criteria:ct>st,>fr^titutional factors, resource conservation,
Decision -/Makers
Guide
in Solid Waste
/Management
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
-------
*J if .
0 'o
+; ^o
I \
i
!
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
Decision-/Makers
Guide
in Solid Waste
/Management
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
(SW-127) was prepared under the direction of
ROBERT A. COLONNA and CYNTHIA McLAREN
(0 » >
This guide (SW-127) was prepared under the direction of O
of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs § -6
1 ^
f* Cj
- ^
5. ^°
6*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1974
-------
Foreword
The purpose of the Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Man-
agement is to help managers in municipal government deal with
the problems of major concern in the field of solid waste manage-
ment. This document was prepared under the authority of Section
209 (b) (2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by
the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. It includes guidelines on organi-
zation and financing of services, waste collection, processing, dis-
posal, and recovery of energy and materials.
In solid waste management, as in other aspects of city adminis-
tration, good decision-making is nearly synonymous with good city
management. In the past, however, decisions regarding solid waste
management have been based largely on intuition and local custom
rather than on the experience of many communities and methodi-
cally developed information. To provide local officials with a broader
basis for decision-making, the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs (OSWMP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
decided to develop this guide, which draws on information from 8
years of research and systems analysis in the field. It is not sug-
gested that use of the guide will always lead to the best solutions,
but it can assist in placing the issues within a decision-making
framework that is based on the latest available information.
Our intention is to regularly update the guide so that it will
continue to reflect the rapidly changing field of solid waste manage-
ment. We welcome suggestions for improvement and other com-
ment from readers.
While all parts of OSWMP contributed to the writing of the guide,
the Systems Management Division was responsible for its planning
and development. Special acknowledgment is made to Robert A.
Colonna, the division director, and to Cynthia McLaren, the project
officer responsible for coordinating the development of the guide.
—ARSEN J. DARNAY
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
iii
-------
Contents
PAGE
SUMMARY 1
INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES 19
Public and Private Operation of Residential Collection Services ... 21
Multijurisdictional Approaches 25
Sources of Operating Revenue 29
Capital Financing 31
Public and Private Operation of Processing and Disposal Facilities . . 38
COLLECTION 41
Point of Collection 43
Frequency of Collection 45
Storage Containers 47
Paper and Plastic Bags 50
Collection of Bulky Items 53
Source Separation for Resource Recovery 54
Residential Collection Equipment and Crew Size 62
Personnel Incentive Systems 67
Residential Solid Waste Collection in Rural Areas 69
TRANSFER STATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION TO DISPOSAL SITES .... 73
PROCESSING 81
Baling 83
Shredding 86
Energy Recovery and Thermal Reduction 90
Materials Recovery 99
SANITARY LANDFILLING 109
SPECIAL WASTES 119
Tires 121
Waste Lubricating Oil 125
Sewage Sludge 128
APPENDICES 131
A Residential Collection Management Tools 133
B Collection Costs and Productivity 138
C Closing Open Dumps 142
D Hazardous Wastes 146
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Solid Waste Management Decision Alternatives 2
2 Leveraged Leasing Structure 34
3 Piggyback Newspaper Rack 66
4 Round Trip Time at Which Transfer Operation is Justified ... 78
5 St. Paul Baler Costs 85
6 Projected Costs from Madison, Wisconsin, Demonstration Milling
Project 86
7 The Franklin, Ohio, Resource Recovery Plant 103
8 Trench Method of Covering a Dump 143
9 Area Method of Covering a Dump 144
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Comparative Economics and Feasibility of Major Resource Re-
covery and Disposal Options 5
2 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Residential
Waste Storage Containers, and Conditions That Favor the Use
of Each 7
3 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Curbside/Alley and
Backyard Collection, and Conditions That Favor Each ... 8
4 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Frequencies
of Collection, and Conditions That Favor Each 8
5 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Source Separation of
Solid Waste, and the Conditions That Favor It 8
6 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Haul to Dis-
posal Sites and Use of Transfer Stations, and the Conditions
That Favor Each Method 9
7 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Solid Waste Process-
ing and Disposal Methods, and the Condition That Favor Each 9
8 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Capital Fi-
nancing Methods, and the Conditions That Favor Each .... 11
9 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Taxes and User
Charges as Sources of Operating Revenues, and the Conditions
That Favor Each 14
10 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Public and
Private Operation of Collection Services, and the Conditions
That Favor Each 14
11 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Public and Private
Operation of Disposal Facilities, and the Conditions That Favor
Each Type of Operation 17
12 Characteristics of Capital Financing Methods Available for Solid
Waste Management Facilities 35
13 Example of Costs to Finance $10 Million Through General Obliga-
tion Bond, Municipal Revenue Bond, and Revenue Bond and
Leveraged Leasing 36
14 Cost for Once-a-Week Collection Using Two-Man Crews, by Point
of Collection and Incentive System, in Four Cities, 1973 ... 43
15 Cost of Curbside Collection by Frequency of Collection and Crew
Size, in Four Cities, 1973 45
16 Impact of Separate Collection by a Separate Truck on Overall
Residential Solid Waste Management Costs 58
17 Estimated Cost and Revenue for the Separate Collection of News-
print Using the Piggyback Method 58
vi
-------
TABLE PAGE
18 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste, as Discarded, United States,
1971 59
19 Recommended Crew Size and Vehicle Type for Residential Solid
Waste Collection by Point of Collection and Housing Density . 62
20 Typical Ranges in Packer Truck Costs (Including Chassis), 1972 . 65
21 Characteristics of Rural Bulk Bin Collection Systems by Type of
Vehicle Used 70
22 Examples of Rural Solid Waste Collection Equipment Systems . 71
23 Comparative Economics of St. Paul Baler, San Diego Baler, and
Conventional Disposal, Including Transfer 83
24 Cost of St. Paul Baler Operation as a Function of Baler Utiliza-
tion and Machine Model, 1973 84
25 Economic and Environmental Characteristics and Status of Ther-
mal Reduction and Energy Recovery Systems 91
26 Quantity, Quality, Purchasers, and Prices of Materials Recovered
From Municipal Solid Waste at the Franklin, Ohio, Pilot Plant 105
27 Sanitary Landfill Permit Application Costs, by Design Capacity
of Site, 1973 112
28 Initial Costs for Three Sanitary Landfills of Different Capacities,
1973 113
29 Sanitary Landfill Equipment Prices, 1971 113
30 Spreading and Compacting Equipment Required by Landfill Sites
Handling Different Amounts of Waste 116
31 Costs and Operating Parameters of Tire Slicers and Shredders,
1974 123
32 Breakdown of Tire-Gon Operating Costs at 7.5tf per tire, 1974 . 123
33 Consumption of Lubrication Oils, Generation of Waste Oil, and
Use of Waste Oil 125
34 Uses for Waste Lubrication Oil 127
35 Collection Costs for Two- and Three-Man Crews, 1973 .... 138
36 Productivity and Cost Analysis for Residential Collection Systems,
1973 140
37 Procurement Cost of Rear-Loading and Side-Loading Collection
Vehicles, 1972 141
38 A Sample List of Nonradioactive Hazardous Compounds . . . 147
39 Presence of Representative Hazardous Substances in Waste
Streams of Selected Industries 148
40 Estimated Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation by Bureau of
Census Region, 1970 149
41 Functions, Applicability, and Resource Recovery Capability of
Currently Available Hazardous Waste Treatment and Dispoal
Processes 150
vii
-------
I\
I \
I \
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, *
c^
Summary
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria, cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
o.
This guide presents the key issues of solid waste management in
a decision-making context. It attempts to anticipate all of the im-
portant decisions which local government managers must make in
the effort to develop and operate solid waste programs in a respon-
sive, cost-effective manner. Each chapter presents an issue, de-
scribes the alternatives, gives the advantages and disadvantages,
and concludes with a summary statement which may include an
EPA recommendation on the issue.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION-MAKING
There are four basic categories of criteria by which decisions
are made in this field: costs, environmental factors, resource con-
servation, and institutional factors. The key points in each of
these categories are as follows:
• Costs
Operating and maintenance
Capital (initial investment)
• Environmental factors
Water pollution
Air pollution
Other health factors
Esthetic considerations
• Resource conservation
Energy
Materials
Land
• Institutional factors
Political feasibility
Legislative constraints
Administrative simplicity
These criteria determine most decisions in the solid waste field.
The cost criteria are among the most important to local managers,
and therefore cost information is presented for as many of the
issues as possible. Environmental criteria are most important in the
areas of waste storage and disposal because these functions repre-
sent prolonged exposure of wastes to the environment. Collection
and processing are usually short-term operations and therefore do
not cause major environmental problems.
Resource conservation is a criterion just beginning to be observed
seriously by local governments as citizens become increasingly
conscious of this issue.
/
-------
Finally, institutional factors are sometimes the most important
criteria, although not as easy to quantify or deal with as costs.
Also, these criteria are less easily generalized, so each manager has
to identify the institutional criteria peculiar to his locale. Never-
theless institutional factors should always be of major concern to
the decision-maker since they frequently prevent a decision from
being made or eliminate an alternative.
DECISIONS To BE MADE
Solid waste management is concerned largely with four major
functions: collection, transport, processing, and disposal (Figure 1).
In designing a solid waste collection system, one of the first
decisions to be made is where the waste will be picked up: the curb
or the backyard. This is an important decision because it affects
many other collection variables, including choice of storage con-
tainers, crew size, and the selection of collection equipment.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION ALTERNATIVES
1 p— 20-30 gollon containers
J r~- pop»r and plotlic bagi
I bulk bins
' oth«r
FIGURE 1. This flowchart illustrates the decisions which must be made
from the point of generation to the ultimate disposal of residential solid waste.
These decisions encompass the four major solid waste functions: collection (in-
cluding storage, level of service, and the separation of materials for recycling);
transport; processing (including volume reduction through shredding and/or
baling and resource recovery); and ultimate disposal.
-------
Another key decision is frequency of collection. Both point of
collection and frequency of collection should be evaluated in terms
of their impact on collection costs. Since collection costs generally
account for 70 to 85 percent of total solid waste management
costs, and labor represents 60 to 75 percent of collection costs,
increases in the productivity of collection manpower can dramati-
cally reduce overall costs.
Systems with once-a-week curbside collection help maximize
labor productivity and result in significantly lower costs than
systems with more frequent collection and/or backyard pickup.
The main reason many communities retain twice-a-week backyard
service is that the citizens demand this convenience and are willing
to pay for it.
The choice of solid waste storage containers must be evaluated
in terms of both environmental effects and costs. From the environ-
mental standpoint, some storage containers can present health and
safety problems to the collectors as well as to the general public.
Therefore, the decision facing a community is, Which storage system
is both environmentally sound and the most economical given the
collection system characteristics? For example, paper and plastic
bags are superior to many other containers from a health and
esthetic standpoint and can increase productivity when used in
conjunction with curbside collection. However, with backyard
collection systems, bags have little effect on productivity.
Another factor to be considered in examining storage alterna-
tives is home separation of various materials for recycling. The
collection of newsprint for recycling is a growing practice that
many cities may consider implementing in the near future. The
technique of greatest interest to municipal decision-makers is
separation by the generator and collection by either the regular
collection truck equipped with a special bin for the paper or a
separate truck.
The primary factor to consider in implementing a separate
collection system is whether the benefits of paper recovery
outweigh the costs involved. The economic viability of separate
collection depends primarily on the local market price for the
paper and the degree of participation by the citizens. If these
factors are positive, it may be possible to implement a paper
recovery system with no increase and possibly a savings in collec-
tion operating costs; often no additional capital expenditures are
required.
The distance between the disposal site and the center of the city
will determine the advisability of including a transfer station in
the transport system. In addition to distance traveled to the disposal
site, the time required for the transport is a key factor, especially
in traffic-congested large cities.
The trade-offs involved in transfer station operations are the
capital and operating costs of the transfer station as compared
to the costs (mostly labor) of having route collection vehicles travel
excessive distances to the disposal site. These trade-offs can be
computed to find the point at which transfer becomes economically
advantageous.
3
-------
The sheer quantities of solid waste to be disposed of daily makes
the problem of what to do with the waste, once it has been collected,
among the most difficult problems confronting community officials.
A crisis situation can develop very quickly, e.g., in the case of an
incinerator or land disposal site forced to shut down because of
failure to meet newly passed environmental regulations, or it can
build gradually over a period of time if needed new facilities are
not properly planned for and put into service.
There are three basic alternatives for disposal, with subalterna-
tives for some of them (Table 1). The three major alternatives
are: direct disposal of unprocessed waste in a sanitary landfill;
processing of waste followed by land disposal; and processing of
waste to recover resources (materials and/or energy) with sub-
sequent disposal of the residues.
Direct haul to a sanitary landfill (with or without transfer and
long haul) is usually the cheapest disposal alternative in terms of
both operating and capital costs. However, it may not be the best
from an environmental standpoint because of the danger of water
pollution from leachate. This alternative is also wasteful of land
and resources.
With the second alternative, processing prior to land disposal,
the primary objective of the processing is to reduce the volume of
wastes. Such volume reduction has definite advantages since it
reduces hauling costs and ultimate disposal cost, both of which
are, to some extent, a function of waste volume. However, the
capital and operating cost to achieve this volume reduction is
significant and must be balanced against the savings achieved.
An additional consideration is the environmental benefits which
might be derived from the volume reduction process. In some cases,
shredding and baling may reduce the chances for water pollution
from leachate. This alternative is more conserving of land than
sanitary landfilling of unprocessed wastes but by itself provides no
opportunity for material or energy recovery.
The third category of disposal alternatives are those processes
which recover energy or materials from solid waste and leave only
a residue for ultimate land disposal. In terms of economics, there
are significant capital and operating costs associated with all
these energy and/or materials recovery systems. However,. if
markets are available, both energy and materials can be sold to
reduce the net costs of recovery.
While resource recovery techniques may be more costly than
other disposal alternatives, they do achieve the goal of resource
conservation and the residuals of the processes require much less
space for land disposal than unprocessed wastes.
Affecting all four major functions are basic decisions regarding
how the solid waste system will be managed and operated. This
includes how the system will be financed, which level of government
will administer it, and whether a public agency or private firm
will operate the collection, transport, processing, and disposal
functions. The criteria most relevant for making these decisions
are the institutional factors of political feasibility and legislative
constraints.
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS AND FEASIBILITY OP MAJOR RESOURCE RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Process
Comments
Feasibility
Capital costs
per ton of
daily capacity
Operating cost per ton
Total
Revenue
Net
Sanitary landfill
Sanitary landfill
with transfer
Conventional
incineration
Steam generation
from waterwall
incinerators
Solid waste as fuel in
utility or industrial
boilers
Pyrolysls:
Solid waste
converted into
combustible gas and
oil
Heat recovery
A fair average allowance
of landfill space is 4
en yd per capita;
therefore, for a site to
serve a population of
100,000 and last 20 years,
an area of 810 acres is
required if the waste is
deposited 20 ft deep.
Requires transfer station
and transport by
large-body trucks, rail,
or barge.
Obsolete—800 units in
use.
Process being
demonstrated at Lowell,
Mass.
Process using
hammermill for size
reduction is being
demonstrated at St.
Louis. Process is feasible.
Air and water pollution
factors unknown.
Process using
hydrapulper for size
reduction at Franklin,
Ohio, produces a
material that, when
moisture content is
reduced, appears to make
an excellent fuel, but has
not been tested on a full
scale. Cost data not
available.
Ferrous metal recovery
being demonstrated with
both processes.
Three processes
demonstrated at 200 tons
per day or larger. Two
other processes still in
pilot stage.
1,000 tons per day
prototype plant is being
built at Baltimore using
the Monsanto Landgard
system to generate steam.
Other processes are in
lesser stages of
development.
Institutional—there may
be active citizen
opposition to potential
locations.
Technical—depends on
geological characteristics
of the land.
Economic—decided
savings in cost per ton if
facility handles over 100
tons per day.
Institutional—resistance
of communities on
receiving end to accept
"somebody else's gar-
bage."
Technical—feasible.
Economic—varies with
particular case.
Technical—feasible.
Economic—cannot
economically meet new
air pollution standards.
Technical—1 year's
operating experience at
full scale in Chicago.
Economic—markets for
steam are limited. No
steam has been sold from
existing units.
Institutional—owner/
operator must contract
with utility for sale of
electricity.
Technical—combustion in
utility boiler as supple-
ment to coal has been
demonstrated.
Economic—practical
feasibility depends on
cooperation of local
utility or user industry.
*l-*4
None J1-J4
Truck transfer,
S2.25-$4.60
Rail haul,
$7-$14
None $2.26-J4.60
$15,000-520,000
$10.000-$15,000
$8-$15
$9-$15
$0-»6
$8-$15
$3-$15
J7.000-J12.000
$10-414
S5-$9
Technical—process $10,000-$18,000
involves high temperature
chemical breakdown
(rearrangement of carbon
molecules) of organic
refuse.
Economic—
transportability and
quality are important
factors. Storability and
transportability offer
broad market application.
Pyrolysis systems offer
high long-term potential.
Technical—risk is
minimized because the
Monsanto process utilizes
a more conventional
technology.
$10.00-$13.BO
J6
J5.00-J8.50
J14.000-J18.000 $9.50-512.50 $4-$5 $4.50-$8.50
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS AND FEASIBILITY OF MAJOR RESOURCE RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS—Concluded
Process
Comments
Feasibility
Capital costs
per ton of
daily capacity
Operating cost per ton
Total
Revenue
Net
Materials recovery:
Recovery of
minerals from
incinerator residue
Newsprint,
corrugated, and
mixed office papers
Most environmentally
sound recovery process.
Because markets for
compost have been below
expectations, all but one
U.S. compost plant has
closed.
Process being
demonstrated at Lowell,
Mass. Projected
economics of $.75-13.75
profit per ton of residue.
Based on Bureau of
Mines process.
Separate collection of
these materials provides
supply that can command
prices between $20 and
$80 per ton.
Technical—technology
has been proven.
Economic—inadequate
markets for compost
have precluded success.
Technical—process not $4,000
yet demonstrated at full
scale.
Technical—separate
collection, possibly with
baling, is required.
Economic—recovery can
be profitable. Markets for
paper are improving due
to fiber shortage.
Mixed paper fibers Mechanical separation of
fibers demonstrated at
160 tons per day at
Franklin, Ohio. Fibers
being sold to roofing felt
manufacturer for $26 per
ton.
Glass and aluminum Many pilot and
development efforts
underway. Franklin,
Ohio, demonstration
furthest developed —
operation began August
1978.
Technical— technology » • • «
has been demonstrated at
full scale.
Economic— fiber quality
from Franklin plant is
low, suitable only for
construction uses. Quality
can be upgraded by
further processing.
Technical— technology • • • •
being developed.
Economies — market
potential is adequate but
system economics
uncertain as yet.
•Not available.
Financing is needed for operating costs and capital costs. For
generating operating revenues, there are two techniques: tax
levies from the city's general fund or assessment of a direct charge
on the users of the system. A direct charge may be fixed or vary
according to the level of service rendered. The issue of political
feasibility becomes relevant when a change from tax financing to
a user charge is being considered. There is often citizen opposition
to receiving a bill for a service which was previously provided "for
free" (hidden in the property tax).
For capital expenditures, municipalities have basically two al-
ternatives : borrowing and current revenues. The decision of which
method will be used is affected by factors such as the financial
status of the city, citizen attitudes, legislative constraints on debt
limits or long-term contracts, and the size of the project to be
undertaken.
The ownership and operation of residential collection systems
ranges from completely public collection to collection by private
contractors in open competition. One common pattern is the collec-
tion of residential waste within the city limits by a municipal
system under the public works department and collection of adjoin-
ing suburban areas by private contractors. In other communities,
collection is divided between the public and private sectors with
6
-------
private contractors operating under exclusive franchises with the
city. These are just two of the many patterns of ownership and
operation of the collection function which exist within the country
today. The ownership and operation of disposal functions are also
under public and private auspices and combinations of both.
The following pages (Tables 2-11) present a brief overview of
major issues and the alternatives available in dealing with them,
plus the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the
conditions which favor one alternative over another. These and
related issues are presented in detail in the chapters of this guide.
TABLE 2
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL WASTE STORAGE CONTAINERS, AND
CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR THE USE OF EACH
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Paper or plastic bags
Metal or plastic cans
(20- to 30-gal)
Containers for
mechanized collection
Drums (55-gal)
Stationary storage
bins
Easier to handle—no lids
to be removed or replaced
Less weight to lift
Reduces spillage and
blowing litter when loaded
in truck
One-way container—no
cans left at curb
Eliminates odors and
necessity to clean dirty
cans
Prevents fly entrance
Increases speed and
efficiency of collection
Reduces contact of
collector with waste
Reasonable size for
collector to lift
Economical
More efficient than manual
collection
None
None
Cost per bag
Bags can fail if filled
too full or if too thin
Susceptible to animal
attacks
Not suitable for bulky,
heavy, or sharp objects
May be difficult to
obtain due to energy
crisis
Curbside collection
Must be cleaned regularly
when not used with
liners
Residents oppose storage
of other people's waste
on their property
Lower collection efficiency
Excessive weight can
result in back injury
and muscle strain
Difficult to handle
Lack of lids allows insects
to breed in waste and
odors to escape
Rust holes at bottom of
drum allow rodents to
feed on waste
Inefficient—must be
emptied manually
Lack of proper cover leads
to insect and rodent
infestation
Necessity for hand
shoveling of wastes poses
health hazard to
collectors
Backyard collection
Alley space
storage
available for
Unacceptable alternative
Unacceptable alternative
-------
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CURBSIDE/ALLEY AND
BACKYARD COLLECTION. AND CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternatives
Curbside/
alley
Backyard
Potential
advantages
More efficient
Less expensive
Requires less labor
Facilitates use of
paper or plastic
bags
Reduces collector
injuries
No effort required
by residents
No mess at curbs
Potential
disadvantages
Cans at curb look
messy
Special arrange-
ments must be
made for handi-
capped and elderly
Residents must
remember day of
collection
More expensive
High labor
turnover
Increases number
of collector injuries
Conditions which
favor alternative
High collection
costs
Unwillingness on
part of residents to
pay higher taxes
or user charge
Quality of service
provided more
important criterion
than economics
TABLE 4
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES OF
COLLECTION. AND CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Once per week
Twice per
week
More than
twice per week
Less expensive
Requires less fuel
Reduces litter in
urban areas
Reduces storage
volume require-
ments
Reduces litter in
urban areas
Reduces storage
volume require-
ments
Improperly stored
waste can create
odor and fly
problems
More expensive
Requires more fuel
More expensive
Requires more fuel
Adequate storage
provisions
Cold to moderate
climate
Quality of service
provided more im-
portant criterion
than economics
Warm climate
Seriously re-
stricted storage
space
Dense population
TABLE 5
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOURCE SEPARATION OF SOLID WASTE. AND THE CONDITIONS
THAT FAVOR IT
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
All alternatives:
Separate collection
Piggyback collection
Recycling centers
Simple to implement
Reduces solid waste
volume at sanitary
landfill
Requires citizen coopera-
tion
Requires market for
separated waste materials
Results in separation of
only a small portion of
the total waste stream
Scavengers may take
material for private gain
Markets exist for the
materials recovered
Citizen support of resource
recovery is high
-------
TABLE 6
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OP DIRECT HAUL TO DISPOSAL SITES
AND USE OF TRANSFER STATIONS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH METHOD
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Direct haul by
collection trucks to
disposal site
Transfer station
Requires no capital
expenditure
Cuts down on nonproduc-
tive collection time
Total system cost can be
reduced
In-town location where
residents can bring their
waste
Makes collection operation
independent of the actual
disposal site
Facilitates the addition
of resource recovery or
volume reduction equip-
ment at the transfer site
Proven technology
Permits land reclamation
(e.g., filling in strip
mines) at location distant
from generation point
Changes in disposal site
location require rerouting
of all collection trucks
Nonproductive time spent
in transport increases costs
Requires extra materials
handling step
Requires capital expendi-
tures for land, structures,
and equipment
To achieve savings in
existing system, a reduc-
tion in the number of
crews is needed
Difficult to find recipient
of waste outside of
immediate political
jurisdiction
There is usually citizen
opposition to proposed
transfer sites if located
near residential areas
Close-in disposal sites
available
Low labor rates
Nonurban area
High labor costs
Distant disposal site
Large collection crews
Shortage of land for
sanitary landfills at
reasonable price
Urban areas
TABLE 7
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOLID WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL METHODS,
AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Sanitary landfilling
of unprocessed solid
waste
Sanitary landfilling of
baled solid wastes
Simple, easy to manage
Initial investment and
operating costs are low
Can be put into operation
in short period of time
May be used to reclaim
land
Can receive most types of
solid waste, eliminating
the necessity for separa-
tion of wastes
Extends life of landfill
(double that of unproc-
essed wastes)
Lowers operating costs at
the disposal site
Reduces hauling costs
where distant sites are
used
Permits immediate use of
landfill site for other
purpose upon completion
(minimal settling)
Proper sanitary landfill
standards must be ob-
served or the operation
may degenerate into an
open dump
Difficult to locate new
sites because of citizen
opposition
Leachate may create
water pollution
Production of methane
gas can constitute a fire
or explosion hazard
Obtaining adequate cover
material may be difficult
Process excludes resource
conservation
Adequate land, close to
source of waste, is avail-
able at reasonable price
Long hauls needed to
reach landfill sites
Shortage of landfill sites
require maximum utiliza-
tion of available land
Use of site is desired
immediately after comple-
tion
(Continued)
-------
TABLE?
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OP SOLID WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL METHODS.
AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH—Concluded
Alternative*
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Sanitary landfilling of
shredded solid waste
Materials recovery
Energy recovery
systems
May reduce chance of
water pollution from
leachate
Does not require daily
cover under some condi-
tions
More easily placed and
compacted
Extends life of landfill
Initial investment and
operating costs are rela-
tively low
Vehicles do not become
mired in waste in incle-
ment weather
Reduces problems with
vectors
Does not support combus-
tion or lead to blowing
litter
Shredding at landfills may
be first step in imple-
menting a resource
recovery system
Reduces volume of land
required for solid waste
disposal
High public acceptance
Lower disposal costs
through sale of recovered
materials and smaller
quantity of solid waste
to dispose of in sanitary
landfill
Landfill requirements can
be reduced
Finding a site for an
energy recovery plant
may be easier than finding
a site for a landfill or
conventional incinerator
Total pollution is reduced
when compared to a sys-
tem that includes incinera-
tion for solid waste
disposal and burning fossil
fuels for energy
More economical than
environmentally sound
conventional incineration
or remote sanitary land-
filling
High public acceptance
Jamming and bridging of
the feeding equipment can
reduce throughput of the
mill
High level of component
wear, especially on
hammer
Danger to employees from
flying objects, explosions
within the mills, and noise
Leachate may create
water pollution
Technology for some
operations still new, not
fully proven
Requires markets for
recovered materials
High initial investment
required for some
techniques
Materials must meet
specifications of purchaser
Sanitary landfill is still
needed for disposal of
residues
Requires markets for
energy produced
Most systems will not
accept all types of wastes
Specific needs of the
energy market may dic-
tate parameters of the
system design
Complex process requiring
sophisticated management
Needs relatively long
period for planning and
construction between ap-
proval of funding and
full-capacity operation
Sanitary landfill still re-
quired for residues
Technology for some
operations still new, not
fully proven
Cover material is difficult
to obtain
Shortage of landfill sites
requires maximum utili-
zation of available land
Markets for sufficient
quantities of the reclaimed
materials are located
nearby
Land available for sani-
tary landfilling is at a
premium
Heavily populated area
to insure a large steady
volume of solid waste to
achieve economies of scale
Heavily populated area to
ensure a large, steady
volume of solid waste to
take advantage of econ-
omy of scale
Availability of a steady
consumer for generated
energy to provide revenue
Desire or need for addi-
tional low-sulfur fuel
source
Land available for sani-
tary landfilling is at a
premium
10
-------
TABLE 8
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OP DIFFERENT CAPITAL FINANCING
METHODS. AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
General obli-
gation bonds
Municipal
revenue bonds
One of the most
flexible and least
costly public bor-
rowing method
Requires no tech-
nical or economic
analysis of par-
ticular projects to
be funded
Small projects may
be grouped to ob-
tain capital
Least difficult to
market
Projected revenues
guarantee payment
Can be used by in-
stitutions lacking
taxing power, such
as regional au-
thorities and non-
profit corporations
Does not require
voter approval
Is not constrained
by municipality's
debt limitations
Requires voter ap-
proval and elec-
tions may be ex-
pensive
Must not exceed
municipality's
debt limit
Issuing jurisdic-
tion must have
power to levy ad
valorem prop-
erty tax
Transaction
costs impose a
benchmark mini-
mum of $500,000
Capital raised
becomes part of
general city
treasury, thus
other city ex-
penditures could
draw on amount,
unless specifically
earmarked for
solid waste
Since careful
project evalua-
tion is not re-
quired, decision-
makers may be
unaware of
technological and
economic risks
Ease of raising
capital is a
deterrent to
change in ex-
isting public/
private manage-
ment mix, little
incentive for
officials to con-
sider use of
private system
operators
Effective minimum
issue of $1 million,
thus only useful
for capital-inten-
sive projects
Information re-
quirements of the
bond circular are
extensive
Technical and eco-
nomic analysis of
project must be
performed by ex-
perts outside the
municipal govern-
ment
11
Size of community
is small or medium
Voter approval
likely
Capital-intensive
projects
Regional facilities
desired
Municipality's debt
limit has been
reached
Initiating institu-
tions lack taxing
power
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 8
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL FINANCING
METHODS. AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH—Continued
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Bank loans
Leasing
Small-scale capital
requirements for
short-term funding
(5 years or less)
Some medium-term
funding applica-
bility since notes
may be refinanced
as they expire
Relatively low in-
terest cost because
interest paid by
municipality is
tax-free to bank
Source of funds on
short notice
No external tech-
nical or economic
analysis required
Essentially no
minimum
Relatively inex-
pensive
Voter approval
generally not re-
quired
No debt ceilings
Can be used by in-
stitutions lacking
taxing power
Useful as interim
financing for
equipment needed
before appropria-
tions or long-term
capital arrange-
ments can be made
Negotiating agree-
ment is simple and
fast
Only certification
required is assur-
ance of municipal-
ity's credit
standing
Cost is higher than
general obligation
bonds
Can be used only
for specific proj-
ects
Low maximum
Short term
Not useful for
capital-intensive
projects
Capital require-
ment is small
Funds needed on
short notice
Relatively high an-
nual interest rate
(9-18 percent)
Amount of capital
is usually limited
Lease terms are
generally 5
years or less
Some States
prohibit mu-
nicipalities from
entering multi-
year, noncan-
cellable contracts
Equipment needed
before appropria-
tions available
Municipality haa
good credit rating
(Continued)
12
-------
TABLE 8
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OP DIFFERENT CAPITAL FINANCING
METHODS. AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH—Concluded
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Leveraged
leasing
Current reve-
nue capital
financing
Private
financing
Reduces demand on
municipal capital
outlays since
original capital
raised by private
corporation
Reduces demand on
municipal capital
funds
Interest rate on
entire financial
package may be
lower than general
obligation bonds
Least complex
mechanism avail-
able
No consultant or
legal advice
required
No need for formal
financial docu-
ments
Municipality not
involved in ex-
ternal consulting
Municipality need
not borrow capital
City will not
own asset unless
it purchases fa-
cility upon com-
pletion of lease
period
Legally complex
City will not
own asset unless
it purchases fa-
cility upon com-
pletion of leas-
ing period
No cost in the con-
ventional sense
(but higher taxes
result)
Communities'
ability to raise
capital is fre-
quently lacking
Current taxpay-
ers should not
have to pay for a
system that will
be used far into
the future
Solid waste
projects must
compete with
other municipal
demands
Municipality must
locate acceptable
firm and negoti-
ate contract
Higher cost of
capital reflected
in system
charges
May be legal con-
straints prevent-
ing signing of
long-term con-
tract
Displacement of
city employees
Amount of capital
necessary is small
Voter approval
dependable
18
-------
TABLE 9
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TAXES AND USER CHARGES AS
SOURCES OF OPERATING REVENUES. AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Tax-financing
User charges
Simple to adminis-
ter—no separate
billing and collec-
tion system neces-
sary
If part of local
property tax, it is
deductible from
Federal and State
income taxes
Enables localities
to balance the cost
of providing solid
waste services with
revenues
Citizens are aware
of costs of service
and can provide an
impetus for more
efficient operations
Solid waste man-
agement is often a
low-priority item
in the budget and
receives inade-
quate funds
Costs are hidden
—less incentive
for efficient
operation
More complex to
administer
Can cause prob-
lems for users
on fixed incomes
Tradition of tax-
financing for most
public services
Ceiling on property
tax rates
TABLE 10
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
OPERATION OF COLLECTION SERVICES, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Public:
Municipal
department
Tax-free
Nonprofit
Economies of scale
Can institute sep-
arate collection for
recycling
Can institute man-
datory collection
City has adminis-
trative control
Monopolistic
Lack of incentive
to maximize effi-
ciency
Financing and op-
erations often in-
fluenced by politi-
cal constraints
Frequently fi-
nanced from gen-
eral tax fund and
subject to 1-year
budgeting process
Solid waste man-
agement often low-
priority item in
budget
Labor pressures
may result in
inefficient labor
practices and
strikes
Poor equipment re-
placement policies
Policies of job-
support inflate
labor costs
Past history of un-
satisfactory con-
tractual operations
for public services
Public predisposi-
tion towards gov-
ernment operation
of public services
Quality of service
provided more im-
portant criterion
than economics
14
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 10
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OP TYPES OP PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
OPERATION OF COLLECTION SERVICES. AND THE CONDITIONS THAT
FAVOR EACH—Continued
Alternatives
Public cor-
poration or
utility (usu-
ally serving
a multijur-
isdictional
or regional
area)
Potential
advantages
Tax-free
Nonprofit
Economies of scale
Self-financing
Multiple-year bud-
geting
Operated inde-
pendently of politi-
cal structure
Can institute sep-
arate collection for
recycling
Can institute man-
datory collection
Potential
disadvantages
Monopolistic
Labor pressures
may result in
inefficient labor
practices and
strikes
Conditions which
favor alternative
History of regional
cooperation
Rural or semi-
rural area
Area with rising
p/veto.
\fVolfS
Private:
Open com-
petition
Controlled
entry
through use
of permit
system
Exclusive
franchise
via contract
with local
government
Competition may
reduce costs
Self-financing
Competition may
reduce costs
Self-financing
Competitive bid-
ding for con-
tract(s) helps keep
prices down
Can institute sep-
arate collection for
recycling
Danger of collusion
among haulers to
reduce competi-
tion and keep
prices high
Cutthroat competi-
tion can result
in business fail-
ures and service
interruptions
Overlapping
routes, waste of
fuel
Cannot institute
citywide separate
collection for
recycling
Lack of manda-
tory collection
Subject to political
abuse in the
awarding of
permits
Creates oligopoly
Overlapping
routes, waste
of fuel
Can't institute
citywide sep-
arate collection
for recycling
Lack of manda-
tory collection
Danger of collusion
in bidding
Unacceptable
alternative
Unacceptable
alternative
Flexibility is
needed to make
changes in opera-
tions that would
result in labor sav-
ings and other cost
reductions
(Continued)
15
-------
TABLE 10
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
OPERATION OF COLLECTION SERVICES. AND THE CONDITIONS THAT
FAVOR EACH—Concluded
Alternatives
Potential
advantage*
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Combination
of public and
private:
Municipal
system and
private
firms under
contract
Competition
between
municipal
system and
private
firms
Can institute man-
datory collection
City has adminis-
trative control
Competition helps
keep prices down
Alternative availa-
ble if either sector
cannot deliver
service because of
strikes, for ex-
ample
Can institute sep-
arate collection for
recycling
Can institute man-
datory collection
City has adminis-
trative control
Competition helps
keep prices down
Overlapping
routes, waste of
fuel
Can't institute
citywide separate
collection for
recycling
Lack of manda-
tory collection
Existence of quali-
fied private con-
tractors
Public predisposi-
tion towards pri-
vate sector involve-
ment in public
services
Newly incorpo-
rated communities,
or where popula-
tion growth is out-
pacing ability of
community to pro-
vide public services
Municipality is ex-
panding through
annexation or
merger with other
jurisdictions
Changing from
separate garbage
and trash collec-
tion to combined
collection
Unacceptable
alternative
16
-------
TABLE 11
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPERA-
TION OP DISPOSAL FACILITIES, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH TYPE
OF OPERATION
Alternatives
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Public
Private
Tax-free
Nonprofit
Can obtain low-
interest rates and/
or government
grants for capital-
intensive systems
Local government
does not need to
raise capital
Often easier for
private firms to
buy land for a dis-
posal site
Community may
not have expertise
to operate sophis-
ticated disposal
facility
Community may
have no control of
prices if only pri-
vately operated
disposal site is
available
Operator may base
decisions on basis
of financial reward
rather than com-
munity needs
Legal constraints
may prevent sign-
ing of long-term
contract
Displacement of
city employees
Municipality must
locate acceptable
firm and negotiate
contract
Public predisposi-
tion towards gov-
ernment operation
of public services
Borrowing power
of community and/
or voter approvals
for bond issues
needed for capital
improvements in
disposal facilities
are limited or not
available
Flexibility is
needed to make
changes in opera-
tions that would
result in labor sav-
ings and other cost
reductions
Desire of local
government to
avoid administra-
tive details in
operation of dis-
posal facilities
Community lacks
sufficient technical
and management
expertise for ef-
ficient operation of
the type of ad-
vanced disposal
system it would
like to install
Territorial flexi-
bility is needed to
permit operation
across political
boundaries, where
appropriate re-
gional agencies do
not exist
17
-------
0) VS>
£ \
« o
2 \
I \
i "%
^ \
03 ^>
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, '<&
\
INSTITUTIONAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
I
=»
I
I /'
2. >/
^
7
APPROACHES /
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation
Public and Private Operation
of Residential Collection Services
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, mst.tutional factors, resource conservation.
\
n tS
3<^
In contrast to many other public services,
residential solid waste collection is often
under mixed public and private auspices
rather than being exclusively a government
service. A key decision in solid waste man-
agement is, "Who should collect the waste?"
ALTERNATIVES
The following examples describe the range
of answers available to the above question:
• Public (municipal) collection, usually
under a governmental department such
as the department of public works.
• Public corporation, authority, or utility
which usually serves a multijurisdic-
tional or regional area and is financially
self-supporting and administered sepa-
rately from other agencies of city gov-
ernment.
• Private firms operating under exclusive
franchises by which each is licensed to
operate alone in a given area. A fran-
chise may or may not be awarded on
the basis of competitive bidding, and
may or may not include a contract reg-
ulating prices and limiting the time
period of the franchise.
• Private firms operating under permits
which Jimit the number of firms which
can operate in a given geographical area.
The governmental agency that issues the
permits may also regulate prices, but
the contractor must compete for cus-
tomers within the permit area.
• Private firms in open competition with
no regulations limiting the number of
firms operating in a given area.
In addition to these alternatives, various
combinations of public and private systems
may exist in some communities. Examples of
such combinations include situations where
a municipally operated system collects a por-
tion of the residences and private contractors
with franchises collect the remaining stops.
In other communities the municipal system
may compete with the private sector for
customers.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Public (Municipal) Operations
Ownership and operation of the collection
service by the local government is a common
practice. The advantages of this alternative
include the nonprofit, tax-exempt status of
public operations which, compared with pri-
vate operation, should result in reduced costs.
In addition to potential cost savings, adminis-
trative control of the collection system by a
public agency is often necessary for the im-
plementation of collection .policies which re-
quire systemwide compliance to be effective.
Examples of such policies include mandatory
collection requirements and the implementa-
tion of separate collection of newsprint and
other materials for resource recovery.
The disadvantages of public ownership and
operation of the collection system include the
monopolistic nature of such operations which
can result in a lack of stimulus towards
efficiency. Another disadvantage is the po-
tential for political interference in the opera-
tions and financing of the system.
In establishing labor policies such as crew
size and daily work tasks, administrators of
public systems may be constrained by labor
union pressures and stated or unstated poli-
cies of job support. Labor pressures for
higher pay, less work, and greater job secu-
rity limit the flexibility of many public sys-
tems to implement labor-saving techniques.
21
-------
Also, labor strikes causing discontinuities in
service are more prevalent in the public sec-
tor than in private collection firms.
In the area of financing, the solid waste
system may be particularly affected as a re-
sult of the low priority given solid waste
management in many city budgets. This sit-
uation can inhibit innovation and reduce
efficiency due to inadequate equipment re-
placement policies.
Public Corporation (Utility)
This alternative shares many of the advan-
tages of municipally operated solid waste
systems, including nonprofit, tax-exempt sta-
tus and centralized administrative control of
collection policies. The pubHc corporation has
the additional advantage of operating inde-
pendently of the political structure as a self-
financing, businesslike entity.
The disadvantage of a public corporation
is that it is a monopoly, and unless perform-
ance and rates are carefully monitored by a
body separate from the operating utility, the
monopoly is uncontrolled.
Private Firms with Exclusive Franchises
The potential advantage of having private
contractors perform solid waste collection is
that the competition between various private
firms should keep costs down. In the situation
where franchises are awarded under a com-
petitive bidding system, the community can
retain control of collection policies and derive
the efficiencies of a competitive, profit-moti-
vated collection system.
The disadvantage of this alternative cen-
ters upon the need for active regulation of
the franchise by a public agency. Exclusive
franchises should be awarded on a bid basis
with contract specifications featuring posi-
tive incentives for contractor firms to main-
tain and improve efficiency. The absence of
these controls may result in excessive col-
lection costs.
Private Firms with Restricted Entry
The purpose in limiting the number of
contractors that operate in a given area is
to counteract the negative aspects of exces-
sive competition (business failures, discon-
tinuities in service), while at the same time
maintaining a competitive atmosphere. How-
ever, such a system is subject to political
abuse in the awarding of permits and often
creates a semimonopolistic situation for the
private contractors.
In addition, having several contractors op-
erating in the same area leads to overlapping
routes and inefficient use of fuel.
Private Firms in Open Competition
While competition may keep prices low, a
situation with no administrative control over
solid waste collection can degenerate into
cutthroat competition and severe price cut-
ting, leading to a high rate of business failure
and interruptions in service. There is also
the danger that the contractors will infor-
mally agree to honor each other's territories,
thus removing the competitive element and
resulting in higher prices. This alternative,
like the previous one, results in the duplica-
tion of resources and inefficient use of fuel.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
If a community's present collection system
is unsatisfactory, a change in the institu-
tional organization of the system may be
one means of alleviating the problems. The
risks in such a change include high initial
costs involved in instituting a new organiza-
tional structure and the possibility of dra-
matic social and economic impacts in terms
of losses or gains in the number of jobs.
Without redesign or reorganization, however,
it may be very difficult to change inefficient
practices, traditions, and policies, bring in
better management, or increase reliability
and productivity of the labor force. Thus the
only alternative may be institutional change.
The alternative chosen by a particular
community depends on many conditions.
Some community situations suggest the pref-
erability of public operation while others
suggest private operation as being more ap-
propriate.
Conditions favoring public ownership and
operation would include:
• Public predisposition toward govern-
ment operation of public services
• Quality of service provided is more im-
portant criterion than economics
• Past history of unsatisfactory contrac-
tual operations for public service
22
-------
Conditions favoring private ownership and
operation would include:
• Public predisposition toward private
sector involvement in public services
• Flexibility is needed to make shifts in
operation which would produce labor
savings and other cost reductions
• Desire of local government to avoid ad-
ministrative details in operation of col-
lection system
• Population growth is outpacing ability
of community to provide public services
• Existence of qualified private contrac-
tors
If a community plans to contract with a
private solid waste firm for collection service,
it becomes the job of the local government to
administer the bidding process and to moni-
tor and enforce the terms of the contract.
The tools of enforcement consist of the
government's ability to withhold payments
and ultimately cancel the contract if the firm
does not meet minimum performance stand-
ards. Besides these drastic measures, positive
incentives in the contract for firms to main-
tain and improve efficiency can have a major
effect on their performance. The design of
the contract specifications is a crucial factor
in assuring that a reputable collection firm is
chosen an the bidding process.
The contract specifications must be suffi-
ciently general to attract a reasonable num-
ber of bidders but at the same time restric-
tive enough to discourage bidding by incom-
petent or disreputable collection firms. A
large number of bidders is important to
minimize possible collusion in the bidding
process. If there are very few bidders for
the contract areas, there is always the po-
tential that competitors will fix their bids
so everyone gets a share.
One way to encourage a larger number of
bids is to allow sufficient time between
awarding of the contract and start of the
contract period so that small firms can obtain
the additional resources that may be required
should they have the winning bid.
To discourage bidding by disreputable
firms, governments frequently require a per-
formance bond from each prospective bidder.
Such a bond makes the issuing financial
institution liable, up to the amount of the
face value of the bond, in the event that the
bonded contractor fails to abide by the terms
of the contract.
Other key issues to be considered in con-
tracting with private firms for solid waste
collection are: the number of subareas into
which a given jurisdiction should be divided;
whether or not contracts on all areas should
be let simultaneously or staggered over time;
the maximum number of subareas any one
contractor should be allowed to service; and
the length of time between successive bidding
opportunities.
The greater the number of subareas into
which the jurisdiction is divided, the greater
the number of contractors the jurisdiction
can support, and the greater the number of
contractors who must be available for bid-
ding. However, care must be taken so that
each subarea is in fact large enough to sup-
port a collector. In addition, it is desirable
to stagger the bidding for the various sub-
areas so that the competition for each is more
intense.
The number of simultaneous contracts one
firm can hold should be restricted to maintain
an adequate number of bidders in the area. If
one firm holds a large number of franchises,
the total number of collection firms the area
will support is reduced, and there will be a
smaller number of available bidders. How-
ever, the limit on the number of contracts
one firm can hold should not be too severe,
or the competitive spirit will be diminished
among the firms holding current contracts.
The length of the contract period can also
affect the success of the bidding process. A
contract period that is too long can reduce
the contractor's incentive to maintain high
quality service, but the contract should be
long enough to allow amortization of the col-
lection equipment. EPA recommends a con-
tract period of 3 to 5 years.
Another problem that must be anticipated
in granting franchises to private contractors
is the possibility of requests for midterm rate
adjustments of a contract. The need to adjust
a contract may arise from underbidding by
23
-------
the contractor, either deliberately or through
inaccurate calculations or unforeseen circum-
stances, such as severe inflation or changes
in collection procedures. If such midterm
adjustments are relatively easy to obtain,
there will be little incentive for accurate
bidding and efficient operation over the life
of the contract. For this reason, any pro-
cedure for permitting midterm adjustments
should be very stringently followed.
To aid cities in designing a contract, EPA
and the National Solid Waste Management
Association (NSWMA) have developed a
model contract. A copy of this contract can
be obtained from the NSWMA.
A final control over private contractors
with exclusive franchises is complaints. A
responsive complaint procedure that includes
inspection and followup must be an integral
part of administering a contract system.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of whether the public or pri-
vate sector performs the residential solid
waste collection function, the local govern-
ment should retain administrative control
over this function. The alternatives among
institutional arrangements which satisfy this
condition are municipal operations, public
corporations, and private firms under con-
tract to the municipality. It is possible to
achieve a high level of productivity with any
one of these institutional arrangements, but
past experience tends to indicate that the
private sector, as a whole, is more productive
than the public sector due to the profit motive
involved. Higher productivity should result
in lower collection costs, but this is likely to
happen only if the private sector operates
under contracts which encourage competi-
tion and protect against excessive profits.
REFERENCES
1. YOUNG, D. How shall we collect the garbage? A study in economic or-
ganization. Washington, The Urban Institute, 1972. 83 p.
2. NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION and SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT OFFICE. Technical guides and model contract for
collection of residential solid wastes. [Cincinnati], U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1971. 30 p.
3. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RESEARCH FOUNDATION. Model solid
waste ordinance for local governments. Washington, 1974. 23 p.
4. APPLIED MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, INC. The private sector in solid waste
management; a profile of its resources and contribution to collec-
tion and disposal. Volumes 1 and 2. Environmental Protection Pub-
lication SW-51d.l. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1973. 239 p.
6. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS. Public
regulation concept in solid waste management; a feasibility study.
[Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. [118 p.]
24
-------
t\
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Multijurisdictional Approaches
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
o <
I/
= .
-------
Nonprofit Public Corporations
The nonprofit public corporation is similar
in many respects to the authority as a means
of financing and managing a solid waste
system. Using this form of corporate body,
the city can shift its financing requirements
to an organization outside the immediate
municipal bureaucracy.
The major reasons for a community to
create a nonprofit corporation to perform
solid waste services are ease of administra-
tive and legal approval and the presence of
a long-term commercial interest in the serv-
ice.
The nonprofit corporation can be estab-
lished by a eity or by a group of private
individuals. The important feature is that
the organization is tax exempt and can issue
tax-exempt bonds. To gain tax-exempt status,
the corporation must satisfy the following
Internal Revenue Service criteria:
• The city council must approve the proj-
ect and accept the assets after bonds are
paid.
• The corporation must agree to give its
assets to the city after bonds are paid.
• The city must provide all easements to
the corporation at no cost.
» The directors of the corporation must
be city or State officials.
• The corporation must provide a public
service.
A municipality has more control over a
nonprofit public corporation than it does over
a profit-making firm. The nonprofit corpora-
tion does not pay real estate or Federal taxes,
and its* capital financing can be offered as
tax exempt.
The ability of the nonprofit corporation to
raise capital depends on its ability to secure
contracts for its services and its performance
of the service, as well as any provisions in
its charter which limit the type of debt or
the amount of debt. The cost of capital to a
nonprofit corporation will depend on the type
of debt issued and the performance of the
corporation. In theory the cost of capital to
the nonprofit corporation should reflect the
degree of risk perceived in realizing reve-
nues because it will not have the security of
the full faith and credit of a community
behind it. Hence there is incentive to make
investments that are quite certain to work
technically and to insure that services are
covered, at least to the break-even point, by
contracts.
Multicommunity Cooperatives
The multicommunity cooperative is a sys-
tem developed by one community to provide
service to itself and several other communi-
ties. The purpose behind a multicommunity
cooperative is to achieve economies of scale
through better utilization of capital. It en-
ables member communities to provide serv-
ices not otherwise financially possible.
The concept offers several attractive fea-
tures. It centralizes waste processing and
disposal, reduces the number of small, ineffi-
cient, environmentally unsound systems op-
erating in the area, and offers options in
solid waste handling not otherwise available
to member communities. Urban communities
with no landfill area and with limited oppor-
tunities for incineration would benefit from
a regional arrangement where the options
are broader. This approach enables one polit-
ical jurisdiction to take the lead, while con-
tractually bound supporting communities in-
dicate to the financial community that the
service will be used and sufficient revenues
generated.
Evaluation of the multicommunity ap-
proach as a financing mechanism is really
an analysis of the community which will
issue the debt in behalf of the other com-
munities. Although each city council must
approve the concept and the working agree-
ments, the ability to raise capital will depend
on the lead community's debt capacity and
financial strength, which may be strained by
the extra load. Tax-exempt status is avail-
able for financing of multicommunity coop-
eratives.
The multicommunity approach obviously
depends largely on the willingness of inde-
pendent communities to work together and,
in particular, to let one community take a
dominant role. The process of organizing the
communities for cooperative action is time
consuming. Where the problems can be sur-
mounted, however, the multicommunity ap-
26
-------
proach should encourage more efficient, bet-
ter quality systems.
Special Districts
A "special district" is an agency of gov-
ernment which operates outside the regular
structure of government to perform usually
a single function and which relies for finan-
cial support primarily on special tax levies.
Its creation requires the cooperation of the
State and the political entities already exist-
ing within the region. To implement a suc-
cessful program, the special-purpose district
must continue to be responsive to local needs
and to cooperate with local jurisdictions.
In some instances, special-purpose govern-
ments must be used because of State restric-
tions or because no other governmental unit
can be used. The special district has an ad-
vantage over the public authority in that the
district has a distinct constituency of resi-
dents, not merely a group of bondholders
living in widely scattered places.
If a special district is used for providing
solid waste services, the overall planning
function of the general-purpose governments
can be protected by having elected county
officials with responsibility for solid waste
management serve as the governing body of
the new unit of government.
Other Techniques of Intergovernmental
Cooperation
Governmental agreements can be made on
a formal or informal basis. A county can,
for example, make a formal agreement with
one or many cities within its boundaries to
perform a certain service for a predeter-
mined fee.
Informal agreements between local govern-
ments are frequently made but are not advis-
able since they can lead to misunderstanding.
Any initial agreement should be put down in
writing in adequate detail to avoid later dis-
agreement.
Agreements and contracts are without a
doubt the most widely used formal method
of cooperation among governments in the
United States. They constitute a flexible yet
predictable and enforceable approach. They
can be used to accommodate special program
needs without affecting basic structure and
organization. Consequently, needed services
can be provided and necessary projects un-
dertaken without waiting for major decisions
on governmental reorganization which ulti-
mately may be necessary. The ideal organi-
zational pattern may well be politically un-
feasible.
A transfer of function occurs when one
level of government is delegated responsi-
bility for a function that another level of
government or jurisdiction had. For exam-
ple, in Broome County, New York, most of the
cities and towns have agreed to transfer the
function of solid waste disposal to the county.
Similarly, Montgomery County, Pennsyl-
vania, gained responsibility for solid waste
management in all parts of the county be-
cause the increase in its population caused
it to be reclassified under the State's system.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Authorities
Advantages:
• Ability to finance without regard to local
debt ceiling
• Voter approval not required
• Service cannot be hampered by local
political activity because board members
are usually private citizens
• Can serve multiple political entities
• Autonomy and freedom from municipal
budgetary and administrative control
means more efficient delivery of service
• Can generate sufficient income to make
service self-supporting
• Capital financing is tax exempt
Disadvantages:
• Financing is administratively complex
• Can become remote from government or
public control, thus may become self-
serving
Nonprofit Public Corporations
Advantages:
• Financing outside government debt lim-
its
• Voter approval not required
• Can serve multiple political entities
• Corporation gives assets to cities after
bonds are paid
• No real estate or Federal taxes, and cap-
ital financing is tax exempt
27
-------
Disadvantages:
• Political influence may be exerted and
flexibility lost because board members
are city and State officials
• Difficult to dismantle even if better serv-
ice becomes available
• Does not have full fadth and credit of
communities behind it
Multicommunity Cooperatives
Advantages:
• Achieves economies of scale because of
better utilization of capital
• Enables member communities to pro-
vide service not otherwise financially
possible
• Encourages more efficient, better quality
systems
Disadvantages:
• Member communities lose some control
over locations of waste disposal sites
• Loss of control over charges for use of
system
• Increased interest costs when leading
community is less creditworthy than
other members
• Loss of autonomy
• Leader community could be hurt finan-
cially unless proper contractual arrange-
ments are made with member communi-
ties
Special Districts
Advantages :
• The district has a distinct constituency
of residents, not merely a group of
bondholders living in scattered places
• Governments can be protected by having
elected county officials serve as govern-
ing body of distract
Disadvantages
• Must rely on special tax levies requiring
voter approval
• Creates an additional governmental en-
tity removed from the electorate and
thus less responsive to citizens than
directly elected entities
Governmental Agreements
Advantages:
• Contracts present a flexible, predictable,
and enforceable method of cooperation
• Do not affect basic structure and orga-
nization
• Since no reorganization is required,
much time is saved
Disadvantages:
• Contracts must be written in adequate
detail to avoid later disagreement
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Control of a multijurisdictional disposal
operation should be such that collection sys-
tem users have a voice in decisions affecting
them, including the location of offload points,
the condition of access roads, hours of opera-
tion, and restrictions on items received.
On the other hand, disposal operations can
be run more efficiently if disposal managers
have some control over the timing and
amounts of solid waste received. Facilities
can then foe run at efficient levels of input,
and waiting lines for offloading vehicles can
be minimized.
CONCLUSIONS
Multijurisdictional approaches can be used
to hire better management, spread unit costs
over a larger population base, thereby taking
advantage of economies of scale, and avoid
costly duplication of services. Therefore, such
approaches are to be encouraged wherever
possible.
28
-------
1\
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Sources of Operating Revenue
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resoirce conservation.
Traditionally, municipally operated solid
waste systems have been funded with tax
revenues. But with increasing pressures on
municipal budget allocations, there has been
a recent trend toward generating revenues
through user charges. As the cost of solid
waste collection and disposal rises, many
communities will be examining the methods
by which they generate revenues for this
service.
ALTERNATIVES
There are two basic methods of generating
revenues for the day-to-day operation of a
solid waste system. The first method is to
finance the system through taxes, either
through budgetary allocation from the gen-
eral tax fund or the levy of a specific tax.
The second method is to allocate the total
cost of providing solid waste service among
the users of the service. The charge may be
either a straight or progressive user charge.
A straight user charge allocates an equal
share of the costs to all users within a service
level group. A user receiving backyard col-
lection may pay more than a user receiving
curbside service, but all backyard users are
charged the same, regardless of the amount
of waste they generate. This type of user
charge can be collected by adding a separate
solid waste charge to a periodic utility billing
or the yearly property tax billing, or through
a separate billing system. To avoid added
overhead cost and to facilitate collection
of bills, it is usually preferable to at-
tach the charge to an already existent billing
system. This type of user charge is the most
efficient and least costly to administer.
A progressive user charge represents an
attempt to correlate costs and service by
charging the resident according to the
amount of waste he generates. The assess-
ment can be calculated in two ways: (1) a
charge for each container collected or (2) a
minimum charge that would cover collection
of a certain number of containers plus an
extra charge for each additional container.
The first method of assessing progressive
charges is well illustrated by the system
which requires that plastic bags sold by the
collection agency be used, with the charge
per bag including both the collection costs
and the cost of the bag. On the whole, this
approach does not achieve the objective of
relating charges to costs, since the increase
in collection costs per additional container is
not a linear one. The cost of loading the
second or third bag does not equal the cost
of driving, stopping, and loading the first
bag. Under this system, the high-volume user
subsidizes the low-volume user.
The second method of assessing progres-
sive charges is more equitable than the first,
but it is more difficult to administer. It re-
quires a more complex accounting system to
keep track of customers' use of extra con-
tainers. A serious problem is controlling the
system so that customers get billed for only
the number of containers they are using and
collectors know how many containers are to
be collected from each customer. These ad-
ministrative difficulties can be alleviated by
use of specially marked containers. The dis-
tribution of the containers provides a record
of how many containers a customer uses, and
collection of only specially marked containers
guarantees that no extra waste is collected.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Tax financing
The primary advantage of financing solid
waste systems via tax revenues is its sim-
plicity. There is no need to develop a billing
and collection system, and payment is vir-
tually guaranteed. Including the cost of solid
waste service in the local property tax is
29
-------
advantageous from the householder's view-
point, since that makes the cost deductible
from State and Federal income taxes.
The disadvantages are that the amount
budgeted for solid waste management often
does not cover the operating costs of the
system or allow for proper capital replace-
ment policies. The result is that many of
these systems must use equipment that is
old and costly to maintain.
The use of a specific tax levy can avoid
these problems if the fund is adequate to
cover operating and capital replacement costs
and is truly protected from being used for
anything but solid waste management.
User Charge
The advantage of a user charge is that it
enables localities to balance revenues with
the cost of providing solid waste services.
This situation makes it easier to justify rate
changes when needed, because the claim of
profit or loss can be documented. The close
balance of cost and user charges, together
with citizen awareness of the cost of the
solid waste service, can lead to improved sys-
tem efficiencies by forcing the solid waste
operation to be run as a business with visible
operating efficiency.
The primary disadvantage of a user charge
is that it is more complex to administer than
tax financing. There is the additional prob-
lem that, if the user charge is based on the
number of containers collected, citizens may
overfill containers or engage in illegal dump-
ing to minimize their solid waste bill.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In administering a user charge system,
some provisions should be made for persons
who are unable to pay the fee. One method is
to allow the aged and indigent to pay a
reduced charge, provided the reduction is
applied for and verified by the appropriate
public body.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of the financing method se-
lected, three things are essential to achieving
the maximum benefits of the system. First,
good management and an accurate cost ac-
counting system are needed to enable the
collection agency to establish a cost-effective
operation. Second, the funds collected for the
financing of the system should be set aside
in a dedicated fund so that they are available
as needed for capital replacement and operat-
ing expenses. Third, the revenues received
should be reflective of the cost of the service
provided. Otherwise, the necessary amount
of operating revenue may not be produced
and awareness of the cost of service among
the users is not fostered.
Because of the many factors impacting on
collection costs, none of the financing methods
described above can be precisely equitable
nor would some communities desire them to
be. In many cases one sector of the popula-
tion subsidizes service to another sector by
paying a price higher than the service actu-
ally costs. While it remains the province of
individual communities to make such deter-
minations, it is the right of the citizens to
know about them.
80
-------
IS
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Capital Financing
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
'
Estimates of cumulative expenditures over
the next 10 years for solid waste management
range from $1.0 to $7.5 billion. These sums
will be spent to construct new solid waste
facilities and maintain and upgrade existing
ones. This immense capital expenditure is,
in part, the result of the need to conform to
new Federal and State regulations, the de-
velopment of more capital-intensive systems,
and public demands about the environment.
Financing these expenditures has become an
increasingly complex and demanding task for
municipalities.
Municipalities commonly draw from two
basic sources to obtain capital for facilities
and equipment: borrowed funds and current
revenues. A third alternative is to contract
with private firms for the service and shift
the capital-raising burden onto them. The
decision facing the local government manager
is which of these alternatives is the best for
his situation—the local conditions and
needs. The decision will be controlled by such
factors as the financial status of the city,
voter attitude, legal constraints on debt limits
or long-term contracts, and the magnitude of
the project to be undertaken.
ALTERNATIVES
The basic sources of capital considered
here are these:
1. Borrowing
General obligation bonds
Municipal revenue bonds
Bank loans
Leasing
2. Current revenue capital financing
3. Private financing
Industrial revenue bonds
Leveraged leasing
General Obligation Bonds
Among all public borrowing mechanisms
available, general obligation (GO) bonds are,
in general, the most flexible and least costly
alternative. The issuing municipality guaran-
tees a GO bond with its full faith and credit
based on its ability to levy on all taxable real
property such ad valorem taxes as may be
necessary to pay the principal and interest
on the bonds.
A GO bond requires no technical or eco-
nomic analysis of particular projects to be
funded. Small projects may be grouped to
obtain capital, making GO bonds an ideal
funding mechanism for solid waste facilities
in small and medium-sized communities.
The transaction costs attendant upon the
issuance of a GO bond impose a benohmark
minimum of $500,000 on the debt issuance, as
any amount below this level would prohibi-
tively increase the per dollar cost of the lien.
If total capital requirements of a small or
medium-sized community are less than
$500,000, it must adopt an alternative financ-
ing mechanism, such as private capital bor-
rowing or leasing of equipment and facilities.
Municipal Revenue Bonds
A mechanism that is often used to carcum-
vent the constraints associated with GO bond
issuance is the municipal revenue bond. A
revenue bond is issued to finance a single
project with revenue-producing services.
Revenue bonds do not have the full faith
and credit clause. Rather, they pledge the net
revenue generated by the project to guaran-
tee payment. The increased risk associated
with revenue bonds yields a correspondingly
higher interest rate. Also the coupon rates
on revenue bonds are more volatile and de-
31
-------
pend strictly on the revenue-generating capa-
city of the project being financed. Revenue
bonds require extensive bond circulars de-
scribing the economics of the project.
Bank Loans
A municipal bank loan ought not to be
considered an alternative to long-term bond
financing. However, relatively small-scale
capital requirements may be met in the
short run (5 years or less) at a low cost by
securing a bank loan.
The most typical use of bank loans in the
solid waste field has been to supply short-
term funding for rolling stock. Since interest
on a bank loan to a municipality is tax free
to the bank, the corresponding interest will
compare favorably with the coupon on a GO
bond.
Municipalities often use bank loans to sta-
bilize cash flow, and occasionally large cities
use bank notes in anticipation of a bond
issue. The notes, often substantial if ar-
ranged with a large bank, are refinanced as
they expire. A medium-term source of fund-
ing is thus provided.
Leasing
In lease agreements, the leasing company
(the lessor) purchases and holds title to the
equipment and the lessee pays rent for the
use of it during the lease term, usually not
more than 5 years. Lease agreements in the
solid waste area have usually been arranged
by local equipment representatives, who place
the financing with either a bank or leasing
company. Currently, interest rates on lease
agreements are averaging between 9 and 18
percent of the capital cost. Often, stipulations
will be included in the contract agreement
which allow the city to purchase the equip-
ment at 'fair market value" at the end of
the lease.
The use of leasing by private solid waste
companies is quite prevalent. Small private
collection companies that are trying to ex-
pand their business may find themselves in a
cash flow bind and use this type of financing
extensively. Leasing is not so unprofitable
for them because the cost of leasing can be
written off as a business expense for tax
purposes.
Current Revenue Capital Financing
The most common method for obtaining
capital equipment for use in a solid waste
system has been to buy it as needed. The
principal advantage is simplicity, with no
institutional, informational, analytical, or
legal arrangements required. This method,
however, is dependent on the ability of the
community to generate surplus capital.
In the solid waste area, current revenue
financing has been used mainly for collection
vehicles and selected landfill disposal systems.
Municipalities that dispose of solid waste us-
ing landfills are usually able to maintain the
system with current revenues. Equipment
replacement is not likely to be a major ex-
pense and can be handled periodically. Land
can be leased or purchased as an investment.
On the other hand, municipalities requiring
either extensive upgrading of their systems
in the short run or a capital-intensive solu-
tion to solid waste problems will have to
raise capital by borrowing or by contracting
with a private firm.
Private Financing of Municipal
Solid Waste Systems
A third alternative for a community seek-
ing to obtain capital equipment for use in
solid waste management is to contract with
a private firm to raise the capital, purchase
the equipment, and operate the system. This
approach relieves the municipality entirely
of having to devote capital funds to solid
waste management and presumably provides
the most long-term flexibility.
Industrial Revenue Bonds
An industrial revenue bond is issued by a
municipality for or on behalf of a private
enterprise. The municipality technically owns
the facility and equipment, which it leases to
the private firm. The lease payments are
specified to meet the scheduled payments of
debt and interest on the bond. The munici-
pality thus acts as a vehicle through which a
corporation may obtain low-cost financing. If
payment arrangements between the corpora-
tion and the municipality are structured as
an installment sale, the corporation may
claim ownership for tax purposes. This gives
the corporation a tax benefit in the form of
82
-------
accelerated depreciation or the investment
tax credit.
The ability of a municipality to issue an
industrial revenue bond is dependent on
enabling legislation from the State. Forty-
four States now allow their municipalities to
issue industrial revenue bonds.
A major stumbling block of industrial
revenue bonds concerns a community's abil-
ity to sign long-term contracts with corpora-
tions, guaranteeing a minimum supply of
solid waste. While the security of these issues
requires long-term agreements, many States
do not permit communities to enter into long-
term service contracts.
Leveraged Leasing
Leveraged leasing is technically not a
financial instrument. Rather it is a financial
package that combines several financial op-
tions. The concept is based upon the benefits
(lower long-term capital and interest costs)
that accrue to a city if a financial intermedi-
ary, a corporation or individual, is interposed
between a long-term source of capital and
the municipality.
Leveraged leasing, using tax-exempt funds
as a debt source, is a new concept that has
been applied only twice in the public sec-
tor. Its future, however, is promising and
it has stirred a great deal of interest in the
public financing investment community.
Leveraged leasing is a most complex
mechanism to initiate. It involves two major
participants, a financial intermediary (les-
sor) and a city (lessee) (Figure 2). It differs
from traditional leasing in that both the
lessor and the city provide capital funds to
purchase the asset. Usually, the lessor puts
up 20 to 30 percent of the cost of the asset
and the city finances the remaining portion
through a typical borrowing method.
The financial intermediary acquires the
tax advantages of ownership, and therefore
can pass on to the city a very low interest
rate (lower than GO bond interest rate) on
his share of the cost of the asset. He is able
to provide funds to a municipality at a very
low interest rate because he is the owner of
the entire facility from a tax standpoint and
he can depreciate the investment and, in
addition, claim a 7-percent investment tax
credit if the facility is run by a private corp-
oration. Essentially, the depreciation and tax
credit act to shelter the financial inter-
mediary's other income, which allows him to
receive an adequate after-tax return on his
initial investment in the asset.
The characteristics of each means of fi-
nancing solid waste systems should be exam-
ined so that the means best suited to the
particular community will be selected (Table
12).
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
General Obligation Bonds
Advantages:
• One of the most flexible and least costly
public borrowing methods
• Requires no technical or economic analy-
sis of particular projects to be funded
• Small projects may be grouped to obtain
capital
• Ideal mechanism for small and medium-
sized communities
• Least difficult to market
Disadvantages:
• Requires voter approval, and elections
may be expensive
• Must not exceed municipality's debt limit
• Issuing jurisdiction must have power to
levy ad valorem property taxes
• Transaction costs impose a benchmark
minimum of $500,000 on amount of debt
issuance
• Capital raised becomes part of general
city treasury, thus other city expendi-
tures could draw on amount, unless spe-
cifically earmarked for solid waste
• Since careful project evaluation is not
required, decision-makers may be un-
aware of technological and economic
risks
• Ease of raising capital is a deterrent to
change in existing public/private man-
agement mix; little incentive for officials
to consider use of private system opera-
tors
Municipal Revenue Bonds
Advantages:
• Project revenues guarantee payment
• Can be used by institutions lacking tax-
ing power, such as regional authorities
and nonprofit corporations
S3
-------
Long-term capital source
Financial intermediary
Operating company
Supplies 60—80%
of capital at market
or tax-free rates
Loan
Debt service
paymenti
Owns equipment
Equity interest 20—40%
expense for
tax purpOMl
Services debt with
lease payments
Return on equity -
tax beneliti and
excen ol leate
payments over debt
service
Equipment
Lease payments
Obtains equipment
at capital cost below
market rate
Committed to
long-term lease
FIGURE 2. A typical leveraged leasing structure uses a financial inter-
mediary to transfer the capital from the capital source. The intermediary leases
the equipment bought with the capital to the operating company and uses the
lease payments to service the debt to the capital source. Source: RESOURCE
PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC., A study of alternative financing methods for solid
waste facilities and equipment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974,
p. 86. (Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.)
• Does not require voter approval
• Is not constrained by municipality's debt
limitations
Disadvantages:
• Effective minimum issue of $1 million,
thus only useful for capital-intensive
projects
• Information requirements of the bond
circular are extensive, which may cause
delays in raising capital
• Technical and economic analysis of pro-
ject must be performed by experts out-
side the municipal government
• Cost is higher than GO bonds
• Can be used only for specific projects
Bank Loans
Advantages:
Small-scale capital requirements for
short-term funding (5 years or less)
Relatively low interest cost because in-
terest paid by municipality is tax free
to bank
Some medium-term funding applicabil-
ity since notes may be refinanced as they
expire
Source of funds on short notice
No external technical or economic analy-
sis required
Essentially no minimum
• Relatively inexpensive
• Voter approval generally not required
• No debt ceilings
• Can be used by institutions lacking tax-
ing power
Disadvantages:
• Low maximum
• Short term
• Not useful for capital-intensive projects
Leasing
Advantages:
• Useful as interim financing for equip-
ment needed before appropriations or
long-term capital arrangements can be
made
• Reduces demand on municipal capital
outlays since original capital is raised
by private corporation
• Negotiating agreement is simple and fast
• Only certification required is assurance
of municipality's credit standing
Disadvantages:
• Relatively high annual interest rate
(9-18 percent)
• Amount of capital is usually limited
• Lease terms are generally 5 years
• Some States prohibit municipalities from
entering multiyear, noncancellable con-
tracts
84
-------
TABLE 12
CHARACTERISTICS OF CAPITAL FINANCING METHODS AVAILABLE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES •
Parameter
Complexity of
application
Ability to
raise capital
Cost of
capital
Constraints
on use
General obligation
bonds
No project Informa-
tion required
No project analysis
required
Short lead time
Minimum $500.000
due to fixed transac-
tion costs but can
combine several
smaller unrelated
projects
Function of commun-
ity credit, not a
function of particular
projec
Lowest interest rates
for long-term capital
Interest cost 2-8 per-
cent less than cor-
porate bonds
Indirect costs Include
bond counsel and
possibly financial con-
sultant, but costs are
relatively low
Voter approval often
required
Legal debt celling
may exist
Can only be used by
jurisdictions with
taxing powers
Municipal revenue
bonds
Most complex
Bond circular must
contain detailed eco-
nomic and technical
information that has
been certified by out-
side consultants
Requires more time
to arrange
Minimum $1.000,000
due to heavy fixed
transaction /admin-
istrative costs
In pure form, not
suited for technologi-
cally risky projects
Maximum is function
of projected project
revenues
Somewhat higher
than general obliga-
tion bond
Is directly related to
the probability of
maintaining adequate
revenue
Municipality can min-
imise cost of capital
by giving revenue
bond the risk attri-
butes of a general
obligation bond
Indirect costs higher
than for general ob-
ligation Issue
Can be used only for
specific projects
Good only for rela-
tively large amounts
of long-term capital
Must be managed by
district authority or
agency
Requires stable, long-
term source of reve-
nue
Municipal bank
loans
Less complex than
bonds, particularly If
community has bank
line of credit
Very short lead time
No need for external
advice or certification
Absence of heavy
fixed transaction
costs makes It useful
for smaller dollar
needs
Maximum limited by
lending capacity of
bank
Better for short- and
medium-term loans
than bond
Similar to general
obligation bond. In
terms of risk and
security but affected
by loan size and
term
Shorter loan terms
than bonds
Smaller dollar
amounts than bonds
Types of financing
Leasing
Relatively simple
Minimal analysis
required
Very short lead time
Good for small short-
term (6-year) loans
Applicable to specific
pieces of equipment,
especially rolling
stock
High effective annual
interest (12-18 per-
cent)
Same rate for private.
public lessees.
Short term
Small dollar amounts
State-imposed restric-
tions on municipali-
ties about signing
multi-year noncan-
cellable leases
Leveraged leasing
Legally complex
New to public finance
May require IRS rul-
ing in beginning,
therefore requires 6-
month lead tune
Raises 20 to 50 per-
cent of the capital
required
In pure form, not
suited for technologi-
cally risky projects
Good potential
If city provides the
remaining 50 to 80
percent capital re-
quired for the project.
the cost of the money
is lower than with
general obligation
bond financing
Indirect costs ab-
sorbed by lessor
State restrictions on
city's signing multi-
year contracts
Public decision-
makers unfamiliar
with concept
Current revenue
capital financing
Least complex of
municipal finance
alternatives
Current revenue often
not available In
amounts necessary for
major capital ex-
penditures
Opportunity cost.
other social benefits
foregone
No legal constraints
Economic constraint
of amount of avail-
able capital
Private financing
Problems may include
locating acceptable
firm, negotiating con-
tract and proposed
facilities site, public
job reductions, other
organizational or
management issues
Technical and eco-
nomic analysis per-
formed by private
firm
Depends on credit
rating of firm and
soundness of project
Firms may be limited
to smaller amounts
of capital than mu-
nicipality with gen-
eral obligation bond
Higher for private
firm than for munici-
pality
Could be lowered
through mechanisms
like industrial reve-
nue bond or leveraged
leasing
Legal constraint
against communities
signing long-term
noncancellable con-
tracts
Insufficient profit po-
tential to compensate
firm for risk
Administrative legal
complexities of poten-
tial mechanisms in-
dustrial revenue bonds
and leverage*! leasing
Mechanisms available
do not benefit mar-
ginal firms
•S.miop: IiRsouiu-F PLANNING ASSOCIATES. INC. A study of alternative financing methods for solid waste facilities and equipment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1!I74. p. K6. Avail-
able through National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. In press.
-------
• City will not own asset unless it pur-
chases facility upon completion of leas-
ing period
Leveraged Leasing
Advantages:
• Reduces demand on municipal capital
funds
• Interest rate on entire financial package
may be lower than GO bond rates
Disadvantages:
• Legally complex
• City will not own asset unless it pur-
chases facility upon completion of lease
period
Cwrrevit Revenue Capital Financing
Advantages:
• Least complex mechanism available
• No need for formal financial documents
• No consultant or legal advice required
Disadvantages:
• No cost in the conventional sense, but
higher taxes result
• Communities frequently lack ability to
raise capital
• Current taxpayers have to pay for the
entire capital cost of a system that will
be used far into the future
TABLE 13
EXAMPLE OF COSTS TO FINANCE $10 MILLION THROUGH GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND.
MUNICIPAL REVENUE BOND, AND REVENUE BOND AND LEVERAGED LEASING*
(in thousands)
Item
Front-end costs:
Rating agency fees
Commission to underwriter
Counsel to underwriter
Counsel to city
Bond counsel
Accountants' fees
Initial trustee fees
Printing and engraving
Third party
Debt service reserve
Election cost
Total
Net proceeds to city
Yearly cost to city§
Effective debt service rate H
General
obligation
bond (5.7%)
$ 3
150
5
10
18
8
6
30
—
—
%
% 230
$9,770
$ 848
8.7%
Municipal
revenue
bond (6.25%)
$ 5
250
7
10
40
8
6
40
60
817
—
$1,238
$8,762
$ 883
10%
Revenue bond/
leveraged
leasing f
(4.88%)
$ 5
170
7
11
30
8
6
35
60
572
—
$ 904
$9,096
$ 788
8.6%
* Industrial revenue bond costs are not detailed, since all costs are passed
through to the involved corporation. The assumed interest rate for each debt
instrument was arbitrary. The actual rate will vary according to the credit
worthiness of a project (or city) and the current capital market conditions.
t $7 million by revenue bond, $3 million by lessor. The interest rate is the
weighted average cost of capital for the financial package.
J Election costs are unknown.
§ This is the dollar amount the city would have to pay to retire and pay
the interest on the debt. It was assumed that a city made steady payments for
the life of the financing to retire the debt The payments would be made semi-
annually for 30 years.
U The effective debt service rate is the yearly percentage cost to the city.
This is calculated by dividing the yearly cost (interest plus debt retirement)
by the net proceeds a city receives.
86
-------
• Most prevalent form of solid waste capi-
tal financing because so little capital has
been spent
• Solid waste projects must compete with
other municipal demands
Private Financing
Advantages:
• Municipality not involved in external
consulting
• Municipality need not borrow capital
Disadvantages:
• Municipality must locate acceptable firm
and negotiate contract
• Higher cost of capital reflected in system
charges
• There may be legal constraints prevent-
ing signing of long-term contract
• There may be displacement of city em-
ployees
COMPARATIVE COSTS
When comparing costs of different finan-
cial mechanisms, it is important that one not
fall into the trap of just reviewing coupon
(interest) rates. Coupon rates understate the
true costs a city must pay on the capital it
borrows. Rather, the municipality should
compare the effective debt service rate and
the yearly cost to the city on the funds it
finances (Table 13).
CONCLUSIONS
Because of its simplicity, current revenue
financing is the means most commonly used
by municipalities to finance collection vehicles
and landfill disposal systems. This method,
however, is dependent on the ability of the
community to generate surplus capital. Thus
it is frequently inadequate for capital-invest-
ment projects.
For a project requiring capital in excess of
$500,000, a GO bond is probably the best
choice, provided it has voter support and
does not exceed the legal debt limit.
For projects requiring capital in excess of
$1 million, the municipal revenue bond is a
desirable source of financing. Although it is
a complex approach and may take a great
deal of time to arrange, it forces the com-
munity to plan carefully, to design a low-
risk project, and to conduct a thorough
economic analysis in order to assure the
necessary revenue-generating capability.
Finally, leveraged leasing should be con-
sidered as a source of long-term asset financ-
ing. Its disadvantages—newness and com-
plexity of application—seem to be more than
offset by the potential cost savings to the
municipality.
87
-------
29.
c <•;
w
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Public and Private Operation of Processing
and Disposal Facilities
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Like solid waste collection, processing and
disposal are functions performed by both
the public and private sector. With the in-
creasing amounts of municipal solid waste
generated each year, many communities are
faced with the task of developing new facili-
ties to handle these wastes. In planning for
new facilities, whether they include shred-
ding, baling, or resource recovery facilities,
or merely additional sanitary landfill space,
communities will be considering not only
which technology to choose but who should
own and operate the facilities.
ALTERNATIVES
The institutional alternatives available
range from totally public to totally private
operation with many variations in between.
Several of these alternatives are similar to
those described in regard to collection opera-
tions.
• Public (municipal) operation, usually
under the control of a governmental
department such as the department of
public works.
• Public corporation, authority, or utility,
usually serving a multijurisdictional or
regional area, financially self-support-
ing, and administered separately from
other agencies of city government.
• Private firms with a contract or some
type of franchise from the local govern-
mental unit.
• Private firms operating independently
of the local government.
Possible public-private combinations in-
clude situations in which the local govern-
ment owns the facility and a private firm
!
operates it under contract to the government.
Another combination is the case in which a
private firm or individual leases the facility
to the local government, who actually oper-
ates it.
In communities with several processing
and disposal facilities, a number of these
various alternatives may be used, with some
sites private and others public.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
While solid waste processing and disposal
may be executed by either the public or
private sector, it is the responsibility of the
government (usually at the local level) to
insure that environmentally acceptable facil-
ities are available and to plan for future
needs. As solid waste processing and disposal
technologies become more sophisticated, cit-
ies must take into consideration such things
as availability and cost of capital, technologi-
cal risk, and the degree of management
expertise required for a given project. Cities
must examine these factors in deciding
whether to own and operate their own facili-
ties or contract with a private firm for these
services. The following discussion presents
the advantages and disadvantages to a city
of involving private firms in the processing
and disposal function.
One advantage associated with private
ownership and operation of processing and
disposal facilities is that the local com-
munity does not have to finance the system.
This is an important factor if the city's bor-
rowing power is limited. The involvement
of a private firm also insures that a com-
munity does not bear the entire risk asso-
ciated with implementing new kinds of tech-
nology.
88
-------
By utilizing private firms the city avoids
the administrative details associated with
operating the system. Also private firms
generally have greater flexibility in manage-
ment than public agencies. For example, a
private firm can adjust its manpower re-
quirements more quickly than a city, which
must be responsive to pressures by labor
unions to protect jobs.
Private firms can also make long-range
plans for land acquisition and additional
facilities without city council or voter ap-
proval and are not constrained by a yearly
budget cycle.
Land disposal site acquisition may be
easier for private firms, because there is less
publicity when a private firm purchases land
than when a city does. It may therefore be
possible to avoid turning site location into a
political issue.
The primary disadvantage of private sec-
tor facilities is that the city may not have
sufficient control over the price it has to pay
for disposal, especially if private facilities
are the only ones available in a community.
This problem may be alleviated somewhat if
the city's contract with private firms provide
safeguards against unreasonable rate in-
creases.
Private processing and disposal facilities
may cost more than equivalent public fa-
cilities because of the profit motive. Pri-
vate firms also pay taxes, whereas a public
facility is tax-free. In addition, if the tech-
nology for a type of facility is very new,
there may be only one or two companies
available to implement it, and with such
limited competition there is little incentive
to keep costs to a minimum.
CONCLUSIONS
It is the responsibility of the public sector
to insure that solid waste processing and
disposal facilities are provided and operated
in an environmentally acceptable manner,
whether or not they are actually owned and
operated by a unit of government. In decid-
ing whether to own and operate a given
facility or to contract with the private sector
for this service, cities must evaluate factors
such as their ability to raise capital, the
degree of technological risk involved, the
management expertise required, and the
expected operating cost.
-------
to Q.-
*-
-------
I °*
1 \
i \
conMrvation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Point of Collection
conservation, environmental affects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
* /'
• «J*
3/
the refuse containers to the curb for
collection and return them to their
storage place.
Satellite vehicle system—small-
capacity vehicles are used to traverse
long distances between the refuse
containers and the larger vehicle
(e.g., street to backdoor via drive-
way).
Approximately 60 percent of the collection
systems in the United States are curbside
and alley; 40 percent are backyard. Recent
trends, as evidenced in St. Petersburg and
Tampa, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Fort
Worth, Texas; and Akron, Ohio, are away
from backyard and toward curbside. Some
communities provide a choice of curb or
backyard service and charge at a different
rate for each.
COSTS
Time spent walking to the containers or
carrying them is costly, and cost factors have
brought pressures for greater efficiency in
solid waste collection. Curbside/alley collec-
tion yields the highest productivity. A sav-
ings of 50 to 55 percent may be achieved by
using curbside/alley rather than backyard
collection (Table 14).
Probably the aspect of service level most
apparent to the citizen is the point of col-
lection, that is, where the waste is picked up.
The decision on this issue affects other as-
pects of the collection system design such as
crew size and storage, and is ultimately a
controlling factor in the cost of providing the
collection service.
ALTERNATIVES
The main issue is who should be the one to
carry the refuse from the house to the curb.
There are two basic options available:
1. Curbside/alley collection requires the
resident to place the solid waste at the
curb or alley for collection and to re-
trieve any empty storage containers.
2. Backyard collection, which usually
takes one of four forms:
Tote barrel—the collectors walk to
the storage containers and empty
into an intermediate container, leav-
ing the storage containers in place.
Set out—the collectors carry the
refuse in the storage containers to
the curb for collection, and the resi-
dent retrieves the containers.
Setout/setback—the collectors carry
TABLE 14
COST FOR ONCE-A-WEEK COLLECTION USING TWO-MAN CREWS, BY POINT OF
COLLECTION AND INCENTIVE SYSTEM. IN FOUR CITIES, 1978 •
City
1
2
3
4
Incentive
system
task
task
8 hours
8 hours
Point of
collection
curb/alley
backyard
curb/alley
backyard
Cost per
tonf
$ 9.53
19.26
8.72
18.41
Percent
difference
51
ETC
55
* Source: ACT SYSTEMS, INC. A study of collection productivity using vari-
ous collection methodologies. Unpublished data.
t Labor rates for the cities have been normalized to permit intersystsm com-
parisons; therefore, these figures do not reflect actual collection costs.
48
-------
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Effect on Collectors
Due to the increased distances the solid
waste must be carried, the work in backyard
collection is physically more demanding than
in curbside collection. The result is that
many backyard collection systems have a
difficult time recruiting collectors and have
a high turnover rate. In addition, the greater
risk of backstrain and the hazards in yards
from such things as clotheslines, holes in
the ground, objects in the grass (toys, rakes),
and dogs, increase the rate of collector
injuries in backyard collection systems.
Separation of Wastes
If the citizens are required to separate
their solid waste, the different classes of
waste will normally be collected separately.
It is not necessary to use the same point of
collection for all service; newsprint could be
picked up at the curb or alley and other
refuse at the backdoor. Because of the added
cost of backyard collection and the desire to
make the separate collection of reusable
items as self-supporting as possible, curb-
side/alley collection is recommended for
these wastes.
Effect on Residents
In some communities, citizens will express
a preference for backyard collection even
though it costs more. In these communities,
an evaluation of the true cost difference be-
tween backyard and curb/alley collection
should be performed so that the implications
of choosing the more costly service are recog-
nized.
In other communities, where curbside/
alley service is the custom, the effects of this
policy on the aged and handicapped should
be examined. In cases where individuals are
unable to deliver their solid waste to the curb,
special service should be arranged.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of increased efficiency and
productivity and reduced collector injuries,
the Environmental Protection Agency rec-
ommends the use of curbside/alley collection.
REFERENCES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Data acquisition and analysis pro-
gram. Unpublished data, 1974.
44
-------
I \
conservation, environmental affects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Frequency of Collection
conservation, •nvironmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
\
I /
i/
For health and sanitation reasons, the
minimum acceptable frequency of collection
for residential wastes containing putrescibles
is once a week. In certain situations, particu-
larly in inner-city areas, dense population
and seriously restricted storage space often
combine to require more frequent service.
ALTERNATIVES
There are three acceptable choices of col-
lection frequency: once a week, twice a week,
and more than twice a week. It is estimated
that 45 percent of the urban systems have
once-a-week service. They are concentrated
on the West Coast, the Midwest, and the
Northern States. Systems with twice-a-week
collection are primarily in the Southern (es-
pecially Southeastern) and Mideastern States
and also account for 45 percent of the urban
systems. More frequent service, provided in
about 8 percent of urban communities, occurs
in densely populated areas such as parts of
New York City, which receive daily or twice*
daily collection.
COSTS
An increase in frequency of collection will
increase costs due to the increased time
spent collecting on the route each week. A
comparison of collection costs for four cities
shows that savings of 13 to 42 percent may
be made by collecting once a week rather
than twice a week (Table 15).
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
The primary advantage of once-a-week
over twlce-a-week collection is that it costs
less and uses less fuel. For relatively efficient
systems, 23 to 33 percent fewer vehicles are
required for once-a-week collection. Fuel
consumption is about 30 percent less. The
reduction in trucks, manpower, and miles
driven can cut costs by as much as 50
percent.
The advantage of more frequent collection
is that it reduces littering in urban areas
TABLE 15
COST OF CURBSIDE COLLECTION BY FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION AND CREW SIZE,
IN FOUR CITIES. 1978 *.t
City
1
2
3
4
Crew
•fee
1
1
3
3
Frequency of
collection
1
2
1
2
Cost per
ton*
$ 8.29
14.49
12.82
14.67
Percent
difference
43
13
* Source: ACT SYSTEMS, INC. A study of collection productivity using
various collection methodologies. Unpublished data.
f Using task incentive system.
$ Labor rates for the cities have been normalized to permit intersystem
comparisons; therefore, these figures do not reflect actual collection, costs.
46
-------
and reduces the amount of space required
for storing solid waste.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Fly Generation
Studies in California have shown that fre-
quency of collection can be an important
factor in the control of flies, with twice-a-
week collection more effective in fly control
than once-a-week collection. However, control
of flies is more closely linked to proper
selection and maintenance of storage con-
tainers than to frequency of collection. Use
of proper containers to retard fly production
makes once-a-week collection of garbage
acceptable.
Separation of Wastes
When citizens are required to separate
their solid waste, a frequency should be set
for each waste category. For instance, news-
print may be collected once a month, while
other household refuse is collected once a
week. Each decision on frequency should be
made independently, taking into considera-
tion the characteristics and storage require-
ments of each waste type.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of cost effectiveness, the
Environmental Protection Agency recom-
mends once-a-week collection unless it is
prohibited by inadequate storage.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Data acquisition and analysis
program. Unpublished data, 1974.
2. SHUSTER K. (Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.) Analysis of
fuel consumption for solid waste management. Unpublished data,
Jan. 1974.
46
-------
« ^
6
-------
the drum, the metal eventually rusts through,
allowing rodents to feed from the containers.
As the rust progresses, sharp edges are
formed which can injure the collector as well
as others.
Since the drums are heavy, many collectors
resort to the hazardous practice of picking
out the waste by hand, or they may leave the
waste for the next collection.
Because they are inefficient storage con-
tainers and could cause health and safety
problems, EPA recommends that 55-gallon
drums not be utilized as solid waste storage
containers.
Containers for Mechanized Collection
Mechanized collection from bulk containers
has long been regarded as an efficient and
acceptable way of servicing apartment build-
ings and commercial establishments. Several
of the more efficient residential solid waste
systems in the United States use clustered
storage and mechanized pickup by which
more than one residence can be serviced per
stop. Scottsdale, Arizona, uses 80-gallon plas-
tic containers for single-family units, and
300-gallon plastic containers in alleys for
four units. Both types of containers are
emptied mechanically by a vehicle with an
arm controlled by the driver, who never has
to leave the cab. An interesting sidenote
about clustering wastes is that containers
for two families are not as acceptable to
residents as four-family containers, since
each resident knows whose waste is whose.
With the four-unit container, anonymity is
preserved. People also tend to oppose even
the temporary storage of other people's solid
waste on their property.
Where there are proper storage areas and
sufficient access space, and economic analysis
shows a cost savings could be achieved,
mechanized collection should be considered.
Further discussion of such specialized collec-
tion systems is provided in the section, "Resi-
dential Collection Equipment Selection and
Crew Size."
Metal or Plastic Cans
The most commonly used storage con-
tainer is the rigid galvanized metal or plastic
can. These containers are acceptable when
they are lightweight, not rusted through or
cracked, kept reasonably clean, and have
tight-fitting lids. Containers outside the 20-
to 32-gallon range are usually not acceptable.
Use of many smaller cans at each stop in-
creases the handling time required to load
the refuse into the truck while the use of
larger or heavier cans increases the weight
the men have to lift.
Other Types of Storage
Use of subterranean containers should be
discouraged. They are extremely difficult for
the collectors to lift out of the ground, and
in the winter they can freeze to the ground,
making it impossible to collect them. The
extra time it takes to handle these containers
lessens efficiency and increases costs. Main-
taining the pits is difficult. Loose refuse can
get down around the can and into the pit,
attracting insects and rodents.
Makeshift containers, such as cardboard
boxes, can also present problems because of
awkward shape or size, or flimsiness, or
because they do not tightly enclose wastes.
Regulations on acceptable sizes and weights
should be set so as to safeguard the collectors
and prevent excessive slowdown of the work
by the handling of awkward items.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Fly Generation
Control of flies is closely linked to the
adequacy of solid waste storage. If the stor-
age containers are kept reasonably clean and
have tight-fitting lids, and if all household
wastes are kept in such containers, the prob-
lem of flies will be minimized.
Separation of Wastes
If the householder is required to separate
his solid waste, there may be a significant
impact on storage. With the exception of
newsprint, which can be bundled and stored
without containerization, any separation of
either food wastes or reusable materials will
require extra storage containers and space.
This can become a critical problem if more
than two or three categories of wastes are
to be stored separately, or if the collection
frequency is low, such as once a month.
48
-------
CONCLUSIONS unit collection is involved. When collecting
from individual housing units the use of
The Environmental Protection Agency properly maintained, lightweight metal and
recommends the use of bulk containers de- plastic cans, and paper and plastic bags is
signed for mechanized collection when multi- recommended.
49
-------
t\
w
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Paper and Plastic Bags
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
Collection of residential solid waste is a
labor-intensive activity, and the method of
solid waste storage selected can have broad
implications for the equipment and crew size
used in a system. In recent years, paper and
plastic bags have been increasing in popu-
larity both as liners for rigid containers and
as storage containers. In deciding whether
or not the use of bags should become an
integral part of the collection system, a city
must examine whether with its present col-
lection methods the benefits of using bags
will outweigh the additional cost of the bags
themselves.
ALTERNATIVES
Any bag selected should meet National
Sanitation Foundation standards. For plas-
tic bags, the standards include resin used,
strength at folds and seals, film thickness
with tolerances, film strength, bag dimen-
sions, weight, and closures. The paper bag
standards include material used, adhesives,
tape, thread, capacity, and strength. The only
change in these standards recommended by
EPA is that the minimum film thickness for
plastic bags be increased from 1.5 to 2.0 mils
to help reduce punctures and tears.
ADVANTAGES
The advantages of paper and plastic bags
for solid waste storage can be divided into
three categories:
Economic Benefits
The acceptability of bag systems by labor
forces is high. Compared to conventional con-
tainers, bags are easier to handle and carry,
no lids have to be removed or replaced, no
time or effort is required to dislodge the con-
tents, no set-back motion is required, and
there is less weight to be lifted. The result
is faster, more efficient, and less costly serv-
ice. Studies show that use of bags can result
in collection cost savings of up to 35 percent
per service, holding all other system char-
acteristics constant. However, this will often
not be sufficient to cover the cost of the bags
(at 30 to 50 each). The increases in efficiency
realized by introducing bags into the system
are translated into reduced costs only when
they are combined with other cost-saving
measures such as reduced crew sizes or a
switch from backyard to curbside service.
When used with backyard service, employ-
ing either tote barrels or satellite vehicles,
bags will help reduce spillage and blowing
litter but will not produce cost savings.
Esthetic Benefits and Convenience
to Householder
When additional storage volume is needed,
it is relatively easy to use additional bags.
The bags are disposable, so conventional
containers do not line the street after col-
lection. Bags can eliminate odors and the
cleaning of dirty containers. Collection is
quieter because noise from conventional con-
tainers is eliminated and because the trucks
remain on each street a shorter length of
time. Because the bags can be closed, spillage
of waste at the truck and blowing litter dur-
ing loading is reduced.
Health Benefits
The fly population can be reduced or held
in check because the bag can be closed against
fly entrance. Although rats can enter bags,
the use of bags will not attract rats to areas
free of them.
Bags tend to minimize the collector's con-
tact with the waste. They help to protect him
generally from injury, disease, and toxic
60
-------
materials, although he must be careful to
avoid injury from sharp protruding objects.
Empty bags are practically weightless com-
pared to conventional containers. Less weight
to lift should mean a lower incidence of back
injuries and muscle strain among collectors
and, consequently, less sick leave and medical
expenses.
DISADVANTAGES
There are disadvantages to the use of bags
as storage containers for solid waste: (1)
replacing conventional containers with a suf-
ficient number of bags costs more than con-
tinued use of the containers without the bags,
and the distribution of the bags costs money
(some of this cost can be offset by the savings
in collection cost); (2) bags can fail (this
can be minimized by using reasonably thick
bags and by using them sensibly); (3) bags
are susceptible to animal attacks (leash laws
are an effective preventive measure as far
as dogs are concerned); and (4) bags are
not suitable for such items as branches, card-
board boxes, heavy objects, or objects with
sharp or pointed edges (injuries can occur
when sharp or heavy objects are hidden in
bags).
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In a sanitary landfill, the compaction proc-
ess rips open the plastic bags, allowing the
contained waste to undergo normal degrada-
tion. The plastic bags themselves are non-
biodegradable, but this presents no real prob-
lem for the following reasons:
1. Settlement of the landfill mass, includ-
ing the nondegradables, is caused by
the process of decomposition of the
biodegradables. (This decomposition of
the biodegradables can result in gas
production and leachate which require
special measures to prevent air and
water pollution. Thus, the degradables
have a greater environmental impact
than the nondegradables.)
2. Although the widespread use of bags
will increase the amount of material
entering the solid waste stream, the
increase would be relatively small. A
recent study supported by EPA deter-
mined that the average weight of solid
waste in a plastic bag is about 15
pounds and the bag itself weighs about
0.1 pound. The additional waste load
caused by the use of plastic bags is
only about two-thirds of 1 percent based
on total weight. Another measure of
the effect of plastic bags is the increase
in nondegradable waste. For typical
residential waste (about 27 percent
nondegradable) the increase would be
about 2.5 percent. The same study de-
termined the average weight of resi-
dential solid waste in paper bags to be
about 20 pounds, while the bag itself
weighs about 0.5 pound. The addition-
al waste load caused by the use of paper
bags is less than 3 percent by weight.
Paper and plastic bags are reduced to
harmless products of combustion when
burned in a properly designed and operated
incinerator. Plastic storage bags currently
do not contain polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
This material should not be used in the man-
ufacture of bags because of the potential to
produce hydrogen chloride when burned,
with resulting corrosion of incinerator equip-
ment. In general, polyethylene and paper
yield water and carbon dioxide when incin-
erated in the presence of an abundant oxygen
supply.
CONCLUSIONS
Properly designed and manufactured pa-
per bags, plastic bags, and paper bags with
plastic liners are acceptable as storage con-
tainers for residential solid waste. Plastic
bags should not contain polyvinyl chloride,
should have a minimum thickness of 2 mils,
and meet all other National Sanitation Foun-
dation standards. The present advantages
and benefits to society and our environment
from their use far outweigh their few dis-
advantages. Paper and plastic bags offer
economic and sanitary advantages which
make them superior to rigid containers and
present no significant problems when placed
in a sanitary landfill or when burned in a
properly designed and operated incinerator.
The Environmental Protection Agency sup-
ports their use.
51
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Sanitation Foundation standard no. 31 relating to polyethylene
refuse bags. Ann Arbor, The National Sanitation Foundation, May
22, 1970, 6 p.
2. National Sanitation Foundation standard no. 32 for paper refuse sacks.
Ann Arbor, The National Sanitation Foundation, Nov. 13, 1970. 6 p,
3. RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC. The use of bags for solid waste stor-
age and collection. Environmental Protection Publication SW-42d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972, 264 p. (Distributed by
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB 212
590.)
4. GRUPBNHOFF, B. L., and K. A. SHUSTER. Paper and plastic solid waste
sacks; a summary of available information; a Division of Technical
Operations open-file report (TO 18.1.03/1). [Cincinnati], U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 1971. 17 p. [Restricted distribution.]
6. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. Collection studies. Un-
published data, 1971.
6. PERKINS, R. A., Satellite vehicle for solid waste collection; evaluation and
application. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 243 p.
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Va., as PB 197 931.)
62
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Collection of Bulky Items
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
\
Collection of bulky items can be a problem
in many places; often separate procedures
are needed for collection of these items.
ALTERNATIVES
There are four methods of providing for
bulky item collection:
1. Bulky items are collected along with
other refuse using compaction vehicles
and regular crews.
2. The homeowner calls the collection
agency to request that the item be
picked up, and the agency sets the date
it is to be collected by a separate bulk-
pickup crew.
3. Bulky items are collected periodically
along defined routes comparable to the
regular solid waste routes. Bulk collec-
tion is scheduled to cover the whole
city in a designated time period, usu-
ally 1 week.
4. The resident sets out the bulky item
and the refuse collection crew reports
that it is there for pickup by a separate
bulk-pickup crew.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Collection with Other Refuse
This system requires that the compaction
vehicles be capable of handling the items and
that the crew be able to lift them. It would
not be feasible for one man operating a side-
loading vehicle to collect a refrigerator. But
the task would be a reasonable one for men
using a rear-loading truck having a large
enough hopper. The primary advantage of
this system is that it is more economical
than having a separate crew to collect bulky
items. A disadvantage is that it does not lend
itself to the charging of a fee for bulk pickup.
Request or Call-in System
This system has several advantages. The
collectors need only go where there are pick-
ups to be made, and proper scheduling makes
it possible to concentrate pickups in compact
areas. The result is an efficient system with
good utilization of the collector's time. It
also may very easily incoiporate a pickup
fee to cover collection costs. However, this
system has serious drawbacks in inner-city
areas where there are a large number of
items set out to be collected and a lack of
cooperation by the residents in requesting
pickup.
Periodic Bulk Collection Along
Defined Routes
This system works very well in inner-city
areas where there are many pickups close
together. But in areas where pickups are
more scattered, this system can be wasteful
since collectors must traverse streets where
there is nothing to collect. Therefore the effi-
ciency of the system varies according to the
type of district in which it is used. A dis-
advantage of this method of bulk collection
is that it is difficult to assess fees for the
service.
Collection Crews Report Items, Separate
Crew Collects
This alternative requires the use of radio
communication, otherwise bulky items could
sit outside for more than 1 day. Also, the
sporadic reports from the refuse collectors
are not likely to result in efficient routing of
bulk-pickup vehicles. However, this system
does insure the pickup of all bulky items.
CONCLUSIONS
The selection of the method of bulky item
collection must be based upon the character-
istics of the solid waste collection system
(crew size and truck type) and the nature of
the area being served (inner city or subur-
ban, and income level). In any case, it is a
service which must be provided.
68
-------
•- °>
IS
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Source Separation for Resource Recovery
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
\
The source separation of waste products
which can be recycled through the manufac-
turing process is a growing phenomenon.
Source separation is defined as the setting
aside of recyclable waste materials (such as
paper, glass, and metal containers) at their
point of generation (the home, factory, office,
or other place of business) by the generator.
This separation is followed by the transport-
ing of these materials to a secondary mate-
rials dealer or directly to a manufacturer by
the generator himself, by city collection ve-
hicles, by private haulers and scrap dealers,
or by voluntary recycling organizations.
The source separation technique of great-
est concern to municipal government deci-
sion-makers is separation by the generator
followed by collection on a regular basis by
a municipal or private collector. Presently
this technique is employed almost exclusively
for the collection of paper, largely because
of the relative difficulty for both the home-
owner and the city collection forces in imple-
menting a niultiproduct separation and col-
lection system. For example, glass must be
sorted by color and cans by ferrous and non-
ferrous types. While the growth in the num-
bers of citizen-run neighborhood recycling
centers attests to the willingness of many
people to participate in these activities, most
public officials to date have not attempted to
implement separate collection of more than
newsprint or mixed papers, possibly because
of the additional costs and complications of
collection and the need to secure additional
markets. Because little data is available on
multiproduct separate collection, only the
methods of separately collecting paper are
discussed here.
Source separation of paper is feasible pri-
marily for newspapers from homes, corru-
gated containers from commercial and in-
dustrial establishments, and printing and
writing papers from offices. It is at these
points that recyclable grades are generated
in relatively homogeneous and concentrated
forms. Since private haulers typically collect
commercial and industrial wastepaper, a
municipality is primarily concerned with
newspaper source separation by residents. In
some cases, where an appropriate market
exists, mixed paper separated from other
wastes by the residents can also be collected.
Over 125 cities in the United States are
currently conducting separate paper collec-
tion programs, compared with only 3 such
programs in 1970. This tremendous increase
is due to many factors:
• The increases in disposal costs
• The shortages in raw materials which
have led to an increase in secondary ma-
terial prices
• An increase in environmental awareness
and concern on the part of citizens
• The realization that separate collections
are more effective in removing materials
from the waste stream and far less
costly than recycling centers operated
by municipal employees
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OP
SEPARATE PAPER COLLECTION
Separate Truck
There are two basic methods for separate
paper collection currently in use. One, the
more common, is the assignment of a sepa-
rate vehicle to collect the paper.
System Description
Trucks. Standard packers, usually taken
from the standby fleet, are the most common
54
-------
vehicles for separate collection. Van and
open-bodied trucks may also be used. They
are more expensive to operate than a stand-
ard packer, however, because they require an
extra crew member to stack the paper inside
the truck.
Crew Size. One man for a side-loading
packer and two for a rear-loader are suffi-
cient to collect paper. As mentioned above, a
third worker is needed if trucks other than
packers are used. Because of the increased
cost of backyard collection, curbside or alley
collections are recommended.
Routing. The paper collection vehicle can
cover three to five normal collection routes in
a single day, since there are fewer items to
handle per stop, no storage containers to
return to the curb, usually less than 100
percent participation, and even participating
households may not place the paper at the
curb every collection day.
Unloading Point. If the secondary ma-
terials dealer is within a reasonable distance,
the truck unloads at his facility. Paper
dealers in distant locations usually place a
large van at the transfer station or disposal
site into which the paper is loaded. This van
remains at the site until it is full, at which
point the dealer replaces it.
Frequency of Collection. Collections are
usually monthly, twice a month, or weekly.
EPA does not yet have comprehensive quan-
titative data on the relationship of frequency
of collection with other factors such as par-
ticipation rate and collection cost. There are
indications that the more frequent the col-
lection rate, the larger the quantity of paper
collected. Costs will also be higher with more
frequent collections, however.
Standardization of Collection. To achieve
maximum cooperation from the householder,
collection must be conducted on a regular
basis. Citizens must be fully informed of
what is expected of them (newspapers to be
wrapped with twine, for example) and know
exactly when the truck will be there (every
Tuesday or every fourth Friday, etc.).
System Requirements
Capital Investment. Capital is required
only for any additional collection vehicles the
program necessitates. However, only 1 of 10
cities whose separate collection programs
were studied for EPA by a private contractor
had purchased a vehicle (a small packer in
this case) for the program. Most of the vehi-
cles used in separate collection have been
either standby packers, normally used when
a breakdown in the regular fleet occurred,
older trucks retained after a new packer was
purchased, trucks no longer used regularly
because of rerouting, or other trucks simply
not fully utilized. Two communities which
collected regular refuse 4 days a week insti-
tuted separate collection on the 5th day using
the same trucks normally used in their regu-
lar collections. In short, in the cities studied
the institution of separate collection resulted
in an increase in utilization of existing equip-
ment rather than purchase of new equip-
ment. The fact that this form of resource
recovery can often be implemented with little
or no additional capital investment is one of
its most appealing aspects and an obvious
reason for its rapid proliferation.
Maintenance, Operating and Overhead
Costs. When a vehicle is used for separate
collection these costs are incurred just as
they are for any collection operation. There
is probably less wear and tear on vehicles
used only for separate paper collection, al-
though this has not been documented as yet.
Labor. Separate collection requires that
more hours be spent on the collection route.
However, significantly, in all but 2 of 10
cities studied no additional labor was hired
to implement separate collection. In these two
cities, part-time employees were brought on
when particularly heavy volume demanded
it. It must also be noted that in every case
studied, three-man crews were used only be-
cause it was standard collection practice to
have three-man crews. As noted above, two-
man crews are sufficient for paper collection.
The additional labor hours and cost to the
cities would have been considerably less had
they not included the unneeded crewman.
Rack System
The rack or "piggyback" system of sepa-
rate collection has been used by a private
collector in San Francisco since 1962. Its use
in Madison, Wisconsin, has received the
most publicity, however; there piggyback col-
65
-------
lection was instituted by the city in coopera-
tion with the American Paper Institute.
System Description
Truck Modification. To employ this sys-
tem, racks which vary in capacity from */&
to iy% cubic yards are installed beneath the
body of the standard packer (Figure 3).
Collection Procedures. As in the separate
truck method, bundled newsprint is placed at
the curb. Collection of mixed paper by this
method is not recommended due to the space
constraints of the racks. A major advantage
of the rack system is that the householder
need not concern himself with which day
paper will be collected. He simply puts sepa-
rated paper next to his mixed-refuse con-
tainers on the regular pickup day. Refuse
and paper are thus collected simultaneously.
Overloading. Compared with separate
truck collection, the piggyback method has
apparent advantages in that the route must
be covered only once, whenever regular col-
lection is performed. A drawback is the tend-
ency of the racks to fill up before the body
of the truck has been filled with mixed waste.
In Madison, with a 60-percent participation
rate (approximately 60 percent of the resi-
dents place newspapers at the curb on any
given collection day), the crews must off-load
the bins one or two times before the com-
pactor body is full. To accomplish this with
the least delay, the public works department
stations bulk containers at strategic points
in the collection areas. The crew members
unload the paper into the bulk containers
and proceed along the route. In Madison,
approximately 10 minutes off the route is re-
quired for each unloading (driving time plus
unloading). Although the amount of time
spent on route has lengthened as a result,
there have been no overtime costs.
New Equipment Developments. Presently
there are experimentations by cities and
waste haulers to improve the piggyback
system by designing a rack which will hold
a greater quantity of newspapers, thus re-
ducing time off the route. Also, one equip-
ment manufacturer has designed and will
FRAME OF 1/8" X 2" X 2" L ANGLE IRON
2' 4 3/8"
1/8" FLAT STOCK
SIDE AND BOTTOM
WELDED TO FRAME
SCALE: V- V
3/4" FLAT WIRE MESH
WELDEDTOrX5'DOOR
FRAME AND HINGED TO
RACK FRAME WITH PIANO HINGE
FIGURE 3. This is an example of a newspaper rack designed for installa-
tion beneath a packer truck for the collection of newsprint separately from
residential solid waste. Source: CITY OF MADISON, Wis., Department of Public
Works, Division of Engineering.
58
-------
soon test a two-compartment truck for sepa-
rate collection. These developments could
significantly improve the economics of sepa-
rate collection if they prove feasible.
System Requirements
Capital Investment. Costs for materials
and installation of the racks range from $80
to $250 per rack. Madison's cost of $170 was
about average.
Labor. Time-motion studies show that
approximately 14 seconds are required to
pick up and load bundled newsprint at each
stop in addition to the approximately 5 to
15 minutes required for off-loading the paper
when the racks are filled. In all cases studied
there were no additional labor costs because
employees had not been working a full day
in normal waste collection.
Private Separate Collection
Private collection of wastepaper by a
scrap dealer or waste hauler is one of the
newer arrangements currently being tried in
a number of communities on the West Coast.
This system involves the least amount of
time, money, and manpower on the part of
the city. Indeed, for cities which contract for
regular waste removal services, private col-
lection of paper may be the only option pos-
sible.
City management may have no involve-
ment at all, as in the case of San Francisco,
where the private waste hauler carries out
all facets of the program. Other communities
have opted to share both the responsibility
and the income from the program. Under
this mode of operation, the city requests bids
from private scrap dealers and/or waste
haulers for the privilege of an exclusive con-
tract to pick up source-separated paper. In
return for a percentage of the income, the
city usually agrees to support and publicize
the program and to prohibit others from
removing the paper through an antiscaveng-
ing ordinance.
COSTS
Due to the large number of variables it is
difficult to give meaningful average costs for
separate collection. Its economic viability de-
pends to a large extent on factors such as
the type of regular collection practiced (fre-
quency of collection, size of crews, etc.),
disposal costs, price received for the paper,
participation rate of residents, availability
of underutilized men and equipment, the
efficiency with which the separate collection
is carried out, and the extent to which regu-
lar vehicles are rerouted to take advantage
of reduced waste volumes.
EPA has studied the collection costs of 10
communities with separate truck paper col-
lection (Table 16). The analysis included
labor, ownership and maintenance of equip-
ment, and overhead costs for both the regular
waste collection system and the separate col-
lection subsystem. Credit was given for reve-
nue from the sale of the paper and for a
proportionate percentage of the variable dis-
posal cost for landfill and incineration. In
cases where the community paid a second
party for disposal, the unit disposal charge
was deducted for each ton of paper sold.
On the basis of March 1974 prices for the
paper, the net effect of instituting separate
truck collection on overall collection costs in
these 10 cities ranged from a decrease of 23
percent to an increase of 16 percent. On the
average there was a decrease of just over
5 percent. Many of the cities experienced
little change in overall costs. It should be
noted, however, that many of the programs
were relatively new and not fully developed.
Interpretation of these results is difficult
without additional knowledge about the con-
ditions in each community studied. Specific
information on the case studies is available
from EPA, and a comprehensive report
which will help cities estimate the economics
of separate collection will be available in the
latter part of 1974.
Cost data are also available on the rack
or piggyback collection system in three cities
(Table 17). Analysis of the data covered the
same elements as that of separate truck sys-
tems. On the basis of March 1974 prices
received for paper, separate rack collection
was found to lower overall collection costs in
each city. The average reduction was slightly
less than with the separate truck systems.
Based on experience to date it appears that
the specific conditions in each city would
dictate the choice between separate truck and
rack collection. For example, the ability to
67
-------
TABLE 16
IMPACT OF SEPARATE COLLECTION BY A SEPARATE TRUCK ON OVERALL
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS*
Collection and
disposal cost prior
to implementation
of secaratp
Case study
location
Dallas, Texas
Ft Worth, Texas
Great Neck, N.Y.
Green Bay, Wis.
Greenbelt, Md.
Marblehead, Mass.
Newton, Mass.
University Park, Texas
Villa Park, 111.
West Hartford, Conn.
collection
($/ton)
$12.10
13.50
36.00
38.70
27.20
23.10
32.40
14.70
13.50
26.30
Current
paper
price.
8/1/74
($/ton)
$43.00
35.00
12.00
30.00
20.00
32.00
27.50
43.00
36.00
40.00
Collection and disposal cost
after implementation of
separate collection t
($/ton)
$ 9.30
11.80
36.50
37.40
27.10
22.60
31.50
12.50
12.40
23.90
(% change)
-23.1
-12.6
+1.4
-3.3
-0.4
-2.2
-2.8
-15.0
-8.1
-9.1
"Source: SCS ENGINEERS. Cost analysis of source separate collection of
solid waste. Unpublished data.
t This takes into account the net of savings (revenue from wastepaper sold
and diverted disposal savings) and incremental costs (labor and equipment)
resulting from the separate collection program. In determining the latter,
actual cost increases were considered to the extent possible. For example, if a
city had partially idle equipment that was put into full service to collect paper,
only the variable costs (e.g., gasoline, maintenance, etc.) were considered an
additional charge. Similarly, if workers already on the payroll were used to
collect the paper only overtime charges, if any, were considered. However, if
a city purchased, leased, or continued to maintain vehicles that otherwise
would not have existed, a full cost was allocated to separate collection. Simi-
larly any new hiring, permanent or part time, or retaining of labor that would
otherwise have been discharged was allocated as a cost.
TABLE 17
ESTIMATED COST AND REVENUE FOR THE SEPARATE COLLECTION OF NEWSPRINT
USING THE PIGGYBACK METHOD * (dollars per ton)
Case study Revenues from
location newspaper
sales (3/74)
Madison, Wis. $32.00
New York, N.Y.J 16.50
Sheboygan, Wis. 20.00
Diverted
disposal
savings
$1.40
6.40
5.60
Total
revenues
savings
$33.40
22.90
25.60
Incremental
newspaper
handling
costs t
$ 4.60
27.50
0
Net
savings
$28.80
(4.60)
25.60
* Source: SCS ENGINEERS. Cost analysis of source separate collection of
solid waste. Unpublished data.
t In determining incremental handling charges, actual costs were consid-
ered to the extent possible. For example, the equipment charges included were
those for the racks (negligible when spread over the tons collected over the life
of the racks) and any supplemental equipment such as containers placed along
the route for off-loading of the news from the truck racks. Any incremental
labor charges for handling these containers were also included. Though time
spent collecting waste increased, costs were not allocated to separate collection
unless overtime was paid or additional labor hired.
t Queens District 67 only.
58
-------
fit racks on existing collection trucks, the
number of men and trucks available, and the
manner in which collection is carried out
(routing, hours per day, and days per week
worked by waste collectors) are major fac-
tors for municipal decision-makers.
How much newspaper is obtainable from
residents in a city can be roughly estimated.
The average per capita generation of muni-
cipal solid waste has been estimated to be
3.32 pounds per day. Approximately 6 per-
cent of this is newspaper (Table 18). There-
fore, for a city of 100,000 population with
a 50-percent participation rate the approxi-
mate quantity of recoverable newsprint
would be: 100,000 X 3.32 X .06 X .5 =
9,960 pounds per day or about 5 tons. At a
price for old newspapers of $30 per ton,
the weekly revenue would be $1,050.
SEPARATE COLLECTION SUCCESS FACTORS
Markets
Shortages of woodpulp, increased waste-
paper exports, and other factors created a
strong market for used newsprint, corru-
gated containers, and even mixed paper in
1973. By the end of 1973 prices for waste-
paper were at historically high levels. Fore-
casts by the American Paper Institute
predict a 7-percent increase in domestic con-
sumption of old newspaper from the begin-
ning of 1974 through 1975—a steady, but
not dramatic growth. However, exports of
old newspaper are expected by most ob-
servers to increase, and several paper com-
panies are reportedly very interested in
building mills to make newsprint from old
newspapers. The question of supply of old
newspaper seems to be their major deter-
rent at present.
What is most important for the municipal
decision-maker in relation to markets is not
to try to predict price fluctuations but to
determine the minimum price that he can
receive and still have a break-even program
and then to negotiate a contract of a year or
more duration with that minimum price as a
floor. If the price rises above that level, so
much the better.
Also, the decision-maker must consider
markets on a regional basis since supply
lines to market outlets from certain areas
TABLE 18
COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, AS DIS-
CARDED, UNITED STATES. 1971 •
Component
Paper
News
Corrugated
Mixed
Glass
Ferrous metals
Nonferrous metals
Food waste
Yard waste
Other
Total
Amount
(millions
of tons)
39.1
7.4
9.9
21.6
12.1
10.6
1.2
22.0
24.1
15.9
125.0
Percent
of total
31.3
6.0
8.0
17.3
9.7
8.5
.9
17.6
19.3
12.7
100.0
* These waste generation data include wastes
generated in household, commercial and business
establishments and institutions (schools, hospitals,
etc.) and exclude industrial process wastes, agricul-
tural and animal wastes, construction and demolition
wastes, mining wastes, abandoned automobiles,
ashes, street sweepings, and sewage sludges. Wastes
presently recycled are also excluded.
may not yet be equipped to process the addi-
tional tonnage generated by a separate col-
lection program. It is incumbent upon any
city considering resource recovery, therefore,
to conduct a market study as the first order
of business. In a small city or suburban
community this may take the form of a few
phone calls to wastepaper dealers or to local
manufacturers who utilize wastepaper to
manufacture products such as boxboard,
chipboard, insulation and roofing materials,
and newsprint.
These contacts should be followed by meet-
ings with those dealers and manufacturers
who show interest in buying the recovered
paper. At these meetings the quality speci-
fications of the buyer, shipping and hauling
arrangements, and other requirements which
both the city and purchaser must meet can
be clarified. Larger cities are advised to con-
duct a more formal market study and to
seriously consider requesting bids from pros-
pective buyers. To proceed further with the
project, cities are advised to procure letters
of intent from reputable dealers.
If the results of further investigation into
the other aspects of a source separation pro-
gram are deemed to be positive and the
project is approved, it is advisable to enter
into a formal contract with the buyers. If
69
-------
possible, the contract should first guarantee
that the product will be purchased for a
specified period of time (this is usually 1 year
although some companies are currently offer-
ing 5- and 10-year contracts), and, secondly,
it should guarantee a minimum or floor price
which the city considers reasonable.
Publicity
The success of source separation depends
upon citizen awareness, cooperation, and con-
cern. None of these are possible without a
vigorous publicity campaign to explain the
goals and methods of the program. Such a
campaign should begin well in advance of the
implementation of the program. Information
dissemination techniques such as radio and
TV spots, newspaper articles and advertise-
ments, door hangers, and flyers are the
usual modes of publicity. The active partici-
pation of local environmental groups is an
excellent means of stirring public interest.
These organizations can be extremely effec-
tive through their contacts with schools and
other civic organizations. They are usually
willing to give speeches, make posters, and
conduct door-to-door canvassing at no cost to
the city.
Publicity should continue after the pro-
gram is begun. Occasional flyers inserted in
public utility bills as well as weekly or at
least monthly newspaper reminders are rec-
ommended. One large eastern city includes
information on the program with each house
title and lease to assure that new arrivals in
the community are informed of its efforts
in resource recovery.
Householder Impact
Source separation is neither expensive nor
time consuming for the householder. In a
recent study, 15 families kept detailed rec-
ords of factors relative to the separation of
glass, cans, and newsprint in their homes for
a period of 6 weeks. Incidental costs (twine
for bundling, water for washing, etc.) were
2 cents per month per family. The average
time spent on these activities was about 15
minutes per week. The separate bundling of
newspapers took only 2.3 minutes per week
and required less than 1 cent per month in
out-of-pocket costs. A recent survey of house-
wives' attitudes on solid waste found that
73 percent of those interviewed felt source
separation would be "easy to very easy" for
them to carry out.
Scavengers
Due to the increasing value of secondary
materials, in many cities unauthorized per-
sons have picked up source-separated mate-
rials before the authorized truck arrives.
This does not represent a legal problem for
municipalities which have chosen to grant
an exclusive franchise to a private firm for
waste collection. In such municipalities, the
sanctions which normally exist to discourage
collection by firms other than the licensee
may be brought to bear on scavengers. In
communities in which such sanctions do not
exist, an antiscavenging ordinance should be
passed. Legal precedents indicate that in
most States it is permissible for municipali-
ties to grant exclusive contracts for the col-
lection of solid waste and to prohibit all but
city employees or licensees from collecting it.
This, in combination with the municipalities'
traditional power to protect the public health
and safety, should provide a legal basis for
such an ordinance.
The antiscavenging ordinance passed in
1971 in Hempstead, New York, has been used
as a prototype in many communities. The
ordinance states that all waste placed at the
curb becomes the property of the city. Strin-
gent fines are imposed upon scavengers.
Strict enforcement, particularly at the be-
ginning of a program, is strongly urged. As
much publicity as possible should be given
to enforcement efforts in order to discourage
potential offenders.
Voluntary versus Mandatory Paper
Separation
Most separate collection programs are
voluntary in that they request citizen sup-
port. An increasing number of cities are
passing ordinances which require separation,
however. A recent study of 17 cities found
that mandatory programs on the average
received cooperation from 60 percent of the
population while voluntary programs had a
participation rate of 30 percent. These num-
bers are misleading, however, in that most
of the systems have only recently begun.
60
-------
Other data from the same study indicate
that participation rises over time and that
as these systems reach the 2- and 3-year level,
the relative difference between voluntary and
mandatory programs will probably diminish.
Pilot Programs
Most programs are begun with a pilot
area and expanded later. This procedure al-
lows the city to gradually adjust to the new
system, to experiment with methods which
might reduce costs, and to minimize risk. It
also allows time for the market to adjust to
the new source of supply.
CONCLUSIONS
Recovery of newsprint through source
separation and municipal collection on a
regular basis is a rapidly growing phenome-
non.
The requirements for separate collection of
paper have been determined, and some data
have been gathered on costs. It is difficult to
generalize about costs because of the varia-
tion from city to city—a variation due partly
to the fact that separate collection is usually
fitted into the existing overall collection sys-
tem. However, the data indicate that sepa-
rate paper collection can in most cases be
accomplished with little or no increase in
costs to the city and possibly with a net
savings.
Separate collection requires careful plan-
ning and administration on the part of the
city as well as the cooperation of citizens.
The demands placed on citizens are not
great, however, and participation to date has
been encouraging.
EPA recommends that separate collection
of paper be investigated and implemented by
any city in which markets are found to exist.
61
-------
\\
I *
s
conservation, environments! effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
Residential Collection Equipment
and Crew Size
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
a
When designing or modifying a collection
system, equipment selection and crew size
determinations should not be made until the
policies on level of service have been estab-
lished (e.g., point of collection and type of
storage containers). Based on these policies,
preliminary vehicle and crew size selections
can be made. The systems recommended
below reflect the observations and analy-
ses of Office of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs staff from many studies of
different collection methods. Many local fac-
tors, such as round-trip time to the disposal
site, street widths, housing density, storage
container types, labor wage rates, and the
amount of waste at each stop, will have an
impact on the decisions concerning the selec-
tion of vehicle type and crew size (Table 19).
I/
¥
There are many types of collection vehicles
available, some of which are designed for
specific jobs. All the collection methods de-
scribed below use a compaction vehicle to
reduce haul cost and prevent the litter prob-
lems that often occur with open-top trucks.
ALTERNATIVES
Front Loaders
These trucks, which range in size from 21
to 52 cubic yards, collect from bulk contain-
ers usually varying in size from 3 to 10
cubic yards. They generally are used to serv-
ice apartment buildings, large commercial
and industrial establishments, and other
buildings that generate large volumes of
waste.
TABLE 19
RECOMMENDED CREW SIZE AND VEHICLE TYPE FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION BY POINT OF COLLECTION AND HOUSING DENSITY
Point of collection
Housing; density
Single-family
homes
Inner city
high-density areas
Curbside/alley
Backyard
One man using a side-
loading right hand
drive vehicle with a
low step-in cab
Two men with tote
barrels, using a vehicle
with a low step-in cab
or
Satellite vehicles
Two men using a side-
loading right hand
drive vehicle with a
low step-in cab
or
For very heavy waste
loads, three men
using a rear-loading
vehicle with a low
step-in cab
Three men with tote
barrels, using a rear-
loading vehicle with a
low step-in cab
62
-------
Side Loaders
These range in size from 5 to 37 cubic
yards. They can collect from bulk containers,
but their main use is in collecting from resi-
dential and small commercial accounts.
Single-family residential curbside service
can be most economically provided by a one-
man, side-loading vehicle with right-hand
drive, a low step-in cab, and a separate power
source for compaction. In this case, collection
should be from one side of the street at a
time. This system is best suited for areas
with fewer items per stop and further dis-
tances between stops rather than in areas
with a high percentage of multiple-family
buildings.
High population density areas with more
waste at each stop, very narrow streets, and
alley collection may be collected with two-
man crews using a right-hand-drive, side-
loading vehicle. Both sides of the street or
alley are collected at the same time (assum-
ing street width and traffic volume do not
present problems).
Rear Loaders
These range in size from 6 to 31 cubic
yards, and can collect from bulk containers,
but their main use is in collecting from
residential and small commercial accounts.
High population density areas with more
waste at each stop, very narrow streets, and
alley collection may be collected with rear
loaders and three-man crews (including the
driver, who also collects at heavy stops).
Both sides of the street or alley are collected
at the same time (assuming street width and
traffic volume do not present problems).
Backyard service in high population den-
sity areas containing closely spaced single-
family dwellings or a predominance of mul-
tiple-family dwellings with short street-to-
storage distances should be collected with a
three-man crew (including the driver who
also collects) using tote barrels and rear-
loading vehicles.
Satellite Vehicles
Medium and low density single-family
residential backyard service can be economi-
cally provided by satellite vehicles. These
vehicles are usually driven to the area where
they will be used each day or they may be
towed behind the "mother" truck on a trail-
er. They may be stored in decentralized
garages. The small, usually noncompacting,
three- or four-wheeled vehicle is driven up
the driveway as close as possible to the waste.
When filled, the vehicle is returned to a
mother truck for emptying. The selection of
a satellite vehicle system rather than tote
barrels depends on the accessibility of the
waste storage point to the vehicle, the dis-
tance from street to storage, and the distance
between services. Another consideration is
the availability of a mother truck with a
hopper compatible to the hopper of the satel-
lite vehicle when dumping.
Specialized Collection Vehicles
In addition to the more traditional collec-
tion truck types, there are many different
specialized vehicles used today. Some have
mechanical arms, such as the "Son of God-
zilla" used in Scottsdale, Arizona, and the
Mechanical Bag Retriever* used in Bellaire,
Texas. Some communities use container
trains, which are basically very primitive
and inefficient. Still other methods involve
the use of multifamily bulk bins to collect
residential waste; these methods include the
system of alley collection from bulk metal
bins used in Odessa, Texas, the "Son of God-
zilla," and the barrel tipper for alley collec-
tion used in Tolleson, Arizona. In Covina,
California, a one-man mechanical bag col-
lector, the "jumping bean," which shows
promise for specific applications, is being de-
veloped. The use of these vehicles under the
conditions for which they were designed can
substantially reduce collection costs. Some
require large initial capital investment while
others require extra citizen cooperation.
Roll-off containers and roll-off trucks which
accommodate payloads of 12 to 47 cubic
yards serve large waste generators. Lift-
and-carry systems which handle 3- to 15-
cubic-yard payloads are generally used for
specialized wastes such as semiliquid, liquid,
* Mention of commercial products or organiza-
tions does not constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use by the U.S. Government.
63
-------
or hazardous wastes. These vehicles have a
high operating cost since the payload is lim-
ited by the fact that only one box can be
serviced by a truck. Front loaders or the
larger roll-off systems are more economical.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Many additional factors must be consid-
ered before the final vehicle and crew size
decision is made. For example, crew size
selection will be affected by the amount of
waste per stop, haul time to the unloading
point, wage rates, and labor preference and
persuasion. Preliminary results from an
OSWMP safety study show that a large per-
centage of accidents occurring during col-
lection are caused by the interaction of crew
members, and this may be a consideration
in favor of smaller crews. In high popula-
tion density areas, the larger quantity of
waste at a given stop makes larger trucks
with three-man crews economically competi-
tive with smaller crew sizes. Where crew
size reduction is a goal, labor's resistance
may pose a serious obstacle. Increased wages
and labor force reduction through attrition
and assignment to other city departments can
help smooth any transition to smaller crews.
Vehicle selection is affected by such local
constraints as haul time to the processing or
disposal site, street or alley width and inter-
section size, types and amounts of waste
(hopper size requirements), and highway
load limitations (number of axles required).
Haul time is important because time on the
route is reduced by the amount of time spent
driving to the unloading site. Haul time can
be reduced by either reducing the number of
trips to the unloading site through increased
vehicle capacity or by locating an unloading
site closer to the collection area, i.e., set up a
transfer station.
Vehicle size depends partly on street width
since narrow streets can preclude large ve-
hicles with wider turning radii. If this is not
a problem and a long haul time suggests a
larger vehicle, tandem axles may be required
because of highway load limits. Tandem axles
have several disadvantages that can increase
costs. The vehicles themselves are substan-
tially more costly. They are not designed for
the turning and maneuvering most collection
vehicles must perform. Therefore, unless
these trucks are run in a straight line down
the street, their maintenance cost will in-
crease. In addition, they cause more wear
on the roads and are more difficult to drive.
Overall, these disadvantages may be greatly
outweighed by reduced hauling costs, but
they must be considered. As a general rule
of thumb, when lengthy haul times are not
a problem and street widths permit it, a 20-
cubic-yard vehicle should be selected. This
vehicle size provides the maximum amount
of flexibility to handle increasing waste loads
and changing disposal site locations without
the problems encountered with tandem axle
vehicles.
Other considerations before purchasing a
vehicle include overhead clearances under
bridges and at the garage, the availability
of parts, and warranty service. Also, deci-
sions on such items as transmission and fuel
type need to be made. Automatic transmis-
sions are initially more expensive, but over
the life of the vehicle the cost of clutch re-
placement exceeds the initial differential.
Also, automatic transmissions are easier to
drive and safer in hilly areas.
Currently diesel engines are initially more
expensive than gasoline-fired engines, but
over the life of the engine the operating and
fuel cost savings of the diesel engine exceeds
the initial cost difference. Diesel engines also
produce less air pollution. One drawback of
diesels is that they may be harder to start
in cold weather.
Chassis and body replacement policies
should be included in long-term purchase
plans. Chassis replacement depends upon
engine operating hours, which is related to
mileage. However, most communities prefer
to think in terms of years. As a general rule,
the chassis should be replaced every 3-4 years
and bodies every 6-8 years. Need for replace-
ment should be calculated on an individual
basis, being sure to take into account the cost
of downtime for the older vehicles.
One additional consideration before pur-
chase is safety. If the safety standards de-
veloped by the American National Standards
Institute for rear-loading and side-loading
64
-------
collection vehicles are implemented as pro-
posed, all vehicles manufactured after Janu-
ary 1, 1976, will be required to meet rigid
safety standards. It is advisable to include in
bid specifications the requirement that once
these standards are adopted any vehicle de-
livered must meet them.
The costs related to collection vehicles are
described in greater detail below.
Vehicle Costs
The costs are generally divided into the
following categories:
I. Vehicle capital cost (fixed cost)
A. Chassis
B. Packer body
C. Volume and type of purchase
II. Operating cost (variable cost)
A. Consumables (gas, oil, tires)
B. Maintenance and repair
(labor and parts)
III. Overhead cost (fixed cost)
A. Insurance
B. Registration, license, and permit
fees
C. Garage (rent and utilities)
For equipment replacement analysis, the cost
of downtime from breakdowns should be in-
cluded, with the fixed and variable costs
listed. The following discussion covers vehi-
cle capital and operating costs.
Vehicle capital cost is based primarily on
the following factors:
A. Chassis
1. Make (Ford, Dodge, CMC, Interna-
tional, White, etc.)
2. Horsepower
3. Fuel type (diesel vs. gas)
4. Number of axles
5. Other options (automatic vs. stand-
ard transmission, power vs. regular
steering, power takeoff vs. auxiliary
engine, right-hand drive)
B. Packer body
1. Manufacturer
2. Type (front, rear, or side loader)
3. Capacity (cu yd)
4. Compaction capability (reinforce-
ment and power)
C. Volume and type of purchase (number
of trucks, bid basis)
There are at least 24 manufacturers of
solid waste packer trucks: 13 make rear
loaders, 13 make side loaders, and 11 make
front loaders. There are at least 14 manu-
facturers of chassis for packer trucks. Con-
siderable ranges are to be found in the prices
(Table 20).
Operating costs are based on the following
factors:
*
A. Consumables: Gas, oil, and tire costs
are functions of equipment usage.
1. Gas and oil consumption is more
closely related to hours of use than
miles. It is affected also by point of
collection (backyard vs. curbside),
type of collection (residential, com-
mercial, rural), and haul distance to
the disposal site.
TABLE 20
TYPICAL RANGES IN PACKER TRUCK COSTS (INCLUDING CHASSIS), 1972
Standard size*
(en yd)
Coeta
($)
Rear loaders:
6-31
20*
Side loaders:
5-37
Front loaders:
24-42
Roll-off:
13%-45%
7,000-35,000
18,700-24,000
10,000-33,000
24,400-40,000
8,100-30,000
* The cost figures for the 20-cu-yd rear loader are broken out separately
because of the prevalence of this vehicle size.
65
-------
2. Tire life is closely related to the
vehicle's disposal point. The chance
for punctures is greatly increased if
the disposal point is at a land dispos-
al site rather than a transfer station
or other concrete pad discharge
point. Other major factors affecting
tire life are total miles driven, con-
dition of roads, and air pressure
maintenance.
B. Maintenance and repair costs are re-
lated to the effectiveness of the preven-
tive maintenance program, how care-
fully the packers are driven, and
reliability and sturdiness of the equip-
ment (initial cost).
Fuel consumption rates for residential col-
lection are shown below. These figures are
based on data for 1 month in 1973, on 24
diesel and 20 gas packers from 11 communi-
ties using the EPA Data Acquisition and
Analysis Program (DAAP).
Hours per gallon
Backyard service
Diesel 0.74
Gasoline .58
Curbside service
Diesel .47
Gasoline .36
Data on 73 20-cubic-yard gas vehicles with
an average age of 3.3 years from a southern
community reveal the following annual costs
per truck:
Fuel (at $0.214/gal) $1,296
Oil (engine and hydraulic) 144
Maintenance and repair
Parts 1,752
Labor 1,956
In the DAAP study, annual fuel costs for
the 44 packers were $300-$1,600 at $0.17 per
gallon or $700-$3,800 at $0.40 per gallon.
Maintenance and repair costs ranged from
$313-$5,725 per year, but averaged $1,901.
Oil (engine and hydraulic) averaged $390
per year for the four trucks for which this
was recorded. Thus, the figures in the table
appear to be representative, except that the
maintenance and repair costs appear to be
unusually high.
Typical annual costs to operate a 20-cubic-
yard, rear-loading diesel packer for curbside
residential pickup, averaging 7 hours per
operating day, are:
Depreciation
(5-year, straight line)
Fuel (at $0.20/gal)
Oil (engine and hydraulic)
Tires
Maintenance and repair
Parts
Labor
Insurance and fees
Total
$4,800
775
160
840
800
1,200
1,200
7,875
CONCLUSIONS
Total
5,148
In summary* the determination of the opti-
mum combination of equipment type and
crew size is very complex. There are many
dependent variables which impact on the de-
cision. Furthermore, the problem is a dy-
namic one in the sense that changes in sys-
tem parameters such as waste generation,
traffic congestion, or haul distance may mean
there is a new optimum combination. Collec-
tion systems must continually review the
influencing factors in order to be sure that
their current decisions on equipment and
crew size are indeed optimal.
66
-------
*~
IS
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
Personnel Incentive Systems
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
\
f
In many communities, personnel incentive
systems have increased productivity in solid
waste collection while increasing employee
morale.
ALTERNATIVES
There are three basic workload systems:
(1) the flat 8-hour day, (2) a task incentive
system in which a set task is assigned to
each collection crew or group of crews and,
when the task is completed, the crews are
permitted to go home, and (3) a monetary
incentive system in which each crew or
group of crews have a standard task and
for any work beyond that they are paid an
extra amount.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Flat 8-Hour Day
With this system if the crew members
finish their task early they must remain on
the job until their 8 hours are up. Conversely,
if they don't finish in 8 hours they receive
overtime pay. The result is that there is no
real incentive to "hustle" on the routes.
Task Incentive
This system allows the men to set their
own work speed, skip breaks and lunch, and
go home early when their routes are com-
pleted, provided that no crew has faPen
behind during the day due to breakdowns
or other unusual delays. In this case, the
first crews done are asked to pitch in and
help.
When the task is assigned to a group of
truck-crews (typically all trucks under one
foreman), no crew is permitted to go home
until the entire task is completed or "cov-
ered." This combined task system is often
referred to as the reservoir system since on
a given day all crews end up in a central
or reservoir area. With the reservoir system
all crews work a similar number of hours,
and peer pressures for all crews to set a good
pace increase productivity.
The advantage of task incentive systems is
that they encourage crews to work faster,
thereby increasing productivity. Also, task
systems tend to result in a more satisfied
work force as long as the task is perceived
as a reasonable day's work.
The primary disadvantage of a task system
is that, by working fast to complete the route,
there is the potential for a reduction in the
quality of service. Additional supervision
may also be required to insure that each
house receives service and that the solid
waste and cans are handled properly.
Monetary Incentive
There are several forms of monetary in-
centive. One method is to give additional pay
to crews which, having finished their own
tasks, assist other crews which have fallen
behind their normal pace because of break-
downs, absenteeism, or other unusual prob-
lems. Another wage incentive system takes
the form of payments for increased produc-
tivity, decreased overtime, decreased costs,
or increased profits. In a private firm this
may be a profit-sharing system whereby the
crews are paid a part of the profits or in-
creased profits in a specific period. In a
public agency incentive pay could be a share
of cost savings. In one such system, the city,
Detroit, shares 50 percent of the cost savings
from increased productivity with the crews
on a scale graduated according to which
crews contributed the most toward the sav-
ings, as determined by a specific formula.
The city of Detroit has reported substantial
savings since this system was implemented
in July 1973. Another way to do this with
less administrative expense while encourag-
67
-------
ing peer pressures is to reward all the crews
equally with a share of the savings. For
inefficient systems, sharing of cost savings is
certainly one approach worth considering.
The disadvantage of monetary incentive
programs, as with the task incentive, is the
danger that work quality will go down as
workers hurry to complete their jobs.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Regardless of whether or not an incentive
system is used, it is important to have a
standard for a fair day's work. That is, it is
important to determine a fair day's work for
each route in terms of the number of stops
per day to be collected. Clearly, all routes
should not have the same number of stops
since housing density, road width, street
traffic, distance from disposal site, th? pres-
ence of hills or alleys, and other factors in-
troduce variability among routes. A fair
day's work can be determined for each route
through time-and-motion studies, and tasks
can be negotiated with the union or the
workers. (Refer to Appendix A, "Residential
Collection Management Tools" for a more
detailed explanation of a "fair day's work.")
CONCLUSIONS
Incentive systems will generally result in
higher productivity, lower costs, and a more
satisfied labor force.
68
-------
—
IS
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Residential Solid Waste Collection
in Rural Areas
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
I /
«?"
The collection methods used in urban areas
have little applicability to rural areas because
of the much greater distance between stops.
However, there are techniques available for
rural collection, and local officials must de-
cide which of these best suits their situation.
ALTERNATIVES
Four techniques can be used for solid
waste management in rural areas. These are:
disposal of waste on one's own property,
direct haul by the resident to the disposal
site, the use of centrally located bulk con-
tainers, and house-to-house collection of solid
wastes.
Each of these systems requires citizen
cooperation. Some States empower local au-
thorities to require mandatory solid waste
collection throughout their jurisdiction. In
these areas, the governing agencies must
provide adequate service, and residents must
accept and pay for the service. Exceptions
are allowed where the householder can prove
that he is privately disposing of his waste
in a satisfactory manner, usually by burying
the waste on his property in a location ap-
proved by the governing agency.
There are three requisites for instituting
mandatory collection. State enabling legisla-
tion, must exist to allow local government
agencies to enact ordinances requiring man-
datory collection; an economically feasible
system must be available to provide collection
service to all residents; and governing agen-
cies must be available to operate the system.
Legal, political, or economic reasons often
preclude mandatory solid waste collection in
rural areas even though it might be desirable.
The logical alternative to a mandatory sys-
tem is a voluntary system. A mandatory sys-
tem will theoretically collect 100 percent of
the residential solid waste generated within
a political jurisdiction, whereas a voluntary
system may collect much less. The real crux
of the matter is whether the resident is
required to pay for solid waste collection
service or not. Voluntary acceptance of
charges for solid waste collection should not
be expected from a large percentage of the
population.
Although data on collection costs are not
generally available for rural systems, a total
operating cost of $7 to $15 per ton can be
anticipated for the average bulk container
collection system.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Disposal by Residents
The simplest method is the direct disposal
of wastes on one's own property. It provides
the least service at the least expense to the
rural government. However, it is the system
that is the most difficult to monitor and
control. It also encourages roadside dumping
as well as open burning, which are unaccept-
able practices. In order to be successful, an
extensive educational campaign is needed to
ensure the proper disposal of wastes.
Hauling by Residents to Landfills
The direct haul of wastes by the resident
to a central sanitary landfill eliminates some
of the problems associated with disposal of
wastes on one's own property. The distance
to the landfill may discourage some residents
from using it regularly, however. Roadside
littering as well as traffic at the disposal site
may also create problems.
Bulk Container System
In a bulk storage container system, a
number of containers, enough to serve the
needs of the rural population, are strate-
gically located along highways or roads easily
traversed by a collection vehicle. The indi-
69
-------
vidual resident is required to transport his
waste to the bulk containers, which are
serviced by a suitable collection vehicle; the
collected wastes are transported to a central
sanitary landfill or processing facility.
There are two different types of bulk stor-
age container systems. In one system, bulk
containers are boxes with lids or doors rang-
ing in size from 3 to 8 cubic yards and
serviced by emptying into a larger collection
vehicle. The other type of bulk container sys-
tem uses large open boxes with a capacity
of approximately 20 to 40 cubic yards. These
large boxes are not emptied but instead are
replaced regularly by empty boxes, with the
full boxes being taken directly to the process-
ing or disposal site.
There are three basic types of bulk bin
collection vehicles—front-loading, rear-load-
ing, and side-loading, each with its own
characteristics and capabilities (Table 21).
In calculating the bulk container capacity
required for an area, it may be useful to
consider that the average number of persons
served per cubic yard of bulk container space,
based on figures from selected areas, is 9.8
(Table 22). However, the ratio of persons
per cubic yard varies widely depending on
local conditions. To determine the number
of containers that can be emptied into a col-
lection truck, the following estimates can
be used. For loose solid waste, a density in
the container of 75 to 150 pounds per cubic
yard can be expected. A density in the col-
lection vehicle of 450 to 900 pounds per
cubic yard of compacted waste can be ex-
pected. Data on the density that can be
achieved by any specific type of collection
truck can be obtained from a list of specifi-
cations or dealer.
Site locations should be chosen according
to commonsense criteria. For example, con-
TABLE 21
CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL BULK BIN COLLECTION SYSTEMS BY TYPE OF VEHICLE USED •
Item
Vehicle type
Front-loading vehicle
Rear-loading vehicle
Side-loading vehicle
Crew size
Typical container
servicing time
Container site
development
Container sizes
Site maintenance
Typical packer
body sizes
Types of wastes
collected
Vehicle flexibility
One driver-collector
1 to 2 min
Requires pull-off area
from main road, with
gravel or paved surface
common
0.8 to 8 cu m (1 to 10
cu yd)
Usually a special crew
cleans sites periodically
15.3 to 30.2 cu m (20 to
40 cu yd)
Any wastes that will fit
inside container
Can service only front-
loading containers
One driver, one to
three collectors
2 to 6 min (includes
some litter cleanup)
Requires area in which
to back up to container;
gravel or paved surface
is common
0.8 to 4.5 cu m (1 to
6 cu yd)
Collection crew cleans
up as containers are
emptied
12 to 22.7 cu m (16 to
30 cu yd)
Any wastes that will
fit into rear-loading
hopper
Can service both rear-
loading containers and
house-to-house collection
One driver, one or two
collectors
1 to 3 min (includes
some litter cleanup)
If users and collection
vehicle can stop safely
along road, site needs to
be only slightly larger
than containers; otherwise
pull-off area is common
with gravel or paved
surface
0.8 to 3.1 cu m (1 to
4 cu yd)
Collection crew cleans up
as containers are emptied
9.9 to 24.5 cu m (13 to
32 cu yd)
Any waste that can be
placed through the side
doors
Can service both side-
loading containers and
house-to-house collection
* Source: GOLDBERG, T. Improving rural solid waste management practices. Environmental Protection
Agency Publication No. SW-107. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
70
-------
tainers should be located so that they will
be on the way for users going to town,
church, or school. Containers should be locat-
ed with regard to where the people are. The
maximum distance of a container from any
user should not be over 3 to 5 miles. If con-
tainers are placed near existing dumps, they
are more apt to be successful because of the
strength of habit of the users.
There are several major advantages to
this type of system. The first is that a col-
lection system is provided where usually
none had existed before. Promiscuous dump-
ing and community dumps are generally re-
duced. Public acceptability is usually high.
Development costs of the individual container
sites are relatively low. The sites can be
located close to the users, and population
and waste-generation changes can be easily
adapted to by changing the number and loca-
tions of the containers. A centralized sani-
tary landfill that incorporates economies of
scale can be used. Servicing of commercial
and industrial establishments and recreation-
al areas can be easily done. Not the least
advantage is that the costs of this kind of
system, once established, can be predicted to
a reliable degree.
As with any system, there are also dis-
advantages. Two disadvantages accompany
any system change in a solid waste disposal
system. First, the initial capital investment
cost may be quite hdgh. Truck costs start at
approximately $30,000 and smaller contain-
ers at $200 each. Second, the initiation of a
new program may cause existing collection
systems, whether private or municipal, to
immediately decrease service in the area.
The system can 'be financed by user
charges, but only with difficulty. As with
any unattended site, vandalism may occur
and unsanitary conditions may develop un-
TABLE 22
EXAMPLES OF RURAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS
Location
Baldwin Co., Ala.
Chilton Co., Ala.
Choctaw Co., Ala.
Coffee Co., Ala.
Macon Co., Ala.
Madison Co., Ala.
Tuscaloosa Co., Ala.
Evans Co., Ga.
Grady Co., Ga.
Screven Co., Ga.
Benewah Co., Idaho
Bonner Co., Idaho
Boundary Cp., Idaho
Kootenai Co., Idaho
Shoshone Co., Idaho
De Soto Co., Miss.
Humphreys Co., Tenn.
Jefferson Co., Tenn.
Polk Co., Texas
Estimated
population
47,000
17,000
14,000
14,000
13,800
40,000
30,000
7,290
10,000
9,500
3,680
3,000
2,300
2,250
1,016
50,000
8,796
17,014
9,500
Number
of con-
tainers
*
91
*
170
137
*
335
10
70
126
164
14
39
17
10
20
11
12
72
78
7
134
23
128
17
110
60
Size of
containers
(cuyd)
4
4
4
5,6
3
4
4
4
12 t
10
10
iot
12 *
4*
12 1
6
4
30
6
8
4
6
4
3
Collec-
tions
per week
1
3
1
1-2
1-2
1
2
2-3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1-2
2
2
2
3
Number of
persons per
cu yd
storage
16
14
17
7
9
10
7
11
4
7
3
4
26
4
14
5
Number
of
trucks
14
2
3
1
1
9
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Size of
trucks
(cu yd)
16-23
30
20
30
30
23
30
23
20
25
20
20
20
10
16
20
16
20
30
roll-off
roll-off
31
30
30
Initial
capital
cost
$240,000 t
68,000
48,000
62,700
65,900
160,000
310,000
60,695
49,787
66,000
t
38,400 f
17,540 1
60,900 f
t
t
105,465
68,310
93,086
* Mailbox system.
t Contracted.
$Hand unload.
71
-------
less the sites are properly maintained. Users
of the system must carry their own waste to
the containers, which may be a hardship for
those without means of transportation. To
work well, this kind of service must supply
a substantial number of containers at acces-
sible sites. The amount of waste picked up
at each container may be unpredictable and
cause scheduling problems, at least until new
sites or more containers are supplied. Finally,
if this kind of rural service is used near
municipalities, the containers may be used
by town residents if there is inadequate town
service.
Mailbox System
In this house-to-house collection system, a
collection vehicle travels rural postal delivery
routes collecting waste that has been placed
next to mailboxes.
This system assumes: (1) if a mail truck
can travel a route, a collection vehicle can
travel the same route; (2) over the years,
the postal system has probably developed the
most efficient routes for traveling the region;
(3) since all mailboxes on a rural route are
required to be accessible to a driver and on
the same side of the road, containers will have
to be picked up from only one side of the
road. For households that do not have mail-
boxes on the postal routes, the customer and
collection agency must agree on a mutually
acceptable collection site. A house-to-house
system, such as the mailbox, requires that
collection days and times be designated so
that residents know when to set out their
waste. Recently the mailbox system has be-
come very popular in Alabama, where 67
percent of the unincorporated population is
now serviced by this method in comparison
to 23 percent serviced by bulk containers.
The advantages to this type of system are
that it collects the largest percentage of
generated household waste of any system, it
permits a high level of scheduled service to
the rural resident and business establish-
ments, and it provides a system for which
user charges can be established.
The mailbox system does have some dis-
advantages in that homeowners must coop-
erate in setting out containers on the road-
side and following service schedules. Litter
problems may occur if bags are torn or if
containers are upset along the road. Also,
the system may be time consuming and costly
to utilize in isolated areas.
In considering the use of a house-to-house
system for rural solid waste collection, nu-
merous factors must be evaluated in terms
of the funds available, such as fre-
quency of collection, type of storage con-
tainer, kind and size of equipment, and crew
size. Most critical is the expected level of
participation by residents.
CONCLUSIONS
Two of the four methods of rural waste
management rely heavily on the residents
themselves, since they must either dispose
of the waste on their own property or haul
it to a sanitary landfill.
If a bulk storage container system or
house-to-house system is proposed for a given
rural area, a thorough investigation must be
undertaken to determine what the population
is willing to support. In order to rationally
select between system alternatives, there
must be an understanding of the level of
service desired as well as the cost for each
system.
REFERENCES
GOLDBERG, T. L. Improving rural solid waste management practices. Environ-
mental Protection Publication SW-107. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
72
-------
i \
•5 \
Q) ^fi
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, ' s>
\
TRANSFER STATIONS %
AND
TRANSPORTATION j
TO DISPOSAL SITES /
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
I
1 ,*
0°
-------
w <^
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, *
Transfer Stations and Transportation \
to Disposal Sites /
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation. ^S*
In many areas of the country, sanitary
landfills are distant from urban areas be-
cause of the shortage of suitable land nearby.
The result is that many man-hours can be
spent in hauling solid waste from the collec-
tion zone to the disposal area. This situation
can be alleviated by using a transfer station.
A transfer station is a facility where the
solid waste from several relatively small
vehicles is placed into one relatively large
vehicle before being hauled to the disposal
site. The small vehicles can be private auto-
mobiles, pick up trucks, or, more commonly,
collection vehicles. The large vehicles can be
barges, railcars, or trucks.
Although a transfer operation offers po-
tential savings, it requires an extra mate-
rials-handling step and the construction of
a transfer facility. The associated costs must
be recovered or money will be lost in the
transfer operation. The costs that are in-
curred are as follows:
1. The capital expenditures for land,
structures, and equipment
2. The costs for labor, utilities, mainte-
nance, operation, and overhead at the
transfer plants
3. The costs for labor, operation, mainte-
nance, and overhead incurred in the
bulk hauling to the disposal site.
Costs are saved with the utilization of a
transfer operation because:
1. The nonproductive time of collectors'
is cut since they no longer ride to and
from the disposal site; it may be pos-
sible to reduce the number of collection
crews needed because of increased pro-
ductive collection time.
2. Any reduction in mileage traveled by
the collection trucks results in a sav-
ings in operating costs.
ALTERNATIVES
Barging
New York City and Seattle are among the
few cities now using barges to haul waste
to disposal sites. Because of lack of interest
in this type of transport, barge haul does not
seem to have much potential for development
in the near future except in very specialized
applications.
Rail Haul
Rail haul has generated considerable inter-
est in the past several years, but to date no
city has solved all the political problems as-
sociated with the concept. Rail haul does,
however, have the potential to become a
major factor in the national solid waste
management system. Most of the proposed
rail haul projects designate strip mines as
the disposal site. When this is the case, two
environmental problems can be solved: the
proper disposal of waste materials and the
reclamation of the strip-mined areas.
Truck Transport
The popularity of truck transfer systems
has led to the development of equipment
specifically suited to this purpose. Early
transfer station operations relied completely
on equipment built by various manufacturers
to specifications of the operating authority.
In the 1960's, solid waste equipment manu-
facturers developed specialized processing
and hauling equipment. At the present time
those interested in a truck transfer operation
75
-------
have the option of either designing their own
system and writing specifications for desired
equipment or buying specialized equipment
from the manufacturers and designing the
system around it.
Two basic types of transfer systems have
developed as a result of these options. The
first is the direct-dump system where a col-
lection truck dumps by gravity into a large
open-top trailer. The trailer is located under
a funnel-shaped hopper to prevent spillage,
and a backhoe is usually used to compact
and distribute the load after it has been
placed in the trailer. A variation of this sys-
tem utilizes a dumping pit where a crawler
tractor crushes and compacts the waste before
pushing it into the trailer via the hopper.
Because of the densities achieved with the
crawler tractors, a backhoe is usually re-
quired for load distribution only. The com-
paction pit system is used primarily in high-
volume transfer stations because of the
expense of incorporating the extra equipment,
whereas the direct-dump system has been
used in both small and large installations.
All direct-dump systems are characterized
by the fact that open-top trailers are used
and the equipment employed is usually not
specially predesigned for solid waste trans-
fer. Some type of cable system is usually
employed to pull the loads out of the rear of
the trailer at the disposal site.
The second basic transfer system utilizes
hydraulic pressure to achieve horizontal com-
paction of the waste within the trailer. Two
methods have been used to achieve compac-
tion. Both are characterized by the use of
enclosed reinforced-steel trailers specifically
manufactured for solid waste transfer. The
first compaction method is partially a direct-
dump operation in that waste is dumped
directly into the trailer, near the front. A
hydraulic-powered bulkhead traverses the
length of the trailer and compacts the waste
against the rear doors. The entire compaction
process is self-contained within the trailer
body. At the disposal site, the bulkhead
pushes the load out through the rear doors.
The second compaction method requires
the use of a stationary compactor. The trans-
fer vehicle is backed up and securely fas-
tened to the compactor. Waste is fed by
gravity into the compactor chamber from an
overhead hopper. The compaction ram forces
the waste forward into the trailer through
the rear in horizontal reciprocating cycles.
This trailer is also equipped with a hydrau-
lic-powered bulkhead which traverses the
length of the trailer for unloading at the
disposal site. Either compaction method can
easily produce maximum legal payloads.
COSTS
Barging
There are no representative costs to be
reported from this type of transport.
Rail Haul
Because of a lack of any sustained operat-
ing experience in the rail haul of solid waste,
it is impossible to provide accurate cost fig-
ures. However, preliminary costs on two pro-
posed operations can be cited. For the pend-
76
-------
ing Atlanta rail haul operation, Southern
Railroad has contracted with Atlanta to
transport and dispose of 500 tons per day
of baled wastes for $3.75 per ton. The haul
distance is about 100 miles. At'anta will
handle the transfer, processing, and loading
operations at a projected cost of an addi-
tional $3.25 per ton. The city of Philadelphia
recently considered rail hauling 1,000 tons of
solid waste per day a distance of 350 miles
to an abandoned strip mine. Under this plan,
the wastes would be placed unprocessed in
large containers which would be loaded onto
flat cars for shipment. The total estimated
cost is $13.23 per ton.
Truck Transport
For truck transfer operations, the best
method of reporting the cost is to use two
categories. The first category is the cost of
owning and operating the transfer facility.
Data collected between 1968 and 1971 show
costs ranged from $1.25 to $2.25 per ton.
The second category is the haul costs. These
costs ranged from $1.50 to $2.50 per ton.
From the facilities that do not report costs
in these categories, total costs ranging from
$2.25 to $4.50 per ton were reported.
In general, anyone considering a transfer
operation must determine if the savings will
exceed the costs. The primary variable is the
distance to the disposal site. Attempting to
apply a rule of thumb (such as "A 10-mile
haul distance justifies transfer") to this de-
termination is unrealistic and mere guess-
work unless a study is made of local condi-
tions. A decisive distance in one area may be
totally insignificant in another. Factors such
as wage rates, type of access roads, collection
truck capacity, and size of collection crews
(one-man, two-man, etc.) can change the
break-even distance considerably.
Although distance to the disposal site is
important in comparing direct haul with
transfer and haul, a more realistic criterion
is the time necessary to travel the distance
since the major item in total haul cost is
labor, which is directly related to time and
not distance. Variables such as routes taken,
traffic conditions, and speed limits could re-
sult in a time of 15 minutes to cover 10 miles
in one area and an hour in another area.
For these reasons, the usual unit of com-
parison, the cost per ton per mile, should be
replaced by the more realistic unit of cost
per ton per minute when making transfer
station calculations (Figure 4). In general,
a larger vehicle has a greater payload and a
lower cost per ton/minute (or mile). Thus
the 20-ton transfer rig has a flatter haul cost
curve than does a 5-ton collection packer
truck, but the haul cost for the transfer rig
must be superimposed on the cost of the
transfer station.
ADVANTAGES
Even though a transfer operation requires
an extra materials-handling step and the
construction of a facility, its use may reduce
the system's total costs.
A transfer station offers a convenient,
close-in site for residents to deposit their
waste. It may be a good location for a re-
source recovery facility. Some solid waste
equipment manufacturers now offer transfer
systems that can be converted to resource
recovery by adding components to the basic
facility.
DISADVANTAGES
The major disadvantage of setting up a
transfer station is the problem of public
acceptance, which is common to almost all
solid waste management facilities. While
many people will recognize the need for a
facility, very few will allow it to be built
near their homes.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The economic justification of a transfer
system requires a reduction in the number
of collection crews needed in an established
collection system. This will bring about a
surplus of men and equipment within the
operating agency, as well as a need to redis-
tribute the workload among the remaining
crews.
In a system using a transfer station, the
opening or closing of a particular disposal
site will not affect the collection routes.
This is true because a transfer system makes
the collection operation independent of the
disposal facility.
77
-------
8
z
^COLLECTION TRUCK
TRANSFER TRAILER
MANEUVERING, UNLOADING TRANSFER TRUCK
f
OWNING AND OPERATING TRANSFER FACILITY
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
ROUNDTRIP TRANSPORT TIME IN MINUTES
FIGURE 4. This represents a typical method for evaluating costs of trans-
porting waste to the disposal site. For the transfer rig, the haul cost is im-
posed on the cost of transfer operations. In this illustration, a cost for trans-
fer of $2.50 per ton has been assumed. Ultimately the curve for the transfer
rig plus the transfer station will intercept the steeper curve for the collection
packer truck. The point of interception, when projected downward, will show
the roundtrip time at which a transfer operation is justified. The data used
to derive this graph is presented below, solely for the purpose of demonstrat-
ing the method. Source: GRECO, J. R. Transfer station feasibility is measured
against direct haul. Solid Wastes Management, 17(4) :13, Apr. 1974.)
Transportation costs per vehicle
Direct haul Transfer
Time-based costs per year
Vehicle amortization*
Driver's salary, fringe benefits!
Collector's salary, fringe benefitst
Vehicle insurance, licenses, taxes
Subtotal
Subtotal per minntet
Mileage-based costs per rafle
Fuel.f oil, tires
Maintenance and repair
Subtotal
Subtotal per minute^
Total per minute
Total per ton per minute
Estimated cost per ton for owning and operating transfer facility
Estimated cost per ton for maneuvering and unloading; transfer vehicle
$ 5,260
10,625
9,376
1,600
26.760
$ 0.214
0.080
0.050
0.130
0.087
0.801
0.060
0
0
$ 9,468
12,600
0
2,600
24,468
$ 0.196
0.160
0.050
0.200
0.107
0.808
0.015
2.00
0.60
•Diesel compactor truck ($25,COO) with a 6-ton payload capacity and diesel tractor trailer
($45,000) with 20-ton payload capacity amortized over 6 yea .-a at 8 percent per annum.
tFringe benefits approximated as 26 percent of sala.'ies (collection truck driver, $8,600; col-
lector, $7,600: transfer trailer driver, $10,000).
{Assumed 5-day work week, 8-hour work day.
fFnel costs dependent upon price (e.g., 30c per ga'lon) and consumption (e.g., 6 miles per
gallon).
1 Roundtrip transport, 40 miles roundtrip transpoi t time, 60 minutes for collection track,
75 minutes for transfer trailer.
78
-------
CONCLUSIONS should be evaluated individually based on
_ . . .. . , , distances to feasible disposal sites, local labor
Transfer systems offer an economical al- c0gtS) and other factorg menti0ned herein.
ternative to direct haul of solid waste by the It is essential, however, that systems utilize
collection crew to a distant disposal site. transfer whenever applicable to reduce non-
No rule of thumb exists to determine productive use of collection labor and equip-
when to use a transfer system. Each case ment.
REFERENCES
1. HEGDAHL, T. A. Solid waste transfer stations; a state-of-the-art report
on systems incorporating highway transportation. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1972. 160 p. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB 213 511.)
2. ZAUSNER, E. R. An accounting system for transfer station operations.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2034. Washington, U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1971. 20 p.
3. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION. Rail transport of solid wastes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 148 p. (Distributed by
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB
222 709).
4. WOLF, K. W., and C. H. SOSNOVSKY. High-pressure compaction and bal-
ing of solid waste; final report on a solid waste management demon-
stration grant. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
163 p.
5. LEONARD S. WEGMAN COMPANY, INC. Rail haul and land reclamation
for the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Zerbe Township,
Northumberland County, Pennsylvania; system feasibility and cost
analysis. Lewisburg, Pa., May 1973. 58 p.
6. LEONARD S. WEGMAN COMPANY, INC. Rail haul and land reclamation
for the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Centre County,
Pennsylvania; system feasibility and cost analysis. Lewisburg, Pa,,
June 1973. 52 p.
7. KAISER ENGINEERS. Solid waste management study for the Port of Ta-
coma. Environmental Protection Publication SW-55d. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1973. 107 p. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB 226 042.)
79
-------
O VI
Q) ^
"* ' c
« %
I °*
I %
i
I \
o ^5
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
\
PROCESSING I
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
(D
3
<_
O
3
3
(D
3
9L
(D
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Baling
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
a S
'
Baling is a method of reducing solid waste
volume which has the potential to achieve
cost savings when transfer and long haul are
necessary prior to disposal. The decision to
be made is how well baling and the operation
of a balefill compete with nonbaling and
conventional landfilling on an economic and
environmental basis for the particular com-
munity. Also, the different forms of baling
must be compared with each other.
ALTERNATIVES
There are, at present, two main types of
balers. One type, the converted scrap baler,
achieves such high densities that no baling
wire is needed. Raw refuse is baled without
any preprocessing. This has been demon-
strated in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The second type is the converted hay baler,
which requires baling straps even though
high densities are achieved. Waste must be
shredded prior to baling. This process has
been demonstrated in San Diego.
These two baling processes should be com-
pared with the operation of a transfer station
and hauling "loose" refuse to a conventional
disposal site.
COSTS
three alternatives are com-
of costs, conventional disposal
comes out as the costliest at
(Table 23). The San Diego
is costlier than the St. Paul
versus $7.01-$7.38). These bal-
for pilot plants operating at
When these
pared in terms
with transfer
$9.25 per ton
baling process
process ($8.62
ing costs are
TABLE 23
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS OF ST. PAUL BALER, SAN DIEGO BALER,
AND CONVENTIONAL DISPOSAL, INCLUDING TRANSFER
Item
St. Paul
baler and
transfer
San Diego
baler and
transfer
Conventional
disposal
and transfer
Densities in place (Ibs per
cu yd) 1,500-2,000
Costs (per ton) *
Land acquisition f $0.90-1.35
Landfill operation 1.03
Baler acquisition and
operation 3.78 $
Conventional transfer station
operation —
Transportation to fill 1.22
Total cost $7.01-7.38
2,000
$0.90
.28
6.221
1.221
800-1,200
$1.80
3.20
2.00
2.25
$8.62
$9.25
* All costs are in 1973 figures.
t Assumes a site 100 yd X 100 yd X 10 yd deep acquired at $9 per sq yd,
or $10,000 for the site.
t Very conservative (high) figure in that the plant is operating at 65 per-
cent utilization and with a 137-second-cycle machine (90-second-cycle machine
is the current production model).
g Very conservative (high) figure in that plant is currently operating at
67 percent utilization.
If No data available—figure for St Paul is used on the basis of similar
densities.
83
-------
two-thirds capacity; costs are expected to be
lower for full-scale operations. Moreover,
the current model of the St. Paul baler is
being superseded by a higher speed model
that will further reduce costs (Table 24 and
Figures).
ADVANTAGES
• Nearly doubles the life of the land dis-
posal site and therefore reduces the
number of times the city government
must go through the politically difficult
process of acquiring a new disposal site
• Cheaper than transferring, transporting,
and landfilling nonbaled waste
• Permits immediate use of the disposal
site upon completion (minimal settling);
may be environmentally superior to con-
ventional disposal site operations
• Balefill sites are clearly superior estheti-
cally to conventional sanitary landfills
and therefore should be more acceptable
to surrounding residents.
DISADVANTAGES
• Greater initial investment than conven-
tional transfer station
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Other issues to be examined in deciding
whether or not to bale are as follows:
Volume of Waste
There should be enough waste to guaran-
tee utilization of the equipment at a rate of
around 100 percent. For the new model of
the St. Paul baler, for example, this would
be 896 tons per day. Utilization rates be-
tween 50 and 80 percent (443 to 716 tons)
are in the marginal range. At rates above
80 percent, costs for the baling process are
very competitive with costs of conventional
disposal with transfer.
Type of Waste
Grass, yard clippings, and leaves cannot
be included in concentrations greater than
50 percent by weight, or the bale (St. Paul)
will not retain its integrity. Under normal
operating conditions such material can be
dispersed at the baler plant so that this is
not a problem.
Environmental Quality of Landfill Site
Ongoing EPA monitoring tests will estab-
lish whether balefills are significantly supe-
rior to conventional sites.
CONCLUSIONS
The Environmental Protection Agency
recommends that cities generating a suffi-
cient volume of waste (currently defined as
greater than 400 tons per day) strongly con-
sider baling, especially if close-in land for
disposal sites is unavailable and long hauls
are inevitable. Cities with less than this
minimum tonnage should examine the pros-
pects of a joint venture with neighboring
communities before abandoning the baling
concept.
TABLE 24
COST OF ST. PAUL BALER OPERATION AS A FUNCTION OF BALER UTILIZATION
AND MACHINE MODEL. 1973 •
Percent of
production
capacity
100
90
80
70
60
137-second-cycle machine
Tons/hr
36.8
33.1
29.4
25.7
22.0
Tons/day f
589.4
530.5
471.5
412.6
353.7
Cost/ton
$2.10
2.35
2.65
3.15
4.50
90-second-eycle machine
Tons/hr
56.0
60.4
44.8
39.2
33.6
Tons/day f
896.0
806.4
716.8
627.2
537.6
Cost/ton
$1.65
1.85
2.16
2.55
3.25
* Assumes bale weight of 1.40 tons and bale volume of 1.33 cu yd.
t Assumes two shifts per day.
84
-------
100
80
o
N
3
5
5
60
40
ST. PAUL BALER COSTS
137-SECOND-CYCLE BALER
90-SECOND-CYCLE BALER
0 .50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
COST PER TON IN DOLLARS, 1973
FIGURE. 5. The cost per ton at the St. Paul baling facility increases as
plant utilization decreases.
85
-------
l\
2
-------
SHREDDING EQUIPMENT
A wide variety of equipment is available
for the size reduction of materials. Much of
this equipment is intended for reduction of
specific materials, such as shears for auto
bodies or crushers for rock. Hammermills are
the most common type of equipment now used
for the size reduction of municipal solid
waste. Other types of equipment such as
rasp mills, disk mills, and wet-pulpers have
also seen some use with solid waste, but
hammermills appear to have the greatest
success.
There are basically three types of hammer-
mills: the swing hammer, the fixed or rigid
hammer, and the grinder. The swing and
fixed-hammer types are similar except that
in the swing-hammer type the hammers are
pivoted on the rotor, thereby potentially re-
ducing internal jams or damage to the ham-
mers. In the grinder type, which is not a
true hammermill, the hammers are replaced
by layered rotating discs between which are
peripherally located free rotating star wheels
that shred the material against the side walls
of the housing. To reduce the need for pre-
sorting, hammermills are often equipped with
some sort of ejection mechanism to remove
nongrindable material that might jam or
injure the equipment.
Hammermills vary in size depending on
the type and amount of material to be proc-
essed.
1. Light duty—15 hp/TPH* for light
wastepaper, cardboard, bottles, cans,
garbage, and yard wastes
2. Medium duty—25 hp/TPH for normal
packer truck waste—including some
furniture, appliances, auto tires, lum-
ber, tree trimmings, etc.
3. Heavy duty—30 hp/TPH for autos,
rubble, heavy metal, etc.
For general municipal solid waste, me-
dium-duty equipment is most often used.
* hp/TPH=horsepower required to process each
ton per hour of throughput. Thus, the total horse-
power requirement of a medium-duty shredder proc-
essing 40 tons per hour is 40 TPH X 25 hp/TPH=
1,000 hp.
Heavy-duty equipment should be considered
where there is a considerable amount of
bulky waste to shred.
ADVANTAGES
Extends Landfill Life
The Madison, Wisconsin, shredding dem-
onstration project has tended to confirm the
positive reports from Europe on the process.
It has been found that, because milled waste
is not esthetically insulting, it can often be
disposed of on land without daily or inter-
mediate cover where hydrogeological condi-
tions permit; however, careful consideration
must be given to the character of the input
material and necessary leachate control. It
also must be recognized that even where
regulatory agencies permit landfill of shred-
ded waste without daily cover, the same
engineering and operating principles asso-
ciated with traditional sanitary landfilling
techniques must be employed to ensure that
the site does not revert to a dump.
Another advantage of this process is that
shredded waste is easily placed and com-
pacted and even serves well as material for
keeping the disposal site accessible in inclem-
ent weather. If there is no need for daily
or intermediate cover, and good compaction
is readily available, it is easy to see how the
life of a land disposal site can be optimized;
in some cases, it can be almost doubled.
Shredding thus reduces the often burdensome
problem of locating suitable cover material
and the need to acquire additional land.
Public Acceptance
To date, public acceptance of shredding
facilities has been relatively good compared
to acceptance of more conventional solid
waste processing or disposal facilities. This
might be due to two factors. First, the shred-
ding site is usually not the disposal site, and
second, the shredded waste is far more unob-
trusive in appearance than nonprocessed
solid waste. Also, there are no air pollutants
from combustion or water pollutants from
process waters associated with shredding.
However, litter, odor, and vector problems
can develop if housekeeping is poor.
Low Cost
The initial investment and operating costs
for shredding are relatively low; the increase
87
-------
over that of straight sanitary landfilling is
relatively small. Calculation of the economics
of shredding should include the savings in
hauling costs that may be possible because
the shredding facility functions as a transfer
station between the collection area and the
disposal site.
Where favorable market conditions exist
or develop, the sale of materials separated
from shredded waste can be used to further
offset the cost of shredding or to subsidize
the solid waste management system. Shred-
ding can, in fact, enhance the marketability
of certain fractions of the solid waste stream.
Most Wastes Can Be Shredded
A large portion of the total solid waste
load can be shredded. Some wastes, however,
cannot be put through the mill because of
size or density or because they are hazardous,
have high moisture content, or have other
qualities that normally call for specialized
handling in any system.
Use With Incineration, Resource Recovery,
Other Processes
It has been found that shredding can be
used in conjunction with a number of solid
waste treatment processes other than land-
filling. For instance, bulky combustible waste
can be shredded for incineration. Ordinarily
many such items have to bypass the incin-
erator because they are too large to charge
or burn well. The cost of shredding bulky
combustibles must be compared to the sav-
ings made possible by handling and disposing
of only about 10 percent of the original vol-
ume of these wastes. In locations where a
large portion of the waste mix consists of
bulky combustibles, it is obvious that the ulti-
mate land disposal site life can be signifi-
cantly lengthened through the use of shred-
ding. Similarly, the transportation costs of
these bulky wastes can be greatly reduced.
Variations of standard solid waste incin-
erators, such as the vortex suspension burner
or the fluidized bed incinerator, require that
waste be shredded for proper feeding and
combustion. For similar reasons, other ther-
mal processes, such as pyrolysis or use of
solid waste as a power plant fuel supple-
ment, may necessitate the shredding of solid
waste. Certain solid waste balers also work
best when utilizing shredded waste.
Lastly, it appears that shredding is neces-
sary for many resource recovery processes
in which feed material of uniform size is
needed, such as air classification or the mag-
netic separation of ferrous metal.
DISADVANTAGES
Materials Handling Problems
There has not been long-term experience in
the shredding of solid waste, and many of
the operational problems have not been
solved. Perhaps one of the major problems
encountered in shredding has been the mate-
rials handling aspect of feeding the mill and
the subsequent removal of the shredded mate-
rial. Jamming and bridging of the feeding
equipment can significantly reduce the
throughput of the mill. Uneven feeding can
result in uneven hammer loading and wear,
as well as surges in power requirements.
Unless the shredded material is rapidly re-
moved from the mill, a backup jam may
occur.
Component Wear
Another problem area that has contributed
significantly to overall cost and downtime is
component wear, particularly hammer wear.
Recent developments such as reversible
rotors, improved hammer tipping materials,
and easier access to internal components
promise to significantly reduce costs. Bear-
ing wear has likewise been a source of prob-
lems, but many of these have been nearly
eliminated through proper lubrication, strict
specifications, and minimizing of longitudi-
nal movement or vibration of the rotor.
Explosions
Explosions within the mills have also
caused problems. The mills are not usually
damaged, but provisions should be made for
employee safety.
Noise
Noise problems associated with shredding
can be eased by the use of sound-deadening
material and possibly locating the mill below
ground level where conditions permit.
88
-------
CONCLUSIONS
EPA recommends that cities with a severe
shortage of landfill sites and/or cover ma-
terial consider shredding if hydrogeological
conditions permit. Local regulatory authori-
ties should be contacted to determine how
present regulations would affect landfilling
of shredded wastes. Other than cover require-
ments, all normal sanitary landfilling pro-
cedures must be followed in landfilling
shredded waste; under certain conditions,
additional consideration must be given to
leachate collection and treatment when
wastes have been shredded.
REFERENCES
1. CITY OF MADISON, WISCONSIN. Solid waste milling and disposal on land
without cover. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (In press, to
be distributed by the National Technical Information Service, Spring-
field, Va.)
2. REGIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION. Case study—City of Columbus, Batho-
lomen County, Indiana, solid waste shredding facility. Columbus,
Indiana, June 1973. (In press.)
3. LEONARD S. WEGMAN COMPANY, INC. Buffalo's crusher facility for bulky
solid waste. Environmental Protection Publication SW-60d. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 79 p. (Distributed by Na-
tional Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB 225
159.)
4. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. San Diego baler evaluation. Unpub-
lished data.
5. MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Development of a standardized proce-
dure for the evaluation and comparison of size reduction equipment.
Kansas City, Mo., Jan. 23, 1973. 73 p.
6. MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Size reduction equipment for municipal
solid waste. Environmental Protection Publication SW-53c. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 126 p. (Distributed by Na-
tional Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB 226
551.)
7. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. Position on landfilling
of milled solid waste. (Unpublished paper.)
89
-------
I\
I <
2 %
> <«
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transpoit. processing, disposal criteria, cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Energy Recovery and Thermal Reduction
conservation, environmental effects decisions' collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
i
3 <)
\
\
Mixed municipal solid waste is composed
largely of combustible materials. On the
basis of weight, more than 75 percent of the
material is combustible, but more important
from the point of view of disposal is the
fact that greater than 90 percent of the
volume can be eliminated by means of ther-
mal reduction. Historically thermal reduc-
tion has referred exclusively to the incinera-
tion process carried out largely in refrac-
tory-lined chambers. More recently, however,
solid waste disposal technology has found
many new ways of thermally treating refuse
to convert it into new forms or utilize its
energy value. This includes the development
of waterwall incinerators, pyrolysis tech-
nology, and various ways to use refuse as a
fuel. The advent of strict air pollution con-
trol laws and the emergence of a strong
environmental concern for conserving non-
replenishable resources has had a very dra-
matic, impact on the status of thermal reduc-
tion options. Conventional incineration has
been virtually eliminated from current op-
tions, and many new systems are being pro-
posed (Table 25).
ALTERNATIVES
Incineration
Municipal incinerators are designed for
self-sustained combustion of municipal solid
waste under controlled conditions that maxi-
mize volume reduction while minimizing the
emission of pollutants.
Combustion takes place on a metal grate
that is enclosed within a combustion cham-
ber. Air sufficient to complete the combus-
tion reaction is forced into the chamber from
below and above the refuse. The hot com-
bustion gases are then passed through air
pollution control devices to remove the pollut-
ants, principally particulates, before ex-
hausting the gases to the atmosphere. In
addition to the furnace, a complete incinera-
tion system consists of a receiving and stor-
age area where solid waste is brought into
the plant and held until it can be burned, a
method of firing the solid waste into the
furnace, the fans and equipment needed to
deliver the combustion air to the furnace,
the air pollution control system, a stack for
discharging the gases to the atmosphere, and
a means of removing the noncombustible
ashes from the furnace.
Refractory Walls. When the combustion
chamber in such a unit is lined with refrac-
tory walls and ceilings, the rate at which
material can be burned is limited by the rate
at which the heat emitted can be safely re-
moved from the system without causing heat
damage to the various parts of the facility.
Essentially all of the heat must be removed
by means of the air and combustion gases
flowing out of the unit. In order to protect
the unit and still achieve reasonable through-
put, considerably more air than is needed to
complete the combustion process must be
introduced into the furnace. This air, re-
ferred to as excess air, carries off the heat
of combustion, but in so doing greatly aggra-
vates the problem of air pollution control.
This is because the excess air entrains more
particulate matter and also because the air
pollution control equipment must be in-
creased in size to handle the greater volumes
of air. With increasingly stringent air pol-
lution control requirements it has become
very costly to build air pollution control
systems. The net result has been an almost
total abandonment of the refractory-lined
incinerator.
Waterwalls. Another type of incinerator
consists of a furnace whose walls are con-
structed of vertically arranged metal tubes
joined side by side with metal fins. Radiant
energy from the burning of solid waste is
90
-------
TABLE 26
ECONOMIC AMD ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AND STATUS OP THERMAL REDUCTION AND ENERGY RECOVKRY SYSTEMS
J2
Sviitein
Incineration:
Reiractory-
lined unit*
Waterwall
unite
Pyrolysis:
Converaion to
gas or oil
Heat recovery
Refuse as fuel:
Dry-shredded
Wet-pulped
Electrical
generation
Biological
conversion
Companlea
Involved
t
Nashville
Thermal
Transfer
Corp., IBW-
Hartin, Rust
Engr.
Garrett
Research &
Dev. Com-
pany, Union
Carbide
Monsanto,
Torrax,
Devco
Homer &
Shiffrin,
Browning &
Ferris, Inc.,
Waste Man-
agement, Inc.,
Combustion
Engineers,
Combustion
Equipment
Associates,
Americology
Black Clawson
Combustion
Power Co.
—
Cmpltai
OMta per
ton of
d»lly
capacity
$16,000-20,000
12,000-16,000
10,000-18,000
14,000-18,000
7,000-12,000
10,000-) 4,000
—
SUtui
Obsolete; 300
units in use
Several units
operational,
240 to 1,600
tons per day
2004on-per-
day pilot plant
under con-
struction
1,000-ton-per-
day plant un-
der construc-
tion
660-ton-per-
day system in
operation
Hardware in
use; 150-ton-
per-day pilot
plant
Research —
pilot plant
Research —
lab scale
Major
Air pollution product
potential output
Cannot eco- None
nomically meet
Federal
standards
Can meet Steam
Federal
standards
Emissions OH, gas
readily con-
trolled
Emissions Steam
readily con-
trolled
Air pollution Fuel
tests currently
underway at
power plant.
Combining two
sources into
one is an ad-
vantage.
Fuel
Emissions Electricity
should be well
below new
standards
— Methane
Total
operating
Marketing coita
problenu per ton *
— $8.00-16.00
Must satisfy 9.00-16.00
specific needs
of customer
Oil needs to be 10.00-13.60
tested. Btu
value of gar
needs to be in-
creased to ex-
tend market-
ability
Must satisfy 9.60-12.60
specific needs
of customer
Major market 10.00-14.00
is coal-fired
utility boilers.
No major
problems ex-
pected.
Use of pulp as 11.00-14.00
fuel still needs
to be tested
Implications —
of selling elec-
tricity are
unknown.
Unknown —
Revenue* Net eoita
per ton per ton
— $8.00-16.00
$6.00 3.00-16.00
6.00 6.00-8.60
4.00-6.00 4.60-8.50
6.00 6.00-9.00
6.00-7.00 4.00-9.00
_ _
-.— _
• Includes amortization. The range in costs reflects, differences in size and dates of original data.
t Many different companies have constructed this type of system.
-------
absorbed by the tubes and fins and trans-
ferred to water passing through the tubes.
Additional boiler packages located in the
back passages of the incinerator are used to
control the conversion of this water to steam
of specific temperature and pressure. Units
fired by fossil fuels can also be used to super-
heat the steam for electrical generation. By
transferring the heat released through the
combustion of refuse to the water, the vol-
ume of air needed to keep the operating
temperature at acceptable levels can be re-
duced. The advantage of this is a reduction
in the size of the unit and, most importantly,
in the size of the air pollution control equip-
ment needed. The volume of gas entering the
air pollution control equipment will be about
25 percent of that of an air-cooled, refrac-
tory unit. Additionally, the combustion proc-
ess can be better controlled so that fewer
pollutants are entrained in the gas stream.
The smaller volumes of gases can then be
easily cleaned using either high-energy-drop
scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators. Tests
of Chicago's northwest waterwall incinerator
have demonstrated that it can meet the Fed-
eral limit of 0.08 grain per standard cubic
foot.
Residue Treatment. Incinerator residue
is permeable and may contain water-soluble
inorganic and organic compounds. If water
moves through a deposit of residue, leaching
can occur. Pollution can occur if the leachate
water moves through underlying soil and
enters the groundwater. Surface water can
also become contaminated where the leachate
moves laterally through the surrounding soil
and seeps out at ground surface. Therefore,
only sanitary landfill methods should be em-
ployed to dispose of incinerator residue. A
discussion of the recovery of marketable
materials from incinerator residue is con-
tained in the section on materials recovery.
Fly Ash Treatment. Fly ash is usually
handled along with the residue. In addition to
ensuring that it is properly landfilled to pre-
vent leaching, it must also be handled in a
manner that prevents it from being air
blown. This requires the use of either closed
containers or wet sluicing from the point of
collection to disposal.
Wastewater Treatment. Wastewaters are
produced in an incinerator both from the ash
quenching operation and from many types
of air pollution control processes. Even if
these waters are reused, some discharging
will be necessary. Whenever possible, these
wastes should be discharged to a sanitary
waste sewer for proper treatment. Both pH
and settleable solids should be controlled to
the maximum extent practicable, whether
they are being discharged to an open course
or a sanitary sewer. The pH is partially con-
trolled by mixing the quench water and
scrubber water, but additional chemical
treatment may also be needed. Retention
tanks or ponds should be used to remove
settleable solids.
Economics. Waterwall construction is
more costly than refractory construction,
but, as explained above, if both are designed
to meet the same air pollution code, the
waterwall unit can be smaller than the re-
fractory unit and therefore will cost less to
build. Data on several plants built during
1972 and 1973 indicated that capital costs per
ton of installed daily capacity for waterwall
units are from $12,000 to $15,000.
Operating experience is h'mited to date,
but the costs of operating a waterwall unit
appear to be comparable to those of refrac-
tory units.
Although the operating costs are similar,
the cost of operating a waterwall unit can be
offset by the sale of steam. Although poten-
tial revenue from steam sales could amount
to $3 to $5 per ton of waste processed, it
should be pointed out that operators of most
waterwall units built in this country to date
have not been successful in marketing steam.
However, one unit that is currently nearing
completion in Nashville, Tennessee, was built
specifically to serve a guaranteed long-term
steam market.
Successful sale of steam requires an in-
depth understanding of the constraints of the
market and a religious adherence to the
limitations set down by it. Some of the fac-
tors which must be considered are as follows:
• Site Selection. The site must be one
that is close enough to economically
serve the steam market. Both the total
92
-------
distance and intervening obstacles must
be considered.
• Value. The cost of the delivered steam
must be competitive with costs of alter-
native supplies of steam available to the
customers. If this steam will be replac-
ing an existing source, its value is likely
to be considerably less than if it is
satisfying a new demand.
• Quantity. The amount of steam to be
supplied must be compatible with the
customers' needs. If peak loadings can-
not be supplied entirely by burning
refuse, then standby boilers will be
needed.
• Operating Schedule. The incinerator
facility must be operated on a basis that
best meets the operating schedule of its
steam customers.
• Availability of Refuse. The municipal-
ity must ensure that it can supply
enough refuse to the facility to meet
steam output commitments.
• Steam Quality. The steam must be pro-
duced at the temperature and pressure
that best suits the needs of the market.
• Reliability. The system must include
sufficient backup facilities to provide as-
surance that the steam needs of the cus-
tomers can be met. This must include
contingency plans in the event of a
strike or snowstorm that interrupts de-
livery. The cost of meeting this commit-
ment must be considered in tha overall
evaluation of the system.
• Excess Steam. The facility must be
designed to serve the community's dis-
posal needs, even if there is an interrup-
tion to the steam market. Condensing
units or a backup sanitary landfill can
serve this need.
• Timing. The steam must be available
when it is needed. Unanticipated delays
in construction of the facility could force
steam customers to change to another
source of steam.
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of
organic substances in an oxygen-deficient
atmosphere. The concept is under develop-
ment by nearly a dozen different private and
public organizations. The primary motiva-
tion is the desire to develop a system wherein
solid waste can be converted into a storable,
transportable fuel—either liquid or gas. Once
this can be done, many of the constraints that
limit the marketability of steam will be
minimized. At this time, several pyrolysis
systems have been damonstrated at the pilot
plant level (4 to 150 tons per day), but no
full-scale systems are operational. One full-
scale plant is currently being built, and two
other systems are being pilot-tested at the
200-ton-per-day range. By 1980, sufficient ex-
perience should have been gained to make this
a viable option for widespread utilization.
Products. In a pyrolysis or partially py-
rolytic system, high temperatures of 1,000 to
2,000 F and low availability of oxygen result
in a chemical breakdown of the waste organic
material into three component streams: a gas
consisting primarily of hydrogen, methane,
carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide; a "tar"
or "oil" that is liquid at room temperature
and includes organic chemicals such as acetic
acid, acetone, and methanol; and a "char"
consisting of almost pure carbon plus any
inerts (glass, metals, rock) that enter the
process unit. Residence time, temperature,
and pressure can be controlled in the pyroly-
sis reactor to produce various combinations
of gas, oil, and char.
Residue. Pyrolysis, like incineration, pro-
duces a residue that must be properly dis-
posed of. In certain pyrolysis systems, where
a high-temperature cupola-type furnace is
used, the residue is melted into a metallic and
glassy frit. Using this technique, it is possi-
ble to achieve about 50 percent greater vol-
ume reduction than in conventional incinera-
tors. It is also felt that this material is more
easily disposed of and in fact would quite
likely be usable as an aggregate.
Air Pollution. Air pollution controls are
considered to be less costly for pyrolysis
systems than for incinerators. Both the
amount of particulate air pollutants, such as
soot and other particles, and the volume of
stack gases are significantly lower with pyrol-
ysis systems.
Energy Recovery From Pyrolysis. The
pyrolysis concept has the advantage of in-
93
-------
eluding recovery of energy in a number of
forms, thus enhancing its applicability. The
oil product should prove to be a storable,
transportable fuel. The gas could be piped to
an adjacent utility or industry boiler for use
as supplementary fuel. Gases produced so far
have been too low in heat value to be either
storable or transportable over long times or
distances. However, work is underway to
determine the feasibility of improving this
gas to pipeline quality. In the system which
is furthest developed, the Monsanto Land-
Card system, the gases are burned on site
and the resulting heat is used to produce
steam which is then sold for heating.
Costs of Pyrolysis. Complete cost esti-
mates are not yet available for pyrolysis
systems. Capital and operating costs are esti-
mated to be comparable to those of waterwall
incinerators. Capital costs are estimated at
$10,000 to $18,000 per ton of daily capacity.
The 1,000-ton-per-day plant being built in
Baltimore, Maryland, for instance, will cost
$15,400,000. Total operating costs are expect-
ed to be in the range of $9.50 to $13.50 per
ton. Revenues received from the sale of prod-
ucts would reduce the costs to between $1.50
and $8.50 per ton.
Pyrolysis Systems. The following is a
description of several pyrolysis systems with
which EPA is most familiar. This list is not
presumed to be all-inclusive, nor is it meant
to imply endorsement by EPA.
Garrett Research and Development Com-
pany. A 200-ton-per-day Garrett system is
currently under design for San Diego County
as a demonstration project supported by
EPA. The plant should be operational by
late 1975; Mixed municipal solid waste will
be coarsely shredded and then separated
mechanically into a light fraction and a
heavy fraction. The light material will be
dried and shredded to a very fine particle
size, practically a powder, before undergoing
pyrolysis at a temperature of about 900 F.
No auxiliary fuel is required. An oil-like
liquid with a heat value of about 75 percent
that of No. 6 fuel oil will be used as sup-
plementary fuel in an existing San Diego
Gas & Electric Company boiler. Garrett esti-
mates that one barrel of oil can be produced
from a ton of solid waste.
The heavy waste fraction will be processed
further to take out ferrous metals and glass.
Ferrous metals will be removed by an elec-
tromagnet. Glass will be removed as a mixed-
color glass cullet by a froth flotation process.
The system is an outgrowth of nearly 5
years of intensive research by Garrett into
methods of producing synthetic fuels. A 4-
ton-per-day pilot plant is currently operat-
ing in La Verne, California.
Union Carbide Corporation. The Linde
Division of Union Carbide is constructing a
200-ton-per-day pilot plant in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia. The plant should be
operational in 1974.
The system is characterized by its slag-
ging vertical shaft furnace, its use of pure
oxygen rather than air, and by not requir-
ing shredding. The pyrolysis gas is neither
transportable nor storable, but can be either
combusted to drive a gas turbine to generate
electricity or used as a supplementary fuel
in an adjacent industry or utility boiler.
Union Carbide has completed laboratory
research on the methanation of the pyrolysis
gas to improve it to high-quality pipeline gas.
A 5-ton-per-day pilot plant is currently
operating in Tarrytown, New York.
Carborundum Company (Torrax). The
Torrax Division of Carborundum has operat-
ed a 75-ton-per-day pilot plant in Erie Coun-
ty, New York, for several years under spon-
sorship of EPA, the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, and
the county of Erie. The system is similar to
Union Carbide's: vertical shaft furnace,
slagged residue, no shredding. However, the
system is characterized by its "Super Blast
Heater," a heat exchanger in which air is
preheated by auxiliary fuel to 2,200 F and
directed into the furnace.
The pyrolysis gas can be either combusted
on site to generate steam or piped to an
adjacent industry or utility boiler for use as
supplementary fuel. One utility is currently
considering adding a Torrax furnace to its
electric power plant; the hot, combustible
gases would be discharged directly into the
existing coal-fired boiler.
Monsanto Corporation. The Enviro-Chem
Systems Division of Monsanto has developed
the LandGard system, which features shred-
94
-------
ding, a rotary kiln reactor, and the use of
auxiliary fuel oil.
A 1,00.0-ton-per-day demonstration plant
is under construction in Baltimore, Mary-
land. The project is sponsored by the City of
Baltimore, EPA, and the Maryland Environ-
mental Service. The plant should be opera-
tional in 1974.
The LandGard system is being designed
and constructed by Monsanto under a turn-
key contract with performance guarantee
provisions. Monsanto is guaranteeing
throughput at 85 percent of design capacity,
particulate emissions to meet local and Fed-
eral standards, and the putrescible content of
the residue to be less than 0.2 percent. To
back up its guarantee, Monsanto's maximum
payback liability is $4 million, or about 25
percent of the contract price.
The plant is being designed to handle
mixed municipal solid waste, including tires
and bulky wastes. All incoming waste will be
shredded and then conveyed to a rotary
pyrolysis kiln. Fuel oil will be combusted to
provide heat for the pyrolysis reaction. The
pyrolysis gases leave the kiln and will then
be combusted in an afterburner. The hot
afterburner exhaust gases will pass through
waste heat boilers that generate 200,000
pounds of steam per hour for sale to Balti-
more Gas & Electric Company. The steam
will be used for downtown heating and
cooling. Boiler exhaust gases will be scrubbed
and dehumidified.
The pyrolysis residue will be water
quenched, and magnetic metals will be re-
covered. Water flotation and screening proc-
esses will separate the char residue, which
must be landfilled, from a glassy aggregate
fraction that will be used as aggregate for
city asphaltic street construction.
The 1,000-ton-per-day unit was developed
from a 35-ton-per-day pilot plant that Mon-
santo operated in St. Louis for nearly 3
years.
The pyrolysis gas can be combusted on site
for steam generation as planned for Balti-
more, or it can be used as supplemental
fuel in an adjacent industry or utility boiler.
Solid Waste as a Fuel
Solid waste can be used in solid form as a
substitute for conventional fossil fuels in
existing or newly designed combustion units.
The major markets for solid waste fuel are
(1) utility steam electric boilers, (2) indus-
trial steam and steam electric boilers, and
(3) downtown steam and chilled water dis-
tribution utilities.
The prerequisite for entry into these mar-
kets is that the boilers must be capable of
handling ash—both bottom ash (and fly ash.
All boilers designed to burn coal have ash
handling equipment. Although many coal-
burning boilers have been retrofitted to burn
oil or gas, the ash handling equipment is still
operable in most cases.
There are two ways to enter the market:
(1) construction of a new boiler or (2) modi-
fication of an existing one. It is usually less
expensive to modify an existing boiler than to
build a new one.
The largest and most readily available
existing boilers are electric utility boilers.
Because most of these boilers are suspension-
fired (the fuel burns in midair in a residence
time of 1 or 2 seconds), the pieces of solid
waste fuel must be reduced in size (by shred-
ding, milling, or pulping) so that they can be
burned in the boiler's short residence time.
The burning of prepared solid waste as a
supplement to coal in an existing utility
boiler has been demonstrated in St. Louis.
Another process to prepare solid waste for
use as fuel is wet pulping, a technique demon-
strated at Franklin, Ohio. Because pulped
waste has a higher moisture content than
shredded waste (50 percent as compared to
30 percent), specialized boilers may be neces-
sary, as described below.
Shredded Waste as Fuel. The shredded
waste fuel system demonstrated in St. Louis
shreds mixed municipal wastes, separates
combustibles from noncombustibles, and
burns the combustibles in an existing coal-
fired electric power generating boiler. Mag-
netic metals are separated from the other
noncombustibles and sold to a steel mill for
remelting. The remaining glass, aluminum,
and other nonmagnetic materials can be. fur-
ther separated for resale when technology
and economics permit. The concept has sev-
eral advantages: the fuel, ferrous metals,
and other materials recovered from the waste
have value, and since 95 percent by volume
95
-------
of the system's throughput is recovered, the
community's landfill requirements are re-
duced. There is less air pollution, better use
of land, and conservation of natural re-
sources.
Although the fuel has been tested success-
fully only in coal-burning utility boilers,
utility personnel and boiler manufacturers
believe that solid waste fuel can be burned
as a supplement to oil as well as coal, pro-
vided that the boiler has bottom and fly ash
handling equipment.
Every 100 tons of solid waste put through
the system results in 70 to 80 tons of fuel at
10 million Btu's per ton, 6 to 7 tons of mag-
netic metals, and 13 to 24 tons of material
containing glass, aluminum, other nonmag-
netic metals, and mixed wastes.
Effect on Landfill Requirements. The proc-
essing residue (the noncombustible waste
fraction, less magnetic meta^) must be put
in a sanitary landfill and is about 5 percent
by volume and 13 percent by weight of the
incoming raw waste. Bottom ash and fly ash
(about 25 percent by weight) remaining
after combustion may be sold for use as fill
material or construction material. If it
cannot be sold, it must be landfilled; the
utility may take responsibility for disposal.
The capability of a solid waste fuel proc-
essing plant to accept bulky wastes, such as
large appliances, tires, furniture, and auto-
mobiles, is simply a function of design.
Shredders and conveyors must be sized to
handle larger materials. Any noncombustible
or oversized material will be separated from
the waste fuel by the air classification proc-
ess. Except for tires, most bulky wastes
have little significant fuel value.
The capability to dispose of both bulky
wastes and municipal wastes at the same
facility must be weighed against the added
costs to the system of handling the bulky
wastes.
It should be noted that resource recovery
is not a panacea. In addition to the process
residuals mentioned above, there will be no
reduction in landfill space needed for certain
types of waste (construction, demolition,
etc.) that cannot be processed in a shredded
fuel system. Methods for recovering and
utilizing special problem wastes are being
developed.
Air Pollution. Burning solid waste as a
supplement to coal is expected to reduce sul-
fur emissions from power plants with no in-
crease in particulate emissions. Air pollution
tests were made in December 1973. When
the results are known, they will be made
available to the public through the EPA Re-
gional Offices.
Pulped Waste as Fuel. The pulped fuel
concept is an extension of the wet-pulping
separation technique demonstrated at Frank-
lin, Ohio, by the Black Clawson Company.
For a description of the wet-pulping system,
see the section on materials recovery. After
pulping and removal of noncombustible ma-
terials, the remaining material, despite the
moisture content, is almost entirely com-
bustible. Indeed, it is the wet-pulping separa-
tion technique that permits the removal of
almost all noncombustibles. The resulting
pulped fuel, with a moisture content of about
50 percent after dewatering, can be used as
the primary fuel in boilers that are designed
to handle high moisture content materials,
such as wood bark from papermill wastes or
sugar cane wastes. The pulped fuel could
also be dried further and used as a supple-
mentary fuel in existing boilers burning coal
or oil.
Recovery of heat energy from burning
this fuel has -not been demonstrated on a
large scale. Tests by the Black Clawson Com-
pany have been encouraging enough for the
company to promote the system in the waste
disposal market. The company has submit-
ted bids to two cities in which the dewatered
pulped fuel would be burned as the only fuel
in a boiler for the generation of steam or
electricity on site.
Economics of Shredded Fuel Systems. The
following costs and revenues apply only to
a system using shredded fuel. Costs of the
pulped fuel system are not available.
The costs presented here are typical for a
total system, including boiler modification.
They were derived from engineering esti-
mates submitted to several communities.
Capital costs for a 1,000-ton-per-day
shredded solid waste fuel system, including
96
-------
the waste processing facility, transport facil-
ities, firing facilities, and boiler modification,
would be on the order of $7 to $12 million.
The following figures reflect typical pro-
jected costs per ton of operating the system,
including amortization at 6 percent for 15
years.
Processing
Transportation
Firing
8 to $10
1 to 2
1 to 2
$10 to $14
The value of the products recovered, per
ton of raw waste, can vary as follows:
Fuel $2 to $8, based on $.25
to $1 per million Btu
Magnetic metals
Fly ash
Other materials
$0 to $1, based on up
to $20 per ton of metal
Sold by utility to ce-
ment manufacturers
Price not yet deter-
mined
The value of the shredded fuel varies with
the cost of alternative fuels. For example, if
oil costs 80 cents per million Btu then the
solid waste could be worth as much as $6.40
per ton of raw waste. (There is 10 million
Btu obtained per ton of shredded fuel, 8
million Btu from every ton of raw solid
waste.)
The recovery of fuel from solid waste
potentially creates mutual benefits for the
community and the utility. Some benefits
may be expressed in dollars; others may not.
For example, the community can benefit from
lower waste disposal costs, less air pollution,
and longer landfill life. At the same time, the
utility can benefit from lower fuel costs, a
reliable source of low-sulfur fuel, and an op-
portunity to provide a community service.
In actual practice, then, the value of the
solid waste fuel is established according to
how the community and the utility perceive
the possible benefits. Any price associated
with the solid waste fuel must be negotiated.
ADVANTAGES OP ENERGY RECOVERY
In addition to easing energy shortages,
energy recovery offers the following advan-
tages over conventional waste management
methods:
• Landfill requirements can be reduced.
The present landfill can be used longer;
and the task of finding the next landfill
site will be less urgent.
• Finding a site for an energy recovery
plant may be easier than finding a site
for a landfill or conventional incinerator.
• Energy recovery is environmentally pref-
erable because total pollution is reduced
when compared to a system that includes
incineration for solid waste disposal and
burning fossil fuels for energy.
• Public opinion is becoming stronger in
favor of energy recovery. Many com-
munities are opposing new solid waste
management ventures unless they in-
clude resource recovery. Some communi-
ties have even said that they would pay
more for resource recovery because of
its environmental benefits.
• Energy recovery appears to be more
economical than environmentally sound
conventional incineration or remote
sanitary landfilling.
• The future prospects for favorable eco-
nomic justification for energy recovery
are very good because of the soaring
costs of fossil fuels and increasing en-
vironmental constraints being placed on
other alternatives.
DISADVANTAGES OP ENERGY RECOVERY
• Most systems will not accept all types
of wastes or will still have a residual.
Therefore a sanitary landfill will still be
needed as a part of the total system.
• Developmental work is still underway
on many of the energy recovery options.
This could cause a delay in making deci-
sions.
• The municipality will have to market
recovered products. This is a new task
for most municipalities, requiring spe-
cial skills and possibly changes in munic-
ipal regulations regarding the disposi-
tion of "surplus property."
• Specific needs of the energy market may
dictate parameters of the system design.
97
-------
This could include type of facility, size,
site location, or operating hours.
CONCLUSIONS
Conventional refractory-walled incinera-
tors have become obsolete because of the
high cost of air pollution control. Water-
walled incinerators can be competitive eco-
nomically with other resource recovery
methods provided stringent steam market
constraints are adhered to.
Use of shredded solid waste as a supple-
mentary fuel has been proved to be a tech-
nically feasible alternative, with few ques-
tions remaining to be answered. Utilizing
pulped solid waste as a fuel appears tech-
nically feasible; however, this has not yet
been demonstrated on a large scale.
The production of gas and oil through the
pyrolysis of solid waste looks very promising,
especially in the light of rising fuel costs.
However, these systems should be operated
at full scale before they are accepted by
cities as a viable resource recovery alterna-
tive.
If a community desires to implement a
resource recovery system now, it should con-
sider waterwall incineration and use of
shredded solid waste as a supplementary fuel,
recognizing that there are still economic un-
certainties inherent in solid waste fuel sys-
tems. If a community has a year or so to
make the decision about building a system,
they should delay the decision until then
because by that time the degree of economic
viability of solid waste fuel systems should
be much clearer. If the decision-making time
is from 2 to 5 years away, oil or gas pyrolysis
should also command major emphasis in the
community's planning, for these systems
should be fully demonstrated during this
time. It should be remembered, however, that
the time between system selection and actual
operation—the time for procurement, de-
sign, construction, and shakedown opera-
tions—could conceivably be as long as 5
years. This must be considered when deter-
mining the lead time available for decision-
making.
REFERENCES
1. ACHINGER, W. C., and R. L. BAKER. Environmental assessment of muni-
cipal-scale incinerators. [Cincinnati], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1973. 31 p. [Open-file report, restricted distribution.]
2. ACHINGER, W. C., and L. E. DANIELS. An evaluation of seven incinera-
tors. 7m Proceedings; 1970 National Incinerator Conference, Cin-
cinnati, May 17-20, 1970. New York, American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers, 1970. p. 32-64.
3. DEMARCO, J., D. J. KELLER, J. LECKMAN, and J. L. NEWTON. Municipal-
scale incinerator design and operation. Formerly titled "Incinerator
guidelines—1969." Public Health Service Publication No. 2012. Wash-
ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973, 98 p.
4. ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. Systems study of air pollution from municipal
incineration. 3 v. Cambridge, Mass., 1970. 920 p. (Distributed by Na-
tional Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB 192
378, 192 379, 192 380.)
6. MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Resource recovery; the state of tech-
nology. (Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality.) Wash-
ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 67 p.
6. LOWE, R. A. Energy recovery from waste; solid waste as supplementary
fuel in power plant boilers. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-36d.ii. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973, 24 p.
98
-------
= •%
I \
9
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Materials Recovery
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
\
o <»
The decision to be made is whether or not
to engage in recovering the various materials
in solid waste and to what extent. In this
context materials recovery is considered to
be any manual or mechanical process in
which one or more of the various components
in the solid waste stream are separated, con-
centrated, and sold. The recovery of steel
cans and other ferrous metals from the waste
stream using a magnet is an example of one
type of materials recovery. Materials re-
covery systems vary in cost, complexity, and
risk from the relatively simple process de-
scribed above to systems that extract not
only ferrous metals, but also glass, paper,
and aluminum and other nonferrous metals
from the waste stream.
The decision to proceed with such a system
is based primarily on costs versus benefits
and on anticipated technical feasibility, al-
though there are likely to be other constrain-
ing prerequisites for many of these systems.
ALTERNATIVES
There are two basic kinds of materials
recovery: precollection and postcollection.
Precollection recovery, recovery before the
materials become mixed in a collection vehi-
cle, is discussed in detail in the section on
source separation. This section will deal with
postcollection materials recovery, that is, re-
covery of marketable materials from mixed
municipal solid waste.
There are three approaches to implement-
ing such a materials recovery system.
Complement to Land Disposal
A growing number of communities are
adding shredding and ferrous metal recovery
systems to their landfill operations. Shred-
ding of wastes before landfilling may be
used to improve landfill operations and re-
duce landfill volume requirements (see the
section on shredding). Shredding also pro-
vides the important first step in a materials
recovery system of "liberating" the various
components from each other. Ferrous metals
are then magnetically extracted. As new
separation techniques are demonstrated to
be technically feasible, they may be added to
the system.
Comp'ement to Energy Recovery Systems
Materials recovery technology is being de-
veloped to recover the various noncombusti-
ble materials either before or after energy
recovery takes place.
Total Materials Recovery Systems
Systems are now being developed which
recover as many of the components of the
waste as are economically feasible. An exam-
ple of this approach is the EPA demonstra-
tion project in Franklin, Ohio.
ADVANTAGES
A community can receive the following
benefits through implementation of a ma-
terials recovery system.
Resource Conservation
Net environmental benefits can be achieved
through materials recovery. Through recy-
cling, the drain on limited natural resources is
reduced. Also, the manufacturing of products
from recycled materials has been shown to
be less polluting in most cases and requires
less energy than manufacturing which relies
on virgin materials.
Reduced Landfill Usage
At the very least, any materials that can
be easily removed from the solid waste
stream and recycled will reduce the quantity
of the remaining waste which must be dis-
posed of.
Lower Disposal Costs
Getting rid of solid wastes, even through
resource recovery techniques, will probably
never result in actual profits for the waste
management system. However, the sale of
-------
recovered materials may generate enough
revenue to pay not only for the increased cost
to the system of separating and marketing the
materials but also for some of the cost of the
overall disposal operation.
Citizen Support
The implementation of a separation system
is in consonance with mounting citizen con-
cerns for the environment. Siting should be
less of a problem for resource recovery facili-
ties than for conventional disposal facilities.
DISADVANTAGES AND RISKS
Still-Emerging Technology
The degree of technological risk varies
with the complexity of the system. Adding a
magnetic separator to pull out ferrous m3tals
at a shredding/landfilling operation should
have a minimal risk, but in general the
methods of recovering other materials that
are marketable are still in stages of davelop-
ment. There is a great deal of work going on
in this field in private industry, universities,
municipalities, and the Federal Government.
Many concepts are now being demonstrated;
some of the demonstrations are described
later in this section.
Economic Risks
Due to the newness of this field, well-docu-
mented cost and performance information on
commercially available equipment that is
actually being used to process solid waste is
largely unavailable. The economic feasibility
is primarily based on projected maintenance
costs, the separation system's recovery rate
or yield, and an assumed value for the output
product. These three items in particular
should be scrutinized during the decision-
making process. The economic evaluation
also depends, of course, on capital costs, op-
erating costs, and product transportation
costs, but these estimates are generally more
reliable than the previous three.
Marketing Problems
The payoff for a materials recovery system
is the sale, at a reasonable price, of the ex-
tracted materials. Marketing tactics and ne-
gotiations with purchasers represent untest-
ed waters for most municipalities and this
aspect of the total system should not be
underplayed. The community should prepare
itself with as much knowledge as possible
about the marketplace they are about to
enter. Of particular importance are the pre-
cise material specifications of the purchaser.
These should be closely compared to the antic-
ipated quality of the separated materials.
Prior to the commitment of capital funds the
community should secure as binding and ex-
plicit a commitment as possible from the
purchaser. The best would be a contract
which specified acceptable quantity, quality,
price, transportation or transfer mechanism,
and term of the agreement.
The risks noted above may be reduced, but
never eliminated, through the use of a pri-
vate operating contractor or system promoter.
The execution of an equitable contract with
the private sector is not a straightforward
task here either, but this option may reduce
the community's headaches in some areas and
shorten the implementation period. The mu-
nicipality should be aware, however, that it
can never totally eliminate the risk factors,
and therefore the responsibility to scrutinize
and evaluate these factors continues. Final-
ly, the community should expect to pay
something extra for any special services pro-
vided or any risks shared by the private
sector.
PREREQUISITES TO SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION
Markets
A comprehensive market survey specific to
the local area must indicate that the recov-
ered materials will in fact be purchased at
a' reasonable price.
Early discussions with potential buyers
are extremely important in order to make
sure that the separation system produces
materials of sufficient quality and quantity
to be useful to the buyer. Any conclusions
reached should be reinforced through a con-
tractual agreement before committing funds
to construct the facility.
Shredding
Even the simplest form of materials re-
covery, ferrous metal extraction, requires at
least some processing of the solid waste
stream to open up paper and plastic bags
and "liberate" the tin cans. This function is
100
-------
performed by some form of shredding opera-
tion, which can vary from an extremely
coarse shredder, little more than a bag
opener, to a more sophisticated shredder that
reduces all the incoming materials to parti-
cles less than a cubic inch in size.
This size reduction equipment can be quite
costly, ranging up to hundreds of thousands
of dollars. The many benefits that shredding
alone offers to a solid waste handling and
disposal system (discussed in the section on
shredding) are sufficient to justify the capi-
tal expenditure in some cases.
Current economic projections indicate that
the revenues from the sale of the recovered
materials cannot completely offset the added
cost of the shredding operation. Therefore,
to add a materials recovery system onto a
disposal operation that does not already in-
clude a shredder would increase the net costs
of the whole operation. This increase must be
weighed against the auxiliary benefits that
shredding provides.
If the solid waste management program
has already justified the need for a shredder
to improve the disposal operations, then the
additions of various levels of materials re-
covery appear to be very attractive. That is
to say, the revenues generated can more than
offset the equipment and operating costs re-
quired to perform the separation.
Minimum Size
Capital-intensive facilities require large
throughputs to achieve reasonable processing
costs per ton. Even the addition of a shredder
alone could probably not be justified by a
small community with less than, say, 150 tons
per day of solid waste. The larger the facility
—up to 2,000 or more tons per day—the
lower the cost per ton. This type of material
recovery system may thus be ruled out for
smaller communities unless several com-
bine their wastes at one location for process-
ing. Separate collection of newspaper is not
so constrained and may be appropriate for
even the smallest communities (see section
on source separation).
TYPES OP RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
Manual Separation
Handpicking is a long-used form of sep-
aration. In this type of operation, a conveyor
passes the solid waste by a group of workers
who pick out the valuable components by
hand. This type of operation has a number of
serious drawbacks. It can be a very costly
form of separation. Secondly, it is a limited
separation because the pickers can usually
extract only the bulky materials. Finally,
there are potential health and safety hazards,
and handpicking is not a job that attracts
conscientious workers. Therefore, EPA does
not recommend this practice.
Handpicking of bundled newspapers is,
nevertheless, being promoted by the National
Center for Resource Recovery and Ameri-
cology, Inc. They propose that homeowners
bundle their newspapers before they set them
out for collection. The bundles are thrown in
the truck with the rest of the wastes, and, at
the processing facility, these bundles are
handpicked from a conveyor and set aside to
be sold.
Composting
Composting of municipal solid waste has
been practiced in Europe and the United
States for many years. European activity in
composting has included research in such
diverse areas as engineering technology,
public health and pathogen survival, use in
strip mine reclamation, use in vineyards, and
use in general agriculture. The technology of
composting is well advanced, and there are
no real technological barriers to making com-
post.
In the United States, composting plants
have been established in various communi-
ties over the last 20 years. In general, these
plants have met with little success and most
have closed. The major problem for these
plants is the lack of a viable market for the
compost. Currently, only one plant, Altoona
FAM, Inc., Altoona, Pennsylvania, is known
to be operating on a regular basis.
In the Fairfield-Hardy process used at
Altoona, solid waste is ground in a wet-pulp-
er and passed through dewatering presses
before it is fed into the digester for a 5-day
decomposition cycle. The material is stirred
in the digestor by augers suspended from a
rotating bridge in the circular tank. Air is
provided by means of a blower and air pipes
embedded in the floor of the tank The di-
gestion system of Fairfield Engineering Com-
101
-------
pany appears to offer a superior engineering
design, a more automated operation than
other composting techniques, and a superior
humus product.
Ferrous Metal Recovery
Ferrous metal recovery is a significant
revenue generator for three reasons. There
is a significant quantity of ferrous metal,
around 7 percent, in the solid waste stream.
The value of this metal is typically $12 to $20
per ton. Finally, ferrous metals are relatively
easy to extract.
The technology for extracting ferrous met-
als is readily available, but upgrading the
separated product into a saleable material
may also be required in some cases. Initial at-
tempts at ferrous metal recovery have re-
sulted in products that were contaminated
with paper and other organic materials.
Some purchasers found the density undesir-
able.
There are three basic markets for recov-
ered ferrous metals: reuse in a steel mill, in
precipitation of copper from low-grade cop-
per ore, and in the detinning industry,
which recovers the valuable tin from the
tin cans.
Each of these markets has specific require-
ments for the ferrous metals that they will
buy. The upgrading technology to meet these
requirements is now being developed. It is
important to note that these market con-
straints may be significant factors in select-
ing the type of shredder to be used in the
initial processing step. Some shredders such
as ring mills and wet-pulpers tend to ball up
the tin cans, which makes them less desirable
for copper precipitation and detinning but
acceptable for the steel industry.
Paper Recovery
Paper represents 30 to 35 percent of munic-
ipal wastes, and, at a value of $15 to $35 per
ton and up, the sale of the various paper
fractions can be a large source of revenue.
It is important to note that paper has a
higher value when it is reused as paper than
when it is used as an energy source.
There are three basic approaches to paper
recovery from solid waste: separate collec-
tion of newspaper and corrugated paper, wet
separation of paper fibers, and dry separa-
tion of paper fibers. Separate collection of
newspaper and corrugated paper are dis-
cussed in the section on source separation.
Wet separation of paper fibers has been dem-
onstrated in Franklin, Ohio, and is discussed
later in this section. This recovered paper
pulp is an unfamiliar material to paper
dealers, and so the marketability of this
material is still being developed. Dry separa-
tion of paper is not technically feasible yet,
but there are a number of attempts under-
way to develop feasible systems.
Glass and Aluminum Recovery
Glass and aluminum recovery equipment is
now being developed, but their technical and
economic viability are uncertain at this time.
The EPA demonstration projects in Frank-
lin, Ohio, and Lowell, Massachusetts, will
investigate these issues.
Glass represents between 6 and 10 percent
of the solid waste stream. Its value is be-
tween $12 and $20 per ton. However, if cur-
rent soda ash shortages continue, the value
of recovered glass may increase. (Soda ash
is the chemical needed to produce glass from
sand; it is not needed when reclaimed glass
is used instead of sand.) Color-sorting into
green, amber, and clear fractions increases
the value and marketability of the glass.
Aluminum makes up less than 1 percent of
the solid waste stream, but this component
has an extremely high value of around $200
per ton. This component therefore could be
an important revenue generator, and much
technology development is underway to
separate and concentrate this material. Be-
cause of its value, marketing the recovered
aluminum is not expected to pose any signifi-
cant problems.
EPA PILOT PLANTS
Wet Separation and Disposal System,
Franklin, Ohio
System Description. Franklin's solid
waste processing facility, developed by the
Black Clawson Company, has a design capac-
ity of 150 tons per 24-hour operation and is
made up of three separate subsystems: a
solid waste disposal system, a paper fiber re-
covery system, and a glass and aluminum
recovery system (Figure 7).
The disposal system, called the "Hydra-
sposal System," consists primarily of a wet-
102
-------
FRANKLIN, OHIO, PILOT PLANT
Magnetic Separator
Glass and
Aluminum
Recovery System
Fiber Recovery
System
Inorganic
Residue
5.6 tons
(landfilled)
Paper Residue Ferrous
Fiber 4 tons 7 tons
IS tons (landfilled)
FIGURE 7. The Franklin, Ohio, pilot plant for the demonstration of a wet
separation and disposal system consists of three disposal and recovery sub-
systems: a solid waste disposal system that includes a ferrous metal separator,
a paper recovery system, and a glass and aluminum recovery system.
103
-------
pulper, a liquid cyclone, and a fluidized bed
incinerator. Wastes delivered to the Franklin
plant by private contractors and individual
citizens are fed by a conveyor into the pulper.
The pulper is somewhat like a kitchen sink
disposal unit; it consists of a tub 12 feet in
diameter with a high-speed cutting blade in
the bottom driven by a 300-horsepower
motor. Water is mixed with the solid wastes
in the pulper, and all soft and brittle mate-
rials are ground into a slurry. Large pieces
of metal, cans, and other nonpulpable mate-
rials are thrown out the side of the pulper
and down a chute that leads to a specially
designed bucket elevator known as the "Junk
Remover." These materials are washed, then
conveyed under a magnetic separator where
steel cans and other ferrous objects are sepa-
rated for recycling. The nonmagnetic mate-
rials are buried in the plant's sanitary land-
fill.
The slurry, which contains almost all of
the organic materials plus most of the glass,
small pieces of metal, ceramics, and much of
the aluminum, leaves the wet-pulper through
a perforated plate beneath the blade. The
slurry is then pumped to the liquid cyclone,
where the heavier materials such as glass,
metals, ceramics, and wood are separated
from the lighter fibrous material by centrif-
ugal action.
After the metals and glass are removed,
the slurry moves into the fiber recovery or
"Fibreclaim" system. In this process the
longer paper fibers that can be used in
making paper are mechanically separated.
The separation is accomplished by a series of
screens that isolate the paper fiber from the
coarse organic materials, such as rubber,
textiles, leather, and yard wastes; and the
fine contaminants, such as food waste, paper
coatings and fillers, shorter paper fibers, and
the very small pieces of glass or dirt. The
recovered fibers are pumped to the Logan
Long Company, about a half mile away,
where they are used to make felt paper for
asphalt roofing shingles.
The heavier materials ejected from the
liquid cyclone are conveyed over to the glass
and aluminum recovery system, which was
developed by the Glass Container Manufac-
turers Institute. The system uses a series of
screening and classifying operations to ex-
tract extraneous materials and produce an
aluminum-rich concentrate which will be
upgraded for recycling and a glass-rich
stream. The stream of glass particles is
passed through an optical sorting device,
developed by the Sortex Company of North
America, which separates the glass into
clear, amber, and green fractions suitable
for use in making new bottles. The aluminum
will be sold to Alcoa and the glass will be
sold to a number of local glass manufacturing
plants (Table 26).
The nonrecoverable combustible material
from the fiber recovery system and the glass
recovery system are combined and sent to the
fluid bed incinerator, the final step in the
Hydrasposal System. The incinerator is a
vertical cylindrical unit with a 25-foot inside
diameter and was supplied by Dorr Oliver,
Inc. Air is blown upward into this unit
through a layer of hot sand. The organic resi-
due is thus blown into the fluidized bed of
sand, where the combustibles burn complete-
ly. The exhaust gases pass through a venturi
scrubber that removes the ash particles. The
gases discharged to the atmosphere meet
Federal air pollution control standards.
Status of Project. The Hydrasposal and
fiber recovery systems began operating in
June 1971. The plant is now in daily commer-
cial operation, processing *about 50 tons of
municipal solid waste per day. It is the sole
solid waste, disposal facility for the city of
Franklin and the adjacent area. The glass
and aluminum recovery system began operat-
ing in August 1973, and the revenues from
the sale of these products may reduce the net
cost of the operation.
Economics. On the basis of approximate-
ly 2 years' operating experience in Franklin,
the wet separation of solid wastes into re-
coverable products appears to be an economi-
cally attractive resource recovery and waste
disposal option. This, of course, is a judg-
ment that depends upon the costs of alterna-
tive means of disposal. The Black Clawson
system will not break even without charging
a fairly high fee to the users, but even so,
indications are that it will be cost competi-
tive with incineration and in some situations
may even be competitive with the costs of
long haul to distant sanitary landfills.
Capital cost projections for a 1,000-ton-
per-day facility would be on the order of $13
to $16 million. Typical projected costs per
104
-------
TABLE 26
QUANTITY. QUALITY. PURCHASERS. AND PRICES OF MATERIALS RECOVERED FROM
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT THE FRANKLIN, OHIO. PILOT PLANT*
Product
Ferrous
metals
Amount recov-
ered as approxi-
mate percent of
incoming solid
waste (dry
weight basis)
Quality
7 Roughly equivalent to a
No. 2 bundle
Generally free of
Price per
Purchaser ton t
Armco Steel $13-25
Company,
Middletown, Ohio
Paper
fiber
Glass
Aluminum
nonmetallics
Density may need to be
upgraded
15 Generally considered a
lower grade paper fiber
Color, grease, and
bacterial contaminants
are similar to those of
mixed wastepaper but
fibers are longer and
there is less shrinkage
Suitable for use in
making roofing felt and
other construction papers
Contaminants can be
removed and upgraded for
use in higher grades of
paper
4 Expected to be clean
and sorted by color
0.3 Quality varies at
present
Developmental work
still underway
Logan Long
Roofing Plant,
Franklin, Ohio
25-65
Various glass
bottle manu-
facturing plants
in the area
Alcoa
12
200
* Source: ARELLA, D. Wet processing solid waste for resource recovery
and clean disposal; summary report on the Franklin, Ohio, demonstration
project. Manuscript in preparation.
t April 1974 (price at the plant; transportation from the plant is paid for
by the purchaser).
ton for operating the system, including
amortization at 6 percent for 15 years, are
$12 to $15, while the anticipated revenue is
around $7 per ton. This yields a net cost
range of $5 to $8 per ton.
Incinerator Residue Separation System,
Lowell, Massachusetts
System Description. The U.S. Bureau of
Mines and the Raytheon Service Company
have developed and demonstrated on a pilot
scale a technically feasible method for re-
covering the metal and mineral values from
incinerator residues. The process uses con-
ventional proven mineral engineering equip-
ment along with a series of shredding,
screening, and magnetic separation proce-
dures to produce clean ferrous metals, alumi-
num, copper/zinc composites, glass, and an
aggregate for road construction. The plant
is being designed to handle 250 tons of resi-
due per 8-hour shift. The plant is also being
designed to handle various other noncom-
bustible fractions, such as the heavy fraction
from an air classifier.
Project Schedule. Construction on the
plant will begin in September 1974. Plant
operations are scheduled to begin July 1975.
Although the final report on this project
will not be available until early 1976, a num-
ber of interim reports will be prepared. The
first report should be available in mid-1974.
105
-------
Economics. Despite the preliminary na-
ture of this project, projected costs have been
developed.
Capital cost projections for a facility proc-
essing 750 tons of residue per 24-hour day,
roughly equivalent to 2,000 tons of solid
waste input to the incinerator, are on the
order of $3 to $4 million. Projected operating
costs, which include amortization at 6 per-
cent for 15 years, are $6 to $9 per ton of
residue. The anticipated revenue is around
$9.75 per ton of residue input, which yields
a net profit of $0.75 to $3.75. This net profit
could be used to defray a portion of the op-
erating costs for the incinerator.
The revenues above are dependent upon
the ability to market the output products of
the system. This aspect is one of several to
be demonstrated at Lowell.
Some empirically derived costs for a plant
of this type have been prepared by the Bu-
reau of Mines and may be obtained by re-
questing the Bureau of Mines Information
Circular No. 1C 8533, entitled "Cost Evalua-
tion of a Metal and Mineral Recovery Proc-
ess for Treating Municipal Incinerator Resi-
dues."
Other Separation Systems
The Franklin and Lowell projects are the
only materials recovery systems presently
being demonstrated by EPA. However, EPA's
other resource recovery projects are demon-
strating various unit operations, such as
magnetic separation and air classification,
for separating and recovering materials. Vir-
tually all current or proposed energy
recovery facilities also involve materials re-
covery to a significant degree. There are
numerous companies involved in private re-
search efforts toward developing resource
recovery systems. Generally the approach
has been to follow the shredder with mag-
netic separation and then some form of air
classification to concentrate the heavy and
light fractions. The heavy fraction is further
processed in one of a number of types of
equipment that rely on different densities to
perform the next separation.
The products from these systems are gen-
erally limited to ferrous metals, glass, and
aluminum. The light, combustible fraction
would be either landfilled, recovered as mixed
paper, or used as a fuel in a boiler.
Some of the organizations that are devel-
oping these systems are listed here, and
additional information may be obtained di-
rectly from them:
U.S. Bureau of Mines
College Park, Maryland 20740
National Center for Resource
Recovery, Inc.
1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, B.C. 20036
Combustion Power Company
Menlo Park, California 94025
American Can Company
Americology System
American Lane
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
Raytheon Company
12 Second Avenue
Burlington, Massachusetts
01803
Garrett Research and Development
Company, Inc.
1355 Carrion Road
La Verne, California 91750
CONCLUSIONS
Complement to Energy Recovery Systems
Materials recovery systems are not incom-
patible with energy recovery systems. Almost
all resource recovery systems being devel-
oped include the recovery of both materials
and energy. Generally the preferred approach
is to recover as many of the materials as the
technology and markets can justify and then
to recover the energy value in the remaining
combustible fractions. This approach can
provide a nearly comprehensive resource re-
covery system by recovering over 90 percent
of the material or energy values in the solid
waste stream.
Some of the various resources available
in our solid wastes represent significant
quantities in relation to our national supply
and demand for these materials. Generally
we have found that manufacturing processes
using recycled materials require less energy
and create less pollution than processes using
virgin materials.
106
-------
Technological and Marketing Risks
Implementation of materials recovery sys-
tems have significant associated risks which
should be fully identified prior to committing
capital funds. Municipalities should be aware
that resource recovery concepts offer tremen-
dous promise, but that their decisions are
being made at the forefront of existing tech-
nology and that marketing of the materials
represents untested waters for most munici-
palities.
Ferrous metal recovery operations have
the least technological risk, while the more
complex separation systems are less devel-
oped. The Franklin, Ohio, Demonstration
Plant is the most highly developed materials
recovery system, but the final evaluation of
the plant is just now being completed. Many
other systems are being developed, but only
very limited operational data is available
thus far.
This area of technology development is
growing rapidly, and it is hoped that full-
scale systems will be ready for implementa-
tion with minimized risk around 1975-76.
Marketing Groundwork Necessary
The addition of a ferrous metal recovery
operation onto an existing shredding facility
offers a high degree of probable success if
markets are identified and secured ahead of
time. Currently over 25 communities are
recovering and selling ferrous metals in this
type of operation, but there have also been a
number of dismal failures in cases where the
need for advance marketing work was over-
looked. EPA cannot emphasize too strongly
the need for this marketing groundwork as
the first stage toward implementing any re-
source recovery system.
107
-------
*-• .
o '
o *
I '%
0>
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
S4NIT4RY
L4NDFILLING
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
\
i /'
I /
§ x°
s» o2"
a) ^gf
9 0°
S
6°
-------
I \
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
Sanitary Landfilling
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
3
-------
b. Equipment maintenance
c. Sanitary facilities, utilities
d. Weight scales
5. Equipment—tractor, scraper, etc.
Land costs can vary over a large range
and depend on local conditions. In most cases,
the initial investment for land can be recov-
ered on completion of the sanitary landfill
through subsequent development or use of
the land. A sanitary landfill may increase the
value of the plot of unusable land by making
it suitable for recreational or agricultural
uses.
Planning and design costs vary, depending
on the extent of effort required. At one 50-
acre site in an urban area in the Midwest,
these costs amounted to about $90,000. Amor-
tization over the site capacity of 475,000 tons
yields a unit cost of $0.19 per ton. There is
a trend among States to require operators of
all sites to apply for and obtain permits to
operate. In most States requiring permits,
application procedures are well defined. Gen-
erally, the applicant must submit for ap-
proval information on the site investigation
and engineering design. Engineering and
legal fees for permit application seldom
amount to less than $4,000. Complex site con-
ditions or permit application procedures may
result in engineering fees of $9,000 to $16,000
for smaller sites and 8 percent of the con-
struction and equipment costs for larger
sites. (Table 27). Litigation and prolonged
hearings can raise fees to the $40,000 range.
Permit application fees vary up to $1,000.
Local permit procedures are less predictable,
but may require costs of $500 to $5,000,
especially where zoning changes or variances
are sought
Site development costs reflect the site's
size and the improvements required before it
can be used (Table 28). The 50-acre site men-
tioned above required extensive improve-
ments to protect against groundwater pollu-
tion. Site development costs amounted to
about $400,000 or $0.84 per ton. A site serv-
ing a rural Southern county required an
expenditure of $22,400 for development. Site
development costs of about $430,000 were
incurred at a 1,500-acre site in the Southeast
which required special construction for
groundwater protection.
Facilities costs amounted to about $100,000
($0.21 per ton) at the Midwestern site,
$13,500 at the rural Southern site, and
$150,000 at the Southeastern site.
Equipment costs vary with size and design
(Table 29). A tracked machine typically costs
around $60,000. The cost should be depre-
ciated over no more than 5 years of opera-
tion. In most cases, the equipment will have
salvage value after 5 years.
Operating Cost
The operating cost of a sanitary landfill
depends on the cost of labor and equipment,
the method of operation, and the efficiency
of the operation. The principal items in
operating cost are:
1. Personnel
2.
3.
4.
5.
Equipment
a. Operating expenses—gas, oil, etc.
b. Maintenance and repair
c. Rental, depreciation, or amortization
Cover material—material and haul
costs
Administration and overhead
Miscellaneous tools, utilities, insurance,
TABLE 27
SANITARY LANDFILL PERMIT APPLICATION COSTS. BY DESIGN CAPACITY OF SITE,
1978
(In thousands of dollars)
Item
Engineering design
Survey
Borings
Legal work
40
10
5
4
3
Design capacity of site in
100
15
7.5
7.5
5
tons per day
800
20
9
15
8
Greater
than
800
8%*
10
25
Ito2%*
* Charged as a percentage of site development and equipment costs.
112
-------
TABLE 28
INITIAL COSTS FOR THREE SANITARY LANDFILLS OF DIFFERENT CAPACITIES, 1973
Site 1
(30 tons per day)
Item
Total
(thousands
of dollars)
Planning and design 3
Site development 22
Facilities 14
Equipment t 50
Total
89
Cost
per
ton ($)
0.03
0.22
0.14
1.25
1.64
Site 2
(500 tons per day)
Total
(thousands
of dollars)
*
430
150
350
930
Cost
per
ton (t)
*
0.16
0.60
0.54
0.76
Site 3
(600 tons per day)
Total
(thousands
of dollars)
90
400
100
246
836
Cost
per
ton ($)
0.19
0.84
0.21
0.52
1.76
* Not available.
t Equipment cost was calculated on the basis of a 5-year replacement cycle
and then related to total site capacity.
TABLE 29
SANITARY LANDFILL EQUIPMENT PRICES. 1971
Type
Track loader
Track dozer
Wheel loader
Wheel dozer
Compactor
Weight (tons)
8-11
12-16
21-23
33
7-12
14-20
26-32
41-42
51
5-15
16-27
30-34
53-58
70-100
17-18
28-33
28-47
72
11-19
20-33
38-40
Approx. price
$ 18,500
26,500
48,500
69,000
21,000
40,000
62,000
92,000
146,000
24,000
47,000
76,000
121,000
161,500
38,500
68,000
90,000
118,000
34,000
60,000
84,500
maintenance to roads, fences, facilities,
drainage features, etc.
Operating costs in metropolitan Washing-
ton, D.C., average about $2.75 per ton. The
Midwestern, Southern, and Southeastern
sites previously mentioned have incurred
costs of about $1.75, $2.50, and $1.35 per
ton, respectively.
ADVANTAGES
• Where land is available, a sanitary land-
fill is usually the most economical meth-
od of solid waste disposal.
• The initial investment is low compared
with other disposal methods.
• A sanitary landfill can be put into
operation within a short period of time.
A sanitary landfill can receive most
types of solid wastes, unlike many other
disposal methods.
Sanitary landfilling may be used to re-
claim land.
It is a simple, easy-to-manage disposal
system.
DISADVANTAGES
Opposition to landfills may be expected
from citizens owning land near a pro-
posed site. Extensive public relations
programs and possibly legislative action
may be required to obtain new sites.
Proper sanitary landfill standards must
be adhered to daily or the operation may
result in environmental degradation.
113
-------
• A completed landfill will settle and re-
quire periodic maintenance.
• Any gases produced from the decompo-
sition of the wastes must be controlled.
• Leachate may pollute ground or surface
water.
• Obtaining cover material may be diffi-
cult and/or costly.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Land Requirements
The land area or, more important, the
volume of space required is primarily de-
pendent upon the character and quantity of
the solid wastes, the efficiency of compaction
of the wastes, the depth of the fill, and the
desired life of the landfill.
National estimates indicate that the total
residential and commercial solid waste gener-
ation rate per person per day is approxi-
mately 3.32 pounds. However, the volume
requirement for a sanitary landfill should be
determined on the basis of specific data and
information developed for the individual
project. Given a solid waste density of 1,000
pounds per cubic yard in place, and one part
(volume) earth cover to cover four parts
solid waste, a population of 10,000 people
would require approximately 9.4 acre-feet of
space per year for residential and commer-
cial wastes.
This volume requirement may be signifi-
cantly reduced where preprocessing of wastes
for volume reduction is employed prior to
disposal in the sanitary landfill. Incinerators
have been found to achieve average weight
and volume reductions of 75 and 95 percent,
respectively. Thus, considerably less sanitary
landfill volume is required to dispose of the
incinerator residue. Baling of solid waste
can achieve densities of 1,600 to 2,000 pounds
per cubic yard, again decreasing the sanitary
landfill volume required. Size reduction meas-
ures such as shredding or grinding help to
eliminate voids and aids compaction. Shred-
ded or ground solid waste placed in a sani-
tary landfill can have a density 25 percent
greater than that of unprocessed solid waste.
In special situations where site geology and
hydrology permit, shredded or ground solid
wastes may be disposed of on the land with-
out the daily cover required for unprocessed
solid waste. Deletion of cover material will in
effect increase by about 20 percent the site
volume that can be used for solid waste dis-
posal.
Vector Control
In a properly operated and maintained
sanitary landfill, insects and rodents are not
a problem. Good compaction of wastes and
cover material is the most important factor
in achieving vector control. A compacted
earth cover of at least 6 inches is recom-
mended for preventing the emergence of
flies from the fill. Good compaction of the
cover material also discourages rodents from
burrowing through the cover material. Good
housekeeping and daily covering of unproc-
essed solid wastes are musts for vector con-
trol.
Water Pollution
Under certain geological conditions, the
burial of solid wastes can cause chemical
and microbiological contamination of ground
and surface waters. Several investigations
have indicated that if solid waste is inter-
mittently or continuously in contact with
groundwater, it can become grossly polluted
and unfit for domestic or irrigational use.
Proper planning and site selection, com-
bined with good engineering design and op-
eration of a sanitary landfill, can normally
minimize the possibility of either surface or
groundwater pollution. Some common pre-
ventive measures are: (1) locating the site
at a safe distance from streams, lakes, wells,
and other water sources; (2) avoiding site
location above the kind of subsurface strat-
ification that will lead the leachate from the
landfill to water sources, e.g., fractured lime-
stone; (3) using an earth cover that is near-
ly impervious; and (4) providing suitable
drainage to carry the surface water away
from the site.
Equipment
A wide variety of equipment is available
from which the proper type and size may be
selected for a particular operation. The size,
type, and amount of equipment required at a
sanitary landfill depend on the size and meth-
od of operation, quantities and times of solid
waste deliveries, and, to a degree, the experi-
ence and preference of the designer and
114
-------
equipment operators. Another factor to be
considered is the availability and dependa-
bility of maintenance and repair service
for the equipment.
The most common equipment used on sani-
tary landfills is the tracked or rubber-tired
tractor. The tractor can be used with a
dozer blade, trash blade, or a front-end load-
er. A tractor is versatile and can perform a
variety of operations: spreading, compact-
ing, covering, trenching, and even hauling
the cover material. The decision on whether
to select a rubber-tired or a crawler-type
tractor, and a dozer blade, trash blade, or
front-end loader must be based on the con-
ditions at each individual site.
The crawler dozer is excellent for grading
and can be economically used for dozing
solid waste or soil over distances up to 300
feet. The large trash or landfill blade can be
used in lieu of a straight dozer blade, thereby
increasing the volume of solid waste which
can be dozed. The crawler loader has the
capability to lift materials off the ground for
carrying. It is an excellent excavator, well
suited for trench operations.
Rubber-tired machines are generally faster
than crawler machines. But because their
loads are more concentrated, rubber-tired
machines have less flotation and traction
than crawler machines. Rubber-tired ma-
chines can be economically operated over
distances of up to 600 feet.
Steel-wheeled compactors are being used
increasingly at sanitary landfills. In basic
design, compactors are similar to rubber-
tired tractors. The unique feature of com-
pactors is the design of their wheels, which
are steel and equipped with teeth or lugs
of varying shape and configuration. This
design is employed to impart greater crush-
ing and demolition forces to the solid waste.
Use of compactors should be restricted to
solid waste, as they are not suited for appli-
cation of a smooth layer of compacted cover
material. Thus, compactors are best used in
conjunction with tracked or rubber-tired
machines that can be used for applying
cover material.
Other equipment used at sanitary landfills
are scrapers, water wagons, draglines, and
graders. Such equipment is normally found
only at large landfills where specialized
equipment increases the overall efficiency.
Equipment size is dependent primarily on
the size of the operation. Small landfills for
communities of 15,000 or less, or landfills
handling 50 tons of solid waste per day or
less, can operate successfully with orte tractor
in the 20- to 30-ton range.
Heavier equipment in the 30- to 45-ton
range or larger can handle more waste and
achieve better compaction. Heavy equipment
is recommended for sanitary landfill sites
serving more than 15,000 people or handling
more than 50 tons per day.
Sanitary landfills serving 50,000 people or
less or handling no more than about 150 tons
of solid waste per day normally can manage
well with one piece of equipment. At larger
landfills, more than one piece of equipment
will be required. At sites handling more than
300 tons, specialized equipment can increase
efficiency and minimize costs (Table 30).
Provision must be made for standby equip-
ment. It is preferable to purchase a second
piece of equipment and use it as a replace-
ment during breakdowns and routine main-
tenance periods of the regular equipment.
Arrangements can normally be made, how-
ever, with another public agency or private
concern for the use of rental or replacement
equipment on short notice in case of a break-
down of regular equipment.
Facilities
A small sanitary landfill operation will
usually require only a small building for stor-
ing handtools, equipment parts, etc., and a
shelter with sanitary facilities for the em-
ployees. A single building may serve both
purposes.
A large sanitary landfill operation should
have a maintenance and storage garage for
equipment and an administration building.
If the scales are not adjacent to the adminis-
tration building, a scale house may be need-
ed. Sanitary facilities should be available for
employees. In addition, locker rooms and
showers should be provided for them.
Completed Sanitary Landfill
Information on the decomposition of buried
material in a sanitary landfill is limited. It
115
-------
TABLE 30
SPREADING AND COMPACTING EQUIPMENT REQUIRED BY LANDFILL SITES
HANDLING DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF WASTE
Waste quantity
(tons per day)
Less than 50
50 to 150
150 to 300
More than 300
Equipment type
Crawler tractor
Rubber-tired tractor *
Crawler tractor
Rubber-tired tractor
Crawler tractor
Rubber-tired tractor
Crawler tractor
Rubber-tired tractor
Steel- wheeled compactor
Weight
(in tons)
15
10
23
15
38
30
38
30
30
Number
It
It
2
2 or more
* Special landfill tires may be desirable; also, tire-chain systems can pro-
vide greater demolition effect.
t On small operations, the spreading and compacting machine may also be
used to handle cover material.
is extremely difficult to predict the time re-
quired for complete decomposition. Many
items, particularly paper, have been found
unchanged in landfills that had been com-
pleted for 15 to 25 years. The rate of decom-
position is primarily dependent upon the
moisture content and generally takes place
at a very slow rate.
Decomposition of the wastes will result in
the production of gases, principally methane,
carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, and hy-
drogen sulfide. The rate of gas production
will usually reach a peak within the first 2
years and then slowly taper off.
Methane gas causes the most concern be-
cause of its explosive character. Precautions
should be taken to prevent the gas from
concentrating in sewers or other structures
located on or near the landfill. Methane will
seek an easy exit from the fill. Thus, depend-
ing on site conditions and design, the meth-
ane may flow vertically through the fill
and disperse harmlessly in the atmosphere
above, or it may flow laterally from the site
to concentrate in adjacent structures such as
buildings and pipes. Relatively simple and
inexpensive techniques can be employed to
vent the gas in a controlled manner on site
and minimize lateral migration. The poten-
tial for recovering, purifying, and marketing
this decomposition product is being studied.
Settlement of the landfill is dependent on
the depth of the fill, composition, compaction
of the material, moisture content, and other
factors. Studies have indicated that approxi-
mately 90 percent of the ultimate settlement
will occur in the first 5 years. The final 10
percent will occur over a much longer period.
As a rough indication of the amount of set-
tlement that might occur, several Los An-
geles area sanitary landfills, 90 to 110 feet
deep, have settled 2.5 to 5.5 feet in 3 years.
Although underground fires rarely occur
in a completed landfill, the possibility does
exist. All underground fires should be exca-
vated and extinguished. The cell construction
of a sanitary landfill helps to confine and
restrict the spread of the fire, should one
occur.
Completed landfills generally require main-
tenance because of uneven settlement. Main-
tenance consists primarily of regrading the
surface to maintain good drainage and filling
in small depressions that result from uneven
settlement. Where ponding of water in de-
pressions is not controlled, seepage into the
fill may result in pollution of ground or sur-
face waters.
Completed landfills have been used for rec-
reational purposes—parks, playgrounds, or
golf courses. Parking and storage areas or
botanical gardens are other final uses. An
early formal dedication of the sanitary land-
fill to its ultimate use as a recreational area
may help to overcome local objections to
future site locations
116
-------
Because of settling and gas problems, con-
struction of buildings on completed landfills
generally should be avoided; in several loca-
tions, however, one-story, rambling buildings
and airport runways for light aircraft have
been constructed directly on sanitary land-
fills. In such cases, it is important for the
designer to avoid concentrated foundation
loading, which can result in uneven settle-
ment and cracking of the structure. The de-
signer must provide the means to allow the
gas to dissipate to the atmosphere and not
into the structure.
Multistory buildings can be built over com-
pleted landfills using steel and concrete pil-
ings and special engineering design. Because
of the complexity of design that must pro-
vide for differential settlement and control
of decomposition gases, EPA does not recom-
mend this use for a completed sanitary land-
fill or reclaimed dump site.
CONCLUSIONS
Sanitary landfills are a necessary part of
all solid waste disposal systems. As a mini-
mum, they are needed for the disposal of
residues from other processes and the mate-
rials those systems are unable to accept.
In the short run, sanitary landfilling of
unprocessed waste will continue to be the
most frequently used and least expensive
method of solid waste disposal, especially in
areas where adequate land close to the
source of waste is available at a reasonable
price. However, increasingly, resource re-
covery and volume reduction processes should
ba used in conjunction with sanitary land-
filling to create a disposal system which is
more conserving of both land and resources.
REFERENCES
1. COMMITTEE ON SANITARY LANDFILL PRACTICE OF THE SANITARY ENGINEER-
ING DIVISION. Sanitary landfill. ASCE-Manuals of Engineering
Practice No. 39. New York, American Society of Civil Engineers,
1959. 61 p.
2. SORG, T. J., and H. L. HICKMAN, JR. Sanitary landfill facts. 2d ed. Pub-
lic Health Service Publication No. 1792. Washington, U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1970. 30 p.
3. BRUNNER, D. R., and D. J. KELLER. Sanitary landfill design and opera-
tion. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 59 p.
4. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Solid waste disposal; pro-
posed guidelines for thermal processing and land disposal of solid
wastes. Federal Register, 38(81) : 10544-10553, Apr. 27, 1973.
117
-------
V) O
0)
5:
0)
<» 'b
E ^
o *+
»- ^o
1
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, "^
\
WASTES
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
I
i
I /
^ ^*
- ^
o o
SPECIAL \
^
-------
!\
f \
c ^
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
Tires
\
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
,$.
/"
Used tires pose significant disposal prob-
lems for municipalities, industries, and pri-
vate citizens. Tires, when incinerated, pro-
duce unacceptable levels of particulates and
sulfur emissions in the air. When landfilled,
whole tires will resist compacting and bury-
ing efforts and will rise to the surface, where
they pose combustion and vector problms.
The following describes alternatives current-
ly available in dealing with the tire disposal
problem. The alternatives are in four cate-
gories :
Retreading: This is discussed separately
since actions which encourage retreading can
be explored along with the end-use alterna-
tive which best suits the community's needs
and capabilities.
Immediate: These end uses can be put
into effect now, with no capital expenditure.
Short term: These alternatives require
minor capital investment in equipment that
is currently available or will be available in
the near future.
Long range + These end uses require signif-
icant capital investment and, in most cases,
utilize technology which so far has been
demonstrated only on a pilot scale.
ALTERNATIVES
Retreading
While retreading will not solve the tire
disposal problem, a resurgence in the re-
treading industry would forestall the dis-
carding of many tires. (About 175 million
are discarded each year.) There are at pres-
ent approximately 5,000 retreading facilities
in the vicinity of municipalities. The possi-
bilities of increasing the utilization of used
tires for retreading might be explored with
them. There are three main barriers to in-
creased retreading in this country:
• Shortage of usable casings
• Consumer reservations about the quality
of retreaded tires
• Increased marketing of inexpensive,
name-brand, new tires
The shortage of good casings can be miti-
gated by the institution and enforcement of
tire standards as part of periodic motor ve-
hicle safety checks. A tire that is turned in
with tread remaining is much more likely to
qualify for retreading than one which has
been worn smooth. At the same time, con-
sumer preferences for higher priced quality
tires and trends toward radial ply tires will
lead to the increasing availability of casings
acceptable to the retreading industry.
Consumer preferences for new tires rather
than retreaded tires stem partially from the
opinion that "new" is better than "used,"
and partially from experience with poor qual-
ity retreaded tires. Retreads are used more
widely in commercial fleet operations; 35
percent of their replacements are retreads.
These commercial tire users generally keep
very good records of tire costs and failure
rates and use almost twice as many retreaded
tires (on a percentage basis) as passenger
tire consumers. Commercial users generally
have their own tires retreaded rather than
purchase stock retreads. They obtain war-
ranties on retreaded tires that are compa-
rable to new-tire warranties. Other con-
sumers should be advised to also seek such
a warranty when buying retreaded tires.
Efforts to establish quality standards for
retreaded tires are currently .underway at the
Department of Transportation, General Serv-
ices Administration, and the Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, EPA. Once
these standards have been developed, the re-
treaded tire industry will be asked to devise
a system of quality control. It is hoped that
this will take the form of industry-imposed
121
-------
standards for casing inspection and process
control.
Once standards have been established and
quality control has been reasonably assured,
increased government procurement of re-
treaded tires can follow. Increased Federal
procurement of retreaded tires can stimulate
other marketing opportunities for the re-
treading industry, enabling quality retreaded
tires to compete more effectively with new
tires.
Immediate Alternatives
There are several possible end uses for
scrap tires that do not require capital ex-
penditures. They involve reuse of the tires
intact or sale to rubber reclaimers. Rubber
tires, properly ballasted and secured in
groups, apparently make satisfactory artifi-
cial reefs. Experimental reefs constructed of
tires have been placed along the East Coast
by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life. This option is usually limited to coastal
areas. Estimates of the cost of reefbuilding,
based on a free supply of tires assembled at
a dockside area, range from $0.50 to $4.00
per tire, depending on the type of reef con-
structed.
Intact tires may also be used as crash
barriers around obstructions near high-speed
freeways, as bumpers for docks and towing
vessels, and as retaining walls for soil ero-
sion control. Costs for these applications will
depend entirely on local conditions, and no
generalized estimates are available at this
time.
Another outlet is the reclaimed rubber
industry, which uses scrap rubber in making
compounds for manufacture of new tires and
other rubber products. This industry con-
sists of 12 facilities located primarily near
tire manufacturers in Ohio and the North-
west. These facilities can draw tires from
within a radius of 300 miles. Reclaiming
plants are listed at the end of this section.
Short-Range Alternatives
These alternatives, landfilling and road-
building, involve some capital expenditure—
from $2,000 to $100,000—for either tire
splitting or shredding equipment (Tables 31
and 32).
Generally less expensive than tire shred-
ders, tire slicing/cutting machines can be ob-
tained for between $2,000 and $4,000. These
machines generally require one man to oper-
ate and can process from 60 to 300 tires per
hour. Sliced tires have been successfully land-
filled; some size reduction is effected, which
is advantageous not only for landfilling but
also for transportation. Most tire slicers are
portable and so can be taken to suppliers of
tires, making possible significant savings in
transportation costs of the tires. At the pres-
ent time, there are only limited uses for
sliced tires.
Portable tire shredders are relatively new
to this country. Ranging in price from $5,000
to $100,000, several makes of tire shredders
are currently available and more are in vary-
ing stages of development. Shredders enable
landfill operators to efficiently dispose of
tires. Even more than slicers, they make tires
cheaper to transport for either disposal or
reuse. It appears that economics will general-
ly favor bringing the shredder to the tires
rather than bringing whole tires to the shred-
der. Some concentration of tires would be
required, however, making the portable
shredder most applicable for use at retread-
ers' installations and tire collection points.
There is increasing interest in making use
of shredded tires as an additive to asphalt for
roadbuilding and repairing. However, most
proven asphalt-additive applications require
rubber particles smaller (minus 16 plus 25
mesh) than present shredder output. It is
also necessary to remove any steel belt or
bead material from the rubber used for road-
building. Therefore, for most roadbuilding
applications rubber reclaimers are relied on
for the supplies of shredded tires.
Information on the economics of operating
tire slicers and shredders is sparse; costs will
vary considerably with the number of tires
processed and the availability of power-
operated equipment to move and handle the
tires. Most of the machines require one labor-
er full time just to load or operate the ma-
chine. Additional labor is required to main-
tain higher rates of tire processing.
Long-Range Alternatives
There are several relatively capital-inten-
sive uses for scrap tires that are currently
122
-------
TABLE 31
COSTS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS OF TIRE SLICERS AND SHREDDERS, 1974
Machine
Slicers:
Ascot Tire
Cutter
Branick
Shredders:
Shred-Pax
AZ-7
AZ-15
AZ-20
Tire Gator
Tire-Gon
Manufactured by
Parent Mfg. Co.,
Lewiston, Maine
Branick Mfg.,
Fargo, N. Dak.
Teb Inc.,
Addison, 111.
Barclay/Noll Assoc.,
Burlingame, Calif.
Automotive-Industrial
Marketing Corporation,
Portland, Oreg.
Price
$2,000-
3,500
4,000
5,000
8,500
19,000
75,000-
90,000
30,000
Capacity
(tires per hr)
and tire type
300, passenger
and truck
300, passenger
and truck
60, passenger
60, passenger
and light truck
300, passenger
and truck
1,000, passen-
ger and truck
125, passenger
and small
truck
Power
require-
ments
110 V
220V
200V
3-phase
200V
3-phase
200V
3-phase
220/440 V
100 amp
220V
3-phase
Weight
(lb)
1,500
1,000
800
1,000
*
*
3,000
Comments
Not rigged for
road use
Not rigged for
road use
Built in Germany,
assembled in
Illinois
1,000 tire/hr. ca-
pacity would re-
quire 3 men
Price includes
trailer ($2,600);
operating cost as-
Tire Hawg Metropolitan Disposal
Corporation,
Portland, Oreg.
52,500 400, passenger 440V 24,000
and truck 3-phase
sumes 1,000 tire/
day operation
Weight includes
trailer for road
use
Not available.
TABLE 32
BREAKDOWN OF TIRE-GON OPERATING COSTS AT 7.5^ PER TIRE, 1974 •
Item
Operating cost
per month t
Labor
Amortization
Maintenance
Power ($10/day)
Miscellaneous
Total
$600
500
100
200
80
1,480
* Source: Manufacturer's data.
t No allowance has been made for transportation, dumping fee, revenue
from sale of chips, or cost of capital.
t Cost per tire is 7.5
-------
(1.5 percent). The economics for all of these
processes are marginal, but recent trends in
the energy field may stimulate their develop-
ment.
Hydrogenization is a process of chemical
synthesis in which the addition of hydrogen
(the element which is removed from oil to
make synthetic rubber) converts scrap rub-
ber to chemicals from which new rubber can
be synthesized. It is estimated that much
more development of this process will be
required before it will be economically com-
petitive with traditional synthetic rubber
production. Current fossil fuel cost escala-
tions may well speed up the time when this
process too will become economically viable.
Energy can be recovered from tires by
shredding them and using them as supple-
mental fuel in conventional coal-fired instal-
lations or as the sole fuel in specially de-
signed furnaces for industrial applications.
The Btu value of tires is equal to or greater
than that of coal. However, even the largest
cities may not generate enough tires to sustain
a power plant large enough to be commercial-
ly feasible at this time. Power requirements
in this country could absorb the entire annual
output of tires without affecting the demand
for coal.
A pilot installation in England has used
tires as fuel in specially designed furnaces to
generate steam. Because of the combustion
properties of tires, such a furnace would
probably operate at about 30 percent efficien-
cy—about half that of a comparable coal-
fired furnace. However, even at this low
efficiency, the pilot operation in England
consumes 700 tires an hour, generating 3,500
pounds of steam per hour, and effects savings
of about $110 per day over the cost of coal
(the cheapest available conventional fuel).
It has been estimated that tire-fueled pow-
er could be competitive with gas- or oil-fueled
power. The total estimated cost of generating
power from tires is about $0.50 per million
Btu. These costs include amortization of capi-
tal equipment and operating costs of storage,
handling, preparation, and emissions control
(50 percent higher than for coal) but not
collection. Comparable costs for other fuel
sources range between $0.60 per million Btu
for gas and $0.75 for oil. These costs were
calculated prior to 1973 price increases for
petroleum products.
Goodyear is currently constructing a cy-
clone furnace for whole-tire incineration and
steam generation at its plant in Jackson,
Michigan. The furnace will cost $500,000
and was scheduled to commence operation in
March 1974.
CONCLUSIONS
Although whole tires are difficult to dis-
pose of using conventional techniques, new
developments such as portable tire shredders
now permit the sanitary landfilling of tires.
Shredders offer a short-range solution to the
problem of tire disposal.
Studies are now underway to develop long-
range alternatives for the use of discarded
tires and to expand present markets for re-
claimed rubber. In addition, means of reduc-
ing the flow of tires into the solid waste
stream, such as increasing the use of re-
treaded tires and promoting the consumption
of longer wearing tires, are being explored.
RECLAIM PLANT LOCATIONS
A. Baker Manufacturing Company
South Bend, Indiana
Centrex Corporation
Findlay, Ohio
Eastern Rubber Reclaiming Company
Chester, Pennsylvania
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio
Laurie Rubber Reclaiming Company
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Midwest Rubber Reclaiming Company
East St. Louis, Illinois
Nearpara Rubber Company
Trenton, New Jersey
Uniroyal Chemical Division
Naugatuck, Connecticut
U.S. Rubber Reclaiming Company
Vicksburg, Mississippi
F. Perlman and Company
Memphis, Tennessee
Uniroyal Chemical Division
Ville D'Anjon, Quebec, Canada
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Reclaim Division
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
124
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Waste Lubricating Oil
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
3
-------
who make it reusable as lube oil, to manu-
facturers of road oil or asphalt, or directly
to users of fuel. If the prices of petroleum
products are low, then economic factors en-
courage collectors to dispose of their cargo
in the most expedient manner—dumping.
DISPOSITION
Use as a Fuel
The market for waste oil as a fuel, the
major market for waste oil collectors, has
two segments. The first is made up of waste
oil processors who remove many of the con-
taminants in the waste oil prior to distribut-
ing it to users who mix it with conventional
fuels. Some waste oil is distributed directly
to users who mix the oil with conventional
fuel without removing the contaminants. The
contaminants will vary with the source of
the waste oil and can include:
Lead
Copper
Barium
Zinc
Phosphorus
Tin
Chromium
The most serious of these contaminants
appears to be the lead in automobile waste
oil. If this oil is burned undiluted, significant
emissions of lead can result. Although mix-
ing with other fuel oils can dilute these lead
emissions considerably, the burning of un-
processed waste oil is not recommended un-
less sophisticated emission control equipment
is employed.
Re-refining
Another market for waste oil is the re-re-
fining industry, which in 1972 processed 90
million gallons of waste oil into lube oil.
Although this industry has experienced a
decline (in 1960, 300 million gallons were
processed), recent price levels for petroleum
products have improved the economics of re-
refining. Most of the problems facing the
expansion of this industry center around
questions regarding product quality. Reser-
vations about the quality of re-refined lubri-
cating oil led to Federal labeling require-
ments and purchasing restrictions. As a re-
sult, re-refined lube oil is often ranked only
with low-grade virgin lube oils. The economic
disadvantages that result are compounded by
an unfavorable tax treatment (IRS ruling
68-108). Under the terms of this ruling, re-
refiners are required to pay a nonrefundable
tax of 6 cents per gallon on virgin oils which
are blended with re-refined oil and sold for
off-highway use. A similar tax on lube oil
composed completely of virgin oil and used
off highways is refundable.
A typical re-refining operation consists of
dewatering, treatment with acid to remove
additives and impurities, mixing with clay
to remove low-boiling components, blending
with virgin stocks to improve viscosity and
the use of additive packages to meet engine
oil standards. The most serious environmen-
tal problem associated with re-refining is the
disposal of the sludges and bottoms from the
re-refining process. These wastes are general-
ly highly acidic or contain high concentra-
tions of heavy metals, primarily lead. These
wastes can be satisfactorily disposed of in a
properly managed landfill, one which pre-
vents leaching of acids and heavy metals into
groundwaters. The precautions recommend :d
for the satisfactory landfilling of sludges and
bottoms in EPA's "Effluent Guidelines and
Standards" (1974) include the following:
In order to ensure long-term protection
of the environment from harmful constitu-
ents, special consideration of disposal sites
should be made. All landfill sites should be
selected so as to prevent horizontal and
vertical migration of these contaminants
to ground or surface waters. In cases
where geological considerations may not
reasonably ensure this, adequate mechani-
cal precautions (e.g., impervious liners)
should be taken to ensure long-term pro-
tection of the environment. A program of
routine periodic sampling and analysis of
leachates is advisable. Where appropriate,
the location of hazardous materials dis-
posal sites should be permanently recorded
in the appropriate office of legal jurisdic-
tion.
Road Use
Use of waste oil for dust control on roads
and in asphalt manufacture accounted for
200 million gallons of waste oil in 1972. Tests
of the use of oil for dust control indicate that
as much as 70 percent of the oil applied
either migrates to the air on dust particles
or onto adjoining lands and waterways
through water runoff. The application of
waste oil as a dust control measure should
126
-------
TABLE 34
USES FOR WASTE LUBRICATION OIL *
Uses
Provisos
Re-refining for use as lube oil
Processing for use as fuel oil
Burning untreated as a fuel
Spreading on roads for
dust control
Mixing with asphalt in road
construction and repair
Re-refining sludges and bottoms should be
properly disposed of. Follow acceptable pro-
cedures for landfilling of sludges and bot-
toms.
Processor removes heavy metal contaminants
(primarily lead) and processing bottoms are
disposed of in an acceptable manner.
User employs sophisticated emission control
equipment (including baghouses) to remove
preventable lead emissions.
Oil use governed by ability of road surface
to absorb oil, limiting significant migration
on dust particles and oil runoff with water
to adjacent areas.
Process residuals containing concentrations
of heavy metals should be disposed of in an
acceptable manner.
* Source: OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. Waste oil
study; report to Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1974.
(Manuscript in preparation.)
therefore be carefully controlled, taking into
account such elements as the type of road
surface, the amount of oil applied, and the
type of vegetation near the road being oiled.
When used in the manufacture of asphalt,
waste oil can cause significant increases in
emissions into the air. These emissions repre-
sent a potential hazard if they contain s'gnifi-
cant quantities of lead or other heavy metals.
Land Spreading
Many petroleum refineries currently dis-
perse of oily wastes by a technique known as
land spreading. If deep, fine-textured soils
are selected for this practice, then limited
amounts of oil will adhere to the soil and
groundwater contamination can be avoided.
However, indiscriminate dumping of oil on
coarse, porous, or shallow soils is likely to
result in water pollution. Although under
certain carefully controlled conditions land
spreading may be environmentally accept-
able, it represents an extremely inefficient
utilization of a nonrenewable resource.
CONCLUSIONS
Cities and municipalities should identify
quantities and sources of waste oil genera-
tion.
Collectors of waste oil should also be iden-
tified as well as forms of disposition of the
waste oil.
All methods of disposition of waste oil
should be controlled to avoid unfavorable en-
vironmental effects (Table 34).
In order to control the collection and dispo-
sition of waste oil, communities should issue
appropriate laws and ordinances that:
• make dumping into watercourses illegal.
* require a permit for the operation of a
facility to process or dispose of waste
oil.
• require a permit for the collection of
waste oil.
• require that all major waste oil genera-
tors contract with certified collectors for
the hauling of this product.
127
-------
I \
c •%,
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Sewage Sludge
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
9
3
<
3
\
\
Disposal of residual solids generated by
municipal wastewater treatment plants is a
serious problem facing the wastewater treat-
ment authorities. Strong national emphasis
has been placed on clean wastewater treat-
ment effluents and clean receiving streams
with little regard for the problem of what
to do with the large quantities of sludge
generated by wastewater treatment.
The quantity of sludge generated is de-
pendent on the type of wastewater treatment
process used and the degree to which it is
applied. Implementation of secondary and
tertiary treatment requirements will result
in dramatic increases in sludge quantities in
the next 10 years. In some cases, the selec-
tion of a sludge utilization or disposal method
is strictly dependent upon the wastewater
processing technique used. In nearly every
case, however, there is a potential for envi-
ronmental degradation as a result of the
concentration of pathogenic organisms and
toxic chemicals in the sludge. In addition to
the environmental considerations, there are
legal and economic considerations involved
in the sludge disposal problem.
ALTERNATIVES
Ocean Disposal
Sewage sludge is still deposited in the
ocean by coastal cities, using either a pipe-
line or barges. The continued use of this
disposal method is in doubt as a result of
more stringent water pollution control laws.
Utilization on Land
There are several techniques available for
utilization of sewage sludge as a soil condi-
tioner and low-grade fertilizer. Sludge appli-
cation to crop and forest land to replenish
depleted soil and to strip-mined land to re-
store soil fertility has been widely practiced
throughout the United States and Europe.
Sludge may be applied in the liquid state
(most popular technique), in the dewatered
form (approximately 75 percent water), or
dry.
Sanitary Landfill
There are two variations of subsurface
land disposal of sewage sludge, namely, with
or without mixed municipal solid waste.
For disposal with mixed municipal solid
waste, dewatered, digested sewage sludge is
placed on the working face in a sanitary
landfill and promptly covered with earth or
municipal refuse. Opinion is mixed as to the
need for digestion and dewatering of sewage
sludge prior to incorporation in a sanitary
landfill.
While not widely practiced, it is possible
to operate a sanitary landfill for sludge dis-
posal alone. In this case, sewage sludge
would at a minimum require dewatering
prior to placement in a landfill.
Thermal Processing
While incineration of sewage sludge or
solid waste is often considered a disposal
alternative, it is, in fact, only a volume
reduction technique. Combustion or thermal
processing of sewage sludge includes heat
drying, pyrolysis, and use of sludge as sup-
plementary fuel, in addition to incineration.
Heat drying is a processing technique
which may be used prior to sludge utilization
on land. Heat drying provides the steriliza-
tion necessary for use of sludge as either a
low-grade or fortified fertilizer. Some degree
of heat drying may also be utilized prior to
incineration, pyrolysis, or use of the sludge
as supplementary fuel.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Ocean Disposal
The main advantage of this alternative is
the low overall cost resulting from limited
128
-------
sludge treatment and dewatering require-
ments and cheap pipeline or barge trans-
portation. The main disadvantage is the en-
vironmental and aesthetic degradation of
coastal waters which may result from this
practice.
Utilization on Land
The advantage of this alternative is that
an inexpensive soil conditioner and fertilizer
is made available. One disadvantage is that
large amounts of land are required for this
alternative. Application rates of 10-25 tons
of sludge solids per acre per year are typical
but depend upon soil type, climatological
conditions, type of crop or vegetation, appli-
cation technique, and whether the sludge is
liquid, dewatered, or dry.
There are two additional disadvantages in
land utilization of sludge. The most obvious
is the potential for ground and surface water
degradation from infiltration and run-off of
sludge contaminants, both biological and
chemical. Proper selection, design, and op-
eration of the sludge utilization site can keep
the potential for degradation to a minimum.
A site monitoring program is required, how-
ever.
The other disadvantage involves the type
of crop grown on the sludge utilization site.
The presence of chemical and biological con-
taminants in the sludge, especially heavy
metals and pathogenic organisms, restricts
both the type and intended use of crops.
High concentrations of certain chemicals re-
sult in plant toxicity and reduce crop yield.
Plant uptake of heavy metals, especially
arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and seleni-
um, and pathogenic organisms on the surface
of plants may make the crops unfit for
human consumption.
Sanitary Landfill
The advantage of this alternative is that
sanitary landfills are usually available in or
around most metropolitan areas and the high
paper content of municipal solid waste is
able to absorb some of the moisture in the
sludge. The disadvantage of this disposal
method is that it may increase the potential
for pollution of ground and surface water by
leachate and present safety hazards from
methane gas formation. Operational prob-
lems may also result from inclusion of sew-
age sludge in sanitary landfills, such as
adaptability of equipment, site operator ob-
jections, and unsightly conditions.
Critical attention must be devoted to site
selection, engineering design, leachate and
gas control monitoring systems, and operat-
ing plan development for any sanitary land-
fill receiving sewage sludge.
Very few advantages exist for operating
a landfill solely for sludge disposal unless its
close proximity to the sewage treatment
plant reduces transportation costs to near
zero. The establishment of a landfill only for
sludge results in an unnecessary duplication
of land disposal sites, and solves none of the
potential problems in a combined sludge/solid
waste sanitary landfill. In fact operational
problems may be aggravated by the absence
of the absorptive and bearing capacities of
mixed municipal refuse.
Thermal Processing
When sludge is processed for use in a
pyrolysis unit or as supplementary boiler
fuel, it must be dewatered. In order to evalu-
ate the feasibility of using dewatered sludge
as a fuel source, the available heat content
of the sludge must be determined. Dry sludge
solids have a relatively high heat value; how-
ever, considerable heat is required to drive
off the water in the sludge and to bring the
sludge to the combustion point.
Since each of the combustion processing
alternatives requires the use of substantial
quantities of auxiliary fuels which may be
very expensive and of limited availability,
an economic analysis, including an energy
balance, must be performed prior to selection
of any combustion processing alternative for
sewage sludge.
The potential air pollution from thermal
processing of sewage sludge is also a serious
disadvantage.
CONCLUSIONS
The Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs is currently supporting a demon-
stration project involving liquid digested
sewage sludge disposal in a sanitary landfill
at Oceanside, California. The results of this
129
-------
demonstration will be published at the com-
pletion of the project and should enable an
evaluation of the acceptability of this sludge
disposal technique. Until additional experi-
ence and information is available on other
landfill options it is advisable to landfill only
properly digested and dewatered sewage
sludge in a well designed and operated solid
waste sanitary landfill.
Application of sludge on the land as a
fertilizer also has potential dangers which
are under investigation. The Food and Drug
Administration has not yet established ac-
ceptable concentrations of heavy metals for
all food crops. At least until such time as
standards are established, only crops not in
the human food chain should be grown on
soil to which sewage sludge has been applied.
130
-------
s
0) ^
£ *•
0 <>x»
1 \
I
I
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
-------
I *
o 1.
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
Appendix A
Residential Collection Management Tools
conservation, environmental effects decisions collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors resource conservation.
o <
This appendix describes three tools that
EPA has developed to help managers evalu-
ate and improve the efficiency of their resi-
dential collection systems. These tools are:
Collection Management Information Sys-
tem (COLMIS)
Route balancing procedure
Heuristic routing technique
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
The basis of effective management and
decision-making is the availability of reliable
information on the system being managed.
While lack of information can lead to loss of
control, good information can serve as the
basis for improvements and cost savings.
Solid waste management needs definitive
information on the operational aspects of
collection and the costs involved in providing
this service. This information should pro-
vide the answers to such key questions as:
• What are the actual collection costs per
home and per ton?
• How much waste is collected per home
per week? How does this vary seasonal-
ly?
• How many homes are collected per crew
per collection hour?
• Which are the most productive and least
productive crews ?
• How are productivity and costs affected
by different collection frequencies, crew
sizes, equipment types, and storage de-
vices?
• How effectively are the equipment capac-
ities being utilized? What is their den-
sity capability?
• How many homes constitute a load for
different generation rates?
• What are equipment operating costs?
When should equipment be replaced?
A good method of obtaining the required
information is through the use of a comput-
erized reporting system. One such system is
COLMIS, Collection Management Informa-
tion System, available from EPA at no
charge. This system generates reports with
different levels of detail for the various levels
of management.
There are three basic reports which the
COLMIS system generates on a weekly basis.
Each of these reports includes daily data for
each route plus a weekly average and a year
to date average. The following lists the data
included in each of the basic reports.
Route Information Report
• Motor pool to route—time and miles per
day
• Collection operation—time and miles per
day
• Transport operation—time and miles
per day
• Total time to route, collect, and trans-
port—hours
• Downtime—hours
• Lunchtime—hours
• Weight per day—pounds and tons
Collection Information Report
• Homes served per collection day
• Weight in pounds per collection day
• Persons served per collection day
• Generation rate per person per day—
pounds
• Collection time per home—minutes
• Collection time per 100 pounds—minutes
• Collection time as percent of total time
worked
• Total time worked as percent of stand-
ard time
• Loads per day to incinerator, landfill, or
transfer station
133
-------
• Weight per cubic yard of first load—
pounds
Collection Cost Information in Dottars
• Cost from motor pool to route
• Cost of collection operation
• Cost of transport operation
• Equipment costs
• Manpower costs
• Total costs
• Costs of manpower during equipment
down periods
• Incentive costs
• Overtime costs
• Cost per ton
• Cost per home—per week, per year
While serving as a creditable record of
operations and costs, these reports are a
valuable planning tool. Information from
these reports can be used to evaluate the
present system and to design new systems.
They provide the specific data needed to de-
termine a "fair day's work" for each crew,
truck and crew requirements for the entire
city, boundaries for daily routes and dis-
tricts, and costs of operation. They can also
aid in determining the useful life for equip-
ment and thus help in planning a capital
replacement program.
Cost Effectiveness
Effective use of this type of analysis can
lead to significant results. Fourteen of the 35
communities in which the COLMIS program
has been installed are in the same regional
authority in Michigan, the Southeast Oak-
land County Incinerator Authority, which
serves a population of 360,000. Management
information from COLMIS and assistance
from the authority and EPA in routing and
evaluating crew sizes, equipment types, and
collection methodologies have enabled these
communities to maintain the same level of
service (once-per-week, curbside) while cut-
ting direct collection costs by 16.7 percent
(within a 6-month period) plus a demon-
strated potential reduction of another 21 per-
cent if all the communities and routes are
converted to the most efficient system which
has been identified. Part of this savings was
due to the competitive situation created
among the crews and among communities be-
cause the performance of each crew and
system was documented by COLMIS. Five of
the systems are run by private contractors
who are becoming a part of this competitive
situation between communities and improv-
ing their efficiency, as evidenced by the fact
that all new contracts are either below or at
the same cost as the previous contracts.
The cost effectiveness of COLMIS can be
seen by comparing its costs to the savings
achieved. The total computer cost, including
keypunching, for processing the data for
this 360,000 population is $5,200 per year, a
1.4 cents per person per year investment
with a resultant savings of 73 cents per
person per year.
ROUTE BALANCING
Route balancing is the process of determi-
ing the optimum number of services that
constitute a fair day's work and dividing the
collection task among the crews so that all
have equal workloads. Route balancing can
have any of the following objectives: (1) to
estimate the number of men and trucks re-
quired to collect waste in a new or revised
solid waste system, (2) to aid in developing
or evaluating a bid price for a collection con-
tract, (3) to aid in evaluating the perform-
ance of the collection crews, as a whole or
individually, (4) to establish a work stand-
ard to be used in a task system, in which the
crews may go home when their predeter-
mined tasks are completed for the day, or in a
wage incentive system, in which the crews
are rewarded by financia" bonuses for any
increases in productivity over a prescribed
standard or over previous period perform-
ances, or (5) to balance or equalize the work-
loads among collection crews.
Route balancing is necessary if a new
collection system is being instituted, or a
major change in the present system, e.g.,
backyard to curbside collection, is going to
take place, or if a collection contract is up
for bid. Route balancing should also be con-
ducted if crew performances have never been
evaluated or need reevaluation, if the pres-
ent routes are not balanced, or if the present
routes do not provide a fair day's work for
the crews.
A fair day's work is determined and routes
are balanced by analyzing each component of
134
-------
time in the collection day, that is, how the
crew spends its time.
Adding the component times of a collection
day results in an equation for the total time
in the workday (Y) :
Y = a + b + n(d + c2 + d) - d +
e + f +g
where a = time from garage to route
b = total collection time on route
Ci = time from route to disposal site
c2 = time from disposal site to route
d = time at disposal site
e = time from disposal site to garage
f = time for official breaks
g = slack time: lost time due to
breakdowns and other delays,
lunchtime, and incentive time
n = number of loads
This equation is the basis of the analysis
for a fair day's work and route balancing.
The data required for this analysis are:
(1) time and distance data related to the
components of the collection day, (2) the
number of services by type and where they
are located, and (3) the amount of waste
generated per service, including seasonal
variations, and (4) basic equipment and
labor costs.
One method for gathering this data is by
using COLMIS as already discussed. Values
for each time variable are readily obtainable
for any existing system from the COLMIS
reports or other records. Values for each of
these time elements for each route may be
compared to ascertain their reasonableness.
In designing a new collection system it is
necessary to determine the appropriate num-
ber of services per crew per day, which tells
how many trucks and men are required. The
steps required are:
(1) Add variables a, e, f, and g, and
subtract d. These variables are
readily obtainable from the existing
system.
(2) Add variables ct + c2 + d (round-
trip haul and dump time for one
load) for specific route areas, which
are also available from the existing
system.
(3) Select the equipment type and size,
and crew size.
(4) Determine the number of services
per load (N):
N =
/ Vehicle capacity \ /Waste density capability \
V (cuyd) )\ Ib/cuyd) )
Generation rate (Ib/home/wk)
(5) Determine the collection time per
service through obtaining statistics
(such as COLMIS data) from other
communities which have similar sys-
tems and good labor productivity or
by conducting an experiment on one
of the existing routes.
(6) Determine how much time it takes to
collect one load by multiplying the
results of steps 4 and 5.
(7) Set the total day equal to the number
of hours the collectors are to work,
e.g., 8 hours.
(8) Add the times from steps 1, 2, and 6
and compare to step 7.
(9) Add steps 2 and 6 to step 8 and com-
pare again to step 7. Repeat this un-
til the total time is close to the total
day value selected in step 7.
(10) Calculate the number of trucks re-
quired to serve the community.
Trucks
required
(Total No. W Collection frequency \
services /\ per week /
(Services per \ / No. workdays \
truck per day / \ per week /
In this equation, the value of services
per truck per day is a function of fre-
quency of collection and point of collec-
tion (curb or backyard) and is the value
calculated in step 9 based on on-route
versus transport time.
(11) Calculate the cost of a crew and truck
Vehicle cost = depreciation
+ maintenance
-f- consumables
4- overhead
-f- license fees
and insurance
135
-------
Labor cost = salary of driver
+ salary of collector (s)
+ fringe benefits
-f indirect labor
+ supplies (e.g., gloves)
-f administrative
overhead
Total cost = vehicle cost and
labor cost
(12) Multiply cost per crew by the num-
ber of crews needed, to get total
system cost.
(13) Divide cost per vehicle by number of
customers the truck can serve per
week to find the cost per customer.
(14) Evaluate the effects of peak and low
generation periods by performing the
calculations for steps 1 through 6
using data from these periods.
(15) Repeat steps 1 through 7 for any
other system that could provide the
service. Some figures such as time
per stop and vehicle costs may have
to be obtained from other sources.
(16) Comparison of total cost and cost
per customer for each system exam-
ined helps give a picture of relative
degrees of efficiency. The choice may
be to pick a system different from
the present one. Or it may be shown
that level-of-service or other policies
should be reconsidered.
HEURISTIC ROUTING
Routing is the process of determining the
path or route the collection vehicle is to fol-
low as it collects waste from each service in
a specific area. The objective is to minimize
the noncollection distance, e.g., streets with
no services or repeat streets, and delay times,
e.g., U-turns, rush hour traffic, and left
turns, for each collection vehicle.
EPA has developed a "heuristic" routing
technique that can be applied by the col-
lection system supervisory personnel with-
out the use of computers or a consultant. The
heuristic technique is based on applying
some common-sense rules of thumb in con-
junction with specific routing patterns. The
major rules of thumb are:
(1) Routes should not be fragmented or
overlapping. Each route should be
compact, consisting of street seg-
ments clustered in the same geo-
graphical area.
(2) Total collection plus haul time should
be reasonably constant for each route
in the community, i.e., workloads
should be equal.
(3) The collection route should be started
as close to the garage or motor pool
as possible, taking into account heav-
ily traveled streets, route elevations,
and possible patterns (see rules 4, 6,
and 9).
(4) Heavily traveled streets should not
be collected during rush hours.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Services on dead-end streets can be
considered as services on the street
segment that they intersect since
they can only be collected by passing
down that street segment. To keep
left turns at a minimum, collect the
dead-end streets when they are to
the right of the truck. They must be
collected by walking down, backing
down, or making a U-turn.
When practical, steep hills should be
collected on both sides of the street
while the vehicle is moving downhill
for safety, ease, and speed of collec-
tion, to reduce vehicle wear, and to
conserve gas and oil. Higher eleva-
tions should be at the start of the
route.
For collection from one side of the
street at a time, it is generally best
to route with many clockwise turns
around blocks and to collect waste
when it is to the right of the vehicle.
(8) For collection from both sides of the
street at the same time, it is general-
ly best to route with long straight
paths across the grid before looping
clockwise.
(9) For specific block configurations
within the route, routing patterns
should be applied. (Specific routing
patterns are available in the second
and fourth references below.)
186
-------
Once the number of services for each route the number of each type of service on each
has been determined through route balanc- side of each street segment, (2) all one-way,
ing analysis, routing can be performed. All dead-end, and heavily traveled streets, (3)
the data required for routing can be recorded corner-lot residents, and (4) streets that
on community maps. This data includes: (1) should be collected one side at a time.
REFERENCES
1. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. User's manual for
COLMIS; a collection management information system for solid
waste management. Volume 1. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-57c. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
99 p.
2. SHUSTER, K. A. A five-stage improvement process for solid waste col-
lection systems. (In preparation.)
3. SHUSTER, K. A. Route balancing for solid waste collection. (In prepara-
tion.)
4. SHUSTER, K. A., and D. A. SCHUR. Heuristic routing for solid waste col-
lection vehicles. Environmental Protection Publication SW-113.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 45 p.
137
-------
f\
conservation, environmental effect* decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
Appendix B
Collection Costs and Productivity
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
\
\
The cost and productivity tradeoffs faced
by a city official or private contractor in
operating a collection system are complex.
Preceding papers have attempted to deal
with subsets of these tradeoffs on an issue-
by-issue basis, e.g., point of pickup compari-
sons can be made by holding all other vari-
ables constant and comparing the difference
in cost between curbside and backyard col-
lection. This appendix discusses overall col-
lection cost factors, ranges of cost elements
that appear to be reasonable, and the interim
results of a study of costs and productivity of
systems in 11 cities.
OVERALL COLLECTION COST FACTORS
There are eight key cost factors which
should be examined for every collection
operation.
Equipment:
• Depreciated vehicle procurement cost
• Maintenance cost
• Consumable items
• Miscellaneous costs (e.g., insurance, li-
cense fees, etc.)
Labor:
• Wages
• Fringe benefits
Overhead:
• Management and administrative over-
head
• Office and garage rental, utilities, and
supplies, etc.
While it is difficult to make national esti-
mates of these costs because of wide varia-
tions, broad ranges can be determined which
can give some guidance to managers.
RANGES OF COST ELEMENTS
The typical annual costs for two- and
three-man crews working with a 20-cubic-
yard rear-loading vehicle have been estimated
(Table 35).
TABLE 35
COLLECTION COSTS FOR TWO- AND THREE-MAN CREWS, 1973
Cost elements
Depreciated vehicle procurement cost *
Maintenance cost
Consumable items
Miscellaneous (insurance, fees)
Wages t
Fringe benefits (18 percent of direct
labor)
Management and administrative overhead
(13 percent of direct labor)
Overtime %
Total cost
2-man crew
$4,800
2,000
1,675
1,200
12,000-24,000
2,160-4,320
1,560-3,120
1,200-2,400
26,595-43,515
3-man crew
$4,800
2,000
1,675
1,200
18,000-36,000
3,240-6,480
2,340-4,680
1,350-2,700
34,605-59,535
* Straight-line depreciation over 5 years.
t Men paid from $6,000 to $12,000 per year.
t Calculated at 10 percent of direct labor for 2-man crews and 7% percent
for 3-man crews.
188
-------
Clearly, labor costs (including fringe bene-
fits) account for the largest portion of total
collection costs (72 to 84 percent). Using
these and similar sample figures, collection
operating officials can begin to identify de-
viations in their costs. Clearly, many of the
standard factors, e.g., 18 percent for fringe
benefits or 13 percent for management and
administrative overhead, vary from city to
city. Each city should derive its own numbers
for these cost factors where possible.
Collection cost per ton and collection cost
per service per year are other useful indexes
because they relate costs to a productivity
measure. Since cost per ton is the ratio nor-
mally used to express processing and disposal
costs, collection cost per ton is useful in cal-
culating the overall collection, processing,
and disposal costs for a system. Cost or price
per ton is also the measure used for quoting
the market value of reclaimed materials.
Thus, the additional collection and processing
costs per ton for a reclamation program can
be readily compared to the revenues per ton
from recycled materials and savings per ton
in disposal. The cost per service per year
ratio is a more meaningful figure to the
homeowner since it tells him how much solid
waste collection and disposal are costing him.
COST AND PRODUCTIVITY STUDY
Cost constitutes only half of the decision-
making factors in evaluating a collection
system. Productivity is the other side of the
ledger, and an operating manager must at-
tempt to balance the two sides.
Several indexes have been developed to
show system productivity. Some of these
are: services/day/truck, services/man/hour,
tons/day/truck, and tons/man/hour. As can
be seen from these measures, crew size, ton-
nage collected, and time to collect are ele-
ments in achieving high productivity.
Interim results are available of a study
comparing the productivity and costs of nine
curbside and two backyard systems with
different equipment types and crew sizes
(Table 36). Overall, three-man crews proved
to have a significantly higher cost. Both the
cost/home/year figures and cost/ton figures
should be examined since the average weight
per service directly affects the number of
services a crew can collect.
The data for the study was obtained from
the EPA Data Acquisition and Analysis Pro-
gram (DAAP) and from time-and-motion
study information from systems in various
parts of the country. The DAAP is similar
to COLMIS (see Appendix A). The figures
shown in Table 36 represent the average
values for four different routes for each
system. The DAAP information represents
data collected each working day for each
route for a full year. The time-and-motion
study information represents data collected
for 1 day for each crew for each quarter of
the year. The first column presents data from
Utah; the second, from California; the third,
Michigan; the fourth, Illinois; the fifth,
Rhode Island; the sixth, Illinois; the seventh
and eighth, Arizona; the ninth, Florida; the
tenth, California; and the eleventh, Wiscon-
sin.
The first section of the table describes the
systems being evaluated. The next section
shows on a percentage basis how the total
man-hours of the crew are distributed among
activities. Next is a summary of how much of
the crew time is spent on productive activi-
ties: those activities which must be per-
formed to pick up the waste and haul it
away. Transport, for example, is productive
time for the driver but not for the collectors,
which penalizes the larger crew sizes. Col-
lecting, driving, riding, walking, and compac-
tion times are considered as productive times.
Waiting and other time are nonproductive.
Since many variables affect crew per-
formance, the next section is provided to
enable better comparisons. For example, an
important determinant of collection time for
curbside pickup is the percent of one-way
storage (bags and miscellaneous) items ver-
sus cans.
The next section shows how productive
the crews are on the route in terms of serv-
ices per man-hour and tons per man-hour.
These two variables must be considered
jointly, although the amount of waste tends
to be the major time determinant.
The last section shows costs on a service
and tonnage basis.
In order to enable a better comparison be-
139
-------
TABLE 36
PRODUCTIVITY AND COST ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS. 1978 •
Characteristics
System number
Collections per week
Crew sice
Incentive system
Collection patterns
Vehicle sue (en yd)
and type t
Transport
On route:
Driving
Riding/walking; |
Collecting
Waiting (including
compaction) f
Other 1
Total productive time
Collection policies and methodologies
Curb-alley systems
1
1
1
Task
One
side
26
SL
34.8
17.9
0
45.8
0.8
0.7
98.6
2
1
1
8hr
One
side
25
SL
825
13.5
0
61.6
1.8
1.0
975
8
1
2
Task
One
side
20
RL
Percent of
81.6
8.9
7.8
30.6
20.8
0.4
63.0
4
1
2
8hr
One
side
26
RL
total
80.2
12.2
11.6
19.5
26.8
05
68.3
6
1
8
Task
Both
sides
20
RL
crew time
245
5.8
11.8
36.7
225
0.8
61.3
6
1
8
8hr
Both
sides
26
RL
spent
35.4
8.1
6.8
885
17.8
0.4
68.7
Route characteristics
Ponnds per home
per collection
Number of bags per home
per collection
Number of cans per home
per collection
Number of miscellaneous
items per home
per collection
Collection miles per day
Transport miles per day
Collection hours per day
Transport hours per day
Hours worked per day
Loads per day
Services per day
Tons per day
46.2
1.6'
2.8
0.7
10.6
46.1
3.8
1.7
6.9
1.8
410
9.4
71.0
1.3
2.7
1.1
6.1
18.8
4.6
2.0
6.7
1.6
254
9.0
49.3
2.6
1.3
0.7
10.1
82.6
4.8
1.9
7.0
2.4
612
12.6
50.5
4.6
0.4
0.5
13.1
29.9
4.7
1.8
6.7
1.9
675
14.6
62.2
8.6
1.6
1.0
10.5
14.8
8.9
1.0
6.2
25
407
12.6
64.9
1.6
2.7
1.7
4.5
34.4
4.9
2.6
7.6
1.6
806
9.7
7
2
1
Task
One
side
83
SL
on various
22.6
24.7
0.2
50.1
1.1
1.3
97.6
8
2
2
Task
One
aide
8
SL
Backyard systems
9
2
8
Task
Both
sides
20
RL
10
1
2
Task
Tote
barrel
20
RL
11
1
2
8hr
Tote
barrel
18
RL
collection activities
27.2
10.0
18.1
27.8
6.6
10.4
69.5
80.0
7.2
14.5
29.8
18.6
0.5
61.0
18.3
t
1
81.7
t
t
*
20.6
t
t
79.4
1
t
t
(daily averages)
285
0.9
1.6
0.5
18.7
22.2
4.9
1.1
6.8
1.0
410
6.7
24.4
0.5
1.6
0.5
20.5
12.0
4.1
1.4
6.7
4.4
674
7.0
88.1
15
1.1
0.4
10.4
38.4
4.4
1.6
6.3
2.8
854
14.1
88.9
0.0
15
0.0
6.9
6.0
6.1
1.0
65
1.0
864
65
61.1
1.4
2.4
0.6
6.6
17.6
6.6
1.2
6.9
1.9
243
6.2
On-route productivity
Services per crew
per collection hour
Tons per crew per
collection hour
Services per crewman
per collection hour
Tons per crewman per
collection hour
107.8
2.6
107.8
2.6
55.7
2.0
66.7
2.0
107.0
2.6
53.4
1.8
128.3
3.1
67.7
1.6
104.6
8.8
34.9
1.1
62.7
2.0
20.9
0.7
845
15
845
1.2
138.4
1.7
66.6
0.8
200.6
8.8
66.6
1.1
72.1
15
86.8
0.6
44.4
1.1
22.1
0.6
Cost efficiency ••
Total cost per home
per year
Total cost per ton
9.88
8.29
15.60
8.46
11.96
9.63
11.44
8.72
20.28
12.82
28.60
17.18
19.24
13.48
26.62
21.15
24.96
14.67
16.64
19.26
24.44
18.41
* Source: ACT SYSTEMS, INC. Unpublished data.
t RL, rear loader; SL, side loader.
j Not available.
f Driving, riding for one-man crews.
1 Nonproductive time.
•• Costs have been normalized across all 11 systems to permit intersystem comparisons, therefore, these figures do not reflect actual
collection costs.
140
-------
tween equipment types and crew sizes, all
the basic cost figures were normalized by
using the average values for the 11 cities
being evaluated. For example, the procure-
ment costs of the collection vehicles were
based on average prices paid, in 1972 dollars
(Table 37). The depreciation used was
straight line over 5 years. Maintenance cost
for the first year was 0.055 multiplied by the
initial cost of the vehicle. The consumable
cost was actual fuel and oil consumption mul-
tiplied by $0.17 per gallon for fuel and $0.23
per quart for engine oil. Wages in dollars per
hour were $4.34 for drivers and $4.15 for
collectors. Fringe benefits were 18.3 percent
of wages. Personnel overhead was 13.1 per-
cent of wages. The overtime factor was 1.5
multiplied by the hourly wage for drivers
and collectors, and insurance and fees were
$100 per month per vehicle.
TABLE 37
PROCUREMENT COST OF REAR-LOADING AND SIDE-LOADING COLLECTION
VEHICLES. 1972 •
Capacity (cu yd)
Side loader
Rear loader
8
13
16
18
20
25
33
$14,900
23,900
30,000
$15,900
16,700
17,000
22,700
23,900
Source: ACT SYSTEMS, INC. Unpublished data.
141
-------
l\
w
conservation, environmental effects decisions, collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
Appendix C
Closing Open Dumps
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
<
Governmental agencies, industry, citizens,
and environmental groups should all be con-
sidered in developing a plan to eliminate a
dump and to establish an acceptable substi-
tute. The plan should provide for informing
everyone about the need for closing the dump
and the procedures that will be followed. The
plan should also outline the funding arrange-
ments necessary to carry out the operation
and the anticipated use of the closed site. It
is often more feasible to convert the dump
into a sanitary landfill than to establish a
new site.
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
It is imperative that the public, industry,
and municipal agencies be kept informed of
activities pertaining to the dump closing.
They are the source of the necessary funds
and their cooperation is critical to a satis-
factory solid waste disposal program. They
should, therefore, be told:
• Why the dump is being closed
• How the job will be done
• What method of acceptable waste dis-
posal will replace the dump
• What the costs are
A vigorous public information program is
essential to success, and all the various tech-
niques of information dissemination can be
used to help win a favorable press. Keeping
the public informed should begin when the
planning starts and continue with progress
reports until the dump is closed and the new
disposal method is operating successfully.
DISPOSAL DURING AND AFTER CLOSURE
A dump cannot be closed in 1 day. The rat
extermination program alone normally re-
quires up to 2 weeks, and extinguishing fires
may take another week. Compacting and cov-
ering may take over 2 months, depending
upon the size of the dump.
Open dumping must stop before rat exter-
mination starts, and only authorized person-
nel should be allowed on the site during the
closing operation. An approved alternative,
with fixed and posted hours of operation,
must be established for the wastes formerly
disposed of at the dump.
RAT EXTERMINATION
Rat extermination must be given special
attention when closing an active dump. At an
old open dump where the food source has
been exhausted, rats and insects are unlikely
to be present. Where there is a nearby food
source, the old dump may still be used by
rats for harborage. It is necessary, therefore,
to establish conclusively the absence of rats.
If rats are present, an extermination pro-
gram must be conducted. If the dump-closing
operation is improperly conducted, the rat
problem may be compounded.
Rats are potential carriers of numerous
diseases; if they are not killed when a dump
is closed, they may pose even more of a
problem than when they are at the dump.
They may migrate in numbers to populated
areas in search of food and harborage. At
a minimum, this would cause unfavorable re-
action to the dump closing, and the situation
would worsen if there were a rise in the
incidence of rat bites.
Only trained personnel should be allowed
to conduct the operations since the improper
use of poisons is dangerous. The work is best
done by a pest control specialist or by a gov-
ernment rodent control expert. Assistance
may be obtained from State and local health
officials, pest control services, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Com-
142
-------
munity Environmental Management of the
U.S. Public Health Service, or the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs.
EXTINGUISHING FERES
Fires at dumps may be difficult and ex-
pensive to extinguish. In some cases the
burning solid waste may have to be exposed
and spread out, requiring the use of heavy
earth-moving equipment. The operator must
work very carefully to prevent injuring him-
self or damaging his equipment. Spreading
the waste generally allows the fire to par-
tially burn itself out, and water can then be
applied to the smoldering remains. Caution
must be exercised to avoid causing water pol-
lution through use of excessive quantities of
water. Fires can usually be extinguished
while the rat poisoning program is under-
way.
COVERING THE DUMP
Immediately following the rat poisoning
and fire extinguishing, the dump surface
should be graded, compacted, and covered
with at least 2 feet of soil. In closing large
dumps, the rat extermination program should
be maintained while successive sections of
the dump are covered. To grade, compact,
and cover most dumps, large crawler dozers
will be necessary. Either the trench or the
area method is generally used in closing the
dump.
In the trench method, wastes are spread
in thin layers in an excavation, compacted,
and then covered with the excavated soil
(Figure 8). This achieves maximum density
and minimum settlement. The cover material
should be compacted to keep flies in and rats
out, and it should be graded to keep surface
water from ponding. The bottom of the
DUMPED SOLID WASTE
CONSOLIDATED SOLID WASTE
FORMER GRADE _J SOIL
-jfe-
^ EXCAVATED TRENCH /
TRANSFERRED AND COMPACTED
SOLID WASTE
STOCKPILED
SOIL FROM TRENCH
.COMPACTED COVER MATERIAL
FIGURE 8. With the trench method of covering a dump, wastes are spread
in a thin layer in an excavation, compacted, and then covered with the ex-
cavated soil, compacted, and graded. Source: BRUNNER, D. R., S. J. HUBBASD,
D. J. KELLER, and J. L. NEWTON. Closing op?n dumps. Washington, U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1971. 19 p.
143
-------
trench should be kept above the level of high
groundwater.
The area method also involves spreading
the wastes in thin layers, compacting it, and
then covering it with a minimum of 2 feet
of compacted soil (Figure 9). If the solid
waste is spread over a large area, it must
be consolidated and compacted to reduce the
amount of settlement and cover material re-
quired. The cover material must be graded to
avoid ponding of surface water.
PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY
If the dump is in a marshland or an area
where the groundwater or surface waters
have been contaminated, remedial action
should be taken by removing the solid waste
from the water or treating the water. The
latter step is normally not feasible because
of the difficulty in collecting and treating
contaminated water. The solid waste and
water can be separated by diverting the flow
of water or by removing the solid waste
from the watercourse. If necessary, surface
streams may be relocated and the ground-
water level lowered, but it is often more
economical to remove the solid waste from
the stream using draglines.
COVER MATERIAL
Cover material should be selected accord-
ing to its ability to limit the access of vectors
to the solid waste, control moisture entering
the fill, control the movement of gas from
the decomposing waste, provide a pleasing
appearance, control blowing paper, and sup-
port vegetation.
Not all soil types perform these functions
equally well. While the soil is usually selected
from the types available nearby, considera-
tion needs to be given to its suitability before
using it as cover material.
The depth of the cover material depends
on the use planned for the closed dump and
the soil type. Usually 2 feet of earth is suf-
ficient, and it should be compacted and
graded to a slope of 2 percent or greater.
Proper grading is important since it pre-
vents excessive soil erosion and ponding.
Ponding tends to infiltrate and saturate the
fill, resulting in water pollution.
To further reduce erosion, the area should
be seeded with grass or other vegetation.
DUMPED SOLID WASTE
CONSOLIDATED AND COMPACTED SOLID WASTE
COMPACTED COVER MATER I AT
FORMER GRADE
BORROW AREA
FIGURE 9. With the area method of covering a dump, wastes are spread
in thin layers, compacted, and covered with a minimum of 2 feet of compacted
soil. Source: BRUNNER, D. R., S. J. HUBBARD, D. J. KELLER, and J. L. NEWTON.
Closing open dumps, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 19 p.
144
-------
Two feet of soil is usually sufficient for grass,
but more is necessary for shrubs and trees.
If the dump is along a lake front or the edge
of a stream, riprap is often required to pre-
vent water from eroding the edge of the
cover material.
ULTIMATE USE OF CLOSED DUMP
A closed dump need not remain an unused
parcel of wasteland. The site may have been
changed from a ravine or gully to a relatively
flat area. It is no longer unsightly since it
is covered with soil and with grass and other
vegetation. It is almost inevitable that un-
even settlement will be extensive, and recog-
nition of this fact should influence the ulti-
mate use of the site.
In general, it is not advisable to construct
buildings over a closed dump because it
makes a poor foundation. Furthermore, pas
from the decomposing waste may accumulate
in explosive concentrations in or beneath
buildings constructed on or adjacent to the
fill. Playgrounds, golf courses, and similar
recreational facilities do not normally have
to support appreciable concentrated loads,
and converted dumps are often used for
these purposes, but they still require careful
planning. Maintenance costs may be greater
for recreational areas constructed on dumps
than on natural ground because of excessive
and irregular settling and possible cracking
of the cover material.
REFERENCES
1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION op COUNTIES RESEARCH FOUNDATION. Citizen
support for solid waste management. [Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1970.] 20 p.
2. SHERMAN, E. J., and J. E. BROOKS. Roof rat elimination from a refuse
disposal site before closure. California Vector Views, 13(2):14-15,
Feb. 1966.
3. JOHNSON, W. H., and B. F. BJORNSON. Rodent eradication and poisoning
programs. Atlanta, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, 1964. 84 p.
4. MALLIS, A. Handbook of pest control. 3d ed. New York, MacNair-Dor-
land Company, 1960. 1132 p.
5. NATIONAL COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CENTER. 1970 National Communicable
Disease Center report on public health pesticides. Pest Control,
38 (3): 15-54, Mar. 1970.
6. BJORNSON, B. F., H. D. PRATT, and K. S. LITTIG. Control of domestic rats
& mice; training guide—rodent control series. Public Health Service
Publication No. 563. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1970. 41 p.
7. BBUNNER, D. R., S. J. HUBBARD, D. J. KELLER, and J. L. NEWTON. Clos-
ing open dumps. Environmental Protection Publication SW-61ts.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 19 p.
8. BRUNNER, D. R., and D. J. KELLER. Sanitary landfill design and opera-
tion. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 59 p.
145
-------
V ^
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation. *
Appendix D
Hazardous Wastes
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
Increasingly, environmental managers at
all levels of government will be required to
make decisions on how to cope with hazard-
ous wastes. A brief and simple definition of
a hazardous waste, for purposes of this docu-
ment, would encompass those wastes which
cannot or should not be handled or disposed
of in the san-e manner as the community's
normal residential solid waste load. The de-
termination of whether a waste is hazardous
would stem from a judgment that a signifi-
cant potential exists for causing adverse
public health or environmental impacts if the
waste is handled, stored, transported, treat-
ed, or disposed of in the manner generally
accepted for ordinary solid wastes.
General categories of hazardous waste are
toxic chemical, flammable, radioactive, ex-
plosive, and biological. Such wastes can take
the form of solids, sludges, liquids, or gases.
There is no "master list" of substances or
compounds which are hazardous when placed
onto or under the land. However, work done
by and for the Office of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs has identified a number of
likely candidates (Table 38). Numerous
wastes contain such compounds in quantities
which render the waste unacceptable for nor-
mal methods of waste management.
THE PROBLEM
Hazardous wastes comprise only a small
fraction of the nation's solid wastes. The
environmental impact of hazardous wastes,
however, is out of all proportion to the
amounts because of the threats of severe
health and environmental effects, both
chronic and acute.
EPA estimates that the generation of non-
radioactive hazardous waste is approximate-
ly 10 million tons per year. About 40 percent
by weight of these wastes are inorganic
materials, 60 percent organic. It is also esti-
mated that 90 percent of hazardous waste
exists in liquid or in semiliquid form.
At the present, there is no Federal legisla-
tion and very few State or local statutes
regulating the disposal of hazardous waste
on land. To fill this gap, EPA has proposed
the Hazardous Waste Management Act of
1973. Other bills of similar nature have also
been introduced in the Congress recently. It
is hoped that one of these bills will be enacted
into law shortly.
As enforcement of the Clean Air Act, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and
the "Ocean Dumping" Act closes off the air
and the water as places in which to dispose
of this waste, communities are going to feel
the pressure of waste generators disposing
of it on the only place left—the land. State
and local governments, then, have to be
aware of the problem of what hazardous
wastes are and of what can and cannot be
done with them without threatening the
public health or insulting the environment.
The problem of environmental insults
caused by improper land disposal of hazard-
ous waste is widespread. EPA has on record
a large number of such incidents, of which
the following are representative samples:
• As a result of the burial of lead arsenate
pesticide in Minnesota over 30 years ago,
13 people were hospitalized with arsenic poi-
soning in 1972. The poisonings were traced
to ingestion of water from wells near the
pesticide burial site.
• For several years, a large municipal
landfill in Delaware accepted both domestic
and industrial wastes. In 1968, this disposal
site had to be closed because chemical and
146
-------
TABLE 38
A SAMPLE LIST OF NONRADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS*
Lewisite (2-chloro-
ethenyl dichloroar-
sine)
Mannitol hexanitrate
Nitroaniline
Nitrocellulose
Nitrogen mustards
(2,2',2" trichloro-
triethylamine)
Nitroglycerin
Organic mercury
compounds
Pentachlorophenol
Picric acid
Potassium dinitrobenz-
furoxan (KDNBF)
Silver acetylide
Silver tetrazene
Tear gas (CN) (chloro-
acetophenone)
Tear gas (CS) (2-chloro-
benzylidene malo-
nonitrile)
Tetrazene
VX (ethoxy-methyl phos-
phoryl N,N dipropoxy-
(2-2), thiocholine)
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Ammonium chromate
Ammonium dichromate
Antimony pentafluoride
Antimony trifluoride
Arsenic trichloride
Arsenic trioxide
Cadmium (alloys)
Cadmium chloride
Cadmium cyanide
Cadmium nitrate
Cadmium oxide
Cadmium phosphate
Cadmium potassium
cyanide
Cadmium (powdered)
Cadmium sulfate
Calcium arsenate
Calcium arsenite
Calcium cyanides
Chromic acid
Copper arsenate
Copper cyanides
Cyanide (ion)
Decaborane
Diborane
Hexaborane
Hydrazine
Hydrazine azide
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenite
Lead azide
Lead cyanide
Magnesium arsenite
Manganese arsenate
Mercuric chloride
Mercuric cyanide
Mercuric diammonium
chloride
Mercuric nitrate
Mercuric sulfate
Mercury
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Pentaborane-9
Pentaborane-11
Perchloric acid (to 72%)
Phosgene (carbonyl
chloride)
Potassium arsenite
Potassium chromate
Potassium cyanide
Potassium dichromate
Selenium
Silver azide
Silver cyanide
Sodium arsenate
Sodium arsenite
Sodium bichromate
Sodium chromate
Sodium cyanide
Sodium monofluoro-
acetate
Tetraborane
Thallium compounds
Zinc arsenate
Zinc arsenite
Zinc cyanide
Halogens and
Interhaloffens
Bromine pentafluoride
Chlorine
Chlorine pentafluoride
Chlorine trifluoride
Fluorine
Perchloryl fluoride
Miscellaneous Organics
Acrolein
Alkyl leads
Carcinogens (in general)
Chloropicrin
Copper acetylide
Copper chlorotetrazole
Cyanuric triazide
Diazodinitrophenol
(DDNP)
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrobenzene
Dinitro cresols
Dinitrophenol
Dinitrotoluene
Dipentaerythritol
hexanitrate (DPEHN)
GB (propoxy (2)-
methylphosphoryl
fluoride)
Gelatinized nitro-
cellulose (PNC)
Glycol dinitrate
Gold fulminate
Lead 2,4-dinitroresor-
cinate (LDNR)
Lead styphnate
Organic Halogen
Compounds
Aldrin
Chlorinated aromatics
Chlordane
Copper acetoarsenite
2,4-D (2,4-dichloro-
phenoxyacetic acid)
ODD
DDT
Demeton
Dieldrin
Endrin
Ethylene bromide
Fluorides (organic)
Guthion
Heptachlor
Lindane
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB)
* Source: OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. Report to
Congress; disposal of hazardous wastes. Environmental Protection Agency Pub-
lication No. SW-115. Washington, U.S. Government Printing OflBce, 1974. 110 p.
biological contaminants had leached into the
ground water. By 1974, this incident had
affected the drinking water supply of over
40,000 area residents; their water is present-
ly provided by alternate sources. The cleanup
costs are estimated to be up to $10 million.
• For 20 years, a laboratory in Iowa used
a particular site for solid waste disposal.
147
-------
Over 250,000 cubic feet of arsenic-bearing
wastes have been deposited there. Monitor-
ing wells around the dump have established
that there is over 175 ppm arsenic in the
groundwater. The U.S. Public Health Service
drinking water standard for arsenic is 0.05
ppm. The dump site is located above a lime-
stone bedrock aquifer from which 70 percent
of the nearby city's residents obtain their
drinking and crop irrigation water. Although
there is no evidence that the drinking water
is being affected, the potential for contami-
nation cannot be underestimated.
• A Tennessee chemical company for a
number of years was burying highly toxic
pesticide wastes at a dump in shallow un-
lined trenches, at the rate of about a hundred
55-gallon steel drums per week. The con-
tainerized chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes
gradually escaped into the subsurface envi-
ronment, contaminating not only the ground-
water but also a nearby creek.
HAZARDOUS WASTE SOURCES
Sources of hazardous wastes are numerous
and scattered throughout the country. Obvi-
ous ones are industry, certain Federal facili-
ties (chiefly the Department of Defense and
the Atomic Energy Commission), agricul-
tural activities (see below for recommended
procedures for pesticide disposal), hospitals,
and laboratories. It is estimated, however,
that most hazardous wastes are generated by
industrial sources.
Representative hazardous substances have
been matched with industrial sources (Table
39). There are many other industrial hazard-
ous waste generating sources, however.
According to a rough geographic distribu-
tion of industrial hazardous waste genera-
tion, about 70 percent of industrial hazard-
ous waste is generated in the Mid-Atlantic,
Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast areas of the
United States (Table 40).
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
As concluded in EPA's 1973 report to
Congress on hazardous waste disposal, tech-
nology for the proper treatment and disposal
of hazardous waste is generally available.
However, the lack of regulation and economic
incentive discourages the use of environmen-
tally acceptable treatment and land disposal
methods.
TABLE 39
PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN WASTE STREAMS OF SELECTED INDUSTRIES •
Hazardous substances
Chlorinated
Miscellaneous
Industry
Mining and metallurgy
Paint and dye
Pesticide
Electrical and electronic
Printing and duplicating
Electroplating and
metal finishing.
Chemical manufacturing
Explosives
Rubber and plastics
Battery
Pharmaceutical
Textile
Petroleum and coal
Pulp and paper
Leather
As
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cd hydrocarbons f Cr
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Cu
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cyanides
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pb
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
organlcs | Se
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zn
X
X
X
X
X
* Source: OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. Report to Congress; disposal of hazardous
wastes. Environmental Protection Agency Publication No. SW-115. Washington, U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1974. 110 p.
t Including polychlorinated biphenyls.
j For example, acrolein, chloropicrin, dimethyl sulfate, dinitrobenzene, dinitrophenol, nitroaniline, and
pentachlorophenoL
148
-------
TABLE 40
ESTIMATED INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY BUREAU OF CENSUS REGION. 1970 •
Inorganics in aqueous Organics in aqueous
Region
New England
Mid Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
West (Pacific)
Mountain
Total
Tons
95,000
1,000.000
1,300,000
65.000
280,000
90,000
820,000
120,000
125,000
8,845.000
Metric
tons
86,000
907,200
1,180,000
59,000
208,500
81,700
290,000
109,000
118,500
3.034.000
Tons
170,000
1,100,000
850,000
260.000
600.000
385.000
1.450,000
650.000
5,000
5,370,000
Metric
tons
154,000
1,000,000
770,000
236,000
545,000
860,000
1,815,000
600,000
4,540
4,874,540
Organics
Tons
83.000
105.000
145,000
49,500
75.000
44.000
180.000
113,000
50,000
794,500
Metric
tons
30,000
90.600
132,000
45.000
68,000
40.000
163.000
103.000
45.400
717,000
Sludges, t slurries,
solids
Tons
6,000
55,000
90,000
18.500
80,000
9,500
89.000
30.500
11,500
340,000
Metric
tons
5,450
60.000
81,600
16.800
72.600
8,600
35.400
27,700
10.400
308.620
Total
Tons
804,000
2,280.000
2.385.000
393,000
985,000
528.000
1.989,000
813,500
191,500
9,849,500
Metric
tons
275.450
2,047.800
2,163,600
350.800
894.100
480,300
1,803,400
739,770
173.840
8.929,060
Percent
of total
8.1
22.9
24.2
4.0
10.0
5.4
20.2
8.3
1.9
100.0
• Source: BATTELLB PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES. Prog-am for the management of hazardous wastes. Vols. 1 and 2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Available through the National Technical Information Sei-vice, Springfield, Va.) (In
press.)
t Predominantly inorganic.
Treatment processes for hazardous waste
should perform the following functions:
volume reduction, component separation,
detoxification, materials recovery.
No single process can perform all these
functions; a series of several processes are
generally required for adequate treatment
The general applicability of various treat-
ment processes to types and forms of hazard-
ous waste has been determined (Table 41).
Many of these processes have been utilized
previously for managing hazardous waste in
industry and government. Several processes
have capabilities for resource recovery. Se-
lection of appropriate methods depends upon
the type, form, and volume of the waste, and
the relative economics of the processes.
WHAT To Do WITH HAZARDOUS WASTES
Those wastes which cannot be disposed of
safely in ordinary landfills should receive
adequate treatment to render them non-
hazardous prior to disposal. A small private
hazardous waste management industry has
emerged in the last decade, offering treat-
ment and disposal services to generators. A
preliminary compilation has been made of
firms that are in the business of accepting
hazardous waste for disposal (see list at
end). The list will be expanded from time
to time as OSWMP becomes aware of other
service companies of this nature. Informa-
tion on the availability of additional service
companies is hereby solicited. It should be
emphasized that EPA cannot endorse or
vouch for the environmental adequacy of
the work of the firms cited.
Requests for further information and tech-
nical assistance which relate to management
of hazardous wastes should be directed to
OSWMP's Hazardous Waste Management
Division or to the Solid Waste Management
Representative in EPA's Regional Ofilces.
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL AND STORAGE
The potential seriousness of health and en-
vironmental hazards due to improper dis-
posal and storage of pesticides and their
containers became increasingly clear in the
late 1960's as documented case studies accu-
mulated. Expanding use of pesticides in the
United States (an estimated 665 million
pounds in 1968) and increasing numbers of
spent containers requiring disposal (240 mil-
lion in 1968, up 50 percent over the number
in 1963) indicated that these problems were
increasing. Since little was known of the
extent of the problem, or proper methods of
disposal and storage, the Working Group on
Pesticides, composed of representatives from
several Federal departments, was asked to
study the subject.
More recently, in 1972, a Task Force on
Excess Chemicals, with representation from
all parts of the Environmental Protection
Agency, was formed to study disposal prob-
lems relating to pesticides and other hazard-
ous chemicals, and to recommend solutions.
Using the knowledge and information gath-
ered by these two groups, as well as by other
Federal and State agencies and the private
sector, EPA drew up recommended proce-
dures for the disposal of pesticides. These
recommended procedures were proposed in
149
-------
TABLE 41
FUNCTIONS. APPLICABILITY. AND RESOURCE RECOVERY CAPABILITY OF CURRENTLY AVAILABLE HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES •
Process
Physical treatment:
Carbon sorption
Dialysis
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation/settling
Reverse osmosis
Ammonia stripping
Chemical treatment:
Calcination
Ion exchange
Neutralization
Oxidation
Precipitation
Reduction
Thermal treatment:
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Biological treatment:
Activated sludges
Aerated lagoons
Waste stabilization ponds
Trickling niters
Disposal/storage:
Deep-well injection
Detonation
Engineered storage
Land burial
Ocean dumping
Functions
performed t
VR.Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR.Se
VR.Se
VR,Se
VR
VR, Se, De
De
De
VR,Se
De
VR,De
De.Di
De
De
De
De
Di
Di
St
Di
Di
Types of waste t
1,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,6
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,6
1,2,3,4
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2
3,4,6
3,5,6,7,8
3
3
3
3
1,2,3,4,6,7
6,8
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Forms
of waste §
L,G
L
L
L
L,G
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
S,L,G
S,L,G
L
L
L
L
L
S.L.G
S,L,G
S,L
S,L,G
Resource
recovery
capability
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
* Sources: TRW SYSTEMS GROUP. Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery or dis-
posal of hazardous waste. Vol. 1-16. Springfield, National Technical Information Service, 1973. PB-224 579-
set/AS. ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at national disposal
sites. Vols. 1 and 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. Available from National Technical Infor-
mation Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-225 164/AS. BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES. Program
for the management of hazardous wastes. Vols. 1 and 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Available
through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.) (In press.)
t Functions: VR, volume reduction; Se, separation; De, detoxification; Di, disposal; and St, storage.
$ Waste types: 1, inorganic chemical without heavy metals; 2, inorganic chemical with heavy metals; 3,
organic chemical without heavy metals; 4, organic chemical with heavy metals; 5, radiological; 6, biologi-
cal; 7, flammable; and 8, explosive.
§ Waste forms: S, solid; L, liquid; and G, gas.
the Federal Register of May 23, 1973, with
the intent to elicit public comments, and
promulgated in final form May 1, 1974.
The Procedures and Their Applicability
EPA's recommended procedures represent
broadly based judgments regarding the dis-
posal and storage requirements for pesticides
and their containers that are necessary to
protect the environment. Compliance is
achievable using existing technology; how-
ever, facilities utilizing this technology are
not readily available in all geographic areas.
The recommended disposal procedures ap-
ply to all pesticides and pesticide-related
wastes, including those which are or may in
the future be registered for general use or
restricted use, or used under an experimental
use permit. Additionally, they also apply to
full containers, spent or used containers, and
container residues. For packages and con-
tainers of pesticides intended for use in the
home and garden or when single containers
are to be disposed of on farms and ranches,
the Agency does not require that these dis-
150
-------
posal procedures be followed. Disposal of
such items will have only minimal environ-
mental impact, and it is preferable to dis-
pose of them individually rather than con-
centrate them.
The storage criteria and procedures apply
to pesticides, pesticide-related wastes, and
contaminated containers which are classified
as "highly toxic" (DANGER, POISON) or
"moderately toxic" (WARNING) according
to EPA's classification system for pesticides.
The storage of pesticides and their contain-
ers which are in the mildly toxic category
is judged not to present any undue hazards
to public health or the environment and,
therefore, is excluded from the procedures.
The temporary storage of limited quantities
of pesticides in the other categories, if un-
dertaken at environmentally safe sites, is
also excluded.
Disposal Methods
First preference in considering disposal
techniques should be given to procedures
designed to recover some useful value from
excess pesticides and containers. Where
large quantities are involved, one of the first
recommendations is that the excess material
should be used for the purpose originally in-
tended, provided this use is legal. Another
alternative is to return the material to the
manufacturer for potential reuse or reproc-
essing. A third alternative may be the export
of the material to countries where its use is
desired and legal.
Should none of these alternatives be appli-
cable, the ultimate disposal method should be
determined by the type of hazardous mate-
rial involved. Organic pesticides which do
not contain mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic,
beryllium, selenium, or other toxic materials
may be disposed of by incineration at tem-
peratures which will ensure complete de-
struction. Maximum volume reduction is
achieved by incineration, and the incinerator
emissions can be treated so that only rela-
tively innocuous products are emitted. Incin-
eration is not, however, applicable to those
organic pesticides which contain heavy
metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, or
arsenic, nor is it applicable to most inorganic
pesticides or metallo-organic pesticides which
have not been treated for removal of heavy
metals. Metallo-organic pesticides may be
incinerated after treatment to remove the
metal or metalloid atoms from the hydro-
carbon structure.
If incineration is not applicable or avail-
able, disposal in specially designated landfills
is suggested as an alternative. However,
encapsulation prior to landfilling is recom-
mended for certain materials such as those
containing mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic,
beryllium, selenium, or other toxic materials
and all inorganic compounds which may be
highly mobile in the soil. Encapsulation of
these will retard mobility and contain them
within a small area which can be perma-
nently marked and recorded for future refer-
ence.
Other disposal processes, such as soil in-
jection, well injection, and chemical degrada-
tion, may be acceptable in certain areas for
some materials. At present, such methods
have been neither sufficiently described nor
classified to suggest their general use. Re-
gional Offices of EPA may be contacted for
advice on specific areas.
Among the disposal procedures not ac-
ceptable are water/ocean dumping, open
dumping, and open burning, except that
open burning of small quantities of certain
containers (if legal) and open field burial of
single containers on farms and ranches by
the pesticide user may be acceptable in some
areas.
EPA's recommended triple rinsing proce-
dure will clean containers well enough so
that insignificant contamination will occur
when such containers are legally refilled with
another pesticide belonging to the same
chemical class. Triple rinsing also prepares
containers for crushing or shredding and
recycling as scrap. Provisions for this re-
source conservation step have been included
in the recommended procedures; they spe-
cifically require that adequate rinsing be
undertaken before reuse or recycling of con-
tainers.
Storage
Storage sites and facilities should be lo-
cated and constructed to prevent escape of
pesticides and contaminated materials into
151
-------
the environment. Provision for separate stor-
age of different classifications of pesticides
according to their chemical type, and for
routine container inspection, should be con-
sidered. Special procedures should be fol-
lowed in case of fires or explosions, and the
fire and police officials should be provided
with the names and telephone numbers of
the persons responsible for each pesticide
storage facility.
These recommended procedures are de-
signed to alert all Federal, State, and local
government agencies and private manufac-
turers, handlers, and users of pesticides to
the need for proper disposal and storage of
excess pesticides, pesticide containers, and
pesticide-related wastes. The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency will conform to
these recommended procedures in its own
operations. State and local agencies are cau-
tioned against adoption of recommended
procedures as regulations without careful
study of the environmental and economic
factors applicable to their own situations,
including the availability of disposal sites
and facilities.
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS *
Preliminary Listing
May 15, 1974
The following enterprises are in the business of
accepting and disposing of various hazardous wastes.
It is to be emphasized that the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs does not endorse any of
these firms; moreover, OSWMP did not investigate
these operations and therefore cannot vouch for
their environmental adequacy. This list, which is
furnished as a public service, will be expanded
from time to time as OSWMP becomes aware of
other enterprises that accept hazardous wastes for
disposal. Additional information concerning these
and other facilities should be forwarded to Mr.
Albert Hayes, Hazardous Waste Management Divi-
sion (HM-565), OSWMP, EPA, Washington, B.C.
20460, or to the OSWMP representative of the appro-
priate EPA Regional Office.
Those wishing to make use of the services of these
firms are advised to first evaluate the available en-
vironmental control facilities for themselves. Facil-
ities disposing of pesticides or pesticide containers
should conform to the "Recommended Procedures for
the Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide
Containers," as published by EPA in the Federal
Register. Those utilizing incineration or landfilling
should conform to EPA's landfill and incineration
guidelines and to any applicable State or local regu-
lations.
With regard to the list itself be aware that:
(a) where "materials handled" is unspecified, the
assumption is that all waste is received; (b) where
branch facilities are known they are also presented
individually in their respective localities.
EPA REGION I
Massachusetts
Development Science, Inc.
East Sandwich, Mass.
Facility: computer systems operation
Function: acts as a clearinghouse for information on disposal of waste
and surplus chemicals
Telephone: (617) 888-0101
The following list provided by the Massachusetts Water Resources Com-
mission shows all operations which have been licensed for hazardous waste
collection by the State. Currently more complete addresses and telephone
numbers are not known but a survey will be made to obtain this information.
Company
Ahearn Trucking Co.
Chicopee, Mass.
Andy's Disposal
Boston, Mass.
Material^
A B C E
A B
Facilities
* Mainly these are private firms, but some publicly owned operations are also included.
f Classes of hazardous waste: A, waste oils; B, solvents and chlorinated oils; C, toxic metals and plating
wastes; D, explosives and reactive metals; E, hazardous chemical, biological, and radioactive waste.
152
-------
Company
Axton-Cross Co. A B C E
Holliston, Mass.
Gal's Enterprise A B C E
Berkeley, Mass.
Cannons Engineering A B
Corporation
Boston, Mass.
Chemical Application A E
Company
Beverly, Mass.
Coastal Services, Inc. A B
Braintree, Mass.
Crago Company, Inc. A B
Gray, Maine
Eastern Contract Disposal A B C E
Rowley, Mass.
Environmental Ecology A B
Emulation Corporation
South Boston, Mass.
Farrar Pumping Company C
Abington, Mass.
General Chemical Corporation B
Framingham, Mass.
Charles George Land ACE
Reclamation Trust
Tyngsboro, Mass.
John R. Hess & Sons, Inc. B
Cranston, Rhode Island
Interex Corporation E
Waltham, Mass.
Jet Line Services A
Braintree, Mass.
Montvale Laboratories Inc. A B C E
Stoneham, Mass.
Peirce Brothers Oil A B
Service, Inc.
Waltham, Mass.
Re-Solve, Incorporated B
Dartmouth, Mass.
Rollins Environmental A B C E
Services
Bridgeport, NJ.
Safety Projects and B D E
Engineering Incorporated
West Quincy, Mass.
Silresim Chemical A B C E
Corporation
Lowell, Mass.
Southampton Sanitary A B
Engineering Company
Southampton, Mass.
H. Tremblay Co., Inc. A E
Hatfield, Mass.
EPA REGION I (Continual)
Material Facilities
Storage,
incineration
Storage
Radioactive waste
Storage facility in
S tough ton, Mass.
Chlorinated solvent
reclaiming facility
Storage facility in
Dorchester, Mass.
Solvent reclaiming
facility
Treatment and
incineration facility
Storage facility in
Hingham, Mass.
Chlorinated solvent
reclaiming facility
153
-------
EPA REGION I (Continued)
Corporations Licensed for Disposal of Own Hazardous Wastes
Bay State Abrasives A
Division of Dresser
Industries, Incorporated
Westboro, Mass.
Columbia Manufacturing Co. C
Westfield, Mass.
General Electric Company A B C E
Lynn, Mass.
Pittsfield, Mass.
Raytheon Company C E
Lowell, Mass.
Spalding Company C
Chicopee, Mass.
Sprague Electric Company ABE
North Adams, Mass.
L. S. Starrett & Company C
Athol, Mass.
Ventron Corporation C D
Beverly, Mass.
Dewatered sludge
landfilled
EPA REGION II
Delaware
AENCO Inc.
Post Office Box 387
New Castle, Del.
(302) 328-1361
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
3208 Concord Pike
Wilmington, Del. 19899
(302) 658-8541
Facilities: Bridgeport, New Jersey; Baton Rouge,
Louisiana; Houston, Texas
Materials handled: liquids and slurries only
New Jersey
Astropak Corporation
Post Office Box 416
Edison, N. J. 08817
(201) 549-1788
Chemical Control Corporation
Elizabeth, N J.
(201) 351-5460
Industrial Surplus Chemical
Edison, N.J.
Modern Transportation Company
Kearny, N.J.
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
(branch facility)
Bridgeport, N J.
Scientific Chemical Treatment
Elizabeth, NJ.
Scientific Pollution Control Company
Saddle River, NJ.
New York
Chem-Trol Pollution Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 200
Model City, N.Y. 14107
(716) 754-8231
Facilities: landfill and incineration
Nuclear Fuel Services Disposal
Dewatered sludge
landfilled
Collection between GE
plants. Incinerators in
Pittsfield and Lynn
Transportation from
Raytheon plant
Dewatered sludge
landfilled
Dewatered sludge
landfilled
Dewatered sludge
landfilled
Collection between
Ventron plants
EPA REGION II (Concluded)
Cataraugns, N.Y.
West Valley, N.Y.
(716) 942-3235
Materials handled: nuclear wastes only
Mercury Refining Company, Inc.
Albany, N.Y.
Contact: Mr. Leo Cohen
(518) 489-7363
Northeastern Maintenance Services
Schenectady, N.Y.
Pollution Abatement Services
Post Office Box 4065
Oswego, N.Y. 13126
Recycling Laboratories, Inc.
112 Harrison Place
Syracuse, N.Y. 13202
(315) 422-4311
Facilities: distillation for recycling
Materials handled: solvents only
EPA REGION III
Maryland
American Recovery Corporation
2001 Bonhill Avenue
Baltimore, Md. 21226
Robb Tyler Inc.
Norris Farm Landfill
New Pulaski Highway and 66th Street
Baltimore, Md. 21237
Pennsylvania
Barclay Cleaning Industries
Allentown, Pa.
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc.
Front and Depot Streets
Hellerton, Pa. 18055
(215) 838-7034
Chemfix Corporation
(Branch of Environmental Services Inc.)
154
-------
EPA REGION III (Concluded)
2901 Banksville Road
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15216
(412) 343-8611
Interstate Oil Transport
Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pa.
King of Prussia Technical Company
King of Prussia, Pa.
McAllister Brothers
Mall Building
Philadelphia, Pa.
Richard Welch
87 Longview Drive
Churchville, Pa. 18966
(215) 357-9159
Sitkin Metal Industries, Inc.
Post Office Box 708
Lewistown, Pa.
University of Pittsburgh
Dr. June Phister
Bradford Branch Campus
Bradford, Pa.
EPA REGION IV
Kentucky
Liquid Waste Disposal, Inc.
Post Office Box 19063
Louisville, Ky. 40219
Contact: Mr. G. M. O'Bryon
(502) 968-6173
Facilities: high temperature incineration
Materials handled: liquids only
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 7246
Louisville, Ky. 40207
(502) 426-7160
Contact: Mr. Barney Roberts
Site locations:
Beatty, Nev.
Sheffield, 111.
Robstown, Texas (Texas Ecologists, Subsidiary)
Materials handled: liquids, slurries, sludges, contain-
ers, solids
South Carolina
Chem Nuclear Systems Inc.
Barnwell, S.C.
(803) 259-5983
Materials handled: primarily radioactive
EPA REGION V
Illinois
Hyon Waste Treatment Services
Chicago, 111. 60617
Contact: Mr. Dave Holland
(312) 646-0016
Facilities: rotary kiln incinerator
Materials handled: solids and semisolids
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc.
Sheffield, 111.
Indiana
Conservation Chemical Company
Gary, Ind.
Seymour Manufacturing Company
500 North Broadway
EPA REGION V (Concluded)
Seymour, Ind.
Contact: Mr. John Gregory
(802) 522-4051
Facilities: physical-chemical treatment, incineration,
recycle
Materials handled: liquids only
Michigan
Environmental Waste Control Incorporated
26705 Michigan Avenue
Inkster, Mich. 48141
Contact: Mr. Hornby
(313) 357-5680
Facilities: processing, recovery, decontamination
Materials handled: oils, acids, alkalines, cyanides,
pickling liquors
Land and Lakes Environmental Company
Division of Approved Industrial Removal Incorpo-
rated
3755 Linden, South East
Grand Rapids, Mich. 49608
(616) 452-6021
Liquid Disposal Company
Utica, Mich.
(313) 739-2727
Facilities: incinerator
Nelson Chemical Company
12345 Schaefer Highway
Detroit, Mich. 48227
Contact: Mr. Hammerstein
(313) 933-1500
Facilities: processing and landfill
Materials handled: cyanides, chromic acid, pickling
liquors
Minnesota
Pollution Controls Incorporated
Route 1
Post Office Box 1057
Shakopee, Minn. 55379
Contact: Mr. Knutson
(612) 645-5507
Facilities: incinerator
Materials handled: liquids and solids except mercury,
arsenic, and cadmium compounds
Waste Disposal Engineering Sanitary Landfill
Anoka County, Minn.
Ohio
Systems Technology Corporation
Systech
3131 Encrete Lane
Dayton, Ohio 45439
(513) 298-1467
Wisconsin
Rogers Laboratories
3000 South 6th Street
Milwaukee, Wis.
(414) 483-3000
Waste Research and Reclamation Company, Inc.
Eau Claire, Wis.
Facilities: recycling
Materials handled: solvents, oils, forging compounds
EPA REGION VI
Louisiana
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
Baton Rouge, La.
155
-------
EPA REGION VI (Continued)
Oklahoma
Royal H. Hardage Industrial Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Site
R.R. 2
Lindsay, Okla. 73052
(405) 344^6274
Texas
Aztec Mercury
Post Office Box 1676
Alvin, Tex. 77511
(713) 331-4141
Bioecology Systems Inc.
4001 East Jefferson
Grand Prairie, Tex. 75050
(214) 264-4281
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
Houston, Tex.
Texas Ecologists, Inc.
Subsidiary of Nuclear Engineering Company
Robstown, Tex.
EPA REGION VII
Missouri
Conservation Chemical Company
Kansas City, Mo.
(816) 483-4222
Facilities: Kansas City and St. Louis
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Mo. 63166
(314) 694-3352
Facilities: incinerator
Materials handled: primarily PCB's
EPA REGION IX
California
B.K.K. Corporation
3031 East I Street
Wilmington, Calif. 90744
Contact: Mr. Ben K. Kazarian
(213) 432-8461
Facilities: Landfill at West Covina, Calif.
Materials handled: liquids, slurries, sludges, and con-
tainers
Casmalia Disposal Site
Post Office Box 5275
Santa Barbara, Calif. 93108
Contact: Mr. K. R. Hunter, Jr.
(805) 969-4703
Facilities: landfill near Guadalupe, Calif.
Materials handled: liquids, sludges, and containers
Chancellor and Ogden, Inc.
Total Transport/Disposal System
3031 East I Street
Wilmington, Calif. 90744
Contact: Mr. William Shearer
(213) 596-3049
Chemical Buyers Service
Post Office Box 2065
Berkeley, Calif. 94702
Contact: Mr. Joe Cambrey or Paul Palmer
(415) 548-0901, 0941
Facilities: computer-based clearinghouse for recy-
cling of surplus chemicals and wastes
EPA REGION IX (Continued)
Materials handled: Chemical-type wastes having po-
tential for reuse
Colusa County Department of Public Works
Courthouse
Colusa, Calif. 95932
(916) 458-5186
Facility: Class II—I site
Materials handled: pesticide containers, general ref-
use
Environmental Protection Corporation
3905 Rosedale Highway
Post Office Box 2491
Bakersfield, Calif. 93303
(805) 327-9681
Materials handled: limited types of liquids and
sludges
Fresno County Department of Public Works
4499 East Kings Canyon Road
Fresno, Calif. 93702
(209) 488-3806
Facilities: landfill in Coalinga, Calif.
Materials handled: liquids, solids, and containers
Hollister Disposal Site
City Hall
375 Fifth Street
San Benito City, Calif.
(408) 637-4491
Materials handled: liquids and solids from county
only
Hunter Disposal Site
Post Office Box 5275
Santa Barbara, Calif. 93108
Materials handled: liquids, sludges, pesticide contain-
ers
Hutchinson, William H. and Sons, Inc.
217 North Lagoon Avenue
Wilmington, Calif. 90744
Industrial Tank Company
Box 831,210 Berellesa Street
Martinez, Calif.
Contact: Mr. Victor Johnson
(415) 228-5100
or East 122 G Street
Benicia, Calif.
Facilities: landfills in Pittsburg, Calif., and Marti-
nez, Calif.
Materials handled: liquids and solids except pesti-
cide?
J and J Disposal Company
East 122 G Street
Benicia, Calif.
Contact: Mr. H. L. Jenkins
(707) 745-1251
Facilities: landfill
Materials handled: liquids, slurries, and sludges, ex-
cept pesticides
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
2020 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, Calif. 90057
Contact: Mr. Lester A. Haug
(213) 384-1281
Facilities: landfills at Agoura and Rolling Hills,
Calif.
Materials handled: liquids, slurries, sludges, and
containers
156
-------
EPA REGION IX (Continued)
Nuclear Engineering Company Incorporated
Walnut Creek, Calif.
Contact: Mrs. Sullivan
(415) 933-0770
Facilities: Beatty, Nev., Sheffield, 111., Morehead, Ky.,
Robstown, Tex. (Texas Ecologists, Inc., subsidiary)
Omar Rendering Company
Post Office Box 1236
Chula Vista, Calif.
Contact: Mr. William S. O'Donnell
(714) 422-5311
Facilities: warehousing and transport
Materials handled: liquids and slurries only except
oils
Richmond Sanitary Service
1224 Nevin Avenue
Richmond, Calif.
Contact: Mr. Mario Aquilino
(415) 234-3304
Facilities: landfill
EPA REGION IX (Concluded)
Materials handled: liquids, slurries, sludges, solids,
and containers
San Diego County Refuse Disposal Division
5555 Overland Road
San Diego, Calif.
Contact: Mr. G. G. Baker
(714) 278-9200
Facilities: landfill at Otay, Calif.
Materials handled: liquids, slurries, sludges, and
containers except acids
Ventura County Department of Public Works
597 East Main Street
Ventura, Calif.
Contact: Mr. Felix Martinez
(805) 648-6131
Facilities: landfill in Simi Valley, Calif.
Materials handled: liquids, slurries, sludges, and
containers
Nevada
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc.
Beatty, Nev.
pa 967
157
------- |