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
Newspaperabove
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
newspaperabove
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 wastemunicipal 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 wastemunicipal 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 cansphoenix 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 treatmentincineration. 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 recyclinga 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 businessand 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
------- |