and landfill disposal  systems handling an
                  equivalent amount of  waste.  Breakeven points
                  were established whereby the cost of incinera-
                  tor units processing  a  minimum TPD was equal
                  to or less than the existing system.

     Step 3:   Determine solid waste generation rates for each
              generator.  An average range of rates was estab-
              lished for each generator as discussed in Section
              II.

     Step 4:   Establish minimum size generators based on dif-
              ferent generation rates for which modular incinera
              tion is feasible.  For example, typical hospital
              waste generation rates range between 10 and 25
              pounds per bed per day.  If the smallest econo-
              mically feasible modular  incinerator processes
              4 TPD, then two minimum conditions exist:

                 Condition 1:  At 10 pounds per bed per day,
                 an 800 bed hospital will generate the required
                 four tons per day.

                 Condition 2:  At 25 pounds per bed per day,  a
                 320 bed hospital is the  minimum size necessary.

     In order to  aid in evaluating the  applicability of modular
incineration  to a  broader range of criteria than listed above,
a series of graphs w?re prepared for each waste stream generator
considered as a possible user of this system.  The graphs allow
for economic  evaluation of this approach  when certain site
specific data are  known.  The graphs and  instructions are in-
cluded in Appendix G.

Source Separation

     Step 1:   Materials to be recycled  were selected based on
              percent present in waste  stream and amount genera-
              ted  per day.  Markets for materials determined  to
              be  economically recoverable were assumed to exist.


                               85

-------
     Step 2:   Determine costs  of source  'Separation.

              a.   Determine  incremental  costs  of source
                  separation  compared  to existing system.

              b.   Estimate  new capital  costs  plus incremental
                  operating  costs  plus  collection and  disposal
                  cost  for  non-source  separated  materials  to
                  determine  total  annual  costs.   These vary
                  depending  on the type  of  materials  recovered,
                  the  type  of  waste generator,  and tlve amount
                  of materials recovered.

              c.   Estimate  revenues from source  separation.
                  These are  equal  to the revenue from  the  sale
                  of materials.

              d.   Net  cost  of  a  source  separation system  equals
                  total  annual  cost minus  revenue.   This  net
                  cost  is  compared with  the cost of  the existing
                  collection  and disposal  system handling  an
                  equivalent  amount of  waste.   Breakeven  points
                  were  established whereby  the  cost  of the source
                  separation  system together  with the  modified
                  existing  system  is equal  to  or less  than the
                  cost  of  the  existing  system.

     Step 3:   Generation  rates and waste stream  composition are
              established,  again based  on  Section II  information.

     Step 4:   Minimum  size  generators  are  established  based on
              different generation rates.   For  example, it was
              determined  that  high-gradepaper  represents  43
              percent  of  the  waste stream  in  office  buildings.
              At  a recovery  rate of 70  percent,  0.075  TPD  is the
              breakeven  point.

              -   Condition  1:   At  a generation  rate  of 1  pound
                 per office  employee per day,  a  minimum size
                 office of  150 employees are  required  to  generate
                 0.075  TPD.

              -   Condition  2:   At  a generation  rate  of 1.5
                 pounds per  office employee per  day,  a minimum
                 size  of  100  employees  is  necessary.

Modular Incineration and  Source  Separation

     Step 1:   Recalculate  BTU  value of  waste  stream  due to
              removal  of  combustible materials  through source
              separation.   Using Table  19,  locate the  sub-
              table for appropriate BTU  value  of waste stream.
                               86

-------
TABLE   19.
BTU AND  FUEL SAVINGS ADJUSTMENT
     FACTORS
5000 BTU/lb
MATERIAL
Newspaper
Corrugated
High-Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
Aluminum Cans
Ferrous Cans
Glass
% Reduction In Waste Stream
10
.83
.84
.83
.85



20
.66
.68
.66
.70



30
.49
.52
.49
.55



40
.32
.36
.32
.40

NO

50
.15
.20
.15
.25

BTU VA

60





LUE

70







80







90







100







                          5500 BTU/lb
MATERIAL
Newspaper
Corrugated
High-Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
% Reduction in Waste Stream
10
.85
.85
.85
.86
20
.69
.71
.69
.73
30
.54
.56
.54
.59
40
.38
.42
.38
.45
50

.27
.23
.32
60

.13

.18
70




80




90




100




                          6000 BTU/lb
MATERIAL
Newspaper
Corrugated
High-Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
% Reduction in Waste Stream
16
.86
.87
.86
.88
20
.72
.73
.72
.75
30
.58
.60
.58
.63
40
.43
.47
.43
.50
50
.29
.33
.29
.38
60

.20
.15
.25
70



.13
80




90




TOO




                          7000 BTU/lb
MATERIAL
Newspaper
Corrugated
High-Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
% Reduction in Waste Stream
10
.88
.89
.88
.89
20
.76
.77
.76
.79
30
.64
.66
.64
.68
40
.51
.54
.51
.57
50
.39
.43
.39
.46
60

.31
.27
.36
70


.15
.25
80



.14
90




100




                          7500 BTU/lb
MATERIAL
Newspaper
Corrugated
H1gh-Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
% Reduction in Waste Stream
10
.89
.89
.89
.90
20
.77
.79
.77
.80
30
.66
.68
.66
.70
40
.55
.57
.55
.60
50
.46
.47
.46
.50
60

.39
.32
.40
70

.25
.22
.30
80



.20
90



.10
100




  Source:   SCS  Engineers based  on  energy
            content  of removed material as
            referred in the text.
                      87

-------
         Find material(s)  being separated in the vertical
         column.   Move  across  the table to percent value
         equal  to the percent  of material being recovered.
         Read adjustment  factor and multiply BTU value of
         waste  stream by  this  factor to determine the new
         BTU value of the  waste stream.  For example, in a
         waste  stream with 7,000 BTU per pound, where
         corrugated is  20  percent of the waste stream and
         70 percent of  that is recovered, what is the energy
         content  of the remaining waste?  The recovered
         paper  represents  14 percent of the waste stream.
         The adjustment factor for corrugated from the 7,000
         BTU per  pound  table is between 0.89 and 0.77.
         Interpolation  yields  a factor of 0.84.  Thus, the
         remaining waste  contains 0.84 x 7,000 BTU per pound
         or 5,880 BTU per  pound.

Step 2:   Recalculate energy revenues based on adjusted
         BTU value for  waste stream.

Step 3:   Determine new  modular incineration net costs based
         on adjusted revenues  and adjusted TPD capacity.

Step 4:   Establish new  breakeven point for each waste
         generator where  modular incineration is feasible.
         These  new breakeven points will generally be at
         higher TPD capacity due to the reduction in  BTU
         value  of the waste.

Step 5:   Determine the  net costs for source separation
         system and modular incineration together using the
         new incineration  breakeven points.  This is
         determined by  computing the total capital and
         operating costs  for both systems, plus the cost
         of collection  and disposal of residue, minus the
         revenue  from recovered energy and materials.

Step 6:   Compare  the net  cost  of the combined systems with
         the cost for the  existing collection and disposal
         system.   A new breakeven point is established for
         the new  combined  system if the net costs are less
         than or  equal  to  the  existing system.

         For example, if  university waste has 6,000 BTU per
         pound  and high-grade  paper is source-separated at
         50 percent participation, 7.5 percent of the waste
         stream is removed.  The new BTU value of the waste
         is (.895)(6,000)  = 5,370 BTU per pound.  At  this
         reduced  rate,  the breakeven point for modular in-
         cineration is  a  4.4 TPD unit.  Due to the 7.5 per-
         cent reduction in the waste stream, 4.8 TPD  is the
         minimum  amount of waste required to yield 4.4 TPD
         to the incinerator.  Costs for this example  were

                          88

-------
              calculated using the approaches for source
              separation and modular incineration shown  in
              Section III with costs converted to a daily basis.
              These costs are summarized below:

              -  Total  cost = $292 per day

                     Modular incineration capital and
                     operating costs = $226 per  day

                     Collection and disposal  of  30 percent
                     residue = $36 per day

                     Capital and operating cost  of source
                     separation system = $30  per day

                 Total  Revenue = $165 per day

                     Energy revenue = $143 per day

                     Material revenue = $22 per  day

              -  Net cost = $127 per day

                 Cost of existing system = ($28  per ton) x
                 (4.8 TPD) = $134 per day.

              Therefore, the combined system  of  modular  incin-
              eration and source separation of high-grade is
              economical at greater than 4.8  TPD.

     Step 7:   Generation rates based on Section  II information
              are determined.

     Step 8:   Determine minimum size generator.   At a generation
              rate of 1 pound per student per day, a university
              with at least 9,600 students is necessary  to
              generate  4.8 TPD.  If the rate  is  1.5 pounds  per
              student per day, a student body size of 6,400
              is the minimum.

     Following is a detailed discussion of each  waste generator
and its applicability matrix.

Airports

     Airport solid waste is assumed to have the  following charac'
teristi cs:
                               89

-------
     Component

     Paper

     Plastic

     Wood

     Organi cs
 Percent in
Haste Stream

     50

     10

      6

     15
 BTU Value
106 BTU/Ton

    7.8

    3.6

    1 .0

    0.6
     Other (e.g. ,glass ,metals) 1 9
                      Total   100
                        13.0
                                           = 6,500 BTU per pound
     These characteristics  are  a  composite of an airport that
has a passenger terminal,  an  air  freight  area,  an aircraft ser-
vice area, and an  aircraft  maintenance base.   Larger airports
usually have all  four of these  activities, whereas  smaller ones
may not.   However,  the BTU  value  of the waste will  probably not
vary significantly.   Generation rates; however,  could be quite
different depending  on whether  all  four of these airport activi-
ties are  present  or  not.   Typical  generation  rates  for each area
are listed below:

            Terminal  - 0.5  pounds  per passenger  per day

            Air Freight -  7 pounds  per ton cargo per day

            Aircraft  Service  Center - 1 pound per passenger
                                      per day

            Aircraft  Maintentance  Base -  2.2  pounds per passen-
                                         ger  per day

     As can be seen,  depending  on  the combination of airport
activities, various  rates  may apply,  but  rates  of 0.25, 0.5,
and 1.5 pounds per  passenger  per  day  were selected  as repre-
sentative.
     It was  determined that modular
for wastes from the entire airport,
system cost  per day is less than  existing
Corrugated recovery and baling was deemed
freight area and the aircraft maintenance
centrated in these areas.   Metal  recovery
by many airports with maintenance areas
ternative was not investigated.
           incineration was feasible
           as shown in Table 20.  (New
                 system cost per day.)
                 viable from the air
                 area as it is con-
                 is currently practiced
               and therefore this al-
                               90

-------
TABLE 20.   RESOURCE RECOVERY APPLICABLE TO AIRPORTS
MODULAR
INCINERATION
Condition 1
80,000
passengers/day
Condition 2
40.000
passengers/day
Condition 3
13,350
passengers/day
Condition 4
32,000
passengers/day
Condition 5
10,000
passengers/day
Condition 6
5,350
passenger/ day
SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
Airfreight
area, 200
TPD Cargo
Condition 2
Aircraft
Maintenance
Base-1,150
empl oyees
On-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/10'
BTU








Materials
Market







Corrugated
$30/ton

BTU/
Ib
Waste
6500








TPD
10


4



.7
1.3
Generation
Rate
.25 Ib/
passenger/
day
.5 Ib/
passenger/
day
1.5 Ib/
passenger/
day
.25 Ib/
passenger/
day
.5 Ib/
passenger/
day
1.5 Ib/
passenger/
day

7 Ibs/ton
cargo/
day
2.2 Ibs/
employee/
day
Waste Composition
Paper 503! Organics 153!
Plastic 10% Other 16%
Wood 8%






Corrugated 32*
Corrugated 36%
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day


8 hr/
day



70%
70%
Existing
System
Cost/Day
$280


$112



$ 9
$ 18
New Systen
Net Cost/
Day
$269


$107



$ 9
$ 18

-------
     An analysis  of source separation with modular incineration
was not done because not all  airports have freight and main-
tenance areas.   Site specific evaluations would be required to
determine the applicability of this system.   However, it is
possible that such a system will  work for the large airports.
Figures 5 and 6 show the breakeven points for corrugated re-
covery.

Shopping Centers

     Waste composition  for this  generator is  assumed to be:

                           Percent in          BTU Value
          Component       Waste  Stream     ,  106  BTU/ton

          Paper                80                  11.3

             (Corrugated-52)

          Plastics              7.5                 2.7

          Other (e.g. .glass)    12.5                 —
                     Total     100                   14

                                           =  7,000 BTU per pound

     Waste generation from  regional  shopping  centers  were deter-
mined to typically be 20,  25,  and  30 pounds per 1,000 square
feet gross leasable area (SFGLA)  per day.   Most shopping malls
are not presently designed  to  easily allow changes in solid
waste handling practices.   However,  it was assumed for this
analysis that existing practices  would be  modified somewhat.

     Modular incineration  is  feasible over the whole  range of re-
gional  shopping mall  sites.   As  seen in Table 21,  source separa-
tion of corrugated was analyzed  and  it was determined to be
feasible under certain conditions.   It was assumed that separate
compactors would be installed  by  the paper stock dealers for a
small rental fee in the shopping  mall at various locations exclu-
sively  for corrugated disposal.   It  is assumed that the paper
stock dealer will pick-up  the  compacted corrugated and the shop-
ping center would receive  $10  per  ton.  Waste management is not
handled by each individual  store,  but by a central mall manage-
ment.  Figure 7 shows the  breakeven  point  for corrugated recov-
ery; i.e., in all shopping  center  with more than 200,000 SFGLA.
It was  also determined that  source separation of corrugated and
modular incineration  combined  are  also feasible.
                               92

-------
vo
CO
      o
      tn
      o
      o
      uj
      z
 + 9-



 +6-


 43-



  O



 -3-


 -6-



 -9-



 -12-



 -15-


 -18-



 -21-



-24-


-27
                                                         28/TON  REFUSE DISPOSAL
                     IOO
                     200
300
400
500
6OO
700
800
90O
IOOO
                                          BREAKEVEN

                                            POINT

                                             340
                                               TONS OF CARGO
                           Figure  5.     Air  freight area  -  corrugated recovery.

-------
      +15-

      -H2-

      + 9-

      +6-
                                                    28/TON  REFUSE DISPOSAL
vo
    O
    o
-6-

-9-

-12-




-18-

-21-

-24
                       2000
                        BREAKEVEN
                          POINT
                          2280
                                            3000


                                              EMPLOYEES
4000
5000
                                   Figure  6.   Airport  maintenance base -  corrugated  recovery.

-------
             TABLE 21     RESOURCE RECOVERY APPLICABLE
                          TO SHOPPING  CENTERS
MODULAR
INCINERATION
Condition 1
800,000
SFGLA*
Condition 2
640,000
SFGLA
Condition 3
535,000
SFGLA
Condition 4
400,000
SFGLA
Condition 5
320,000
SFGLA
Condition 6
265,000
SFGLA
SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
280,000
SFGLA
Condition 2
224,000
SFGLA
Condition 3
190,000
SrGLA
MODULAR
INCINERATION
and SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
1,560,000
SFGLA
Condition 2
1,250,000
SFGLA
Condition 3
1,040,000
SFGLA
Condition 4
630,000
SFGLA
Condition 5
504,000
SFGLA
Condition 6
420,000
SFGLA
On-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/106
BTU
"
"
"
"
"

N/A


On-S1te
Energy
Use
$1/10'
BTU
II
"
"
II
"
Materials
Market
N/A
II
"
••
II
-

Corrugated
$10/ton
"
"
Materials
Market
Corrugated
$10/ton
II
»
"
II
»
BTU/
Ib
Waste
7000
"
"
"
II
"




BTU/
Ib
Waste
4116
II
••
"
II
II
1
TPD
8
"
II
4
II
•'

2.8
>•
"
TPD
15.6
(10 TPD
MOD INC)
II
»
6.3
(4 TPD
MOD INC)
"
n
Generation
Rate
20 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
25 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
30 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
20 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
25 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
30 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day

20 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
25 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
30 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
Generation
Rate
20 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
25 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
30 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
20 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
25 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
30 lbs/1000
SFGLA/day
Waste Composition
Paper 805!
Plastic 7.5*
Other 12.5%
»
"
"
"
"

Corrugated 52%

"
Waste Composition
Corrugated 52*
"
"
"
II
••
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
"
"
8 hr/
day
"
<.

70*
"
"
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
70*
"
••
8 hr/
day
70*
»
II
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$224
"
"
$112
"
II

$ 78
II
••
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$437
»
•'
$176
"
"
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$220
»
»
$104
»
•>

$ 78
••
«
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$404
»
II
$163
"
II
SFGLA:  Square Feet Gross Leasable Area.
                                    95

-------
                                                          $28/TON  REFUSE  DISPOSAL
CTi
       -10-
     0-20-
    -in-
     8-30-1
     o

     Z-40-
      -50-
POINT WHERE PAPER DEALER
FINDS COST OF PROVIDING
CONTAINER AND PICK-UP
PROHIBITIVE
        100,000       200,000       300,000       400,000       500,000       600,000

                                              SQUARE FEET GROSS LEASEABLE AREA
                                                             700,000
800,000
900,000
                                   Figure   7
                            Shopping  centers-corrugated  recovery

-------
Hospitals
     The composition of typical hospital waste is described
below:
       Component

       Paper

       Plastics

       Organi cs

       Misc.

       Other(e.g. ,glass )

                  Total
                      Percent in
                     Waste Stream

                         40

                         15

                         25

                         10

                         10
 BTU  Value
IP6  BTU/Ton

    6.2

    5.4

    1 .0

    1 .4
                        100
   14
                                           = 7,000 BTU per pound
upon
ward
pi te
fore
day
 Generation rates vary widely between hospitals dependent
 the quantity of disposable items in use.   The trend is  to-
 increased use of these items due to their convenience,  des-
 increased solid waste management costs that result.  There-
,  generation rates of 10, 15, 20 and 25 pounds per bed per
were used.  Bed capacity of 7,200 hospitals in the United
States was surveyed
t r i b u t i o n ( 4) :
                and the results showed the following dis-
              Bed Capacity

                0-50
               51 - 100
              101 - 250

              251 - 500
               Over  500
                               Percent of Hospitals

                                       26
                                       24
                                       25
                                       15
                                       10
     Table 22 indicates that modular incineration is feasible in
hospitals with greater than 300 beds and high generation rates.
Thus, this system may be applicable to over 20 percent of the
hospitals.
     Due to the
other hazardous
for hospitals.
            problems of contamination from infectious and
            wastes, source separation was not investigated
                               97

-------
TABLE 22     RESOURCE RECOVERY
                HOSPITALS
APPLICABLE TO
MODULAR
INCINERATION
Condition 1
1,600
beds
Condition 2
1,067
beds
Condition 3
800
beds
Condition 4
640
beds
Condition 5
BOO
beds
Condition 6
533
beds
Condition 7
400
beds
Condition 8
320
beds
On-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/106
BTU
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Materials
Market
N/A
••
"
"
•'
"
II
.1
BTU/
Ib
Waste
7000
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
TPD
8
"
»
II
4
"
••
"
Generation
Rate
10 IDS/
bed/day
15 IDS/
bed/day
20 IDS/
bed/day
25 IDS/
bed/day
10 Ibs/
bed/day
15 Ibs/
bed/day
20 Ibs/
bed/day
25 Ibs/
bed/day
Waste Composition
Paper 40% Misc 10%
Plastic 15% Other 10%
Organics 25%
„
II II
„
II It
„
„
„
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
"
»
»
8 hr/
day
«
»
"
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$224
"
"
»
$112
<•
"
"
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$220
"
«
»
$104
"
«
II
                       98

-------
Prisons

     A typical  prison waste stream has the following BTU value
and composition:

                            Percent in          BTU Value
       Component            Waste Stream        106 BTU/Ton

       Paper                    59                 7.7

           (Corrugated-23)

       Plastics                  8                 2.9

       Organics                 10                 0.4

       Other(e.g.,glass.metals) 23                 ---
                       Total    100                11.0

                                           = 5,500 BTU per pound

     Waste generation rates for prisons do not include prison
industrial areas as this type of activity is site-specific.
Therefore, generation rates of 4, 5, and 6 pounds per inmate per
day were used.   It was determined that corrugated was the most
feasible material  for recovery.  Ferrous is currently recovered
at many prisons in conjunction with industrial activities, and
recovery potential of this material should be determined on  an
individual basis.

     Since corrugated is generally concentrated in the prison
supply area, a  fairly high recovery rate of 80 percent was used.
It was assumed  that prisoners would be used to collect and bale
the corrugated  at  a wage rate of $0.35 per hour,  (Personal com-
munication.   Glenn Carpenter, Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.   June 9,  1978).   The additional time needed  to perform
these tasks  was estimated at  10 hours per 100 inmates per week.
For modular  incineration, it  is assumed that outside labor would
be hired to  operate the energy recovery facility-  The two
largest Federal prisons have  about 2,000 inmates.  The other 42
institutions have  prison populations of about a thousand or  less
(5).   The current  trend in prison construction is toward smaller
facilities with maximum inmate populations of 500, (Personal
communication.   Glenn Carpenter, Department of Justice, Washing-
ton,  D.C.  June 9, 1978).  Therefore, modular incineration is
shown in Table  23  to be feasible in only the largest existing
prisons and  only on an 8 hour per day basis with  waste generation
rates greater  than 5 pounds per inmate per day.  Corrugated
recovery appears to be feasible for most prisons, while a com-
bined modular  incineration and corrugated recovery system is
feasible only  in the very largest prisons at high generation
                               99

-------
TABLE 23    RESOURCE  RECOVERY  APPLICABLE  TO  PRISIONS
MODULAR
INCINERATION
Condition 1
5,500
inmates
Condition 2
4,400
inmates
Condition 3
3,670
inmates
Condition 4
4,400
inmates
Condition 5
1,760
inmates
Condition 6
1,470
inmates
SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
750
Inmates
Condition 2
600
inmates
Condition 3
500
inmates
. MODULAR
INCINERATION
and SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
2,700
1 nmates
Condition 2
2,160
inmates
Condition 3
1,800
inmates
On-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/106
BTU
»
•<
"
»
••

N/A
II
'•
On-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/10"
BTU
"
"
Materials
Market
N/A
II
"
"
"
ii

Corrugated
$30/ton
'<
"
Materials
Market
Corrugated
$30/ton
II
II
BTU/
Ib
Waste
5500
"
II
"
"
«

II
"
It
BTU/
Ib
Waste
3,960
II
II
TPD
11
"
"
4.4
"
"

1.5
"
tl
TPD
5.4
"
"
Generation
Rate
4 Ibs/
i nmate/
day
5 Ibs/
i nmate/
day
6 Ibs/
i nmate/
day
4 Ibs/
inmate/
day
5 Ibs/
Inmate/
day
6 Ibs/
inmate/
day

4 Ibs/
inmate/
day
5 Ibs/
i nmate/
day
6 Ibs/
1 nmate/
day
Generation
Rate
4 Ibs/
inmate/
day
5 Ibs
inmate/
day
6 Ibs/
inmate/
day
Waste Composition
Paper 59* Other 23%
Plastic 8%
Orqanics 103!
ii n
„
„
„
n ii

Corrugated 23%
"
"
Waste Composition
Corrugated 23J!
"
"
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
"
"
8 hr/
day
"
"

80%
"
"
Recovery
Rate
8 hr/
day
80%
«
•'
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$308
"
"
$123
"
•'

$ 42
»
>•
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$151
"
"
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$284
"
••
$112
11
II

$ 42
"
"
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$120
'•
»
                        TOO

-------
rates.   Figure 8 shows the breakeven point for corrugated re-
covery.

Universities

     Waste from a typical  university was assumed to have the
following characteristics:
                           Percent in
                          Waste Stream

                               65
Component

Paper

  (High Grade-15)

Plastics               3

Organics              10

Misc.                  4

Other(e.g.,glass)     18


           Total     100
IP6  BTU/Ton

    10.1



     0.1

     0.4

     0.4
                                                  12.0
                                           = 6,000 BTU per pound
     Generation rates of 1, 1.5, and 2 pounds per student per
day were used.  It is assumed that currently university crews
collect and transport solid waste to a landfill  for disposal.
In the case of modular incineration, the waste is transported
to the unit instead.   With source separation, separated materials
are collected by maintenance employees and transported by the
university crews to a central processing point on campus.  It
was determined that high-grade paper had the greatest recycling
potential.  Additional collection time for high-grade was es-
timated at 1 hour per 100 students per month.  The high-grade
paper is baled prior to pick-up by the dealer.  Table 24 indi-
cates that all three systems are feasible for university situa-
tions.  Figure 9 shows the breakeven point for high-grade paper
recovery.

Office Buildings

     The composition and BTU value of the waste stream for a
typical office building is assumed as follows:
                               101

-------
+ 10-
 + 9-
 + 8-
 + 7-
 + 6-
 + 5-
 + 4-
 + 3-
 + 2-
 + I-
  0^
                                                                       $28/TON REFUSE DISPOSAL
     S
     o
o
ro
 -I-
 -2-
 -3-
 -4-
 -5^
 -6-
 -7-
 -8-
 -9-
-10-
                100
                  200
300
400
500
   600
BREAKEVEN
  POINT
700
80O
900
1000
                                                   NUMBER OF INMATES
                                     Figure   8.     Prisons -  corrugated  recovery.

-------
TABLE 24    RESOURCE RECOVERY APPLICABLE
                 UNIVERSITIES
TO
MODULAR
INCINERATION
Condition 1
22,000
students
Condition 2
14,670
students
Condition 3
11,000
students
Condition 4
8,800
students
Condition 5
5,870
students
Condition 6
4,400
students
SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
9,750
students
Condition 2
6,500
students
Condition 3
4,875
students
MODULAR
INCINERATION
and SOURCE
. SEPARATION
Condition 1
23,800
students
Condition 2
15,870
students
Condition 3
11,900
students
Condition 4
9,600
students
Condition 5
6,400
students
Condition 6
4,800
students
On-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/10S
BTU
II
11
»
»
"

N/A
»
"
On-Site
Energy
Use
$1/106
BTU
"
»
II
"
"
Materials
Market
N/A
"
"
"
"
"

High-grade
paper-
$55/ton
'<
"
Materials
Market
High-grade
paper-
IBS/ton
II
"
"
"
«
BTU/
Ib
Waste
6,000
II
"
"
"
••




BTU/
Ib
Waste
5,370
II
••
II
"
"
TPD
10
II
"
4.4
"
"

4.9
"
"
TPD
11.9
(11 TPD
MOD INC)
II
«
4.8
(4.4 TPD
MOD INC)
»
"
Generation
Rate
1 Ib/
student/
day
1.5 Ib/
student/
day
2 Ib/
student/
day
1 Ib/
student/
day
1.5 Ib/
student/
day
2 Ib/
student/
day

1 lh/
student/
day
1.5 Ibs/
student/
day
2 Ib/
student/
day
Generation
Rate
1 Ib/
student/
day
1.5 Ib/
student/
day
2 Ib/
student/
day



Waste Composition
Paper 65? Misc 4*
Plastic 3% Other 18*
Organics 10?
„
„
„
II II
„

High-grade paper 15?


Waste Composition
High-grade paper 15?
M
"
"
"
«
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
"
"
8 hr/
day
ii
"

50?


Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
50?
"
II
8 hr/
day
50?
"
"
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$308
••
"
$123
"
II

$137


Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$333
••
>.
$134
"
»
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$275
••
"
$108
»
•'

$137


New System
Net Cost/
Day
$300
•>
II
$127
n
»
                      103

-------
   + 15-

   + ICH
    0

^  -5-

g  -10-

*-*'  — I

S-20H

ti  -25-1
z
   -30-

   -35-

   -40-

   -45
                                                   $28/TON  REFUSE DISPOSAL
           5,0001
            BREAKEVEN
              POINT
              6,500
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
                 NUMBER OF STUDENTS
                               Figure   9.     Universities  - high-grade paper  recovery.

-------
                            Percent in           BTU Value
          Component        Waste Stream         106 BTU/Ton

          Paper                 87                 13.5

            (High-Grade-43)

          Plastics               1.5                0.5

          Other (e.g.,glass)     11.5                	
                        Total   100                 14

                                           = 7,000 BTU per pound

     Average solid waste generation rates are assumed to be 1.5
pounds per employee per day, based on 22 days per month.  There-
fore, typical  generation rates have been identified as 1, 1.5,
and 2 pounds per employee per  day.

     After a preliminary analysis, it was determined that high-
grade paper had the highest recycling potential.   It was also
established that office buildings can utilize energy produced
from modular incinerators.

     Results of the applicability analysis are shown in Table 25
They indicate  that modular incineration, source separation of
high-grade paper and a combination of the two systems are
feasible for office buildings.  The source separation system
operates through the use of desk-top containers purchased for
each employee.

     Periodically, when the container is full, the employee
empties the recyclable paper into a conveniently  located
central storage container.   The high-grade paper  is collected
from the central storage containers by the office maintenance
staff.  Additional labor required is estimated at 3 hours per
employee per month at a rate of $6.50 per hour.  Storage costs
are also included.  Figure 10  shows the breakeven point for
high-grade recovery.

Garden Apartments

     Garden apartment waste is assumed to be similar to mixed
municipal  solid waste with the following characteristics:
                            Percent in          BTU Value
         Component         Waste Stream        IP6 BTU/Ton

         Paper                  35                  5.4

         Plastics                4.5                1.6
                               105

-------
TABLE 25    RESOURCE  RECOVERY  APPLICABLE  TO  OFFICE
                    BUILDINGS
MODULAR
INCINERATION
Condition*
16,000
employees
Condition 2
10,670
empl oyees
Condition 3
8,000
employees
Condition 4
8,000
employees
Condition 5
5,350
employees
Condition 6
4,000
employees
SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
150
employees
Condition 2
100
employees
Condition 3
75
employees
MODULAR
INCINERATION
and SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
20,000
empl oyees
Condition 2
13,335
employees
Condition 3
10,000
employees
Condition 4
9,400
employees
Condition 5
6.270
empl oyees
Condition 6
4,700
employees
On-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/10S
BTU
»
"
"
"
•'

N/A
"
"
One-Site
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/106
BTU
-
"
'<
••
»
Materials
Market
N/A
"
"
"
•>
"

High-grade
paper-
$55/ton
"
"
Materials
Market
High-grade
paper
$55/ton
II
11
II
II
II
BTU/
Ib
Waste
7000
"
"
»
"
'•




BTU/
Ib
Waste
4480
II
"
H
II
"
TPD
8
"
"
4
'•
"

.075
II
"
TPD
10
(7 TPD
MOD INC)
"
»
4.7
(3.3 TPD
MOD INC)
"
ii
Generation
Rate
1 Ib/
employee/
day
1.5 Ib/
employee/
day
2 IDS/
empl oyee/
day
1 Ib/
empl oyee/
day
1.5 Ib/
empl oyee/
day
2 Ib/
employee/
day

1 Ib/
empl oyee/
day
1.5 Ib/
employee/
day
2 IDS/
empl oyee/
day
Generation
Rate
1 Ib/
employee/
day
1.5 Ib/
employee/
day
2 Ib/
employee/
day
1 Ib/
empl oyee/
day
1.5 Ib/
empl oyee/
day
2 Ib/
employee/
day
Waste Composition
Paper 87 %
Plastic 1.53!
Other 14.5%
II
"
II
«
"

High-grade paper 43*
"
"
Waste Composition
High-grade paper 43*
"
••
"
II
»
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
'•
II
8 hr/
day
••
II

70*
"
••
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
70*
••
"
8 hr/
day
70*
"
II
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$224
»
••
$112
II
'•

$2.10
••
"
Existing
System
Cost/Day
$280
••
II
$132
"
II
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$220
••
>•
$104
II
»

$2.10
»
»
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$248
II
'•
$118
•>
••
                         106

-------
   + 5-

   + 4

   + 3-

_.  + 2-

P  + H

~   0
                                         $28/TON  REFUSE DISPOSAL
8
O  -,-
   -2-
   -4-
   -5-
           100    200
        BREAKEVEN
          POINT
300
400
500
600
700
800
                                                            900   1,000
                              NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
           Figure  10.
                          Office buildings -  high-grade  paper
                          recovery.

-------
        Organics            27

        Misc.                11

        Other(e.g. ,glass)    22.5
                  1 .1

                  1 .9
                 Total
100
 10.0

= 5,000 BTU per pound
     Generation rates  are estimated  at 2,  2.5,  and 3 pounds per
tenant per day-  Table 26 indicates  the applicability of modular
incineration to garden apartments.   The only situation in which
modular units would be applicable  is if the  apartment management
provides utilities (hot water  and/or heat)  to the tenants as
part of their rent.  Also,  these  units are  only marginally
feasbible in the case  of garden  apartments,  due to the large
number of tenants required  to  support an  incinerator.   Since the
largest low-rise, garden apartments  have  about  2,000 to 3,000
tenants, it is seen that modular  units are  applicable under only
a few conditions.  Source separation was  not deemed feasible
from these apartment units  due to  their small  size, unless the
system were part of a  larger  citywide effort.

Trailer Parks

     None of the selected systems  were deemed applicable to these
sources.  No market for energy from  modular  incineration exists
and, like garden apartments,  these  housing  developments are too
small to support a source separation system  unless this effort
were part of a citywide program.

Small Cities

     Mixed municipal waste  from  residential  and commercial
sources has the following characteristics:
                          Percent in
Component
Paper
Plasti cs
Organi cs
Misc.
Other(e.g.

Waste Stream
35
4.5
27
11
.glass) 22.5
Total 100
                 BTU Value
                106  BTU/Ton

                    5.4

                    1 .6

                    1.1

                    1 .9
                                              10.0

                                           = 5,000 BTU per pound
                               1Q8

-------
TABLE 26    RESOURCE RECOVERY  APPLICABLE  TO  GARDEN
                   APARTMENTS
MODULAR
INCINERATION
Condition 1
11,000
tenants
Condition 2
8,800
tenants
Condition 3
7,335
tenants
Condition 4
4,400
tenants
Condition 5
3,520
tenants
Condition 6
2,935
tenants
On-Slte
Energy
Use
Yes-
$1/10"
BTU
'•
II
"
"
"
Materials
Market
N/A
11
II
"
••
II
BTU/
Ib
Waste
5000
"
II
"
"
II
TPD
11
II
"
4.4
"
•'
Generation
Rate
2 Ibs/
tenant/
day
2.5 Ibs/
tenant/
day
3 Ibs/
tenant/
day
2 Ibs/
tenant/
day
2.5 Ib/
tenant/
day
3 Ib/
tenant/
day
Waste Composition
Paper 35* Mlsc 11%
Plastic 4.5% Other 22.5%
Organlcs 27%
ii it
ii ii
„
M n
ii M
Recovery
Rate
24 hr/
day
II
••
8 hr/
day
"
II
Existing
System
Cost/ Day
$308
"
II
$123
•'
ii
New System
Net Cost/
Day
$293
-
"
$115
»
II
                          109

-------
     Generation rates are estimated at 3, 3.5, and 4 pounds per
capita per day.  Because city collection services are already
provided, a comparison with the existing landfill disposal sys-
tem entailed a cost of only $7 per ton.   When comparing modular
incineration with this land disposal  system, there is no point
below 100 TPD where it would be less  expensive.   At 100 TPD,
modular incineration costs  $11.68 per ton.   Tn areas with land-
fill costs greater than $11.68 per ton,  modular  incineration
would be applicable.  Likewise, this  approach may be feasible
where the value of the recovered energy  is  greated than $1 per
106 BTU.  However, an analysis of this system does not appear
on the applicability matrix in Table  27.

     Source separation was  analyzed for  newspaper recovery only
in either a baled or unbaled state at 30 percent and 50 percent
recovery.  Ferrous, glass,  and aluminum  recovery at 30 percent
and 50 percent participation were also assessed, as well as two
systems that combined recovery of all four  materials.  Collection
and processing was performed as in the scenario  described in
Section III for source separation.  It was  determined that source
separation of materials is  feasible in small cities.

     A system combining source separation and modular incinera-
tion is feasible, but was not shown in Table 27  as the break-
even point for this system  when compared to a $7 per ton dispo-
sal fee is well above 100 TPD.  At 100 TPD, a combined system
recovering all four materials at 50 percent participation would
cost $9.69 per ton, and again would be competitive with many
landfill disposal systems in various  parts  of the country.
Figures 11 and 12 show the  breakeven  points for  materials
recovery.

IMPEDIMENTS TO SYSTEM APPLICABILITY

     In analyzing the various waste generators,  a number of im-
pediments to applicability  of the three  selected systems have
been recognized.   Size (in  TPD) of the waste generator is one
critical factor.   It has been demonstrated  that  breakeven points
for each generator exists,  and a minimum size generator is
necessary to sustain a viable system.  In some cases, such as
prisons, modular  incineration is marginally applicable because
not enough waste  is produced to economically compete with
existing systems.

     Source separation is not a capital  intensive system and
appears to be more generally feasible for smaller waste genera-
tors, where waste stream composition  is  suitable, than is
modular incineration.  The  cost of modular  units is somewhat
high for small generators,  but as land disposal  costs and energy
costs continue to increase  in the future, this system will become
increasingly more attractive at lower capacities.
                              110

-------
TABLE 27   RESOURCE RECOVERY APPLICABLE TO SMALL CITIES
SOURCE
SEPARATION
Condition 1
13,600
people
Condition 2
28,000
people
Condition 1
4,800
people
Condition 2
12,800
people
Condition 1
12,800
people
Condition 2
25,600
people
Condition 1
11,200
people
Condition 2
21,600
people
On-S1te
Energy
Use
N/A
"
"
•>
"
"
"
"
Materials
Market
Newspaper-
$40/ton
baled
"
Newspaper-
$20/ton
loose
"
Fe-$40/ton
AL-$340/ton
Glass-
$30/ton
11
Fe-$40/ton
AL-$340/ton
Glass-
ISO/ ton
Newspaper-
$40/ton/
baled
"
BTU/
Ib
Waste
N/A
II
"
»
»
"
"
"
TPD
14
34
6
16
16
31
14
27
Generation
Rate
2.5 Ib/
capital/
day

"
"
Waste Composition
Newspaper 9%
"
"
"
Ferrous 9%
AL 10?
Glass 13%
It
"
"
Recovery
Rate
50%
30%
50%
30%
50%
30%
50%
30%
Existing
Sys tern
Cost/Day
S 29
$ 43
$ 5
$ 11
$102
$115
$116
$136
New Sys ten
Net Cost/
Day
S 29
$ 43
$ 5
$ 11
5102
$115
$116
$136
                            111

-------
                                         S7/TON  REFUSE DISPOSAL
            20
BREAKEVEN I BREAKEVEN
  POINT     POINT
   6       16
    BREAKEVEN
     POINT
       14
30   I    40
BREAKEVEN
  POINT
   34
                                    50
TPO
                                            60
                                                    70
                                                            80
                                                                   90
                                                                            100
   Figure  11.   Small  Cities  -  baled  vs non-baled  newsprint  recovery

-------
              +40-
co
              -40-
              -80-
              -120-
              -160-
              -200-
              -240-
            8.
            o
            *-
            z
              •28CH
              -320
              -360-
              -400
              -440-
              -480
                                                     $7/TON  REFUSE DISPOSAL
                                                                                                     30% RECOVERY
                                                                                        50% RECOVERY
                       10  |

                      BREAKEVEN
                        POINT
                         14
                              20
   I 30

BREAKEVEN
  POINT
   27
                                               40
 50


TPO
                                                               60
                                                                       ro
                         60
                                                     90
160
             Figure 12.   Small  cities  -  newsprint,  glass,  ferrous,  and  aluminum recovery

-------
     Availability and volatility of materials markets may be a
chronic problem.   Uncertainty as to the revenue that can be
expected will  likely deter decision makers in many situations.
The small  quantities generated may be more difficult to market
and command lower prices per ton than larger quantities of the
same materials.   If markets stabilize and prices rise there will
certainly  be more small  materials recovery systems in operation.

     Energy recovery via modular incineration is limited by the
distance the energy can  be transmitted.  Most systems generate
steam that can realistically only be transmitted a few hundred
feet.  This is usually overcome by locating the incinerator near
the energy user.   No systems are known to be generating elec-
tricity from the  steam.   This approach could overcome the dis-
tance barrier  if  the value of the energy increases.

     Last, present waste handling, storage, and collection prac-
tices for  the  various waste generators are not designed for
resource recovery systems.   This fact makes implementation of
innovative techniques extremely difficult, in many cases, with-
out extensive  building modifications or significant  higher
labor costs.   This issue will  be dealt with in more  detail  in
the following  section.
                               114

-------
                          REFERENCES
1.   Announced paper stock prices.   Official  Board Markets
    54 (26) :  9.   1978.

2.   Markets  newsfront.   Iron Age.   221(23):  95.   1978

3.   Resource  conservation through  citizen involvement in
    waste management.   Portland Recycling Team.   1975.

4.   Smith.   Solid waste incineration and energy  recovery
    in hospitals in J  of Environmental  Systems  Vol.  6 (4)
    1976-77.   pp. 315

5.   Federal  Prisoners  Confined May 5, 1978,  Bureau of
    Prisons,  U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,  D.C.
    1978.  (Unpublished data).
                           115

-------
                           SECTION  V

                RESEARCH  AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS


     Four subjects  for research and development have been
identified.   These  are:

     •  Waste characterization studies  of small waste
        generators

     •  Building design  improvements to enhance resource
        recovery efforts

     •  Small-scale RDF  plants

     •  Vermicomposting

WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES

     After an extensive  literature  search, it was determined
that relatively little or no information exists on waste compo-
sition and generation rates from the small generators of interest
in this project, with the exception of  hospitals, office buildings
and small cities.   Data  generated for this study were developed
by limited,  on-site investigations  in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area  and telephone contacts with small  generators
across the country.  This waste composition and generation
information  was assumed  to be fairly representative  of typical
waste generation.   However, until detailed waste characteriza-
tion studies are done for these sources, the data must be
considered an approximation.  These detailed studies could
significantly contribute  to increasing  the accuracy  and utility
of the applicability analysis.  The concentration of aluminum
in a waste stream  may be  of particular  importance.  Aluminum
is the most  valuable material on a  cost per pound basis normally
recovered.  Some of the  small generators in this study may  be
sources of valuable amounts of the  material.  Potential sources
include airports (aircraft maintenance  facilities) and institu-
tions .

     Currently, managers have little interest in solid waste
management except  in insuring that  wastes are regularly removed.
Most of these decision-makers have  little knowledge of the
amounts of waste generated by their facility,  let alone the com-
position.  The existence  of waste characterization studies  then
would serve  two purposes:
                               116

-------
     •  Educate decision-makers and encourage their interest
        in solid waste management in general and resource
        recovery and waste reduction in particular.

     •  Improve the assumptions used in determination of
        applicability and thereby enhance decision-makers'
        confidence in pursuing resource recovery.

     In turn, increased use of resource recovery systems by small
generators will significantly improve and possibly expand the
state-of-the-art for small-scale and low technology recovery
techni ques.

BUILDING DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS

     Buildings are designed to provide some primary function such
as health care in a hospital.  Therefore, it is not surprising
that ancillary activities, such as solid waste management,
receive little detailed attention.  Architects and building
managers generally plan for traditional waste handling practices
which do not facilitate or promote resource recovery.  Nor  are
these traditional plans usually flexible enough to incorporate
waste handling changes, thus discouraging recovery in even  the
most viable situations.

     In the case of source separation, a number of problems
are typical, including:

     •  Lack of sufficient storage space

     t  Lack of maneuvering room in loading dock areas

     •  Difficulty in collecting and consolidating recyclables.

Current shopping mall design typifies these problems.  Commercial
establishments are spread out, making consolidation of recyclables
over the entire mall difficult.  Loading dock space in under-
ground areas is usually not large enough to accomodate extra
containers to hold recyclables prior to pick-up.  A design
option for shopping malls to promote corrugated recovery could
include an underground conveyor system connecting  the delivery
areas of each store.  Separated corrugated could be fed into the
conveyor through an opening in the floor.  The corrugated would
be conveyed to a consolidation point where it could be baled or
compacted.  Another approach might focus on inclusion of modular
incinerators with or without energy recovery within buildings.

     Areas of recommended R&D effort include:

     •  Study the impacts of current building design on solid
        waste management alternatives, especially  resource
        recovery, and recommend design alternatives.
                               117

-------
     •  Identify a waste generator; e.g., shopping center,
        in the planning stages.   Support the design,
        installation and operation of a resource recovery
        system and evaluate its  technical and economic
        feasibilities and its impact on waste management
        and operations of the shopping center.

     This type of research would educate architects and
building managers and  inform  them of the role  they could play
in enhancing resource recovery.   At the same time, it would
likely serve to stimulate recovery activities of small waste
generators.

SMALL-SCALE REFUSE DERIVED FUEL  PLANTS

     Small-scale RDF plants operating at less than 100 TPD have
been previously evaluated as uneconomic.  However, this is due
to the fact that the systems currently in operation generally
have daily capacities in excess  of 500 tons.  Consequently, the
equipment is being underutilized.   Small-scale  RDF production
was included in Section II because the individual  components
that make up the system are available in the 100 TPD range.
However, no such plant has been  assembled.

     R&D efforts could concentrate in the following areas:

     t  Demonstration of the technical feasibility of
        and RDF operation at 100 TPD.

     •  Investigations into problems associated with
        the storage and transportation of RDF from
        these smal1 plants.

     •  Design of RDF processing equipment  in the  100
        TPD range that combines  the functions of two
        or more units.

     t  Determine market demand  for RDF in  the  quantities
        generated from 100 TPD plant.  These would be
        markets external to the  waste generator.

VERMICOMPOSTING

     Vermicomposting is the feeding of organic  waste to earth-
worms.  Specially designed and managed facilities  must be used.
A humus-like material, which can be used as a soil conditioner,
is the primary product.  Excess  worms also  can  be  harvested and
sold.

     Activities to date have tended to concentrate on the feeding
of agricultural wastes to worms.  This material is homogeneous
and easily digested by worms.  Several tests have  been made with
municipal solid wastes.  No commercial-scale operations were

                                118

-------
functioning when this report was prepared.  However, a project
was scheduled to begin using the wastes from the Chester County
Prison Farm in Pennsylvania, (Personal communication.  Robert
Kohe, GTA, Incorporated, Wilmington, Delaware.   December 27, 1978),

     A vermicomposting facility requires special design and
operational considerations. Leehate control and protection
against worm predators (e.g., moles and certain species of birds)
are the major design features which need to be factured into
this approach to resource recovery.  The basic operation of a
vermicomposting system involves five steps:

     Step  1:   Biodegradables are separated from mixed
              municipal waste through either source
              separation or mechanical processing and
              shredded.

     Step  2:   The shredded biodegradables , including paper,
              are spread in windrows approximately 3 feet
              wide and no deeper than 18 to 24 inches.

     Step  3:   The waste is digested by the earthworms at
              a rate of approximately 1 to 2 pounds per
              pound of earthworms per week.

     Step  4:   At regular intervals additional shredded
              waste is laid on top of the windrows.  The
              earthworms feed from the top of the piles
              and deposit castings at the bottom.

     Step  5:   Castings are periodically removed, screened,
              and sterilized and may be sold as potting
              soil or compost.  One company currently is
              selling worm castings as potting soil for
              a retail price of $1.00 to $2.00 per gallon(l).

     The relative simplicity and claimed total lower capital
and operating costs vis-a-vis mechanical resource recovery  are
the major  advantages of vermicomposting.  Furthermore, as with any
resource recovery process, vermicomposting will reduce landfill
requirements.  The extensive need for land is the primary draw-
back to vermicomposting.  About one acre  is needed for each 8.25
tons of waste being composted (2).  The land; however, is only
used as a  surface for the vermicomposting; thus, can be reused
as wastes  are converted and removed.  A facility, which receives
100 TPD of municipal solid waste, would need about 42 acres for
the worm windrows.  This figure is based on the following assump-
tions:

     •  70 percent of the incoming waste  is biodegradable

     t  the worms will digest seven to eight tons of waste
        per acre per week


                               119

-------
     •  the facility receives waste five day a week

     A number of areas  require further research (1):

     t  Determining optimal  windrow configurations

     •  Determining feasible temperature controls for
        cold climates

     •  Assessing optimal  moisture levels

     •  Determining optimal  pH levels

     •  Establishing ideal  material density

     •  Determining best population density and nutrient
        profile

     t  Assessing the effects of contamination from
        toxic materials

     •  Assessing public acceptance of the process and
        the resulting product

     It appears that this  type of system may have applicability
to certain small waste  generators, such as universities and
prisons, where organics are  easily kept separated from the mixed
waste stream.  Small cities  also may be interested in this
system's potential.  However, further  research also is necessary
to determine the feasibility of a continously operating system
on a commercial scale.   In  addition, operating requirements,
capital and operating costs, and product quality need to be
assessed.
                              12Q

-------
                     REFERENCES
Carmody, Francis S.   Vermicomposting:   an assessment of
the state of the art.   Resource Recovery System, Palm
Beach Gardens,  Florida.  May 1978.

Ervin, J.W.   A cost analysis of the use of earthworms
to digest shredded residential  solid waste.   American
Earthworm Company, Sanford, Florida.  April  1978.
                         121

-------
                          APPENDIX A
                    CONVERSION TABLE FOR
                   METRIC UNITS OF  MEASURE
WEIGHT
     1 pound = 454 grams
     1 ton = 907 kilograms  =  0.907  metric tons
LENGTH
     1 inch = 2.54 centimeters
     1 mile = 1.61 kilometers
AREA
     1 square foot = 0.093  square meters
     1 acre = 4,047 square  meters = 0.405 hectares
VOLUME
     1 gal Ion = 3.79 liters
     1 cubic yard = 0.765 cubic meters
ENERGY
     1 British Thermal  Unit (BTU) = 1,054 joules
     1 therm = 1,000 BTUs = 1.05 x  106 joules
     1 kilowatt-hour =  3.6  x  106 joules
MISCELLANEOUS
     1 mile per gallon  =  0.425  kilometers per liter
     1 BTU per pound =  2.32 joules  per gram
                              122

-------
                                  APPENDIX B

                            TOPICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY


AIRPORTS

Glasphalt paving for airport road.  Am.  City,  87(9):179, September 1972.

Haslam, E., and J. Rowlands.  A flight  catering  facility building engineering
     services.  J. Inst.  Public Health  Eng., 71(4):250-281, October 1972.

Kelley, B. C.  Solid waste generation and disposal  practices  by commercial
     airlines in the United States.   In:   Solid  Waste  Studies.  University
     of Florida, Gainesville, August 1970.   pp.  30-32.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  Analysis of airport solid wastes and  collection
     systems:  San Francisco International  Airport.  Boston,  Massachusetts,
     1973.  149 p.   NTIS PB-219 372.

ALUMINUM AND NON-FERROUS METALS

Alter, H.  Processes for the recovery of aluminum from municipal solid waste.
     In:  Official Proceedings, Workshops,  International Waste Equipment and
     Technology Exposition, Los Angeles,  California, June  18-21, 1975.
     National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, D.C., 1975.
     pp. 161-169.

Arella, D. G., and^ Y. M.  Garbe.  Mineral  recovery from the noncombustible
     fraction of municipal solid waste.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Cincinnati, Ohio, Office of Solid  Waste Management Programs, December
     1975.  20 p.   NTIS PB-261 048.

Bever, M. B.  The recycling of metals.   II. Nonferrous metals.  Conserv.
     Recycling, 1:137-147, 1976.

Bourcier, G. F., and K. H. Dale.  The technology and economics of the recovery
     of aluminum from municipal solid wastes.   Resour.  Recovery Conserv.,
     3:1-8, March 1978.

Campbell, J. A.  Electromagnetic separation of aluminum and nonferrous metals.
     In:  Proceedings of the Fourth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
     Chicago, Illinois, May 7-8, 1974.   E.  Aleshin, ed. IIT Research  Institute,
     Chicago, 1974.  pp.  95-102.

Dale, J. G.  Recovery of aluminum from  solid waste.  Resour.  Recovery, 1(1):
     10-15, January-March 1974.
                                     123

-------
Franklin, W.  E.,  D.  Bendarsky,  W.  R.  Park,  and R.  G.  Hunt.   Potential  energy
     conservation from recycling metals  in  urban  solid  wastes.   In:   The
     Energy Conservation Papers.  R.  Williams, ed.   Bellinger,  Cambridge,
     Massachusetts,  1975.   pp.  171-218.

Knoll, F. S.   Recovery of aluminum by high  tension  separation.   Presented at
     the American Institute of  Mechanical Engineers.  Annual  Meeting,  Dallas,
     Texas, February 24-28, 1974.   (Unpublished paper).

Magnetic separation  of nonferrous  metal.  In:   Annual Report, Vanderbilt
     University,  Nashville, Tennessee, Department  of Physics  and Astronomy,
     1971.

Michaels, E.  L.,  K.  L. Woodruff, W.  L. Freyberger,  and  H. Alter-  Heavy media
     separation of aluminum from municipal  solid waste.  Trans.  Soc.  Min.
     Eng.,  AIME, 285(1):34-39, March 1975.

Mil liken, J.  G.,  and J. B. Byrden.  Background of  aluminum  recycling.   In:
     Aluminum Recycling Program:  Scrap  Source Analysis.  University  of
     Denver,  Colorado, Denver Research Institute,  December  1970.  pp.  1-7.

Reclaiming and recycling secondary metals.   Eng. Min. J., 176(7):94-98, July
     1975.                      r

Spencer, D. B., and  E. Schloemann.  Recovery of non-ferrous metals by means
     of permanent magnets.  Resour.  Recovery Conserv.,  1(2):151-165,  October
     1975.

Spencer, D. B., and E. Schomann.  Recovery  of non-ferrous metals by means
     of permanent magnets.  Waste  Age, 6(10):32-41,  October 1975.

Wilson, D. G.  Nonferrous-scrap separation  by induction:  Universities attack
     the resource recovery problem.   National  Center for Resource Recovery,
     Washington,  D.C., 1974.

BIOGAS

Andrews, J. F.,R. D. Cole, and  E.  A.  Pearson.   Kinetics and characteristics
     of multi-stage  fermentation.   SERL  Report No.  64-11, University  of
     California,  Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory,  1964.

Arnas, 0. A., and F. E. Homan.   Biogas production  by anaerobic  methanogenic
     fermentation of domestic refuse. In:   Record  of the 10th  Intersociety
     Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, University of Delaware, August
     18-22, 1975.  Institute of Electrical  and Electronics  Engineers,  New
     York.  pp. 290-294.

Bisselle, C.  M.,  M.  Kornreich,  M.  Scholl, and P.  Spewok.  Urban trash meth-
     anation-background for a proof-of-concept experiment.   Mitre Technical
     Report,  MTR-6956, Mitre Corporation, McLean,  Virginia, February  1975.
     140. p.    NTIS PB-240 768.
                                    124

-------
Chan, D. B., and E. A. Pearson.  Comprehensive studies of solid wastes manage-
     ment:  hydrolysis rate of cellulose in anaerobic fermentation.   SERL
     Report No. 70-3, University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering
     Research Laboratory, October 1970.

demons, C. A.  Biogas recovery from solid wastes.   News of Environ.  Res.
     Cincinnati, September 15, 1976.

Cooney, C. L., and D. L. Wise.  Thermophillic anaerobic digestion  of  solid
     waste for fuel gas production.  Biotechnol.  Bioeng., 17:1119-1135,  1975.

Diaz, L. F.  Energy recovery through biogasification of municipal  solid  wastes
     and utilization of thermal wastes from an energy-urban-agrowaste complex.
     Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1976.

Diaz, L. F., and G. Trezek.  Biogasification of a selected fraction of
     municipal solid wastes.  Compost Sci., 18(2):8-13, March-April 1977.

Diaz, L. F., F. Kurz, and G. Trezek.  Methane gas production as part  of  a
     refuse recycling system.  Compost Sci., 15(3):7-13, Summer 1974.

The digestion or composting of trash in a rotating  drum.  Unniveltschutz-
     Staedtereinigung, 8:188, 1974.

Finney, C. D., and R. S. Evans II.  Anaerobic digestion:  the rate-limiting
     process and the nature of inhibition.  Science, 190(4219):1088-1089,
     December 12, 1975.

The formation of methane by bacteria.  Process Biochem., 10:29, October  1975.

Fry, L. J.  Practical building of methane power plants for rural  energy
     independence.  Standard Printing, Santa Barbara, California,  1974.   96  p.

Ghosh, S., and D. L. Klass.  Conversion of urban refuse to substitute natural
     gas by the biogas process.  In:  Proceedings of the Fourth Mineral  Waste
     Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, May 7-8, 1974.  E.  Aleshin,
     ed.   IIT Research Symposium, Chicago, 1974.   pp. 196-211.

Ghosh, S., and D. L. Klass.  Solid waste resource recovery:  the "biogas"
     concept.  Public Works, 107(2):71-75, February 1976.

Gossett, J. M., and P. L. McCarty.  Heat treatment of refuse for increasing
     anaerobic biodegradability; progress report, June 1-December 31, 1974.
     Technical Report No. 192, Stanford University, California, Department of
     Civil Engineering, January 1975.

Hitte, S. J.  Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage sludge to methane.
     EPA/530/SW-159, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Washington, D.C.,
     Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1975.  17 p.  NTIS PB-261 091.

Hitte, S. J.  Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage sludge into  methane
     Compost Sci., 17(1):26-30, January-February 1976.
                                     125

-------
Keenan, J. D.  Multiple-stage methane recovery from solid wastes.   J.
     Environ. Sci.  Health,  A8-9:525-548,  1976.

Keenan, J. D.  Two-stage methane production from solid wastes.   Presented at
     annual winter  meeting, American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,  New
     York, November 17-22,  1974.  12 p.

Kispert, R. G., S.  E.  Sadek, and D.  L.  Wise.   An economic analysis of  fuel
     gas production from solid waste.  Resour. Recovery Conserv.,  1(1):95-109,
     May 1975.

Kispert, R. G., S.  E.  Sadek, and D.  L.  wise.   An evaluation of  methane pro-
     duction from solid waste.  Resour.  Recovery Conserv.,  l(3):245-255,
     April 1976.

Kispert, R. G., L.  C.  Anderson, D.  H. walker, S. E.  Sadek,  and  D.  L. Wise.
     (Dynateck).  Fuel gas  production from solid waste.   National  Science
     Foundation, Washington, D.C.,  July 1974, 176 p.   NTIS  PB-238  563.

Klass, D. L.  Make SNG from waste and biomass.  Hydrocarbon Process.,
     55:76-82, 1976.

Klass, D. L. and S. Ghosh.   Fuel gas from organic wastes.   Chemtech.,
     35:689-698, November 1973.

Klein, S. A.  Anaerobic digestion of municipal refuse.   In:   Comprehensive
     Studies of Solid  Waste Management;  Third Annual  Report.  SERL Report
     No. 70-2, University of California,  Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering
     Research Laboratory, June 1970.

Klein, S. A.  Anaerobic digestion of municipal refuse.   In:   Comprehensive
     Studies of Solid  Waste Management;  Fifth Annual  Report.  SERL Report
     No. 72-3, University of California,  Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering
     Research Laboratory, May 1972.

Klein, S. A.  Anaerobic digestion of solid wastes.  Compost Sci.,  13(1):6-11,
     January-February  1971.

Kumar, J., and S.  Kumar.  The role of anaerobic digestion  for the  production
     of methane from municipal wastes.   In:   Proceedings of 1976 National
     Waste Conference, Boston, May 23-26, 1976.   American Society  of
     Mechanical Engineers,  New York.  pp. 543-545.

Lindsley, E. F.  Methane from waste...how much power can it supply.  Pop.
     Sci., 205(6):58-60, 128, December 1974.

Methane information kit.  Mother Earth News,  Hendersonvilie,  North Carolina,
     1975.

Meynall, A. J.  Methane:  Planning  a Digester.   Prism Press, Dorchester,
     England, 1976.
                                    126

-------
Mignone, N. A.  Anaerobic digester design for energy generation.   Public
     Works, 105(10):71-74, October 1974.

New Alchemist Institute.  Gas for fuel  and fertilizer.   In:   Producing  Your
     Own Power.  C. H. Stoner, ed., Rodale Press,  Emmaus,  Pennsylvania,
     1974.  pp. 137-190.

New Alchemy Institute West.  Methane digesters for fuel  gas  and fertilizer.
     Newsletter No. 3, Santa Barbara, California,  Spring 1973.

Ojalvo, S. I.  An energy balance for the  anaerobic digestion of garbage  and
     sludge.  Master's Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1976.

Ojalvo, S. I., and J. D. Keenan.  Energy  balance for anaerobic  digestion.
     J. Environ. Syst., 6(3):183-198, 1976/77.

Pfeffer, J. T.  Anaerobic processing of organic refuse.   In: Proceedings,
     Bioconversion Energy Research Conference, Institute for Man and His
     Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,  1973.

Pfeffer, J. T. (University of Illinois).   Biological conversion of biomass
     to methane; quarterly progress report, September 1-November 30, 1976.
     Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington,  D.C.,  1976.
     12 p.   NTIS COO/2917-76/21.

Pfeffer, J. T.  Processing organic solids by anaerobic fermentation.  In:
     Proceedings of International Biomass Energy Conference, Winnipeg,
     Canada, May 13-15, 1973.  pp. XII, 1-36.

Pfeffer, J. T.  Reclamation of energy from domestic refuse:   anaerobic
     digestion processes.  In:  Compilation of Papers, Third National Congress
     on Waste Management Technology and Resource Recovery, San  Francisco,
     November 14-15, 1974.  National Solid Waste Management Association,
     Washington, D.C., 1975.  pp. 57-89.

Pfeffer, J. T.  Reclamation of energy from organic refuse.  EPA-670/2-74-016,
     University of Illinois, Urbana, Department of Civil Engineering, March
     1974.  143 p.

Pfeffer, J. T.  Temperature effects of anaerobic fermentation of domestic
     refuse.  Biotech. Bioeng., 16:771-787, 1974.

Pfeffer, J. T. and J. C. Liebman.  Biological conversion of organic refuse
     to methane.  NSF/RANN/SC/GI-39191/75/2, University of Illinois, Urbana,
     Department of Civil Engineering, September 1975.  168 p.   NTIS-247  751.

Pfeffer, J. T., and J. C. Liebman.  Energy from refuse by bioconversion,
     fermentation, and residue disposal processes.  Resour.  Recovery Conserv.,
     1(3):295-313, April 1976.

Pfeffer, J. T., and K. A. Khan.  Microbiol production of methane from municipal
     refuse.  Biotechnol. Bioeng., 18:1179-1191, 1976.
                                     127

-------
Singh, R.  B.   The bio-gas  plant:   generating  methane from organic  wastes.
     Compost Sci.,  13(l):20-25,  January-February  1972.

Singh, R.  B.   Bio-gas plant:   generating  methane  from organic  wastes  and
     designs with specifications.   Gobary Gas Research  Station,  Ajitaml
     Etawah, India, 1975.   97 p.

Singh, R.  B.   Building a bio-gas  plant.   Compost  Sci.,  13(2):12-16, March-
     April 1972.

Waste Management, Inc.  Title I  preliminary engineering for:   A.S.E.F.
     solid waste to methane gas.   Energy  Research and Development  Administra-
     tion, Washington, D.C.,  January 1976.  NTIS  CONS/2770-1.

Wise, D. L., S. E.  Sadek,  R.  G.  Kispert,  L. C.  Anderson,  and D.  H.  Walker.
     Fuel  gas production from solid waste.  Biotechnol. Bioeng., 5:285-301,
     1975.

BUILDING DESIGN AND WASTE HANDLING

Connolly,  J. A.  Abstracts:  selected patents on  refuse handling facilities
     for buildings.  National Center for  Urban and Industrial  Health,
     Cincinnati, Ohio, 1968.   303 p.   NTIS PB-216 888.

Herdman, W. E.  Designing for solid waste disposal:   some reminders.  Arch.
     Rec., 157(5):141-144, May 1975.

National Academy of Sciences.  Building Research  Advisory Board.  Technical,
     economic, and procedural aspect of installation and  evaluation of  a
     pneumatic transport system for handling  solid waste.   Washington,  D.C.,
     1970.  139 p.

CANS

Alcoa.  Aluminum can recycling in Orlando,  Florida.   (Unpublished  report).

The Aluminum Association.   Aluminum can recycling centers.  New  York, 1975.
     37 p.

American Iron and Steel Institute.  Progress  report on  recycling:   magnetic
     separation of steel cans.  Washington, D.C.

Cannon, H. S.  Can we recycle cans?  Technol. Rev., 74(6):40-44, May  1972.

Hannon, B. M.  Bottles, cans, energy.  Environment, 14(2):11-21, March  1972.

Heine, H.  J.   Recycled steel  cans--phoenix from the ashes.  Foundry,  103(6):
     121-125, June 1975.

Hill, G. A.  Steel  can study; an  interim  report on resource recovery  and
     conservation opportunities  for the ferrous fraction  of the  municipal  solid
     waste stream.   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
                                     128

-------
     Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,  Resource Recovery Division,
     June 1973.  115 p.

Hunt, R.  G., and W. E. Franklin.   Resource and environmental  profile analysis
     of beer containers.  Chemtech, 5(8):474-481,  August 1975.

Roche, J. P.  Steel industry spurs recycling of tin cans and  junked  autos.
     Catalyst Environ. Qua!., 4:23.

Used steel cans being recycled by the millions.   Soft Drinks,           55,
     February 1972.

CASE STUDY AREAS

Association of Bay Area Governments.  Bay Area Solid Waste Management Imple-
     mentation Project.  Vol. 1:   Project report.   Berkeley,  California,
     December 1973.  117 p.  NTIS PB-234  809.

Beckman,  Yoder & Sealy, Inc.  A solid waste management program  designed  for
     Marshall County, Indiana.  Fort Wayne, September 1972.

Black, R. J.  State activities in solid waste management.   EPA/SW-158,
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  Ohio, Office  of Solid  Waste
     Management Programs, June 1975.  230 p.  NTIS PB-261  076.

Coskumer, U.  Solid waste reduction, collection,  treatment and  reuse at  the
     Turkish Government's pulp and paper  mill (SEKA).  In: Collection,
     Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings  of  a  Seminar,
     Hamburg, Germany, September 1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission  for Europe,
     Geneva.  2:12-17.

Denmark concentrates on waste.  Chem. Week, 116(18):54, April 30, 1975.

Fahy, E.   Ireland's dumping dilemmas.  New Sci.,  69(982):73,  January 8,  1976.

Fenton, R.  Current trends in municipal solid waste disposal  in New  York  City.
     Resour. Recovery Conserv., 1(2):167-176, October 1975.

Giedry, G.  Community and industry solid  waste practices and  planning including
     the  collection, disposal and treatment of solid waste.   In:   Collection,
     Disposal, Treatment, and Recycling of Solid  Wastes, Proceedings of  a
     Seminar, Hamburg, Germany, September 1-6, 1975.   Economic  Commission for
     Europe, Geneva.  1:86-95.

Goddard,  C. N.  Current solid waste research activities in New  York  State.
     In:   Gas and Leachate from Landfills:  Formation, Collection and Treatment;
     Proceedings of a Research Symposium  held at  Rutgers University, New
     Brunswick, New Jersey, March 25-26,  1975.  E. J. Genetelli and  J. Cirelic,
     eds.  pp. 16-17.  NTIS PB-251 161.
                                     129

-------
Handling London area's dry and liquid  wastes.   Solid  Wastes  Manage.,  17(8):
     12-13, 196, August 1974.
              f
Hickman, H. L., Jr.   Japan makes  rapid progress in  developing  strategy for
     solid wastes management.   Solid Wastes  Manage.,  19(8):40-41,  60, August
     1976.

Hoff, H.  Promotion  of new technologies by the  Land Bayern  (Bavaria).  In:
     Collection, Disposal, and Treatment of  Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a
     Seminar, Frankfurt, Germany,  September  1-6, 1975.   Economic Commission
     for Europe, Geneva, 2:67-78.

Institute for Applied Research.   California  litter:   a  comprehensive  analysis
     and plan for abatement.   Carmichael, California, May 1975.

J. M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc.   Report of  water,  wastewater
     and solid wastes for Disney  World, Florida.  WED Enterprises,  Inc.,
     Glendale, California, October 1968.

Kentucky Legislative Research  Council.  The  impact  of litter.   Frankfort,
     Kentucky, October 1975.

Mazodier, J.  French experience on the evaluation of  the composition  of
     household refuse.  In:  Collection,  Disposal,  Treatment and Recycling
     of Solid Wastes; Proceedings  of a Seminar, Hamburg, Germany,  September
     1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, 2:57-66.

McFarland, J. M., C. R. Glassey,  P.  H. McGauhey, D. L.  Brink,  S. A. Klein,
     and C. G. Golueke.  Comprehensive studies  of solid wastes management;
     final report.  SERL Report No.  72-3, University  of California, Berkeley,
     Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory,  May  1972.  xi,  166  p.

McGauhey, P. H.   "Solid waste management strategy" - an outline for  common
     sense.  Waste Age, 6(3):2-12, March 1975.

Muller, K.  The scenery of solid  waste management in  Europe.   Waste Age,
     7(9):6-10, September 1976.

New York Council of Environmental  Advisors.   Litter as  an environmental  problem
     in New York:  discussion  and  recommendations for its alleviation.

Peters, P., ed.  Survey of solid  wastes management  practices in Sweden,
     Germany, Switzerland, and France.  Franklin Institute  Research Labora-
     tories, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,  July 1972.   50 p.

Prokhorov, A. N.  Principal trends of  managing  centralized  solid waste collec-
     tion and disposal in big  cities of the  USSR.   In:   Collection, Disposal,
     Treatment and Recycling  of Solid  Wastes,  Hamburg,  Germany, September 1-6,
     1975.  Economic Commission for Europe,  Geneva, 2:99-103.

Rigo, H. G., D. N. Nelson, and M.  E. Elbl.   Technical evaluation study solid
     waste generation and disposal,  Red River Army  Depot, Texarkana,  Texas.
     Construction Engineering  Research Laboratory,  Champaign,  Illinois, April
     1974.  27 p.  NTIS ADA779 509.

                                    130

-------
Robena, S., Jr.  Current solid waste activities  in Puerto Rico.   In:   Gas
     and Leachate from Landfills:   Formation,  Collection  and  Treatment;  Pro-
     ceedings of a Research Symposium held at  Rutgers  University,  New Brunswick,
     New Jersey, March 25-26,  1975.   E.  J. Genetelli  and  J. Cirello,  eds.
     pp. 18-25.

Sharp, G.  Designing the system.   In:  Report  on the  Connecticut Solid Waste
     Management Plan.  Council of State Governments,  Lexington,  Kentucky,
     1973.  pp. 6-8.

Solid waste—municipal disposal in the smaller city (a case study).   Presented
     at 3rd International Pollution Engineering  Conference, Chicago,  Illinois,
     September 9-11, 1974.

Takato, A.  Waste treatment in Budapest in 1980.  In:   Collection,  Disposal,
     Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes;  Proceedings of  a Seminar,  Hamburg,
     Germany, September 1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva,
     2:95-98.

Thomas, Dean and Hoskins, Inc.  Comprehensive  study of solid  waste  disposal
     in Cascade County, Montana.   EPA/SW-6d, PHS-Pub-2002, Great Falls,
     Montana, 1970.  200 p.  NTIS  PB-216 104.

Van Wickeren, P.  Evaluation of the composition  (quantity and quality) of
     refuse for refuse disposal planning within  the Verbandsgebiet  des
     Siedlungs-verbandes Ruhrkohlenbezirk (Area  of the Residential  Associations
     Ruhr Mining District).  In:   Collection,  Disposal, Treatment and Recycling
     of Solid Wastes; Proceedings  of a Seminar,  Hamburg,  Germany,  September
     1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva,  2:43-51.

Von Buchstab, V.  A roundup of environmental management activities  from  coast
     to coast.  Water Pollut.  Control, 113(10):23-45,  October 1975.

CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION

Andren, R. K., M. H. Mandels,  and  J. E.  Medeiros.  Production of sugars  from
     waste cellulose by enzymatic  hydrolysis.   Appl.  Polym. Symp.,  28:205-219,
     1975.

Appell, H. R., Y. C. Fu, E. G. Illig, F. W. Steffgen,  and R.  D.  Miller.   Con-
     version of cellulosic wastes  to oil.  BMRI8013,  U.S. Bureau of Mines,
     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Energy Research Center,  February
     1975.  34 p.

Barbour, J. F., R. P. Groner,  and  V. H.  Freed.  The chemical  conversion  of
     solid wastes to useful products.  EPA-670/2-74,027,  Oregon  State University,
     Corvallis, Department of Agricultural Chemistry,  April 1974.   177 p.
     NTIS PB-233 178.

Bellamy, W. D.  Production of single cell protein for animal  feed from ligno-
     cellulose wastes.  World Anim. Rev., 18:39-42, 1976.
                                     131

-------
Callihan,  C.  D.,  and  C.  E.  Dunlap.   Construction of a chemical microbiol  pilot
     plant for production  of  single-cell  protein from cellulosic wastes.
     EPA-SW-24c-71, Louisiana State  University, Baton Rouge,  Department  of
     Chemical  Engineering,  1971.   135  p.   NTIS PB-203 620.

Chan, D.  B.,  and  E. A.  Pearson.   Comprehensive studies  of solid wastes manage-
     ment:  hydrolysis  rate of cellulose  in anaerobic fermentation.   SERL
     Report No.  70-3, University  of  California, Berkeley, Sanitary  Engineering
     Research Laboratory,  1970.   140 p.

Dunlap, C. E.   Physical  processing.  Presented at the Cellulosic Waste Seminar,
     National  Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1969.   (Unpublished
     paper).

Pagan, R.  D.,  H.  E. Grethlein, A.  0. Converse, and A. Porteous.  Kinetics of
     the acid hydrolysis of cellulose  found in paper refuse.  Environ. Sci.
     Technol., 5(6):545-547,  June 1971.

Golneke,  C, G.,  and P.  H.  McGauhey.  Waste materials.   Anner. Rev.  Energy,
     1:29-49,  1976.

Imrie, F.   Single-cell  protein from  agricultural wastes.  New Sci.,  66(950):
     458-460,  May 1975.

Johnson,  J. C.,  Jr.,  P.  R.  Utley,  R. L. Jones, and W. C. McCormick.   Aerobic
     digested municipal  garbage as a feedstuff for cattle.  J. Anim.  Sci.,
     41(4):1487-1495, October 1975.

Klee, A.  J.,  and  C. R.  Rogers. Biochemical routes to energy  recovery from
     municipal wastes.   In:   Proceedings  of the Second  Chemical Engineering
     Congress, New York, August 28-31,  1977.  American  Institute of Chemical
     Engineers.   Vol. 2, pp.  759-764.

Kuester,  J. L.,  and L.  Lutes.  Fuel  and feedstock from  refuse.  Environ.  Sci.
     Technol., 10(4):339-343, April  1976.

Mandels,  M.,  J.  Nystrom, and  L. A. Spano.  Enzymatic hydrolysis of  cellulosic
     wastes.   In:  Proceedings of Annual  Symposium "Energy  Research and  Develop-
     ment, U.S.  Army  Natick Laboratories,  Massachusetts, March 1974,  pp.  128-137.

Mandels,  M. H.,  L.  Hontz,  and J.  Nystrom.  Enzymatic hydrolysis waste cellulose.

Mcllroy,  W.,  and  F. A.  Martz.  Development and evaluation of  cattle feed com-
     ponents  prepared from solid  waste materials.  Grunvan Ecosystems Corpora-
     tion, Bethpage,  New York, 1976.   81  p.  NTIS PB-262 555.

Meller, F. H.   Conversion  of  organic solid wastes into  yeast; an economic
     evaluation.   PHS-Pub-1909, Ionics, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts,  1969.
     184 p.  NTIS PB-217 834.

Porteous,  A.   The recovery of ethyl  alcohol and protein by  hydrolysis of domestic
     refuse.   Presented at the Institute  of Solid Wastes Management Symposium  On
     the Treatment and  Recycling  of  Solid Wastes, Manchester, England, January
     11,  1974.  (Unpublished  paper).

                                      132

-------
Porteous, A.  The recovery of fermentation products from cellulosic wastes  via
     acid hydrolysis.  Octagon Papers,  3:17-57,  1976.

Probing energy's feedstock role.   Chem.  Week,   116(13):44,  March 26, 1975.

Righelato, R. C., F. K. E. Imrie, and A. J.  Vlitos.  Production  of single cell
     protein from agricultural and food processing wastes.   Resour.  Recovery
     Conserv., 1:257-269, April 1976.

Rosenbluth, R. F., and C. R.  Wilke.  Comprehensive studies  of solid wastes
     management:  enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose.   SERL  Report No.  70-9,
     University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering Research Labora-
     tory, December 1970.

Trezek, G. J., and C. G. Golueke.  Availability  of cellulosic wastes for chemical
     or bio-processing.  Presented at the 68th Annual  Meeting of the American
     Institute of Chemical Engineers, Los Angeles, California, November 16-20,
     1975.

Ware, S. A.  Fuel and energy  production by byconversion of waste materials:
     state-of-the-art.  EPA/600/2-76/148, Ebon Research Systems, Silver Spring,
     Maryland, August 1976.  78 p.  NTIS PB-258  499.

Ware, S. A.  Single cell protein  and other food  recovery technologies  from
     waste.  Ebon Research Systems, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1977.

Wilke, C. R., and G. Mitra.  Process developmental studies  on the enzymatic
     hydrolysis of cellulose.  Biotechnol. Bioeng. Symp., 5:253-274, 1975.

Wilke, C. R., and R. D. Yang.  Process  development studies  of the enzymatic
     hydrolysis of newsprint.  Appl. Polym.  Symp., 28:175-188, 1975.

Wilke, C. R., R. D. Yang, and U.  Von Stockar.  Preliminary  cost  analysis for
     enzymatic hydrolysis of  newsprint.   Biotechnol.  Bioeng. Symp.,  6:155-175,
     1976.
CODISPOSAL

Flanagan, M. J., and G. A. Horstkotte,  Jr.  An integrated approach to  waste-
     water and solid waste processing.   In:   Conference Papers,  First  Inter-
     national Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy, Montreux,  Switzerland,
     November 3-5, 1975.  Institute of Electrical and  Electronics Engineers,
     New York.  pp. 293-298.

Grant, R. A., and N. A. Gardner.   Operating  experience  on combined incineration
     of municipal refuse and  sewage sludge.   In:  Conference Papers, First
     International Conference on  Conversion  of Refuse  to Energy, Montreux,
     Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.  Institute of Electrical and Electronics
     Engineers, New York.  pp. 293-298.

Kimbrough, W. L., and L. E. Dye.   Pyrolysis  of sewage  sludge and refuse combined.
     In:  Conference Papers,  First  International Conference on  Conversion  of
     Refuse to Energy, Montreux,  Switzerland,  November 3-5, 1975.  Institute
     of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,  New York.  pp. 287-292.


                                      133

-------
Krings,  J.   French  experience with  facilities  for combined  processing  of
     municipal  refuse  and  sludge.   In:   Conference  Papers,  First   International
     Conference on  Conversion of  Refuse  to  Energy,  Montreux,  Switzerland,
     November 3-5,  1975.   Institute of Electrical and  Electronics  Engineers,
     New York,  pp.  305-312.

Niessen, W., A. Daley,  E.  Smith,  and  E.  Gilardi.  A review  of techniques  for
     incineration of sewage  sludge  with  solid  wastes.   EPA/600/2-76-288,  Roy
     F.  Weston, West Chester Pennsylvania,  December 1976.   238 p.   NTIS PB-266  355

Sussman, D.  B.   "Co-disposal" for solid  wastes and  sewage sludge.   Waste  Age,
     8(7):44-49, July 1977.

COMPOSTING

Allenspach,  H.   Determination of  the  degree of maturity of  refuse  compost.
     Part 1.  Measuring the  oxygen  intake.   Int. Res.  Group Refuse Disposal  Inf.
     Bull.,  35:23-25,  May  1969.

Association  of Bay  Area Governments.  Bay Area Solid Waste  Management  Imple-
     mentation Project. Vol.  II.   Technical report on levee  stabilization  and
     composting.  Berkeley,  California,  December 1973.   97  p.   NTIS  PB-234  811.

Banse, H. J., G. Farkasdi, K. H.  Knoll,  and D.  Strauch.  Composting  of urban
     refuse.  Int.  Res. Group Refuse  Disposal  Inf.  Bull., 32:29-34,  April  1968.

Basalo, C. Beneficiation of  organic matter  contained in household  refuse  for
     agricultural  use:   position  in France. In:  Collection,  Disposal, Treat-
     ment and Recycling of Solid  Wastes; Proceedings of a Seminar, Hamburg,
     September 1-6, 1975.   Economic Commission for  Europe,  Geneva, 2:167-177.

Blobaum, R.   China  recycles  her wastes by using them on land.   Compost Sci.,
     16(5):16-17, Autumn 1975.

Bopardikar,  M.  V.,  and R.  T. Doshi.  Optimum utilization of compost  in India.
     Compost Sci.,  17(5):22-23, Winter 1976.

Breidenbach, A. W.   Composting of municipal solid wastes in the United States.
     EPA/SW-47r, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.,  Office  of
     Solid Waste Management  Programs, November 1975.  360 p.   NTIS PB-261 047.

Chinese Academy of  Medical Sciences.  Sanitary effects of urban garbage and
     night soil composting.  Chin.  Med.  J., 16(5):16-17, Autumn 1975.

Chrometzka,  P.   Determination of  the  oxygen requirements of maturing composts.
     Int. Res.  Group Refuse  Disposal  Inf. Bull., 33:7-11, August  1968.

Clark, C. S.  Laboratory scale composting:   techniques. J. Environ. Eng.  Div.,
     Am. Soc.  Civ. Eng.,  103(5):893-906, October 1977.

Compost:  from waste to resource.   Compost  Sci., 17(2):26-27,  March-April  1976.
                                      134

-------
Farley, C.  E.  Composting used to extend life of a landfill  site.   Public Works,
     106(3):68-70, March 1975.

Finstein, M.  S., and M.  L. Morris.   Microbiology of municipal  solid waste
     composting.  Adv. Appl.  Microbiol., 9:113-151, 1975.

Franklin Institute Research Laboratories.  State-of-the-art  summary of land
     and sea  waste disposal  methods.  Philadelphia, 1973.   2 vols.

Gaby. W. L.  Evaluation of health hazards associated with  solid waste/sewage
     sludge mixtures.  EPA-670/2-75-023, East Tennessee State University,
     Johnson  City, Department of Health Sciences, April 1976.   56  p.  NTIS PB-241  810.

Gainesville Municipal Waste Conversion Authority, Inc.   Gainesville compost
     plant; final report on a solid waste management demonstration.   Gainesville,
     Florida, 1973.  256 p.   NTIS PB-222 710.

Garner, G.  K., and staff.  Evaluation of the Terex 74-51 Composter at Los Angeles
     County Sanitation District, General Motors, Hudson, Ohio,  Terex Division,
     May 7, 1973.

Golueke, C. G.  The biological approach to solid waste  management.   Compost
     Sci.,  18(3):4-9, July-August 1977.

Golueke, C. G.  Biological reactions in solid waste recovery systems.  Compost
     Sci.,  15(3):2-6, Summer 1974.

Golueke, C. G.  Composting, a Study of the Process and  Its Principles.  Rodale
     Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania, 1972.  110 p.

Golueke, C. G.  Latest methods in composting and recycling.   Compost Sci.,
     14(4):7-9, July-August 1973.

Gray, J.  Research on composting in British universities.   Compost Sci., 11(5):
     12-15, September-October 1970.

Gray, K. R. ejt a_K  A Review of Composting.  Morgan-Granipian,  London,  1971.

Hart, S. A.  Solid waste management/composting;  European activity  and American
     potential.  EPA/SW-2c.,  University of California,  Davis,  Department of
     Agricultural Engineering, 1968.  49 p.  NTIS PB-205 656.

Hasler, A., and R. Zuber.  Effect of baron in refuse compost.   Int.  Res. Group
     Refuse Disposal Inf. Bull., 27:204-216, August 1966.

Hill, G. A.,  and G. B. Lee.   Recycling of compost in Dane, Green,  and Rock
     Counties, Wisconsin by application to land.  University of Wisconsin,
     Madison, Institute for Environmental Studies, 1975.   33 p. NTIS PB-247  111.

Hortenstine,  C. C.  Effects of garbage compost on soil  processes;  summary pro-
     gress  report submitted to Bureau of Solid Waste Management.  Public Health
     Service, November 30, 1970.
                                       135

-------
Hortenstine, C.  C.,  and D.  F.  Rockwell.   Composted  municipal  refuse as a soil  amend-
     ment.   University of Florida,  Gainesville,  August 1973.   67  p.  NTIS PB-222 422

Hortenstine, C.  C.,  and D.  F.  Rockwell.   Evaluation of composted  municipal
     refuse as a plant nutrient source  and  soil  amendment on  Leon fine sand.
     Soil Crop Sci.  Soc.  Fla.  Proc.,  29:312-319, March 1969.

Hortenstine, C.  C.,  and D.  F.  Rockwell.   Use  of  municipal  compost in reclamation
     of phosphate-mining  sand  tailings.   J. Environ.  Qua!.,  1 (4):415-418,
     October-December 1972.

Hovsenius,  6.  Composting and  use  of  compost  in  Sweden.   J.  Water Pollut.
     Control Fed., 47(4):741-747,  April  1975.

Howard, K.  R.  Composting municipal refuse.   In: Proceedings,  Pollution
     Restraint Conference,  Wairakei,  New Zealand, June 20-21,  1973.  New Zealand
     Department of Science and Industrial Resources,  Wellington,  1973.  pp.  279-
     287.

Interrelationship of problems  with solid waste disposal,  soil  science, and
     agriculture in the German Democratic Republic.  Bau-Intern.  Wasser
     Abwasser, 1974(11):330-331, November 1974.

Jeris, J.,  and R. Regan.   Optimum  conditions  for composting.   In:   Solid
     Wastes:  Origin, Collection,  Processing, and Disposal.   C. L.  Mantel!,
     ed.  Wiley, New York, 1975.  pp.  245-254.

Kane, E. D.  Composting.   In:   Technical  Economic Study of Solid  Waste Disposal
     Needs  and Practices.  Combustion  Energineering,  Inc., Windsor, Connecticut,
     1969.   27 p.   NTIS  PB-187 712.

Kane, B. E., and J.  T. Mullins. Thermophilic fungi and the  compost environment
     in a high-rate municipal  composting system. Compost Sci., 14(6):6-7,
     November-December 1973.

Kehy, W. Q.  Microbiol degradation of  urban and  agricultural  wastes.  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  Ohio, Office of Solid  Waste Management,
     1972.   pp.  185-186.

Kochtitzky, 0. W., W. K.  Seaman, and J.  S.  Wiley.   Municipal  composting research
     at Johnson City, Tennessee.  Compost Sci.,  9(6):5-16, Winter 1969.

Los Angeles County,  California, County Sanitation  District.  Report on status
     of technology in the recovery of  resources  from solid wastes.   Report  No.
     31R-10.10.   Whittier,  California,  1976.

Lossin, R.  D.  Compost studies. Compost Sci., 11(6):16-17,  November-December
     1970;  12(1):12-13,  January-February 1971; 12(2):31-32,  March-April 1971.

Low-energy  agriculture and composting.   Compost  Sci.,  14(6):2-3,  November-
     December 1973.
                                       136

-------
Martin, P.  Plant pathology problems in refuse composting.   Int.  Res.  Groups
     Refuse Disposal Inf. Bull., 19, December 1963.

Moller, F.  Oxidation-reduction potential  and hygienic state of compost  from
     urban refuse.  Int. Res. Group Refuse Disposal  Inf.  Bull., 32:22-28,
     August 1968.

1977 National Conference on Composting of Municipal  Residues and  Sludges,
     August 23-25, 1977-  Information Transfer, Inc.,  Rockville,  Maryland,
     1978,  172 p.

Nunley, J. W.  A farm-scale composting method in Oregon.   Compost Sci.,
     17(2):20-22, March-April 1976.

Obrist, W.  Determination of the degree of maturity  of refuse compost.   Part
     2.  Characteristics of the fermentation process.   Int.  Res.  Group
     Refuse Disposal Inf. Bull., 35:36-41, 1969.

Peterson, M. L.  Parasitological examination of compost.   Solid Waste  Research
     Open-File Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.,
     1971.  15 p.

Phung, H. T.  Soil incorporation of municipal solid  wastes.   Public  Works,
     108(11):76-78, November 1977.

Poincelot, R. P.  A scientific examination of the principles and  practice
     of composting.  Compost Sci., 15(3):24-31, Summer 1974.

Proceedings Fifth Annual Composting and Waste Recycling Conference.   Compost
     Sci., 16(3), May-June 1975.

Regan, R. W., and J. S. Jen's.  A Review of the decomposition of cellulose
     and refuse.  Compost Sci., 11(1):17-20, January-February 1970.

Regan, R., J. S. Jen's, R. Gasser, K. McCann, and J.  Hudek.   Cellulose de-
     gradation in composting.  Manhattan College, Bronx,  New York, Department
     of Civil Engineering, March 1973.  153 p.  NTIS PB-215  722.

Satriana, M. J.  Large Scale Composting.  Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge,
     New Jersey, 1974.  269 p.

Senn, C. L.  Role of composting in waste utilization.   Compost Sci.,  15(4):
     24-28, September-October 1974.

Sievert, R. C.  Using composted wastes in the greenhouse.  Compost Sci.,
     14(6):8-10, November-December 1973.

Solid waste—municipal disposal in the smaller city  (a case  study).   Presented
     at 3rd International Pollution Engineering Conference,  Chicago,  September
     9-11, 1974.  pp. 113.

Spohn, E.  Recent developments in composting of municipal  wastes  in  Germany.
     Compost Sci., 18(2):25-32, March-April 1977.


                                     137

-------
Stone, G. E., C. C. Wiles,  and C.  A.  demons.   Composting at Johnson City: final
     report on joint USEPA-TVA project;  composting project with operational data,
     1967 to 1971.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C., Office of
     Solid Waste Management Programs, November 1975.   360 p.  NTIS PB-26 047.

Straub, H.  Refuse composting - the most rational  method of disposal.   Umwelt,
     3:56-61, March-April  1976.

Sweeten, J. M.  Combining  municipal waste with Federal  waste.   Compost Sci.,
     15(4):20-23, September-October 1974.

Tello, J.  Sanitary aspects of composting in Mexico.   Compost Sci., 17(2):
     30-32, March-April  1976.

Thurlow and Associated,  Ltd.  A preliminary overview  of the solid waste
     problem in Canada.   Solid Waste  Management Report EPS 6-EP-73-1,
     Environment Canada, Ottawa, Solid Waste Management Division, February
     1973.  55 p.

Tietzen, C.  The potential  of composting in developing countries.  Compost
     Sci., 16(4):6-7, August 1975.

Tietzen, C.  The utilization of composted domestic refuse.  Schiveiz.  Z.
     Hydro!., 3(2):543-551, December  31, 1969.

Tietzen, C., and S. A. Hart.  Compost for agricultural  land?  J. Sanit.
     Eng. Div-, Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 95(SA2):269-287,  April  1969.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Legal  compilation:  statutes  and
     legislative history,  executive orders, regulations and guidelines and
     reports.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C., January  1973.
     2 vols.

Vincent, B. W., and J. A.  Ruf.  Resource recovery  through composting  at
     Ecology, inc., New York, New York.   Environmental  Protection Agency,  New
     York. Region II, November 1973.   41 p.  NTIS  PB-230 140.

Walters, A. H.  Microbiol  deterioration  of materials:   relevance to waste
     recycling.  Chem. Ind. (London), 1974(9) :365-371,  May 4,  1974.

Wiles, C. C., and L.  W.  Lefke.  Solid waste composting.  J. Water Pollut.
     Control Fed., 44(6):1104-1107, June 1972.

Wiley, J. S.  Progress report on h'igh-rate composting studies.   Proc.  Ind.
     Waste Conf., 12:590-595, 1957.

DEPOSIT SYSTEMS

Bingham, T. A., J. A. Olsen, and J. M. Daber.   Yosemite National Park  beverage
     container deposit experiment:  final report.   EPA/SW-142c, Research
     Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April 1977.
     50 p.  NTIS PB-270  266.
                                     138

-------
Bingham, T. H., and R. H. Omgerth.   The beverage container problem:   analysis
     and recommendations.  Research Triangle Institute,  Durham,  North Carolina,
     September 1972.  201 p.  NTIS  PB-213 341.

Branch, B. S.  Returnable vs.  nonreturnable beverage containers;  an  evaluation
     in the light of recent experience.  At!.  Econ.  Rev.,  26(3):28-34,  May-
     June 1976.

Brandt, R.  Summary report Dade County Bottle  Ordinance.   Florida International
     University, Miami, Joint Center for Environmental  and Urban  Problems.

Council of Economic Advisors.   Mandatory deposit legislation  for  beer and
     soft drink containers in Maryland; an economic  analysis.  Annapolis,
     December 1974.

The economic impact of a proposed mandatory deposit  on  beer and  soft drink
     containers in California; an analysis of  Assembly  Bill 594  of the  1973-74
     Session.  Legislative Analyst, State of California,  Sacramento, October
     1975.  136 p.

Environmental Action Foundation.  All's well on the  Oregon Trail. Washington,
     D.C., 1976.

Folk, H.  Employment effects of the mandatory  deposit regulations.  Illinois
     Institute for Environmental Quality, Chicago, 1972.   30  p.

Gudger, C. M., and J. C. Bailes.  The economic impact of Oregon's "Bottle
     Bill."  Oregon State University, Corvallis, School  of Business  and
     Technology, March 1974.  80 p.

Hannon, B.  System energy and recycling; a study of  the beverage industry,
     University of Illinois, Urbana, Center for Advanced Computation, March
     1973.  32 p.  NTIS PB-229 183.

Hunt, R. 6., W. E. Franklin, R. 0.  Welch, J. A. Cross,  and A.  E.  Woodall.
     Resource and environmental profile analysis of  nine beverage container
     alternatives.  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City,  Missouri,  1974.
     185 p.  NTIS PG-253 486.

Loube, M.  Beverage containers:  the Vermont experience.   EPA-SW-139, Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.   16 p.

Lowry, E. F., T. W. Fenner, and R.  M. Lowry.  Disposing of non-returnables;
     a guide to minimum deposit legislation.  Stanford Environmental Law
     Society, California, January 1975.  132 p.

New York State Bottle Bill:  New Yorkers for returnables.   New York, March 1975.

New York State Senate Task Force on Critical Problems.   No deposit,  no return;
     a report on beverage containers.  Albany, February 1975.   134 p.
                                      139

-------
Oregon Department of Transportation.   Project completion  report:   study of
     the effectiveness and impact of  the Oregon  Minimum Deposit Law.   Salem,
     October 1974.

Oregon State Public Interest Research Group.   Oregon's  Bottle Bill:  a riproaring
     success.  Portland, 1974.

Peaker, A.  Resource savings from the re-introduction of  a  returnable system
     of beverage containers; a  case study of  experience in  Oregon.   Resourc.
     Policy, 1:266-276, September 1975.

Pierce, C.  Untrashing.  Yosemite Park.   Reprint from EPA journal,  October
     1976.

Rao, 6. P.  Economic analysis of energy  and employment  effects of deposit
     regulation on non-returnable containers  in  Michigan.   Michigan Public
     Service Commission, Lansing, October 1975.   461 p.

Research Triangle Institute. Energy  and economic impacts of mandatory deposits.
     Durham, North Carolina, 1976.  1 vol.  NTIS PB-258 638.

Sachsel, G. F., ed.  Proceedings of the  Solid Waste  Resources Conference on
     Design of Consumer Containers  for Re-Use or Disposal,  May 12-13, 1971.
     EPA-SW-3p, Battelle Memorial Institute,  Columbus,  Ohio,  Columb
     Laboratories, 1972.  341 p.  NTIS PB-214 012.

Selby, E., and M. Selby.  Can this  law stop the  trashing  of America.   Read.
     Dig., 108(647):69-73, March 1976.

Selby, E., and M. Selby.  The lobby that battles the bottle bill.   Read. Dig.,
     108(649):237-245, May 1976.

Selby, E., and M. Selby.  The whys  behind a bottle bill.  Read.  Dig., 108(651):
     169-174, July 1976.

Sloan, J.  Bibliography on recycling  of  container materials.   British Steel
     Corporation, Sheffield, England, Information Services, October 1973.
     22 p.  NTIS PB-225 711.

Stern, C. ejt al_.  Impacts of beverage container  legislation on Connecticut and
     a review of the experience in  Oregon, Vermont,  and Washington  State.
     University of Connecticut, Storrs,  Department of Agricultural  Economics.

Stronger and/or coated bottles  in development.   Soft Drinks           14,
     May 1973.

Tayler, P.  Bottles and sense.   The Environmental Action  Foundation,  Washington,
     D.C., 1976.

U.S. Bureau of Domestic Commerce.  The impacts of national  beverage container
     legislation.  Washington,  D.C.,  October  1975.
                                     140

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Questions and answers on returnable
     beverage containers for beer and soft drinks.  Washington,  D.C.,  July
     1975.  13 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Solid waste management guidelines  for
     beverage containers.  Fed. Reg., 41 (1894):41202-41205,  September 21,
     1976.

Waggoner, D.  The Oregon Bottle Bill--what it means to recycling.   Compost
     Sci., 17(4):10-13, September-October 1976.

Waggoner, D.  Oregon's Bottle Bill two years later.  Oregon Environmental
     Council, Portland, 1974.

Yosemite test of beverage container refund.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Washington, D.C., July 1976.  2 p.

FERROUS METALS

Alter, H., and K. L. Woodruff.  Magnetic separation:  recovery of saleable
     iron and steel from municipal solid waste.  EP-SW-599, National  Center
     for Resource Recovery, Washington, D. C., March 1977.   30 p.   NTIS
     PB-266 114.

Alter, H., S. L. Natoff, K. L. Woodruff, and R. D. Hagen.   The recovery of
     magnetic metals from municipal solid waste.   National  Center for  Resource
     Recovery, Washington, D.C., 1977.

Barrett, W.  Force index:  the performance method of magnet evaluation.
     Dings Magnetic Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1974.

Bengston, R. J.  Opportunities for increased recycling of metal  solid  waste.
     Second. Raw Mater., 10(9):13-24, September 1972.

Bever, M. B.  The recycling of metals.  I.  Ferrous metals Conserv. Recycl.,
     1:55-69, 1976.

Brooklyn to get plant designed to produce steel from refuse.   New York Times,
     June 8, 1976, p. 1.

Daellenbach, C. B., W. M. Mahan, and J. J. Drost.  Utilization of automobile
     and ferrous refuse scrap in cupola iron production.   In:  Proceedings
     of the Fourth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Illinois,
     May 7-8, 1974.  E. Aleshin, ed.   IIT Research Institute, Chicago, 1974.
     pp.  417-423.

Duckett, E. J.  Organic contaminants and the reuse of magnetic metals  recovered
     from municipal solid waste.  National Center for Resource Recovery,
     Washington, D.C., August 1977.

Ferrous scrap recovery in Socialist countries.  Recycling Today, 12(8):33,
     August 1974.
                                     141

-------
Franklin, hi.  E.,  D.  Bendersky,  W.  R.  Park,  and R.  G.  Hunt.   Potential  energy
     conservation from recycling metals in  urban waste.   In:   The Energy
     Conservation Papers.   R.  H. Williams,  ed.  Ballinger,  Cambridge,
     Massachusetts,  1975.   pp.  171-218.

Graham, W. 0.  Marketing and equipment design:  municipal  solid waste  ferrous
     metal recovery.  In:   Proceedings of 1976 National  Waste Processing
     Conference,  Boston, Massachusetts, May 23-26, 1976.   American Society
     of Mechanical  Engineers,  New  York.  pp.  385-407.

Haynes, B. W., S. L. Law,  and W. J.  Campbell.   Metals  in  the  combustible
     fraction of municipal  solid waste.  RI 8244,  Bureau  of Mines, College
     Park, Maryland, College Park  Metallurgy Research  Center, 1977.   20 p.

Heine, H. J.   Recycled steel cans—phoenix  from the ashes.   Foundry,  103(6):
     121-125, June 1975.

Henstock, M.   Materials recovery and recycling in  the  United  States.   Resour.
     Policy,  1:171-175, April  1975.

Hunter, W. L.  Steel from urban waste.  RI  8147, Bureau  of Mines, Albany,  New
     York, Albany Metallurgy Research Center,  1976.   19  p.

Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel.  Facts:   31st edition  yearbook.  New York,
     1970.  93 p.

Interrante, C. G.  Report on the  Ferrous Metals Workshop.   National  Bureau of
     Standards, Washington, D.C.,  1975.  7  p.   NTIS PB-245  966.

Makar, H. V., R.  S.  Kaplan, and L. Janowski.   Evaluation  of steel made with
     ferrous fractions from urban  refuse.  RI  8037,  Bureau  of Mines,  College
     Park, Maryland, College Park  Metallurgical Research  Center, 1975.  28 p.

National Association of Secondary  Materials Industries.   Effective technology
     for recycling metal.   New York,  1971.

National Center for Resource Recovery.  Fact sheet:   ferrous  metals.   Washington,
     D.C., May 1973.

Ostrowski, E. J.   The bright outlook for recycling ferrous  scrap from  solid
     waste.  Presented at American Institute of Chemical  Engineers Meeting,
     Boston,  Massachusetts, April  1975.  (Unpublished  paper.)

Read, D. B.  Recycling of ferrous  metals recovered from municipal waste.
     M&T Chemicals,  Rahway, New Jersey.

Reclaiming and recycling secondary metals.   Eng. Min.  J.,  176(7):94-98, July
     I _/ / D •

Recycling ferruginous wastes:   practices and trends.   Iron  Steel Int., 49(3):
     June 1976.
                                     142

-------
Regan, W. J., R. W. James, and T.  J.  McLeer.   Identification  of opportunities
     for increased recycling of ferrous solid waste.   EPA-SW-45d,  Institute
     of Scrap Iron and Steel, Washington,  D.C.,  1972.   409 p.   NTIS  PB-213 577.

Smith, M. F.  Solid waste reclamation and  recycling (a bibliography  with
     abstracts).  Part 3.  Metals.  NTISearch,  National  Technical  Information
     Service, Springfield, Virginia,  August 1977.   236 p.   NTIS PS-78  0763.

Rosenthal, P. C., C. R. Loper, Jr., and R. W. Heine.   Technological  aspects
     of utilizing ferrous wastes.   In:  Proceedings of the Third Mineral
     Waste Utilization Symposium,  Chicago, Illinois,  March 14-16,  1972.
     E. Aleshin, ed.  IIT Research Institute, Chicago,  pp.  235-243.

Twichell, E. S. Eriez.  New Model  SF Super Scrap Drum, Secon.  Raw Mater.,
     10(8):118-119, August 1972.

Twichell, E. S.  Magnetic separation equipment for municipal  refuse.  Pre-
     sented at the 104th Annual American Institute of Mechanical Engineers'
     Meeting, New York, February 17-29, 1975.  (Unpublished paper.)

GLASS

Color sorting waste glass at Franklin, Ohio.   Res. Recov.  Energy Rev.,
     3(6): 20                                     November-December 1976.

Garbe, Y.  Color sorting waste glass at Franklin,  Ohio.  Waste Age,  7(9):
     70-71, 78, September 1976.

Gershman, H. W.  Status  report on glass recovery.  Glass Ind., 57(10):24-25,  28,
     October 1978.

Glass Container Manufacturers' Institute.   Glass containers.   Washington,  D.C.,
     1973/74.  14 p.

Lasch, E. J.  Notes on a conference with Dr.  J.  P. Cummings,  Director  of  the
     Franklin Glass Recovery Project, on glass recovery process, March 1,
     1973.

Mackenzie, D.  A new waste glass reuse strategy.  Resour.  Recovery,  2:10-11, 14,
     September-October 1975.

Mattice, W. J.  Riverview glass collection system.  Environment Canada,
     Ottawa, Ontario, 1976.

McChesney, R. D., and V. R. Degner.  Methods for recovering metals and glass.
     Pollut. Eng., 7(8):40-43, August 1975.

Morey, B., and J. P. Cummings.  Glass recovery from municipal  trash  by frosh
     flotation.  In:  Proceedings of the Third Mineral Waste Utilization
     Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, March 14-16, 1972.  E. Aleshin, ed.  IIT
     Research Institute, Chicago,   pp. 311-321.
                                      143

-------
Samtur, H.  R.   Glass recycling  and  reuse.   University of Wisconsin,  Madison,
     Institute for Environmental  Studies,  March 1974.  106 p.   NTIS  PB-239 674.

Smith, M. F.  Solid waste reclamation  and  recycling  (a bibliography  with
     abstracts).  Part 4:  Glass.   NTISearch,  National Technical  Information
     Service,  Springfield, Virginia, August 1977-  94 p.   NTIS  PS-77/0669.

HOSPITALS

American Hospital  Association.   Hospital Engineering  Handbook.   Chicago,
     Illinois, 1974.  318 p.

Anderson, J.,  and J. J. Beres.   Collection and disposal  of hospital  solid
     wastes.  Master's thesis.   Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,  Troy,  New
     York, 1970.  138 p.

Baker, H. J.  A summary of solid waste handling in seven  hospitals within
     the District of Columbia;  University  of Minnesota,  Minneapolis, School
     of Public Health, August 1968.   (Unpublished course  paper.)

Baker, W. J.  Is system automation  the only solution  for  hospitals?   Hosp.
     Manage.,  106(10):81-32,  October 1968.

Bond, R. G., and G. S. Michaelson.   Bacterial  contamination from  hospital solid
     waste; final  report.  University  of Minnesota, Minneapolis, University
     Health Service and School  of Public Health,  1964.  160 p.

Bond, R. G., S. R. Arora, R.  L. DeRoos, A. G.  DuChene, and J. L. Jain.   Study
     of the economics of hospital  solid waste  systems, University  of Minnesota,
     Minneapolis,  Division of Environmental  Health, July  1973.   329  p.   NTIS
     PB-221 681.

Booz Allen Applied Research,  Inc.   A study of  hazardous waste materials,
     hazardous effects and disposal methods.   Vol. 3.  Bethesda, Maryland,
     1973.  444 p.  NTIS PB-221 467.

Boudreau, E. M.  Meeting the  new requirements  for hospital  materials handling.
     Hospitals, 43(3):42-46,  February  2, 1969.

Brown, R. M.  Use  and disposal  of single-use items in health care  facilities.
     National  Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan,  1969.  64  p.

Burchinal, J.  C.  A study of  institutional solid wastes;  final  report.   West
     Virginia  University, Morgantown,  Department of Civil  Engineering,  1973.
     245 p.  NTIS  PB-223 345.

Cadmus, R.  R.   One-use waste  receptacles minimize infection spread.   Hospitals,
     32:82-84, December 16, 1958.

Callely, A. G., and C.  F. Forster.  Plastic waste and its  disposal.   Hosp.
     Int.,  6:23, December 1972.
                                     144

-------
Chamberlain, C. T., D. F. Cooke, and G. S. Coulson.   Disposal  of hospital  wastes.
     In:  Progress in the Incineration of Industrial  and Domestic Waste,  One-
     Day Symposium, Institute of Fuel, September 1973.   7 p.

Collins, C.  Sophisticated systems for handling solid waste.   Waste Age,  2(3):
     26-27, May-June 1971.

Cooper, W. T.  A study of solid waste disposal, Research Hospital  and  Medical
     Center, Kansas City, Missouri.  Master's thesis, Baylor  University,  Waco,
     Texas, 1970.

Cross, F. L., Jr., and 6. Noble.  Handbook on Hospital  Solid  Waste Management.
     Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut, 1973.   107 p.

Davis, R. W.  Automated waste disposal systems are coming.  Mod.  Hosp., 111(1):
     138-140, July 1968.

Decker, W.  Managing hospital and institutional wastes.  In:   Proceedings  of
     the Governor's Conference on Solid Waste Management, Hershey, Pennsylvania,
     October 8-9, 1968.  Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg.   pp. 150-
     154.

DeRoss, R. L.  Environmental concerns in hospital  waste disposal.   Hospitals,
     48(3):120-123, February 1, 1974.

District of Columbia, Department of Sanitary Engineering.  District of Columbia
     solid waste management plan.  EPA-SW-4tsg.  Washington,  D.C., 1971.   132  p.
     NTIS PB-216 134.

ESCO/Greenleaf.  Solid waste handling and disposal in multistory buildings
     and hospitals.  Los Angeles, California, 1972.   4  vols.   NTIS PB-213  132-135.

Facing the trash explosion.  Build. Oper. Manage., 17(10):20+, October 1970.

Falick, J.  Waste handling in hsopitals.  Archit.  Eng.  News,  7:46-53,  November
     1965.

Fletcher, B. A.  The use of individual nursing station  compactors  as part  of
     a hospital's solid waste disposal- system.  Master's thesis,  West  Virginia
     University, 1971.  83 p.

Flotz, W. N.  Materials handling systems:  choosing an  efficient waste disposal
     system.  Hospitals, 43:67-72, February 1, 1969.

Geiringer, P. L.  On-site power generation through the  use  of fuel and solid
     waste at the Harvard medical area.  In:  Record of the Intersociety  Energy
     Conversion Engineering Conference, University of Delaware,  August 18-22,
     1975.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.   pp. 482-485.

Greenleaf, J. W., Jr.  Evaluating efficiency of available waste  handling  and
     disposal systems.  Hospitals.
                                      145

-------
Grieble, H.  6.,  T.  J.  Bird,  H.  M.  Nidea,  and  C.  A.  Miller.   Chutehydropulping
     waste disposal  system;  a  reservoir of enteric  bacilli  and  pseudomonas  in
     a model hospital.  J.  Infect.  Dis.,  130(6):602-607,  December 1974.

Groce, R. B.  Disposable items  add  to  hospital's waste  disposal  problems.
     Hosp. Eng.  Newsletter,  14:1-2,  January 1969.

Hahn, J. L.   Land disposal  of  medical  services waste.   Calif. Vector Views,
     21(6):23-27, June 1974.

Heat recovery wheel  saves energy in  Florida hospital.   Actual Specif.  Eng.,
     33(5):54, May 1975.

Hechinger, S.  Huge pneumatic  tube  system moves  laundry and trash.   Mod.  Hosp.,
     113:128-130, July 1969.

Hechinger, S.  Pulping machine cuts  bulk  of disposal by 85%.  Mod.  Hosp.
     113:158, February 1969.

Hindenlang, W. A.  Hidden dollars  in waste disposables.   Disposable Soft  Goods,
     12-14, December 1970.

Holbrook, J. A.   Hospitals and the growing problems of  waste disposal.  Hospitals,
     42(5):57-60, March 1968.

Hospital waste disposal.  Hosp. Admin.  Currents, 12(4):l-4, September-October
     1968.

How to reduce solid waste:   use it.  Mod. Healthcare, 2(6):51,  December 1974.

Iglar, A. F., Jr.  Hospital  solid  waste management; an  empirical  study with
     particular regard to quantities of solid waste.  Ph.D. thesis, University
     of Minnesota, 1970.  344  p.  D.A.71-18747.

Iglar, A. F., and R. G. Bond.   Hospital solid waste disposal in  community
     facilities.  University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,  Division  of Environ-
     mental  Health,  July 1973.   350  p.  NTIS  PB-222 018.

Jacobsen, T. L.   Materials handling  systems case study:   compaction system
     reduces disposal  hazards.   Hospitals, 43:89-90, February 1,  1969.

Jain, J. L., S.  R.  Arora, and  R. G.  Bond.  Integrated approach  eliminates waste.
     Hospitals,  46:105-110,  October  16, 1972.

Kensett, R.  G.  Methods of hospital  waste disposal. Hosp.  Eng.,  26:1-6,  July
     1972.

Kiefer, I.  Hospital wastes.  EPA-SW-129, Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Washington, D.C., 1974.  36 p.

Koren, H.  Environmental hazards in  hospitals.   J.  Environ. Health, 37(2):
     122-126, September-October 1974.
                                      146

-------
Krellen, F.  R.   Modern systems for the disposal  of hospital  solid  wastes.
     Presented  to the American Hospital  and Health Industries  Associations,
     Chicago, Illinois, February 24,  1972.

Lechner, C.  B.   Disposables .are dangerous.   Pa Med.,  71(3):49, March  1968.

Letourneau,  C.  U.  Automated transportation of hospital  materials.  Hosp.
     Manage., 104(1):40-41, July 1967; 104(2):45-49,  August  1967.

Lewis, R. K.  Just ahead:  new standards  in  structures and  equipment.   Hospitals,
     40(1):88-92, September 1, 1966.

Lightcap, T. A.  The environmental  impact from the use of  trash compactors
     in the West Virginia  University  Hospital  complex.   Master's thesis,
     University of West Virginia, 1972.   84 p.

Litsky, W., J.  W. Martin,  and B. Y. Litsky.  Solid waste:  a hospital  dilemma.
     Am. J. Nurs., 72(10):1841-1847,  October 1972.

Maurer, A. H.  A survey of waste disposal systems.  Exec.  Housekeeper, 3:16-18,
     April 1971.

McGann, J. M.  Survey shows major problem in waste disposal  by hospitals.
     Hosp. Topics, 48:45-50, October  1970.

Medics face giant problem  in refuse handling.   Solid  Wastes  Manage.,  14(13):16+,
     March 1971.

Messman, S. A.   An analysis of institutional solid wastes.   EPA-SW-2tg,  Univer-
     sity of Illinois, Urbana, 1971.   70 p.  NTIS PB-213 939.

Michaelsen, G.  S. and D. Vesley.  Disposable hospital supplies, some  administra-
     tive and technical implications.  Hosp. Manage., 101:23-28, January 1966.

Montreal General Hospital  recycles refuse to fight pollution.   Can. Hosp.,
     49(1):13,  January 1972.

Oviatt, V. R.  How to dispose of disposables.   Med.-Swig.  Rev., 1969:57-61.

Oviatt, V. R.  Status report - disposal  of solid wastes.  Hospitals,  43:73-76,
     December 16, 1968.

Pittsburgh hospitals practice in recycling project.   Mod.  Hosp., 119(6):48,
     December 1972.

Plassman, E.  Incineration equipment  in  the hospital.  Kranken-haus-Umsch.,
     40(12):n38+, December 1971.

Rooen, W.  The disposable  dilemma.  Can. Hosp.,  45:73-78,  October  1968.

Ross Hofmann Associates.  A study of  pneumatic solid  waste collection systems
     as employed in hospitals.  Coral Gables,  Florida, 1974.  280  p.   NTIS
     PB-236 543.


                                      147

-------
Rourke, A. J.   Needed:   a safe way to destroy disposables.   Mod.  Hosp.,
     109:132,  September 1967.

Singer, R. D., A. 6.  DuChene,  and N.  J.  Vick.   Hospital  solid waste;  an
     annotated bibliography.   University of Minnesota,  Minneapolis,  School
     of Public Health,  March  1974.  205  p.   NTIS  PB-227  708.

Smith. L. T.,  R. A. Mastula,  and F.-K. Tson.   Solid waste incineration and
     energy recovery in hospitals.  J. Environ. Syst.,  6(4):303-320,  1977.

Straub, C. P., ed.  Handbook  of Environmental  Control.   Vol.  5.   Hospital and
     Health Care Facilities.   CRC Press,  Cleveland, Ohio, 1975.   425  p.

Syska and Hennessy, Inc.  Engineers.   Hospital  systems.   Part VII.  Solid waste
     management.  Tech. Let.,  24:3,  February  1974.

The Tony Team.  The Modern Handbook of Garbology.   1972.

Three year research study for Los Angeles high rise.  Solid  Wastes Manage.,
     12(2):36, February 1969.

U. S. Public Health Service.   Division of Hospital  and  Medical  Facilities.
     Environmental aspects of the hospital.   Washington,  D.C.,  1967.   4  vols.

U. S. Department of the Navy.   Solid waste  handling systems  for  Navy  hospitals.
     Washington, D.C.,  1972.   (Unpublished  report.)

Upmalis, A.  Refuse incineration in hospitals.  Gesund.-Ing., 93(4):97-101,
     April 1972.

Vestal, A. J.   Paper sack-refuse system  improves  hospital's  waste disposal
     system.  Hosp. Topics, 46:43-45, December 1968.

Wallace, L. P.  Solid waste generation by the units of  a  teaching hospital.
     Ph.D. dissertation, West Virginia University,  1970.   104 p.  D.A. 71-15500

Weintraub, B.  S., and H. D. Kern.  Use of wet grinding  units  for disposal of
     hospital  solid waste. Health Services Administration,  Washington,  D.C.,
     August 1969.  168 p.

INCINERATION

Advances in Small-Scale Refuse Incinerators;  Seminar Proceedings.  Environment
     Canada, Ottawa,  1976. 107 p.

Bao, S. T.  Municipal solid waste treatment—incineration.   West Virginia
     University, Morgantown,  1972.  17 p.

Brinkerhoff, R.  G.  Inventory of intermediate size  incinerators  in the U.S.
     Pollut. Eng., 5(ll):33-38, November 1973.
                                     148

-------
Cheremisinoff, P. N., and R. A. Young.  Incineration of solid waste.   Pollut.
     Eng., 7(6):20-27, June 1975.

Compact incinerator for solid and liquid wastes.   Processing, 22(5):33,  May
     1976.

Cross, F- L., Jr.  Handbook on Incineration; Guide to Theory, Design,  Operation
     and Maintenance.  Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut,
     1972.  71 p.

Essenhigh, R. H., and R. Kuo.  Discussion and conclusions.   In:   Development
     of fundamental basis for incinerator design  equations  and standards.
     Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Combustion Laboratory,
     August 1969.  pp. 33-36.

Greater Canton Chamber of Commerce.  Solid waste  disposal  in Greater Canton,
     Ohio,  (n.p.), March 1969.

Hampton, R. K., E. R. Kaiser, and C. 0. Velzy, eds.  Incinerator and Solid
     Waste Technology, 1962-1975.  American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,
     New York, 1975.  415 p.

Hathaway, S. A.  Design features of package incinerator systems.  Construction
     Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,  Illinois,  1977.  30 p.
     NTIS AD/A 040 743.

John Zink Packaged Incinerator.  Clean Air, 2(7):45, Autumn 1972.

Kelsey, G. D.  Incineration of municipal waste.  Certif.  Eng., 45(8):167-181,
     August 1972.

King, D. A.  Development of a high-temperature low capacity refuse incinerator.
     Open-file progress report WP-03-68-08.  Department of  Health, Education,
     and Welfare, Washington, D.C., Bureau of Solid Waste Management,  1970.
     33 p.

Kottman, E.  Experience with the operation of medium size  incinerators.
     Luftverunreinigung, 36-37, December 1972.

Lewis, C. R., R. E. Edwards, and M. A. Santoro.  Incineration of industrial
     wastes.  Chem. Eng., 83(22):115-121, October 18, 1976.

A new direction for refuse incineration.  Verein  Deutscher  Ingenieure, 22(36):
     20, September 4, 1968.

Slocum, J. D.  Solid waste incineration:  engineering challenge opportunity.
     Prof. Eng., 41(10):36-38, October 1971.

Smith, L. T., F. K. Tsou, and R. A. Matula.  Emission standards and emissions
     from small scale solid waste incinerators.  In:  Proceedings  of 1976
     National Waste Processing Conference, Boston, Massachusetts,  May  23-26,
     1976.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.   pp. 202-213.
                                     149

-------
Smith.  L.  T.,  F.  K.  Tsou,  and R.  A.  Matula.   Emissions  standards,  source testing,
     and emissions from small  scale  solid  waste  incinerators.   Report No.
     DUCK-751,  Drexel  University,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania,  April  1975.

Theoclitus, G., H. Liu, and J.  R.  Derway,  Jr.  Concepts and behavior of the
     controlled air incinerator.   In:   Proceedings  of the  1972 National
     Incinerator Conference,  New  York,  June  4-7,  1972.   American  Society of
     Mechanical Engineers, New York.  pp.  211-216.
Thoemen, K. H.   The incineration  of domestic  refuse:
     Chart. Mech.  Eng.,  23(11):50-52,  December  1976.
                                    experiences  in Germany.
Treathaway, W.   Energy recovery and  thermal  disposal  of waste  utilizing
     fluidized bed reactor systems.   In:   Proceedings of 1976  National Waste
     Processing Conference,  Boston,  Massachusetts,  May 23-26,  1976.   American
     Society of Mechanical Engineers,  New York.   pp.  117-124.

Tsou, F. K., L. T. Smith,  and R.  A.  Matula.   Review of the  technology
     associated with small scale solid waste incinerators.   Report No. DUCK-
     752.  Drexel  University, Philadelphia,  Pehhsylvania, 1975.
Weinstein, N. J.,
     Environ. Sci
and R.  F.  Toro.   Control  systems  on  municipal  incinerators.
 Technol., 10(6):545-547,  June  1976.
Winch, G. R.  The place of on-site incinerators  in  modern  solid  waste disposal
     systems.  In:  Resource Recovery thru  Incineration;   Papers Presented at
     1974 National Incinerator Conference,  Miami, Florida, May 12-15, 1974.
     American Society of Mechanical  Engineers, New  York.   pp. 359-372.

INCINERATION WITH HEAT RECOVERY

Avers, C. E.  Technical-economic problems  in  energy recovery  incineration.
     In:  Proceedings of 1976 National  Waste  Processing Conference,  Boston,
     Massachusetts, May 23-26, 1976.   American Society of  Mechanical  Engineers,
     New York.  pp. 59-66.
Burning waste for heat in Horicon,
     June 1976.
                 Wisconsin.   Solid Wastes  Manage.,  19(6):24,
Christensen, H.  F.   Major Scandinavian  cities  incinerate  refuse  for heat and
     power.  Solid  Wastes Manage.,  20(8):34-36,64-66,  August 1977.

Dusseldorf roll  grate system as  well  as various  possibilities for utilization
     of heat generated by refuse incineration.   Energ.  Atomtech., 28(3):120,
     March 1975.

Eberhardt, H.,  and  W. Mayer.  Experiences  with refuse  incinerators  in Europe -
     prevention  of  air and water pollution,  operation  of  refuse  incineration
     plants combined with steam  boilers, design  and planning.  In:   Proceedings
     of 1968 National Incinerator Conference,  New York, May 5-8, 1968.  American
     Society of  Mechanical Engineers, New  York.   pp.  73-86.
                                     150

-------
Fernandas,  J. H.  Converting refuse to energy at the point of generation.
     In:  Official Proceedings, Workshops, International  Waste Equipment and
     Technology Exposition, Los Angeles, California, June 18-21,  1975.   National
     Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, D.C.  pp. 87-100.

Fernandes,  J. H., and R.  C. Shenk.   The place of incineration in  resource
     recovery of solid wastes.   In:  Resource Recovery thru Incineration:
     Papers presented at 1974 National Incinerator Conference, Miami,  Florida,
     May 12-15, 1974.  American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,  New York,  pp.
     1-10.

Fernandes,  J. H., and R.  C. Shenk.   The place of incineration in  resource
     recovery of solid waste.  Combustion, 46(4):30-38, October 1974.

Goldman, S. B., F. R. Best, and M.  W. Golay.   Energy production by solid waste
     incineration.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, Department of Engineering, April 1977.  34 p.   NTIS
     AD/A-043 039.

Hofmann, R. E.  Controlled-air incineration - key to practical production  of
     energy from wastes.   Public Works, 107(9):72-79,  136, 138, September
     1976.

Holman, J.  P., and R. A.  Razgaitis.  Fluidized vortex  incineration of  waste.
     Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, Department of Civil and
     Mechanical Engineering, August 1976.  337 p.  NTIS PB-258 071.

Hundemann,  A. S.  Incinerator studies.  Vol.  2.  1975-April 1977.   NTISearch,
     National Technical Information Service,  Springfield, Virginia, April
     1977-   181 p.  NTIS PS-77/0330.

Incinerator/heat recovery system burns solid waste.  Waste Age, 5(5):16,
     August 1974.

Kleinhenz,  N., and H. G.  Rigo.   Operational testing of a controlled air
     incinerator with automatic ash handling.  Systech, Xenia, Ohio, 1976.
     19 p.   NTIS AD/A-044 337.

Lawson, H.  M., and P. Mason.  Nottingham refuse incineration and  district
     heating scheme.  Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.,  56:11-29, November 1974.

Martin, W.  J., and H. Weiand.  Refuse incineration with heat recovery; typical
     design and practical experience.  In:  Conference Papers, First  Inter-
     national Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy, Montreux,  Switzerland,
     November 3-5, 1975.   Institute of Electrical and  Electronics  Engineers,
     New York.  pp. 97-104.

McKee, R. E.  Waste heat recovery from packaged incinerations.  Presented  at
     American Society of Mechanical Engineers Incinerator Division, 1974.

Moore, H. C.  Refuse fire and steam generator at Navy  Base, Norfolk, Virginia.
     In:  Proceedings of MECAR Symposium Incineration  of Solid Waste,  New York,
     March 21, 1967-  R.  A. Fox, ed.  Metropolitan Engineers Council and Air
     Resources, New York.  pp.  10-21.

                                      151

-------
Niessen,  VI.  R.,  S.  H.  Chansky,  A.  N.  Dimitriou,  E.  L.  Field,  and C.  R.  LaMantia.
     Systems study  of  air pollution  from municipal  incineration.  Arthur D.
     Little, Inc.,  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  March  1970.   3 vols.   NTIS
     PB-192  378-380.

Patrick,  P-  K.   Operational  experience  in energy recovery through incineration.
     Presented at International  Symposium on  Energy Recovery from Refuse,
     University of  Louisville,  September 1975.

Przewalski,  Z.   Versatile incinerator system  provides  for heat recovery and
     clean emission.   Ind. Heat.,  43(3):48-50, March 1976.

Rasch, R.  Refuse preparation  and  incineration.   Aufbereit.  Tech., 18(l):6-9,
     January 1977.

Refuse incinerator  with practicable  waste heat recovery.   Heat.  Air Cond. J.,
     45(527):28-30, November 1975.

Refuse-to-energy plant uses first  Von Roll  Incinerators.   Environ. Sci. Technol.,
     8(6):692-694,  August 1974.

Resource Planning Associates,  Inc.   European  waste-to-energy systems:   case
     study of the Thermal Complex  of Brive, France.  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,
     June 1977.  37 p.  NTIS CONS/2103-5.

Resource Planning Associates,  Inc.   European  waste-to-energy systems:   case
     study of Geneva-Cheneviers (Switzerland).   Cambridge,  Massachusetts,
     May 1977.  41  p.   NTIS CONS/2103-2.

Resource Planning Associates,  Inc.   European  waste-to-energy systems:   case
     study of Koersor, Denmark.  Cambridge, Massachusetts,  May 1977.  37 p.
     NTIS CONS/2103-3.

Resource Planning Associates,  Inc.   European  waste-to-energy systems:   case
     study of Munich:   Munich  North  la  and Ib, Munich  North II,  Munich  South
     IV and  V-   Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 1977.  92  p.   NTIS CONS/2103-4.

Resource Planning Associates,  Inc.   European  waste-to-energy systems:   case
     study of the Thermal Complex  of Toulouse-Le Mirail  (France).   Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, May 1977-  45 p.   NTIS CONS/2103-1.

Rogers, C. A.   Control of air  pollution and waste heat recovery from incinera-
     tion.  Public  Works, 97:100-105, June 1966.

Ross Hoffman Associates.   Evaluation of small modular incinerators in municipal
     plants.   Coral  Gables, Florida, 1976,  155 p.  NTIS PB-251 291.

Scott, P. J.  Heat  utilization at  Coventry refuse incineration.   Aufbereit.
     Tech.,  18(1):10-14,  January 1977.

Shulstad, R. N., and  J. A. Bogart.   Solid waste  disposal  in Arkansas;  charac-
     teristics  and  costs.  University of Arkansas,  Fayetteville, 1977.   42 p.
                                     152

-------
Stabenow, G.  Survey of European experience with high pressure boiler operation:
     burning waste and fuel.  In:  Proceedings of 1966 National  Incinerator
     Conference,                      American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,
     New York.  pp. 144-160.

Velzy, C. 0.  The place for heat reclamation from incineration.   Presented
     at the Engineering Research Conference, 1971.

Wiedermann, F.  Heating system with refuse incineration.   Staedtehygiene,
     4:103             1973.

Wilson, M. J., and D. W. Swindle, Jr.  The markets  for and the economics  of
     heat energy from solid waste incineration.  Resour.  Recovery Conserv.,
     1(3):197-206, April 1976.

INSTITUTIONS

Burchinal, J. C.  A study of institutional solid wastes.   West Virginia  Univer-
     sity, Morgantown, Department of Civil Engineering, September 1973.   245  p.
     NTIS PB-223 345.

Chiu, Y., J. Eyster, and G. W. Gipe.  Solid waste generation rates of a  univer-
     sity community.  J. Environ. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,  102(EE6):
     1285-1289, October 1976.

Geller, S. J., L. Chaffur, and R. E. Ingram.  Promoting paper recycling  on
     a university campus.  J. Environ. Syst., 5(l):39-57, 1975.

How to dispose of refuse for 3000 students.  Coll.  Univ.  Bus., 43(l):54-56,
     July 1967.

Ryan, J. C., and H. M. el-Baroudi.  Solid waste survey of an academic institu-
     tion.  Compost Sci., 14(3):28-32, May-June 1973.

LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY

Anderson, D. R., and J. Callinan.  Gas generation and movement in landfills.
     Loyola University.

Ausenstein, D.C. ejt aK  Fuel gas recovery from controlled landfill ing of
     municipal wastes.  Resour. Recovery Conserv.,  2:103-117, December 1976.

Blanchot, M. J.  Treatment and utilization of landfill gas:  Mountain View
     Project feasibility study.  EPA/530/SW-583, Pacific Gas and  Electric
     Company, San Francisco, California, 1977-  120 p.

Bowerman, F. R., N. K. Rohatgi, K. Y. Chen, and R.  A. Lockwood.   A case  study
     of the Los Angeles County Palos Verdes Landfill  Gas Development  Project.
     COM, Inc., Pasadena, California, July 1977.  114 p.   NTIS PB-272 241.

Cair, C. R., and R. E. Schwegler.  Energy recovery  from landfills. Waste Age,
     2(2):6-10, March-April 1974.
                                     153

-------
Carlson, J. A.   Shoreline Regional  Park gas  recovery program,  final  report.
     EPA.

Carlson, J. A.   Recovery of landfill  gas at  Mountain View;  engineering site
     study.  EPA/530/SW-587d,  Mountain View,  California,  May 1977.   69 p.

Colonna, R. A.   Methane gas recovery  in Mountain View moves into second phase.
     Solid Wastes Manage., 19(5):90-102, May 1976.

Dair, F. R.  Methane gas generation from landfills.   American  Public Association
     Reporter,  44(3):20-33, March 1977-

DeGeare, T. V., Jr.  Energy recovery  from sanitary  landfills.   In:   Official
     Proceedings, International  Waste Equipment and  Technology Exposition, Los
     Angeles, California, June 18-21, 1975.   National  Solid Waste Management
     Association, Washington,  D.C.  pp. 181-185.

Fuel gas from landfill.  Presented  at Institute of  Gas Technology Conference
     on Clean Fuels, Orlando,  Florida, January 27-30.

Geyer, J. A.  Landfill decomposition  gases;  an annotated  bibliography.  National
     Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio,  Solid Waste Research
     Laborabory, Cincinnati, Ohio,  June 1972.   34 p.  NTIS  PB-213 487.

Hekimian, K. K., W. J. Lockman,  and J. H. Hunt.  Methane  as a  recovery from
     sanitary landfills.  Solid  Wastes Manage., 8(2):2,  February 1977.

Hudson, J. F.,  F. P. Gross, D. G. Wilson, and D.  H.  Marks.   Gas production
     from land disposal; settlements  and land use.   In:   Evaluation  of policy-
     related research in the field  of municipal solid waste management.
     Massachusetts Institute of  Technology,  Cambridge, Civil  Engineering Systems
     Laboratory, September 1974.  pp. 217-224.

James, ,S. C.  Methane production, recovery,  and utilization from landfills.
     Environmental Protection  Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,  1978.   13 p.

Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation.  Estimation of quantity and  quality of land-
     fill gas from the Sheldon-Arleta sanitary landfill.  Los  Angeles, 1975.
     34 p.

Los Angeles sets project for landfill gas recovery.   Solid  Wastes Manage.,
     17(1):64,  January 1974.

Methane recovery from Carson site.  'June 1975.

Perpetual methane recovery system.  Compost  Sci., 15(3):14, Summer,  1974.

SCS Engineers.   Proof of concept study for methane  recovery from Industry Hills.
     Long Beach, California, June 1976.  33  p.

Tapping garbage for pipeline gas.  Chem. Week, 117(2):29, July 9, 1975.
                                      154

-------
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENCES

Black, R. H., R. R. Fielder, M. B. Hawkins, and P.  0.  Strom.   A planning model
     for the prediction of residential and commercial  solid wastes;  final
     report.  URS Research Company, San Mateo, California, June 1972.

Esco/Greenleaf.  Solid waste handling and disposal  in  multistory buildings  and
     hospitals.  Vol. 1.  Summary, conclusions, and recommendations.   Los
     Angeles, California, 1972.  244 p.  NTIS PB-213 132.

First phase of nine-year study rates effects of high-rise  incineration.   Solid
     Wastes Manage., 15(11):16, 46, 62-63, November 1972.

Greenleaf/Telesco.  Solid waste management in residential  complexes.   EPA-SW-35c,
     Miami Beach, Florida, 1971.  419 p.  NTIS PB-216  234.

Hale, S., Jr.  Residential solid waste generated in low-income areas.   EPA-SW-83ts,
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, Solid Waste  Management
     Office, 1972.  17 p.    NTIS PB-215 282.

Hughes, 0. G.  Refuse storage in multi-story buildings.  R. Soc. Health J.,
     6:319-322, 1964.

Kawanishi Motors Company.  Waste treatment within a skyscraper.  Niyaku to
     Kikai, 22(3):56-57, March 1975.

Kiefer, I.  Solid waste management in high-rise buildings; a condensation.
     EPA-SW-27c. 17, Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C., 1972.
     19 p.

National Research Council.  Building Research Advisory Board.  Apartment house
     incinerators (flue-fed).  Publication No. 1280, National Academy of
     Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1965.  38 p.

National Research Council.  Building Research Advisory Board.  Collection,
     reduction, and disposal of solid waste in high-rise multi-family dwellings;
     final report.  National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,  1976.
     295 p.

National Research Council.  Building Research Advisory Board.  Handbook on
     solid waste management in buildings.  National Academy of Sciences,
     Washington, D.C., August 1976.  182 p.  NTIS PB-266 106.

Reid, D. H., P. D. Luigben, R. J. Rawers, and J. S. Bailey.  Newspaper recycling
     behavior:  the effects of prompting and proximity of containers.   Environ.
     Behavior, 8:471-482, September 1976.

Sexton, D. E., and J. T. Smith.   Studies of refuse compaction and incineration
     in multi-study flats.  Public Cleansing, 42(12):604-623, December 1972.
                                      155

-------
Sternitakes, R.  L.   Incineration  in  high-rise  buildings;  a  review of systems
     and trends.  Arch.  Eng.  News  Dig.,                      October 1964.

Systems Research.   Design of  optimal  refuse  storage  depository system for
     servicing multiple  dwelling  unit buildings  in economically disadvantaged
     areas.  Manchester, Connecticut, Meyers Electro/Cooling Products, 1971.
     132 p.

Williams, J. E.   Management and disposal  of  wastes generated in thirty-forty
     story blocks of flats.   In:   Waste Management,  Control, Recovery, and
     Reuse; Proceedings  of the Australian Waste  Conference,  University of
     New South Wales, July 17-19,  1974, Ann  Arbor Science Publishers,  Ann
     Arbor, Michigan, 1975.   pp.  87-93.

Zimmerman, 0. T.  Waste  compactors and shredders.  Cost Eng.,  18(3):9-16,
     July 1973.

MISCELLANEOUS

Applied Management Sciences,  Inc.  The private sector  in  solid waste management;
     a profile of its resources and  contribution to  collection and disposal.
     Silver Spring, Maryland, 1973.   238  p.

Bakkom. T.  Solid waste:  is  there a profit  potential?  Pollut.  Eng.,  7(11):
     38-39, November 1975.

Bartollota, R. J.   Municipal  solid waste  practices.  Waste Age,  6(9):19-30,
     September 1975.

BatteHe Columbus Laboratories.  A study  to  identify opportunities for increased
     solid waste utilization; final  report.  Vols. II-VII.   Columbus,  Ohio,
     1972.  608 p.   NTIS PB-212 730.

Bodman, S. W. Ill,  J. A. Freaney,  J.  J. Harrington,  D. H. Marks,  W.  Niessen,
     L. J. Partridge, A. Sarofim,  and D.  G.  Wilson.  The  Treatment and Manage-
     ment of Urban Solid Waste.  Technomic Publishing  Company,  Westport,
     Connecticut,  1972.   210  p.

Braun, R.  Trash -  the negative side of abundance.   Ber.  Abwasser-tech. Ver.,
     26:261-266, 1973.

California State Legislature.  Assembly.   Science and  Technology Advisory
     Council.  The technology of  solid waste management - implications for
     State policy.   Sacramento, July 1971.

Colonna, R. A.,  and C. McLaren.  Decision-makers guide in solid waste manage-
     ment.  EPA-SW-127,  Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C.,
     Office of Solid Waste Management Planning,  1974.  153 p.   NTIS PB-255  140.

Connolly, J. A., and S.  E. Radinsky.   Patent abstracts:   United States.  Solid
     waste management 1945-1969.   Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,
     D.C., 1973.  457 p.
                                     156

-------
Council on Environmental Quality.  Environmental  quality;  7th annual  report.
     Washington, B.C., September 1976.  396 p.

Covemaeker, A., and E. Robyn.  Technological and  economic  feasibility research
     and policy principles related to collection, transportation and  disposal
     of solid waste.  In:  Collection, Disposal,  Treatment and Recycling  of
     Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a Seminar, Hamburg, Germany, September
     1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe,  Geneva.   1:96-101.

Giedry, G.  Community and industry solid waste practices  and planning including
     the collection, disposal and treatment of solid waste.  In:  Collection,
     Disposal, Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a
     Seminar, Hamburg,.Germany, September 1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for
     Europe, Geneva.  1:86-95.

Goldberg, T. L.  Improving solid waste management practices.  EPA-SW-107,
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office of Solid Waste
     Management Programs, 1973.  91 p.  NTIS PB-257 801.

Golueke, C. G.  Comprehensive studies of solid wastes management:  abstracts
     and excerpts from the literature.  SERL Report No. 68-3, 69-7, 70-6,
     71-2, 72-4, University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering
     Research Laboratory, June 1968-May 1971.  5  vols.

Golueke, C. G.  Comprehensive studies of solid waste management; third annual
     report.  EPA-SW-lOrq., University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary
     Engineering Research Laboratory, 1971.  210  p.  NTIS  PB-213 576.

Golueke, C. G., and P. H. McGauhey.  Comprehensive studies of solid waste
     management; first and second annual reports.  EPA-530-SW-3rq, University
     of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, 1970.
     480 p.

Great Britain Department of Environment.  Reclamation, treatment and  disposal
     of wastes; an evaluation of available options.  Waste Management Paper
     No. 1, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, 1976.  42 p.

Greco, J. R.  Analyzing by categories U.S. urban  refuse.   Solid Wastes Manage.,
     17(8):60-62, August 1974.

Hagerthy, D. J., J. L. Pavoni, and J. E. Heer, Jr.  Solid  Waste Management.
     Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1973.  302  p.

Handler, I.  Considerations for component equipment design specifications.
     Waste Age, 7(2):10+, February 1976.

Hudson, J. F.  Evaluation of policy-related research in the field of  municipal
     solid waste management.  Massachusetts Institute of  Technology,  Cambridge,
     1974.  394 p.  NTIS PB-239 375.

Josephson, J.  Chemical engineers talk about refuse.  Environ. Sci. Technol.,
     8(6):698-699, August 1974.
                                     157

-------
League of Women Voters Education Fund.   Report of solid waste management study.
     Washington, D.C., 1973.

League of Women Voters Education Fund.   Final  report on Training Grant
     T900604-01-0 between the Office of Solid  Waste, Environmental  Protection
     Agency and the League of Women  Voters  Education Fund.   Washington,  D.C.,
     1977.

Likberick, W. W., Jr.   Solid  waste processing  and disposal  technology in the
     United States:  special  solid wastes.   In:   Papers and Presentations,
     Proceedings First Japan-USA Governmental  Conference on Solid Waste
     Management, Tokyo, January 29-30,  1973.

Litsky, W., H. B. Gunner, and R. Keoplick,  eds.   New directions in  solid wastes
     processing, 1970; proceedings of an Institute held at  Framington,
     Massachusetts, May 12-13, 1970.

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.   Transuranic solid waste  management research
     programs, January-March  1974 quarterly report.   Los Alamos, New Mexico,
     1974.  24 p.  NTIS LS-5614-PR.

Lowe, R. A.  Energy conservation through improved solid waste management.
     EPA-SW-125, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,  Resource
     Recovery Division, 1974.  86 p.

Maystre, Y.  Assessment of the general  situation  and main problem areas  in  the
     field of solid waste management.  In:   Collection, Disposal, Treatment
     and Recycling of Solid Wastes.   Proceedings  of a Seminar, Hamburg,  Germany,
     September 1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe,  Geneva.   1:25-47.

Meyers, S.  Goals of the Federal Solid Waste Management Program.  Presented at
     the International Public Works  Congress and  Equipment  Show, Las Vegas,
     Nevada, September 27, 1976.  10 p.

Millard, R. F.  Reclamation.   Solid  Wastes, 66(7):327-331,  July 1976.

Municipal Refuse I-II.  In:   Proceedings of the Fifth Mineral  Waste  Utilization
     Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, April  13-14, 1976.   E. Aleshin,  ed.  IIT
     Research Institute, Chicago,  pp. 132-252.

National Association of Counties Research Foundation.   Guidelines for local
     governments on solid waste management. EPA-SW-17c, Washington, D.C.,  1971.
     194 p.  NTIS PB-214 039.

National Industrial Pollution Control Council.  The disposal  of major appliances;
     sub-council report.  Washington, D.C., June  1971.   22  p.

Overview of conservation.  Presented at Washington Center for Metropolitan
     Studies Conference on Byconversion, Washington,  D.C., March 10-12, 1976.
     39 p.

Phillips, N. P., and R. M. Wells.   Solid waste disposal. Radian Corporation,
     Austin, Texas, May 1974.  314 p.  NTIS PB-233 144.


                                     158

-------
Proceedings of Asia's First Seminar/Workshop on Recycling and Non-Waste
     Technology, 1977.  2 vols.

Proceedings, First National Conference on Packaging Wastes,  San Francisco,
     California, September 22-24, 1969.  EPA-SW-9RG, University of California,
     Davis, 1971.  241 p.  NTIS PB-215 328.

Proceedings, Fourth Annual Symposium on Prospects for Improving Solid Waste
     Management, Los Angeles, May 8, 1974.  University of Southern  California,
     Los Angeles.  142 p.

Purcell, A. H., E. A. Moss, and S. Larson.  Citizens and waste. Washington
     Technical Information Project, Washington, D.C., 1976.   49 p.

Quigg, P. W.  The new technologists.  Audubon, 78(1):122-128, January 1978.

Recent advances in the treatment of solid wastes.  Presented at IAEA Symposium
     on Radiation for a Clean Environment, Munich, Germany,  March  17-21,  1975.

Reinhardt, J. J., and R. K. Ham.  Solid waste milling and disposal  on land
     without cover.  Vol. 1.  Summary and major findings.  Madison, Wisconsin,
     1974.  181 p.  NTIS PB-234 930.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc.  Potential economic value of the municipal
     solid waste stream.  National Center for Resource Recovery, Washington,
     D.C., September 1972.

SCS Engineers.  Demonstration program for improved solid waste management and
     litter control in the model neighborhood.  Long Beach,  California, 1971.
     137 p.

Sibiga, J.  Forecasting in waste management.  In:  Collection, Disposal,
     Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a Seminar, Hamburg,
     Germany, September 1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.
     2:51-56.

Stevens, B. H., ed.  Criteria for regional solid waste management  planning.
     Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, December
     1974.  338 p.  NTIS PB-239 631.

Tori an, R. L.  Solid waste management, foreign research and development.  Army
     Foreign Science and Technology Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, May
     1974.  65 p.  NTIS AD/A-000 803.

Train, R. E.  Meeting future shock with a dose of past shock.  Solid Wastes
     Manage., 9(7):30+, July 1976.

U.S. Comptroller General.  Improving military solid waste management:  economic
     and environmental benefits, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.,
     June 2, 1977.  43 p.
                                     159

-------
U.S. Congress.   Senate.   Solid  Waste  Utilization  Act  of 1976;  report of the
     Committee  on Public Works,  together  with  individual  views to  accompany
     S.  3622.   Report,  94th  Congress,  2d  Session, Senate  No. 94-988, Govern-
     ment Printing Office, Washington,  D.C., 1976.  70  p.

Urban and industry wastes.   Presented  at  Washington Center  for Metropolitan
     Studies Conference on Byconversion,  Washington, D.C.,  March  10-12,
     1976.  pp. 103.

Waste disposal; proceedings  of  the Fourth Internationa]  Congress of the
     International Research  Group  on  Refuse  Disposal, Basel, Switzerland,
     June 2-5,  1969.   782 p.

Wilson, D.G., ed.  Handbook  of  Solid  Waste Management.   Van  Nostrand Reinhold,
     New York,  1977.   762 p.

OFFICE BUILDINGS

Beach, D. W., and P.  Conrad.  400  views of waste  disposal.   Buildings,  65(9):
     64-67, September 1971.

Bloom, M. V., and W.  D. Quarles.  Survey  of  the solid waste  removal  system for
     residents  of Bryant Manor  Apartments in Seattle, Washington,   Applied
     Management Sciences, Silver Spring,  Maryland, 1975.

Govan, F. A.  High-rise disposal problems.  Refuse Removal  0., 10(3):6-7,
     March 1967.

Harris, G. R.,  S. H.  Mann,  and  C.  R.  Humphrey.  Estimating  refuse  generation
     in office  buildings. J. Environ.  Eng.  Div., Am. Soc.  Civ. Eng.,  102(EES):
     1111-1113, October 1976.

Hedden, R. E.,  J. S.  Moore,  and A. J.  Parker.  Feasibility  of  pneumatic trans-
     port of refuse in high-rise structures.   In: Proceedings, Third Annual
     Water  and Wastewater  Equipment  Manufacturers Association Pollution  Control
     Conference:  Industrial  Solutions 1975:   Air, Water, Noise, Solid Waste.
     V. W. Langworthy, ed.   Ann Arbor Science  Publishers, Ann  Arbor, Michigan.
     pp. 767-781.

Refuse handling for the world's tallest building. Solid  Wastes Manage.,
     18(7):32-34, 72, July  1975.

Three-year research study for Los  Angeles high rise.  Solid Wastes Manage.,
     12(2):36,  February 1969.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Quantities and composition  of solid
     wastes generated by the United States.  Washington,  D.C., August 1975. 16  p.

OFFICE PAPER RECOVERY

American Paper  Institute. Paper Stock Conservation Committee. Office wastepaper
     recycling; a proven way to increase  profits  by reducing disposal  costs,
     increasing value of office wastepaper.  New  York,  n.d.  12 p.


                                      160

-------
Environment Canada.  Office paper recovery through at-source separation.
     Ottawa, Canada, 1977.

Environment Canada.  Recycling of wastepaper from Federal  and Provincial
     buildings in Toronto.  EPS 3-EC-77-17, Ottawa, Canada,  1977.   105  p.

Myslicki, J. P.  Office paper recovery through at-source separation.  Canada
     Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, July 1977.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.  Office waste paper recycling
     makes dollars and sense.  New York, December 1974.

SCS Engineers.  Optimization of office paper recovery systems.   EPA-SW-135c,
     Long Beach, California, 1977.  82 p.   NTIS PB-264  214.

Stearns, R. P., S. E. Howard, and R. V. Anthony.  Office paper recovery;  an
     implementation manual.  EPA-530/SW-571c, SCS Engineers,  Long  Beach,
     California, 1977.

PAPER

American Paper Institute.  How to recycle waste paper.   New  York,  1977.

American Paper Institute.  The statistics of paper.  New York,  1971.  39  p.

American Paper Institute.  Paper Stock Conservation Committee.   Waste paper
     recycling:  a proven way to reduce solid waste.  New York, 1975.   12  p.

American Paper Institute.  Paper Stock Conservation Committee.   Waste paper
     recycling:  for civic and charitable groups.  New York  (n.d.)

American Paper Institute.  Paper Stock Conservation Committee.   Waste paper
     recycling:  how commerce and industry can improve profits  by  reducing
     disposal costs.  New York (n.d.)  12 p.

Arnold, E. W.  Report on the Paper Workshop in Resource  Recovery and Utilization.
     In:  Proceedings, National Materials Conservation Symposium,  Gaithersburg,
     Maryland, April 29-May 1, 1974.  H. Alter and E.  Horowitz, eds.  American  ,
     Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania, 1975.
     pp. 177-184.

Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Overview of U.S. trends in waste paper  supply and  demand;
     report to Browning-Ferris Industries.  Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Paper and paperboard - part 1.   Cambridge,  Massachusetts.

Bel knap, M.  Paper recycling; a business perspective.  New York Chamber of
     Commerce, New York, September 1972.  61 p.

Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality.   Waste paper; a  new
     look at recycling.  Washington, D.C., 1976.  88 p.
                                      161

-------
Economic use of waste paper helps grass grow along roads.   Better Roads,
     46(6):30, July 1976.

Edwards, J. R.   Recycling waste paper.  In:  Solid Wastes; Origin, Collection,
     Processing and Disposal.   Wiley,  New York,  1975.   pp.  883-891.

Ferber, M.  Registration and collection of waste paper in  a big city.   In:
     Collection, Disposal, Treatment and Recycling of  Solid Wastes; Proceedings
     of a Seminar, Hamburg, Germany, September 1-6, 1975.   Economic Commission
     for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland.   2:104-111.

Franklin, W. E.  Paper recycling - the art of the  possible, 1970-1985.   Mid-
     west Research Institute,  Kansas City, Missouri for American Paper
     Institute, 1973.  181 p.

Garden State Paper Company.  Resource  or energy:   how  should used newspaper be
     managed?

Golueke, C. G.  Domestic cellulose waste.   Compost Sci., 16(1):16-19, January-
     February, 1975.

Humphrey, C. R., R. J. Bord, M. M. Hammond, and  S.  H.  Mann.  Attitudes  and
     conditions for cooperation in a paper recycling program.   Environ.  Behav.,
     9(1):107-124, March 1977.

Kaufman, J. A., and A. H.  Weiss.  Solid waste conversion:   cellulose lique-
     faction.  Worcester Polytechnic Institute,  Massachusetts,  Department of
     Chemical Engineering, February 1975.   216 p.   NTIS  PB-239  509.

Lingle, S. A.  Paper recycling  in the  United States.  Waste Age, 5(8):6-8,  10,
     November 1974.

Mighdoll, M. J.  Recycling, perspective and prospective.  Paperboard Packag.,
     58(8):37-39, August 1973.

Newsprint recycling—a progress report.  Public  Works,  105(12) :62,  December 1974.

The paper shortage...and what you can  do about it.   Panorama,             3,
     November 3, 1974.

Pushing paper for profit.   Environ.  Action, 8(19):6              February 12,
     1977.

Recycling isn't the only way to dam the corrugated flood.   Mater.  Handl.  Eng.,
     27:48-49, 1972.

Smith,  M. F-  Solid waste reclamation  and recycling (a bibliography with abstracts),
     Part 5.  Paper.  NTISearch, National  Technical Information  Service,  Springfield,
     Virginia, September 1978.   149  p.   NTIS PS-78/10765.

Stovroff, H.  Segregation  and classification of  waste  paper.   In:   Proceedings,
     National  Industrial  Solid  Waste Management  Conference, University  of Houston,
     March 24-26,  1970.   pp. 292-294.


                                       162

-------
PLASTICS

Anderson, E. V.  Industry steps up efforts to recycle plastic wastes.   Chem.
     Eng. News, 53 (38):16-17, September 22, 1975.

Aoyagi, T.  Disposal  and recycling of plastic wastes in Japan.  In:   Conference
     Papers, First International  Conference on Conversion of Refuse  to Energy,
     Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.  Institute of Electrical  and
     Electronics Engineers, New York.  pp. 79-83.

Banks, M. E., W. D. Lusk, and R.  S. Ottinger.   New chemical  concepts  for
     utilization of waste plastics; an analytical  investigation.   EPA-SW-16c,
     TRW Systems Group, Redondo Beach, California,  1971.  136 p.   NTIS PB-214
     031.

Battelle Memorial Institute.  The role of plastics  in solid waste.   Columbus,
     Ohio, December 1967.

DeBell and Richardson Research, Inc.  Plastics waste management.   Chemists'
     Manufacturing Association, Washington, D.C.,  October 1974.   129 p.

Environmental Analysts, Inc.  Recovery of energy from plastics and other
     combustibles in municipal solid waste.  Garden City, New York,  1974.

Grubbs, M. R., and K. H. Ivey.  Recovering of plastics from urban refuse  by
     electrodynamic techniques.  Technical Progress Report 63, Bureau  of  Mines,
     College Park, Maryland, College Park Metallurgy Research Center,  December
     1972.  9 p.  NTIS PB-214 267/7.

lammartino, N. R.  New routes tackle tough plastics-recycling jobs.   Chem.
     Eng., 83(4):54-58, February 16, 1978.

Ichikawa, M., and M.  Kondo.  Plastic waste treatment.  Policy Oyo Butsuri,
     40(11):!,268-1,270,  November 1971.

Ingle, G.  Resource and environmental profile analysis of plastics and non-
     plastics containers.  Nat. Cent. Resour. Recov. Bull., 3(2):21, 1973.

International Research and Technology Corporation,  Recycling plastics; a
     survey and assessment of research and technology.  Washington,  D.C., 1973.

Matsumoto, K., S. Kurisu, and T.  Oyamoto.  Development of process of fuel
     recovery by thermal decomposition of waste plastics.  In:  Conference Papers;
     First International Conference on Conversion  of Refuse to Energy, Montreux,
     Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.  Institute of Electrical and Electronics
     Engineers, New York.  pp. 538-543.

National Center for Resource Recovery.  Fact sheet:  plastics.  Washington,
     D. C., August 1973.

A plastic waste incinerator.  Public Cleaning, 42(ll):562-563, November 1972.
                                       163

-------
The recycling dream is turning into  reality.   Mod.  Plast.i,  49(9):64-65,
     September 1973.

Recycling is economical and feasible.   Plast.  World,  31(3):60,  March 1973.

Recycling of plastic wastes.   Chemis.  Ind.,  26(l):24-26,  1974.

Recycling will be big business -  and a 'new'  source of raw  materials.   Mod.
     Plast., 52(10):56-58, October 1975.

Scott, R.   Some checmical problems  in the recycling  of plastics.   Resour.
     Recov. Conserv., 1(4):381-395,  June  1976.

Smith. M. F.  Solid waste reclamation  and recycling (a bibliography with
     abstracts), Part 2.  Plastics.   NTISearch,  National  Technical  Information
     Service, Springfield, Virginia, September 1978.   122 p.   NTIS  PS-78/0762.

Sueyoshi, H., and Y. Kitaoka.   Make  fuel  from plastics.   Hydrocarbon Process.,
     51(10):161-163, October 1972.

Two processes for the conversion  of  waste plastics  to microbiol  protein.  Process
     Biochem., 10(10):3                December  1975.

Vaughan, D. A., C. Ifeadi, R.  A.  Markle,  and  H.  H.  Krause.    Environmental
     assessment of future disposal methods for plastics  in  municipal solid waste.
     Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio,  June 1975.  86 p.   NTIS
     PB-243 366.

PREPROCESSING

Ananth, K. P., and J. Shum.  Fine shredding  of municipal  solid  waste.   Midwest
     Research Institute, Kansas City,  Missouri,  July  1976.   71  p.   NTIS PB-257
     105.

Boettcher, R. A.  Air classification for  reclamation  of solid wastes.   Compost
     Sci., 11(6):22-29, November-December 1970.

Boettcher, R. A.  Air classification of solid wastes; performance of experimental
     units and potential applications  for solid  waste reclamation.   Stanford
     Research Institute, Irvine,  California,  1972.  75 p.  NTIS PB-214  133.

DeZeeuw, R., E. B. Haney, and  R.  B.  Wenger.   Shredding:   solid  wastes  shredder
     facilities in the U.S. and Canada.   Solid Wastes Manage.,  19(4):22+, April
     1976.

Franconeri, P.  How to select  a shredder.  Solid Wastes Manage., 18(6):24+,
     June 1975; 18(7):30+, July 1975;  18(8):32+, August 1975.

Glysson, E. A., J. R. Packard, and C.  H.  Barnes. Size reduction in the problem
     of solid waste disposal.   University of  Michigan, Ann  Arbor, College  of
     Engineering, 1972.
                                      164

-------
Hill, R. M.  Effective separation of shredded municipal solid waste by elutriation
     Waste Age, 5(7):34+, October 1974.

Ito, K., and Y. Hirayama.  Semi-wet selective pulverizing system; a feasibility
     study.  Resour. Recov. Conserv., l(l):45-53, May 1975.

Jones, R. K.  Air classification of shredded refuse:  state of the art.   Pre-
     sented at 1974 Solid Waste Processing Division Seminar.

Konski Engineers.  Evaluation of shredding facilities, Rock Cut Road Plant No.
     1, Onondaga County Solid Waste Disposal Authority, Onondaga County,  New
     York.  Onondaga County Solid Waste Disposal Authority, Syracuse, New York,
     1975.  148 p.  NTIS PB-245 672.

National Center for Resource Recovery.  Fact sheet: shredders.  Washington,
     D.C., April 1973.

Robinson, W. D.  Shredding systems for mixed municipal and industrial solid
     wastes.  In:  Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference,
     Boston, Massachusetts, May 23-26, 1976.  American Society of Mechanical
     Engineers, New York.  pp. 249-260.

Rogers, H. W., and S. J. Hitte.  Solid waste shredding and shredder selection.
     EPA/530/SW-140, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,  Office
     of Solid Waste Management Programs, March 1975.  87 p.

Ruf, 0. A.  Refuse shredders at EPA's Gainesville, Florida Experimental  Com-
     posting Plant.  Waste Age, 5(3):58+, May-June 1974.

Savage, G., and G. J. Trezek.  Screening shredded municipal solid waste.
     Compost Sci., 17(1):7-11, January-February 1976.

Size reduction of industrial solid wastes.  Pollut. Eng., 8(3):54, March 1976.

Smith, M. L.  Solid waste shredding - a major change in waste control.  Waste
     Age, 4(5):15+, September-October 1973.

Sweeney, P. J.  An investigation of the effects of density, size, and shape
     upon the air classification of municipal type solid waste.  Report  No.
     CEEDO-TR-77-25, Civil and Environmental Engineering Development Office,
     Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, July 1977.  167 p.  NTIS AD/A-045  045.

Trezek, G. J., and G. Savage.  MSW component size distributions obtained from
     the Cal Resource Recovery System.  Resour. Recov. Conserv., 2(l):67-77,
     August 1976.

Trezek, G. J., and G. Savage.  Results of comprehensive refuse comminution
     study.  Waste Age, 6(7):49-55, July 1975.

Trezek, G. J., and G. Savage.  Significance of size reduction in solid waste
     management; final report.  EPA/600/2-77/131, University of California,
     Berkeley, July 1977.  167 p.  NTIS PB-272 096.
                                      165

-------
Wilson, D.  G.   The effects  of shredding  on  the recycling  potential  of mixed
     municipal  wastes.   Massachusetts  Institute of Technology,  Cambridge.

Woodruff, K.  L.  Preprocessing of municipal  solid waste for resource recovery
     with a Trommel  Trans.  Sco.  Min.  Eng. AIME, 260:201-204,  1976.

Zimmerman,  0.  T.   Waste compactors and shredders.  Cost Eng.,  18(3):9-16,
     July 1973.

PYROLYSIS

Adolfsson,  G.,  H. Bouveng,  and 0. Von  Heidenstam.  Pyrolysis  of household  waste.
     National  Swedish Board for Technical Development,  Stockholm,  May 28,  1974.
     10 p.

Appell, H.  R.,  Y. C. Fu, E. G. Illig,  F.  W.  Steffgen, and R.  D.  Miller.  Con-
     version of cellulosic  wastes to  oil.   RI  8013, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh,
     Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Energy  Research  Center, February 1975.  34 p.
     NTIS PB-240 839.

Can pyrolysis put spark into refuse as fuel?  Chem. Week, 115(24):53, December
     11, 1974.

DeMarco, J.  Advanced techniques for  incineration of municipal  solid waste.
     EPA-SW-38d.  of, Environmental Protection  Agency, Washington,  D.C.,  Office
     of Solid Waste Management Programs,  1972.   18 p.   NTIS PB-256  355.

Douglas, E., M. Webb, and G. R.  Daborn.   The pyrolysis  of waste and product
     assessment.   Presented at Symposium on the Treatment and Recycling  of
     Solid Wastes, Manchester, Indiana,  January 1974.

Finney, C.  S.,  and D. E. Garrett.  The flash pyrolysis  of solid wastes.  Energy
     Sources,  1(3):295-314, 1974.

Flanagan, B. J.  Pyrolysis  of domestic refuse  with mineral  recovery.  In:
     Conference Papers, First International  Conference  on Conversion of  Refuse
     to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.   Institute of
     Electrical and Electronics Engineers,  New York. pp. 220-225.

Levy, S. J.  Pyrolysis of municipal solid waste.   Waste Age,  5(7):14-20, October
     1974.

Lewis, F. M.  Fundamentals  of pyrolysis  processes for resource recovery  and
     pollution  control.  Proc. Air Pollut.  Control  Assoc., 68(3):75-38.4,  1975.

Lewis, M. F,  Thermodynamic fundamentals for the pyrolysis of refuse.  In:
     Proceedings  of 1976 National Waste  Processing Conference, Boston,
     Massachusetts,  May 23-26, 1976.   American Society  of Mechanical Engineers,
     New York.   pp.  19-40.
                                     166

-------
Ortiglio, C., W. S. Sanner, J. G. Walters, and D. E. Wolfson.   Conversion of
     municipal and industrial refuse into useful  materials by pyrolysis.
     Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1973.

Preston, G. T.  Resource recovery and flash pyrolysis of municipal  refuse.
     In:  Clean Fuels from Biomass, Sewage, Urban Refuse, Agricultural  Wastes,
     Orlando, Florida, January 27-30, 1976.  Institute of Gas  Technology,
     Chicago, Illinois, 1976.  pp. 89-114.

Preston, G. T.  Resource recovery and flash pyrolysis of municipal  fuel.  Waste
     Age, 7(5):83-98, May 1976.

Snyder, N. W., J. J. Brehany, and R. E. Mitchell.  East Bay solid waste energy
     conversion system.  In:  Conference Papers;  First International  Conference
     on Conversion of Refuse to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5,
     1975.  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York.
     pp. 428-433.

Source separation:  small-scale pyrolysis works wonders for the town  of
     Plymouth.  Solid Waste Systems, 6(3):14, 20-21, May-June 1977.

Stoia, J., and A. K. Chatterjee.  An advanced process for the thermal reduction
     of solid waste:  the Torrax Solid Waste Conversion System.  In:   Solid
     Waste Demonstration Projects; Proceedings of a Symposium, Cincinnati,
     Ohio, May 4-6, 1971.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
     pp. 109-128.  NTIS PB-230 171.

Sussman, D. B.  Baltimore demonstrates gas pyrolysis:  the energy recovery
     solid waste facility in Baltimore, Maryland.  EPA/530/SW-75d.i,  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,  Office of Solid Waste  Manage-
     ment Programs, 1974.  31 p.  NTIS PB-261 045.

Szekely, J. ejt al_.  Andco-Torrax slagging pyrolysis solid waste disposal
     system.  In:  Treat, Recycle, and Disposal of Waste; Proceedings of the
     Third National Chemical Engineering Conference, Mildura,  Victoria,
     Australia, August 20-23, 1975.  Monarh University, Clayton, Australia.

Titlow, E. T., and J. K. McCartney.  The Garrett oil-from-waste process and
     resource recovery system.  In:  Energy and the Environment, Proceedings of
     the Third National Conference, Hueston Woods State Park Lodge, Ohio,
     September 29-30 and October 1, 1975.  E. J.  Rolinski, ed.  American
     Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York.  pp. 192-198.

Weinstein, J., and C. Rai.  Pyrolysis--state of the art.  Public Works,
     106(4):83-86, April 1975.

Wilson, H. T.  Pyrolysis:  a further option for waste treatment.  Chart. Mech.
     Eng., 24(11):35-38, December 1977-
                                      167

-------
RECYCLING

Alter, H.  European materials recovery systems.   Environ.  Sci.  Technol.,
     11(5) ..444.448, May 1977.

Austin, E.  The role of local authorities  in the recycling of  domestic  wastes
     in the UK.  Resour.  Pol.,  l(5):295-297, September 1975.

Bever, M.  Recycling in the materials systems.   Technol.  Rev.,  79(4):23-31,
     February 1977-

Chum, J. A., and C. R.  Loper, Jr.   Recycling technology:   can  it be taught.
     Eng. Educ., 66(8):806-809, May 1976.

Denver Regional Council of Governments.   Recycling activity description.
     Denver, Colorado,  1972.  50 p.

Duncan, R. C.  The "ORE Plan" for recycling household  solid waste:   an  alter-
     native garbage collection system.  Compost  Sci.,  16(l):24-32,  January-
     February 1975.

Gutt, W. H., and M. A.  Smith.  Aspects of waste  materials  and  their potential
     for use in concrete.  Resour.  Recov.  Conserv., 1(4):345-367,  June  1976.

Haatta, R.  Recovery and re-utilization of municipal  solid waste.   In:
     Collection, Disposal, Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings
     of a Seminar, Hamburg, Germany, September 1-6, 1975.   Economic Commission
     for Europe, Geneva,  1:110-130.

Hanot, W.  40 years of recycling.   Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull.,  51(6):519-522,  June
     1972.

Hansen, P.  Solid waste recycling projects:  a national  directory.   EPA-SW-45,
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,  Office of Solid Waste
     Management Program,  1973.   304 p.   NTIS PB-254 623.

Henstock, H. E.  Materials recovery and recycling in the U.S.A.  Resour.
     Policy, 1(3):171-175, March 1975.

Herbert, W., and W. A.  Flower.   Waste processing complex emphasizes recycling.
     Public Works, 102(6):78-81, June 1971.

Jackson, F. R.  Recycling and reclaiming of municipal  solid wastes.  Noyes Data
     Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey,  1975.   342 p.

Kalketenidis, E., and L.  Szabo.  Recovery and re-use of municipal  solid waste
     and other mixed wastes.  In:   Collection, Disposal,  Treatment and  Recycling
     of Solid Wastes:  Proceedings  of a Seminar, Hamburg,  Germany,  September
     1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.   2:134-149.
                                     168

-------
Koebler, J.  Recycling in the Waste Management Program of the West German
     Government.  Bundesministerium des Innern, Bonn,  1975.

Kohlhepp, D. H.  The Dynamics of Recycling.   New York.

Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation.  Recycling solid wastes in  Los  Angeles.
     Los Angeles, California, May 1971.  (Unpublished  report.)

McCrae, A. M.  Recycling of solid waste in the Capital Regional District of
     British Columbia.  Rev. ed.                 1974.

New York City has new recycling plan.  Waste Trade J., 68(40):3,  October 7,
     1972.

Peterson, C.  Stopping waste before it starts.  Technol.  Rev.,  79(4):42, 1977.

Recycling using municipal waste for your new facilities--Part 1.   Area  Dev.,
     10(9):14, September 1975.

Recycling will be big business—and a new source of raw material.   Mod. Plast.,
     52(10):56-58, October 1975.

Reindl, J.  Examining disposal and recycling techniques for  solid wastes.
     Solid Wastes Manage., 20(5):66+, May 1977.

Russell, T. W. F., and M. W. Swartzlander.  The recycling index.   Chemtech,
     6(l):32-37, January 1976.

SCS Engineers.  Analysis of Federal programs affecting solid  waste generation
     and recycling.  EPA-SW-72-4-4, Reston,  Virginia,  1972.   160  p.   NTIS
     PB-213 311.

Seldman, N. N.  Garbage in America:  approaches to recycling.  Institute for
     Local Self-Reliance, Washington, D.C.,  1975.   49  p.

Shuster, K. A.  Information on storage, collection and recycling  of solid
     waste as requested by Gulf Reston, Inc.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Washington, D.C., 1971.  76 p.

Sloan, J.  Bibliography on recycling of container  materials.   British Steel
     Corporation, Sheffield, England, Information  Services, October 1973.
     22 p.  NTIS PB-225 711.

Smith, M. F.  Solid waste reclamation and recycling (a bibliography with
     abstracts).  Part 1.  Packaging and containers.   NTISearch,  National
     Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, September  1978.
     107 p.  NTIS PS-78/0761.

Smith, P.I.S.  Recycling Waste.  Scientific  Publications, Broseley, England,
     1976.

Taylor, 0. R.  Collection and sale of recyclable goods from  households.  In:
     Waste Management, Control, Recovery and Reuse. N. Y. Kirov,  ed.  Ann  Arbor
     Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan,  1974. pp.  199-201.

                                     169

-------
Technology and economics of recycling discussed in 500-page monograph.  Paper
     Trade J., 157(3):33                 January 15,  1973.

U. S. Bureau of Mines.   Recycling trends in the United States; a review.  In-
     formation Circular 8711,  Washington, D.C., 1976.   25 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.  Solid waste management:  recycling and
     the consumer.  EPA-SW-117,  Washington, D.C., 1974.  12 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Region II.   A New England recycling
     directory.  EPA-SW-638, Boston,  Massachusetts, 1977.  50 p.

U.S. General Accounting Office.   Policies and programs being developed to
     expand procurement of products containing recycled materials.   Report
     PSAD-76 139, Washington,  D.C., May 1976.  26 p.

Walter, C. E.  Practical refuse  recycling.   J. Environ. Eng. Div.,  Am. Soc.
     Civ. Eng., 102(1):139-148,  February 1978.

REFUSE DERIVED FUEL

Hathaway, S. A.  Recovery of energy from solid waste  at army installations.
     CERL-TM-E-118, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,
     Illinois, August 1977.  50  p.   NTIS AD/A 044 814.

Hathaway, S. A., and J. P. Woodyard.   Technical evaluation  study:  solid waste
     as a fuel at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.  Technical Report E-95, Construc-
     tion Engineering Research Laboratory,  December 1976.  53 p.  NTIS
     AD/A 034 416.

Rigo, H. G.  Use of refuse as  a  fuel  at Fort Monmouth, New  Jersey.   Technical
     Report E-55, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,
     Illinois, April 1975.  44 p.  NTIS AD/B-003 456.

Rigo, H. G., S. A. Hathaway, and F. C. Hildebrand.  Preparation and use of
     refuse derived fuels in indistrual scale application.   In:  Conference
     Papers, First International Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy,
     Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.  Institute  of Electrical and
     Electronics Engineers, New  York.  pp.  22-27.

RESIDENTIAL PAPER RECOVERY

Boner, M. C.  Questionnaire survey of Atlanta Metropolitan  Region to determine
     feasibility of programs:  wastepaper separation  and recycling  in the re-
     sidential sector.   Georgia  Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1975.  87  p.

Frankel, G.  Newsprint recycling gains popularity as  method of municipal solid
     waste control.  Waste Age,  5(8):26-34, November 1974.

Hansen, P.  Alternate methods  of residential paper recovery.  Public Works,
       (9):127-128, 1977.
                                     170

-------
Hansen, P.  Residential paper recovery, a municipal  implementation guide.
     EPA-SW-155c, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.,  Office
     of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1975.  29 p.   NTIS PB-259 454.

Lingle, S.  Separating paper at the waste source for recycling.   EPA-SW  128,
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office  of Solid  Waste
     Management Programs, 1974.  16 p.  NTIS PB-260 254.

Myers, G. C.  Household separation of wastepaper.  FPL Employees Survey, Forest
     Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin, 1971.

National Center for Resource Recovery.  Residential  paper recovery; a community
     action program.  Environmental Protection Publication SW-533, Government
     Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976.  20 p.

SCS Engineers.  Evaluation of a compartmentalized refuse collection vehicle
     for separate newspaper collection.  EPA-SW 126c,  Long Beach, California,
     May 1976.  94 p.  NTIS PB-257 969.

SCS Engineers.  Evaluation of the San Diego separate newspaper  collection
     program.  Long Beach, California, March 1976.  56 p.

SCS Engineers.  Time study of separate newspaper collection, piggy-back  method.
     Long Beach, California, June 1973.

Scudder, R. B.  Planning a separate used newspaper collection system for your
     community.

Taylor, W. W., E. J. Khowry, and E. L. Dunnehoo, Jr.  Feasibility study  on
     combined resource recovery systems for the city of Lake Charles  and
     Calcasieu Parish.  Lake Charles-McNesse Urban Observatory,  Louisiana,  May
     1977.  29 p.  NTIS PB-271 525.

RESOURCE RECOVERY

Abert, J. G.  Resource recovery from municipal refuse:  an industry perspective,
     Waste Age, 5(7):29-30, October 1974.

Alter, H.  Resource recovery cannot be dependent on subsidy. Solid Wastes
     Manage., 17(10):8, 54-55, October 1974.

Alter, H., and E. Horowitz, eds.  Resource Recovery and Utilization;  Proceed-
     ings, National Materials Conservation Symposium,  Gaithersburg, Maryland.
     1974.  American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1975.
     200 p.

Alvarez, R. J.  Study of conversion of solid waste to  energy in  North America.
     In:  Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference, Boston,
     Massachusetts, May 23-26, 1976.  American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,
     New York.  pp. 163-174.
                                     171

-------
Ananth, K. P., L. J. Shannon, and M.  P.  Schrag.   Environmental assessment of
     waste-to-energy processes; source assessment document.  Midwest Research
     Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, August 1977-   81  p.   NTIS PB-272 646.

Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Study of the  feasibility of Federal procurement of
     fuels produced from solid wastes.  Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 1975.
     256 p.  NTIS PB-255 695.

Bailie, R. C., and D. M. Doner.  Evaluation of the efficiency of energy
     resource recovery systems.  Resour. Recovery Conserv., 1 (2):177-187,
     October 1975.

Baker, J., M. Bowlin, C. Hansburger,  and P. Hanson.   Analysis of alternatives
     to refuse disposal.  Boise Center for Urban Research,  Idaho, 1977-  104 p.
     NTIS PB-272 129.

Barniske, L., and W. Schenkel.  Entwicklungsstand der Muellverbrennungsanlagen
     mit Waermeverwertung in der Bundesrepublik  Deutschland.   In:  Conference
     Papers, First International Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy,
     Montreux, Switzerland, November  3-5, 1975.   Institute  of Electrical  and
     Electronics Engineers,  pp. 91-96.

Bechtel Corporation.  Fuels from municipal  refuse for utilities:  technology
     assessment.  San Francisco, California,  March 1975.   184 p.  NTIS PB-242
     413.

Benziger, J. B., and B. J. Bortz.  Resource recovery technology for urban
     decision makers.  Columbia University, New  York, 1976.  117 p.

Black. D. 0.  Energy recovery from solid waste;  a review  of current technology.
     Illinois Department of Business  and Economic Development, Springfield,
     1976.  59 p.  NTIS PB-260 633.

Brown, C. K., F. J. Hopton, and R. G.  W. Laughlin.  Energy  analysis of resource
     recovery options; final report.   Ontario Research Foundation, Sheridan
     Park, Ontario, 1976.

Burning refuse in power plant promises savings.   Public  Power, 32(5):26,  28, 30,
     September-October 1974.

Bruestle, G. 0.  Industrial waste utilization.  Power Eng., 78(9):
     September 1974.

Burg, N. C.  Reclamation of energy from solid waste, theory and practice; a
     selected, annotated bibliography.  Council  of Planning Librarians,
     Monticello, Illinois, 1977.  37  p.

Cahill, J. A.  Calculating energy savings for heat recovery systems.   Actual
     Specif. Eng., 32(2):58-64, August 1974.
                                     172

-------
Chansky, S. H., A. N. Dimitriou, E. L. Field, C. R.  LaMantia,  and R.  E.  Tinn.
     Heat recovery in systems study of air pollution from municipal  incinera-
     tion.  Vol. 2.  Appendices.  Arthur D. Little,  Inc., Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, March 1970.

Chantland, A. 0.  Make kilowatts out of refuse.  Am. City, 89(9):55-56,
     September 1974.

Cheremisinoff, P- N.  Resource recovery status report.   Pollut.  Eng.,  8(5):40-41,
     May 1976.

Cities mine solid waste piles in search for wasted profits.   Eng. News Record,
     199(11):20-22, September 15, 1977.

Combustion Engineering, Inc.  Technical-economic study  of solid  waste  disposal
     needs and practices.  Vol. 3.  Windsor, Connecticut, 1968.   112  p.

Conn, W. D.  European developments in the recovery of energy and materials  from
     municipal solid waste.  University of California,  Los Angeles, School  of
     Architecture and Urban Planning, May 1977.  53  p.   NTIS PB-270 219.

Critical assessment of waste conversion to energy.  Presented  at IES  Energy
     and Environmental Conference, Anaheim, California, April  14-16,  1975.

Crossland, J.  Ferment in technology.  Environment,  16(10):17-20, 25-30,
     December 1974.

Cutler, H.  Municipal solid waste and resource recovery.   Waste  Age, 6(5):24-28,
     May 1975.

DeCesare, R. S.  Recovering resources from urban refuse by the Bureau  of  Mines
     processes.  In:  Energy and the Environment; Proceedings  of the Third
     National Conference, Hueston Woods State Park Lodge, Ohio,  September 29-30,
     October 1, 1975.  E. J. Rolinski, ed.  American Institute of Chemical
     Engineers, New York.  pp. 112-117.

Diamond, H. L.  Recovery and reuse:  two modest proposals.  Recycling  Today,
     14(12):65-68, December 1976.

Does the solution of the energy problem lie in the use  of process waste as
     fuel?  Paper Trade J., 159(26):46               November  15, 1975.

Drobny, N. L., H. E. Hull, and R. F. Testin.  Recovery  and utilization of
     municipal solid waste; a summary of available cost and  performance
     characteristics of unit processes and systems.   Battelle  Memorial
     Institute, Columbus, Ohio, Columbus Laboratories,  1971.   66 p.  NTIS
     PB-204 922.

Dubach, P.  Energieersparnisse durch Weiderverwetung von  Altostoffen.   In:
     Conference Papers, First International Conference  on Conversion of Refuse
     to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.  Institute  of
     Electrical and Electronics Engineers,  pp. 48-58.
                                     173

-------
Eggen, A. C.  W., and R.  Kraatz.   Gasification of solid wastes in fixed beds.
     Mech. Eng., 98(7):24-29,  July 1976.

Eichholz, B.   Fiber recovery through hydropulping.   In:  Solid Waste Demon-
     stration Projects;  Proceedings of a  Symposium,  Cincinnati, Ohio, May
     4-6, 1971.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Rockville,  Maryland, Solid
     Waste Management Office,  1972.  pp.  25-35.   NTIS  PB-230  171.

Energy recovery from municipal  refuse:  the technology and its relationship
     to socio-economic environments.  Presented  at IES Energy and  Environment
     Conference, Anaheim,  California, April  14-16,  1975.

Energy recovery from solid waste considerations  for  determining national  potential
     Nat. Solid Waste Manage.  Assoc. Tech. Bull.,  6(10):l-6,  1975.

EPA tracks progress of resource recovery  facilities.   Solid Wastes  Manage.,
     20(3):48+, March 1977.

EPA's program in environmental  research in wastes-as-fuel.  Presented at
     Conference on Clean Fuels,  Orlando,  Florida,  January 27-30, 1976.  Insti-
     tute of Gas Technology, Chicago.
                         *r
Enviro Plan,  Inc.  States' role in the recovery,  reuse and recycling of materials.
     College Park, Maryland, December 1972.   33  p.

Erlandsson, K. I.  Using solid waste as fuel. Plant Eng.,  29(25):131-134,
     December 11, 1975.

Fan, D. N.  On the air classified light fraction  of  shredded  municipal solid
     waste.  1.  Composition and physical characteristics.  Resour.  Recovery
     Conserv., 1(2):141-150, October 1975.

Feber, R. C., and M. J.  Antal.   Synthetic fuel production from solid wastes.
     Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,  New Mexico,  1977.

Fenton, R.  Current trends in  municipal solid waste  disposal  in New York  City.
     Resour.  Recovery Conserv.,  1(2):167-176, October  1975.

Fernandes, J. H.  Design and operating factors for  burning waste materials
     in industrial boilers.  Plant Eng.,  29(13):83-85, June 26, 1975.

Fernandes, J. H.  It's time to take a fresh look  at  using waste masterials  as
     industrial fuel.  Plant Eng. ,.29(11):59-61,  May 29,  1975.

Fernandes, J. H., and R. C. Shenk.  Solid-waste  fuel burning  in industry.
     Paper presented at  American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 29-
     May 1, 1974.

Franklin, W.  G., D. Bendersky,  L.  J. Shannon, and  W. R. Park.  Resource recovery
     processes for mixed municipal solid  wastes.   Part 1.   Technical  review
     and economic analysis.  Environmental Protection  Agency, Washington,
     D.C., 1973.  67 p.
                                      174

-------
Franklin Associates.  Resource recovery activities report.   Prairie Village,
     Kansas.

Freeman, H.  M.  Problems and opportunities in management of combustible  solid
     wastes.  International Research and Technology Corporation,  Washington,
     D.C., August 1973.  517 p.  NTIS PB-222 467.

Funk, H. D., and A. 0. Chantland.  Solid waste for power generation fuel  in
     a small city.  In:  Conference Papers, First International  Conference on
     Conversion of Refuse to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5,  1975.
     Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,  New York.   pp.  268-273.

Garbage power.  Ind. Week., 189(3):38                 April  19,  1976.

Garbage power:  a proven concept.  Electr. Light Power,  54(8):51
     August 16, 1976.

General Electric Company.  Solid Waste Management Technology Assessment.   Van
     Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975.  348 p.

Gershman, H. W.  An approach to determining the economic feasibility of refuse-
     derived fuel and materials recovery processing.  In:   Proceedings  of 1976
     National Waste Processing Conference, Boston, Massachusetts,  May 23-26,
     1976.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers,  New York.   pp. 1-12.

Gershowitz,  H.  Resource recovery systems - an endangered species.   Waste  Age,
     7(5):53-56, May 1976.

GM's alternative heat source - trash.  Am. Mechanist,  116(20):39,  October  2,
     1972.

Golar, M.  Use of municipal waste for fuel.  In:  Energy and the  Environment;
     Proceedings of the Third National Conference, Hueston  Woods  State  Park
     Lodge,  Ohio, September 29-30 and October 1, 1975.   E.  J. Rolinski,  ed.
     American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York.  pp. 34-39.

Gordon, R. S.  The marvellous resource recovery machine.  Scrap  Age, 34(1):
     40-42,  January 1977.

Great Lakes  Research Institute.  Evaluation, extraction, and recycling  of
     certain solid waste components.  Erie, Pennsylvania,  1972.   126 p.
     NTIS PB-208 674.

Greco, J. R.  A projection of trends likely to occur in  storage,  collection,
     processing,  recovery and disposal.  Waste Age, 7(5):66+, May 1976.

Hathaway, S. A., and J. P- Woodyard.  Technical  evaluation  study:   solid waste
     as a fuel at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.  Construction  Engineering  Research
     Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, March 1976.   99 p.

Hathaway, S. A., and R. J. Dealy.  Technical evaluation  of army  scale waste-to-
     energy systems.  Construction Engineering Research  Laboratory, Champaign,
     Illinois, 1977.  84 p.  NTIS AD/A-042 578.


                                      175

-------
Hecklinger, R.  W.   Relative  value  of energy  derived  from municipal refuse.   In:
     Proceedings of 1976  National  Waste  Processing Conference,  Boston,
     Massachusetts, May 23-26,  1976.   American  Society of Mechanical  Engineers,
     New York.   pp. 133-140.

Henstock, H. E.   Materials recovery and  recycling  in the United States.   Resour.
     Policy, 1(3):171-175, March  1975.

Hickman, W. B.   Storage and  retrieval  of prepared  refuse.   In:   Proceedings
     of 1976 National  Waste  Processing Conference, Boston,  Massachusetts,  May
     23-26, 1976.   American  Society of Mechanical  Engineers,  New York.
     pp. 453-462.

Hoberg, H., and E.  Schulz.   Das Aachener Verlahren zur Hausmuell-ufbereitung.
     Arbereit-Tech., 18(l):l-5, January  1977.

How much energy and material  from  waste  and  biomass?  Energy  1(3):9-14,
     Spring-Summer  1976.

How one woman is trying to get  one small  city off the dime  and  onto  resource
     recovery.   Resour. Recovery  Energy  Rev., 3(6):8-10,  November-December
     1976.

Huang, C. I.  Energy recovery from solid waste.  Vol.  2.   Technical  report.
     University of  Houston,  Texas, April  1975.   242  p.   NTIS  N75-25292.

Huffman, 6.  Solid  fuels.  In:  A  Conference on  Capturing  the Sun through
     Bioconversion, Washington, D.C.,  March  10-12, 1976.   Washington  Center
     for Metropolitan Studies,  pp. 454-484.

Hundermann, A.  S.,  and E. J.  Lehmann.  Synthetic fuels from municipal,
     industrial, and agricultural  wastes; a  bibliography with abstracts.
     NTISearch, National  Technical Information  Service,  Springfield,  Virginia,
     1975.  36  p.,  NTIS PS-77/0112.

An integrated waste heat utilization complex.   AWARE,  4:13, August 1974.

Johnson, A. L., Jr.  Biomass  energy.   Astronaut.  Aeronaut.,  13:64-70,  November
     1975.

Kinsey, R. D.  Garbage power:   the renewable energy  resource.   Catal.  Environ.
     Qua!., 5(2):21, 24-26,  1976.

Kirov, N. Y., ed.   Waste  Management,  Control, Recovery,  and Reuse.   Ann Arbor
     Science Publishers,  Ann  Arbor, Inc., 1974.  240 p.

Kreiter, B. G.   Composition  of  wastes  and some  possibilities  for recovery.
     Conserv. Recy., 1(1):19-30,  1976.

Kreiter, B. G.   Research  into the  recovery of some components from municipal
     waste.  In: Collection, Disposal,  Treatment  and Recycling of Solid  Wastes;
     Proceedings of a Seminar,  Hamburg,  Germany, September 1-6, 1975.   Economic
     Commission for Europe,  Geneva, Switzerland, 2:178-188.


                                     176

-------
Landmann, W. J., and W. J. Darmstadt.  Energy recovery from solid waste.   In:
     Conference Papers, First International  Conference on Conversion of Refuse
     to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.   Institute of
     Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York.  pp. 589-595.

Linde, R. K.  Solid wastes, geothermal conversion provide all  the power sources.
     Prof. Eng., 44(11):26-29, November 1974.

Lindsley, E. F.  Alcohol power, can it help you meet the soaring cost of
     gasoline?  Pop. Sci., 206(4):68-72, April 1975.

Liss, G. B.  Solid waste disposal:   a plan of action; final report.   Newark
     Department of Engineering, New Jersey,  December 1975.   294 p.   NTIS
     PB-263 678.

Lowe, R. A.  Energy conservation through improved solid waste  management.
     EPA-SW-125, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.,  1974.   82  p.

Maddox, K. P.  Energy analysis.  Color. Sch. Mines Miner. Ind. Bull., 18(4):1-16,
     July 1975.

Mafrici, D., K. Goldbach, and A. Katell.  Is resource recovery a reality?   Yes,
     in New York State it is.  Waste Age, 7(3):2-4, March 1976.

Martin, T. L.  A total package concept for solid waste management.   Public
     Works, 106(4):66, April 1975.

Matula, R. A.  Present Status and Research Needs in Energy Recovery  from Wastes;
     Proceedings of the 1976 Conference, September 19-24/76.   American Society
     of Mechanical Engineers, New York.

McEwen, L. B.  Waste reduction and resource recovery activities; a nationwide
     survey.  EPA-SW-432, U.S. Government Printing Office,  Washington, D.C.,
     1977.  78 p.

McGuinness, W. J.  Pulping improves waste disposal.  Prog.  Arch., 49(2):158,
     February 1968.

Mclntyre, A. D.  Energy from municipal refuse.  B. C. Research, Vancouver,
     Canada, 1973.

McKewen, T. D.  Maryland Resource Recovery Facility.  Waste Age, 7(9):80-83,
     September 1976.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  Generation of steam from solid wastes.  Boston,
     Massachusetts, 1972.  139 p.  NTIS PB-214 166.

Meyers. S.  EPA and municipal resource recovery.  NCRR Bull.,  6(3):62-65,
     Summer, 1976.
                                     177

-------
Meyers, S., and D. B.  Sussman.   The utilization of solid wastes for the
     generation of electric power.   In:   Energy Development III; IEEE Power
     Engineering Society Papers.   Institute of Electrical  and Electronics
     Engineers, New York,  1977.   pp.  30-33.

National Center for Resource Recovery.   Resource Recovery from Solid Wastes;
     a State-of-the Art Study.   Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts,
     1974.  195 p.

National Research Council  Committee on  Mineral  Resources and the Environment.
     Mineral  Resources and the  Environment.  Supplementary Report;  Resource
     Recovery from Municipal Solid  Wastes.   National  Academy of Sciences,
     Washington, D.C., 1975. 416 p.

New energy sources:  dreams and  promises.  Energy Research Group Report, March
     1, 1976.

1977 Survey of resources recovery and energy conversion practices.   Waste Age,
     8(3):66-73, March 1977.

Nuss, G. R.,  W. E. Franklin, D.  Hahlin,  W.  Park, and  M. Urie.   Baseline fore-
     casts of resource recovery,  1972-1990.  Midwest  Research Institute,
     Kansas City, Missouri, March 1975.   386 p.   NTIS PB-245 924.

Olivieri, J.  B. et_ al_.  Waermerueckgewinnungassysteme.   Heat Recovery Systems.
     F. R. Mueller, Karlsruhe,  Germany,  1975.   24 p.

The Organic Waste Resource System.   University of Oklahoma Science  and
     Public Policy Program Report,  May  1975.  pp.  1-10.

Papamarcos, J.  Power from solid  waste.   Power Eng.,  78(9):46-55, September
     1974.

Parker, C. J., and J.  A. Green.   Domestic waste recovery by local authorities
     in the U.K.; a background  to the Green Paper Resourc. Pol., 1 (5):277-283,
     September 1975.

Payne, J.  Energy recovery from  refuse  - state-of-the art.  J.  Environ.
     Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 102(EE2):281-300, April  1976.

Pennsylvania  Department of Community Affairs.   Reclamation of energy from
     solid waste; theory and practice;  a selected annotated bibliography for
     Pennsylvania local government  officials.   Harrisburg, November 1976.  32  p.
     NTIS PB-267 800.

Poole, A. J.   The potential for  energy  recovery from  organic wastes.  In:  The
     Energy Conservation Papers.  R.  H.  Williams,  comp.  Ballinger, Cambridge,
     Mass., 1975.  pp. 219-308.

Porteous, A.   An assessment of energy recovery methods  applicable to domestic
     refuse disposal.   Resourc.  Pol., 1(5):284-294, September 1975.
                                     178

-------
Proceedings, Fifth National Congress on Waste Management Technology and
     Resource and Energy Recovery, Dallas, Texas, December 7-9,  1976.   EPA-
     SW-22p, National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington,  D.C.,
     1977.

Proceedings, Fourth National Congress on Waste Management Technology and
     Resource Recovery, San Francisco, California, November 14-15,  1974.
     EPA-SW-8p, National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, D.C.,
     1975.  386 p.

Proceedings of Conference on Waste Reduction held at Washington, D.C., on
     April 2-5, 1975.  EPA-SW-7p, Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,
     D.C., Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.  161 p.  NTIS PB-285 157.

Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference, Boston, Massachusetts,
     May 23-26, 1976.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers.  595  p.

Rasch, R.  Zentrale Abfallbehandlung mit Energiegewinnung in Kombinationsanlagen.
     In:  Conference Papers, First International Conference on Conversion
     of Refuse to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.  Institute
     of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York.  pp. 299-303.

Recent advances in the treatment of solid wastes.  Presented at IAEA Symposium
     on Radiation for a Clean Environment, Munich, Germany, March 17-21, 1975.

Recovery and utilization of energy.  AWARE, 59:6                 August 1975.

Recycling of organic wastes with processing system that precisely controls heat
     and flow.  Ind. Heating, 39(10):1924-1929, October 1972.

Recycling refuse in energy.  Civ. Eng., 46(9):86            September  1976.

Reed, J. C., F. W. Frank, L. Weitzman, and C. N. Click.  Environmental and
     technical considerations concerning energy recovery from refuse contamina-
     tion.  In:  Energy and the Environment; Proceedings of the Third  National
     Conference, September 29-30 and October 1, 1975, Hueston Woods State Park
     Lodge, Ohio, E. J. Rolinski, ed.  American Institute of Chemical  Engineers,
     New York.  pp. 106-111.

Resource conservation and recycling, pt. 3, hearings before Special Committee
     on Science, Technology and Communication, 93d Congress, 2d Session, on
     S. 2753, November 17 and 18, 1974.  861-1041 p.

Resource Planning Associates.  A comparison of the energy expenditures and
     returns of three solid waste disposal alternatives.  Draft.  Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, 1978.

Resource Planning Associates.  European waste-to-energy systems; an overview.
     Cambridge, Massachusetts, December 1977.  68 p.

Resource Planning Associates.  State of Vermont Agency of Environmental Conserva-
     tion solid waste management and resource recovery plan.  Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, 1973.  76 p.  NTIS PB-235 319.


                                      179

-------
Resource Planning Associates.   A study of Federal  subsidies to stimulate
     resource recovery.   Cambridge,  Massachusetts, 1974.   144 p.   NTIS PB-239
     736.

Resource recovery from household wastes at the  threshold.   Phoenix Q., 7(1):4
                       Spring  1975.

Resource recovery from solid wastes                                6(4):120,
     April  1975.

Resource Recovery Implementation:   Engineering  and Economics; Proceedings of
     an Engineering Foundation Research Conference,  Rindge, New Hampshire,
     July 29-30, 1976.  U.S. Government Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C.,
     1977.   223 p.

Ricci, L. J.  Scavenging of wastes  promises a gas  bonus.   Chem.  Eng., 82(24):
     128-132, November 10,  1975.

Rigo, H. 6., and B. A. Hausfeld.  Development of  alternative approaches  to a
     small  scale solid waste transfer/resource  recovery station for navy
     installations.  Civil  Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme,  California,
     1977.   176 p.

Rofe, R.  Research needs in waste utilization.  In:   Proceedings  of 1976 National
     Waste Processing Conference, Boston, Massachusetts,  May 23-26, 1976,
     American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,  New York.   pp. 13-18.

St. Clair,  C. W.  Municipal solid waste management alternatives.   In:  Energy
     Awareness; Proceedings, Symposium for Public  Awareness on Energy,
     Knoxville, Tennessee,  February 24, 1977.   pp. 42-64.

St. Claire, C. W.  Resource recovery - a review.   Waste Age, 6(6):102-107,
     June 1975.

Schnelle, J. F.  Potential  alternative fuel derivatives from municipal solid
     wastes.

Schulte, H., P. M. Sullivan, and F.  E. Walker.  Characterizing combustible
     portions of urban refuse  for potential use as fuel.   RI 8044, Bureau of
     Mines, Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania,  1975. 26 p.  NTIS  PB-244 780.

Schulz, R.  L.  Industrial  development based on  resources  recovery (The
     Wallingford Project).   Fourth  Sink Management Group,  Inc., Kattskill
     Bay, Wisconsin.

Schwieger,  R. G.  Power from waste.   Power, 119(2):S1-S24, February 1975.

Seldman, N. W.  High technology recycling:   costly and still wasteful.  Compost
     Sci.,  17(2):28-29,  March-April  1976.
                                     180

-------
Sheng, H. P., and H. Alter.  Energy recovery from municipal  solid waste and
     method of comparing refuse-derived fuels.  Resour. Recovery Conser.,
     l(l):85-93, May 1975.

Sittig, M.  Resource Recovery and Recycling Handbook of Industrial  Wastes.
     Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1975.   427 p.

Skinner, J. H.  The demonstration of systems for the recovery of material  and
     energy from solid wastes.  Presented at National  Materials Conservation
     Symposium, Gaithersburg, Maryland, April 29, 1974.  20 p.

Skinner, J. H.  The impact of source separation and waste reduction on  the
     economics of resource recovery facilities.  Resour.  Recovery Energy Rev.,
     4(2):22-26, March-April 1977.

Snyder, N. W.  Energy recovery and resource recycling.  Chem. Eng., 81(22):
     65-72, October 21, 1974.

Solid waste as a source of fuel.  Presented at 34th International Pollution
     Engineering Conference, Chicago, Illinois, September 9-11, 1974.   35  p.

Solid waste control technology and its application.  Presented at EPA  Pollution
     Control Technology Assessment Conference, Columbus,  Ohio, May 1-3, 1974.
     77 p.

Solid waste disposal and resource recovery.  I.  Presented AIChE Energy and
     Environment Conference, November 13-15, 1974.  37 p.

Sommerblad, R. E., and R. H. Pai.  Refuse, the world's wasted energy source;
     the quality control approach.  Heat Eng., 74(3):34,  June-August,  1975.

Spendlove, M. J.  Bureau of Mines research on resource recovery, reclamation,
     utilization, disposal, and stabilization.  Bureau of Mines Circular 8750,
     College Park Metallurgy Research Center, Maryland, 1977.  104  p.

State to recycle 85% of cities' solid wastes.  Eng. News  Rec., 193(17):39-40,
     October 17, 1974.

Steffgen, F. W.  Clean fuels from solid organic wastes.  In:   Proceedings of
     the Fourth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, May
     7-8, 1974.  E. Aleshin, ed.  IIT Research Institute, Chicago,  pp.  13-21.

Stephens, R. H.  Steam recovery - an alternative for intermediate size  regions.
     Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Stone, P. L.  Energy utilization of solid waste at small  naval bases -  an
     economic decision model and comparison of two types  of systems.  Civil
     Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, 1976.

Sternlicht, B.  The equipment side of low-level heat recovery.  Power,  119(6):
     71-77, June 1975.
                                     181

-------
Sullivan, P. M., and H.  V.  Makar.   Quality of products from Bureau of Mines
     resource recovery systems and suitability for recycling.   In:  Proceedings
     of the Fifth Mineral  Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Illinois,
     April 12-14, 1976.   E. Aleshin,  ed.   IIT Research  Institute, Chicago.
     pp. 223-233.

Sullivan, P. M., M.  H. Stanczyk, and  M.  J. Spendlove.   Pilot plant analyzes
     value of urban  refuse.  Actual  specif. Eng.,  33(5):77-80, May 1975.

Sundberg, A. P., and C.  Tayart de Bonus.   Solid waste  treatment and resource
     recovery in the European Economic Recovery (EEC); a status report.   In:
     Proceedings of 1976 National  Waste Processing Conference, Boston,
     Massachusetts,  May 23-26, 1976.   American Society of Mechanical  Engineers,
     New York.  pp.  447-451.

Sutterfield, G. W. and F.  E.  Wisely.   Refuse as supplementary  fuel for power
     plants.  In:  Solid Waste Demonstration Projects; Proceedings of a  Symposium,
     Cincinnati, Ohio, May 4-6, 1971.   Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,
     1972.  pp. 129-147.  NTIS PB-230 171.

Thomas, G. A., and J. R. Holmes.  The choice between reclamation and  the  recovery
     of energy from waste.   In:  Conference Papers,  First International  Con-
     ference on Conversion of Refuse  to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November
     3-5, 1975.  Institute of Electrical  and Electronics Engineers, New  York.
     pp. 164-172.

Tillman, D. A.  Fuels from recycling  systems.   Environ.  Sci. Techno!., 9:418-422,
     May 1975.

Treat, N. L.  Net energy from municipal  solid waste.   Oak Ridge Associated
     Universities, Tennessee, Institute for Energy Analysis,  February 1977.
     42 p.  NTIS ORAU IEA M77 5.

Tsuda, M., and K. Tsunematsu.  Thermal  generation  by garbage  combustion.   (In
     Japanese).  Kayobu Hatsudun,  23(11):1122-1130,  November  1972.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Resource recovery and  source reduction;
     first report to Congress.  EPA-SW-118, Washington,  D.C.,  February 1973.
     70 p.  NTIS PB-255 139.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Resource recovery and  source reduction;
     second report to Congress.  EPA-SW-122, Washington, D.C., March  1974.  125 p.
     NTIS PB-253 406.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Resource recovery and waste reduction;
     third report to Congress.  EPA-SW-161, Washington,  D.C.,  1975.  133  p.
     NTIS PB-255 141.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Resource recovery and waste reduction;
     fourth report to Congress.  EPA-SW-600, Washington, D.C., 1977.   142 p.
                                      182

-------
U.S. Library of Congress.  Resource conservation, resource recovery and solid
     waste disposal; studies prepared by Environmental  Policy Division of Con-
     gressional Research Service.  Comm. Print., 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 93-12,
     Washington, D.C., November 1973.  218 p.

U.S. Naval Facilities.  Engineering Command.  Recovery and reuse of refuse
     resources program.  1975.

U.S. Office of Energy Conservation and Environment.  Energy conservation study;
     report to Congress.  Washington, D.C., December 1974.  181 p.   NTIS PB-243
     369.

Waste Management Technology and Resource and Energy Recovery; Proceedings of the
     Fourth National Congress, Atlanta, Georgia, November 12-14, 1975.  EPA-
     SW-8p., National Solid Wastes Management Association, 1976.  382 p.

Waste materials.  Annu. Rev. Energy, 1:257                 1976.

Watanabe, S.  Resource recovery and giant vacuum transportation system.  Chem.
     Econ. Eng. Rev., 5(4):72-76, April 1973.

Weinstein, N. J., and R. F. Toro.  Thermal Processing of Municipal  Solid Waste
     for Resource and Energy Recovery.  Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann
     Arbor, Michigan, 1976.  179 p.

Wentworth, M.  Resource recovery:  truth and consequence.  Environmental Action
     Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1977.  77 p.

What gives the National Center for Resource Recovery its clout?  Resour. Recovery
     Energy Rev., 4(3):4-9, Summer 1977.

Williamson, W.  In Ontario, a major resource recovery system to fight a major
     waste disposal problem.  Eng. J., 58(1):36-41, March-April 1975.

Williamson, W.  Ontario's resource recovery program.  Scrap Age, 33(6):176-180,
     June 1976.

Wilson, E. M., and H. M. Freeman.  Processing energy from wastes.  Environ.
     Sci. Techno!., 10(5):430-435, May 1976.

Wilson, M. J.  Maximizing resource recovery from solid waste.  Build. Syst.
     Design, 72(3):11-15, April-May 1975.

Young, R. A., and I. 0. Risk.  Kodak disposes of waste in system that helps
     pay its way.  Pollut. Eng., 8(9):48-49, September 1976.

SHOPPING CENTERS

Compact containers improve refuse services at shopping mall.  Waste Age, 6(5):
     30-31, May 1975.
                                      183

-------
Degeare, T.  V.,  Jr.,  and J.  E.  Ongerth.   Empirical  analysis  of  commercial  solid
     waste generation.   J.  Sanit.  Eng.  Div., Am.  Soc.  Civ. Eng.,  97(SA6):
     843-850,  December  1971.

SOURCE SEPARATION

Action for Bridgeport Community Development.   The economics  of  recycling  by
     source separation  and  its  application  for Fairfield  County.   Bridgeport,
     Connecticut, 1976.   83 p.

Allen, J.  Treatment  of industrial  wastes at source.   In:  Collection,  Disposal,
     Treatment and Recycling  of Solid Wastes;  Proceedings of a  Seminar, Hamburg,
     Germany,  September 1-6,  1975.   Economic Commission for  Europe,  Geneva,
     Switzerland.  2:25-42.

Bailly, H. C., and H. S. Vaccaro.    Source  separation:  a cost  effective  low
     technology resource recovery  option.   In:   Present Status  and Research
     Needs in  Energy  Recovery from Wastes;  Proceedings of the 1976 Conferences.
     New York, September 19-24,  1976.   R. A. Matula, ed.  American Society of
     Mechanical  Engineers,  New  York, 1977.  pp.  103-124.

Barton, D.,  B. Brumm, M. Buel,  and J. McMillan.   Recycling:   can  it  be  done?
     Northwest Recycling Project,  Portland, Oregon, June  1972.  98 p.

Burgwin, S., W.  Lancaster,  H. Refus, and  D. Wells.  An energy efficient neighbor-
     hood-centered method for collecting  and recycling household  solid  waste.
     Western Interstate Commission for  Higher  Education,  Boulder,  Colorado,
     November  1974.

Can communities  afford  recycling center or  separate collection  systems.   Solid
     Wastes Manage.,  19(12):32                    November 1976.

Choice of a system for  domestic refuse  precollection.  Tech.  Sci.  Municip.,
     (11):463                       November 1976.

Cohen, D. M.  Separate  collection  recycling programs in the  United States.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1977.   (Unpublished
     report.)

Davis, R. H.,  and P.  Hansen.  A new look  at the economics of separate refuse
     collection.   SCS Engineers, Long Beach, California,  April  1974.  (Unpub-
     lished report.)

Duncan, R. C.   An economic  garbage collection  and recycling  service.  Compost
     Sci., 17(1):12-17,  January-February  1976.

Duncan, R. C.   The "ORE Plan" for  recycling household  solid  waste; an alternative
     garbage collection system.  Compost  Sci.,  16(l):24-32,  January-February 1975.

Enhorning, B.   Recycling of useful  raw  materials  from  Swedish household waste
     by means  of separation.  In:   Collection,  Disposal,  Treatment and  Recycling
     of Solid  Wastes; Proceedings  of a  Seminar, Hamburg,  Germany,  September 1-6,
     1975.  Economic  Commission for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland.   2:120-133.


                                       184

-------
Freeman, R. E.,  B. A. Donahue, S. E. Kloster, G. W. Schanche, and E.  D.  Smith.
     Cost of recycling waste material from family housing.   CERL-TR-N-29,
     Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois,
     September 1977.  61 p.  NTIS AD-A045 42.

Hansen, P. H.  Resource recovery through multi-material  source separation.
     Waste Age, 7(10):30+, October 1976.

Hansen, P. H., and J. Ramsey.  Demonstrating multi-material  source separation
     in Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts.  Waste Age, 7(2):26-27,
     February 1976.

Heron, N.  How successful are separate collection systems for recyclable  wastes?
     Solid Wastes Manage., 19(4):40+, April 1976.

Hudson, J. F., F. P. Gross, D. G. Wilson, and D. H. Marks.   Evaluation of
     policy-related research in the field of municipal  solid waste management.
     Research Report R74-56, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, Civil Engineering Research Laboratory,  September 1974.
     394 p.

Illinois Solid Waste Management Task Force.  Beverage containers.   Illinois
     Institute for Environmental Quality, Chicago, 1971.

Larderec, J. A. de, V. Coskuner, and D. E. Sexton.  Reduction and  treatment  of
     municipal and industrial solid waste at source.  In:  Collection, Disposal,
     Treatment  and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings  of a Seminar,  Hamburg,
     Germany, September 1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.
     1:58-85.

Lingle, S. A.  Separating paper at the waste source for recycling.  EPA-SW-128,
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office of  Solid Waste
     Management Programs, 1974.  20 p.  NTIS PB-260 254.

Michaels, A., A. Murray, and J. J. Spinelli.  Source separation recycling -  a
     test program.  Public Works, 107(4)-.62-65, 99, April 1976.

Mil lard, R. F.  Treatment and household and commercial  wastes at source.   In:
     Collection, Disposal, Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings
     of a Seminar, Hamburg, Germany, September 1-6, 1975.  Economic Commission
     for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland.  2:18-24.

National Analysts' Inc.  Metropolitan housewive's attitudes toward solid  waste
     disposal.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Setpember 1972.   114 p.  NTIS PB-213
     340.

National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.  Residential paper recovery.   EPA-
     SW-533, Washington, D.C.  (n.d.)  20 p.

Naveau, H. P., and R. Binot.  Influence of separate collection on  calorific
     power of urban solid wastes.  In:  Conference Papers,  First International
     Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy, Montreux, Switzerland,
     November 3-5, 1975.  Institute of Electrical and Electronics  Engineers.
     pp. 56-60.

                                      185

-------
Peters, W. H.  Who cooperates in voluntary recycling efforts?  In:   1973
     Combined Proceedings.  T.  V. Greer, ed.   American Marketing Association,
     Chicago,  pp. 505-508.

Recycling begins at home.   New Sci.,  67(958):152,  July 17, 1975.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc.  Solid waste recovery programs in Somerville
     and Marblehead, Massachusetts'   monthly  reports, January-October 1977.
     Draft.  Cambridge, Massachusetts,  1977.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc.  Solid waste recovery programs in Somerville
     and Marblehead, Massachusetts:   waste composition analysis; interim report.
     Draft.  Cambridge, Massachusetts,  Fall 1977.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc.  Source separation:  the community aware-
     ness in Somerville and  Marblehead, Massachusetts.  EPA-SW-551,  Cambridge,
     Massachusetts, November 1976.  92  p.  NTIS PB-260 654.

Sample documents for separate collection programs.   Solid Wastes Manage.,
     19(12):52                           November  1976.

Savage, 6., L. F. Diaz, and  G.  J. Trezek.  The Cal  recovery system:   a resource
     recovery system for dealing with the problems  of solid waste management.
     Compost Sci., 16(5):18-21, Autumn  1975.

SCS Engineers.  Analysis of source separate collection of recyclable solid
     waste - collection center studies.  Long Beach, California, 1974.  157  p.
     NTIS PB-239 775.

SCS Engineers.  Analysis of source separate collection of recyclable solid
     waste - separate collection studies.  Long Beach, California,  1974.  157 p.
     NTIS PB-239 775.

SCS Engineers.  Cost analysis of source separate collection of solid waste;
     case studies.  Long Beach, California, July 1973.

SCS Engineers.  Experiment on source  segregation of solid waste at Navy shore
     installations.  Long  Beach, California,  June  1977.   113 p.

SCS Engineers.  Solid waste  management  master plans, Marine Corps Air Station,
     Cherry Point, North Carolina, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune,  North
     Carolina.  Reston, Virginia, September 1977.

SCS Engineers.  Test analysis work plan; Phase I,  Solid waste source separation,
     Vandenberg Air Force  Base, California.   Long  Beach, California, April 1977.

Shiga,  M.  Separate collection  of household refuse  in Tokyo.  In:  Conference
     Papers, First International Conference on Conversion of Refuse  to Energy,
     Montreux, Switzerland,  November  3-5, 1975. Institute of Electrical and
     Electronics Engineers,  New York.  pp. 61-66.
                                     186

-------
Source separation of recyclable wastepaper.  Presented at Israel  Ecological
     Society 6th Scientific Conference, Tel-Aviv, June 4-5, 1975.

Stearns, R. P.  Economics of separate refuse collection.   In:   Energy from
     Solid Waste Utilization; Proceedings of the 6th Annual Northeast Regional
     Antipollution Conference, University of Rhode Island, Kingston,  July 8-9,
     1975.  Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut,  1976.   pp.  23-44

Taylor, D. R.  Collection and sale of recyclable goods from households.   In:
     Waste Management, Control, Recovery, and Reuse; the International  Edition
     of the 1974 Australian Waste Conference, University of New South Wales,
     Kensington, Australia.  N. Y. Kirov, ed.'  Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
     Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975.  pp. 199-201.

Tichenor, R.  The Nottingham system for resource recovery.  Compost Sci.,
     17(l):20-25, January-February 1976.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Materials recovery:  solid waste manage-
     ment guidelines for source separation.  Fed. Reg., 41(8):16950-16956,
     April 23, 1976.

Von Heidenstam, 0.  Swedish experience in separation at source.  Solid wastes,
     67(8):284-295, July 1977.

Young, R. A.  Efficient in-house handling of solid waste.   Pollut.  Eng., 7(10):
     43-45, October 1975.

WORMS

Langer, B. W., Jr.  The earthworm and resource recovery;  the recycling of
     biodegradable wastes.  GTA, Wilmington, Delaware,  (n.d.)  13 p.

Carmondy, F. X.  Vermicomposting; an assessment of the state of the art as of
     May 1978.  Resource Recovery Systems, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 1978.
     30 p.

The worms crawl in...the worms crawl out.  Solid Wastes Manage., 20(7):11, July
     1977.
                                      187

-------
                          APPENDIX C

        SMALL-SCALE AND LOW TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE RECOVERY

                    OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
INTRODUCTION

     In order to make the project as comprehensive as possible,
information was sought concerning approaches to resource
recovery as practiced in countries outside the United States.
The primary method of obtaining  this information was attendance
at the First World Recycling Congress and Exhibition held in
Basel, Switzerland in March 1978.  Gary Mitchell, the SCS
project manager, was the delegate to the Congress.  In addition
to attending the technical  sessions and visiting the equipment
exhibition, personal contacts were made with authors of papers
associated with small-scale or low technology approaches.  These
contacts led to further interchange of information via corres-
pondence .

PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS

     The purpose of the Congress was to bring together know-
ledgeable  authorities in the area of waste recovery and recy-^
cling to discuss the most recent developments and approaches
to the recovery of reusable materials and energy, and approaches
to the recycling of recovered waste materials.  The three-day
conference attracted over 400 delegates.  Some 45 papers were
presented  with the authors  representing 15 countries from all
continents with the exception of South America.

     The associated equipment exhibition provided for the
display of technologies and sytems for the recovery of recy-^
clable materials.  Exhibitors representing processes and hard-
ware for the recovery of and reuse of industrial manufacturing
wastes as  well as recovery  of materials and energy from munici-
pal refuse were present.

IMPRESSIONS AND GENERAL COMMENTS

     Overall, the Congress  and Exhibition were oriented more
heavily toward recovery and recycling of industrial wastes
than toward like activities associated with post-consumer wastes.
Particular emphasis was placed on the in-the-plant or trade
recovery and reuse of wastes from the plastics, glass, and
textile industries.
                              188

-------
     However, a number of papers were presented in the area of
municipal waste resource recovery.  Virtually all of them were
directed toward recovery of materials or energy from the mixed
waste stream with little emphasis on source separation of
materials.  Specific areas that were covered include:

            t Magnetic separation
            • Air classification
            • Recovery of tin cans and other materials
              from incinerator residue
            • The use of earth.-worms as a solid waste
              management technique

     Likewise, the equipment exhibition was oriented toward the
reprocessing of industrial wastes such as plastic scrap and high
technology, high volume systems to recover resources from
municipal waste.  An interest in the recovery of post-consumer
glass; however, was displayed.  The European Glass Container
Federation had a display including examples of "Bottle Banks"
used in  England and Europe as drop-off containers for source
separated glass.

     The  impression received after talking to speakers and
exhibitors was that little source separation and separate
collection is conducted in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
The interest in incineration with heat recovery, particularly
in Europe, likely precludes any activities to remove paper from
the waste stream.  Those speakers commenting on source separation
and low  technology systems noted that these approaches were
generally not found outside the United States.  These authors
indicated that either disposal was relatively inexpensive, or
was accomplished by incineration, or an extensive scavaging
system operated (this latter approach is prevalent particularly
in Asia).

SPECIFIC  FINDINGS

     Copies of all papers presented at the Congress were
obtained.  Citations to these publications have been included in
the bibliography under the appropriate subject.

     Personal contact was made with authors of three papers
particularly applicable to the small-scale and low technology
study:   Joseph E.  Greevy, the Executive Director of Keep Ireland
Beautiful, presented a paper on recycling and reuse of waste in
the Irish Republic.   He noted the interest in glass recovery
in Ireland, primarily using drop-off containers or recycling
centers.  He pointed out that there was no high-grade paper
separation in any of the office buildings in Ireland.  He further
noted the need for encouragement and even requirements on the
part of the Irish government to recover recyclable materials.
It was his opinion that the Irish government should formulate
 Guidelines similar to the EPA's Material  Recovery Guidelines
 40 CFR 246).

                               189

-------
     Dr. Michael Connor of South. Africa gave a paper on the
applicability of modern technologies for recovering energy and
materials from urban waste to developing countries, using three
developing nations; India, Kenya, and South Africa; as case
studies.  He pointed out that the most feasible resource recovery
system for developing countries is composting.  The soil fertil-
ity in many of these areas is rapidly decreasing and, due to a
lack of organic material, the land is producing less.

     Dr. Connor noted that most developing countries have some
of the necessary prerequists for the implementation of low
technology systems; i.e. an interest in creating jobs, and a
relatively large available labor force willing to work for  ,
extremely low wages.  However, he pointed out that most devel-
oping nations are doing little in the way of resource recovery
because they have much higher priority needs than improved solid
waste management.

     An interesting aspect of resource recovery was discussed by
Basil A. Rossi from the Philipines.  He gave a paper on re-
cycling and non-waste technology in Asia.  Mr. Rossi described
the presence of scavenging in Asia and many developing countries
noting that some 2,000 people in Manila make their living by
manually separating recoverable materials at the land disposal
site serving the city.  Mr. Rossi was a proponent of the use of
earthworms in the management of urban solid waste.  He felt that
Asia had a high potential for low technology resource recovery
by noting the importance of resource conservation in many Asian
nations due to the  lack of natural resources.  The fact that
wages in many Asian countries are very low, averaging about $2
per day, also encourages labor intensive activities.

     At the equipment exposition,  a display was presented by the
Warren Springs Laboratory in England.   This government-supported
laboratory had built a pilot-scale, high technology system for
the recovery of materials from mixed municipal  refuse.   The
pilot system operated at the rate  of four tons per hour and
separated mixed glass, aluminum,  ferrous, fluff RDF, and a
residue.   It proved technical, but not economic feasibility
at the designed throughput.   The  pilot system is  being  dismantled
prior to the construction of a full-scale (500 ton per  day)
operation.   Representatives  of Warren  Springs indicated that the
pilot-scale operation (32 TPD in  eight hours) was  not economic-
ally feasible  and that derating  the full-scale system would not
be economically attractive either.   The latter approach could be
accomplished by operating the full-size (500 TPD)  equipment to
process  only 100 TPD.   A similar  opinion about the economics of
small,  high technology systems was expressed by other exhibitors
of high  technology  systems at the  equipment exposition.   How-
ever,  the  representatives of Warren Springs knew  of the existence
of some  separate newsprint collection  activities  in cities near
their  laboratory.
                              190

-------
     Brochures and literature on various high technology systems
or subsystems of those technologies applicable to small scale
operations were obtained at the Congress.  These systems in-
cluded magnetic separation and an Italian energy recovery
system which generates both hot water and electricity from
various fuel sources.  One of the fuel sources noted was
methane gas generated from the decomposition of organic material,
including refuse and sludge.

     Information was also obtained about uniquely designed drop-
off containers for source separated glass.  These dome shaped
fiberglass containers are popular in Germany and other parts of
northern Europe.  See Figure 13.   They are colored-coded for
the color of glass to be received and have 15-centimeter holes
in the top to discourage the depositing of oversize containers
of refuse.  When full, the containers are lifted by a truck-
mounted crane and emptied into appropriate bins on a truck.  The
glass container is then returned directly to its location with
the truck moving on to service other containers.

CONCLUSION

     No innovative or unique approaches to resource recovery
meeting this project's definitions of small-scale and low
tech-nology were identified at the Congress.  This certainly does
not preclude th.e existence of such systems outside the United
States.  However, lack of their presence at this forum indicates
that the likelyhood of their existence is slim.  This conclusion
was fortified by the predominance of papers from non-U. S. authors
that focused on high technology and industrial resource recovery.

     Thus,  it appears that most of the interest in the develop-
ment and implementation of small-scale and low technology
resource recovery is in the United States.   Likely reasons  for
this situation include increasing (and high,  relative to most
other countries) costs for acceptable land disposal  and this
country's interest in technological  solutions to as  many
problems as possible.   Therefore, it is  suggested that near-term
future information collection efforts focused on foreign small-
scale or low technology resource recovery be  limited to the
information entering this country in the form of publications
and representations  of foreign governments and equipment manu-
facturers and users.
                               191

-------
                                           Lift  handle
3-15 cm dia. holes
for glass deposit
                     LY
                                                         4' dia. x 4V high
                                                         fiberglass dome -
                                                         color coded for three
                                                         colors of glass.
                                                         Each container
                                                         accepts only one
                                                         color
                                                         Bracket for
                                                         handle attachment
                                         Legs
                                   CLOSED
 II
 II
 II
 II
life

                      \
                       \
                         \

                                                         Operating handle
                                    OPEN
                   Semi-circular bottom
                   pieces swing together
                   to discharge glass
                   after container is
                   lifted over collection
                   truck
Figure 13.  European Drop-Off Container for Source Separated  Glass
                                     192

-------
                                           APPENDIX D
                             SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
                            INCINERATION WITH WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
UD
CO
MANUFACTURER
Alessandro Lolliwl
Babcock & Wilcox
Basic Envlr. Engr.
Bayco Ind.
Besser Masteco

The Bethlehem Corp
Brule
Burn-Zol
CE Air Preheater
CE Combustion Engr.
Certified Incinera-
tor
Clean Air Inc.
Control /Sun-
beam
Combustion Power
Inc.
Combusto Pak
Consumat Systems

Dispatch Oven Co.
Driall, Inc.
Econo Therm Corp.
Energex Limited
Energy Cube
Energy Dynamics
Environmental
Control Prod
Envir. Tech. Div.

Kel log/Mann Corp.
Kelly Co., Inc.
Jarvis Incin. Co.
Midland Ross Corp.
Morse Boulger Inc.
Nichols Engr.
DESIGNATION
no heat recovery

Model 300
GR and PR 300
DCR-2

Model 80
custom
272
no heat recovery
no heat recovery
no heat recovery


Model A-48

CPU-400

no heat recovery
H-760

no heat recovery
no heat recovery
Plo-400
no heat recovery
RDF (no data)
no heat recovery

2500 T
no heat recovery

non-ferrous recovery
1280
no heat recovery
no heat recovery
no heat recovery
no heat recovery
CAPA-
CITY
(Ibm/hr)



100-300
500
*


375-520+




12500
1TPH

8TPH


1.25TPH



400




2000

1600

.8T




WEIGHT
(TONS)




32.5

6.4
5-27 tons






40




45



18.3




27



17




RATING
(BTU)


1800 Ibs

1500
MM/HR
27.6
2-12
3




62.5
17

103KW


10 ton/
ton


3.2




11.4



3.2




COST
CAPITAL
















15xlo3/T/D














33000
127500




OPERATE
















$6/ton














.03/16





REMARKS

water wall: > 300 TPD


suspension burning co-firing
w/coal custom units

custom units





have designed 75PO units


economic > 200 TPD


have hosiptal systems










data not responding







-------
                             INCINERATION WITH WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
UD
MANUFACTURER
O'Conner Engr.
Orltron Corp.
PUbrico Co.
Peabody Inter.
Corp.
Prenco
Pyro Cone
Rust Engr. Co.
Shirco, Inc.
Smoka Crol , Inc.
Tesco
Thermal Processes
Inc.
Thermal Research
Thermo Electron
The United Corp.
UOP Corp;
W.A. Kutrieb Inc.
Watson Energy Sys.
Zurn Ind. Inc.

C.E. Barlett-
Snow
Comtro
Giery
Lamb - Cargate
Scientific Energy
Engineering
Washburn & Granger
C1 Co
Federal Inciner-
ator, Inc.
Stands Company
U.S. Smelting Fur-
nace Company
DESIGNATION

custom
no heat reocvery
solid fuel burners

no heat recovery
custom
no heat recovery
Model 2000
no heat recovert
no data

no heat recovery
no data
no heat recovery
custom
no heat recovery
no data
no heat recovery on
package units

Modular
Modular
Modular
Modular

Modular
Modular
Modular

Modular
Modular

Modular
CAPA-
CITY
Obm/hr)
75TPD
60TPD






2000





132TPD


















WEIGHT
(TONS)

































RATING
(BTU)
23xl03#
7720#

40




12.3





27.8


















COST
CAPITAL
$22-35xl03/
3















$25MM
















OPERATE

































REMARKS
data not responsive
Europe (mostly large scale)




mostly large scale







other data non-responsive



















-------
                                               BALERS
tn
MANUFACTURER
American Baler
American Baler
American Baler
American Baler
American Designed
American Solid
Waste
Balemaster
Balemaster
Balemaster
Compaction Devices
Consolidated Bail-
1ng
International Bail-
er
International Bail-
er
International Bail-
er
J.A. Freeman & Son
Legemann Bros.
Muncher Corp.
National Baling
Press
Philadelphia Tram-
rail
The Union Corp.
Weathershield Corp.
Enterprise Corp.
Enterprise Corp.
Tubar
DESIGNATION
Mobil Mite 42M
;cono-mat1c 3621
iconomy 127
iconomy 54-36
HL-600
HRB - SMC 1

5440
360
142
Mr. Packer LuSOl
HUS-16

NA-500 S

SP-72

MI -30

36" Mini
245-1
Model 36
HY-36A

Model 1800

Model 4830
LP 25M
3036 HWW
3072-6HD
Hydraulic Baler
CAPA-
CITY
(Ib/hr)





26000














2000






2400



BALE SIZE
In/In/In
42/30/20
36/20/24-34
54/27/27-5
54/48/30
60/48/30
64/45/32

54/40/31-40
30/42/60
30/20/42
29/29/30
24/2S/

42/30/30

72/30/43

30/16/28

20/36/24
40/30/60
36/24/30
36/24/18-30

30/48/24-36

30/48/32
44/28/60
30/36/VA8

30/20/42
WEIGHT
(Ibra)
1775
1500
1250
5100
5350
51000

5000
6600

1500
11300







1500
45000
1830
2300

4200

3900
11000
22000
7500
700
hp
5
.3
10
10
5
100

7.5
15

5


10

10

3


40
3
5

5

7%
10
25
10
10
COST ($)
CAPITAl







6000
7000
4000 t
32500



















4995
OPERATE































REMARKS
horizontal
vert. /down stroke
vert. /up stroke
vert. /down stroke
vert. /down stroke
horizontal/auto

vert. /down stroke
hori zontal /portabl e
horizontal
vert. /down stroke
vert./ up stroke

horizontal

vert. /down stroke

vert. /down stroke

vert. /down stroke
horizontal
vert. /toggle
vert. /down stroke

vert. /down stroke

vert. /down stroke
horizontal


vert. /down stroke

-------
                                              SHREDDERS
CT>
MANUFACTURER
All 1s Chalmers
Amer. Bulky Waste
Amer. Pulverizer
Bale master
Bencorp Industries
Blower Application
Co.
E1dal
Enterprise Co.
General Binding
Gruendler
Hammemi 1 1 s , Inc.
Hazemag USA
Hell
Jeffrey Mfg. Co.
Kleco Shredder Sys.
L.A. By Products Co
Miller Mfg. Co.
Mitts & Herri 1
Montgomery Ind.
Multinational Res.
Rec.
Newall Ind.
Penn Crusher Corp.
Prodeva Inc.
Rexnord
Saturn
Tele-Corn INd. Corp.
Tubar

Williams Patent
Crush
WW Grinder Corp
DESIGNATION

50TF Shredder
we- 8
1000 C
2436
Piggyback shredder

100-B
4484 C CONV
conveyor 400


series 42

Az 40



51 30 30
320 + 325

36-22
U-122
T320/T325 plast and
can shredder
F paper -shredder

F22M
CAPA-
CITY
(lb/hr)

3-6
2000-10,000

10000


5000
6000/24000
2500


20000





4000-1 0000


1400



600-36800
WEIGHT
(Ibm)

11000

11000
38000


15100
23000
880




4000



6000
1025-
1250

6500
2100
1025-1250



820
hp

75-150

30
7.5
40

100
75-250
4


200

2-20



60
20-25

50
7.5
20-25



530
MIN
SIZE
(In)

164/145/1


44x74x31
72x48
feed

112/126/
72
33x29x44




17x38x99



25x35x79
75x54x79.


72x30x32
51x30x72




COST ($)
CAPITAL

)0


















25,500
2635-
2970


1219
OPERATE


























REMARKS
220 tons/hour

aluminum also comes 1n
paper waste material
normal household waste
paper

hospital use

paper shredder
shown but no data
100 Biv
no data

90 tons/hour
>80 tons/hour
no data
brush chipping
2120 tons/day
only 260 ton/day


hospital/light industrial
6 month warranty
used by hospntals

no data

all purpose shredder

-------
AIR SEPARATORS
MANUFACTURER
Aenco, Inc.
A111S Chalmers
Rider Pneumatics
Raytheon Co.
Trlpel S. Dynamics
Williams

Dings Magnetics
Envi rotech

Eriez Magnetics
Stearns Magnetics
United Farm Tool -
Miller Division

Acme Trading & Supply
Andco. Inc.

Fairfield Service
DESIGNATION


Model "EF" Feeder
"Prototype"




re spearator

A







digestor process
CAPA-
CITY
(Ib/hr)



8000


MAGNE1

40.000

1000 cuft/hr



PYF


CON
100 tons
WEIGHT
(Ibm)


1125



1C SEPARA1

28700

180



OLYSIS


'OSTING

hp






DRS

37










MIN
SIZE
(in)


14x18





16'xlO'x
10'









COST ($)
CAPITAL


2548















2,750,000
OPERATE


















18
REMARKS
no data
no specs
wood chips
under construction
> 25TPH
no specs

no specs
no specs


no specs








-------
                         APPENDIX E

                  COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONS
     The  components  of  resource  recovery  systems  are described
in detail  in  this  appendix.   Most  of  these  components are
commercially  avaiable.   Some,  however,  have yet to be proven
in commercial-scale  operation.   These components  are:
     •  acid hydrolysis  conversion
             units

     •  air classifiers

     •  aluminum magnetics

     t  balers

     •  composting

           aerobic
•  froth flotation units


•  magnetic separations

•  modular incinerators

•  pyrolytic units

•  shredders

•  trommel screens
           anaerobic (methane digesters)

     Appendix D  lists  manufacturers  of some  of the above items.
Some of the components are available in very small capacity
sizes (under one ton per day) up  to  large  capacity sizes (several
hundred tons per day).  The manufacturers  should be contacted to
determine the sizes and operating characteristics of their
equipment.

Acid Hydrolysis

     An interesting variation of  the methane digestion process
produces yeast and is  known as acid  hydrolysis.  A number of
products could potentially be generated from the yeast produced
by this system including glucose  alcohol  and other organic
chemicals.   The  primary product,  yeast, can  also be utilized as
an animal feed supplement without further  processing.

     The waste fed acid hydrolysis system  is essentially a
methane digestion system with digestion replaced by hydrolysis.
The prepared waste material is innoculated with a strain of
bacteria which can rapidly multiply  and convert the substate to
biomass.
                               198

-------
     Acid hydrolysis conversion of waste material is still in
the experimental and pilot facility stage of development.
Research being conducted by a number of investigators is aimed at
determining the most efficient types of bacteria for different
types of waste, innoculation rates, temperature and moisture
influence as well  as a host of other operating variables.

Air Classifier

     The purpose of air classification is to separate mixed
materials based on their physical properties, including weight,
size, shape, and aerodynamic characteristics.  Air classification
is considered a significant process in the recovery of materials
and energy from mixed municipal solid waste.  In addition to
solid waste processing, air classifiers are used in numerous
other applications such as the separation of peanuts from their
shell (1).

     Air classifiers use the principle of sedimentation to
separate materials.  This principle applied here states that
relatively heavy material is unable to overcome gravity and
will fall, whereas, lighter materials will be carried upward.
Although weight is the primary factor affecting separation, the
physical properties mentioned above, size, shape, and aero-
dynamic characteristics may cause some particles of a material
to rise while others drop.

     Air classification typically takes place after shredding.
At this point, the incoming refuse is divided into a light and
heavy fraction.  The light fraction is primarily organics, which
can be processed into a solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel.  Some
inorganics, primarily glass, are carried into the light (fuel)
fraction.  This increases the ash content of the fuel (2).  The
presence of inorganics in the light fraction also can cause prob-
lems in combustion and increase the cost of residue disposed
after burning  (3).    These problems could be eliminated by
lowering the velocity of the air stream.  However, even with
these problems, revenue is maximized if the air classifier is
run at a high velocity to recover the maximum amount of com-
bustible materials.  Processing of the light fraction, such as
trommeling, helps to remove inorganic grit after air classifica-
tion.

     The heavy fraction of the incoming waste contains primarily
glass and metals.  Removal of the organics during air classifi-
cation aids in the recovery of the materials in the heavy frac-
tion.  The inorganics, which become entrained in the light frac-
tion in air classification, represent a loss of recoverable
material.  Even so, air classifier efficiency is maximized by
operating the system at high velocity.
                               199

-------
     An important aspect of air classification is de-entrainment.
The light fraction of waste must be separated from the air stream
after classification.  This process usually is done by use of
cyclones which cause the air stream and the entrained waste to
move in a c-ircular pattern.  The joint action of centrifugal
force and gravity causes the material  to move to the outside
of the cyclone and fall  to the bottom  (4).

     There are four basic types of air classifiers used to
process refuse for resource recovery;  (1) vertical, (2) horizon-
tal, (3) rotary,  and (4) air knife.

     Vertical  air classifiers have been installed in Ames, Iowa,
Chicago, Illinois, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, New Orleans, Louisana,
and Lane County,  Oregon.  In each system shredded waste is fed
into a vertical  chamber  through which  air is either blown or
drawn.  The particles which rise are processed into a fuel
product.  The  heavy materials fall and become input for recovery
process to reclaim metals and glass, Figure 14.

     Horizontal  air classifiers have been developed by both the
U.S. Bureau of Mines and Boeing Engineering and Construction.
In both processes, processed refuse is fed into an air classifier
where it meets a  horizontal air stream.  The heavier materials
drop through the  stream; while the lighter materials become
entrained in the  horizontal air stream, Figure  14.   The Boeing
process has been  installed in a recovery system currently under-
going shakedown  in Tacorna, Washington.  The prototype for this
system was tested successfully at a rate above 400 TPD.  The
capacity of the  Tacoma plant is 500 TPD  (5).    This facility
was designed by  Boeing.

     Raytheon  Service Company and AENCO (Cargill Company) have
both developed rotary drum classifiers.  This classifier has
been tested, but  no commercial applications have taken place.
The input refuse  is fed  into the rotary drum near the lower end.
The heavy materials being unaffected by the air stream are
discharged at  the lower  end.  The lighter materials move up the
drum where they  are separated from the air stream, Figure 15.
The advantages claimed for rotary drums are; (1) lower air
velocity, (2)  longer retention time in the classification
chamber, (3) a tumbling  action to free entrapped particles, and
(4) less impact  on performance due to  feedrate surges (6).

     The air knife is a  different approach to air classification
than the other systems described.  An air knife provides a blast
of air, which  seeks to separate lighter objects from the waste
stream.  In operation, air knifes are  being used: (1) in con-
junction with  another type of air classifier to breakup materials
that have been adhered together (Figure 15),  and (2) to
separate organics from non-ferrous metals and light aluminum
from other non-ferrous metals.
                              200

-------
                  SHREDDED REFUSE

                     \   I  /
                                                                 AIR
                                                    BLOWER
\

X
0
*
»0
0
a o
.0-
/

^
                                        LIGHTS
                                 •AIR

                        HEAVY FRACTION
Vertical  Air Classifer
      CONVEYOR
                    OPTIONAL
                    AIRLOCK
                    FEEDER
                   HEAVY FRACTION  MIX    MOSTLY LIGHT


Horizontal  Air Classifer


Figure  14.   Air Classifer - Vertical and Horizontal
                                                           LIGHT
                                201

-------
        TO DUST
       COLLECTOR
       LIGHT
       FRACTION
                                                            ADJUSTABLE
                                                            INFEED CONVEYOR
       TWIN SCREW
       CONVEYOR
OPTIONAL GATHERING
    CONVEYOR
HEAVY FRACTION
DISCHARGE
Rotary  Drum Air  Classifer
                                  .20,000 CFM
                                            PATH OF
                                            LIGHT
                                            PARTICLES
                               EXHAUST AIR
                               60,000 CFM
                                                                 20,000 CFM
                                                             PATH OF
                                                             HEAVY
                                                             PARTICLES
Air  Knife

Figure 15.   Rotary  drum air  classifer and air knife
                                  202

-------
Aluminum Magnets

     An aluminum magnet is a generic term for a recovery unit
designed to separate nonferrous metals from nonconducting
materials.   The basic principle of eddy current separation
involves the generation of a moving electromagnetic flux field
that sets up a repulsive force in conductors (nonferrous metals)
that repels them from the field.  The repulsive force is a
function of weight, shape and material.  Reportedly, systems are
under development which will be able to separate aluminum from
other non-ferrous metals  (7).

     Combustion Power Company, Occidentied Research, and the
Raytheon Company have developed nonferrous separation systems
using eddy currents  (8) .    An eddy current separator is in
operation at Ames, Iowa.  Separators are in shakedown at
Baltimore County, Maryland, New Orleans, Louisana, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin,  and Hempstead, New York.  Two recovery systems
currently under construction will use aluminum magnets, Monroe
County, New York, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, (Personal com-
munication.  Joseph Duckett, National Center for Resource
Recovery, Inc., Washington, D.C.  July 25, 1978).  The operating
experience of aluminum magnets is still limited to consider them
to be proven technology.

     A 100 TPD separation system would cost about $30,000.  On
the basis of an 8-hour day, 260-days per year, the cost of
operation including amortization, would be $2.50 per ton.  The
revenue derived will depend on the quantity of aluminum cans
in the waste stream.  For example, if aluminum cans comprise
one-half percent of discards and 80 percent are recovered, the
revenue would be $1.36 per input ton at $340 per ton of aluminum
cans.

Composting

     Composting is the biological decomposition of organic solid
waste under controlled conditions.  The simpler the organic
structure of a waste, the wider the variety of bacterial species
to which it is subject to attack; thus the more rapid the rate of
decomposition.  Newsprint, for example, is a complex organic
material and; therefore, is highly resistant to microbes.

     Modern municipal solid waste contains too few simple organic
wastes (e.g., food waste) to produce a good quality compost or
even for composting to be practical.  Garbage disposals and
packaged food have contributed to the reduction of simple organic
wastes.  The poor quality of municipal solid waste as measured by
the carbon-nitrogen (C-N) ratio can be improved by the addition
of sewage sludge, or other materials high in nitrogen.  The
addition of such materials creates a mixture with a favorable
C-N ration.
                               203

-------
     Compost projects  typically are classified by oxygen use.
Aerobic composting takes place in the presence of oxygen and is
the type commonly associated with the term composting.  Anaerobic
composting, which occurs in the absence of oxygen, generally is
referred to as methane digestion.  The characteristics of aerobic
composting are high temperature,  the absence of foul  odors, and
more rapid decomposition than anerobic decomposition.  Anaerobic
decomposition has the  opposite characteristics.  The  advantage of
anaerobic composting are:  (1) the process requires a  minimum
amount of attention, (2) the rate of nitrogen loss is lower than
with aerobic composting, and (3)  methane gas is produced during
decomposition (9) .    These two approaches to composting are
described later, as well as the economics of operation.

     Composting, like  any  process, is controlled by various
parameters.  These parameters are set by the microbes, which
decompose the waste.  The  parameters are: (1) a suitable microbe
population must be present, (2) the rate and efficiency  of the
process are functions  of the rate and efficiency of microbial
activity, (3) the capacity of an  operation is limited by the size
and nature of the microbe  population, (4) the subsrate subject to
composting must be organic, and (5) environmental factors are of
key importance.

     The environmental factors of key importance are  moisture
content, temperature,  hydrogen-ion (pH) level, and oxygen level.
The closer the moisture content is to 100 percent the better the
rate of composting.  As the moisture content approaches  100
percent, microbe activity  increases.  Anaerobic composts operate
at a 100 percent moisture level.  The typical aerobic  compost
operation functions at about 80 percent moisture content.  A
moisture level below 50 percent adversely affects microbe
activity  (10).

     Compost temperatures  are divided into two categories,
mesophilic (temperature range 15-25 C) and thermophilic
(temperature range 45-65 C).  Bacteria are claimed to be most
efficient in the mesophilic range.  The pathogens,weed seeds,
and fly larve in wastes are killed, however, by the thermophilic
temperatures.  In general, compost will be processed  at  both
these levels some of the time.  Anaerobic composting  tends to
operate more frequently on the lower temperatures because of
lower microbial activity.   Because of the lower operation temper-
ature, external heat must  be used to maintain microbe activity
in cooler climates.

     Microbe activity  can  be adversely affected by an acidic pH
level.  Below a pH of  6.7  composting proceeds with decreasing
efficiency.  Beyond a  pH of 6.2 waste decomposition ceases.
Control of acidic pH typically is accomplished by the addition of
lime.   Lime, however reduces the  nitrogen content of  the compost.
Recently, sodium bicarbonate, an  alkali, has been found  to more
                               204

-------
effectively control pH.  In either case, the addition of control
substances can be expensive.

     Another environmental parameter is the oxygen level.  The
absence of oxygen in an aerobic process or the presence of oxygen
in an anaerobic system will have detrimental effects on the
microbes involved.  In an aerobic operation, oxygen is introduced
into the compost either by frequent turning or by forcing air
through the compost.  Anaerobic digesters require a sealed
enclosure which excludes oxygen.  The enclosure also aides in the
collection of methane.

Aerobic Composting--
     A humus like material whose chief use is as a soil con-
ditioner is the major product of this type of composting.  This
approach to composting involves four basic steps;  shredding,
separation, composting and storage.  Since only organic materials
can be composted, the organics and inorganics must be separated.
The first step typically involves the shredding of the incoming
waste followed by air classification.  Shredding improves the
separability of the waste.  In addition, the shredded waste has
a greater surface area, which increases its susceptabi1ity to
microbe attack.

     The technology for actual composting is classified by
approach:  windrow and mechanical.  In the windrow system, wastes
are stacked in elongated piles.  These piles must be of a certain
minimum height or sufficient heat will not be generated.   Fur-
thermore, the piles can not be too high or the waste becomes
compressed and anaerobic decomposition begins.  The windrow sys-
tem requires frequent turning (every 2-3 days) to aerate the
waste and to include the surface waste in the thermophilic
destruction that takes place in the center of the pile.  No
windrow projects using municipal solid waste as a feedstock are
in operation in the United States, (Personal communication.
Daniel Calacicco, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville,
Maryland.  July 12, 1978).  Several attempts at this type of
composting have been tried, but have been unsuccessful.

     Mechanical systems are designed for frequent turning and
aeration by air suction.  A mechanical system is in operation
in Altoona, Pennsylvania and one is under construction in Key
West, Florida, (Personal communication.  James Conlson, Fair-
field Engineering Company, Marion, Ohio.  June 22, 1978; and
Roger Swift, City of Key West, Key West, Florida.  July 12, 1978)

     The final step is the storage of compost.  In large scale
use, such as agricultural applications, compost is placed on
fields only prior to or after the planting season.  Since com-
post is produced all year, it must be stored for use when needed.
Some compost can be consumed by small-scale users  (e.g., gard-
ners) most of the year.  Even these users have little  use for
compost during the winter season.


                               205

-------
     The economic outlook for composting, is poor.  The problem
is the lack of a market for compost.   Compost is classified
as a soild conditioner because its NPK (nitrogen, phosphorous,
potassium) content is too low for compost to legally be termed
a fertilizer.   Generally, those in agriculture view the value
of compost as  being negligible when viewed in comparison with
the cost of application.   The inorganic materials, particularly
ferrous, separated from the organics  prior to comporting might
be salable depending on plant location.  This income should help
to lower the cost of operation.  Finally, a tipping fee will
defray a portion of the costs.

     The net system cost  of a mechanical  digester aerobic compost
plant with ferrous recovery is about  $28  per ton.  The annual
capital and operating costs per ton are $18 and $10 repectively.
Although the markets for  compost are  poor, it was assumed that
compost has a  value as a  top soil  substitute.  The value of top
soil is $5 per ton.  The  value of compost and recovered ferrous
would be just  over $3 and $1 per ton  of input refuse.   The
economics of aerobic composting at 100 TPD are detailed in
Table 10.

Anaerobic Composting (Methane Digestion)--
     The five  basic steps for processing  waste in a methane
digester are:   shredding, separation,  digestion, gas treatment,
and effluent treatment.  The first step in processing  municipal
solid waste is to shred the incoming  waste.  The shredding
operation achieves two objectives:  (1) allows for a more
efficient separation of the organic and inorganic, noncompostable
material, and  (2) reduces the waste to a  smaller homogeneous
size and increases surface area, which improves the suscepta-
bility of waste to decompostion.  An  air  classifier would be
used to separate the generally lighter organic materials from
the heavier inorganic fraction of the  waste stream.  As the
waste enters the digester it is mixed  with nutrients (e.g.,
sewage sludge) into a slurry.  Once in the digester, the con-
tents should be stirred frequently to  allow uniform digestion
of the materials.  Temperature must also  be maintained at a
constant level.  This can be done without applying heat to the
reaction in warmer climates (11).     However, as mentioned
previously, an outside heat source must be used in colder cli-
mates .

     The gaseous products of anaerobic digestion are methane,
carbon dioxide, and a small quantity  of hydrogen sulfide.  The
latter gas must be removed before methane can be transported
in a pipeline.  This can  be done via  several processes.

     The remaining effluent can be recovered by separating the
liquids from the solids.   This material which has a volume of
only 25 percent of the incoming waste  can be used as a soil
conditioner.  With a heating value of  4,000 BTU per pound, this
material could be burned  to generate  steam (12).


                               206

-------
     The economics of an anaerobic digester we re unavailable.
No commercial scale plant using solid wastes has been or is
in operation.  In mid-1978, a 100 ton per day demonstration
plant began operation in Pompano Beach, Florida.  This plant
is operated by Waste Management, Inc. and was funded through
a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.  It is projected
that the methane will have a market value of around $2 per
million BTU, (Personal communication.  Peter Ware, Waste
Management, Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois.  July 12, 1978).   This
revenue prior to digestion has been estimated to be sufficient
for the system to be profitable.  The crucial question is the
cost structure which will result in the plant operating at
optimum economic output.  The cost/operating parameters which
will be examined to determine this point include temperature,
residence time, ingredient mixtures, and power requirements.

Froth Flotation Units

     Froth flotation is a standard mineral  processing technique,
which has been adopted for glass recovery.   Separation takes
place when an air bubble becomes attached to a particle having
hydrophobic surface characteristics.  These particles float,
while those particles with non-hydrophobic surface characteris-
tics tend to sink.  The hydrophobic characteristic is achieved
by treating the input material with a reagent prior to entering
the flotation system  (13).

     The system input is a pretreated material  such as the Black
Clawson glass-rich fraction or the underflow from shredded air
classified municipal refuse.  The froth flotation developed by
Occidential Research (formerly Garrett Research and Develop-
ment) is as follows  (14).

     1.  screen off + h inch material

     2.  coarse mill

     3.  float off paper and wood in water

     4.  remove + 8 mesh fraction (mostly metals)

     5.  fine mill to minus 32 mesh; remove minus 200 mesh

     6.  repulp, add proprietary chemical agents which form
         a froth to which the glass particles adhere

     7.  skim off the froth, clean and repeat froth floatation

     8.  clean the product magnetically and dewater

     The product, according to Garrett is, 99.9 percent pure,
and the froth flotation results in a loss of less than 5 per-
cent of the glass contained in the original raw refuse.

                               207

-------
     The capital cost of a froth flotation  unit  in  conjunction
with a 2,000 ton day resource recovery  system  has  been estimated
to be $452,000.  Based on a 24-hour day,  350 days  per year
operation, 4.5 tons of glass would be recovered  per hour.
Operating cost, including amortization, would  be $5.54 per ton.
By giving a credit of $1.50 per input ton for  reduced disposal
costs, estimated net cost would be $4.04  per ton of glass
The revenue is difficult to estimate.   The  market  for color
mixed glass is very limited.  The size  of the  glass particles
is such that sorting is impossible at this  time.   Recovery plants
with froth flotation units currently in shakedown  are:   New
Orleans, Louisana, Baltimore County, Maryland, Hempstead,  New
York, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Two other  plants  are being
constructed which will contain flotation  units - Bridgeport,
Connecticut and Monroe County, New York,  (Personal  communication
Joseph Duckett, National Center for Resource Recovery,  Inc.,
Washington, D.C.  July 25, 1978).
Magnetic Separators

     Magnetic separators are used in conjunction  with  other
refuse handling equipment to remove magnetic  materials  (mostly
tin-coated steel cans) from mixed solid waste.   In  most applica-
tions the waste stream is scanned by a
electromagnet.  Ferrous material
separately for recycling.
      permanent magnet or an
is removed and then stored
     Two magnetic separation systems have developed  and  are
available in the U.S. at this time; drum separators  and  overhead
belt magnets (16).  In the figure below a typical  drum  separator
setup is shown.  The magnet may be either permanent  or  an  elec-
tromagnet .
                            MIXED .MATERIAL
              REVOLVING
               DRUM
               MAGNETIC
               MATERIAL
               DISCHARGE
                                               WORKING FACE
                                              STATIONARY
                                              MAGNET ASSEMBLY
             NONMAGNETIC
             MATERIAL
                      MAGNETIC  DRUM  SEPARATOR
                               208

-------
     As the  outside  revolving drum rotates nonmagnetic  material
drops off,  leaving  the  ferrous fraction adhering  past  the
angle of repose  to  the  drum.   When the drum rotates  past  the
magnets infl'uence  the  adhering material drops off  into  a
separate discharge.   In some  installations secondary drum
separators  have  been  installed (two in series) because  of  con-
tamination  problems  (non-ferrous material mixed with the
separated ferrous  fraction).
     The overhead  belt separator is
except that  the  drum is replaced by
is suspended above  the waste stream.
a typical  installation.
similar to the drum system
a conveyor belt and the unit
 The figure below depicts
                                  MAGNET
  MIXED MATERIAL
                                          MAGNETIC
                                          MATERIAL
                                          DISCHARGE
                                                BELT ASSEMBLY
                    NONMAGNETIC
                    MATERIAL
                    MAGNETIC BELT SEPARATOR
                                209

-------
     As with the drum unit, either an electro or permanent mag-
net can be used.  The conveyor may be mounted perpendicular or
parallel to the waste stream, although experience has shown that
a parallel configuration with the separation conveyer traveling
faster than the waste con'veyor produces a less contaminated
separation.  Contamination of the recovered metals, usually
with paper and plastic, is the primary problem with magnetic
separators.  This problem can be alleviated by arranging drum
separators in series, or installing belt separators with several
magnets of alternating polarities.  Units of this type agitate
the ferrous material  as it moves from one magnetic field to
another, allowing contaminated material to fall  away.  A bend
in the conveyor is usually added as well to enhance this effect.

     Fine tuning of the separator also can lead  to improved
product composition,  field strength, belt and drum speed, dis-
charge positioning and belt spacing.  These variables can
affect contamination.  Several methods are available for cleaning
the recovered product including air knives (see  section on air
classifiers) and incineration.

     In most recovery operations, the solid waste is usually
shredded prior to magnetic classification.  Shredding produces
a homogeneous waste stream and a cleaner product.  Air classifi-
cation typically follows shredding in resource recovery
facilities.  This process removes the lighter, organic fraction
leaving the heavier metal and glass components of the waste
stream.  This combination has been reported to produce a product
containing less than  2%. of non-ferrous material.   This is an
acceptable level of contamination for most markets.   Trommel
screens also have been advanced as an acceptable  pretreatment
for magnetic separation.  Experiments indicate that several
screenings would be necessary to provide the same purity as air
classification.

     Ferrous recovery from incinerator ash is another applica-
tion utilizing magnetic separators.  Contamination of the
recovered metals is less of a problem, but there  is virtually
no market for incinerated scrap, (Personal communication.
Howard Ness, National Association of Recycling Industries,
New York, New York.  July 20, 1978).

     The material separated from a typical residential raw waste
stream will contain over 50% tin-plated cans.  Including bi-
metalic tin-plated cans and bimetallic non-tin cans accounts
for over 75% of the ferrous fraction.  Other sources report
between 50-60% for the tin-steel can fraction, (Personal
communication.   Ronald Kinsey, Resource Technology Corporation,
San Jose, California.  July 7, 1978).

     The average selling price for reclaimed iron and steel
scrap in the United States in mid-year 1978 was  approximately
$40 per ton  (17).    At this price, a gross revenue of $2.88 per


                               210

-------
input ton would be realized at 8% magnetic metals in the in-
coming waste and 90% recovery efficiency.  Of course, gross
revenue will vary depending on the percent,of ferrous in the
waste stream and the amount of pre-processing, which relates to
recovery efficiency.  Capital costs for shredding and magnetic
separation equipment make applicability to small waste streams
marginal or unattractive (13).    Magnetic separation and scrap
recovery can be attractive where handling  and processing
(e.g., shredding) equipment is already installed.  The capital
cost of a 100 TPD magnetic separator is $40,000.  The cost of
operation, including amortaization, is less than $1 per input ton

     Magnetic separation and ferrous recovery becomes more
attractive as the ferrous fraction of the  waste increases.  At
some specialized facilities it may exceed  15%, in which case
substantial revenue and disposal costs savings could be realized
from recovery.

     Magnetic separation is a technically  proven method of
recovering the ferrous fraction of a mixed waste stream.  Full
scale recovery facilities use magnetic separation as a standard
part of the separation process.  In addition, magnetic separation
commonly is practiced at facilities which  shred refuse prior
to landfill.  Two such facilities are located in Outagamie
County, Wisconsin and Omaha, Nebraska.

Modular Incinerators

     Incineration of solid waste is an old technology which has
lately received renewed attention.  Improved designs, which have
greatly reduced costs for meeting air pollution standards,
coupled with increased interest in recovering the energy value
of solid waste, have resulted in a rebirth of the incinerator
industry.  The advent of controlled air incinerators has resulted
in units which reportedly can meet air pollutant emission codes
in most localities.  A controlled air incinerator has two com-
bustion chambers in which the air-to-fuel  ratio in each is
closely regulated.   In the primary chamber the refuse fuel is
ignited and burned in a lean (less than stoichiometric air-to-
fuel ratio) environment.  Unburned organics along with the
exhaust pass under low turbulent flow conditions to a secondary
chamber (scrutinies call an after-burner), where combustion in an
excess air environment takes place ,(Figure 16).  Typical tempera-
tures in the primary combustion chamberare 1300-1600°F.  Depending
on the nature of the waste, auxiliary fuel (usually fuel oil
or gas) may be used in the secondary chamber to promote complete
combustion.

     The claimed advantage of controlled air incinerators over
the standard design is their marketability to meet air pollu-
tion control regulations.  Particulate emissions from a con-
trolled air incinerator are usually well within the limits.
                               211

-------
                               ELIMINATES
                                 SMOKE
                                FLY ASH
                                 AND
                                 ODORS
AUXILIARY
BURNER
                     •••v    ••?••   .•"•-.
      AIR
   Figure 16.   Typical  controlled  air incinerator
                            212

-------
Because combustion of organics is fairly complete, and entrain-
ment of inorganics, through low turbulence in the primary
chamber, is minimized, conversely a traditional, uncontrolled
one combustion chamber incinerator usually requires an expensive
wet scrubber or electrostatic precipitator to meet air pollu-
tion codes.

     The prospect of recovering the energy content in refuse
has encouraged many manufacturers to incorporate some form of
heat utilization into their incinerator equipment.  Despite the
increased capital costs involved, the current price of tradi-
tional energy has increased to the point where refuse generated
steam of electricity is quite competitive.

     Refuse fueled package boiler/incinerators are similar to
fossil fueled units except for waste heat dumping capability,
Figure  17.   Whereas a fossil fuel boiler can be shut down when
energy is not needed, the flow of refuse to be incinerated in a
solid waste fueled boiler is independent of energy utilization
demand and must be burned whether the resultant heat is wanted
or not.  Most systems; therefore, incorporate some provision for
dumping useless hot air or steam.

     A cursory pre-sort must be conducted before raw solid
wsate can be fed into an incinerator.  Gross incombustibles
must be removed to prevent mechnical damage, jamming, and
quenching of the combustion chamber.  Some units (particularly
those with moving grates) require the incoming feed to be
shredded to approximately four inches.

     Ash removal can be automatic or manual.  Materials
recovery (particularly ferrous) can be practiced by further
processing the ash.  Once cooled the residue is stored in a
covered hopper until it can be transported to the disposal site.
Volume reductions of 15-1 are typical.  For most waste generators
alternate disposal costs are significantly reduced from pre-
incineration levels.

     Recovering the energy content from solid waste has advan-
tages for small waste generators.  Many waste generators, partic-
ularly prisons, hospitals and universities, have a need for
steam and hot water.  In most cases these energy demands are
supplied by combustion of fossil fuels on site.  By replacing
these purchased fuels with solid waste, cost savings might be
possible.

     As is the case with all resource recovery operations, the
economic evaluation depends heavily on the availability of a
customer for the recovered resource.  In the case of waste heat
recovery this is particularly true since hot air or steam can
be transported only short distances and cannot be stored.  The
ideal situation is one where the refuse generator can  utilize  the
resultant energy.

                               213

-------
                                                   HEAT DUMPING STACK
NORMAL EXHAUST
     AUTOMATIC
     ASH REMOVER
     (OPTIONAL)
          RECOVERY SECTION
   POLLUTION  CONTROL CHAMBER
AUTOMATIC
FEED (OPTIONAL)
  ]	LOADING
     DEVICE
       Figure  17.   Solid waste  incinerator with  heat  recovery
                                     214

-------
     If this is not the case or if the energy consumer has an
energy demand which is intermittant, the conversion of waste
heat to electrical power can overcome some of the above-mentioned
problems but increases both capital and operating costs.

     Although heat recovery from large (1000 TPD) municipal
incinerators has been practiced at numerous locations, heat
recovery from smaller package incinerators is fairly recent,
dating from 1972.   The cost savings in utilization of factory
assembled package incineration units is on the same scale as
fossil fuel boilers.

     The capital and operationg costs of a 100 TPD modular incin-
erator with energy recovery will vary depending upon the  final
form of the energy used.  The costs for the production of steam
at 100 TPD modular incinerator are outlined in Table 12.

     Hot air, steam and electricity are the alternative forms
listed from least to most expensive.   Steam production requires
a boiler.  Electricity production requires, in addition to a
boiler, a turbine generator, a condenser and a switch gear.

     In the past five years the number of small scale modular
incinerators utilizing waste heat recovery has increased  signi-
ficantly.  Units are located in over a dozen states.  A typical
installation is located at the Pentagon building near Hashington,
D.C.  This facility has been in service sightly under two years.
It is sized to handle 25 TPD of solid waste, and the energy
produced is consumed internally.  Similar units are located in
Blytheville, Siloam Springs and North Little Rock, Arkansas
and Groveton, New Hampshire (18).

Pyrolytic Units

     Through pyrolysis a synthetic fuel oil, which contains
approximately eight bbl of pyrolysis oil/bbl of #2 fuel oil,
can be obtained.  A number of commercial processes have been
developed which pyrolyize the organics to varying combinations
of oil and gas.  In all of them the shredded waste is charged
to a reactor where the material is subjected to a high tempera-
ture, low oxygen environment.  Volatile components are driven
off, then condensed, to recover the liquids while the gas pro-
duced is either recovered or recycled.  The solid residue left
behind is called char and has a number of potential uses  such as
fuel or fi1ter media.

     The  liquid component of the pyrolysis process is the
principle product.  It can be used to replace fuel oil directly
in most combustion units.  Yields vary from 40-80 gallons of
oil per ton of refuse depending upon initial refuse composition
and the pyrolysis process.  Utilization of pyrolyssis oil has
generally taken place in large utility boilers.  Typically the
synthetic oil is blended with regular fuel such as #6 .fuel oil.

                               215

-------
     The pyrolysis  process  consumes a certain amount of energy
and a certain amount of energy is  lost from the feed during
transition.   Whereas a ton  of refuse can deliver approximately
14.6 x 106 BTU as  (d-Rdf,  densified-refuse-derived-fuel) ,  when
converted to oil  only 4.8  x 106  BTU are available.   When  pyroly-
sis oil  is used to  replace  other fossil fuels,  8 bbl of natural
oil/bbl  of pyrolysis oil,  or 4500  ft3 of natural gas/bbl  of
pyrolysis oil or  .25 ton of coal/bbl of pyrolysis oil  are  saved.
The same volume of  waste material  as in RDF is  removed from the
disposal process  in pyrolysis, assuming the char is utilized.
This may not be a  valid assumption; however,  because the  char
has a low unit value and is difficult to store  and  ship.   If
(as may  be the case in most operations) the char is disposed
along with the other residue the savings in hauling costs  are
not nearly as significant.   As much as .75 of the original
waste volume could  be sent  to disposal if the char  is  not
uti1i zed.

     The solid waste pyrolysis systems which  have been built to
date have not shown this type system to be practical on a  small
scale due to economic factors.  The two large scale systems,
which have been constructed (Baltimore, Maryland -  1000 TPD
and San  Diego, California  - 200  TPD), have not  proven  to  be
successful technically at  this time (18).

     Pyrolysis of  solid waste to form liquid  fuel is a new
technology which  has not been extensively applied on a large
scale.  It appears, at this stage  of development, that pyrolysis
is a very capital  intensive system more applicable  to  large
scale systems.  The process is not as efficient, based on
energy balances,  as RDF production, but the final product,
fuel oil, does possess superior  qualities to  RDF.

Shredders

     Shredding of  solid waste is a necessary  prelude for  several
forms of handling  and disposal.   Many incinerator designs,
particularly those  with moving grates, require  shredding  of the
waste feed,  usually to 4 inches.  Some landfill operations
utilize  shredding  for refuse pretreatment in  order  to  facilitate
compaction and reduce vector infestation.  Most resource  recovery
activities begin  with shredding, followed by  air or/and magnetic
separation.   Several of the novel  technologies  such as pyrolysis
and composting also are dependent  upon shredding as a  first step.

     The preparation of refuse derived fuel (RDF) requires at
least one shredding step and in  some systems  a  secondary  shred-
ding step is added.  Shredding improves the handling characteris-
tics of  refuse by  providing a uniform particle  size.  Magnetic
and air  separation  operations are  usually designed  to  sort uni-
formly shredded waste.  The use  of shredding  to process solid
waste has grown considerably during the 1970's.  One recent
                               216

-------
survey found that shredding operations  in  the U.S.  and  Canada
have increased from 27 in 1971 to 80 in  1976  (19) .   Many  of
these facilities are located adjacent to landfills  where
shredding has become popular due to reduced cover  and volume
requirements, and current Federal regulations.

     Shredding of raw waste and handling of shredded waste  pose
serious safety problems which have led  some companies to  design
refuse systems specifically excluding shredding.   Explosions
are one serious problem which occur.  In one study  by Nollet and
Sherwin 30 explosions were recorded over a 5 year  (800,000  +
tons) period  (19) .   Fire hazard is another problem.   For
instance the Ames, Iowa shredding facility experienced  5  fires
in the first year of operation, and the  Brevard  County, Florida
shred/landfill operation suffered a serious fire  which  lasted
2 weeks.

     Two types of sol id waste shredders  are currently available
in the U.S.  The most common operates on the hammer principal,
Figure 18.  In these machines a series of disc mounted hammers
are rotated at high speed in a durable  housing.   Solid  waste
is fed into the path of the hammers and  is broken  apart by
impaction.  Provision is usually made for  non-destructable
material to be ejected.
                                                REJECT CHUTE
   FEED
 CONVEYOR
                                               OUTPUT CONVEYOR
                 Figure  18.  Vertical  Hammer Shredder
                               217

-------
     The radius of the hammers  increases and the radius of the
outer casing decreases as the material  moves down through the
unit, resulting in increasingly smaller shredding.   This design
parameter is used to control  final  particle size.

     Horizontal shredders utilizing the hammer principal are
also available-  Refuse usually is  fed  in the top of the unit
and the momentum transfer from  the  hammers to the waste propels
it through the units.

     Another shredding method in  widespread use has counter
current revolving cutting edges to  tear and slice material  into
small pieces.   These machines are referred to as shear shredders.
Figure 19.
                    Figure  19.   Shear  Shredder
                               218

-------
     Although shear shredders cannot handle as wide a range of
materials as hammer shredders, they do offer advantages such as
quieter operation, less safety hazard, and energy savings.
Besides shredders designed for general refuse, some units, both
shear and hammer type units, have been designed for specific
feed material.  Tires, pallets, plastic, or glass bottles, docu-
ments, automobiles, cans and metal turnings can all be shredded
by machines specifically designed for those applications.   A
typical 100 TPD shredder cost $350,000.  The cost of operation
including amortization is about $6.75 per input ton.

Trommel Screens

     Trommeling is the least complex and least expensive
operation commonly performed in solid waste processing.  A rotary
trommel screen is a perforated cylindrical chamber, usually
mounted at a slight downward slope, which slowly rotates as the
solid waste passes through it.  Smaller particles fall through
the perforations dependent on the hole size. Figure 20.  Capacity
can be adjusted by varying the angle of repose or rotation speed.
                Figure  20.   Rotary  trommel  screen
                               219

-------
     Trommel  screens have a number of applications in solid waste
processing.   They can be used at the front end to screen incoming
raw refuse.   In some cases, shredder load can be substantially
decreased (50% is claimed)  in this manner.  Additionally, ab-
rasive materials such as glass and ceramics are removed reducing
shredder maintenance.  The  principal application of screening,
however, is  in processing the light fraction of air separated,
shredded solid waste.  In preparing salable products it is de-
sirable to separate these components.  A rotary trommel screen
will pass most paper and plastic,  while dropping glass cullet
and other small contaminants.

     Rotary  trommel screens represent perhaps the lowest
capital cost  of major system component.  Prices, in the 100 TPD
and less range are below $10,000.   Operating costs, including
maintenance,  for the 4-7 hp motor  rotating the drum are insignif-
i cant.
                              220

-------
                        REFERENCES


1    Air classification . .  .  second step toward recovery.
    NCRR Bulletin.  3(3): 16-23.  1973.

2    Wilson, M.E. and H.M Fruman.  Processing energy from
    wastes.  Environmental  Science and Technology.
    10 (5): 432.  1976.

3    Air pollution from buring refuse fuels.  NCRR Bulletin.
    7 (1): 20.  1977.

4    Abert, J.G. and R.L.  Chrismann.  Air classification . .
    a vital process.  NCRR Bulletin.  8 (1): 14.  1978.

5    Ibid.  pp. 12.

6    Grubbs, M.R., M Paterson, and B.M. Fabuss.   Air classi-
    fication of municipal refuse.  In:  Proceedings of
    the Fifth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium.
    April  13-14, 1976.  177 Research Institute, Chicago.
    1976.  pp. 170-174.

7    Testin, R. F.  Recovery of non-ferrous metals from
    solid waste.  Presented at the American Institute
    of Chemical Engineers Symposium on Recycling.
    Richmond, Virginia.  September, 1976.

8    Levy, S. J. and H. G. Rigo.   Resource recovery
    plant implementation:  Guides for municipal officials -
    technologies.  Environmental Protection Publications
    SW-157-2.  Washington U.S. Protection Agency.  1976.
    p. 71.

9    Wiles, C. C.  Composting  of refuse.  In:  1977 National
    conference on composting  of municipal  residues and
    sludges.  Information Transfer, Inc.,  Rockville,
    Maryland.  1978.  pp. 20.

10  Goluche, C. G.   Biological processing:   Composting and
    hydrolysis.  In:  Handbook of solid waste management,
    (D.  G. Wilson ed.).  Van  Nostrand Rainhold  Co., New
    York.  1977.  pp. 210.

11  Logsodon, G.  How Taiwan  homestead farmers  make methane
    work for them.   Compost Science.  1.6 (5): 30.  1975.
                              221

-------
12  Hitte,  S.  J.   Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and
    sewage  sludge into methane.   Compost Science.   17 (1).
    1976.

13  Guides  for Municipal  Officials  -  Technologies,   p.  72.

14  Cummings,  J.K.P  and B.  Morey.   Glass recovery  from
    municipal  trash  by froth  flotation.   In:   Proceedings
    of the  third  mineral  waste  utilization  syposium.
    March,  1972.

15  Samtur,  H. R.   Glass  recycling  and  reuse  - Institute
    of Environmental  Studies  Report 17.   University  of
    Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.   March,  1974.   pp.  51.

16  Alter,  H.  and K.L.  Woodruff.  Magnetic  separation:
    recovery of salable iron  and  steel  from municipal  solid
    waste.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washing-
    ton,  D.C.   1977.   pp.  3.

17  Materials  newsfront.   Iron  Age.   221  (23):  95.   1978.

18  Resource recovery activities  ...  a status  report.
    National Center  for Resource  Recovery,  Washington,  D.C.
    September, 1978.   n.p.

19  Solid waste shredding:   continued growth  in  waste
    processing.   Waste Age.   7  (7):  34-40.  1976.
                            222

-------
                           APPENDIX F

                  ENERGY  ANALYSIS  OF  ALTERNATIVE
                    RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS


     The purpose of this analysis is to compare the direct
energy expended and/or conserved for disposal, source separation,
and modular incineration with energy recovery.  The analysis
indicates that all the resource recovery options consume less
energy than landfill disposal, Table 28.   The approach used
was developed by Resource Planning Associates.

     Only direct energy consumption or conservation was con-
sidered in the analysis.  Direct energy includes the energies
required to operate trucks and machinery.  In other words, the
energies needed to power the designated solid waste systems.
Indirect energy was not considered.  This type of energy is
defined as the energies used to construct and maintain the
equipment needed for the systems to operate.

     The discards in the various waste generators could be
managed in numerous ways.  Each variation will affect the
energy balance of the alternative systems.  For example, the
distance to market for a recovered material  might be 20 miles
in one case and 100 miles in another.  The longer distance will
require more energy than the shorter distance.  Thus, a longer
distance to market will lower the quantity of  energy conserved
by recovery, and reduce the net energy savings attributable
to the system.  To analyze the energy expenditures and saving,
the solid waste systems were divided into four subsystems and
representative, hypothetical situations were  established.
The subsystems are:

     •  Collection:  collecting and hauling discards to
        a preparation or treatment site

     t  Preparation:  sorting, crushing, shredding, baling,
        compacting or otherwise processing material for
        recovery

     •  Transportation:  hauling recyclables  to a treatment
        site

     •  Treatment:  use of recovered materials in manufactur-
        ing process, incineration to recover  energy, or
        landfil1 ing
                               223

-------
                             TABLE 28.   ENERGY  EXPENDITURE  AND CONSERVATION
                                         FOR SELECTED SOLID  WASTE SYSTEMS.
PO
ro
-P.
Landfill
Only
Collection 139
Preparation
Transportation
Treatment 59
Total 198
Residential
Source Separation-
News print-
and Landfill
138
15
14
(109)
58
Residential Source
Separation-Glass,
Ferrous and Aluminum-
and Landfill
136
4
36
(991)
(815)
Residential Source
Separation-Newsprint,
Glass, Ferrous and
Aluminum-and Landfill
136
19
50
(1,159)
( 954)


Collection
Preparation
Transportation
Treatment
Total
Non-Residential
Source Sepa ration-
Hi gh-Grade Paper-
and Landfill
46
141
135
(3,501)
(3,259)
Non-Residential
Source Separation-
Corrugated-and
Landfill
43
152
143
(2,657)
(2,319)
Modular
Incineration with
Energy Recovery
and Landfill
104
28
--
(7,568)
(7,436)
           *Parenthesis indicates energy conservation

-------
The conditions in the hypothetical situations are:
t  Landfill
      Col lection
          Residential solid waste
          —  20 cubic yard packer truck
          	  Collection and haul distance:  20 miles
               round trip
          Non-residential solid waste
          	  30 cubic yard front-loading packer truck
          	  Collection and haul distance:  15 miles
               round trip
      Treatment:   spreading and covering refuse with
      a bulldozer
•  Source Separation
      Collection
          Residential solid waste
          	  20 cubic yard collection truck
          	  Collection and haul distance:  15 miles
               round trip
          Non-residential solid waste
          	  High-grade paper:  4 ton covered bed  truck
          —  Corrugated:  heavy duty truck
          	  Collection and haul distance:  10 miles
               round trip
          Preparation
          	  Paper:  shredding and baling
          —  Glass, ferrous and aluminum;  hammermill,
               vibrating screen, and magnetic separation
          Transportation
          	  Haul  distance:  100 miles round trip
                          225

-------
              Treatment (recovered mater-ial  - manufactured
              product)
              —  Newsprint   -   newsprint
              	  High-grade  -   tissue
              	  Corrugated  -   corrugated
              —  Glass       -   glass
              	  Ferrous      -   steel
              	  Aluminum    -   aluminum
     •  Modular Incineration with Energy Recovery
           Collection
               20 cubic yard packer truck
               Collection  and haul distance:  15 miles round
               trip
           Preparation
               Waste  handling by small  front-end loader
           Treatment
               Incineration and recovery of  the energy
               Landfilling  of residue
     The remainder of  the  appendix is composed of two sections.
The first section, Comparative Analysis, examines the seven
waste management alternatives selected.   In  this section, the
data generated in the  second section, Data Calculations, are
brought together to determine the net energy balance for the
alternatives.   To check the data in the  first section, refer
to the second  section.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
     The solid waste  management systems  considered are:
     1.  Landfill only
     2.  Residential  source separation:   newsprint and landfill
     3.  Residential  source separation:   glass, ferrous and
         aluminum and  landfill
                              226

-------
     4.   Residential source separation:  newsprint, glass,
         ferrous and aluminum and landfill
     5.   Non-residential source separation:  high-grade paper
         and landfill
     6.   Non-residential source separation:  corrugated and
         landfill
     7.   Modular incineration with energy recovery
Landfill Only
     Energy consumption occurs during collection (139 x 103 BTU
per ton) and treatment (landfill: 59 x 103 BTU per ton).   Total
energy use is 198 x 1Q3 BTU per ton.
Residential Source Separation and Landfill
     The recovery rate is assumed to be 30 percent (1).  The
presence of the recyclables in the waste stream are (2):
     •  Newsprint:     9 percent
     •  Glass:        13 percent
     •  Ferrous:       9 percent
     •  Aluminum:      1 percent
Residential source separation-newsprint-and landfill--
     The percent of the waste stream recovered and the percent
requiring  landfill is:
     •  Recovered:    2.7  percent
     t  Landfill:    97.3  percent
     The calculations to adjust the energy value for newsprint
source separation and landfill were accomplished in the following
manner:
     •  Landfill
        -  Collection    :  (139 x 103 BTU)  x (.973)=135 x 1O3 BTU
        -  Treatment     :  ( 59 x 103 BTU)  x (.973)= 57 x 1O3 BTU
     •  Newsprint
        -  Collection    :  (104 x 1O3 BTU)  x (.027)=  3 x 103 BTU
        -  Preparation   :  (543 x 103 BTU)  x (.027)= 15 x 103 BTU
                               227

-------
        -  Transportation: (518 x 1Q3 BTU) x  (.037)=  14  x  103  BTU
        -  Treatment      : (6140 x 103 BTU) x  (.027)=166  x  103  BTU
The energy consumed or conserved per ton in each subsection  is:
     Collection   : (135 x 103 BTU) + ( 3 x 1Q3 BTU)=
                    138 x 103 BTU (consumed)
     Preparation  : (15 x 103 BTU (consumed)
     Transportation: (14 x 10 3 BTU (consumed)
     Treatment    : (1 66 xl 03BTU)- ( 57x 1 0 3BTU ) = 1 09 x 1 03BTU( conserved)
The net energy balance per ton is:
(109x1 03BTU)-[(138x1 O3BTU) + (1 5x1 03BTU) + ( 14x1 O3BTU) ] = 58xl 03BTU
Residential source separation glass, ferrous, and aluminum - and
landfill--
     The percent of the waste recovered by material category
and the percent requiring landfill are:
     e  Glass   :      3.9 percent
     t  Ferrous :      2.7 percent
     •  Aluminum:      0.3 percent
     t  Landfil1:     93.1  percent
The calculation to adjust the energy value for  glass, ferrous  and
aluminum recovery and residual disposal may be  done in the
following manner:
     •  Landfill
        -  Collection   :(139 x 103 BTU)x(.931) = 129 x  103  BTU
        -  Treatment    :( 50 x 103 BTU)x(.931) =  55 x  103  BTU
     •  Glass, Ferrous and Aluminum
        -  Collection   :(104 x 103 BTU)x(.069) =   7 x  103  BTU
        -  Preparation  :( 58 x 103 BTU)x(.069) =   4 x  103  BTU
        -  Transportation:(518 x 103 BTU)x(.069) =  36 x  103  BTU
                                228

-------
           Treatment

           --  Glass    : ( 7,940 x 103 BTU)x(.039)=310 x 103 BTU

           --  Ferrous  : (16,430 x 103 BTU)x(.027)=444 x 103 BTU

           --  Aluminum: (97,346 x 103 BTU)x(.003)=292 x 103 BTU

The energy consumed or  conserved per ton in each subsection is:

     Collection     : (129 x 103 BTU)+(7 x 103 BTU)  =
                     136 x 103 BTU (consumed)

     Preparation    : 4  x 103 BTU (consumed)


     Transportation: 36 x 103 BTU  (consumed)


     Treatment      :[(310 x 103 BTU)+(444 x 103 BTU)+
                    (292 x 103 BTU)] - (55 x 103 BTU) =
                    991 x 103 BTU  (conserved)

The net energy conserved per ton is:
(991 x 103BTU)-[(136 x 103BTU) + (4 x 103BTU) + (36  x 103BTU)]  =
815 x 103 BTU

Residential source  separation - newsprint, glass, ferrous,
and aluminum and landfill--
     The percent of the waste stream salvaged and the percent
requiring disposal  are:

     •  Recovered:    9.6 percent

     •  Landfi11 :    90.4 percent

The calculation  to  adjust the energy values for landfill  may be
done as follows:

     •  Landfill

        -  Collection : (139 x 103 BTU)x(.904)=126  x 103  BTU

        -  Treatment  : ( 59 x 103 BTU)x(.904)= 53  x 103  BTU

The adjusted energy values are taken from the two previous
headings:

     •  Newsprint,  Glass, Ferrous, and Aluminum:

        -  Collection : (  3 x 103 BTU)+-(  7 x  103  BTU)  =
                        10 x 103 BTU
                              229

-------
        -  Preparation    :  (  15  x  103  BTU)+(   4  x  103  BTU)  =
                           19  x  103  BTU

        -  Transportation:  (  14  x  103  BTU)+(  36  x  103  BTU)  =
                           50  x  103  BTU

        -  Treatment      :  (166  x  103  BTU)+(310  x  103  BTU)  +
                           (444  x  103  BTU)+(292  x  103  BTU)  =
                           1212  x  103  BTU

The energy consumed  or  conserved per ton  in  each subsection  is:

     Collection     :  (126  x 1Q3  BTU)+(10  x  103 BTU)  =
                     136  x  103 BTU  (consumed)

     Preparation    :  19 x  103  BTU  (consumed)


     Transportation:  50 x  103  BTU  (consumed)


     Treatment      :  (1212  x  103 BTU)-(53 x  103  BTU) =
                     1159  x 103  BTU  (conserved)

Net energy conserved  per  ton  of  refuse is:

(1159 x 103  BTU)-[(136  x  103  BTU)+(19  x  103  BTU)+(50 x  1Q3  BTU)]=
954 x 103 BTU

Non-Residential Source  Separation  -  High-Grade Paper-and  Landfill

     The basic  assumptions  are  (3):

     •  Percent of waste  stream           :   43 percent

     t  Recovery  rate                     :   60 percent

     •  Percent of waste  stream  recovered:   26 percent

     •  Percent of waste  for  landfill     :   74 percent

The calculation to adjust  the  energy values  for  high-grade
paper recovery  and landfill may  be  done  as  follows:

     •  Landfill

        -  Collection     :  (   46 x  103 BTU)x(.74)  =  34  x  103  BTU

        -  Treatment      :  (   59 x  103 BTU)x(.74)  =  44  x  103  BTU
                              230

-------
     •  High-Grade Paper

        -  Collection    :  (   45 x 103 BTU)x(.26)=   12 x 103 BTU

        -  Preparation   :  (  543 x 103 BTU)x(.26)=  141 x 103 BTU

        -  Transportation:  (  518 x 103 BTU)x(.26)=  135 x 103 BTU

        -  Treatment     :  (14000 x 103 BTU)x(.26)= 3640 x 103 BTU

The energy consumed or conserved per ton in each subsection is:

     Collection     : (  34 x 103 BTU)+(12 x 103 BTU)  =
                      46 x 103 BTU (consumed)

     Preparation    : 1.41 x 103 BTU (consumed)


     Transportation : 135 x 103 BTU (consumed)


     Treatment      : (3640 x 103 BTU)-(59 x 103 BTU)  =
                      3581  x 103 BTU (conserved)

The net energy conserved per ton is:

(3581  xlO3 BTU)-[(46 x 103 BTU)+(141 x 103 BTU)+(135  x  103  BTU)]=
3259 x 103 BTU

Non-Residential Source Separation - Corrugated and  Landfill

     The basic assumptions are (4):

     •  Percent of waste stream      :   40 percent

     •  Recovery rate                :   70 percent

     •  Percent recovered            :   28 percent

     •  Percent of waste for landfill:   72 percent

The calculation to adjust the energy values for corrugated
recovery and landfill may be done as follows:

     •  Landfill

        -  Collection    :  (  46 x 103  BTU)x(.72)=    33  x 103  BTU

        -  Treatment     :  (  59 x 103  BTU)x(.72)=    42  x 103  BTU

     •  Corrugated

        -  Collection    :  (  36 x 103  BTU)x(.28)=    10  x 103  BTU


                               231

-------
        -   Preparation    :  (  543  x  1O3  BTU)x(.28)=   152  x  TO3  BTU

        -   Transportation:  (  518  x  103  BTU)x(.28)=,  143  x  103  BTU

        -   Treatment      :  (9640  x  103  BTU)x(.28)=  2699  x  103  BTU

The energy consumed or  conserved  per  ton  in  each  subsection  is:

     Collection     :  (   33  x  103  BTU)+(10  x  103 BTU)  =
                       43 x  103 BTU  (consumed)

     Preparation    :  152 x  103 BTU  (consumed)


     Transportation:  143 x  103 B~TU  (consumed)


     Treatment      :  (2699  x  1Q3  BTU)-(42  x  103 BTU)  =
                     2657 x  103 BTU  (conserved)

The net energy  conserved per  ton  is:

(2657 x 103 BTU)-[(43 x 103  BTU)+(152 x  103  BTU)+(143  x  103  BTU)]=
2319 x 103 BTU

Modular Incineration  with Energy  Recovery

     The basic  assumptions  are  (5),  (6):

     t  Percent  combustibles:   80 percent

     •  Weight  reduction     :   75 percent

The energy consumed or  conserved  per  ton  in  each  subsection  is:

     Collection     :    104  x  103  BTU  (consumed)

     Preparation    :     28  x  103  BTU  (consumed)

     Transportation:     0

     Treatment      :  7568  x  103  BTU  (conserved)

No energy  is  used  to  transport  discards  in this alternative.   The
collected  wastes are  delivered  directly  to the  treatment site
for preparation  and treatment.

     The net  energy conserved per ton  is:

     (7568 x  1013 BTU)-[(104  x 103BTU) + (28 x 10 3  BTU)]  =
     7436  x 10 3 BTU
                               232

-------
DATA CALCULATIONS

     The basic data used in comparing the energy consumption
and/or conservation of the selected solid waste alternatives are
developed in this section.  The calculations are divided into
four categories:  collection; preparation; transportation; and
treatment.  These terms were defined previously.

Col lection

     No energy savings will occur in any of the alternatives.

     •  Residential

           Energy use is for the operation of diesel fuel
           collection trucks.  The basic assumptions are,
           (Personal communication.  Warren Gregory,
           Atlantic Equipment, Inc., Washington, D.C.
           June 20, 1978):

               Capacity:  20 cubic yards (5 tons)

               Mileage:  4 mpg

           Thermal value of diesel  fuel:  139 x 103  BTU
           per gal Ion

     The route and haul distance to a landfill, including
return, is assumed to be 20 miles.  The energy use may be
calculated as follows:

[(20 miles)x(139  x 103 BTU/gal ) ]*[(4 miles/gal) x  (5 tons)] =
139 x 103 BTU/ton

     For the source-separated materials, the route and haul
distance to a preparation site, including return,  is assumed
to be 15 miles.   A shorter haul distance than for  landfill  is
used because preparation sites tend to be located  within urban
areas.  The energy use may be calculated as follows:

[(15 miles)x(139  xlO3 BTU/gal)]* [(4 miles/gal)x(5 tons)]  =
104 x 103 BTU/ton

     t  Non-Residential

           Energy use is for the operation of diesel and
           gasoline fuel collecting trucks.  The basic
           assumptions are:

           --  Diesel fuel trucks haul wastes to landfill,
               (Personal communication.  Warren Gregory,
               Atlantic Equipment, Inc., Washington, D.C.
               June 20, 1978).


                              233

-------
               —   Capacity:   30 cubic-yards  (7.5 tons)

               —   Mileage:   6 mpg (fewer stops per load
                    than  residential  truck,  thus higher
                    mi 1eage)

               Gasoline  fuel  truck; hauls  high-grade paper,
               (Personal  communication.   Warren  Gregory,
               Atlantic  Equipment,  Inc.,  Washington, D.C.
               June  20,  1978)

               	   Capacity:   4 tons

               —   Mileage:   7 mpg

           Thermal  value of gasoline:   125 x 103 BTU per gallon

               Diesel  fuel  truck; hauls  corrugated

               —   Energy  use:  3.45  x  103  BTU  per ton per
                    mile  (7)

     The haul  distance  to a landfill,  including  return, is  as-
sumed to be 15 miles.   Energy  use may  be  calculated as  follows:

[(15 miles)x(139  x  103  BTU/gal) ]*[(6  miles/gal)  x (7.5  tons)]  =
46 x 103 BTU/ton

     The haul  distance  is a preparation  site for high-grade
paper,  including  return,  is assumed to be  10 miles.  Energy
use may be calculated  as  follows:

[(10 miles)x(125  x  103  BTU/gal) ]*[(7  mi 1es/gal)x(4 tons)] =
45 x 103 BTU/ton

     For corrugated,  the  haul  distance to  a  preparation site,
including return,  is  assumed  to be  10  miles.   Energy use  may be
calculated as  follows:

     (10 miles)x (3.45  x  103 BTU/ton-mi 1 e)=36 x  103 BTU/ton

     •   Modular Incineration

           Energy  to  collect  refuse in this  alternative
           is  assumed  to  be the same  as  for  residential
           source  separation  (104 x 103  BTU  per  ton)
           because  of  shorter  haul  distance  to  the incinera-
           tor than  a  1andfi11 .

Preparation

     Energy is expended  in  this subsection only  for resource
recovery.  Paper  products are  baled.   The  jointly collected


                               234

-------
glass, ferrous and aluminum are separated.  The refuse to be
incinerated is transferred from the collection trucks to the
incinerator.

     t  Paper

           Paper is delivered to a paper stock dealer, where
           two small  front-end loaders move the paper onto
           a conveyor for shredding and baling.  The baled
           paper is loaded onto trucks by the front-end
           loaders.  The assumptions on the front-end loader
           are, (Personal communication.  R.H. Brichner,
           Al1is-Chalmers Corporation, Appleton, Wisconsin.
           July 24, 1978):

               Energy use:  2.5 gallons per hour

           --   Capacity:  11  tons per hour

     The energy use per ton may be calculated as follows:

     (2.5 gal/hr)x(125 x 103 BTU/gal)f(ll  tons/hr)  =
     28 x 103  BTU/ton

     The energy assumptions for baling are (8):

               Energy use:  50 kwh per ton

               Energy:  electricity (thermal  value:
               10.3 x 103 BTU/kwh)

     Baling energy use per ton may be calculated as  follows:

     (50 kwh/ton)x(10.3 x 103 BTU/kwh)=515 x  103 BTU/ton

     Total  energy use for paper preparation is:

     (28 x  103 BTU/ton)+(515 x 103 BTU/ton)=543 x 103 BTU/ton

     •  Glass, Ferrous, and Aluminum

        -  The combined materials are delivered to  a processing
           point for  separation.  Two small front-end loaders
           move the materials onto a conveyor.  The  recyclables
           are processed in a hammermill,  vibrating  screen,
           and magnetic screen for separation into  material
           categories.

           The energy use of the front-end loaders  is the
           same as calculated above:  28 x 103 BTU  per ton.
           Electricty consumption to operate  the mechanical
           separation system is:  2.9 kwh  per ton (9).
                              235

-------
           fnergy consumption  per ton  may be determined
           as follows:

           (2.9 kwh/ton)x(10.3 x 103 BTU/kwh)=30 x 103 BTU/ton

           Total  energy use for glass, ferrous and aluminum
           preparation  is:

           (28 x  103 BTU/ton)+(30 x 103 BTU/ton)=58 x 103 BTU/ton

Modular Incineration with  Energy Recovery

     Solid waste  is  delivered  to the incinerator.   The refuse is
moved to the charging  hoppers  by small front-end loaders.  The
loaders used in this situation use the same energy as the other
loaders described in this  subsection.   Energy use  is:

           28 x 103  BTU/ton

Transportati on

     All energy use  in  this subsection is for resource recovery.
No energy savings occur.

     The transportation assumptions are:

     •  Only source-separated  materials are transported

     •  Vehicles: diesel-fuel heavy duty trucks

     •  Energy use:   3.45  x 103 BTU per ton-mile (10)

     •  Haul  distance:   100 miles

     •  Return trip:  trucks are empty; energy consumption
        is one-half  that  used  in delivery.

     Transportation  energy  may be calculated as follows:

(4.35 x 103 BTU per  ton-mi 1e)x(100 miles  per trip)x(1.5 trips) =
517.5 x 103 BTU/ton

Treatment

     Energy is conserved  in each recovery process  in this sub-
section.  Energy  is  consumed in the disposal option.

     The energy data presented for virgin raw materials includes
the diesel energy consumed  in  extraction  or harvesting through
product manufacture.
                              236

-------
     •  Landfill

           The assumptions on land-filling are  (11):

               Diesel-fuel bulldozer is used to spread
               and cover waste

               Energy consumption:  59 x 10 3 BID per ton

     •  Glass

           Recovered glass is assumed to be used in new glass
           manufacture at a 50/50 mixture with virgin raw
           materials.  The energy requirements for glass from
           100 percent virgin raw materials and a 50/50
           mixture are  (12) :

           --  Virgin raw materials:  15,670 x 103BTU per ton

           --  50/50 mixture:  11,700 x 103BTU per ton

     The energy savings per ton of glass are:

     (15,670 x 103 BTU/ton)-(ll ,700 x 103BTU/ton)  =
     3,970 x 10 3 BTU/ton

     Since only a half ton of cullet is used per ton of glass
in the 50/50 mixture, the energy savings per ton of glass must
be doubled to determine the energy saving per  ton of cullet.
Therefore, the energy savings from recycled glass are:
7,940 x 10 3 BTU per ton.

     •  Ferrous

           The recovered ferrous materials  are assumed to be
           used as a substitute for pig iron.   The  energy
           consumed in the production of pig iron from
           virgin raw materials and the processing  of scrap
           for pig iron substitution is (13):

               Pig iron production:  16,780 x  103 BTU per ton

               Processing of scrap:  350 x  103 BTU  per ton

     The energy savings per ton of secondary ferrous are:

     (16,780 x 103 BTU/ton)-(350 x 103 BTU/ton) =
     16,430 x 103 BTU/ton

     •  Aluminum

           The separated aluminum is assumed to be  used in
           aluminum production.  The energy requirements


                             237

-------
           for aluminum  made  from  virgin  raw materials
           and secondary materials  are  (14):

           --   Virgin  raw materials:   178,214 x  103  BTU  per  ton

           --   Secondary aluminum:   80,868  x 103  BTU per ton

     The energy savings  from  the substitution of  secondary
aluminum for virgin  raw  materials  are:

     (178,214  x 103  BTU/ton)-(80,868  x  103  BTU/ton)  =
     97,346 x  103  BTU/ton

     •  Newsprint

           The energy  savings  are  based in  the substitution
           of  a ton  of waste  news  for ground  wood  pulp  in
           newsprint manufacture.   The  energy consumed  in
           the production of  newsprint  from ground wood
           pulp and  waste news  is  (15):

           --   Ground  wood pulp:   22,897  x  103 BTU per  ton

           --   Waste news:  16,757  x  103  BTU per  ton

     The energy savings  from  the substitution of  waste  news  for
ground wood pulp are:

     (22,897 x 103 BTU/ton)-(16,757  x 103 BTU/ton) =
     6,140 x 103 BTU/ton

     •  Corrugated

           The recovered corrugated  is  used in the manufacture
           of  new  corrugated.   The  substitution  of old
           corrugated  is assumed to  be  to the maximum  extent
           feasible.  In the  maximum  case,  old corrugated  is
           used as 20  percent  of the  feedstock for linerboard
           and 100 percent for  the  medium.   Linerboard  and
           medium  are  combined  at  a  rate  of 2.2  to 1.

           The energy  consumed  in  the manufacture  of corrugated
           from virgin pul-p and the  maximum recycle  case is
           (16):

           --   Virgin  pulp:  23,800  x 103 BTU per  ton

               Maximum recycle:  19,418 x  103 BTU  per  ton

     The energy savings  in the  maximum  recycle case  vis-a-vis
the use of virgin  are:

     (23,800 x 103 BTU/ton)-(19,418  x 103 BTU/ton) =
     4,382 x 103 BTU/ton

                             238

-------
     Less than half a ton of old corrugated is used to produce
a ton of corrugated in the maximum recycle case.   The adjustment
in the energy savings to indicate the savings per ton of old
corrugated may be calculated as follows:

     (4,382 x 103 BTU/ton) x (2.2) = 9,640 x 103  BTU/ton

     •  High-Grade Paper

        -  The energy value is based on the substitution of
           high-grade paper for virgin pulp in tissue manu-
           facture.  The energy requirement for tissue pro-
           duction for virgin pulp and high-grade paper are
           (17), (13):

           --  Virgin pulp:  40,000 x 103 BTU per ton

           --  High-grade paper:  26,000 x 103 BTU per ton

     The energy savings from the substitution of  high-grade
paper for virgin pulp are:

     (40,000 x 103 BTU/ton)x(26,000 x 103 BTU/ton) =
     14,000 x 103 BTU/ton

 Incineration with  Energy  Recovery

     The assumptions  on  incineration are, (Personal
     communication.   Steve Levy, U.S. Department of
     Energy, Washington,  D.C.  July 26, 1978):

     •  Solid waste has  a  thermal value of 10,000 x
        103 BTU per ton

     •  Supplemental  fuel  requirements amount to 5
        percent of thermal value of the input refuse

     •  Supplemental  fuel:  natural gas (thermal  value:
        500 x 103  BTU per  ton of input refuse)

     0  Boiler efficiency:  50 .percent

     The energy generated  may be calculated as follows:

     [(10,000 x 103 BTU/ton +(500 x 103 BTU/ton)] x  (.50) =
     5,250 x 103 BTU/ton

     To determine  the energy conserved, the input energy of
 an alternative system must be calculated.  The alternative is
 assumed to be a coal-fired boiler.  It was assumed that boiler
 efficiency was 65  percent.
                              239

-------
      The  energy  produced  may  be  calculated  as  follows:

      (5,250  x  103  BTU/ton)  *  (.65)  =  8,076  x  103  BTU/ton

      The  energy  conserved is  the  equivalent input energy  saved
 minus the supplemental  energy used.   This  value  is:

      (8,076  x  103  BUT/ton)-(500  x 103  BTU/ton)  =
      7,576 x 103 BTU/ton

      The  net energy  must  include  the  energy used  to  haul  the
 residue  to a landfill.  The residue  is  transported in  a  diesel
 fuel  front-end loader.  The truck's  characteristics  are,
 (Personal  communication.   Harren  Gregory,  Atlantic Equipment,
 Inc., Washington,  D.C.  June  20,  1978):

      Capacity:   30 cubic  yards  (7.5  tons)

      Mileage:   6 miles  per  gallon

      The  haul  distance  is  10  miles,  including  return.   Energy
 conservation may be  calculated as follows:

 [(10  miles)  x  (139 x  103  BTU/gal)]*[(6  miles/gal)x(7.5  tons)]  =
 31  x  103  BTU/ton

     The  calculation  to  adjust the energy  use  for  residue
disposal  for  the  75 percent  reduction  in weight may be  done
as follows:

     (31  x 103 BTU/ton)  x  (.25)  =  8 x  103  BTU/ton

     The  net  energy is:

     (7,576 x 103 BTU/ton)  -  (8 x  103 BTU/ton)=7,568  x  103 BTU/ton
                               240

-------
                        REFERENCES
1   Analysis of source separation collection of recyclable
   solid waste.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Office of Solid Waste.  1974.  pp. 24.

2   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
   Waste.  Resource  Recovery and Waste Reduction.  Fourth
   Report to Congress.   Environmental Protection Publication
   SW-600.  Washington,  D.C.:   U.S. Government Printing
   Office.  1977.  pp.  17.

3   Stearns, R.P., S.E.  Howard,  and R.V. Anthony.  Office
   paper recovery:   an  implementation manual.  Environmental
   Protection Publication SW 517c.  1977.  pp. 1-2.

4   Calculated by SCS  Engineers  from data in:  Implementation
   of selected source separation techniques at Ft.  Meade,
   Maryland.  U.S. Army  Construction Engineering Research
   Laboratory.  Champaign, Illinois.

5   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Fourth Report
   to Congress,  pp.  17.

6   DeMarco, J., D-J.  Keller, J. Lechman, and J.  L.  Newton.
   Municipal scale incinerator  design and operation.   U.S.
   Department of Health, Education and Welfare.   Washington,
   D.C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.  pp. 1.

7   Portland Recycling Team.  Resource conservation through
   citizen involvement  in waste management.  Metropolitan
   Service District.  Portland, Oregon.  August, 1975.
   pp. 126.

8   A comparison of the  energy expenditures and returns of
   three solid waste  disposal alternatives.  U.S. Environ-
   mental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
   February 21 , 1978.   pp. 8.

9   A comparison of the  energy expenditures and returns of
   three solid waste  disposal alternatives.  February 21,
   1978.  pp. 7.

10 Portland Recycling Team.  pp. 133.

11 Portland Recycling Team.  pp. 128.
                            241

-------
12  Environmental  impacts  of  production  of virgin and
    secondary  paper,  glass,  and  rubber  products.   Environmental
    Protection  Publication  SW 128c.   1975.   pp.  229.
13
The data base.   Federal  Energy Administration.   1975.
pp. 342-345.
14  Resource  and  environmental  profile  analysis  of nine
    beverage  containers  alternatives.   U.S.  Environmental
    Protection  Agency,  Office  of  Solid  Waste.   1974.   pp.  158.

15  Environmental  impacts  of production of  virgin  and  secondary
    paper,  glass,  and  rubber products,   pp.  55  -  56.


1G  Environmental  impacts  of production of  virgin  and  secon-
    dary  paper, glass,  and  rubber products,   pp.  79-80.

17  Comparison  of  REPA  impacts  for  selected  waste  management
    and manufacturing  options  for paper and  paperboard.
    U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Office  of Solid
    Waste.  (Unpublished Data.)

18  Environmental  impacts  of production of  virgin  and
    secondary paper, glass, and rubber  products,   pp.  121-123.
                             242

-------
                          APPENDIX G

              MODULAR INCINERATOR SELECTION GUIDE
     A series of graphs were developed to assist in the evalua-
tion of the cost-effectiveness of modular incineration with
energy recovery.  One graph was prepared for each of eight
waste generators and were included as Figures  21  through '28
which are included at the end of this appendix.  The generators
are:

     t  Small Cities,  21

     •  Airports,  22

     •  Shopping Centers,  23

     •  Office Buildings,  24

     •  Garden Apartments,  25

     •  Universities,  26

     •  Prisons,  27

     •  Hospitals,  28

     The graphs can be used to estimate the size of incinerator
needed and approximate daily total  costs.  When compared  to
current solid waste disposal costs  these figures can lead to  the
seclection of the most cost-effective approach.  Use of the
graphs is described below using Figure  21  for small cities as
an example.

STEP ONE:  WASTE QUANTITY

     The left half of Figure 21  refers to waste quantity and
associated potential energy recovery.  If the quantity of waste
disposal daily is known, find that  weight on the right vertical
axis of the left-hand graph, titled "Waste,  Ib/day".
                               243

-------
person per
generation
axis.   The
posed each
to use the
tion rates
day.   Here the vertical  line  intersects  the waste
line, draw a horizontal  line  to  the  right vertical
intersection of these  lines  is  the  waste to be dis-
day as shown below as  50,000  Ib.   Note:   be careful
same number of days per  week  for both waste genera-
and disposal operation.
                     /
                                      WASTE LBS/DAY
                                      50,000
                             12,500
                           POPULATION
STEP TWO:  ENERGY RECOVERY

     To determine the potential  energy  recovery from this
quantity of waste, trace  the  daily  waste quantity horizontally
back to the left vertical axis  and  read the energy recovery in
millions of BTU per day.  Note  that the energy content of the
refuse is assumed and shown  as  is  the  refuse boiler efficiency,
This example yields a potential  energy  recovery of 130 million
BTU per day.
         MILLION
         BTU/DAY 130
                                       WASTE
                                     50,000 LBS/DAY
                            12,500
                           POPULATION
STEP THREE:   FUEL  SAVINGS
     Next the value  of  fuel  savings per day is estimated.   This
utilizes the central, vertical  line in the figure  labeled  Fuel
Savings.  Fuel  savings  can  be compared to natural  gas  or  coal
with the following prices  assumed:

     •  Coal $1  per  mill ion  BTU

     t  Gas  $2.50 per million BTU

     Fuel savings can be read from the graph  or  calculated by
multiplying  the daily energy recovered (STEP  TWO)  by  the  above
prices  or by local costs if different.  Projecting the energy
                               244

-------
recovery
of about
         quantity to the Fuel Savings  line  shows  a  daily  savings
         $465 or $200 when compared  to  natural  gas  and  coal
respectively, assuming a 65 percent  boiler  efficiency for  both
    example below:
See
    MILLION
    BTU/DAY 130
                                          FUEL SAVINGS
                                           NG   C
                                           465
                                              200
STEP FOUR:   INCINERATOR  SELECTION

     The size of  incinerator  is  determined  next  by  continuing
horizontally to the  left vertical  axis  of  the  right  half  of  the
graph labeled Unit Size.   The  intersection  of  the horizontal
line and the axis  is  the daily capacity needed,  in  this case
50,000 Ib  (the waste  generated).   Continue  the  line  to the right
until it intersects  one  of the shaded  areas.   Each  area repre-
sents a commercially  available modular  incinerator  unit or
combination  of units  capable  of  burning the  quantity of waste
in either  8  or 24  hours.   The  line  in  the  example intersects
the area as  shown  below.
                            50,000
                            LBS/DAY
                                           557
                                           -•
                                            24
     This indicates that  the waste  could  be  burned  in 24  hours
(lower number) at an  average total  daily  cost  of  $557 (top
number).  Note:  if the horizontal  line does not  intersect one
of the shaded areas,  select the  lowest areas that  is above
the line.

STEP FIVE:  COST ANALYSIS

     Costs are now compared between  the selected  modular  incin-
erator and current disposal costs.   Daily  incinerator costs  are
$557.   Fuel savings of $200 daily for coal  (assumed  in  order to
be conservative) yield an  overall daily cost of $357.   This  gives
a cost per ton of $14.28.  If  current disposal costs exceed  this
figure, modular incineration appears feasible.
                               245

-------
                            SMALL CITIES
ro
-^
CT)
       i 4
      si
B  7
E  <
                     JK

                             /
              a  1 < » • 7 • I I.OOO
                               2  349*7 ••IQOOO
                              romumoN
                                                               FUEL SWKKB
                                                            WUTC   i/OW
                                                                                    MODULAR INCINERATOR UNITS
                                                    > 4 5 C 7 • SOOflOO
NGAS




































CO*L 10-










e



jfe!
ti *
iii
WM"


- 7
K 6

i ;





.r





rro





































o









































































-




































i




































>




































> 7 8

















173

eo
















ear
















265
Baol
' (


















i :
!T PER

















t


















<
DAT




































(£;













5^
2*





















1




































I 7 i









24
IJOO
It

























• IAOO :








J«4
V
»


























\
                                  Figure  21.   Modular  incineration  selection  guide
                                                 for  smal1  ci ties.

-------
ro
-P>
—i
MOOr






340
T


B 4
W Q
1 "i

|
I ;
8
14




















/

/

/
/
/
/




















/
/

/

/
/






















f



/
7*~



























/
X























/



/
/
''























*f
f
--—/—
/ ,
' cv^
/
/





















.*/


/
-£•
y























/



₯




























/
/























7




/
/



























/

/























	 /<

/
/ /
/
/
























	 -jt—

/
















































































































































































FML
WASTE 4/
LS/DAT NGAS






- 10* 1214


6O7


• I0« 121



61












3 ojooo i >49«ri>io* t I4sa7a>io* i i4)crat>o'
WJMER OF PASSENGERS PER OAT ati 0«S/TEARI
IAVIKB
ur
COAL •
a
r
6
4
2
530 00.000
9
a
7
265 3! !
lii .
W
DAY) 8 -8MR/OAY OP
a Z4-24HR/OAY C
g (260 DAYS/YE
JO M tj
/HI) 32IS HMO
W
z
3 1,000
9
T
6
3
4
3
R




































































































































































173
1
8—



























283
e
' I
-fl-




























t


























24


























IB*
f.
1200




























Z4O4
24

1


















1

9100 I 1 4 5 • 7 • 9 IJOOO Z
COST PtP. DAr ($1
                            Figure 22.   Modular incineration selection guide
                                        for airports.

-------
ro
-P=.
oo
VOO






9
•
«
•
b :
TIVOW (S0% EFFIC
7000 BTU,
.3
^ i

fe l
§ ;
s
a





*






















/
/ /
///
/










100 2
















~^r
/ /
/ /
/



























4
7&
•^






























Ly





























,
'//



























/
/ />
///
''//

















































,tN































Ith































(^































































































































































































































































FUEL
WASTt J/
L»/0«» NCAS














10* 132







,000 13







100
MINGS
1AV
COAL ^
a
r
s
5
4
2
9
e
7
285 £ 3
ofc *
u>
t-AY) 8 -OHR/OAY OPERAT
=; 24-24 HR/OAY OPEft
•g (2600AYS/YEARJ
3 e
"~ 7

Z
6 t,000
9
e
7
6
3
4
3
2
































































































































V1U































UUL,































3 4 9 < 7 a 9 IPOO 2 9 4 • 3 6 7 « 9 10,000 2 3436799 10° 10 2 343678
SQUARE FEET GROSS LEASEABLE AREA [IOOO fT:)
ISFGLAI
(XR INCINE














173
1
8—















RATO













285
e
e |
0-

24













-1 U














(,
















NITS












24


























ISM
s
1200
?a

























j



4O«
*"





I


















9 00 2 3 436789 IpOO 2
COST PER OAT (})
                          Figure  23.   Modular incineration selection  guide
                                      for shopping centers.

-------
OFFICE BUILDING
                                    net swixos
                                 WASTE  */o»r
                                                        MODULAR INCINERATOR UNITS
3WOr

'







•



i?
IVMT (30% EfFK
rooasru.
S M t
•
£


X
1


































































































O i J 4 » 6





























"^
//
'//



























,*•/
///
y
f



























XV
ly
f
f'


























y
{— ^- ~
/ /
7
p

























/
//
'//

























/
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/

























-/-
/


/


























.



'



























//






























,
* - I04 132



66



- - 1,000 13






100
r-=^ K>
)
6
2
c


205 il
-4
UVY) a-8HR/MYOP£H»T
- 24- 24HR/DAY OPER
g (260 DAYSAEM)
< 9
S 87
K 6
23 ? 5
5 ,
6 1.000
e
7
6



















































































































































173
8~G~





























263
e
?1

'

24























"f7
24


























1
300
[





























240«
"























7 B 9 IOO 2 9 4 3 6 7 B 91,000 2 3 4 S 6 7 B 9 IO.OOO » 2 3 456769 100 2 343(709 ijDOO 2
N1MER OF EMPLOYEES COST PE« OAT ($)
        Figure  24.   Modular incineration selection  guide

                      for office  buildings.

-------
wo





MO



k:
Hg '
£6
1 .
s ;
ro % ,



X

'
*

,































































































































///
10 2 S « S « T

























ji
^
^^i
//•^
///
























^>v
^X.'S
/fyj.
/^
/

























/
^~
/
/



























/
/
-^





























/





























/
/


























/
//
///
'//























.
	 7*7^
/ / /
/ / /
/ /
/







































































































































wwrre ^>/
LB/OAT NOA5













10* 93







1,000 9







100
»1KX> 2 949 »TJ»I,000 Z 34 5678910 ,000
NUMBER OF TElJtNrs
Ml*
00
40C
zoo
zo
4
                                           MODULAR INCINERATOR UNITS



6








,5 =

*>->•
ill.
Ill
•5"
< 9
3 a
tii

zo g 5




^
T








































0



































































1





















































































































1
e°
















CO














IK
11

n
TT
24













z
ST PEP















I

















J
DAI











5jt





















* 3 6 7
1,)







iZOO
ft
























a 91^00






JO4
24


























Figure 25.   Modular  incineration  selection guide
             for garden  apartments.

-------
                             UNIVERSITIES
                                                                                MODULAR INCINERATOR UNITS
ro
CJ1

                           main or (noon
















114































o^
S*f 5
°>->-
5S:s
lea 2
553 ?
T?S
•S~
49 5 IOPOO

3 !
I,.
s 6






a
7
6



w



































) 2


































1


































4


































S « 7
1
















	 T
i
•














« »«0
















'if

















2
cor















tK
e
?1



i!<













1
r KJI












557
2*


3i5
-

















4 ft • 1
DAY (f)








lex
f
,2op
s .
























• 
-------
                              PRISONS
en
t>o




290
1
8?
TlVMY (90'/« EFFIC
5500 BTU
,8
* f
a T
£ 6
1

8
2.9
9


































































^




























/
:/




























^



























/
/x
>x






















^
	 /x
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ /
,'























i
/s



























>v
9




























/
'



























/
J



























/
'/
/























/
/ /'
/ / /
' / /
' /
/























/
Y//
^ 	



























/
/



























/
/





























'
























































^
'
'

















]K)«













I0<






1.000-







100
10 2 S 4 ' 5 6 7 • »OO 2 1 4 S t 7 • » i.OOO 2 3 4 S t 7 8 » OjOOO
NWaCft OF INMATES
                                                            FUL SWIMS

                                                        W«TE   »A»»
                                                        I.B/OAV NCAS
                                                                               MODULAR INCINERATOR UNITS
9
e
7
6
3
4
2
446 100.000
9
e
7
221 zi 5
Y) 6 -8HR/DAY OPERAT
24- 24HR/OAY OPER/
(26O DAYS/YEAR)
^ 9

2
4.5 1,000
9
7
6
4
3
2


































































































































































































































173
K

n °
y
*






























§8
30?
8 |
















J'5




24































































,













ib
24
































































'a
I2OO
P4
































2404
24


























COST PCM DAY (f)
                                Figure 27.   Modular incineration selection  guide
                                              for  prisons.

-------
                HOSPITALS
                                                                    MODULAR INCINERATOR UNITS
yooi ' i 	 1 	 1 — , — i— T-
>


'




9
7

"
is
H§
#1 *
a
ro • .
en »
to §
3


























/
//
'//
'/
























/
/ /
/,
/
/























-pt-
/
/
/
'
/























/ /
7^-2

/ /
~7
~7




	
















,1^
<%
•$&
//f*
;;;x
























/
/ /
y &/
^
f'
























^
/
/
s
y
























/
/
/

/

























X ,

7
7
























/
//
/' ' / ' /
'-•y























— -^
//
/ / /
/ /
/ /
/










































































































WASTE $/CUY
LB/DW N6AS CO*L_ |0.














- - 10* 13Z






- - I.OOO 13







. 100
9
e
7
G
4
2
9
7
285 ^g 5
-w
DAY) 6 -8HR/DAY OPERAT
K 24-24HR/OAY OPER;
•§ {260 DAYS/TEAR)
DO M U
5 a
& €
X
29 i <

6 ',000
9
7
e
s
4
3
2









































































































































































73.
I




























285
s
w 1
8 1
0-




























\.























































"
24




























1



























"s
1200
.



























J«04
24














—



1



Z   J4J«7«»iOO    t   J  4 J » 7 • »i(X»   J    J 4 9 « 7 • »K>,000
                                                             1  1  4  1 t 7 8 »*
                                                                             2   5  4 ft ft r I 9UXM

                                                                            COST PCM DAY (f)
                   Figure 28.   Modular  incineration  selection  guide
                                 for hospitals.

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-099
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

SMALL-SCALE AND LOW-TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE  RECOVERY STUDY
                                                            5. REPORT DATE
                           December 1979  (Issuing Date)
                         6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Gary L. Mitchell, Charles  Peterson, Esther  R.  Bowring,
and Brian West
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 SCS Engineers, Inc.
 11800 Sunrise Valley  Drive
 Reston, Virginia  22091
                         10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                         SOS#5,  Task 16 - 1DC618C618A5
                         11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.


                           68-03-2653
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Municipal Environmental  Research Laboratory - Cin.
 Office of Research and  Development
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Cincinnati, Ohio  45268                       	
                    OH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

	Final	
                         14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                          EPA/600/14
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

          Donald A. Oberacker,  Project Officer
                513/684-7881
 16. ABSTRACT

         A study was conducted to
    resource recovery to  selected
    and technologies were limited
    as  less than 100 tons per day
    technology, defined as  having
    costs associated with labor, i
    stitutions, commercial  sources
    and small cities.
assess the  applicability of  various approaches  to
waste generators.   The resource  recovery systems
to those operating in the small-scale range, defined
input, or those approaches considered to be low
more than 50  percent of operation  and maintenance
.e., labor  intensive.  The generators included  in-
  office building  complexes, multi-unit residences
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
           b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI Field/Group
   materials recovery
   separation
   incinerators
   refuse
   refuse  disposal
             small-scale systems
             low-technology systems
             solid waste
             resource recovery
             source separation
                13B

                68
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
     Release  to public
            19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
               unclassified
              21. NO. OF PAGES
                    264
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                  unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
          254
                                                                     U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1980-657-146/5618

-------