Solid Waste Data
A Compilation of Statistics
on Solid Waste Management
Within the United States
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6000
August 1981
Prepared by:
JRB Associates
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
-------
Solid Waste Data
A Compilation of Statistics
on Solid Waste Management
Within the United States
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6000
August 1981
Prepared by:
JRB Associates
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
-------
FOREWORD
This report has been prepared for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response under the EPA Headquarters Technical Assistance Panels Program and
represents a comprehensive compilation of the most current available infor-
mation on solid waste management within the United States. This information
is presented in tabular form and organized by general categories for ease of
reference.
Where current information was unavailable, the most recent data were
updated to 1980 by JRB Associates where appropriate. In instances where
conflicting data were found, the data collection and analysis methodologies of
each source were evaluated and those data found to be most appropriate for a
national overview were selected.
The general categories, by which this report is organized, are the
following:
I. Generation
II. Employment
III. Composition
IV. Collection
V. Transportation
VI. Processing
VII. Disposal
VIII. Rural Waste
IX. Resource Recovery
X. Municipal Sludge
XT.. Hazardous Waste
XII. Miscellaneous Information
in.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. GENERATION
1-1 Estimated Quantities of Solid Waste Generated 1
1-2 Trends in Residential and Commercial Waste Generation ... 1
II. EMPLOYMENT
II-l Employment in Municipal Solid Waste Management 3
II-2 Municipal Expenditures for Salaries and Wages in
Refuse Departments 4
II-3 Average Hourly Wages of Private Refuse Haulers 4
III. COMPOSITION
III-l Net Quantity and Composition of Post-Consumer
Residential and Commercial Solid Waste by Type
of Material 5
III-2 Net Quantity and Composition of Post-Consumer
Residential and Commercial Solid Waste By
Detailed Product Category 6
IV. COLLECTION
IV-1 Collection Service Arrangement 7
IV-2 Refuse Collection Location by Community Size 7
IV-3 Refuse Collection Location By Selected
Geographical Regions 8
IV-4 Frequency of Refuse Collection By Selected Geographical
Regions 8
IV-5 Frequency of Refuse Collection By Community Size 9
IV-6 Effect of Crew Size and Level of Service on Collection
Efficiency 9
IV-7 Refuse Trucks and Crew Size By Population Served 10
IV-8 Type and Quantities of Solid Waste Collection Vehicles
Used By Municipalities and Private Firms 10
IV-9 Ratio Rear Loaders to Side Loaders 11
IV-10 Types of Refuse Collection Vehicles Used By Private Firms. 11
IV-11 Type of Fuel Used By Residential and Commercial
Collection Vehicles 12
IV-12 Private Refuse Collectors: Percentage Diesel Fueled
Vehicles 12
IV-13 Effect of Crew Size and Service Level on Collection Costs. 13
IV-14 Average Dollar Per Ton Cost of Refuse Collection By
Service Arrangement and Community Size 14
IV-15 Average Collection Cost By Community Size 14
IV-16 Cost Components For Municipal Collection of Residential
Refuse 15
IV-17 Collection Cost Components for Private Collection Firms. . 15
IV-18 Payment Mode for Refuse Collection From Single
Family Dwellings By Community Size 16
IV-19 Payment Mode for Refuse Collection By Service Recipient. . 17
IV-20 Payment Mode for Refuse Collection By Service Arrangement. 17
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
V. TRANSPORTATION
V-l Comparison of Direct and Transfer Haul Costs 19
VI. PROCESSING
VI-1 Summary of Incinerator Use 21
VI-2 1980 Baling Facilities By Operating Capacity 21
VI-3 Vital Statistics of Baler Facilities 22
VI-4 1980 Shredder Facilities By Operating Capacity 24
VI-5 Vital Statistics - Shredder Facilities 25
VI-6 Shredder Facility Costs 30
VI-7 Transfer System Costs 30
VI-8 Transfer Station Usage 31
VII. DISPOSAL
VII-1 Municipal Solid Waste Disposal By Method 33
VII-2 Average Disposal Costs By City Size 33
VII-3 Estimated Costs for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. . 34
VII-4 Breakdown of Sanitary Landfill Capacity 34
VIII. RURAL WASTE
VIII-1 Community Size and Percent of Structures Serviced. ... 35
VIII-2 Collection Equipment and Community Size 35
VIII-3 Environmental Management Controls for Rural Sanitary
Landfills 36
VIII-4 Use of Landfill Soil Cover By Rural Community Size ... 36
VIII-5 Initial Capital Investment for "Green Box" Container
System for Community of 15,000 37
IX. RESOURCE RECOVERY
IX-1 Resource Recovery Facilities By Technology 39
T.X-2 Operating Resource Recovery Facilities By Capacity .... 39
CX-3 Comparison of Resource Recovery Technologies 40
IX-4 Energy Productivity Comparison of Resource Recovery
Systems 41
IX-5 Resource Recovery Facilities 42
IX-6 Recyclable Materials as Percent of Total Residential
Waste 45
IX-7 Energy Savings Through Recycling of Waste Materials. ... 46
IX-8 Twenty-Six Operating Waste Exchanges in U.S 47
IX-9 Number of Programs Collecting Specific Recyclables .... 48
IX-10 Source Separation Collection Responsibilities 48
IX-11 Waste Paper Utilization 49
IX-12 Total Quantities of Recycled Materials 49
IX-13 List of Source Separation Programs 50
IX-14 History of Market Prices for Secondary Materials 55
X. MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
X-l Chemical Composition of Sewage Sludge, All Types 57
X-2 Municipal Sludge Generation 58
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
X-3 Thermal Content of Sewage Sludge 58
X-4 Breakdown of Disposal Methods for Municipal Sludge 59
X-5 Cost of Municipal Sludge Disposal 60
XI. HAZARDOUS WASTE
XI-1 Estimated Hazardous Waste Generation By Industry 61
XI-2 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation By Region 62
XI-3 Estimated Hazardous Waste Generation By Waste Type .... 62
XI-4 Hazardous Waste Composition By SIC Code 63
XI-5 Hazardous Waste Transporters By Region 63
XI-6 Estimated On-Site and Off-Site Disposal of Hazardous Waste 64
XI-7 Methods for Off-Site Disposal of Industrial Hazardous Waste 64
XI-8 Estimated Off-Site Hazardous Waste Treatment/Disposal By
Region 65
XI-9 Regional Breakdown of Hazardous Waste Treatment/Disposal
Facilities 65
XI-10 Cost of Off-Site Hazardous Waste Disposal 66
XII. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
XII-1 Comparison of Energy Values of Municipal Solid Waste
and Conventional Fuels 67
XII-2 Common Energy Equivalents 67
XII-3 Densities of Refuse and Associated Materials 68
XII-4 Densities of Pure Refuse Components 68
XII-5 Typical Chemical Composition of Municipal Refuse
Components 69
REFERENCES 71
Vll
-------
I. Generation
I-l ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED IN 1977
Waste
Source
Municipal
Residential/ Commercial/ Institutional
Sewage Sludge
Junked Auto and
Construction/Demol ition
Industrial
Non-hazardous
Hazardous
Radioactive
Mining/Milling
(Includes uranium tailings)
Agricultural
Utility
Metric Tons
(millions)
132
4.5
41
292-310
34-52
.04
2086
2265-3014
70
Short Tons
(millions)
145
5.0
45
323-342
38-57
.04
2300
2498-3323
77
% of
Total
2.4
.1
.6
5.5
.8
<.l
39.0
50.3
1.2
In dry weight (all other source tonnages are in wet weights).
Includes residues from crop growing, harvesting, and processing; meat,
poultry, and dairy products; and logging and wood manufacture.
Includes fly and bottom ash and scrubber sludge, excludes radioactive waste.
Source: 16
1-2 TRENDS IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION
1960 1965 1970 1972 1974 1976
1978
Gross Discards
Million tons/year
Lbs/person/day
% change per capita previous
reporting year
Resource Recovery
Million tons/year
Lbs/person/day
% change per capita previous
reporting year
95.7
2.9
-
6.1
.19
-
110
3
+ 7
6
-5
.7
.12
.6
.4
.18
.3
131
3
+ 12
7
+ 11
.0
.5
.2
.7
.20
.0
138
3
+3
8
+10
.5
.63
.7
.4
.22
.0
143
3
+2
10
+22
.1
.7
.0
.5
.27
.7
143.2
3.65
-1.4
10.7
.28
+ 3.7
150.4
3.77
+ 3.2
12.4
.31
+ 10.7
Net Disposal
Million tons/year 89.6
Lbs/person/day 2.72
% change per capita previous
reporting year
Population (millions) 180.7
Source: 11
104.3 123.3 130.1 132.6 123.5 138.0
2.94 3.30 3.41 3.43 3.37 3.46
+8.1 +12.2 +3.3 +.58 -1.8 +2.3
194.3 204.9 208.9 211.9 215.2 218.7
-------
II. Employment
Il-t EMPLOYMENT IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, 1976
Classification i
\
Total, all cities
Population
1,000,000 and over
500,000-999,999
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,999
50,000- 99,999
25,000- 49,999
10,000- 24,999
Geographic Region
Northeast
North Central
South
West
I of Cities
leporting
837
4
14
19
54
113
201
432
152
230
344
111
Mean #
of Employees
80
6,251
577
276
134
60
35
18
144
61
75
50
#' of Employees
per
1,000 population
1.13
1.73
0.88
0.79
0.93
0.87
1.00
1.16
1.43
0.87
1.28
0.69
Data from survey of 2,309 municipalities.
Source: 22
-------
11-2 MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE FOR SALARIES AND
WAGES IN REFUSE DEPARTMENTS
Year Per Capita
1976 $ 9.451
1980 13.352
1976 data from survey of 815 reporting cities with
populations 2. 10,000.
2
1980 value computed by JRB Associates using the
Municipal Cost Index (MCl) published by The American
City & County Magazine.
Source: 22
II-3 AVERAGE HOURLY WAGES OF PRIVATE REFUSE HAULERS, 1980
Category Hourly Rate
General Maintenance $7.22
Vehicle - Driver 6.71
Vehicle - Helper 5.30
Data from survey of 198 randomly selected private refuse
haulers.
Source: 29
-------
III. Composition
III-l NET QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF POST-CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE BY TYPE OF MATERIAL, 1978
Net Waste Disposed Of
Quantity % of Total Waste
Material category (Millions of Tons)
Paper 41.3 29.7
Glass 14.8 10.7
Metals 13.3 9.6
Ferrous 11.6 8.4
Aluminum 1.3 0.9
Other nonferrous 0.4 0.3
Plastics 5.8 4.2
Rubber 2.9 2.1
Leather 0.5 0.4
Textiles 3.4 2.4
Wood 4.8 3.4
Total nonfood product waste 86.8 62.5
Food waste 23.4 16.8
Yard waste 26.6 19.2
Misc. inorganic wastes 2.1 1.5
TOTAL 138.9 100.0
Source: 11
-------
III-2 NET QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF POST-CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE BY DETAILED PRODUCT CATEGORY, 1978
Product Category
Durable goods:
Major appliances
Furniture, furnishings
Rubber tires
Miscellaneous durables
Nondurable goods, exc . food:
Newspapers
Books, magazines
Office paper
Tissue paper, incl. towels
Paper plates, cups
Other nonpackaging paper
Clothing, footwear
Other misc. nondurables
Containers and packaging:
Glass containers:
Beer, soft drink
Wine, liquor
Food and other
Steel cans:
Beer, soft drink
Food
Other nonfood
Aluminum:
Beer, soft drink
Other cans
Aluminum foil
Paper, paperboard:
Corrugated
Other paperboard
Paper packaging
Plastics :
Plastic containers
Other plastic packaging
Wood packaging
Other misc. packaging
Total nonfood product waste
Add: Food waste
Yard waste
Misc. inorganic wastes
TOTAL
Net Waste
Quantity
(Thousands of Tons)
16,525
2,330
5,410
1,650
7,135
28,110
7,670
6,400
4,305
2,190
370
2,475
2,765
1,935
42,125
13,680
6,690
2,365
4,625
4,235
995
2,165
1,075
935
610
35
290
17,890
10,315
3,915
3,660
3,640
1,735
1,905
1,570
175
86,760
23,400
26,600
2,100
138,860
Disposed Of
% of Total Waste
12
2
4
1
5
20
5
5
3
2
<.5
2
2
1
30
10
5
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
<.5
<.5
<.5
1.3
7
3
3
2
1
1
1
62
17
19
2
100
Source: 11
-------
IV. Collection
IV-l COLLECTION SERVICE ARRANGEMENT, 1980
Recipient and Arrangement Percent
Residential
Municipal 47.7
Private 45.6
Combination 6.7
Commercial
Municipal 28.0
Private 55.7
Combination 16.3
Data from survey of 3,470 communities.
Source: 24
IV-2 REFUSE COLLECTION LOCATION BY COMMUNITY SIZE, 1975
Collection Location (%)
Backyard or Curbside Various
Community Size Frontyard or Alley Locations Don't Know
250
100
50
25
10
5
2
>500,
000
,000-499
,000-249
,000-
,000-
,000-
,000-
,500-
99
49
24
9
4
,999
,999
,999
,999
,999
,999
,999
20
18
17
8
12
12
9
.8
.6
.3
.2
.8
.7
.5
28
26
39
42
55
51
55
53
.6
.0
.5
.0
.9
.7
.2
.4
71
45
39
39
34
33
30
31
.4
.8
.5
.3
.7
.0
.7
.6
-
8
2
1
1
2
1
1
-
.3
.3
.3
.2
.5
.4
.4
Data from Universal Telephone Survey (UTS) of 1,377 jurisdictions,
Source: 26
-------
IV-3 REFUSE COLLECTION LOCATION BY SELECTED GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS, 1975
Collection Location (%)
Geographic
Region
Northeast
North Central
South
West
Backyard or
Frontyard
9.9
9.3
21.8
7.5
Curbside
or Alley
64.2
51.9
40.4
45.5
Various
Locations
24.0
37.4
35.2
46.2
Don ' t Know
1.9
1.4
2.5
0.7
IV-4 FREQUENCY OF REFUSE COLLECTION BY SELECTED GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS, 1975
Collection Frequency (%)
Geographic
Region
Northeast
North Central
South
West
More than
Twice a Week
1.9
0.3
3.4
0.3
Twice a
Week
22.9
11.8
74.5
23.3
Once a Less than
Week Once a Week
63.8 1.3
75.6 1.2
16.1
64.7
Various
Frequencies
10.0
11.0
5.9
11.6
Data from Universal Telephone Survey (UTS) of 1,377 jurisdictions.
States within each geographic region:
Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT, NJ, NY, PA
North Central: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD
South: DL, FL, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA, WV, AL, KY, MS, TN, AR, LA,
OK, TX
West: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY, AK, CA, HI, OR, WA
Source: 26
-------
IV-5 FREQUENCY OF REFUSE COLLECTION BY COMMUNITY SIZE, 1975
Collection Frequency (%)
Community Size
>500,000
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,999
50,000- 99,999
25,000- 49,999
10,000- 24,999
5,000- 9,999
2,500- 4,999
More than
Twice a Week
7.1
4.7
0.7
1.2
1.1
2.1
1.3
Twice a
Week
35.7
62.5
43.0
38.3
25.6
36.7
30.0
24.6
Once a
Week
57.1
25.0
44.2
50.3
65.7
52.4
57.9
61.9
Less than Various
Once a Week Frequencies
12.5
8.1
10.7
1.2 6.4
9.8
1.0 9.0
1.4 11. 0
Data from Universal Telephone Survey (UTS) of 1,377 jurisdictions.
Source: 26
IV-6 EFFECT OF CREW SIZE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ON COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, 1975
Service
Level
Curbside,
Once/Week
Curbside,
Twice/Week
Backyard,
Once/Week
Crew Direct Labor
Size Hours/Household/Year
I man
2 man
3 or more
1 man
2 man
3 or more
1 man
2 man
3 or more
2.04
2.73
5.05
2.28
3.93
4.99
1.63
3.85
6.29
Households Per
Crew Shift
274
453
518
318
259
447
135
254
427
Data from survey of 315 cities
Source: 32
-------
IV-7 REFUSE TRUCKS AND CREW SIZE BY POPULATION SERVED, 1980
Population
Served
>500,000
250,000-
500,000
100,000-
250,000
50,000-
100,000
<50,000
Totals
Truck Type
Rear Loader
2 man 3 man 4 or more
41 59
12 43 45
22 64 14
30 70
30 47 23
30 58 12
and Crew
1 man
100
23
60
48
13
63
Size (%) .
Side Loader
2 man 3 man 4 or more
57 20
34 6
10 31 11
87
24 11 2
Source:
IV-8 TYPE AND QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLES
USED BY MUNICIPALITIES AND PRIVATE FIRMS, 1972-1973
Type of Vehicle
Packers
Service
Arrangement
Front
Loaders
Side and
Rear Loaders
Roll off Open (Stake)
Tractor Trucks Other
~# % ~~~#% #%
Totals
Public 1,000 1.0 34,000 33 0 0 4,000 3.9 2,500 2.4 41,500
Private 7,670 7.4 33,932 33 6,496 6.3 7,327 7.1 6,240 6.0 61,665
Totals 8,670 8.4 67,932 66 6,496 6.3 11,327 11 8,740 8.4 103,165
Includes hoist type containers, trains and satellite vehicles.
Source: 28
10
-------
IV-9 RATIO REAR LOADERS TO SIDE LOADERS, 1980
In Use
New Purchases
# Cities
Reporting
86
86
#
Vehicles
3,399
Rear
Loaders
87%
65%
Side
Loaders
13%
30%
Source: 3
IV-10 TYPES OF REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES USED BY PRIVATE FIRMS, 1980
Vehicle Type
Percent
of Fleet
Rear Loader
Front Loader
Side Loader
Roll Off/Tilt Frame
Stake, Flat Bed, Dump Truck
Satellite Vehicle
Transfer Vehicle
Container Hoist/Luggar Type
38.5
13.4
9.2
18.2
8.9
4.9
4.5
2.4
Data from survey of 198 randomly selected private refuse haulers
Source: 29
II
-------
IV-11 TYPE OF FUEL USED BY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL'
COLLECTION VEHICLES, 1972-1973
Service
Recipient
Residential
2
Commercial
Overall
Percentage of
Gasoline
66.1
42.5
59.0
Collection Vehicles
Diesel
33.9
57.5
41.0
Compiled by JRB Associates.
2
Includes large apartment complexes serviced by bulk
bins.
Source: 28
IV-12 PRIVATE REFUSE COLLECTORS: PERCENTAGE
DIESEL FUELED VEHICLES, 1980
Vehicle Type Percentage Diesel
Rear Loader 50.2
Front Loader 70.4
Side Loader 29.4
Roll Off/Tilt Frame 59.0
Stake, Flatbed, Dump Truck 16.1
Satellite Vehicle 12.9
Transfer Vehicle 18.5
Container Hoist/Luggar Type 48.8
Overall Fleet 49.7
Of New Purchases in 1980 76.0
Data from survey of 198 randomly selected private
refuse haulers.
Source: 29
12
-------
IV-13 EFFECT OF CREW SIZE AND SERVICE LEVEL ON COLLECTION COSTS
Crew
Size
1 man
2 man
3 or more
Once/Week
Curbside
1975 I960
$11.79 $17.85
26.53 40.16
19.46 29.46
Dollars Per Ton
Twice/Week
Curbside
1975 1980
$14.69 $22.24
31.63 47.89
25.03 37.90
Once/Week
Backyard
1975 1980
$28.97 $43.86
24.48 37.06
39.40 59.65
Dollars Per Household
Crew
Size
1 man
2 man
3 or more
Once/Week
Curbside
1975 1980
$29.38 $44.48
31.40 47.54
28.33 42.89
Twice/Week
Curbside
1975 1980
$44.06 $66.71
35.80 54.20
33.77 51.13
Once/Week
Backyard
1975 1980
$26.53 $40.17
37.61 56.94
46.78 70.83
Data from survey of 315 cities.
1975 costs escalated to 1980 by JRB Associates using the Municipal Cost Index
(MCI) published by The American City and County Magazine.
Source: 32
13
-------
IV-14 AVERAGE DOLLAR PER TON COST OF REFUSE COLLECTION
BY SERVICE ARRANGEMENT AND COMMUNITY SIZE
Service
Arrangement
Municipal
Contract
Private
All
Dollars/Ton by Population Group
<10,000
1975
$22.48
18.86
28.39
23.79
1980
$34.04
28.55
42.98
36.02
10,000-50
1975
$19.47
21.77
23.08
21.08
,000
1980
$29.48
32.96
34.94
31.92
>50
1975
$25.87
18.09
30.81
25.22
,000
1980
.$39.17
27.39
46.65
38.18
Data from survey of 315 cities.
1975 costs escalated to 1980 by JRB Associates using the Municipal Cost Index
(MCI) published by The American City and County Magazine.
Source: 31
IV-15 AVERAGE COLLECTION COST BY COMMUNITY SIZE
Population
Total
500,000+
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,999
50,000- 99,999
25,000- 49,999
10,000- 24,999
2,500- 9,999
Dollars per
1975
$24.93
34.02
28.19
33.96
22.99
25.26
22.33
23.41
Ton1
1980
$37.74
51.5.1
42.68
51.42
34.81
38.24
33.81
35.44
Data from NSF survey, sample size of 177.
1975 costs escalated to 1980 by JRB Associates
using the Municipal Cost Index (MCI) published
by The American City and County Magazine.
Source: 42
14
-------
IV-16 COST COMPONENTS FOR MUNICIPAL COLLECTION OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE
Cost Per Household and
Cost Component
Labor
Fringe Benefits
2
Operating Costs
Vehicle Operating Costs
Fuel2,
Other
2
Overhead Costs
. . 4
Depreciation
TOTAL
1975
$18.37
3.88
1.47
1.10
2.57
2.78
2.01
$32.08
%
57.1
12.1
4.4
3.4
8.0
8.6
6.3
99.9
Percent of Total Cost
1980
$26.75
5.66
2.19
3.01
3.95
4.27
3.26
$49.09
%
54.5
11.5
4.5
6.1
8.1
8.7
6.6
100. 0
Data from survey of 315 cities, escalated to 1980 by JRB Associates.
Escalated to 1980 using data on wage increases for Sanitation Services from
-the Office of Employment and Earnings, Department of Labor.
Escalated to 1980 using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners
3(CPI-U).
Escalated to 1980 using Producer Price Indexes (PPIs) for Diesel and
.Gasoline.
Escalated to 1980 using PPI for Trucks (greater than 10,001 Ibs. gvw.)
Source: 32
IV-17 COLLECTION COST COMPONENTS FOR PRIVATE COLLECTION FIRMS
Component
Fuel
Disposal Fee
Maintenance /Parts
Equipment :
Refuse Trucks
Containers
Compactors
Labor
Insurance
Administration
License Fees
Legal Fees
Overall
Average %
of Total
Costs
14.0
11.3
10.6
19.2
23.6
7.1
6.5
4.3
3.4
100. 0
Percent
1980 vs 1979
29.1
22.1
19.1
15.6
10.0
3.8
14.5
14.1
8.8
8.5
7.0
18.7
Increase
Expected 1981
23.9
18.5
16.0
14.9
9.5
5.1
16.3
11.7
10.4
7.9
6.9
17.4
Takes into account the percentages of a budget each item represents.
Source: 29
15
-------
IV-18 PAYMENT MODE FOR REFUSE COLLECTION FROM SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS BY COMMUNITY SIZE, 1975 -
Payment Mode (%)
Population
Group
Total
>500,000
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,999
50,000- 99,999
25,000- 49,999
10,000- 24,999
5,000- 9,999
2,500- 4,999
Tax
36.1
71.4
45.8
58.0
46.0
37.9
42.0
34.2
27.4
Municipal
Flat Fee
19.8
7.1
25.0
21.6
22.7
20.7
22.4
20.0
17.1
Private
Flat Fee
31.3
21.4
4.2
9.1
17.3
27.2
22.6
34.0
42.8
Municipal
Variable Fee
2.6
12.5
3.4
4.7
3.6
2.3
2.2
1.9
Private
Variable Fee
10.2
12.5
8.0
9.3
10.7
10.7
9.7
10.7
Data from Universal Telephone Survey (UTS) of 1,377 jurisdictions.
Source: 27
16
-------
IV-19 PAYMENT MODE FOR REFUSE COLLECTION BY SERVICE RECIPIENT, 1975
Service Recipient
Small Residences
Multiple Dwellings
Commercial
Establishments
Tax
42.4
34.0
31.8
Payment Mode (%)
Flat Fee Variable
43.8
31.0
16.3
13.4
33.7
51.8
Don ' t Know
.4
1.3
.1
Data from Universal Telephone Survey (UTS) of 1,377 jurisdictions.
Source: 27
IV-20 PAYMENT MODE FOR REFUSE COLLECTION BY SERVICE ARRANGEMENT, 1975
Service
Arrangement
Municipal
Contract
Franchise
Private
Payment Mode (%)
Tax
58.2
67.4
NA
NA
Flat Fee
38.1
26.7
66.2
77.4
Variable Fee
3.7
5.8
33.8
22.6
Data from Universal Telephone Survey (UTS) of 1,377 jurisdictions,
Source: 27
17
-------
V. Transportation
V-l COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND TRANSFER HAUL COSTS, 1979
Methodology 0
Direct Haul
Transfer Haul 9.36
Roundtrip
10
4.40
10.26
Time and
20
8.80
11.16
Dollars /Ton-Minute
30
13.20
12.06
40
17.60
12.96
50
22.00
13.86
Data from transfer station feasibility analysis done in 1979 for a northern
California community which employed two-man collection crews. Direct haul
costs rose at $.44 per ton-minute, and transfer haul costs started at $9.36
and rose $.09 per ton-minute.
Source: 9
19
-------
VI. Processing
VI-l SUMMARY OF INCINERATOR USE, 1979
TPD Capacity
0- 250
251- 500
501-1000
1001 +
TOTAL
Number of Incinerators
19
18
25
5
67
Percent of Total
28.4
26.8
37.3
7.5
100.0
Data includes 3 facilities under construction or in shakedown and does not
include resource recovery facilities.
Source: 2
VI-2 1980 BALING FACILITIES BY OPERATING CAPACITY
Operating Rate
(TPD)
0-100
101-250
251-500
501 +
TOTAL
Number of .
Facilities
9
10
8
0
27
Percent of
Total
33
37
30
0
100
Data compiled by JRB Associates from a listing of baling facilities published
in the source. Operating rates for facilities that did not report actual TPD
rates were estimated by JRB Associates based on TPH capacities and 8 hour
daily operating time.
Source: 47
21
-------
VI-3 VITAL STATISTICS OF BALER FACILITIES, 1980
Start-Up
Location Date
Alabama
Scottsboro 1977
Tuscaloosa 1978
Alaska
Adak
Fairbanks 1979
Georgia
Atlanta 1978
Cobb County 1974
Iowa
Ames 1976
Bettendorf Projected
1980
Idaho
Coeur d'Alene 1979
Maine
Portland 1978
Massachusetts
Westboro 1978
Roxbury Projected
1980
Nebraska
Chadron 1974
Omaha 1975
Baling
Equipment
One auto- tie
baler
One auto- tie
baler
One auto-tie
baler
One high-density,
three-stroke
baler
Two auto- tie
balers
One high-density,
three-stroke
baler
One auto-tie
baler
One auto- tie
baler
One auto-tie
baler
One high-density,
three-stroke
baler
One auto-tie
baler
One auto- tie
baler
One auto-tie
baler
One high-density,
three-stroke
baler; two single
Rated
Capacity
(TPH)
15
25
20
50
75
50
15
25
25
50
25
25
15
50
30
30
Operating
Rate
(TPD)
60
230
-
250
250
400
-
200
(est)
100
330
175
150
(est)
15
300
100
100
Processed
Waste
Disposition Status
Balefill; recovers OP
paper and metals
Balefill; recovers OP
paper and metals
Balefill; recovers OP
aluminum
Balefill OP
Balefill OP
Balefill; recovers OP
paper and metals
when market dictates
Primarily used to OP
bale cardboard
Balefill; will UC
recover paper and
metals
Balefill OP
Balefill OP
Balefill;' recovers OP
paper
Balefill; will UC
recover paper and
me t a 1 a
Balefill; recovers OP
paper and metals
Balefill; recovers OP
metals when
market dictates
Owner
MU
MU
Navy
MU
MU
MU
MU
PR
PR
MU
PR
PR
MU
MU
stroke
7.2
-------
VI-3 (CONTINUED)
New Jersey
Meadowlands 1980
New York
One high-density,
three-stroke
baler
50
500
Balefill
Abbreviations: OP = Operational PR = Private
UC = Under Construction HMD = Hackensack Meadowlands Development
MU = Municipal CO = County
OP
HMD
Monroe County
North Hemps tead
Oyster Bay
Smithtown
Springfield
Ohio
Lake County
South Dakota
Huron
Washington
Kittitas
Pasco
1979
Projected
1980
1976
1977
1977
1975
1979
1980
1976
Whitman County 1975
Wyoming
Torrington
Gillette
1974
Projected
1981
One auto-tie 25
baler
Two auto-tie 40
balers
One high-density, 50
three-stroke
baler
One high-density, 50
three-stroke
baler
One auto-tie 25
baler
One high-density, 50
three-stroke
baler
One auto-tie 15
baler
One single- 25
stroke baler
One single- 13
stroke baler
One single- 20
stroke baler
One single- 15
stroke baler
Landfill
Balefill
400 ' Balefill
300 Balefill; recovers
paper and metals
Balefill
325 Balefill; recovers
metals when
market dictates
70 Balefill; recovers
paper and metals
50 Balefill; will
(est) recover paper
50 Balefill; recovers
paper
60 Balefill
10 Balefill
100 Balefill; recovers
(est) aluminum, card-
board, white goods,
rubber
CO
UC MU
OP MU
OP MU
OP PR
OP' MU
OP MU
OP MU
OP PR
OP CO
OP MU
UC MU
Source: 47
-------
VI-4 1980 SHREDDER FACILITIES BY OPERATING CAPACITY
Operating Rate (TPD)
0-100
101-250
251-500
501-1000
1001 +
TOTAL
Number of Facilities
2
25
21
15
6
69
Percent of Total
3
36
30
22
9
100
Data compiled by JRB Associates from a listing of shredder facilities
published in the source. Operating rates for facilities that did not report
actual TPD rates were estimated by JRB Associates based on TPH capacity and
8 hour daily operating time.
Source: 47
24
-------
VI-5 VITAL STATISTICS - SHREDDER FACILITIES, 1980
Location
Alaska
Sitka
Anchorage
Prudhoe Bay
California
Los Angeles
Mountain View
Palomar
San Diego
Colorado
Pueblo
Connecticut
Ansonia
Bridgeport
Start-Up
Date
1976
1979
1979
1979
1972
1978
-
1975
1974
1978
Shredding
Equipment
One vertical
shaft shredder
Two vertical
shaft shredder
One vertical
shaft shredder
One vertical
shaft shredder
One vertical
shredder
Two vertical
shaft shredders
One horizontal
shredder
Two vertical
shaft shredders
One horizontal
shredder
One horizontal
shredder; one
flail mill
Rated
Capacity
(TPH)
15
75
each
15
15
30
50
each
35
25
each
10
75
Operating
Rate
(TPD)
-
800-
1,000
"
Varies
-
800
-
250-
300
-
1,800
Processed
Waste
Disposition Status Owner
Landfill OP MU
Landfill; ferrous OP MU
recovery possible
Incineration; OP MU
recovers energy as
steam
Landfill; being OP MU
converted to fuel
production
Landfill; aluminum NOP PR
recovery
Landfill; ferrous OP CO, PROP
recovery
NOP CO
Landfill; ferrous OP PR
recovery
Shreds bulky OP MU
wastes prior to
incineration; fer-
rous recovery
RDF OP PR
De1aware
New Castle County 1972
Pigeon Point
Under
Construc-
tion
Four horizontal 50
shredders each
Two vertical
shaft shredders
85
700 Landfill; ferrous
recovery but no
markets
1,000 Recovery ferrous,
nonferrous, glass,
and air classified
fuel from certain
solid waste feed
stock to produce
humus to use as
fertilizer and soil
conditioner
OP
UC
PR
SO, PROP
25
-------
vi-5 (CONTINUED)
Florida
Brevard County
1976
Two horizontal 50
shredders each
1,200 Landfill; ferrous OP
recovery temporarily
suspended while
detinner relocates
CO
Pompano Beach
1972
1978
15
80-
100
750-
800
Used as landfill
cover
OP
OP
PR
PR
South Dade
County
Projected Three horizontal 55
1981 shredders each
Shreds oversize
bulky waste prior
to landfill
UC
CO
North Dade Projected Two horizontal 40
County 1981 shredders each
Lakeland Projected One nonreversible 40
1981 shredder
Preshred bulky UC CO
items before pro-
cessing steam for
electricity
Supplemental UC MU
boiler fuel
Georgia
Atlanta
DeKalb County
1976 One Horizontal 60 250
shredder
1973 Two vertical 40 500
shaft shredders each
Shreds prior to
baling
Shreds prior to
landfill
OP
OP
MU
CO
Illinois
Chicago
1976
Two horizontal
primary
shredders;
two vertical
secondary
shredders
75
each
60
each
Recovery
NOP
MU
Chicago
1970
One horizontal
shredder
25
Shreds bulky
wastes prior to
incineration
OP
MU
LaMont
Springfield
1975
1980
One vertical
shredder
One shear-type
shredder
25
40-
60
Ferrous recovery OP
Landfill OP
PR
PR
Indiana
East Chicago
1977 One horizontal 25
shredder
100
Shreds bulky
wastes prior
to landfill
OP
MU
Iowa
Ames
1975
Two horizontal
shredders
175-
200
RDF
OP
MU
Kansas
McPherson
1975
One vertical
shredder
15
Shreds wastes OP
prior to landfill
26
-------
VI-5 (CONTINUED)
Kentucky
Louisville
1964
One horizontal 20
shredder
Shreds oversized
wastes prior to
incineration
NOP
MU
Louisiana
New Orleans 1976
St. Mary's Parish 1979
One vertical 60
shredder
Two vertical 20
shaft shredders each
Landfill
OP
OP
PR
CO
Vermillion Parish 1978
Two horizontal 40
shredders 60
Landfill.
OP
MU
Maine
Lewiston
1977
One vertical 30
shredder
140 Landfill; ferrous
recovery but no
markets
OP
MU
Maryland
Cockeysville 1975
Two horizontal 60 850 Landfill; ferrous OP
shredders each recovery; RDF
CO
Massachusetts
East Bridgewater 1977
North Adams
Holliston
1974
One horizontal
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
One non-rever-
sible shredder
40
40
50
Produces and OP
tests Eco-Fuel II
Shreds bulky OP
wastes prior to
landfill
Shreds bulky
wastes prior to
landfill
OP
PR
MU
PR
Minnesota
St. Paul
Duluth
1978
1980
One vertical
shredder
Tow horizontal
shredders
30
30
each
Shreds prior to OP
landfill; ferrous
recovery
Used for fuel SU
in fluidized-bed
incinerator
MU
WLSSD
Missouri
St. Louis
1969
One horizontal 30
shredder
Shreds bulky
wastes prior to
incineration
OP
MU
Nebraska
Omaha
1976
One horizontal 50
shredder
Shreds for baling DP
MU
New Jersey
Monmouth County
1975 Two vertical 40 400 Landfill with OP
shredders each magnetic separation
of ferrous
CO
27
-------
VI-5 (CONTINUED)
New York
Albany 1979
Elmira 1973
Hempstead 1978
Jamestown 1975
Niagara Falls 1980
Rochester 1979
North Carolina
Guilford County 1973
Two vertical
shredders
Two horizontal
shredders
-
40
each
Four shredder-like -
devices called
Hydrapulpers
Two vertical
shredders
Three non-
reversible
shredders
Seven vertical
shaft shredders
Three vertical
shaft shredders
50
each
70-
90
each
Various
50
each
800
Landfill
1,000 Wet pulped to
(design) produce steam
Shreds prior to
landfill
Resource-recovery.
Recovers metals,
electricity, and
steam
200- Recover RDF,
300 aluminum, metals,
(approx) glass
Shreds prior to
landfill
SKD
HOP
NOP
OP
SU
SKD
OP
MU
CO
PO, PROP
CO
PR
CO, PROP
MU
Ohio
Columbus
Columbus
Under Two vertical
Construe- shredders
tion
1975
Three horizontal 20
shredders each
Refuse burned with UC
pulverized coal
for steam
Shreds prior to
landfill
OP
MU
MU
Willoughby
1973
Two vertical
shredders
12
each
80-
100
Shreds prior to
landfill
OP
MU
Oregon
LaGrande
1978
One vertical
shaft shredder
20
Shreds prior to OP
landfill
MU
Lane County
1977
Two horizontal
shredders
65
45
Recovery
OP
CO
Willsonville
1972
One vertical
shaft shredder
30
Shreds tires prior OP
to landfill
MU
Pennsylvania
Altoona
Harrisburg
1965
1970
One vertical
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
15
25
Composting plus
some ferrous
recovery
Shreds bulky
wastes prior to
incineration
OP
OP
MU
MU
South Carolina
Beaufort
1975
One vertical 20
shredder
Landfill; some OP
ferrous recovery
MU
28
-------
VI-5 (CONCLUDED)
Charleston
Georgetown
County
Williamsburg
South Dakota
Aberdeen
Texas
Houston
Odessa
Texarkana
Virginia
Norfolk
Washington
Cowlitz County
Tacoma
Wisconsin
Appleton
Madison
Milwaukee
Abbreviations: OP
NOP
UC
PR
MU
SKD
1974
1974
1973
1975
1965
1974
1977
1975
1976
1971
1974
1967
1976
Three horizontal
shredders
One vertical
shredder
One vertical
shredder
One vertical
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
One horizontal
shredder
Two horizontal
shredders
Flail Mill; one
vertical shredder
Two horizontal
primary shredders
two vertical
secondary
shredders
= Operational
= Not Operational
= Under Construction
= Private Owner
= Municipal Owner
= Shakedown
30
each
20
20
20
40
50
20
30
50
40
15
each
35
75
60
CO =
PROP =
SO =
SU =
WLSSD=
Landfill; some
ferrous recovery
Landfill; some
ferrous recovery
Landfill; some
ferrous recovery
Shreds bulky
wastes prior to
landfill
Shredded for
ferrous recovery,
remainder landfill
Recovers metals
and soil enrichment
Process industrial
wastes prior to
landfill; ferrous
recovery
Shred bulk wastes
Shreds prior to
landfill
Landfill and RDF
Shreds prior to
landfill
Landfill and RDF
1,600 Fullscale resource
(design) recovery including
RDF ferrous, glass
and aluminum
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
NOP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
MU
MU
CO
MU
MU
MU
PR
Navy
CO
MU
MU
MU
PR
County Owner
Private Operator
State Owner
Start-up
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Source: 47
29
-------
VI-6 SHREDDER FACILITY COSTS
1975 Costs
Average
Capital Costs
Annual Costs
Operating Costs
Annualized Capital
Costs
Total Annual Costs
$1
$5
$1
$7
.94 million
.61 /Ton
.69/Ton
.30/Ton
Range
$0.64-5.
$2.85-9.
$0.80-3.
$3.91-11
26 million
50/Ton
10/Ton
.54/Ton
1980 Costs
Average
$2.
$8.
$2.
$11
88 million
63 /Ton
5 I /Ton
.14/Ton
Based on 10 shredders (1975) with capacities ranging from 64-1,042 TPD,
annualized capital costs do not include interest costs.
2
1980 cost updates were prepared by JRB Associates using the Marshall and
Stevens Index as published in the Chemical Engineering Magazine for capital
and annualized capital costs and the Municipal Cost Index (MCI) published by
The American City and County Magazine for operating costs.
Source: 34
VI-7 TRANSFER SYSTEM COSTS
1975 Costs1
Capital Costs
Annual Costs
Operating Costs
Annualized Capital
Costs
Total Annual Costs
Average
$0.78 million
$4.55/Ton
$0.94/Ton
$5.49/Ton
Range
$0.13-3.68 million
$1. 84-10. 72/Ton
$0.15-2.70/Ton
$2.31-12.18/Ton
1980 Costs2
Average
$1.16 million
$7. 00 /Ton
$1.40 /Ton
$8.40/Ton
Based on 12 transfer systems (1975) with capacities ranging from 112-880 TPD,
annualized capital costs do not include interest costs.
2
1980 cost updates were prepared by JRB Associates using the Marshall and
Stevens Index published in the Chemical Engineering Magazine for capital and
annualized capital costs and the Municipal Cost Index published by The
American City and County Magazine for operating costs.
Source:. 34
30
-------
VI-8 TRANSFER STATION USAGE, 1974
# Cities Using Transfer
Reporting (A) Stations
#00% of (AT
TOTAL
Population Group
500,000+
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,999
50,000- 99,999
25,000- 49,999
10,000- 24,999
1,022
136
Source: 33
13
14
9 18
9 65
9 150
9 253
9 522
6
5
14
28
35
48
43
28
22
19
14
9
Operating Authority
Municipal Non-municipal
"#% of (B) ~t % of (B)
59
43
77
57
4
2
8
11
16
18
67
40
57
39
46
38
2
3
6
17
19
30
33
60
43
61
54
62
31
-------
Disposal Method
VII. Disposal
VII-1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL BY METHOD
Number of Facilities
% Disposed
1
Landfill
Incineration
without energy recovery
with energy recovery
12,627
77;
41'
96
4
Net discards (excluding materials recovery) in 1978. (Source 42)
Based on 1980 survey of 48 states. Not limited to municipal solid waste
landfills. (Source 46)
Number of facilities in 1978. (Source 13).
Sources: 13, 42, 46
VII-2 AVERAGE DISPOSAL COSTS BY CITY SIZE
Population
Group
>500,000
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,999
50,000-99,999
25,000-49,999
10,000-24,999
2,500-9,999
Total
1974
$7.60
8.61
6.62
4.26
3.15
4.67
3.92
$4.62
Dollars per Ton
1980
$12.24
13.86
10.66
6.86
5.07
7.52
6.31
$7.44
Data from NSF survey, sample size of 177.
1
1974 costs escalated to 1980 by JRB Associates using the Municipal Cost Index
(MCI) published by The American City and County Magazine.
Source: 42
33
-------
VII-3 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INCINERATION, I960
Cost ($/ton)
Incineration 1978 1980
2
Without Energy Recovery 25.00-35.00 30.76-43.06
With Steam Recovery3 13.03-26.27 16.03-32.32
.1978 costs provided to EPA by Franklin Associates, Ltd., escalated
to 1980 by JRB Associates using the Municipal Cost Index (MCI)
published by The American City and County Magazine.
-Includes amortization and operating costs.
$16.03/Ton for 500 TPD plant, $32.31/Ton for 50 TPD plant.
Includes credit for energy revenues.
Source: 42
VII-4 BREAKDOWN OF SANITARY LANDFILL CAPACITY, 1980
Facility Capacity
(TPD)
0-50
50-100
100-200
200-500
500-1000
>1000
TOTAL
Number of Facilities
(in 23 states)
6,279
450
370
370
164
91
7,724
Percent
of Total
81.3
5.8
4.8
4.8
2.1
1.2
100
Only 23 of the 50 states responded to this question in the Waste
Age Magazine 1980 Land Disposal Survey. The facilities account
for 61.2 percent of the total reported in the survey.
Source: 46
34
-------
VIII. Rural Waste
VIII-l COMMUNITY SIZE AND PERCENT OF STRUCTURES SERVICED, 1979
Community Size
Incorporated
25,000-50,000
10,000-24,999
5,000-9,999
2,500-4,999
0-2,499
Unincorporated
0-50,000
Residential
Structure Type
Commercial
Industrial
85%
83%
92%
67%
83%
37%
35%
50%
68%
67%
83%
29%
38%
40%
72%
54%
67%
25%
Data from survey of 40 communities.
Source: 1
VIII-2 COLLECTION EQUIPMENT AND COMMUNITY SIZE, 1979
Incorporated
25,000-50,000
10,000-24,999
5,000-9,999
2,500-4,999
0-2,499
Unincorporated
0-50,000
Percent Communities Using Equipment
I
Rear
Loaders
Front
Loaders
Side
Loaders
Other
Trucks
Dumpsters,
Greenboxes
67
60
67
57
67
22
33
17
33
57
33
17
33
50
44
67
20
67
29
83
11
Data based on survey of 40 communities.
More than one type of equipment may be used by each community. Percent
reflects number of communities in each category that use each equipment type.
Source: 1
35
-------
VIII-3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONTROLS FOR RURAL SANITARY LANDFILLS, 1979
Community Size
Incorporated
25,000-50,000
10,000-24,999
5,000-9,999
2,500-4,999
0-2,499
Unincorporated
0-50,000
Leachate
Control
67
60
67
0
0
22
Percent Applying Control
Decomposition
Gas Control
3.3
60
30
0
0
11
Runoff
Control
67
60
80
17
20
56
Data based on survey of 40 communities.
Source: I
VIII-4 USE OF LANDFILL SOIL COVER BY RURAL COMMUNITY SIZE, 1979
Community Size
>6 inches
daily
Type of Soil Cover
>6 inches Less often than
every other day every other day
Incorporated
25,000-50,000
10,000-24,999
5,000-9,999
2,500-4,999
0-2,499
Unincorporated
0-50,000
X
X
X
X
X
X
Data based on a survey of 40 communities (required to respond only in
affirmative).
Source: 1
36
-------
TABLE VTII-5 INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR "GREEN BOX"
CONTAINER SYSTEM FOR COMMUNITY OF 15,000
Item Approximate Cost
2, 41yd" Front Loading
Compactor Trucks
@ 96,000 $192,000
186, 8yd3 "Green
Boxes", @$600 111,600
Maintenance/Weld ing
Equipment 10,000
TOTAL $313,600
Assumes once per week collection and that average number
of persons served per yd of container space is 10.1.
Guidance on system requirements from Source 35.
Cost information from Source 25. Does not include land
costs.
Sources: 25, 35
37
-------
IX. Resource Recovery
IX-l RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES BY TECHNOLOGY, 1981
RDF
Mass Burning
Modular Incineration
Co-Disposal
Pyrolysis
TOTAL
Operating
5
11
8
1
0
25
Suspended
Operation
9
I
3
1
I
15
Under ,
Construction
6
5
10
1
I
23
Total
20
17
21
3
2
63
Data compiled by JRB Associates.
Includes those facilities undergoing modification and shake-down
Source: 13
IX-2 OPERATING RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES BY CAPACITY, 1981
0-100
100-250
250-500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000+
TOTAL
RDF
0
1
3
4
5
1
14
Mass Burn
2
3
2
2
3
0
12
Modular
9
2
0
0
0
0
11
Co-Disposal
0
0
1
I
0
0
2
Pyrolysis .
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Total
11
6
6
8
8
1
40
Includes those facilities with suspended operation. Data compiled by JRB.
Source: 13
39
-------
IX-3 COMPARISON OF RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES
Typical Unit Capacity
(Tons/Hour)
Existing System Capacities
(Tons/Day)
Typical Procurement Approach
Construction Lead
Time (Months)
Major Equipment Lifetime
(Years)
Overall Boilers Efficiency
(Steam)
Max. Steam Characteristics
a) Ibs/hour/unit output
b) psig/°F
Electrical Generation ,
Potential (Kwh/Ton)
Inplant Electrical
Usage (Kwh/Ton)
Auxiliary Fuel Use
(MBTU's/Ton)
Typical Emission
Control Device
Est. Capital Cost
($/Design TPD)
Modular
Incinerators
0.5-6.25
5-240
Modified Full
Service (MFS)
15-24
15
50-60
31,000
175/465
250-350
25-50
250-400
Afterburners
$30-40,000
Mass-Burning
Refractory
Incinerators
6.25-10.4
350-1000
A/E
30-42
20
50-60
51,500
450/500
250-350
25-40
Min
ESP
$45-55,000
Mass-Burning
Waterwall
Incinerators
3.3-43.75
160-2100
MFS
30-42
20
65-70
265,000
615/750
450-550
60-70
Min
ESP
$45-55,000
RDF-Fired
Boilers
12.5-391
600-2000
MFS
30-42
20
70-751
190, OOO1
625/7501
450-5501
1304
Min
ESP
$50-60,000
.Figures are for dedicated systems only (no co-firing units).
This lifetime is frequently assumed for calculating bondlife, however, not enough operating data exists to yet
decide this figure.
Exclusive of inplant usage.
Includes energy for RDF production.
Although past systems used only afterburners, recently planned systems (mostly larger systems) are calling for
further APC such as fabric filters or electro-scrubbers.
Source: 12
40
-------
IX-4 ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY COMPARISON OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Waterwall Combustion: Modular RDF
Unprocessed Shredded RDF Incinerators Production
Energy Input (Btu per pound refuse)
Energy Requirements and Losses
(Btu per pound refuse)
Refuse fuel processing:
- Electrical requirements
- Loss of combustible
Energy conversion facility:
- Fossil Fuel and electrical requirements
- Heat loss
Transportation:
- Residues
- Refuse derived fuel
Total
Net System Output (Btu per pound refuse)
Energy Productivity Ratio
4,500
-
-
120
1,670
10
-
1,800
2,700
60%
4,500
190
680
120
1,160
20
-
2,170
2,330
52%
4,500
240
900
70
1,110
20
-
2,340
2,160
48%
4,500
-
-
330
1,710
10
-
2,050
2,450
54%
4,500
240
900
70
1,110
20
10'
2,350
2,150
48%
Source: 45
41
-------
IX-5 RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES, 1981
Location
OPERATING FACILITIES
Arkansas
Blythville
North Little Rock
Osceola
Connecticut
Bridgeport
Florida
Mayport (Naval Base)
Illinois
Chicago (Northwest Incinerator)
Chicago (Southwest Supplementary
Fuel Processing Facility)
Iowa
Ames
Louisiana
New Orleans
Maryland
Baltimore
Baltimore County
Massachusetts
Braintree
East Bridgewater
pittsf ield
Saugus
Michigan
Genesee Township
Minnesota
Duluth
New Hampshire
Durham
Groveton
NPW York
Albany
Technology
MCU
MCU
MCU
RDF
RLF
WWC
RDF
RDF
Materials
Recovery
Pyrolysis
RDF
WWC
RDF
MCU
WWC
MCU
Co-disposal
MCU
MCU
RDF
Design
Capacity
50
100
50
1800
50
1600
1000
200
750
600
1200
384
360
240
1500
100
400 MSW
340 Sludge
180
24
750
Products
Steam
Steam
Steam
Eco-Fuel II; Ferrous,
Non-ferrous metals;
Glass
Steam
Steam; Ferrous metals
RDF; Ferrous metals
RDF; Ferrous, Non-
Ferrous metals; Glass
Ferrous , Non-Ferrous
metals; Glass
Steam
RDF; Ferrous metals;
Glass; Aluminum
Steam
Eco-Fuel II; Ferrous
Steam
Steam; Ferrous
metals
Steam
RDF; Ferrous metals;
Steam
Steam
Steam
RDF: Ferrous, Non-
Capital Costs
(million S)
0.8
1.45
1.1
53
1.0
23
19
6.2
9.1
30
8.4
2.8
10-12
6.2
50
2
19
3.3
N/A
26.6
Start-up
Date
1975
1977
1980
1980
1979
1971
1977
1975
1978
-
1976
1971
1977
1981
1975
1980
1980
1980
1975
1980
Status
April 1981
SO
OP
OP
SO
OP
OP
SO
OP
OP
SD/M
OP
OP
SO
OP
UM
SO
UM
OP
OP
OP
Ferrous metals; Steam
42
-------
IX-5 (Continued)
Hemps tead
Monroe County
New York (Betts Ave. Incinerator)
Niagara Falls
Oceanside
Ohio
Akron
Oregon
Lane County
Pennsylvania
Harrisburg
Tennessee
Crossville
Dyersville
Lewisburg
Nashville
Virginia
Hampton
Newport News
Norfolk (U.S. Naval Station)
Portsmouth (Norfolk Naval Shpyd)
Salem
Washington
Tacoma
Wisconsin
Madison
Milwaukee
Waukesha
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Arkansas
Batesville
Connecticut
Windham
Delaware
Wi Imington
Florida
Dade County
Lakeland
Orange County (Walt Disney
World)
Pine Lias County
RDF
RDF
RLF
RDF
WWC
RDF
RDF
Co-disposal
MCU
MCU
RLF
WWC
WWC
MCU
WWC
WWC
MCU
RDF
RDF
RDF
RLF
MCU
MCU
RDF/ Co-
disposal
RDF
RDF
Slagging
Pyrolysis
WWC
2000
2000
1200
2200
750
1000
500
720
60
100
60
530
200
40
360
160
100
1000
400
1600
175
50
108
1000
3750
300
100
2000
Electricity; Glass;
Aluminum; Ferrous
metals
RDF; Ferrous, Non-
Ferrous metals; Glass
Steam
Steam; Electricity;
Ferrous metals
Steam
Steam; Ferrous metals
RDF; Ferrous metals
Steam; Ferrous metals
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
RDF; Ferrous metals
RDF; Ferrous metals
RDF; Ferrous metals
Steam
Steam
Steam
RDF; Ferrous, Non-
Ferrous metals ;
Glass; Humus
Steam; Aluminum;
Ferrous metals
Steam; Ferrous metals
High temperature
water
Electricity; Ferrous,
130
62
}
242
74
9
55
2
8
1
2
N/A
24
'
10
1.
2
4.
1.
2
2
18
1,
3;
1.
3.
71.
165
5
15
160
.2
.1
.3
.1
.5
.3
.4
.2
.5
.9
.5
.5
.7-1971
: 9-1979
,07
,7
3
1978
1979
1965
1981
1974
1980
1979
1972
1978
1980
1989
1974
1980
1981
1967
1976
1979
1979
1979
1977
1979
4/81
8/81
1982
7/81
10/81
1982
1983
SO
OP
OP
SKD
OP
UM
UM
OP
FS
OP
SKD
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
SO
OP
SO
OP
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
Non-Ferrous metals
43
-------
IX-5 (Continued)
Idaho
Heyburn
Kentucky
Fort Knox
Maine
Auburn
Massachusetts
North
Andover
Michigan
Detroit
Minnesota
Collegeville
Redwing
Missouri
Ft . Leonard Wood
New York
Glen Cove
Westchester County
Ohio
Columbus
Tennessee
Gallatin
Texas
Gatesville
Palestine
Vermont
Burl ington
Virginia
Portsmouth (Southeastern
Tidewater Energy Project)
MCU
MCU
MCU
WWC
RDF
MCU
MCU
MCU
Co-disposal
WWC
RDF
Rotary
Combustor
MCU
MCU
Stoker-fired
furnace
RDF
50
40
200
1500
3000
70
72
75
225
1500
2000
200
4
20
120
2000
Steam
Steam
Steam
Electricity
Steam; Ferrous metals;
Electricity
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam; Electricity 22
Steam; Electricity
Electricity
Steam; Electricity
Steam
Steam
Hot water
RDF; Electricity;
Ferrous , Non-Ferrous
metals
1.5
1.9
3.97
70
150
2.5
2.5
2.2
3, 12*
100
152
8.1
0.2
0.3
120
70
Late '81
1982
4/81
1985
1984
9/81
1982
1982
1982
1984
1982
10/81
Spring '81
Spring '81
1983
1986
CN
CN
CN
AP
AP
CN
CN
CN
CN
AP
CN
CN
CN
CN
FS
AP
.20% solids
-1980 modification
4RLF
Sewage plant
Abbreviations: MCU Modular Combustion Units
RDF » Refuse-Derived Fuel
WWC = Water-Walled Combustion
RLF » Refraction Lined Furnace
Source: 13
SO Suspended Operation
OP = Operating
SD/M = Shut Down for Modification
UM => Under Modification
SKD = Shake-Down
FS « For Sale
CN « Construction
AP = Advanced Plan
FS = Financing Secure
44
-------
IX-6 RECYCLABLE MATERIALS AS PERCENT OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WASTE, 1980
Materials
Paper
Newsprint
Magazine
Corrugated
Other
Glass, Beverage
Clear
Green
Brown
Glass, Other
Clear
Green
Brown
Ferrous, Beverage
Ferrous, Other
Aluminum, Beverage
Aluminum, Other
Non-Recyclable Refuse
Percentage of Total Waste
30-40
9-15
1-3
1-2
19-20
7-16
4-9
2-4
1-3
6.5-10
5-6
1-3
0.5-1
0.5-2
3-5
0.1-1
0.1-1
52.8-25
Source: 41
45
-------
IX-7 ENERGY SAVINGS THROUGH RECYCLING OF WASTE MATERIALS
Energy Savings Percent
10 Btu/Ton Savings
Ferrous Metals
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Paper /News paper
Glass
Rubber
23 2
Est. Range Est.
15.5 7.0-42.2 65
224 169-281 92
94.7 40.3-94.7 85
17.5 5.5-17.5 65
39.3 11.8-47.0 60
35.5 5.2-35.5 64
1.3-2.5
22.1 22.0-22.1 71
3
Range
50-74
92-97
84-95
56-65
60-72
23-70
0-14
11-18
Data compiled by JRB Associates.
Realized savings resulting from use of recycled
materials as compared with total energy expended
in refining new materials.
From the National Association of Recycling Industries,
3
Estimated range from various sources.
Source: 23
-------
IX-8 TWENTY-SIX OPERATING WASTE EXCHANGES IN THE U.S., 1981
California
Berkeley - California Waste Exchange
Oakland - Zero Waste Systems, Inc.
Connecticut
Waterbury - World Association for Safe Transfer and Exchange (WASTE)
Georgia
Atlanta - Georgia Waste Exchange
Illinois
Hazel Crest - Environmental Clearinghouse Organization (ECHO)
Skokie - American Chemical Exchange (ACE)
Springfield - Industrial Material Exchange Service
Indiana
Indianapolis - Waste Materials Clearinghouse
- Environmental Quality Control, Inc.
Iowa
Ames - Iowa Industrial Waste Information Exchange
Massachusetts
Boston - The Exchange
Michigan
Detroit - American Materials Exchange Network
Minnesota
St. Paul - Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry (MACI)
Missouri
St. Louis - Midwest Industrial Waste Exchange
Kansas City - Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City
New Jersey
Newark - Industrial Waste Information Exchange
New York
Albany - Enkarn Research Corporation
- The American Alliance of Resource Recovery Interests, Inc. (AARRII)
North Carolina
Charlotte - Mecklenburg County Waste Exchange
Ohio
Cleveland - The Ohio Resource Exchange
Columbus - Industrial Waste Information Exchange
Oregon
Portland - Oregon Industrial Waste Information Exchange
Pennsylvania
Harrisburg - Pennsylvania Waste Information Exchange
Tennessee
Nashville - Tennessee Waste Swap
Texas
Houston - Chemical Recycle Information Program
Washington
Seattle - Information Center of Waste Exchange
West Virginia
South Charleston - Union Carbide Corporation (In-house operation only)
Source: 19
47
-------
IX-9 NUMBER OF PROGRAMS COLLECTING SPECIFIC RECYCLABLES, 1981
Total Programs
Paper
Glass
Metal
Number of Programs
229
229
59
482
Percentage
100
loo1
26
21
Approximately 75% of the paper programs collect newspaper only,
while the other 25% collect mixed wastepaper (80% of newspaper by
weight).
Four collect aluminum only and 1 collects ferrous only.
Source: 13
IX-10 SOURCE SEPARATION COLLECTION RESPONSIBILITIES, 1981
Public
Private
Non-Profit
TOTAL
Number of Programs
143
65
21
229
Percentage
62.4
28.4
9.2
100. 0
Data compiled by JRB Associates.
Source: 13
48
-------
IX-11 WASTE PAPER UTILIZATION, 1970 TO 1980
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Domestic
Production
(000 tons)
53,173
54,921
59,358
61,937
61,086
52,827
60,495
62,306
64,403
66,679
65,204
Total Waste Paper
Utilized1
(000 tons)
12,021
13,323
13,132
14,318
14,196
11,983
13,822
14,288
14,972
15,520
14,667
(percent)
22.6
22.4
22.1
23.1
23.2
22.7
22.8
22.9
23.2
23.3
22.5
Mixed
(000 tons)
2,639
2,775
3,054
3,251
3,118
2,606
2,798
2,773
2,729
2,650
2,465
News
(000 tons)
2,235
2,174
2,317
2,578
2,408
2,040
2,278
2,287
2,212
2,478
2,375
Corrugated
(000 tons)
4,080
4,277
4,722
5,291
5,716
4,743
5,696
6,205
6,721
6,967
6,939
Pulp
Substitutes
(000 tons)
2,216
2,206
2,188
2,252
2,062
1,792
2,117
2,079
2,242
2,308
1,945
High Grade
De inking
'000 tons)
851
891
852
946
892
803
933
944
1,068
1,117
942
Includes waste paper used in wet machine board and molded pulp products.
Sources: 4, 5, 21
IX-12 TOTAL QUANTITIES OF RECYCLED MATERIALS, 1980
Material
Amount
(thousand tons)
of total production
Aluminum
Copper
Ferrous metals
Glass
Paper
Rubber
610
639
19920
3752
176273
3
140
12
31
18
2
25
4
.2
.3
.6
2
.7
Includes post-consumer scrap, such as automobiles,
-beverage cans, cooking utensils, obsolete machinery, etc,
^1978 data.
"Amount of recycled paper utilized in industry plus
exports plus other uses minus imports.
Sources: 4, 5, 6, 8, 10
49
-------
IX-13 LIST OF SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAMS AS OF FEBRUARY, 1981
Materials
Collected
PGM
ARIZONA
Tucson
CALIFORNIA
Berkeley
Chico
Davis
Downey
El Cerrito
Eureka
Fresno/Clovis
Fullerton
Isla Vista
Livermore
Mar in Co.
Merced
Modesto
Newport Beach
Ojai
Ontario
Pacif ica
Palo Alto
Placer Co.
Sacramento
Sacramento Co.
(unicorp. area)
San Bernadino
San Francisco
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Santa Maria
Santa Rosa
COLORADO
Boulder
Englewood
Littleton
CONNECTICUT
Berlin
Bloomfield
Cornwall
Durham/Middle fie Id
East Hartford
East Lyme
Enfield
Groton (city)
Groton (town)
Hand en
New Britain
New Haven
New London
New ing ton
Norwalk
Rocky Hill
South Windsor
Stamford
Water ford
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Collection
Method
Sep Simul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
T
T
T
T
T
R
R
T
Collection
Responsi-
bility
Pub
NP
NP
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pri
NP
Pri
Pri
NP
NP
Pub
NP
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pri
NP
Pub
Pri
NP
NP
NP
Pub
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Mandatory
Ordinance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
50
-------
TABLE IX-13 (CONTINUED)
West Hartford
Wethersfield
Winchester
FLORIDA
Boca Raton
Ft. Meyers
Highland Beach
Lake Park
Leesburg
Madeira Beach
N Miami Beach
N Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Springs
Tamarack
Temple Terrace
Titusville
Vero Beach
W Palm Beach
GEORGIA
Ashburn
Avondale Estates
Brunswick
De Kalb Co.
(unincorp. area)
East Point
Rome
Tifton
ILLINOIS
Rockford
Rolling Meadows
INDIANA
Bloomington
Greencastle
Munster
Speedway
KENTUCKY
Saint Mathews
MAINE
Brunswick
MARYLAND
Glen Echo
Greenbelt
Montgomery Co .
(unicorp. area)
Rockville
Somerset
MASSACHUSETTS
Andover
Arlington
Materials
Collected
PGM
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X Al
X
X
X X
X
Collection
Method
Sep Simul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
T
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Collection
Responsi-
bility
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
NP
NP
Pub
NP
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pri
Pub
Mandatory
Ordinance
X
X
X
X
X
X
51
-------
TABLE IX-13 (CONTINUED)
Bedford
Braintree
Buck land
Che 1ms ford
Dartmouth
Franklin Co.
Longmeadow
Marblehead
Monroe Bridge
Newton
N. Andover
Southbridge
Waltham
Webster
Weymouth
MICHIGAN
Birmingham
Huntington Woods
MINNESOTA
Mankato
N Mankato
MISSOURI
University City
MONTANA
Helena
NEW JERSEY
Bergenf ield
Berlin
Bound Brook
Caldwell
Closter
East Orange
Englewood
Flemington
Glen Rock
Hackensack
Kenilworth
Lebanon Twp.
Metuchen
Millburn
Monmouth Co .
Montclair
N Brunswick
Ocean
Paramus
Pennington
Princeton Boro
Raritan
Ridgewood
River Edge
Ringwood
Rutherford
Saddle River
Materials
Collected
PGM
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
XXX
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X Al
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X Al
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Collection
Method
Sep Simul
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
R
R
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Collection
Responsi-
bility
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
NP
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
NP
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
NP
Pub
Pri
NP
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pri
Mandatory
Ordinance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
52
-------
TABLE IX-13 (CONTINUED)
Somerville
Tenafly
Union City
West Orange
Wharton
Woodbury
NEW YORK
Ardsley
Batavia
Bayville
Briarcliff
Buchanan
Cannel
Cheektowaga
Cortlandt
Dobbs Ferry
East Hills
Elms ford
Floral Park
Flower Hill
Garden City
Glen Cove
Greak Neck
Hastings
Irvington
Islip
Larchmont
Mamaroneck
Mamaroneck (vill)
Mineola
Mount Kisco
Mount Vernon
N Tarrytown
Ossining (town)
Ossining (vill)
Oyster Bay
Pelham
Pelham Manor
Pleasantville
Port Chester
Ramapo
Rockville Center
Roslyn
Scarsdale
Rye
Sea Cliff
Tarrytown
Tuckahoe
Westbury
White Plains
Williston Park
OHIO
Golf Manor
OREGON
Ashland
Canby
Materials
Collected
PGM
X
X
X
X
X X
XXX
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
XXX
X
XXX
Collection
Method
Sep Simul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
Collection
Responsi-
bility
Pri
Pub
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
NP
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pri
Mandatory
Ordinance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
53
-------
TABLE IX-13 (CONTINUED)
Corvallis
Lake Oswego
McMinnville
Newburg
Oregon City
Prineville
Salem
Sheridan
Springfield
Washington Co.
PENNSYLVANIA
Abington
Clifton Heights
Columbia Co.
Haverford
Spring City
RHODE ISLAND
Barrington
Bristol
TEXAS
El Paso
University Park
VIRGINIA
Alexandria
Arlington Co.
(unincorp. area)
Fairfax City
Fairlington
Falls Church
Herndon
Vienna
Winchester
WISCONSIN
Boscobel
Columbus
Eau Claire/Altoona
Ft. Atkinson
Glendale
Madison
Oshkosh
Racine
Sheboygan Falls
Shorewood
Whitefish Bay
Wisconsin Rapids
Materials
Collected
PGM
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X
XXX
XXX
X
X
X X
X
XXX
X
XXX
X X
X
X Fe
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Collection
Method
Sep Simul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Collection
Responsi-
bility
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pub
NP
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
NP
Pub
Pub
Pub
NP
Pub
Pub
Pri
Pri
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Mandatory
Ordinance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Abbreviations: P=Paper Al=Aluminum Sep=Separate R=Rack Pub=Public
G=Glass Fe=Ferrous Simul=Simultaneous T=Trailer Pri=Private
M=Metal NP=Non-Profit
Source: 13
54
-------
IX-14 HISTORY OF MARKET PRICES FOR SECONDARY MATERIALS
Material 1975 1976 1977 1978
Ferrous
No . 1 . Heavy
Melting 71.86 77.79 63.15 76.23
No. 2. Bundles 45.00 55.20 44.11 50.26
3
Aluminum
Old Scrap and
Cast 7-8 9.5-10 13-14 15-16.5
7-7.5 13-14 25.5-27.5 22-23
1979
97.91
62.89
23-24
36-37
1980
91. 372
63. 742
34-35
28-29
Paper
No. 1 News 20-25 35-40 40-45 40-45 30-35 45-50
Corrugated
Containers 15-20 30-40 35-40 40-45 55-60 45-50
Dollars.per gross ton, prices are averages of No. 1 and No. 2 delivered to
consumers in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Chicago.
.Estimate.
Cents per pound, top row contains January prices, bottom row contains June
.prices. All prices are dealer's buying prices, f.o.b. New York.
Dollars per ton, Board Mill Market prices f.o.b. trucks or cars at dealer's
or producer's plant, prices are year averages computed by JRB Associates from
Source 20.
Sources: 14, 20
55
-------
X. Municipal Sludge
X-l CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE, ALL TYPES
Component
Median
Quantity
1
Mean
Range
Organic C
Total N
Total P
Total S
30.4%
3.3
2.3
1.1
31.0%
3.9
2.5
l.l
6 . 5-48%
0.6-1.5
K
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Fe
Al
Mn
B
As
Co
Mo
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cu
Ni
Cd
Cr
0.3
0.24
3.9
0.45
0.02
1.1
0.4
260 mg/kg
33
10
4.0
30
5
500
:,740
850
82
16
890
0.4
0.37
4.9
0.54
0.06
1.3
1.2
380 mg/kg
77
43
5,
28
733
,360
2,790
1,210
320
110
2,520
.3
1
0.02-2.64
0.01-3.07
0.1-25.0
0.03-1.97
<0.01-0.9
<0.1-15.3
0.1-13.3
18-7,100 mg/kg
4-760
6-230
1-18
5-39
0.5-10,600
13-19,700
101-27,800
84-10,400
2-3,320
3-3,410
10-99,000
Quantity of each component reported as percent by weight (%) or by weight
2(mg/kg)
Values for NH -N and NO -N reported separately from total N:
NH.-N: 920 ppm, median; 6,540 ppm, mean; 5-67,600 ppm, range
NO,-N: 140 ppm, median; 490 ppm, mean; 2-4,900 ppm, range
Source: 30
57
-------
X-2 MUNICIPAL SLUDGE GENERATION, I960
. Total Generation (dry kkg) Per Capita-
Component [ 2
. Generation
Per day Per year ,, ,, / , / , \
J J (dry kkg/capital/day)
Sludge Generation 2.3,600 8,600,000 0.15
Derived by JRB Associates by assuming publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
operate 365 days/year.
Per capita value determined using figure of 70% of U.S. population serviced
by POTW/sewer systems.
Source: 36
X-3 THERMAL CONTENT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
Thermal Content (Btu/lb)
Type of Sewage Range
Raw Primary 6,800-10,000
Digested 2,700-6,800
Activated
Typical Value
7,6002
4,0003
6,540
Thermal content per Ib. dry solids,
Based on 65% volatile matter.
Based on 40% volatile matter.
Sources: 17, 18
58
-------
X-4 BREAKDOWN OF DISPOSAL METHODS FOR MUNICIPAL SLUDGE, 1980
Disposal Method
Quantity
(dry kkg/yr)
Percent
2
Thermal Process
Distribution-Marketing
System
Land Application
-food chain land
-non-food chain land
Landfill
Other
Ocean Dumping
TOTAL
1,978,000
1,806,000
2,494,000
(1,462,000)
(1,032,000)
1,118,000
860,000
344,000
8,600,000
23
21
29
(17)
(12)
13
10
4
Data from survey of POTW's covering approximately 2.3 million
dry kkg (or 27 percent of the quantity generated) and are
believed to represent national practices.
Calculated by JRB Associates from the percentage breakdown of
disposal and the total quantity of sludge generated.
Primarily incineration, includes pyrolysis.
Sludge that is sold or given away. Includes processing (such
,as composting or heat drying) to prepare product for market.
Lagoons and/or stockpiles.
Source: 36
59
-------
X-5 COST OF MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL, I960
Disposal Method/
Cost Component
Landspreading
-Capital
-0 & M
-TOTAL
Landfilling
-Capital
-0 & M
-TOTAL
Incineration
-Capital
-0 & M
-TOTAL
Composting
-Capital
-0 & M
-TOTAL
Heat Treatment
-Capital
-0 & M
-TOTAL
Heat Drying
-Capital
-0 & M
-TOTAL
Small
«1 mgd)
13
57
70
13
47
60
-
-
-
20
80
100
-
-
-
-
~~
Cost (
Medium
(1-10 mgd)
8
58
66
8
42
50
85
45
130
17
68
85
44
66
110
210
90
300
:$/dry kkg)
Large
(10-100 mgd)
5
50
55
5
25
30
45
45
90
12
48
60
26
39
65
210
90
300
Extra Large
OlOO mgd)
4
36
40
4
20
24
30
30
60
12
48
60
17
25
42
210
90
300
0 & M = Operation and Maintenance
Source: 36
60
-------
XI. Hazardous Waste
XI-l ESTIMATED HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY INDUSTRY, 1980
SIC
Code
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3t
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOTAL
Industry
Textile Mill Products
Lumber and Wood Products
Furniture and Fixtures
Paper and Allied Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals and Allied Products
Petroleum and Coal Products
Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products
Leather and Leather Tanning
Stone, Clay and Glass Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Instruments and Related Products
Misc. Manufacturing Industries
Non-Manufacturing Industries
Quantity
(wet kkg)
203,000
87,000
36,000
1,295,000
154,000
25,509,000
2,119,000
249,000
474,000
17,000
4,061,000
1,997,000
322,000
1,093,000
1,240,000
90,000
318,000
1,971,000
41,235,000
Percent
0.5
0.2
0.09
3.1
0.4
61.9
5.1
0.6
1.1
0.04
9.8
4.8
0.8
2.7
3.0
0.2
0.8
4.8
99. 92
Data compiled by JRB Associates.
SIC 5085-Drum Reconditioners, SIC 07-Agricultural Services, SIC 5161-Chemical
Warehouses, SIC 40-Railroad Transportation, SIC 55-Autoraotive Dealers and
Gasoline Service Stations, SIC 72-Personal Services, SIC 73-Business
Services, SIC 76-Misc. Repair Services, SIC 80-Health Services, SIC
82-Educational Services.
Does not total 100% due to rounding error.
Source: 38
61
-------
XI-2 INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY REGION, 1980
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Quantity
(wet kkg)
1,104,000
3,113,000
4,354,000
10,353,000
6,428,000
10,536,000
1,201,000
318,000
2,838,000
995,000
Percent
2.7
7.5
10.6
25.1
15.6
25.5
2.9
0.8
6.9
2.4
TOTAL
41,240,000
I
100
Quantity estimated at 41,235,000 wet kkg; the difference is
due to rounding. Range reported by source was 27,765,000
wet kkg - 53,864,000 wet kkg.
Source: 38
XI-3 ESTIMATED HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY WASTE TYPE, 1980
1
Waste Type
Sludges
Solvents
Alkali/Caustic
Acid
Heavy Ends
Bottoms
Other
Quantity
(wet kkg)
9,428,258
2,344,701
1,526,590
711,150
328,390
281,760
20,919,750
Percent
(%)
26.5
6.6
4.3
2.0
0.9
0.8
58.9
TOTAL
35,540,599"
100
Data compiled by JRB Associates.
Excludes non-manufacturing category (1,965,844 kkg) for which
~no breakdown is available.
According to the source report for this table, 1980 hazardous
waste generation is estimated to be 37,506,443 kkg. This is
less than the Booz-Allen and Hamilton value reported in source
27 (41,235,000 kkg); however, it falls within their reported
generation range (27,765,000-53,864,000 kkg).
Source: 39
62
-------
XI-4 HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPOSITION BY SIC CODE, 1980
SIC
CODE
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Solvents
0.6
12.8
30.0
2.9
38.0
4.6
30.0
30.3
16.4
30.0
29.1
30.2
Non-Manufacturing
Waste Type (%)
Sludges Acid Alkali/Caustic Heavy Ends
99.4
100.0
100.0
5.0 2.7 6.4 1.5
81.2
75.9 .
-1 __1
54.5 3.2 2.7
50.0
50.5
72.6
50.0
50.6
50.0
No breakdown available
Bottoms Other
__ _
87.2
70.0
0.6 81.0
7.8 11.0
62.0
24.1
100.0
35.0
20.0
19.2
11.0
20.0
20.3
19.8
Data complied by JRB Associates.
Process wastes include solvents, alkalines, and acids however the total quantity
.generated was not broken down by type.
"Other" category represents numerous waste type categories (such as dyes, inks, specific
chemicals, spills, etc.) that were not broken down for this table as well as the
quantity of wastes under a particular industry that were not broken down by waste type.
Source: 39
XI-5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTERS BY REGION, 1980
EPA Region
Number of Transporters
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
627
. 1,062
1,086
1,769
2,398
1,267
630
457
1,132
348
TOTAL
10,776
Source: 37
63
-------
XI-6 ESTIMATED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, 1980
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
On-Site
437
1,921
3,280
8,766
3,561
8,983
716
151
1,792
406
30,013 (72.8%)
Disposal (thousand wet kkg)
Off-Site1
299
652
604
913
1,330
1,029
252
106
535
348
6,068 (14.7%)
Unknown
368
540
470
674
1,537
524
233
61
511
241
5,159 (12.5%)
Although the disposal site distribution of 12.5% of the total waste generated
is unknown, source estimates that approximately 23% of the hazardous waste
generated is disposed off-site.
Source: 38
XI-7 METHODS FOR OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE, 1980
Disposal Method
Estimated Quantity
(wet kkg)
Percent
Landfill
Chemical, Biological,
and Physical Treatment
Deep Well Injection
Land Treatment/
Solar Evaporation
Resource Recovery
Incineration
Landfill for Chemical
Treatment Wastes
TOTAL
2,699,000
2,116,000
788,000
537,000
424,000
398,000
230,000
7,192,000
37.5
29.4
11.0
7.5
5.9
5.5
3.2
100
Source: 38
64
-------
XI-8 ESTIMATED OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL BY REGION, 1980
Type of Treatment/Disposal Method (thousand vet kkg)
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
Landfill
6
375
170
226
330
650
62,
_3
822
59
2,699
Land Treat-
ment/Solar
Evaporation
_
-
-
2
_
1172
_
-
345
75
537
Incineration
23
26
48
65
97
98
_
-
40
-
398
Chemical
Treatment
81
619
467
157
486
146
36
294
62
2,346
Resource
Recovery
35
135
51
22
170
-
3
-
8
424
Deep-Well
Injection
.
-
_
-
152
635
_
-
-
-
788
Total
Quantity
145
1,155
736,
470
1,235
1,646
101,
_3
1,501
204
7,192
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
These are gross volumes and include 10 percent of which will require further treatment.
Volume data from Region IV is included in Region VI to prevent disclosure of confidential data.
"Although some landfills in the region may handle hazardous waste, these facilities are not included
in the data for this table.
Source: 38
XI-9 REGIONAL BREAKDOWN OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL FACILITIES, 1980
Type of Treatment/Disposal Practice (number of facilities)
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
Landfill
1
2
3
2
11
10
3
-
10
£
44
Land Treat-
ment/Solar
Evaporation
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
6
i.
11
Incineration
3
1
1
7
6
6
0
0
1
_0
25
Chemical
Treatment
3
8
8
4
16
3
1
0
2
2
47
Resource
Recovery
5
8
2
2
10
0
1
0
0
_5
33
Deep-Well
Injection
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
£
9
Total
Number of
Facilities
8
13
11
12
37
21
4
-
14
_
127
1 . u v i \. r t -i \. f'h
treatment/disposal option may be available at a facility.
Some sanitary landfills may currently be handling hazardous waste. As in other Regions, these
facilities are not included in the reported data for this table.
Source: 38
65
-------
XI-10 COST OF OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL, 1980
Disposal Method
Cost
($/wet kkg)
Landfill
Wastes not acutely hazardous,
including sludges
Highly toxic, explosive, or
reactive wastes
Land Treatment
Incineration
High BTU value, no acute hazard
Highly toxic, heavy metals
Chemical Treatment
Acids, alkalines
Cyanides, heavy metals, highly toxics
Resource Recovery
Deep-Well Injection
Oily wastewaters
Dilute toxic rinse waters
20-90
100-400
5-25
50-300
300-1000
15-80
100-500
50-200
15-40
50-100
1
Actual reported prices for treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste, excluding transportation.
Source: 38
66
-------
XII. Miscellaneous Information
XII-l COMPARISON OF ENERGY VALUES OF MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE AND CONVENTIONAL FUELS
Energy Values
Energy Source (Btu/lb)
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 4500
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) - Fluff 5000-60001
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) - Dust 7800
Peat 3235
Wood 4690
Lignite 7065
Sub-bituminous B 10245
Anthracite 11100
Bituminous - Hi Volatile B 12235
Bituminous - Volatile 14460
#6 Fuel Oil 18265
#2 Home Heating Oil 19565
Methane 23895
Value from USEPA Resource Recovery Seminar, Chicago, IL,
June 1977.
Source: 43
XI1-2 COMMON ENERGY EQUIVALENTS
One Ton of MSW = 9 million Btu
One Barrel of Crude Oil (42 gals) =5.8 million Btu
1000 Cubic Feet of Natural Gas =1.0 million Btu
One Gallon of Gasoline = 0.1276 million Btu
One Gallon of Diesel Fuel = 0.1303 million Btu
One Kwh = 0.003414 million Btu
Source: 23
67
-------
XII-3 DENSITIES OF REFUSE AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS
Material
Loose refuse, no processing
Density (Ib/cu yd)
Refuse from a compactor truck, after dumping
Refuse in compactor truck
Shredded refuse
Refuse baled in paper baler
Refuse in landfill
Dry ash residue
Wet ash residue
Processed Materials
Ferrous cans (flattened)
Aluminum cans (flattened)
Mixed glass, minus 5/8" cullet
Mixed glass, minus 2" cullet
Baled shredded paper bundles
Sources: 15, 40, 44
XII-4 DENSITIES
Component
Aluminum
Cardboard
Glass
Paper
Steel
Wood
Plastics
Acrylic
ABS
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
PVC
OF PURE REFUSE COMPONENTS
Specific
Gravity
2.70
0.69
2.50
0.7-1.15
7.70
0.60
1.18
1.03
0.94
0.90
1.05
1.25
100-200
350-400
500-700
600-900
800-1200
500-900
1080
1350
800-900
250
2300
1000
750
Density
(Ib/cu ft)
168
43
156
44-72
480
37
74
64
59
56
65
78
Source: 7
68
-------
XII-5 TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPONENTS (ULTIMATE ANALYSIS)
Refuse Component
Newspapers
Brown paper
Magazine paper
Corrugated boxes
Plastic coated paper
Waxed milk cartons
Paper food cartons
Junk mail
Tissue paper
Cardboard
Miscellaneous paper
Vegetable and food
wastes
Citrus rinds, seeds
Meat scraps, cooked
Fried fats
Garbage
Leather
Rubber Composition,
heel, sole catch
Plastics
Average
High
Low
Polyethylene
Vinyl
Plastic film
Mixed, from municipal
refuse, contaminated
with food waste
Other plastics, rubber,
leather
Paints, oils
Vacuum cleaner
Evergreen trimmings
Flower, garden plants
Lawn grass, green
Ripe tree leaves
Softwood, pine
Hardwood , oak
Wood
Grass and dirt
Rags
Textiles
Dirt
Glass bottles
Glass, ash, ceramics
Glass, stones, ceramics
Metal cans
Metals
C(%)
49.14
44.90
32.91
43.73
45.30
59.18
44.74
37.87
43.9
45.52
44.00
49.06
47.96
59.59
73.14
41.72
42.01
53.22
78.0
90.0
55.8
85.6
47.1
67.21
47.70
52.1
35.69
48.51
46.65
46.18
52.15
52.55
49.49
49.00
36.20
43.9
46.19
0.52
(same
4.54
H2(Z>
6.10
6.08
4.95
5.70
6.17
9.25
6.10
5.41
6.1
6.08
6.15
6.62
5.68
9.47
11.54
5.75
5.32
7.09
9.0
10.0
7.0
14.4
5.9
9.72
6.04
13.1
4.73
6.54
6.61
5.96
6.11
6.08
6.62
6.0
4.75
6.1
6.41
0.07
as above
0.63
o2(%)
43.03
47.84
38.55
44.93
45.50
30.13
41.92
42.74
49.0
44.53
41.65
37.55
41.67
24.65
14.82
27.62
22.83
7.76
13.0
37.2
N2(%)
0.05
0
0.07
0.09
0.18
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.43
1.68
t.ll
1.02
0.43
2.79
5.98
0.50
18.6(chlorine=28.
15.82
24.06
34.8
20.38
40.44
40.18
36.43
30.34
40.90
43.39
42.00
26.61
49.0
41.85
0.36
, glass
4.28
0.46
1.93
6.26
1.71
1.21
4.46
6.99
0.25
0.25
2.10
2.18
0.03
bottles)
0.05
S(%)
0.16
0.11
0.09
0.21
0.08
0.10
0.16
0.09
0.14
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.19
0.07
0.25
1.00
1.34
4%)
0.07
'
0.55
1.15
0.19
0.26
0.42
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.26
0.20
0.01
Inerts
1.43
1.01
22.47
5.06
2.64
1.17
6.50
13.09
0.93
3.57
7.65
1.06
0.74
3.H
21.87
21.16
29.74
6.72
19.72
30.34
0.81
2.34
1.62
3.82
0.12
0.15
2.28
30.08
0.93
3.17
100.00
99.02
100.00
90.49
100.00
Percent
Moisture
5.97
5.83
4.11
5.20
4.71
3.45
6.11
4.56
7.00
78.29
78.70
38.74
7.46
'1.15
5.47
69.00
53.94
75.24
9.97
24.00
7.00
1
69
-------
References
1. Abt. Associates, Inc., National Rural Community Facilities Assessment
Study, Pilot Phase, Preliminary Data Assessment: Solid Waste, for the
Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1980.
2. Alvariz R.J., "Status of Incineration and Generation of Energy from
Thermal Processing MSW," in Proceedings of the 1980 National Waste
Processing Conference, Washington, D.C., May 7-14, 1980. (Given by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers).
3. American City and County Magazine, "Refuse Collection Practices, 1980:
An Exclusive National Survey," April 1980.
4. American Paper Institute: Paper, Paperboard, and Woodpulp Fiber
Consumption, 1976-1979 Capacity.
5. American Paper Institute: Statistics of Paper and Paperboard, 1977.
6. Archer, T., and Huls, J., "RCRA Study of Glass and Plastic Resource
Recovery," Municipal Solid Waste: Resource Recovery, Proceedings of the
Seventh Annual Research Symposium, March 1981, EPA 600/9-81-0022.
7. Bond, R.G., and Straub, C.P., Handbook of Environmental Control, Vol. II:
Solid Wastes, CRC Press, West Palm Beach, FL, 1973.
8. Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior, Mineral Commodity Summaries,
1981.
9. Child, David, "Transfer Stations End Long-Haul, High Cost Refuse
Collection," The American City and County Magazine, June 1979.
10. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Internal Report for USEPA-OSW, Revised June
1980.
11. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Unpublished data based on National Flow
Estimation Procedures developed by the Office of Solid Waste, USEPA.
12. Gordian Associates, Inc., Future Waste Management in the Wasatch Front
Area: Feasibility Analysis, February 1981.
13. Gunther, C., and Miller, C., A Nationwide Testing of Programs Recovering
Resources from Municipal Solid Waste, SW-936, for Resource Recovery
Systems, USEPA, 1981.
14. Iron Age Magazine, "Annual Statistical Review," Various issues from
January 1979 to June 1980.
15. Jackson, F.R., Energy from Solid Wastes, Noyes Data Corporation, 1974.
16. Lacomber, Donna M., An Overview of Solid Waste Generation in the United
States, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico,
December 1979.
71
-------
17. Liptak, B.C., ed., Environmental Engineers' Handbook, Volume I, Water
Pollution, Chilton Book Co., Radnor, PA, 1974.
18. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering, Collection, Treatment,
and Disposal, NY, Mcgraw-Hill, 1972.
19. National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc., Resource Recovery Update,
Vol. 10, March 1981.
20. Official Board Markets, Published by Magazines for Industry, Chicago,
111., Various issues from 1975-1980.
21. Paper Recycling Committee of the American Paper Institute, Personal
Communication, May 1981.
22. Pigeon, C.A., and Frankel, L.S., "Police Fire and Refuse Collection and
Disposal Department: Manpower, Compensation and Expenditures" in The
Municipal Year Book, 1977, (Washington, D.C.: International City
Management Association,T977)
23. Powell, J., "Energy Savings from Recycling Waste Materials," BioCycle,
March-April 1981.
24. Public Works Magazine, "The Solid Waste Forum - Management Trends,"
January 1981.
25. Samsel, T., Atlantic Equipment Corporation, Personal Communication with
J. Bramlett of JRB Associates, July 1981.
26. Savas, E.S., "Service Levels for Residential Refuse Collection," in The
Organization and Efficiency of Solid Waste Collection, E.S. Savas, ed. ,
Lexington, D.C. Health & Co., 1977.
27. Savas, E.S., Baumol, D., Willis, W.A., "Financing Solid Waste Collection,"
in The Organization and Efficiency of Solid Waste Collection, E.S. Savas,
ed., Lexington, D.C. Health 4, (Jo., 19//.
28. Shuster, K.A., Analysis of Fuel Consumption for Solid Waste, USEPA,
January 1974. ~~
29. Solid Waste Management Magazine, "Third Annual Survey of the Private
Collection Industry," March 1981.
30. Sommers, L.E., "Chemical Composition of Sewage Sludges and Analysis of
Potential Use as Fertilizers," Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 6,
1977.
31. Stevens, Barbara J., "Service Assessment and the Cost of Residential
Refuse Collection," in The Organization and Efficiency of Solid Waste
Collection, E.S. Savas, ed., Lexington, D.C. Heath & Co., 1977.
32. Stevens, Barbara, J., "The Cost of Residential Refuse Collection," in The
Organization and Efficiency of Solid Waste Collection, E.S. Savas, ed.,
Lexington, D.C. Heath & Co., 1977.
72
-------
33. Urban Data Service, International City Management Association, Local
Government Solid Waste Practices, Report 5/75, p. 7.
34. USEPA: Cost Estimating Handbook for Transfer, Shredding, and Sanitary
Landfilling of Solid Waste, Prepared by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.,
1976.
35. USEPA: "Rural Collection," Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste
Management, Second Edition (5W-500), 1976.
36. USEPA: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis/Support Document for the
Regulation on the Distribution and Marketing of Sewage Sludge Products,
Washington, D.C., Unpublished as of May 1,1981.
37. USEPA: Hazardous Waste Data Management System, 1980.
38. USEPA: Hazardous Waste Generation and Commercial Hazardous Waste
Management Capacity: An Assessment, SW-894; Prepared by Booz, Allen, and
Hamilton; Putnam, Hayes, and Bartlett, Inc.; Washington, D.C., 1980.
39. USEPA: Impact Analysis of Proposed RCRA-FSS Regulations, 1980-1990,
Prepared by Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.; Pope-Reid
Associates, Inc.; Putman, Hayes, and Bartlett, Inc.; and Temple, Barber
and Sloane, Inc., 1980.
40. USEPA: Source Separation, Collection, and Processing Equipment: A
User's Guide, SW-842, Prepared by Resource Planning Associates, Inc.,
"19801
41. USEPA: Source Separation in Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts -
Composition of Source Separated Materials and Refuse, 1980.
42. USEPA: Staff Background Paper No. 11, A Cost Analysis of the Solid Waste
Management Industry, Draft, Prepared by Resource Conservation Committee,
1978.
43. USEPA: Study of the Feasibility of Federal Procurement of Fuel Produced
from Solid Wastes, SW-123c, Prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1975.
44. Vesilind, P.A., and Remic, A.E., Unit Operations in Resource Recovery
Engineering, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.
45. Vence, T.D., and Powers, D.L., "Resource Recovery Systems," 1981
Sanitation Industry Yearbook, 18th Edition.
46. Waste Age, "1980 Land Disposal Survey," Vol. 12, January 1981.
47. Waste Age, "1980 Shredder/Baler Index," July 1980.
73
------- |