PB81-2160116
  Compatibility of Source  Separation and
  Mixed-rfaste Processing  for  Resource  Recovery
  Gilbert Associates,  Inc.
  Reading,  PA
  Prepared for

  Municipal  Environmental  Hesearch Lab.
  Cincinnati,  Oli
  .'un  81
U.S. BefSrtsngBt. of Commerce
National Technical Information Service

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPOJU OATA
                           (I'lcase read Iminiciiom on the rctrtc tffon coinplct""!
i  REPORT NO
  F.PA-600/2-81-
                097
ORD Report
4 TITLE ANOSUBTITLE
  Compatioility of Source  Separation and Mixed-Waste
  Processing for Resource  Recovery
7. AUTHORIS)
  M. C. Ulett, W. H. Fischer,  B.  N.  liurchy, H. Fiedler,
  L. Oliva, ^. Cryscal
p
                         5 RCPORT DATE
                           June 1981
                         6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                           B PERFORMING ORGANIZATION HEPOHT NO
9 fEfjHM\nn ORGANISATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Gilbert Associates,  Inc.
  P.O. Box 1498
  Reading, Pennsylvania  19603
                         10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO

                            BRD1A
                         II CONTRACT/GRANT NO
                                                              68-02-2645
12 SPONSORING AGENCV NAME AND ADDRESS
  Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-  Cin.,  OH
  Offii.e 01 Research and  Development
  U. '. Environmental  Protection  Agency
  Cincinnati, Ciiio 45268
                         13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVCREO
                            Final
                         14 SPONSORING AGENCV CODE

                            EPA/600/14
IS SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  Project ••'fficer - Stephen  C.  Jair.es (513/684-7871)
1C. ABSTHACI
       Existing source separation programs and mixed-waste processing facilities were
  analyzed to develop typical options for assessment.  Source  separation options include
  high-efficiency multi-material lecovery, low-efficiency multi-material recovery,
  high-efficiency newsprint  recovery, low-efficiency newsprint recovery, and beverage
  container recoveries.  Mixed-waste processing alternatives included unprocessed
  combined waste combustion  and ferrous recovery, processed combined waste combustion
  and ferrous recovery,  refuse-derived fuel production and ferrous recovery, and
  modular incineration.

       The analysis considered the viewpoints of the mixed-waste-  pla.it operator, the
  municipality, and the  nation.   Within four broad areas of corcern (energy and
  materials conservation,  environmental impacts, institutional and technological
  impacts, and economic  impacts), issues identified as most important for each view-
  point arc assessed for each combination of options and alternatives.  Among the
  issues addressed are changes in production of useful energy  from a mixed-waste
  processing facility, air,  land, and water pollution emissions,  contractors' employment
  operator profitability,  total solid waste collection costs,  and quantities of recycled
  materials.
17
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
  Resource Recovery
  Source Separation
  Mixed-Waste Processing
  Compatibility
                                              b IDCNTII ILRS/OPEN ENDED TEHMS
                                       c COS AT I I icId/Croup
18 OlSTRiOUTION STATLMCNT


  Release to Public
             19 SECURITY CLASS (Il.isKcport/
                Unclassified
           21  NO OF PACES
              194
            20 SECURITY
                                       22 PRICE
                                                        i fi
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rov. 4-77)

-------
                                          EPA-600/^-81-097
                                          June 1981
    COMPATIBILITY OF SOURCE SEPARATION AND
 MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY
                      by

           M.G.  Klett, U.H.  Fischer
           R.N.  Murthy, H.H.  Fiedlpr
           Gilbert Associates,  Inc.
            Reading,  Pennsylvania

                  L.M. Oliva
         Resource Planning Associates
               Washington, D.C.

                  R.  Crystal
    Crystal Planning  & Communications, Inc.
           Arlington, Massachusetts
            Contract No.  68-02-2645
               Project Officers

               Stephen C.  James
  Solid & Hazardous Waste  Research Division
 Municipal Environmental  Research Laboratory
              Cincinnati,  Ohio

                Charles Mil lor
State Programs and Resource  Recovery Division
           Office of Solid Wastes
              Washington,  D.C.
 MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AnD DEVELOPMENT
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

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

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

   Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution;
it  involves  defining the  problem,  measu^-ing  its  impact,  and  searching  for
solutions.  The Municipal  Environmental Research  Laboratory develops new and
improved technology  and  systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and
solid  and  hazardous  waste pollutant discharges from municipal  and community
sources,  to  preserve and  treat  public   drinking water   supplies,  end  to
minimize  the  adverse economic,  social,   health,  a 4  aesthetic  effects  of
pollution.   This  publication  is  one  of  the products  of that  research  and
jirovides a most vital  link between the researcher and the user community.

This   report  examines   the  effects  of   coupling  source  separation  and
mixed-waste    processing,     considering    conservation,    environmental,
institutional/technological, and economic  factors.
                                     Franr.ib T.  Mayo, Director
                                     Municipal Environmental  Research
                                     Lubonti ry

                                     111

-------
                                 ABSTRACT
   This report evaluates whether source separation and nrixed-waste processing
in municiple  solid  waste are compatible approaches for recovery of materials
and energy in the same community or region.

   Existing  source  separat'on  programs  and mixed-waste processing facilities
were analyzed to develop typical  options  for assessment.   Source separation
options  included  high-efficiency  multi-material  recovery,  low-efficiency
multi-material recovery,  higl -efficiency newsprint  recovery,  low-efficiency
ntwprint  recovery,  and beverage  conte-iner recovery.   Mixed-waste processing
alternatives  included  unprocessed  combined  waste   combustion  and  ferrous
recovery,   processed  combined   waste   conbustion   and   ferrous   recovery,
refuse-derived   fuel   production   and   ferrous   recovery,   and   modular
incineration.

   The analysis  considered  the vie ,p-ints of the mixed-waste plant operator,
the municipality, and the nation,  v-itnin f&i.1*- broad  areas of concern (energy
and  materials   conservation,   environmental  impacts,   institutional   and
technological  impacts,  and economic   inpacts),  issues  identified  as  most
important, for each viewpoint are assessed for each combination of options and
alternatives.  Among the issues addressed are changes in production of useful
energy  from  a   mixed-waste processing  facility, air,  and water  pollution
emissions,  residual solid  waste,  employment, operator  profitability,  total
solid waste collection costs, and quantities of recyclp''. materials.

   This  report   is  submitted  in  fulfillment  of  Contract No.  68-0'J-2645 by
Gilbert Associates,  Inc.,  resource Planning Associates, and Crystal Planning
and  Communications,  Inc.  under  the  sponsorship  of the  U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency.

                                     iv

-------
                                 CONTENTS
Disclaimer	    ii
Foreword	   iii
Abstract	    iv
Figures	   vii
Tables	viii
Acknowledgements 	    xi

   1.  Introduction  	     1
   2.  Summary .and Conclusions	     8
   3.  Resource Recovery Options 	    15
         Baselyn, A Hypothetical Community 	    15
         Service Area And Plant Size Scenarios	    18
         Source Separation Options 	    19
         Mixed-Waste Processing Options  	    50
         Mixed-Waste Processing Alternatives 	    51
   4.  The Operator's Viewpoint  	    60
         Energy And Material Conservation  	    60
         Environmental "impact	    66
         Institutional And Technological Impact  	    79
         Economic Impa:t 	    92
         Summary	    97
   5.  The Municipal Viewpoint	    99
         Energy And Materials Conservation 	    99
         Environmental Impact  	   100
         institutional/Political Impact  	   103
         Economic Impact 	   120
         Summary	   124

-------
                             CONTENTS (Cont'd)


   6.  The National Viewpoint	   125
         Energy And Materials Conservation 	   125
         Environmental Impact  	   130
         Institutional/Technological Impacts 	   132
         Economic Impact 	   141
         Summary	   142

References	   145

Appendices

   A.  Source Separation 	   152
   B.  Sample Calculations 	   167
   C.  Contract Excerpts 	   169

-------
                                  FIGURES
Number                                                                Page

  1   Fixed service area	    20
  2   Expanded .service area	    20
  3   Unprocessed waterwall combustion and ferrous recovery  ....    53
  4   Processed waterwall combustion and ferrous recovery  	    55
  5   Refuse-derived fuel production and ferrous recovery  	    57
  6   Modular incinerator  	    58
                                     vi i

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                                Page

  1   Composition of Solid Waste in Baselyn  	    17
  2   Recovery Lfficiencies and Waste Distribution for High
        Multimaterial Recovery 	    30
  3   High Multimaterial Separation Comparison of Environmental
        Impacts	    34
  4   Recovery Efficiencies and Waste Distribution for Low
        Multimaterial Recovery 	    37
  5   Comparison cf Environmental Impacts for Low Multimaterial
        Recovery	    40
  6   Recovery efficiencies and Waste Distribution for Newsprint
        Recovery	    43
  7   Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Newsprint Recovery .   .    45
  8   Waste Distribution for Beverage Container Recovery 	    46
  9   Comparison of Environmental Imparts for Beverage Container-
        Production 	    48
 10   Waste Flow Stream Composition  	    62
 11   Percent Weight and Percent Btu Content of Waste Streams  ...    63
 12   BUI'S Recovered as Steam (%)	    64
 13   Btu's Recovered as Steam	    65
 14   New Source; Performance Standards 	    68
 15   Environmental Effects:  Residual-; to Landfill  	    69
 16   Excess Air and Flue Gas	    69
 17   Emission Concentrations for Air Pollutants 	    70
 18   Heat Content of Waste	    71
 19   Environmental Effects:  Emission-; to Air	    72

-------
                              TABLES (Cont'd;
Number                                                                Page

 20   Environmental  Effects:   Wastewater  Discharged  	     /3
 21   Wastewater Pollutant Concentrations  	     74
 22   EPA Estimates  of Net Processing Costs for MWP	     94
 23   Net Processing Cost for Unprocessed Waterwall Combustion ...     95
 24   Net Processing Cost for Processed Waterwall  Combustkn ....     95
 25   Net Processing Cost for Refuse-thrived Fuel	     96
 26   Net Processing Cost for Modular Incinerator	     96
 27   Public Financing Arrangements  	    107
 ?8   Direct Employment Requirements in Fixed Service Area 	    115
 29   Direct Employment Requirements in Expanded Service Area  .  .  .    116
 30   Net Cost Tor Unprocessed Waterwall  Combustion	    122
 31   Net Cost for Processed tfdterwall Combustion  	    122
 32   Ne,. Cost for Refus? Derived Fuel	    123
 33   Net Cost for Modular Incinerator 	    123
 34   Recycled Material for a 1,000 F/D Service Area	    127
 35   National Deserve and Energy Conservation Due to Scurce
        Separation	    128
 36   National Net Energy Efficiency 	    129
 37   National Net Energy Recovery with SS and MWP	    129
 38   National Employment Levels in Container Production and Use .  .    136
 39   Projected National Savings for Sotrrc? Separation and
        Mixed-Waste  Processing 	    142
 40   Projected National Fuel Import Cost Savings  	    143
 41   Source Separation Materials Recovery 	    153
 42   Source Separation Program Quantity and Revenues  	    154
 43   Equipment and  Labor Requirements for Source Separation ....    155
 44   Source Separation Program Costs  	    156
 45   Material Recovery and Waste Disposal Cost Summary	    IF0/
 46   Energy Expenditures for Source Separation Case Number ]  ...    16?
 47   Energy Expenditures for Sourcp Separation Case Number 2  ...    163

                                     ix

-------
                              TABLES (Cont'a;
Number
 48   Energy Expenditures fcr Source Separation Case Number 3a .  .  .    164
 49   Energy Expenditures for Source Separation Case Number 3b .  .  .    164
 50   Energy Expenditures for Source Separation C—e Number A  ...    165
 51   Total Energy Expe.idit.i.-es for Source Separation of
        Remaining Waste  ......................    166

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
   The guidance and advice provided by the EPA Project Officers,  Chas.  Miller
and  Steven  C.  James,  are  gratefully  acknowledged.   Many experts  in  the
rtsource recovery  field  aided our research by providing  helpful  information
in interviews; '.he contributions of these individuals (cited in the Reference
Section) are  much  appreciated.   We wish to particularly  thank Steven  Howard
of the American Paper  Institute, Frank Bernheisl of  the  National  Center for
Resource Recovery,  and Robert  Davis  of the  Garden  State  Paper  Company for
their assistance.

   T. Robert  HdTloway, of  the  Resource Recovery  Division  of EPA,  provided
estimates  of  the  costs of operation of  mixed-waste  processing  alternatives.
In preparing  this  report,  Gilbert Associates served  as the prime contractor
and  prepared  sections  dealing  with  mixed-waste  processing  alternatives.
Resource Planning  Associates prepared information and  analyses  dealing with
source separation  options.   Crystal Planning  and Communications  prepared the
introduction   sections  on   institutional   and   technological   impacts   in
Sections 4-6, and  evaluation of environmental  impacts and  changes in resource
use in Section 3.
                                     xi

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                IfTROD'JCTION
   Over  the  past  decade,  many  methods  have  been  developed  for  achieving
resource  recovery, or  the  productive  use of  waste  materials  that  would
otherwise require  disposal.   These diverse  methods  can be divided  into  two
basic  approaches:   Source  sep? ation  and  mixed-waste processing.   Source
separation is the  segregation  rr salaole materials  from wastes at  the point
of  discard  for   concentrated  collection  and  reprocessing.    Mixed-waste
processing is the centralized processing of collected, mixed municipal  wastes
to separate  recyclable materials and/or convert the  mixed  wastes  into  energy
or new forms  of salable material].

   Both approaches can vary  widely in complexity.  Source  separation methods
include  recycling  centers,  beverage  container deposit legislation  ("bottle
bills"), and systems  in which residents  or businesses divide their  wastes
into  portions  that are  collected  separately  at the  cjrbside.   Mixed-waste
processing  facilities range   from  small  incinerators that  burn  waste  to
produce  steam  tor  heating,   to comple< mechanical systems that  process  the
wastes of an entire metropolitan region to produce both energy (either  steam,
electricity, or  solid fuel) and a wide  variety of  material  products.   The
basic  difference  between  the  two  tipproachcs   is   that  source  separation
requires  the  separation  of  wastes  by  the   householder  or  other   waste
generator, who  thus  performs  much  of  the  work to  prepare  it  for  resale,
whereas mixed-waste processing  relies on machinery to  perform this task.

   Recently,  there   has   been   increasing   public   debate   and  political
controversy  about  whether  source  separation  programs are  compatible  with

-------
mixed-waste  processing  facilities  in  the  same  community or  region.   By
"compatibility" we niean whether or not the two alternatives can co-exist with
each  other.  Specifically,  to  be judged compatible in terms of  a particular
issue,  i mixed-waste  processing facility  and  a  source  separation  rogram
would either have  a  beneficial  effect on on.1  another, no  effect,  or a  small
negative effect that  does  not  seriously affect the operation of either.  Two
alternatives are  incompatible when  a  conflict exists  that is large enough to
seriously affect  the operation  of  one  or the other,  for  example,  by making
one of the alternatives economically unprofitable.

   The  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA)  has extensive  statutory
responsibilities  for studying  and  reporting  on issues concerning resource
recovery  and  solid   waste  disposal.    Through  the  research,  demonstration
projects, and  studies of  its Office  of Solid Wasle,  EPA  has  contributed to
the development of both source separation and mixed-waste processing methods.
On the issue of the compatibility of the two approaches,  the agency has  taken
the official  position that:

o  Both methods will  be needed to manage!  solid waste effectively by 1985.

o  Source   separation   and   energy   recovery   should   be    investigated
   simultaneously  to  achieve the best  overall  recovery  system  for  a  given
   area.

o  Source  reduction   of  solid  waste  should  be  undertaken   first whenever
   feasible, followed by  recovery of  materials and energy from the remaining
   waste.

   The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)  of 1976 directed EPA to
study  the  compatibility  of  the  two approaches and to report  on the issues.
The  agency  determined  that  a  necessary  part  of   this  effort  was  the
preparation  of  a   technical  guidance  document that would  provide  background
data and a 'ramework  for analysis.

-------
   This report is intended to assist federal, state,  and local  decisionmakers
in developing  policies  at the  stav.e  and federal  levels and in  carrying out
compatibility analyses at the local levsl.

PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED

   In most  areas,  the quantity of material removed by source separation has,
so far, been too small  to have a significant effect on the total  quantity and
quality  of  solid  waste.    However,  conflicts  have  been  perceived  as
increasingly  likely between   source  separation  and mixed-waste  processing
methods for several reasons.   Both methods msy overlap in recovering a single
material forming part of the waste stream.  For example, metal  cans and glass
bottles can be separated at the curbside, returned for deposits,  or separated
by machinery  ir.  a  mixed-waste processing pi air..  Also, a single  material may
be usable for more than one purpose.  Wastepaper,  for instance, c«n be either
separately  collected for  its  fiber content or  ournea  for  its  energy content
in a mixed-waste  processing facility.

   Supporters  cf source  separation argue  that their approach  recovers the
highest potential economic value of the paper, avoids the negative effects on
the  environment  of  manufacturing paper from virgin materials,  and avoids the
high  capital   cost of  mixed-waste  processing.  Planners  and  operators  of
mixed-waste  processing  facilities  point  to  the  need for  increased energy
supplies and  argue  that  separating paper reduces the energy content of solid
waste  and   could  jeopardize   the  financial  feasibility of  the   facility  by
reducing revenues from energy sales.

   The  local  history of  involvement b/ municipalities  and  private groups is
also  a  factor in  perceived  conflicts.  Once crucial  decisions  were made --
such  as  the capacity  of a mixed-waste processing  facility,  the  material and
energy  products  it  will  produce, and ths specific technology to be used -- a
community  may  be locked  in  to  the  need to obtain  a  set  tonnage of wastes.
Similar situations  can  occur  when financial commitments have  been made to a
source separation approach, such as tho purchase of specialized equipment for
separate collection or processing.  Municipalities that have put considerable

-------
planning  and  effort  into  development of  a mixed-waste processing  facility
have,  in  several  cases,   passed  legislation  requiring  that  all  wastes
collected  within  their   limits   be  'delivered  to  the  facility.    Though
apparently intended primarily to limit competition from private waste haulers
delivering  to  private  landfills,  such legislation  could  be  interpreted  as
prohibiting source separation  pronrams,.  An ordinance of this type in Akron,
Ohio, is  currently being  legally  challenged in what  may  become a major test
case.   The ordinance  has  been upheld  in  federal  district  court, but  is
currently  being appealeJ.  Vendors  of mixed-waste processing facilities have
frequently requested contractual guarantees that they will  be compensated for
their  loss of  revenues   if  municipalities  undertake any   form  of  source
separation.   Conversely,   citizens and  private  entrepreneurs  involved  in
successful source separation programs  in Seattle have expressed concern about
a  proposed mixed-waste processing far-:lily because  they  fear their  programs
would be endangered.

   In other regions,  however, such  as the North  Shore  of  Massachusetts,
mutual  benefits  have been perceived.   Operators  of  a mixed-waste processing
facility  in Saugus,  Massachusetts,  ha»e  seen source separation as beneficial
in allowing  them to process a larger amount of waste and  in removing glass
(which  has an  abrasive effect  on the  materials-handling equipment  in thr
facility)  fro.n  the  waste  stream.   On occasion  private companies that i.ave
helped to establish community source separation programs have worked on joint
marketing  efforts with vendors of mixed-waste processing equipment.  A number
of  the  cases  in which  conflicts  have  been  perceived between  mixed-waste
processing  facilities  have  occurred where  each  approach  was  implemented
separately.

   It  is   important  to determine  the extent  to  which perceived  conflicts
between source  separation  and mixed-waste  processing facilities  result from
poor  coordination   as  opposed  to  inherent  conflicts   between  the  two
approaches.   If   poor  coordination is  primarily  responsible, well  written
contractual  agreements considering  both  the  distribution  of revenues  and
design  of  source separation  programs  and  mixed-waste processing systems
should  prevent most  problems from occurring.  If,  however, there are inher-jia

-------
conflict"  (eit'.ier  between  particular  source  separation  and  mixed-waste
processing  systems  or  the economic  interests  of  different parties),  then
difficult political  decisions will have to be made.

APPROACH

   To  answer  these   questions,   an  approach  is   needed  that  explicitly
recognizes  that   judgments on  the  compatibility  of  source separation  and
mixed-waste processing  may vary,  depending on whose viewpoint  and interests
are  being  considered.   For example,  although a given combination of source
separation  and mixed-waste  processing could  be the  least expensive  solid
waste disposal system for a municipality, it could be less profitable; for the
operator of  a mixed-waste  processing plant than operation of  his  facility
ulone.  Simiirt'1ly,  although d municipal ily  will be primarily  concerned,  in
terms of environmental  impact,  with air and water pollution emissions within
its boundaries, from the viewpoint of the nation as  a whole, this is on'.y one
element  of  an overall  comparison  of  the  total  environmental  impacts  of
mixed-waste processing and  source separation.

   This analysis  is  structured  in terms of the viewooints of the mixed-waste
plant operator,  the municipality,  and the nation.  For  each  of  four broad
areas of  concern (energy  and materials  conservation,  environmental  impacts,
institutional/technical  impacts,  and economic impacts),  the specific issues
th't  would  be >nost  important in terms of each  viewpoint are  identified.   A
common  set of  hypothetical  data  and  reasonable  assumptions  were  uced  to
develop  a  generalized  assessment  of  how  judgmants  or  compatibility  could
change for  the viewpoint and, for  that matter, for any other entity, such as
a municipality or  the nation a« a whole.

   Several  steps  were  necessary   to  conduct  this generalized assessment.
First, a  hypothetical  community, Baselyn, was defined.   The cnaracteristies
of  this  community that  are relevant  for  solid  waste nicnsgement  (e.g.,  its
waste generation  rate  per  capita,  the composition of its waste, and costs of
waste collection and disposal) were givijn values equal to national averages.

-------
   Next, a  set  of options  and scenarios that  represented  realisti:  choices
for each of  the  two  basic approaches was developed.  Five  source  separation
options were  chosen  (high-efficiency multimaterial  recovery,  low-efficiency
multimaterial recovery,  high-efficiency  newsprint recovery,  low-efficiency
newsprint recovery,  and beverage  container  recovery),  and  four mixed-waste
processing options were selected  (unorocessed  combined vtaterwall  combustion
iind  ferrous  recovery,  combined processed waterfall  combustion and  ferrous
lecovery, refuse-derived fuel  and  ferrous recovery, and modular incineration
without  terrous  recovery).   Data  from  the  existing programs  and  facilities
mo«,t  similar to  each option  were  used  to  define  its  features  in  greater
detoi'i.  The analyses  were  conducted  for  three  distinct scenarios  which
specified the  f-ize ~f  the  service  area  for solid waste management  and the
capacity of  the mi>ea-WoJce processing facility.

   Finally,  the most important specific issues of concern were identified and
impact  ar.alyses  were conducted  that assumed implementation  for Baselyn and
the surrojnding  region  of  each possible combination of source separation and
mixed-wa^te  processing   options.    Tne  result   was   a   judgment   on  the
compatibility of e.ich  combination in terms of  a specific issue and viewpoint.

   An  assessment of  the compatibility  (as  defined  earlier) of  the sourre
separation  option and  mixed-waste  processing  alternative  was  conducted by
determining whether the mutual  impact */es positive, neutral, or  negative.  If
negative, it was  determined  whether the effects were  large enough to affect
the viability of  the combination.

   This  generalized  assessment,  based  on   national  averages,  avoids  the
obscuring effect  of  unique  local circumstances and develops conclusions that
should  be  useful  for policy  development at the  Federal  and  State  levels.
However, it  is  difficult to extrapolate  from these  conclusions  to determine
the best choice  for  a particular  conimunity.   Such important factors as waste
generation rates, waste  composition, and the demand for  energy  and recycled
materials vary  widely from  place  to place,  making  a  site-specific analysis
necessary before accurate decisions can be made at the local level.

-------
   Ihis  icport  has tjeen  organized  to analyze clearly  the  viewpoint concept
described  above.   Section 2  presents  a  summary  or  the  analysis and  our
conclusions.   Suction 3 drscrioes the  resource  recovery alternatives and the
data and assumptions  used.   It  documents the characteristics of-Baselyn, the
definition oi the scenarios for solid waste management,  the source separation
options, and  the mixed-waste processing alternatives.

   The  remaining  sections of  the report  are  devoted to  each of  the  three
major  viewpoints.   Section 4 describes  the operator's  viewpoint,  Section 5
discusses that of the municipality,  and Section 6 addresses the point of view
of  the nation  as a  whole.   Within  each  chapter,  the  conclusions of  our
generalized assessment are presented for each of the specific  issues within a
broad  area  of  concern.   Finally,  a  summary  in  terms  of  each  specific
viewpoint  and  recommendations  for  national  polity development  and further
research are presented.   Useful  supplementary  information is included in the
appendices.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                           SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


SOURCE SEPARATION AND MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING

   To  identify  the  most  compatible  combination  of  source separation  and
mixed-waste processing  for  a community, five source  separation  options have
been considered with four common mixed-waste processing alternatives.

   In  source  separation,  the  waste  generator (e.g.,  resident,  business,  or
institution)  has  the  primary  responsibility  for  separating  recoverable
materials  from  the  waste  stream.   Currently,  the   major  waste  materials
recoverable through  sou-rce  separation  arc aluminum,   ferrous  metals,  paper,
and glass.

   Several  common alternatives  are used for source separation:

   o  Recycling centers
   o  Separation of office paper
   o  Separation of corrugated  paper
   o  Separate collection of newsprint and other paper
   o  Separate collection of various materials
   o  beverage container deposits.

   In this study, a typical  option for each type of source separation, exctr...
for  recycling centers,  has been  considered  for  developing  and  evaluating
resource recovery compatibility.  Recycling centers were excluded because the
total impact of such systems on the waste flow of the community is relatively
small, and they require far greater co-;t and. resources per ton recovered than
other methods.

-------
   Modern    mixed-waste    processing    facilities    are    complex    and
capital-intensive.   To reduce amortization  costs  per unit of municipal solid
waste, a long-term commitment from all involved parties is necessary, as well
as  sophisticated  panning,  management,  and  marketing.    Many  plants  that
recover  energy  from waste  are  in operation.   Most systems are  equipped to
recover  ferrous  materials,  because  the  technology  is  simple  and relatively
inexpensive.   However,  a  strong demand  for  the  ferrous  products  has  not
developed  because   of  a  frequent  lack of  local  markets  and  the  cost  of
transportation.   Glass recovery  by  froth-flotation and optical  sorting  has
been demonstrated,  but these systems have not reached wide commercialization.
The  same is  true  for aluminum  recovery by  eddy-current devices  and r'.her
techniques.   The processing systems  considered in  this study  recover enercy
in the form of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) or steam and ferrous metal.

   Four  mixed-waste  processes  have  been   selected as  typical  commercial
alternatives:

   o  Unprocessed combined waterwall  combustion and ferrous recovery (UWCF)
   o  Processed  combined waterwall combustion and ferrous recovery (PWCF)
   o  Refuse-derived fuel  production  and ferrous recovery (RDFF)
   o  Modular incineration without ferrous recovery (MI).

   Options considered also  included  no source separation and landfill of the
remaining  mixed-wasta.   When  combined witn  each  other,  the  two  types  of
options  create  up  to  30  possible  ccmbinations,  or approaches  to resource
recovery, for  assessment purposes.

BASELYN, A HYPOTHETICAL COMMUNITY

   To  assess  the  relative  compatibilities  of  various  source  separation
options  with  commercially available irixed-waste  processing  alternatives,  we
                                       *
have  hypothesized  a  nationally  typical   community,   Baselyn.   Baselyn  is
assumed  to have  108,000  inhabitants  and to  produce 200 tons per day of mixed
municipal solid wastes(l).  This waste is  collected by the city's sanitation
department from  all  households.   Source separation options are  based on  the

-------
characteristics  ot  Baselyn.   However,   to  assess  mixed-waste  processing
alternatives and combinations of  the two, further assumptions are necessary,
since most mixed-waste proces.ing facilities serve areas generating more tnan
200   tons   per  day.    Three  distinct  scenarios  were  defined   for  such
assessments.   In the  first scenario, the mixed-waste processing facility  is
assumed to  have  a  fixed capacity of 1000 tons per day,  enough to process the
combined waste from a  "fixi   service area" of Bacelyn  and  four other nearby
coirnunities of similar size and characteristics.  A  second  scenario (termed
"xsriable plant  size")  assumes  that a fixed service area generates 1000 tons
per  day  of  waste,  but varies the  plant  size  to correspond to  the  amount  of
waste  remaining  after the  various sojrce  separation options  are exercised.
The  third  scenario,  the  "expanded service area",  holds the  plant capacity
constant  at  1000  tons  per  day,  but  assumes  that additional wastes  are
available from an  additional  nearliy area with characteristics  like those  of
Baselyn.

COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS

   The primary objective  of source separation and  mixed-waste processing  is
to achieve  solid waste disposal,  materials recovery, and energy recovery  by
environmentally acceptable and economical means.

   In  this  btudy,  the effects  of various degrees  of  source  separation  on
conservation,  environmental,  and  economic   ar as  of  concern  have  been
quantitatively assessed for  Baselyn.   Because the issues associated with the
institutional  area of  concern  can not be quantified, they  have been treated
qualitatively.  Although local legislation  for source separation of beverage
containers  has  not  been  widespread  or  effective,   state   laws  enforcing
deposits  on  beverage   containers  are  becoming more  frequent.  Hence,  our
analysis of this source  separation ootion assumes  that state,  rather than
local, legislation  is  in effect.
                                      JO

-------
CONCLUblUNb

   Below, we present  the  major results of our analysis in the context of the
five major  areas of  concern,  explicity,  identifying  the viewpoints  of the
operator, the •nunicipality, and the nation.

Conservation

   Except   for   the   most   efficient   source   separation  option,   high
iiiolti-material   recovery,  variations  in the  amount of  energy  recovered  as
steam are small and well  within the range expected from mixed municipal solid
waste.    For  the option of  high multi-material recovery,  energy recovery  is
reduced  by  approximately 17 percent.   For  a fixed  service  area with  an
existing MWP  plant,  this  reduced  energy  recovery  could possibly  make this
option incompatible.   However, it is unlikely that in actual practice a large
region would  have uniform  high-efficiency multi-material separation.   Among
the mixed-waste  processes,  unprocessed combined waste combustion is the most
efficient.

   In  addition,  from  the  municipal  viewpoint,  the  energy  consumed  by
collection and  transportation  is  an important factor in the selection cf the
most efficient  com!, i nation of  source separation and  mixed-waste processing
options.   The  most  favorable  source  separation  option  from  the  municipal
viewpoint would be beverage container recovery.

   From  :he  national  viewpoint,  the   source  separation  options  that recover
metals are most compatible with any mixed-waste processing option.  Beverage
container  source separation  combined  with mixed-waste  processing has  the
potential  to  reduce  the  national  energy  demand  hy  the  equivalent  of
200,000 bbl.  of oil per day.

Environmental Impacts

   From  the  operator's and municipal   viewpoints,  one of the important issues
is  changes  in  landfill  requirements,  most  of  the  reduction  in landfill

                                       11

-------
requirement is the result of nixed-waste processing.   Pollution from leaching
of the residues in landfills is  sligntly decreased by source separation.

   Particulate   emissions    frotr   mixed-waste  processing  operation'-   are
significantly reduced by high efficiency source separation of newsprint.

   From  the  national   viewpoint,   a  combination  of  multi-material  source
separation  ana  unprocessed   combiner!  waterwall   combustion  with  ferrous
recovery is the  most appropria:e  choice for minimizing adverse environmental
effects.

Institutional/Technological

   Cooperative  and  contract  arrsrst-.Tients  between  the  operator  and  t;.t
municipality  can  be  arranged  to  ensure  adequate  flow  of  solid  waste
quantities to the mixed-waste facility.  Minimum quantity requirements should
be  included  in  contracts,  compensation,  or  renegotiation agreements  if the
composition  of  waste  is  changed  by  source  separation.  The MWP  facility
should not be  designed with too large a  capacity for the waste available.

   From the operator's viewpoint,  bev.-rage container recovery through source
separation is the  most  compatible  "pi/ion because,  by eliminating glass which
erodes  processing  equipment,   it  reduces  maintenance  requirements  at  the
mixed-waste facility.

   From the  municipal  viewpoint,  source separation programs  or legislation
may be harder to administer, but are rarely a factor in impeding financing or
implementation of mixed-waste processing plants.

   From the  national viewpoint, short-term  price  fluctuations for recovered
materials  and lack  of storage capacity make  difficult  the  establishment of
long  term  contracts  between  municipalities  and purchasers of  separated
materials  (particularly wastepaper), wh'ich may make communities reluctant to
initiate such programs.   Federal price supports could alleviate this problem.
In addition,  mixed-waste processing options may benefit from  Federal efforts

                                       12

-------
to support  the development ot  synthetic tuels and  other  alternative energy
sources.

Economic

   With a  fixed service area,  the  only source separation scheme  that  has a
favorable  economic  impact  on  net mi>eti waste  processing  costs  is  beverage
container  recovery.   Relatively large processing  cost increases  ($5-$6  per
ton) occur  with the  hi oh  efficiency multi-inacerial option  assuming  a  fixed
service  area  and  plant  size.   However,   these   increases  cgn  be  readily
eliminated  by  a reduced plant  size cr expanded service area.   Other cource
separation  options  have  a  lesser impact on net processing  costs  (less than
$2 per  ton).   With proper  planning, all  source  separation and mixed-waste
processing options should be economically compatible.

   The primary economic issues from tha municipal  viewpoint involve the total
collection, distribution and  disposal  (including  landfill) costs.  From this
viewpoint,  sour.-e separation  of any t/pe is less  costly than  using landfill
entirely.    An  expanded service area  with  source  separation,  in combination
with  unprocessed   or processed   combined  watcrwall  combustion,  is  most
economical.

   From the national  viewpoint, the major economic issue is the potential of
source  separation and mixed-waste processing to reduce fuel import needs.  A
combination of high multi-material source separation and unprocessed combined
waterwall combustion with ferrous recovery could reduce the fuel import costs
by up to $2.6 billion/yr.

Summary

   Analyses showed  that any of the source separation options can be com!>i.n2d
with  any   of  the   mixed-waste   processing  alternatives.    However,   some
combinations are  more compatible  than  others depending on  which issues  are
judged most important and the specific circumstances of a particular project.
If environmental  impacts  are considered most  important, thi- high-efficienc.v
                                      13

-------
multi-material -ecovery option would b-j the most compatible source separation
option.  If, however, th'. MWP facility has a fixed capacity, the service an>a
cannot be expanded  and the primary concern of a municipality is the disposal
of solid wastes  at  the lowest overall cost, high multi-material slight not be
compatible  with  the  MWP  facility.   While  the  choice  of  a  particul-r
combination aepenus  upon  local  circumstances, in all  cases combinations are
available which  results in  a greater not  benefit  than  implementing either
separately.

-------
                                SECTION 3

                        RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS
   A hypothetical community, Baselyn,  has  been established as a vehicle  for
determining whether a community  can  increase its net benefits by  conducting
both source separation and mixed-waste processing simultaneously.   Baselyn is
typical of many communities in which such programs are now being conducted.

   In  the following  sections,  Baselyn  is  described,  the  features  of  the
mixed-waste processing and scurce separation options,  and scenarios for their
implementation,  are  presented.

BASELYN, A HYPOTHETICAL COMMUNITY

   Baselyn is a  community of  108,000 that  produces  181.4 Mg (200 tons)  of
solid  waste  per  day and  is  located  in a major metropolitan  area.  The city
has affluent areas  of  single family  homes as well  as  more densely populated
areas  of multifamily  dwellings.   The average  population  density is  1,930
inhabitants per  square kilometer  or  5,000 inhabitants per square mile.  Real
cities  whose  population  and   density  are  similar   to  Baselyn1s  include
Pasedena, California; Lakewood, Colorado;  Waterbury,  Connecticut;  Hollywood,
Florida;  New  Bedford, Massachusetts;  Ann  Arbor,  Michigan; Woodbridge,  New
Jersey; Albany,   New York;  and  Canton,  Ohio.  There is no heavy  industry,  but
a number  of  light manufacturing  plant; and service businesses are  located in
the core of the city and in two outlying industrial parks.

   There   are   approximately  24,000   single   family   homes  in  Baselyn;
approximately 60 percent  of  the  families  own their homes.  The  median income
is $17,000  per  year and   the median  education level is 12.4 years, wlmii is
the national median educational level

                                      IB

-------
   The city's Sanitation  Department  collects  solid waste from all  households
in Baselyn.  Collection and disposal  costs are approximately $5 per household
per month.  Before the  source  separation program, the department e-nployed 60
people and 10 packer trucks with a capacity of 15 m  (20 yd ) each tc collect
waste.  Each  truck was operated by  .1 crew  of  three.   The  department  also
employed  60  people for administration,  maintenance,  and other  duties,  or a
total of  1.11 employees per 1,000 inhabitants.  The national average is 1.13
sanitation  department  employees  per  1,000  Inhabitants.   The  department's
employees are members  of a strong union.

   Waste  is collected  at  curbside  once  a week,   tach resident  generates
1.7 Kg (3.7  Ib)  of waste  per day (the  national  average).   Therefore,  before
the  source separation  prorram began,  the department  collected a  total  of
approximately 101 Mg par day (ZOO tons per day) (Table 1).

   The collection trucks unload at a transfer station located within the city
limits.   This station, operated by two people, has a compactor that loads the
waste into 60 m  (80 yd  )  trailers.   From  the  transfer  station,  ^aste is
hauled to a sanitary landfill that the county maintains in a rural area 40 km
(25 mi) away.  The  landfill  has a six meter  (20  ft)  depth and a capacity of
22,500 Mg per hectare  (10,000 tons  pc** acre).   Baselyn  uses approximately
three hectares (seven  acres)  per year, and over  60 hectares (150 acres) are
available for Undfill.

   Commercial  establishments   must   contract with  private  companies  for
collection  of  their  waste,  which  is  delivered directly  to  the  county
landfill.   The county charges the city and private companies a tipping fee of
$14.35 per Hg ($13 per ton).

   There  is  a materials  processor  willing to buy paper,  glass,  and cans.
Current prices (FOB) are:

         Newspaper                  $33/Mg (530/ton;
         Corrugated paper            $33/Hg ($30/ton)
         High grade paper            $65/Mg ($50/i.on)
         Mixed glass and cans        $ll/Mg ($10/ton)

                                      16

-------
            TABLE 1.   COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE IN BASELYN*

Component
Paper
Newsprint
Office
Corrugated
Other
Glass
Beer and soft drink
Other
Metal
Fe-Tous
Beer and soft drink
Other
Nonferrous
Beer and soft drink
Other
Remaining Waste1***
Total
Percentage**
38.9
7.5
3.5
11.0
16. S
9.8
5.0
4.8
4.9
4.1
1.0
3.1
0.8
0.5
0.3
46.4
100. C
Quantity Collected
Daily in Mg (tons)
70.6 (77.8)
13.6 (15.0)
6.4 i 7.CT)
20.0 (22.0)
30.6 (33.8)
17.8 (19.6)
9.1 (10.0)
8.7 ( 9.6)
8.9 ( 9.8)
7.4 ( 8.2)
1.8 ( 2.0)
5.6 ( 6.2)
1.5 ( 1.6)
0.9 ( 1.0)
0.5 ( 0.6)
84.2 (92.8)
181.4 (200.0)

**
Based on national figures for distribution of waste - U.S. EPA
Resource Recovery Division.(3)

Percentage .if total waste stream excluding durable goods.
***   Includes organic materials, woud, plastics, clothing, and other
      nondurable goods.
                                      17

-------
   there  are  markets approximrtely  320  kilometers (200 miles)  from Baselyn
for  glass  Gullet,  sorted  and  crushed ferrous  and aluminum  cans,  and baled
paper.

   Environmental standards  require that wastewater  discharges to  bodies of
water in Baselyn not exceed 3'.' mg per liter in average monthly concentrations
of suspended  solid?  or  in biological oxygen demand.  These  standards  do net
apply  to wastewater  discharged to  municipal   sewers.(2)   The Baselyn  area
meets the national ambient air quality standards.

SERVICE AREA AND PLANT SIZE SCENARIOS

   The size  and characteristics of Baselyn are typical cf  communities where
source  separation   options  have  been implemented.   However, most  existing
mixed-waste  processing  facilities serve areas genet-citing more than 200 tons
per  day  of mixed-waste,  the  level assumed for Basrlyn.  To correspond with
the typical sizes of such facilities, .ind to study the impacts of varying the
sizes of  the  plant and service  area, we defined several scenarios.  The first
scenario,  termed the  "fixed  service  area",   assumes five  communities  like
Baselyn,  which  together generate 905 Mg  (1000 tons)  per day  of  waste and a
corresponding capacity of the MWP plant.  It is assumed in this scenario that
both  the  MWP capacity and  the  area delivering waste cannot be  altered (as,
for  instance, when an  MWP  facility already exists and  political conditions
make it difficult to expand the service ares).

   Source separation reduces the quantities of waste entering the mixed-waste
processing plant, therefore,  it may ba economical to either reduce the plant
size  to  correspond to  the  amount of  remaining mixed-waste,  or  make  up the
shortage with mixed-waste  collected  in  an area outside the five communities.
Our  second scenario,  termed  "variable  plant  size",  assumes  that a fixed
service  area  generates  905 Mg  (1000 tons) per day of waste but alters the
plant  size  to   correspond  to  the  amount  of  waste  remaining after  source
separation.   The third scenario, the "expanded service area", holds the plant
capacity  constant at  905  Mg (1000 ton-;) per day,  but assumes that additional
wastes are available from an area with characteristics like those of Baselyn.

                                      18

-------
Tr,2  effects  on waste  disposal  of  maintaining  a  fixed  service area  and
expanding it are displayed in Figures 1 and 2.

SOURCE SEPARATION OPTIONS

   This  section first describes  the  general  concept  and methods  of  source
separation,   including:   recycling  canters,   separation  of  office  paper,
separation  of corrugated  paper,  separate collection of  newsprint and other
paper,  separate collection  of  various  materials,   and beverage:  container
deposits.   Five  source  separation options are then  identified  and discu.sed
for Baselyn.  They are:

   o  High  efficiency  multimaterici   source  separation (papers,  cans  and
      bottles) and  separation of high grade office and cotruyated pap»r

   o  Low  efficiency  multimaterial  source  separation  (paper,   carr>,  and
      bottles)

   o  High efficiency separate collection of newsprint (mandatory program)

   o  Low efficiency separate collecticn of newsprint  (voluntary  program)

   o  Recovery  of  beverage  containers through  a  Beverage  container deposit
      system.

   The general  characteristics  and economics, energy  use,  and  environmental
impacts of eacn  option are described it- more detail  in Appendix A.

Source Separation General  Description

   In  source separation,  the  primary responsibility for  sorting materials
lies with the residential or commercial waste generator.
                                      L9

-------
       S COMMUNITIES
1.000  TONS/DAY HASTE GENERATED





SOURCE SE
1

2
•••••
3



5
^•^•v
PARA1
BASE:™




[ED
1.000
625 T/0

TONS/DAY CAP
MIXED
IASTE
PROCESSING
FACILITY

     MATERIALS
    175 TONS/DAY
Figure  1.  Fixed  service  area
  35-40 T/D      SOURCE  SEPARATED MATERIALS    ADDIT!DNU COMUHITIE!
5 C
1,000 TONS/




210-215 T
OMHUNITIES
DAY WASTE GENERATED
1

2

3
4

5
'D
BASELYN





B25
T/D
[
175 T
MIXED It
MIXED WASTES
S 7

/D
STES
MIXED
HASTE
PROCESSING
FACILITY

                                                                1
                                                         1.000 TONS/DAY
                                                            CAPACITY
                       Figure  2. Expanded service area
                        20

-------
   Source  separation  programs  are generally  designed to  recover  materials
that can replace vircsn materials in manufacturing.  THI» waste m turials most
appropriate  for  separation  are aluminum, ^ferrous  metal,  paper fiber,  and
glass cullet  (crushed glass).  Other  reusable wastes, such  as  plastics  anH
textiles,  are  not bein.y separated  on  a regular basis  in the United States.
Organic food waste was  often separated for animal  feed in  the United States
until the  1950's.  However, because of tighter health regulations and cheaper
sources  of animal protein,  this  practice has been nearly  abandoned.   Fond
processing and restaurant  wastes  arc  somc.-tines recycled,  for feeding pijs,
but most residential food waste in the United States  is not.

   EPA est.mates  that the  quantity of recyclable materials  separated at \he
source is  likely  to  increase from about eight million Mg (nine million tons)
in  1974,  of  which over 90  percent was waste  paper  and paperboard,  to about
13.5  million  Mg  (15  million  tons) per  year  by   1985 without  any federal
incentive  programs.  However, the  potential  supply of materials for recovery
through  source separation  is far greater:  an  aggressive federal program to
promote source separation  could increase  the level of  recovery 32-45 million
Mg  (35-!)0  million  tons)  of material per year  by  1985.  Such a high level of
recovery would require expanded industrial markets for  recovered material and
better techniques for  segregating materials for collection and processing.

   At  present, source  separation  programs probably recover, at most, five
percent  of  this  country's  residential  and  commercial  waste.  It should,
however, be  possible  to recover  over  10 percent  of  that  waste.   There are
three reasons for  this gap:

o  The waste generator  currently  l-as  few or no incentives  to participate in
   source separation program1:

o  The market for recovered materials fparticularly paper) fluctuates widely,
   in the short term.

o  Recovered materials  have a  relatively low  value and  therefore  materials
   must be collected and handled very efficiently.

                                      n

-------
   Source separation  should,  however,  increase grnatly over the  next  decade
because of its growing economic and environmental benefits.

   There are six  common  methods of source separation excluding collection of
waste tires,  oil,  and household appliances.

o  Recycling centers

o  Separation of office paper

o  Separation of corrugated paper

o  Separate collection of newsprint and other paper

o  Separate col'.ection of various materials

o  Beverage container deposits.

Recycling Centers--
   Recycling centpfs  rely  upon the  waste generator to  separate  and deliver
materials to a central location where each material is stored separately.  At
one such center in Nottingham,  New Hampshire,  glass is hand-sorted by color,
aluminum and ferrous cans are separated magnetically, and paper is baled.  At
most recycling centers,  however, materials are  simply accumulated until there
is enough to  sell  to a processor  or midcleman.

   Recycling centers  are  operated municipally,  privately,  or by nonprofit
service  organizations.   Many have  failed because  of high operating  costs,
even though the centers do not pay collection costs.  Most successful centers
have been convenient  to  a  large population,  and have survived by maintaining
high throughput and managing costs carefully.

   Strong public  interest  and  cooperation  are critical  to the success  of a
recycling center,  because  the residents themselves must  bring  the materials
to the center.   Recycling centers  have not succeeded in recovering much waste

                                      22

-------
in  cities  because   other  ir.rans  ot  v/aste  disposal  are  readily  available.
Recycling centers can  be effective in rural environments,  however,  where no
collection  service   is  provided and  residents  must deliver  their household
waste to the lotcil landfill.
Separation of Oifice Paper--
   Separation  of  high-quality office  paper (commonly referred  to  as "white
ledger")  is  a  relatively new  type  of source  separation that  has  received
considerable  impetus from  mandatory  programs  in Federal office  buildings.
There  are  numerous office-paper  separation  techniques;  perhaps  the  most
effective,  however, Is a  desk-top waste  paper  holder.   Office workers  are
pxperted  to  separate the  marketable,  high value  white  paper  (for  example,
letterhead,  dry  copy paper,  and  computer printout)  from  lower  grade papers
and place  them in a desk top container.  When  full,  each desk top container
is  emptied  by  the  office  worker  into  a  nearby, larger  container.   These
larger containers  are  then periodically  emptied and  the  contents  taken to a
cei tral  storage  area  (where  the paper  may be   baled)  until   a  sufficient
quantity  has  accumulated  for transportation to  a buyer.   Typically,  paper
ready  for shipment is stored in  a large  roll-off container or  bin  for each
pick-up and delivery.

   The economics  of high  grade  office paper separation vary,  but  the method
has relatively good prospects for large commercial establishments  for three
reasons:    it  is   relatively easy  to  gain  the  cooperation of  office  workers
(voluntary  participation  in  piograms  studied by  EPA averages  80  percent);
offict waste contains  a  high  percentage  of  high  grade paper (average  35
percent by weight in 12 programs studied by EPA);  and the  price paid for high
grade office paper is attractive--$95-132 per Mg  ($90-120 per ton) in 1979.

   There are at  least  500 Federal and private programs for the separation of
high  grade  office  paper.   EPA  estimates  that   its  mandatory program  for
separation of rr!gh grade office  paper  in Federal  office buildings that employ
100 or  more people  will  recover  approximately  200,000 Mg (220,000  tons)  of
high  grade  paper  fiber  each  year.   Total savings  are  estimated  at  $7.4
million  per year.   Private  companies have  also  implemented   office  p«iper
recovery prograirs.

-------
Separation ot Corrugated Paper--
   Many  commercial   establishments  generate   l*rye  ..quantities   of  waste
corrugated and paperboard  packaging matcorals.   Rather than dispose of these
salable products, L.ey are kept separate from other refuse, baled onsite, and
sold.   Many   cotiaierc^al  establishments  own  their  own  baling  and  storcga
equipment.   Contracts Tor at least one year are set up with local waste paper
dealers for transport and sale of the materials.

   An  estimated  30  percent of  the corrugated waste  and  paperboard generated
in the  United States is  recycled, mjch of it in this manner.  Recovery rates
are  relatively  high  for  two  reasons,  separating  corrugated  materials from
other waste  is  relatively easy;  and  it reduces  mixed-waste collection en;*,::
to the commercial establishments.

Separate Collection  of Newsprint and Other Paper--
   Separate curbside collection of newsprint and other paper is an innovation
in solid  waste management  in  the  United  States.   EPA  reports  that  in 1968
there were only  two such collection  systems; by 1978, there were 218.  These
programs  generally   depend upon  voluntary participation  by  residents,  who
place  newspaper  and other suitable waste  papers  at  the  curbside  on  a
scheduled collection day.

   Weekly, biweekly,  and  monthly collections are most common.  The materials
are collected either  in a separate truck,  in racks suspended from the regular
refuse  collection  truck,   or  in  a container towed  behind  the  regular refuse
collection truck.   The resident's  task is relatively simple:  newspapers are
easy  to separate, and preparation {•; .ninimal  (i.e.,  tying the newspapers in
bundles or  placing   them  in paper  bags).   Many of  these  programs have been
well    received  by   residents.   Howe/er,   few  of  the  programs  have  been
mandatory, and  aggressive public education and  public  awareness programs to
encourage participation  heva  been  rare.  Consequently,  only an  estimated 28
perce.it of newsprint discarded in 1973 was  recovered  through  this and other
newsprint  recovery  methods.    Most  of  the  recovered   newsprint  was  from
commercial sources.
                                      .24

-------
Separate Collection of Various Materials--
   Many  communities  have  collected  more  than  one  material   via  source
separdtion, but such programs  are less common than single material  programs.
Two  separate  collection  programs for  various  materials  in Somerville  and
fcarblehead,  Massachusetts,  have  received  national  attention  through  EPA
grants.  These programs provide  weekly  collection of separated  paper,  glass,
and  cans.  They use. tlie town collection crews and  special  compartmentalized
vehicles to collect tl>e separated materials.

   One of  the problems  witu the multimatorial program  is  that  the burden of
separating  and  storing  several  different  materials  until  collection  day
reduces  the   residsnt's   willingness  to  participate.   In  Somerville,  this
problem  was   alleviated  by  permitting  residents  to store  glass  and  cans
logether  in   a  single  container.   Because   residents  are  not  required  to
separate the  glass by color,  only  two containers (i.e., one for paper,  one
for glass and cans) ana two levels of separation were required.

   In Marbl^head,  residents  separate  their materials in nearly  the same way.
However, in  that  program,  clear glass and  cans must be  kept  separate from
colored glass and cans.  Neither proyram requires residents to remove labels,
crush cans, or wash containers.

   Both communities have  sought to increase participation through aggressive
and  continuing public  awareness programs.   As a result, nearly  25 percent of
municipal  waste-  in  Marbiehead  and  aiout eight percent  in Somerville  was
recycled.  The  Marbiehead  program  has  continued  since  the  demonstration
program  until  the  present.  However,  the Somerville program has since been
discontinued because of inefficient collection and marketing difficulties.

   The materials were  sold  to  a local  processor who sepaiv'ed  the cans  and
glass by a relatively simple mechanical and magnetic  process.  This processor
purchased materials frcr.i other communities in the same area,  several of which
rely on private contractors to collect .ind deliver the  materials.
                                      25

-------
   Ihe  profitability  of  these multiniaterial  programs  depends on  favorable
prices,  efficient  collection  techniques,   and  high  participation  rates.
Somervilie's program  was not  profitable  during the  latest period  for which
cost data were available (1977); Marblehead's was.

Beverage Container Deposits—
   Beverage container  deposits have heen  in use for a  long  time.   However,
deposits  in  the   United  States   had  nearly  disappeared,   in   favor  of
"no-deposit,  no-return"   containers,  by  1970.   In  an  effort  to  conserve
materials  and  energy  and  to  reduce roadside  litter,  seven  states  (Maine,
Vermont,  Connecticut,  Oregon,  Iowa, Delaware, and  Michigan)  have  instituted
Mandatory  deposit  systems  for beverage  containers,  including bottles  and
cans.  Retailers are required to pay customers between five and ten cent? for
cacti returned container.

   As  in  the  case  of  the  recycling  center,  the  resident  himself  is
res;  .isible for transporting  the glass  and cans.  IP Oregon and Vermont, the
program  has achieved  return  rates of  90  percent or  more   for  returnable
bottles and cans:   residents  find  it convenient to return these materials to
supermarkets  or  grocery  stores   on  a  regular  trip,  and   the  refund  is
substantial.  The  deposit  system   is  maintained by  the  beverage  container
retailers and distributors,  and no muni:ipal  involvement  is  necessary.

   Early  experience  with  mandatory  state-wide deposit  systems  has  been
favorable and other states  rcay pass similar  legislation.  However,  in 1976,
the  U.S.  Senate  voted against  an attempt  to institute  mandatory  deposits
nationwide.   Nevertheless,  since   beer  and  soft arink  containers  represent
about five percent of the net postconsumer and commercial solid waste stream,
interest in mandatory deposit systems continues to be high.

Description of Source Se,..miti:»n Options--
   Five  source  separation  options are  considered  for  Baselyn.   Each  is  a
feasible, tested  option,  and  together, they cover  the  spectrum of  possible
source   separacion   programs.    The  options  described   in   the   following
paragraphs include:
                                      26

-------
a. Multimateria-' Recovery, High:  Multimaterial source separation  (newsprint,
   cans,  and  bottles) at  a  high recovery  efficiency  and separ^tion of  high
   grade office and corrugated paper

b. Multimaterial  Recovery,  Low:   Miillimaterial   source  separation  at  a  lew
   recovery efr.ciency without separation of office and corrugated papers

c. Newsprint  Recovery, High:   Separate  collection  of  newsprint  (mandatory
   program)

d. Newsprint  Recovery,  Low:   Separate  collection  of  newsprint  (voluntary
   program)

e. Beverage Container  Recovery:   P^co'-ery of beverage containers  (only glass
   and metal cans) through  a  b'  •• •:•.& container deposit system.

   The  only  source separation method excluded  is the  recycling centrjr.  This
method  has  been excluded  because the  total  impact of  such a system  on the
waste  flow of  the  community  is  relatively  omall  (le'.s  than five percent
recovery), and the  cost ant'  --sources  invested (including  residents'  trips to
the recycling center) are much arcaLer than for the other  methods.

   The  profiles for the source  separation cases, arc baced,  wherevar possible.,
on  ongoing  or  recent  programs.  In all  cases,  the  source of  information is
documented, and  assumptions  or jrdgnient  are  noted.   The profiler of the two
multimaterial source  separation programs are based mainly on  thi  programs ir>
Somervilie  and  Marble'.ead,  Massachusetts;  separate collection of newsprint,
on  EPA  case studies of several newsprint recovery programs; and  th«r bevetage
container recovery system,  on the  experience of Orfqon and Verrro'it.

Multiniaterial Recovery, High - Gate No.  1--
   This  case  represents  the maximum posc •>'-.      •-> «<•".•=.  S 101, l)y residints.
The profile  i?  based primarily on  *    [•• •/    " '*'• •"••«•"-"d,  Massachusetts.
West Orange,  Me* Jersey and Nottingham,  New Hamps ire  aix other  communities
where more  than one  waste  raterial  is  separated  by  residents.   1*.  - sumus

-------
that residents separate  their  wastes  into four categories:  (1) mixed paper,
such as  newsprint,  books,  corrugated  containers; (2)  clear glass and  cans
mixed;  (3) colored glass  and cans  mixed;  and (4) remaining mixed waste,  such
as organic and food waste and plastics.  Wastes in the first three categories
are  picked  up at  curbside  by municipal  crews and  sold  to an  intermediate
materials  processor  who  sorts  and  packages  them  for  direct  resale  to
manufacturer?

   There  is  also a  privately  operated program for  separation  of commercial
office and corrugated paper wastes.  Commercial establishments  separate paper
vaster, using desk top collectors,  and sell them directly  to the intermediate
materials  processor.   Remaining  mix?d  wastes  from  both  residences  and
commercial establishments are used for landfill or delivered to a mixed-waste
processing facility.

   Program Desci-iptien--Separated matprials are collected  by the municipality
once  a   week  at   each  residence  oy  three  person  crews  using  special
compartmentalized trucks  with  a  capacity  of 3.6 Mg (4 tons).  Four crews and
trucks operate each day, collecting an average of approximately six Mg (seven
u>ns) each  per day.   Of  the 180  Mg  (200 tons)  of  total waste produced in
Baselyn each day,  25.3  Mg (27.7  tons)  are collected i.i this manner.  Private
firms collect 5.0 Mg (5.5 tons) of corrugated materials jnd 1.6 Mg (1.8 tons)
of office paper from commercial  businsss and office building?.

   The remaining waste is '-ollected by three person crews  with  regular packer
trucks.    They  collect  an average  of  approximately  18 Mg  (20  tons)  each per
day.

   Without the .tource separation program,  10 crews end trucks would be needed
to collect all of  Daselyn's waste.  With the source separation nrogram,  only
eight crews  and  trucks  are needed fcr  the  149.6 Mg  (164.9 tons)  of wasta
remaining each day.

   The source  separation  program recovers more newsprint  and other houv;nold
paper than  any other separated materijl--12.2 Mg (13.4 tons),  or 38 percent.

-------
of  the  separated  materials.   Including  office  and  corrugated  paper,  59
percent  of  the  separated materials are paper  products  (Table  2).   The rates
of  recovery  for each  separated  ir.atenal  are derived from  the  experience  of
                                       .s'
Marblehead, Massachusetts and  applied  to national  figures for the generation
cf waste.

   Program Economics--The source  separation program  costs  Baselyn $982  per
day, or  about $39  per Kg ($35 per ton) of separated materials.  Revenue from
sale of  the  recovered materials  is $546 per day.  The elimination of 31.8 Mg
(35.1 tons)  from the  waste stream  reduces disposal  costs  from $8,890  to
$7,330 per day if the waste is used as landfill, or from $7,770 to $6,406 per
day  if the  waste is  delivered to  a mixed-waste processing  facility,   rience,
the  net  daily disposal  cost  for  Baselyn  is $7,766 with landfill  or $6,842
with mixeil-wable processing.   Source separation,  then,  saves  Baselyn $1,124
per  day  if remaining wastes are used  for  landfill and $928 per  day  if they
are delivered to a mixed-waste processing plant  (Appendix  A).

   Energy Expenditures—High  multimat'jrial  source  separation  provides  an
                ~~~~~"^~~ If)                 8
ene-gy return of  27 x 10   Joules  (2.57 x 10  Btu) per day  (Appendix A).

   Contract Structure--At  the  outset  of  the  source  separation  program,
Baselyn  offered separate one  year contracts  under competitive  bidding for
each of  the  separated materials:   mixod oaper (such as newsprint, books, and
magazines), clear glass and cans mixed, and  colored  glass and cans mixed.

   Bidders  were  asked  to  specify  the  net  price  per kg  (ton)  for  each
material, to guarantee a minimum price per Mg (ton), and to agree to purchase
all  collected materials.   In return, the city agreed to collect each material
separately  and  to store  it in bins  provided   by  the  processor for periodic
collection.   Although  Marblohead,  Massachusetts,  agreed  to  deliver  its
separated  materials   directly  to  the  intermediate  processor,  this  is  an
unusual  practice.  The proce-.sor  usually  picks jp  Ua  collected materials,
and  this arrangement  is  most likely for new programs.  The contracts granted
the processor sole rights to all the separated material collected by Baselyn.

-------
                TABLE 2.   RECOVERY EFFICIENCIES AND WASTE
              DISTRIBUTION FOR HIGH HULTIHATERIAL RECOVERY

Solid Waste Distr.bution
Mg/d (t/d) Mg/d (t/d)
Waste Recovery
Components Efficiency %*
Newspri nt
Other household paper
Subtotal
Corrugated
Office paper
Glass beverage
Other glass
Ferrous beverage
Other ferrous
Nonferrous beverage
Other nonferrous
Subtotal
Remaining waste
Total
60
13

25
25
55
54
43
36
50
0

0
0
Recovered
Waste
8.
4.
12.
5.
1.
5.
4.
0.
2.
0.
0.
19.
0.
31.
2
0
2
0
6
0
6
7
2
5
0
6
0
8
(9.
(4.
(i:.
('•.
(1.
(5.
(5.
(0.
(2.
(0.
(0.
(21.
(0.
(35.
0)
4)
4)
5)
8)
5)
2)
9)
2)
5)
0)
7)
0)
1)
Remaining
Waste
5.
26.
32.
15.
4.
4.
4.
1.
3.
0.
0.
33.
84.
149.
4
7
1
0
7
1
0
0
6
5
5
3
2
6
(6.
'29.
(35.
(16.
(5.
(4.
(4.
(1.
(4.
(0.
(0.
(36.
(92.
(164.
0)
4)
4)
5)
2)
5)
4)
1)
0)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

*  Recovery efficiencies are based on data available for the program in
   Marblehead, Mass., applied to national  rigures for the generation of
   waste(3,10).
                                      30

-------
   Biseiyn does not guarantee  a  mini ion quantity or quality of wastes in its
contract  with  the  Intermediate  materials  processor.   However,  municipal
ordinances require residents to  separate their waste and prohibit scavenging
of  separated  materials.  The  contract  requires the  city  to enforce  these
ordinances and  take  "reasonable  step*"  to avoid contamination  of  separated
materials.

   The city received bids  from several intermediate processors.   The highest
bidder for all  materials  agreed  to a  price set  at  a fixed  dollar amount per
Mg  (ton)  under the wholesale market  price   published  monthly  in a  trade
journal.   Monthly adjustments will be  based on this published price, but the
city is guaranteed a fixed floor price.

   Baselyn  has  also   entered  into  a  contract  with thr  operator  of  the
mixed-waste processing  facility.   This  contract  requires the city to deliver
all  its  remaining  (i.e., unseparated) wastes  to tne  facility for  20 years.
It provides for renegotiation  of prices and required  delivery  quantities at
five  year intervals,  subject  to  binding arbitration if  agreement is  not
reached.    This  contract is  modeled  after  the one between   the  City  of
Milwaukee  and  Americology,  Inc.   The  city pays  3 tipping  fee for  all  mixed
wastes delivered to the plant  and, in  turn, receives  a  share of the profits
from  ferrous materials  recycled at the plant.   The city is guaranteed a fixed
revenue credit  per ton for  each  recovered material  up to a  set market price;
above this level, the city receives 50 percent of the market price.

   The contract with the mixed-waste facility  requires that  Baselyn guarantee
minimum deliveries of  mixed  solid wastes during  the  first  five  years of the
agreement.  The city is required  to  p.ay a minimum  tapping  fee regardless of
actual deliveries.   The required  minimum tonnage and tipping fee are based on
the past experience of  the source  separation program.

   Social and Political Implications—The source  seoaration  program has been
supported by a continuing program of public education stressing its financial
and   environmental  benefits.   Leaflets,'  doorknob   hangers,  and  newspaper
articles   have   been   used.    City  officials,   citizens   groups,   and  the
intermediate processor  have all cooperated *n the  education program.

                                      31

-------
   (he issue of  political  support for the program  arose  during the campaign
for the  ordinance requiring  curbside separation.   This  ordinance  would not
hav. been passed  if  a voluntary separation program had not been in existence
f".   several  years  before the  letting •'of  contracts  with tho  intormedidte
processor, as  was the case in  Marblehead,  Massachusetts.   The antiscavenger
ordinance was  less  politically  controversial.  While both ordinances  iidve
proved somewhat  difficult to enforce,  the quantities  of material  collected
increased substantially after their passage.  This  assumption is based on the
experience of  West Orange, New Jersey,  where  collection increased  from  an
average of 83  Ng (92 tons) per month in  1976 to ISO Mg (200 tons) per month
in 1977 after passage of an ordinance requiring source separation.(4)

   Program Flexibility--Basclyn  began  its   source  separation  program  on
approximately  lialf  its   collection   routes,  which  allowed testing  of  tlie
procedures,  as  v/as the  case  in Madison,  Wisconsin.  After a  one  year trial
period, the  program was  expanded to  the  remainder of the  city  with little
difficulty.   However, city officials reported they had an arduous and lengthy
job (up to one year) pe-suading adjacen; communities  to enter the program.

   The source  separation program  has not been  interrupted since  it began.
City  officials  considered  stopping  the   program  when  prices for recycled
materials were low,  however,  they decided that the  high  recovery rate would
probably  decrease  sharply  as  a  result, with  a  proportional decrejse  in
revenues  when  market prices  recovered.   Hempstead, New  York,  has abandoned
Us program,  which formerly recycled large quantities of waste paper,  despite
current high  prices  for  waste  paper.  This  decision was  bssed parti, lly  on
the decrease in participation after tha city suspended the program when paper
prices were low.  Recovery rates also fell in Somerville,  Massachusetts, when
the  source   separation  program  was  ''esumed after  an  interruption.   Local
political commitment  to  the  program  and  the floor  price written into the
contract  with   the   •intermediate  processor  give  the  program  reasonable
stability.  Howeve",  the  short  terr.i ov the contract gives the city an escape
if conditions change drastically.
                                      32

-------
   Environmental Impacts—The  source  separation  program has  extended  the
20-year  life  of the  county's landfill by 3.0 years by  recovering  nearly 1"
percent  of  total  household wastes.   However,  there has been little change in
the major environmental  landfill  problem:   pollution of groundwater, rivers,
end streams in  the area due to leaching of groundwater.  High levels of heavy
metals,  bacteria,  and  plant nutrients  in  leachate  from  the .landfill  are
generated by  the retraining  material  (other than  that recovered),  and would
not be substantially  altered by reducing the fill  rate.

   The   most   significant  environmental  benefits  resulting  from  source
separation  stem from  reuse of the separated materials.   Manufacture of paper,
metal,  and  glass products  from  recycled  rattier than  raw materials has  two
effects  on  the environment:   lower  pollution  emissions  during  the  total
uroduclion  process  and slower resource depletion.   Table 3  compares the  raw
material  use  and  environmental  impacts  of  using recovered materials  to
produce  four  industrial  products  (aluminum,  carbon  steel,  box board,  and
glass containers) with the impacts of producing the same products from virgin
materials.  The calculations assume manufacture of aluminum from all recycled
cans;  production  of  carbon steel  from a  mix of 70  percent  source  separated
cans and  30 percent  "in-house"  steel .Tiill  scrap; box board,  from 100 percent
waste  paper;  and glass  containers,  from  a  mixture of  raw  materials  and S3
percent  "outside cullet"  from recycled glass.   The data indicate substantial
reductions  in the use  of raw materials  and,  in  most cases,  reductions  in
industrial solid waste and water- and air-polluting emissions.

   However,   in  some cases,  processing  recovered  materials  requires  more
energy,  «hich may outweigh  the  benefits  of reduced emissions during mining
and transportation for  rav, materials.   For example, more energy is  needed to
manufacture carbon  steel  when a  large amount of scrap  is  used, because it
requires  using  an  electric  furnace  and a  detinning operation  rather  than a
basic  oxygen  furnace.   Consequently,  emissions  of  sulfur  oxides,  carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons,  and nitrogen  oxides  are higher when  scrap is used
However, tins result  is  based on the assumption  that furnaces would meet  all
environmental  standards, and  many  old furnaces currently in  use  do not meet
Liiese standards.

-------
     TABLE 3   MICH HUITIMATERIAL SEP/RATIOII COMPARISON OF INVIRONHEIUAL IHPACTS AND
RESOURCE USE FOR INDUS1R1AL HA1ERIAL IROOUC'ilON USING SEPA'UTED WASUS AND RAW MATERIALS
                       (In Kg/d (lli/d> unlest oinerwlsf
AlunintiQ
Resource Use Raw Materials
Separated Materials
Industrial Material
Production
Equivalent Raw _ . 2.018
Material Use oauxne (4.414)
Linestone (1«,
Sodium 55
Chloride (121)
Aluminum 16
Fluoride (35)
Cryolite A.
Fluorspar .J?.

Pollution Residuals
Sol id Wastes Ovirburdim "-318
Overburden (24 ,„,
Process M3 398)
Water Pollutants
Waste Water Discharge
MVO (10J Gal/0)
BOO ° °5
800 (o i)
Carbon i-letl
Recoveivd
Haterldls
(1.000)
392
(865)
0
(0)
0
(0)
47
(104)
0
(0)
« 0
(0)
0
(0)


107
(235)
119
(261)

-
0
(0)
Raw Material;.


Iron Ore
Li oe stone
Sodium
Chloride
Sodium
Nitrate
Other
Fluxes
Fluorspar
Scrap

Overburden
Process





4.215
1.179
(2.596)
0
(0)
0
(0)
26
(53)
22
(43)
1.123
(2.674)

22.492
(49.542)
16.337
(35.984)

-
0 01
(003)
Recovered
Materials
2.900
(0,400)
3.3/S
(7.433)
0
22S
(496)
267
(587)
19
(45)
6 4
(14)
9 3
1.174
(2.586)

S.376
(11.841)
648
(1.427)

-
0
(0)
Bo>board" Class Containers
Recovered Recovered
Raw Materials Hat-rials Row Materials Materials
18.700 9.800
(41.200) (21.600)
15.677 19.600
(34.531) (43.200)
Koundwood {1J?;?2} (S, Sand (UiJJJ)
Wood Chips {j*;^u) (u) U.estone (1£J£,
Feldspar (3'4r()




Overburden *g. /(,>
9 071 A QQi 4 5i9
Process {|;|^, Process (1|;MS) (9;,M)

(758) (297) (17) (8 9)
78 24 1307
(171) (52) (2.8) (1.5)
                                       (Continued)

-------
                                                                          TABLE  3 (Continued)
CO
en
Resource Use
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Air Pollutants
Particulars
Sulfur Oxidts
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons

Nitrogen Oxides
Aluminum Carton Steel
Recovered Recovered
Raw Materials Materials Raw Materials Materials Raw
0 6
(1 *)
7.1
(16 0)

14 4
(31 7)
34 8
(16 7)
14
(30)
14
(75)

54
(120)
0 07
(0 15)
3 2
(0 5)

0 45
(1.0)
0 3
(0 6)
1 0
(2 1)
2 0
(4 3)

7.6
(5 7)
0 1
(0 20)
i e
(8 3)

32.7
(72.1)
10 2
(22 5)
3 3
(7 2)
6 0
(13 3)

6 3
(12 Ml
0
(0)
1.3
(2 8)

4 1
(9 0)
13.2
(29.0)
8
(18)
7
(15)

15
134)
Bn« hoard
Class Containers
Recovered Recovered
Materials Materials Raw Materials Materials
71
(156)


51
(112)
203
(«47)
20
144)
7
(15)

94
(208)
24
(32)


7
(16)
24 /
(544)
12
(26)
1 1
(6 9)

88
(H4)
3 0
(6 7)


16
(36)
48
(105)
3.4
(7 4)
6
(13)

44
(98)
1 5
(1 3)


12
(26)
39
(6S>
»
(12)
\J2)
\
45
(100)
        * Comparison based on combination paperboard fron recycled paper,  soild blaacncd papcrboard fron recycled  paper, and solid bleached papertaoard from

          raw materials.


        Source   Midwest Research Institute. Combination Paperboard and Solid Bleached kraft Paperboard.   Cooparlson of Costs and Envl'onBental Impacts.

                 1972. U.S  Envlronoental Protection Agency,  Inuacts it Virgin ."1 Recycled Steel  and Alunlnia.  1974

-------
Multimaterial Recovery,  Low - Case No.  2—
   This case is similar to Case No.  1,  but differs in two major respects:

o  The  residential  source   separation  program  is  voluntary  rather  than
   mandatory aid participation  rates  are  low,  resulting in a  lower  recovery
   rate for paper,  glass, and metals

o  There is no program'for recovery of  office or corrugated paper wastes.

   These differences  result  in  lower program revenues  and in lower energy,
economic,  and  environmental  benefits.  However, the program demands  less  of
homeowners and requires  less effort on  the part of the municipality.

   The  case  is largely  based  un  the  program  in  Somerville,  Massachusetts.
Other  communities   operating  similar  voluntary  multimaterial  programs  are
Summit, Bound drook, and Cranford, New  Jersey.

   Program Description—The  program  operates  much the  same  as  the  program
described  in Case No.  1.  However,  residents  are  asked to separate  wastes
into  only  three  components:   (1)  mixed  papers,  (2) mixed bottles and cans,
and  (3) all  remaining wastes.   Only two special trucks and crews  are  used and
only  12.4 Mg (13.7 ions)  of  separated materials (6.9 percent  of  total  waste)
are  collected each   day  (sec  Table  4).   Recovery  efficiencies  for  source
separated materials are  based on data from Somerville

   Program Economics—The cost  of  the source separation program is  $513 per
day,  or $41.20 per  Mg  ($37.45  per  ton).   Revenues  are  $303  per day.   The
source  separation  program reduces the community's  total  disposal   costs  by
$399  per day with  landfill,  and $322 per day  with delivery to a mixed-waste
processing facility (see Appendix A).

   Energy Expenditures—The  energy return from source separation  is  13 x 10
Joules  (121  x  10   Btu)  per  day.  A net return  of 2 x 10   Joules per day is
provided if the remaining waste is disposed of at the landfill.

-------
                TABLE A.   RECOVERY EFFICIENCIES A*Q WASTF
               DISTRIBUTION FOR LOW MUL1IMATERIAL RECOVbRY
  Waste
Components
  Recovery
Efficiency %
                                              Solid Waste DistriDution*
                                              Mg/d (t/d,	Mq/d (t/d)
  Recovered
    Weste
Remaining
  Waste
Newsprint                  42
Other household paper       6
   Subtotal
Glass, beverage             26
Other glass                16
Ferrous beverage           12
Other ferrous              14
Nonftrrous beverage        14
Other nonferrous            0
   Subtotal
Remaining waste            _0
      Total
                        5.7   (6.3)     4.0   (8.8)
                        1.8   (2.0)    23.9  (31.8)
                              (8.3)    36.8  (40.6)
                                       6.7   (7.4)
                                       7.1   (7.8)
                                       1.6   (1.8)
                                       5.1   (5.6)
                                       0.7   (0.8)
                                       0.5   (0.6)
 7.5
 2.4   (2.6)
 1.5   (1.6)
 0.2   (0.2)
 0.7   (0.8)
 0.2   (0.2)
 0.0   (0.0)
 4.9   (5.4)   21.8  (24.0)
 0.0   (0.0)  110.4 (121.7)
12.4  (13.7)  169.0 (186.3)
*  Assuming 181.4 Mg/d (200 t/d) waste collected.

   Contract Structure—Baselyn collects separated household wastes  and sells
them to one or more intermediate materials processors in essentially the same
fashion as described in Case No. 1.  It employs the  same basic contract price
structure:    a  guaranteed  floor  pries with   actual  prices  tied  to  market
conditions by <.\ published price.

   In Case No.  2, hov»ever,  waste separation by residents is voluntary,  rather
than mandatory.   As in Case  No.  1,  them is an ordinance against scavenging.
                                      37

-------
   Becaus0  was'.e  separation   is   voluntary,   Baselyn  has   no  contractual
commitment to enforce  source  separation  by residents.   As  a  result,  both the
city and the intermediate materials  processor were somewhat more reluctant to
enter into a  long  term contract.   Thexperiod during which Saselyn  agrees to
sell  its  wastes  to  no other purchaser  is still  one year, but  the  contract
specifies a severance period of  only 30 days, during which  either the city or
the processor can  discontinue the  arrangement if  waste volumes  are  less  than
expected.    This   provision  is   based   on  the   procedure   followed   by
Young-Guenther Company with  communities  in  northern   New  Jersey that  have
voluntary separation  programs.

   Because the program does  not include recovery  of office paper, commercial
establishments did  not  alter existing private disposal contracts.

   Contract  arrangements with  the operator of  the  mixed-waste  processing
facility are essentially the sar.e as those described in Case No. 1.   However,
the contract  provides  for  renegotiation if Baselyn makes source separation
mandatory  or  significantly  alters  the  content  of the waste  stream.   This
provision is modeled after that  contained in the contract between the City of
Milwaukee and Americology, Inc.

   Social and Political Implications—City    officials    and    appropriate
mnnicipal  departments  publicized   the  source  separation  program  in   the
beginning  but did not  continue  to  do  so  on a  long  term basis.   Hence,
volunteer  citizens  groups  have  borne  the  brunt  of  the public  relations
effort.

   Because   the    program   is   voluntary,   it  has  not  been   politically
controversial or  substantially changed the lifestyle of  Baselyn residents.

   Program Flexibility—The source  separation  program  was  implemented in two
stages,  as  in Case  No.  1.   Municipal sanitation workers  and  residents  take
the  program  loss   seriously  because  it  is  voluntary,  and  contamination
problems have been  more severe.

-------
   Ihe program was also discontinued temporarily on several  occasions  because
of winter storms and strikes by sanitation workers.  As  a  result,  the  program
has not had  the  favorable  publicity that might  irjuce  nearby  communities  to
join,  and  expansion  of the  program has  been more  difficult than  in  Case
No. 1.

   Environmental  Impacts—The source separation program  has  extended the  life
of  the county's  landfill  by  recovering nearly  seven  percent of  Basely.i's
household wastes.  As  in Case  No.  1, the  program has  had little  effect  on
groundwater pollution from the landfill.

   Table 5  indicates  the environmental  benefits (that is,  reduced use of raw
materials and  generally lower  air  and  water  pollution emissions) from  one
day's  operation  of the source  separation program.   Less  separated materials
are  collected  in  Case No.  2  than  in Case  No.  1.  therefore,   less  finished
materials can  be produced  from them, and reductions in  pollution emissions
are proportionately lower.

Newsprint Recovery, High and Low - Case No. 3—
   In  this   case,  residents  separate  only  one  material;  newsprint.   Two
subcases have been established for different rates of recovery:  Case  No.  3a,
a  mandatory program achieving  60  percent,  and  Case  No.  3b,  a  voluntary
 "ogram achieving  only 20  percent,  recovery.   The  high  recovery efficiency
corresponds  to  that achieved  at  Ma-blehead,  but  other  features  of  the
program's operation  are more  similar Lo those in communities where newsprint
is collected in  separate trucks (such as West  Orange,  New  Jersey).   The low
recovery  efficiency   is typical  of  cities  with  voltntary   newsprint  only
programs.     There   is  no   program  of   paper  separation   by   commercial
establishments.

   Program Description—In  Case No.  3a,  the source separation program  employs
two special crews and trucks to collect newsprint.  Each collects 4.1  Mg  (4.5
tons) of newsprint  per day.
                                      39

-------
 TABLE 5   COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL I HP AC IS
AND RESOURCE USE FOR LOW MULIIMA1FRIAL RECOVERY
  (In rq/U (In/d) unless olherwlie specified)
Resource Use
Separated Materials
Industrial
Hjterl.il Production
Equivalent flaw
Material Use
Bjuxite
Limestone
Sodluc Chlo- ide
Aluminum Fluoride
Cryolite
Fluorspar

Po 11 nl 10" Resi-luals
Sol Id Wastes
Overburden
Aluninu)
Raw Malcrldls
-
-
807
(1.778)
18
(40)
22
(48)
6
(14)
1 6
(3 5)
8
(17)


4.S29
(3,975)
Recovered
HalOi'lals
180
(400,
1S7
(34S)
0
(0)
0
(0)
19
(42)
0
(0)
0
(Oj
0
(0)


43
(94)
Carbon
Step)
Raw Materials


Iron Ore ,1
llvrstone
Sod 1 in
Chloride
Sodium
Nitrate
Other
Flure:.
Fluorspar
In-House
Scr<-p

7
(15
-
-
.317
.901)
369
(812)
0
(0)
0
(0)
8
7
(IS)
(SI)

,0.'9
.482)
Botboard
Recovered ~ ~
Haluilals Raw Materials
900
(2.000)
1.05S
(i.323)
.°, Round-ood JJ^",
(1^) w<"«l Chlpi (is's")
84
(184)
6
(14)
2 0
(« 4)
2 i
(S 3)
367
(80S)

1.680
(3.700)
Recovered
fjlerlals
7.500
(16.600)
(6.319)
(13.919)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)




.
Glass Contalnurs
Recovered
Kaw Material* Materials
3. 800
(8.400)
7.600
(16.800)
S*nd (ll!256) (S|6!8)
Ll«ston. J;"8, ,»•;«,
Feldspar (liM4) (6I2)
Rock Salt 1.S2S 763
(3.360) (1.680)




O 0
(0) (0)
                  (Continued)

-------
                                                                  TABLE 5 (Continued)
Aluninun
Rcsoi rce Use
Process
Witcr Pollutants .
Wastfwater h"VO (10-*
Suspended So' ids
Dissolved Solids
BOD
01 1 and Grease
Air Pollutants
Participates
Sdltur litoxlde
Cirbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
land
Ki'tf Dltturlied
Raw Materials
2.888
(5.361)
Cal/D)
0 4
(06)
2 9
(6 4)
0 04
( 05)
0 2
(0 4)
5 76
(12 69)
13 93
(30 69)
S 45
(12.00)
13 65
(30 06)

Carbon Steel

Boxboa'd
Recovered Recovered
Materials Raw Materials Materials Raw Materials
47
(104)

0 04
(0 Oft)
0.09
(0 U)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0.19
(0 41)
0 11
<" 25)
0 38
(0 63)
0 79
(1.74)
-
5.105
(11.2^5)

O.C?
(0 06)
: 2
(2 6)
Trace
Trace
10 22
(72.50)
3 70
(7 04)
1 01
(2.23)
1 84
(4 14)
-
200
(446)


0 4
(0.9)
0
(0)
Trace
1 23
(2 S2)
« 11
(i. 10)
2 60
(5.73)
2 f
(4 73)
-
1.429
(3.148)

284
CSJ
-
37
(62)
-
25
(54)
9d
(715)
10
(21)
3 2
(70)

Glass Containers
Recovered Recovered
Materials Rav Materials Materials
1.953
(4.3U1)

95
(?5)
-
11
(25)
-
3.5
(7 6)
118
(2611
5
(12)
1 5
(3 3)

3.498
(7.702)

9 8
(2 6)
-
0 5
(1 1)
-
6
(14)
19
(41)
1 3
:29)
2 3
(5 0)

1.757
(3.871)

4 9
(1 3)
-
U 3
(0.6)
-
5

-------
   In Case No.  3b, racks with the capacity to carry 90-135 kilograms (200-300
pounds) of  newsprint  are installed underneath the  regular  refuse  trucks.   A
total  or  2.7  Mg  (three  tons)  of  newsprint are  collected  each day  (see
Table 6).

   Program Economics—Both programs  reduce disposal costs  (see  Appendix A).
In Case No.  3a, the program costs $503 per day and has  total revenues of $270
per  day.  It  reduces net  disposal  costs  by  $167 per day  if  the  newspapers
would  otherwise  have  been  used  for  landfill  and  by $117 per day  if  the
newspapers would  have  been delivered to a mixed-waste processing  plant.   In
Case No. 3b, the program incurs no costs but has revenues of $90 per day.  It
reduces net disposal costs by $223 per day with landfill  and by $207 per day
with mixed-waste  processing.

   Energy Expenditures—High newsprint recovery provides  an energy return of
        Q                 C
71 x 10  Joules  (67 x  10  Ptu) per day.   The program in Case No. 3b provides
                  9               6
a return of 25 x 10  Joules (24  x  10  Btu) per day (see Appendix A).

   Contract Structure—The  contract  arrangements  in   these  two  cases  are
similar to those  in Case No. 1.   However, since only  newsprint,  rather than
mixed  wastepaper,  is  separated  by  homeowners,   che material  requires  less
handling  by  tha  intermediate processor.   Consequently,  the  processor  pays
higher floor anc market prices.

   Neither  Case  No. 3a  or  3b includes  a program  for separation  of  office
waste paper.  Therefore, commercial  establishments  are not required to alter
any existing private disposal contracts.

   Contract  arrangements  with  the  operator or  the  mixed-waste  pioce:sing
plant  are essentially  the  same  as  those  in Case  No.  1.   However,  for Case
No. Ib, an additional  clause specifier that the contract may be reiegotiated
if  Biiselyn  makes  source  separation  mandatory or   significantly  alters  the
content of the waste stream.

-------
                TABLE 6.   RECOVERY EFFICIENCIES AND WASTE
	DISTRIBUTION FOR NEWSPRINT RECOVERY (HIGH AND LOW)	
                                              SoTid Waste Distribution"
                                      x^     Mg/d (t/d)    Mg/d (t/d)
  Waste                Recovery               (\ecovered     Remaining
Components           Efficiency %               Waste         Waste
Newsprint
   recovery, high          60                8.2   (9.0)  173.3 (191.0)
Newsprint
   recovery, low           20                2.7   (3.0)  178.7 (197.0)
*  Assuming 181.4 Mg/d (200 t/d) collected waste.
Source:  Recovery efficiencies were taken from actual efficiencies
found in Marblehead, Massachusetts, and West Orange, New Jersey.

   Social and Political Implications—The programs differ in their social  and
political implications; Case No. 3a is similar to Case No.  1, find Case No.  3b
is  similar  to  Case  No. 2.   The  voluntary  program  would  probably  be  less
controversial,  but   also  less  effective  than  a  mandatory  program.    In
addition, long-term public  support would probably bs harder to establish for
a voluntary  program.

   Each case  includes an ordinance against scavenging.  Both Cases No. 3a and
3b  are  less  burdensome  for  Baselyn  residents  than multimaterial  separation
(Cases No.  1 and 2).
   Program Flexibility—These programs for separating only newsprint have the
advantage of initial simplicity, because many (perhaps most) residents bundle
newspapers  separately  even when  they are  collected  with other  waste.   The
programs  are  easily explained  to  residents and  easily extended within  the
city or  to  other communities.   These programs also educate  residents  to  the
benefits  of  source separation  and  make  future  expansion of  the program to
other materials much easier.

-------
   The  voluntary  program  can  oe  cancelled  on  short  notice  if  -narket
conditions are  unfavorable.  While  this  flexibility is an advantage  for  the
city,  it  is  a  liability  for  the  intermediate  materials  processors, as  it
makes long-term  planning difficult.

   Environmental Impacts—Both Cases  No. 3a  and 3D extend  the  life of  the
county's landfill somewhat.  There  is  little  or no change in  the  effects of
the landfill  on  groundwater quality in the area.

   Collection of  only  newsprint  increases the likelihood  that the collected
material will lie recycled  to  produce new newsprint rather  than combination
paperboard, although both products could be produced.

   Table  7  compares  the  raw  material   use   and  environmental  impacts  of
producing new newsprint (from a one-day accumulation of waste newsprint)  with
the  impacts of  producing newsprint from raw materials.   The figures show  that
Case  No.  3b provides  the  smallest environmental benefits of  all  the cases.
Production of  newsprint from  wastepaper results in lower emissions  of  most
air  pollutants,  although  emissions  of  sulful dioxide  are  significantly
higher.   However,  water  pollutants are  higher  for  use  of recycled  paper
(primarily due to de-inking).

Beverage Container Recovery - Case No.  4--
   This  case differs  appreciably  from  the  others  in  that  it  results  from
state  legislation  rather  than  local  initiative.  The program is  similar to
those  legislated in Oregon,  Vermont,  and Maine.   While several  county  and
municipal  governments  (including Montgomery  and Howard Counties,  Maryland,
and  Berkeley,  California)  have  passed  ordinances  requiring  deposits,  these
ordinances have  generally  been challenged on  legal grounds.   Baselyn's waste
disposal  operation  is not  altered  in  this case,  since consumers  return
beverage containers  directly to  retail stores  or refund facilities.  There is
increased  inconvenience  and expense  lor certain private  businesses,  but no
new   local   contract  arrangements   are   required.    The  recovery  rate  is
90 percent.

-------
 TABLE 7   COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1KPACIS AND RESOURCE 'SE
fOR NEWSPRINT PRODUCTION USIMC HrCOVCREO PAPER AMD RAW HAKRIALS
Ri source Use
kg/d (Ib/d)
Recovcied mdlerlals
finished newsprint
production
Equivalent raw oalerlal
use
Roundwood
Wood chips
Pol iuli"n residuals*
Solid nasle process
Water pollutants
Waste water volume
mj (10J gallons)
Total suspended solids
BOBj
Air pol lutants
Particulat.es
Sulfur dioxide
Hydroycn sulffde
Other sulfur compounds
Carbon munuAiS:
Nitrogen oxides
Land
Hectares (Acres)
disturbed
Newsprint. Recovery. Hlch
Raw
Materials

14.7'fi
4. BSD

1.038
587
20
17
10 4
69 3
3 0
7.1
41 0

5 9

(32.43r,)
Jio.iaO)

(Z.Z87)
(155.1)
(45)
M/ 5)
(22 8)
(152 7)
(6 6)
(15 7)
(90 3)

04 5)
Recovered
Mali-rials
8.200 (18.000)
-


589 (155.7)
41 (90)
J4 (75)
36 (' 95)
108 (237)
0 0 (0)
0 0 (0)
4 5 (10 0)
39 0 (85 B)

00 (0 C)
Newsprint
Raw
Materials

491
I,b20

346
196
7
5.7
3 S
23 1
1 0
0 89
2 38
13 7

t.O

(1.081)
(3.560)

(762)
(51 7)
(15)
(12 5)
(7 6)
(50 9)
(2.2)
(1 95)
(5 25)
(30 1)

(4 84)
Recovery. Lew
Recovered
Material*
2.700


510
196
14
11
1 20
35 9
0 0
0 0
1 52
13 0

0.0
(C.OOO)


(1.123)
(51 9)
(iOl
(2S)
(! W)
(79 0)
(0)
(0)
(3 3&)
(18 6)

(0 0)
* kg/d (Ib/d) unless otherwise specified
Source Hldvest Research
Institute. Combination
Papcrboard and Solid
Bleached Paperboard.
Comparison of Costs
and Environs
cnial IkpaiK. 1972

-------
   Program Economics—The program  is  entirely within the private  sector  and
dops not  require direct expenditures of municipal  funds.   However,  removing
beverage  containers   from  the  waste  stream  reduces   the  total  volume  of
remaining wastr  and  the associated  handling  costs.   Approximately 1C.7  Hg
(11.8  tons)  of  beverage containers  are recovered  each  day (see  Table  6).
However,  the  operate" of a  mixed-waste procpssing facility might  raise  the
tipping fee  if beverage containers  are removed  from  the  waste  stream.   To
simplify the  analysis, however, no raise has been included.
      TABLE 8.   WASTE DISTRIBUTION FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECOVERY
                         (90 Percent Recovery)*

Container Type
Glass beverage
Ferrous beverage
Nonferrous beverage
Remaining waste
Sol id Waste
Mg/d (t/d)
Recovered
Waste
8.2 (9.0)
1.5 (i.7)
1.0 (1.0)

Distributions**
Hg/ri (t/d)
Remaining
Waste
0.9 (1.0)
0.2 (0.3)
0.1 (0.1)
169.7 (186.9)
      Total
10.7  (11.8)
170.9 (188.2)
*  Assumed to bi> typical based on experiences in Oregon, Vermont, and
   Maine.
** Assuming 181.4 Mg (200 tons) per day of collectt  waste.
   Energy Expenditures--Beverage  container  recovery provides  a net  energy
                   9                   S
return of 102  x  10  Joules (969.3 x 10  Btu) per day.  Appreciable energy is
conserved through  use of  recycled  rather than  raw  materials  to manufacture
beverage containers (see Appendix A).
                                      46

-------
   Contract Structure--Because  this  case  does  not  include  a  program  for
collection of  office waste paper,  existing  contract arrangements  for  waste
disposal need  not  be altered.   Contract  arrangements between  Baselyn  and  the
operator of the mixed-waste facility  are similar to those discussed   n Case
No. 1.

   Social and Political Iniplications—Although   mandatory  beverage   deposit
legislation  is  usual'ly   very   controversial,   the  political   conflict   is
generally  expressed  at  the  state  rather than  local  level.   Therefore,  no
local public education  program or new ordinances are required.

   Program Fle>ibility—This   program   is   legislated  by  the   state  and,
therefore, is  inherently  inflexi^c.   It  is  implemented  uniformly across  the
outire  service a-ea.   Recovery efficiency  should  be  relatively  constant,
provided deposits keep up with inflation.  This  stability allows  intermediate
materials processors and operators  of  mixed-waste facilities a high degree of
certainty for capital investment planning.

   Environmental  Impacts—The  mandatory deposit  program would  extend the life
of the  county  landfill slightly.  There would be little effect on groundwater
pollution  problems  caused by  landfill.  However,  roadside   litter  in  the
community  would  be  reduced  --  an  aesthetic benefit  unlikely  to accrue  in
other  cases.   Vermont  experienced  a  two-thirds reduction in  the  beverage
container portion of  "•oadside litter. (5)

   Environmental  benefits  from manufacturing industrial  products (aluminum,
steel,  and  glass  beverage containers)  from  recovered materials  rather than
raw  materials  are  displayed   in  Table 9.    For  glass containers,  data  for
resource  use are  from a 1974  EPA study(6) and  are based on  a comparison of
one-way  and  refiliable glass  bottles made  from  all  raw materials and  a
hypothetical    case  assuming    100   percent   recycled  cullet.    Data   for
environmental   impacts  are not  shown,  as this  study assumed  operation of a
mixed-waste processing plant  to separate  cullet.   No reduction  in  resource
use  or  pollution  emissions due to a  likely  change in the mix of refillable
and one-way containers  has been included.

-------
                                                      TABLE 9   COMPARISON OF [NV1RONT.EN1AL IMPACTS AND RESOURCE USE
                                                    FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINER PRODUCHON USING RAW AND RECOVEREC  lATERIALS
                                                                (In Xg/d (Ib/d) unless otherwise specified)
CO
Alumimm Carbon Steel
Resource Use
RecovereJ Materials
Industrial
Material Production

Equivalent Raw Material Use








Pollution Residuals
Solid Wastes - Mining
Glass Boveraqc Container^*
Recovered Recovered
Raw Materials Materials Raw Materials Materials Raw Materials
817
(1.800)
707
(1.557)


Limestone (180) (0) Limestone
Cryolite .... ... Iron Ore
Sodiua Chloride (2'|j ^^Jj Sod fun Chloride
Fluorspar .**. .°. Sodium Nitrate
3 63? 0
Bauxite /-.'cmm m\ Fluorspar
1 f, yyyi luj
Alum'num Fluoride ,??. ,° Other Fluxes
(bJ) (0)
In-House Scrap
20.372 192
(44.872) (423)




663
(1.460)
2.371
(5.222)
0
(0)
0
12
(27)
IS
02)
S32
(1.392)
12.652
(27.867)
1.634
(3.600)
1.898
(4.1B1)

Wood Fibers
„% I—I-
(0) lron Orc
(330) Sod1un Cnlortde
(26?) «•"««-
..j. Natural Soda Ash
3 6 Water -
(7.3) M (10 Gal/0)
661
(1.455)
3.024
(6.661)



1.717
(3.777)
3.C-3S
(7.784)
116
(2SS)
1.8S8
(4.087)
S.346
(11.761)
628
(1.381)
575
(152)
611
(1.34S)

Recovered
Materials
8.16S
•Id. 000)
4J,*l02 ur.»-»*y
bottles or 29. SOS
rcft'lable bottles

818
(1.804)
5S8
(1.231)
116
(2SS)
342
802
(1.767)
94
(207)
238
(63)
92
(202)

                                                                                (L'ont lnue.1i

-------
                                                                           TABLE 9  (Continued)
10
Pesuurce Use
- Process
Wdfr Pol lulants
Su vended So i ids
Dissolved Solids
BOD
Air Pol lutants
r.,iK.,.u,
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Aluminum
Recovered
Raw Materials Materials
10.949 213
(24.116) (470)
1.1 C 14
(2 S) (0 3)
13 04
(29) (0 9)
0 09
26 08
(57) (1 S)
63 O.S
<138) (1.1)
26 1 7
(54) (3 7)
61 35
(135) (7 8)
98 47
(216) (10 3)
Carbon Steel
Class Beverage Containers"
Recovered Recovered
Raw Materials Materials Raw Katerlals Materials
8.180
(20.241)
0 OS
(0 1)
2 1
(4 7)
0.01
18
(41)
6
1131
2
(4)
3 4
(7 5)
3 S
(7 7)
36b
(470)
0
(U)
0 7
(1 6)
-
2
(S)
7
(16)
5
(10)
3 9
(8.5)
8 6
(19)
          *  For glass  containers, data are  from  the  !•»  '"A study. "Resource and Environmental  Profile Analysis at firm Beverage Container Alternative', and
            a'e based  on a  comparison of  one-way and lu-'.i ip refilldble glass bottle*.

-------
MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING OPF10NJ

   Resource recovery  from mixed municipal solid  wastes  requires centralized
processing  to  separate  recyclable materials  and  to  convert  the  remaining
nixed  fractions  into useful material*,  or forms  of energy.  Because  of tha
heterogeneous nature of irixed wastes anc* the econoirics of recovery,  virtually
all such processing  systems  are designed as multiple product operations.  At
a  minimum,  ferrous  mntal is  magnetically extracted  for recycling,  and  at
least  one major  commodity is derived from the organic fmotion--usually, but
not necessarily,  a  fuol or steam.

   Energy can be recovered as electricity, hot water or steam for domestic or
industrial use or for district heating,  steam for drying sewage sludge, or as
fuel for later use.

   The magnetic  equipment required to separate ferrous metals from municipal
solid  waste is  relatively  inexpensive,  simple  to operate, and  recovers a
ferrous  product.  However,  demand  and  prices  paid  for  this product are
relatively low.

   Historically,  heat recovery from incineration has bee.i very limited in the
United States.   The  heating value of U.S.  refuse  averages  about  10.7 x 10
Joules  per  kg  (4,600  Btu per  Ib).   Nearly  half  this   heat is  usually
dissipated to the atmosphere through  the stack.  Only a few U.S. incinerators
are designed Tor heat "-ecove.y.  Most European incinerators, in contrast, are
large, modern installations  built  since World War Two which recover heat via
boilers.

   Depending on  technologies and  markets,  inorganic  materials  selected for
recycling besides  ferrous metal  can  include glass Gullet (either mixed-color
or  color-sorted),  aluminum,  and nonfc-rrous  metals.  Alternatively,  slag  or
frit  can  be thermally  converted  into various mixed  inorganic  fractions for
use as a construction aggregate or in other building products, although these
technologies have not been proven.   Also, markets for these products have not
yet been established.
                                      50

-------
   The r. ganic components  ot  solid waste may also be converted into compost,
animal  feed,   or chemical  industry  feedstocks.    Mechanical  processes  for
separating paper and plastics (the light fraction) from metals and glass (the
heavy fraction)  are  under  development by Triple  S/Oynamics,  Inc.  of Dallas,
Texas; Rader  Company,  Inc., Portland, Oregan;  and Allis-Chalmers, Apple ten,
Wisconsin; among others.   Paper  fibers  can be separated by the Black-Clawson
Hydrapulper process,  exemplified  at Franklin, Ohio.

   Modern mixed-waste processing plants are complex and capital intensive.  A
long-term  commitment  as   well  as  sophisticated  planning, management,  and
marketing are  required to  reduce  amortization costs  per  unit of municipal
solid waste.   Most  such facilities  recover ferrous metal  and energy in the
form of r-'uso  derived  fuel  (RDF) or stoam.

   In this rtudy, the  following  mixed-waste processes  have been  selected as
typical commt.-c a I  ^ternatives:

o  Unprocessed combined waterwall combustion and ferrous (UWCF) recovery

o  Processed combined waterwall combustion and ferrous (PWCF) recovery

o  Refuse-derived fuel  production and  ferrous (RDFF) recovery

o  Modular incineration (MI).

MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING  ALTERNATIVES(8,<-)

Unprocessed Watorwall Combustion and Ferrous Recovery

   This  method  of  mixed-waste  processing  consists  of  mass  burning  of
collected  mixed-waste   in   a  thick  bed on  a  moving grate  in   a waterwall
furnace.   The  waste  Is received  in collection trucks which  are  weighed for
billing and control  purposes.  The waste is dumped into  a pit from which it
is moved  into  the  furnace by a  grapnel,  'screw,   vibrating  feeder,  or a ram
mechanism.   The  waste  is  burned  on  a  moving  grate  in a  thic" mat provided
with underfire  and over-fire air.

-------
   fne  hot  co-nbustion  gases  raise  steam  to  as  much  as  4.8  MPa/468  C
(690 psig/875°F)  in  the  waterwall  tubes and in  down;lream convection passes
before passing  through an  electrostatic  precipitator for  particle  emission
control.

   Tne botton  ash is  quenched  before passing  over a magnetic  separator to
recover ferrous miterial.   The  residue  is  combined with the fly ash from the
precipitator and sent to loncfill.

   Furnace capacities range  frotr 50 to 1200  tons per day.

   Examples:    Chicago,   Illinois;   Harrisburg,   Pennsylvania;   Nashville,
Tennessee; Saugus, Massachusetts.

   See Figure 3  for a typica1 schematic.

Processed Watcrwall Combustion and Ferrous  Recovery

   The  waste   is  mechanically  processed   to  concentrate  the  combustible
fraction  and  to  reduce  particle size.   The waste  i.  received  in collection
trucks which are  weighed  for  billing  and  control  purposes.  The  waste is
dumped onto  conveyors  for transport to a shredder,  h.n air density separator
divides the  shredded waste  into two fractions.  The heavy underflow fraction
is conveyed to a magnetic separator to recover ferrous material.

   The  alternative  of  air   classifying  prior   to   shredding  has  been
suggested(7)  to  reduce  wear  on  che  shredder  by  removing  metals,  and
particularly glass,  before  shredding.   Shredding first tends to imbed finely
divided glass   into  the  combustible  fraction which  then tends  to  increase
erosion in the furnace and may cause slugging  problems as well.

   The  light overflow fraction  is conveyed  by  the  air  to  che  waterwall
furnaco,  where  its combustion in suspension and in a thin bed on a traveling
grate raises steam in  the waterwall tubes and  in  convection passes.  Due to
the increased heating  value and decreased  ash content,  higher  quality steam

-------
in
CO
                                                                              CLiCIIOSTlTIC

                                                                              ritcinmot
                                                                                             Tl ST*»
                                                                      CLASS. Hill.

                                                                       NIHFIBSOIIS
                            Figure  3. Unprocessed  waterwall combustion  and ferrous recovery.

-------
up  to  6.9 MPe/495  C  (1000  ps-;g/92r>°F)  can  be  raised  than  thdt  in  an
unprocessed wat.erwall  facility.   An  electrostatic  precipitator is  used  to
control particle emission.

   The glass, dirt,  and  non-ferrous material from the  magnetic separator  is
combined with the bottom ash and the fly ash and sent to landfill.

   F-jrnace capacities  range  from 50 to 1200 tons per day.  Since not all the
waste received passes through the fuinace, more raw waste can be handled than
in an unprocessed waterwall facility.

   Examples:   Detroit, Michigan; NOW Orleans,  Louisiana;  Niagara Falls, New
York.

   See Figure 4  for a typical flow sheet.

Refuse Derived Ftic-1 Production anc* Ferrous Recovery

   This  alternative  is somewhat similar  i.o the previous  one,  but  it allows
combustion to take place  away from the MWDF,  if so desired or required.

   WdsLe  receiving,  shredding,  and classifying are  done  as previously, but
th«»  shredding is usually  done  to  finer  particle size.   Shredding may take
place  in two  stages, before and after  air classifying.  Magnetic  separation
is  used  to  recover  ferrous  material.    Tromelling  may  be  used  also  as  a
separation means.

   The  combustible  fraction may be palletized,  briquelted,  or extruded for
ease of handling during transport to a 'emote site, where it  can be burned in
a  spreader-stoker   or  suspension-fired   or  semisuspension-fired   furnace.
Alternatively,  it  may be  used  directly,  on site  in a dedicated  boiler  or
remotely.  In any  form,  it may  be burned either alone or mix"d with  coal, to
raise high quality steam.

-------
  SKCI
Figure  4.  Processed  waitrwall  combustion  ?nd  ferrous  recovery.

-------
   The residue  from the magnetic  separator  is sent to  landfill,  along  with
bottom ash and fly ash if the RDF is consumed on site.   Otherwise,  the bottom
and fly ash must be disposed of by the furnace operator.

   Unfortunately, some of  the combustible  fraction is lost  in  the formation
of  RDF,   so  that  the  residue  to  landfill   is  increased  over  previous
alternatives while Btu recovery is decreased.

   Furnace   capacities   rr^p   from  100   to  2000   tons   per   day   with
correspondingly larger  raw waste capacities.

   Examples:   RDF dedicated:  Akron, Ohio; Ames,  Iowa
              RDf auxiliary:  Bridgeport, Connecticut; St. Louis,
                              Missouri.

   Figure 5  shows the  process  of RDF production  only,  firing can be done as
in the previous two figures.

Modular Incineration

   Modular incinerators  may be of  the  batch type or of the continuous  feed
type.  A  batch  type  is  shown  in  Figure  6.   Batch  types are  installed  in
municipal  incinerator  plants  in   identical  modules  to  achieve  the desired
plai't capacity.

   Since a typical  size  is less than 50 tons per day, over 20 units would be
required to  handle  1000  tons per day of MSW.  The probable arrangement would
be to have several small  plants  located throughout the service area to reduce
tillage costs rather than a single large  plant.

   The incinerator  is  loaded by a ram feeder which is remotely controlled by
the operator of the loading vehicles that move the wastn from the plant floor
to ihe loader.   The incoming waste is spot  checked  to   -emove items that are
too  la^ge  or otherwise incompatible with  the  feeder equipment.  The removed
i'.ems may be  salvaged, separately shredded,  or landfilled.

-------
                                ill CUSimtH
                                               STOIUE «NO TkAKSFODTtnOM
Figi:re  5.  Refuse-derived fuel  production  and ferrous  recovery.

-------
                                                  INSi'CCIISK BOO
                                              — *SH  .utm PIO
FIGURE  6.  Modular  incinerator.

-------
   There  are  five  basic modes  of operation:   warm-up using the  auxiliary
burner, charging, burn-out, cooling,  and cleaning.   The waste '.<\ the unit at
the end of  the  charging day is consumed during the burn-out period.  The ash
is  relatively  cool  upon  removal  and  quenching  water  is  required  only
sparingly.  No materials are recovered, all  residue goes to landfill.

   The  modular  incinerator  has  a  primary combustion  chamber  operating  on
reduced  ("starved")  air and  a secondary chamber  operating on  controlled
excess air  to assure  complete  combustion.   The hot gases  from the  secondary
combustion  chamber  can be  exhausted  directly out  the  dump  stack  or  can be
diverted  through the tubes of  a  waste  heat  recovery  boiler  to  generate
saturated steam  at 1.0 MPa/164 C (150 p«.ig/328°F).

   The  air  and  fuel  controls assure a more  complete  comoustion  and lower
stack emissions.  Pollution control  pquipment is not usually installed.

   Examples:   Blytheville,   Arkansas;  Groveton,   New   Hampshire;   Salem,
Virginia;  Si loam Springs, Arkansas.

-------
                                SECTION 4

                        THE OPERATOR'S  VIEWPOINT
   The operator  of the mixed-waste  processing  facility has a major  role  in
selecting the  optimum resource  recovery  system for  a  community, which  may
include source separation.  The  operator  has  several  objectives:   To receive
enough  process ibis  waste,  to  recover  the  full  cost  of  operations  and
marketing, and to  realize a reasonable profit.   To achieve  these objectives
and avoid  risks, the  operator usually r quires several guarantees  from  the
community.

   Source separation  may  or may not he explicitly covered  in  such  contract
provisions;  moreover,  detailed evaluations of  its impacts  have  seldom been
made.    To assess  its  impacts,  the  effects  of  various  source  separation
options   on   energy   conservation,   environmental   quality,   institutional
considerations, and economics as they concern  the operator of the mixed-waste
facility are analyzed  in this section.

ENERGY AND MATERIALS CONSERVATION

Issue

   The primary  energy and  materials conservation issue for  the  operator is
the effect  of  source separation  on the production  of usable plant energy
(steam or electricity).   The  operator's  main concern  is  the effect af  the
various source separation options  on the quantity (tons per day) and quality
(Btu  per  Ib)  of  the  municipal  solid waste sent  to the mixed-waste processing
plant.

-------
Objective

   The  objective  of   this  section  is  to  determine  how source  separation
affects the production  of usable plant s.team  energy.

Approach

Assumptions and Analysis--
   The  quantity  and   composition  of  the  source-separated  and  mixed-waste
processing  streams developed  for  Baselyn, along with an  assumed  Btu content
of each component in  the streams, were  used  to calculate the Btu content of
these  streams.   The  following scenarios were used:  1) a  fixed  service area
of 907 Mg  (1000 tons)  per day with either a fixed or variable plant size (as
far as energy or material conservation are concerned, these two cases are the
same), and  2)  an  expanded  service area from which 907 Mg (1000 tons) per day
is delivered to a  907 Mg (1000 tons) per day mixed waste  processing  facility.

   Table 10  shows the  Btu  and ash or non-combustible content assumed for the
components  in  the waste flow stream.   The values used are typical  of reported
numbers for municipal  solid  waste  although  large  variations,  especially in
the moisture content,  are  common.(11,32)  Using the quantity and composition
data  for  Baselyn  and  the  assumed  Btu and  ash content  of  the individual
components,  thc> weight,  non-combustible, and Btu content  of the  mixed-waste
processing  st.. .m  for each  of  the  five   source   separation  options  were
calculated.

   Table 11 shows the results of these calc'i'ations expressed as a percent of
either  the  total  Btu  content  or  l.he  total  weight   of  the  mixed-waste
generated.   Since the composition of source separated and mixed-waste streams
is the same for all scenarios, the percentages are the same for all scenarios
(although the  total quantity  and energy content of the waste is different in
each case).
                                      (.1

-------
 TABLE 10.   WASTE FLOW STREAM COMPOSITION AND HIGH HEATING VALUE (HI;.)
Component
Paper
Newspaper
Office
Corrugated
Other
Glass
Beer and soft drink
Other
Metals
Ferrous
Nonferrous
Remaining waste
Total
Composition
(Wt %•)

7.5
3.5
11.0
16.9

5.0
4.8

4.1
0.8
46.4
100.0
HHV
(Btu/lb)

7,979
6,088
7,043
6,800

0
0

182
182
4,000
4,600
Ash
(%)

1.52
13.72
5.34
6.00

100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
15.0
23.9

   The  Btu  recovery (as  steam)  for  each  option is  the product  of  the Btu
content,  of  the mixed-waste  processing stream and  net  energy efficiency for
each mi/ed-waste process.  The  net enr.-rgy efficiency is the energy recovered
as  steam minus  the  energy  used  in  waste processing.   The  following net
conversion  efficiencies  of mixed-waste  processes  were assumed:  unprocessed
waterwall  combustion,  65%;   processed  waterwall   combustion,  59%;  refir.e
derived  fuel,  58%; and  modular incinerator, 60%.  The net efficiencies are
based  on an  energy  analysis  by  Hecklinger(13)  using, wherever possible,
operating   data,   pilot  plant  data  and  conceptual   designs.    For  the
refuse-derived fuel alternative,  it  was assumed that the ROF was burned in a
dedicated boiler.
                                      !52

-------
          TABLE 11.   PERCENT WEIGHT AND PERCENT BTU CONTENT OF
   MIXED-WASTE PROCESS (MWP) STREAM FOIt EACH SOURCE SF^KATION OPTION
                    Mixed    Ferrous    Othej>Non-    Btu to    Heating
Source Separation   Waste    Material    Combustible     MWP      Value
     Option         (Wt %)   (Wt %)       (Wt %)      (Btu %')   (Bc:u/lb)
Multimaterial,
     high
Multimaterial,
     low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage
     containers
No source
     separation
 82.4

 93.1

 95.5
 98.5

 94.1

100.0
2.6

3.6

4.1
4.1

3.3

4.1
13.7

17.5

]9.6
19.6

14.7

19.8
 83.8

 93.0

 92.2
 97.4

 <>9.9

100.0
4660

4590

4440
4550

4890

4600
Mote:  Expressed as percent of either Uie total weight or total Btu
       content of the mixed-waste generated.
   Table  12 shows  the calculated  Btu  recovery  (as  steam)  expressed  as  a
percent of  the  Btu  content of the mixed-waste generated in the service area.
Table 13 presents the amount of energy recovered for each alternative for the
fixed  and  expanded  areas  scenarios.   The Btu  recovery calculations  are  a
measure  of both  the  efficiency  ot  the process  and  the  effect  of  source
separation  in reducing the amount of energy available  for recovery.  For the
fixed  sen'ice  area   scenario,  the  «ame  Btu recovery will occur  for both the
fixed anc  variable plant size.

-------
                  TABLE 12.   BTUS RECOVERED AS STEAM IN
                BOTH FIXED AND EXPANDED SERVICE AHEAS (%)
Source Separation
     Option
Unprocessed   Processed    Refuse-
 Waterwall    Waterwall    Derived      Modular
Combustion    Combustion    Fuel       Incinerator
Multimaterial,
     high
Multimaterial,
     low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage
     containers
No source
     separation
     54

     60

     60
     63

     65

     65
49

54

54
58

59

59
48

54

53
56

58

58
50

56

55
58

60

60
Results--
   As  shown  in  Table 11,  the type  of  source  separation  affects the  Btu
content of  the mixed-waste processing stream.  The separation of newsprint at
high and  low  efficiency  reduces the Btu  content  per  pound of waste slightly
(3.5  and  1.1  percent,   respectively),  whereas the  separation of  glass  and
metal enhances its content (6.2 percent).  However, the variations of the Btu
content resulting  from source  separation are small and well within the range
of variation expected ir.  raw municipal  ;.olid waste.
   For  a  fixed service  area,  source separation reduces the  total  amount of
Btu's going  to  mixed-waste  processing and thus reduces  both  the percent and
total amount of Btu recovery.  The source separation option which removes the
most  Btus,  multimaterial   high,  reduces  energy  recovery  the most  (around
16 percent).

-------
  TABLE 13.  BTliS RECOVERED AS STEAM IN FIXED (EXPANDED) SERVICE AREA
	(10J Btu/D.iy)	
                   UnprocessedProcessedRefuse-
Source Separation   Waterwall    Waterwall     Derived      Modular
     Option        Combustion    Combustion     Fuel      Incinerator
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
N° "separation
                   5'01 (6'06)  4'55 (!5'50)  4'47
                   5'56 (5'97)  5'05 (5'42)  4'96
                                                          4'63 (5'59)
                                                          5'13
                   5.51 (5.77)  5.00 (r>.24)  4.92 (5.15)  5.09 (5.33)
                   5.82 (5.92)  5.29 (!i.37)  5.20 (5.28)  5.38 (5.46)
5'97 (6'36)  5'42 (!)'

5'98 < '  >* 5'43 ^ '
                                             5'33 (5'67)  5'51 (5'87)
                                             5'34
                                                          5'52 ( '  >
*  Service area would not be expanded since fixed area alone supplies
   MWPF capacity of 1000 tons per day.
   for an expanded  service  area,  since a thousand tons per day are processed
for  each  source  separation option,  the  total Btu  recovery for  each  waste
processing  option  is  proportional  to  the  Btu   content  per  pound of  the
mixed-waste  processing  stream.   Therefore,  the  highest total  Btu  recovery
(about 6 percent  higher than  for  no source separation)  is  obtained  with the
source separation  option  that  enhances  the Btu  content per  pound  the most
(beverage containers).  However,  the percentage Btu recovery  is,  of course,
the same  for the fixed and  expanded scenario.

   It was assumed that Btu recovery w   in the form of steam, the most common
option.  If  some  other form of Btu recovery is assumed,  then  the efficiency
rating of  the  high technology options  could change  (for  example,   RDF  can
produce a  higher quality steam ard, thus, could rate  better  for producing
electricity).
                                      S5

-------
tNVlRONMLN'IAL IMPACT

Issues

   Although energy and materials can be recovered from municipal  solid waste,
processing can be done In an environmentally acceptable manner.   The recovery
operation should not  result in more air, land, and water pollution than from
common  landfill  disposal techniques.   If  the recovery  does  result  in  more
pollution, then a more-than-offsetting benefit should be achieved.

   The  operator  is  faced  with  two  environmental  issues:   What  are  the
emissions?  How can they be controlled?

Objective

   The  objective  of this  section  is to delineate,  insofar as  possible from
available data, the amounts of pollutants emitted to the land, air, and water
from  each MSW source separation option, each  resource recovery  alternative,
and their combinations, and now the emissions  may be controlled.

Approach

Emission Standards-
   Regulations established  under the  Federal  Clean Air  Act  Amendments have
set  primary and  secondary  National Ambient  Air Quality  Standards  (NAAQS).
The NAAQS affect individual  MWP plant emissions indirectly, in that operation
of a  new facility  will  not be  permitted  if it would cause  the  Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR) in which it is located to violate NAAQS.  In this case,
or  if  the  AQCR already  violates  NAAQS,  emission  controls  and  offsetting
reduction in emissions elsewhere  must  be established to demonstrate that the
net Impact  on  air  quality is lyaintained.  This determination  must be made on
a  site  specific  basis,  typically  using air quality  modeling   of  ambient
concentrations before and after  operation  of the new  facility.   Hence, NAAQS
do not  provide  a  direct  guide to probable levels of emissions from a typical
proposed MWP facility.

                                      r,f>

-------
   Under the sane amendments, specific regulations have also been established
to  limit  emissions  to  air  of  certain  criteria  pollutants from  specific
sources  in  order  to  prevent violations of the  NAAQS.   For  instance,  the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for coal-burning boilers used to generate
electricity  have  established  emission limits  for  particles,  SO^ and N0x>
NSPS has been established for incinerators, out it applies only to particles.
No regulations  have  been specifically established for mixed-waste processing
facilities  as ynt.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that a
utility  boiler  that  has  been  modified for  MSW supplementary  firing is not
classed  as  a new  stationary source of emissions,  therefore,  those standards
applicable  to coal-fired  boilers will  continue  to apply.  This means,  in
general, that r«fuse-derived fuel combustion would be covered by the existing
standards.

   While  the  NSPS   for  utility  boilurs  are  legally applicable  to  waste
combustion only for co-firing of RDF, they regulate a source that is somewhat
similar,  and   nay   provide  a  rough  guide  to  possible  future  emission
limitations  for  MWP  facilities.   Hence,  these standards will  be used as a
point of comparison  to evaluate whether emission  control technology  for SCL
and NO   might be  required at typical WVP plants.  The incinerator particulate
standard, which is legally  applicable,  will  be used for this pollutant.  The
relevant  NSPS  emission   limits   for  incinerators  and coal-burning  utility
boilers are given  in Table 14.

Analysis--
   Determining  the   amount   of  pollutants  emitted  required making  several
assumptions.  It  was assumed that the source separations were clean,  with no
waste carried  over  into  the source  separated material and with  none of the
source  separated  material  left  behind in thr  waste.   Ferrous  recovery was
also assumed to  be clean.

   Assuming  complete combustion,  1,000  tons  per day of municipal solid waste
was taken  for the basis for calculations.  The higher heating  value of the
waste was  taken as 4,600 Btu per pound from the analysis previously given in
this report (Table 10).

                                      r>7

-------
               TABLE 14.   NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Pollutant
Utility
] 2
Boilers Incine» Jturs
ng/J lb/105 3tu gr/dscf
Particle
so23
N0x
13
<260
260
C.03
<0.60
0.60 0.08 at 12% C02

Federal Register,
2 AO CFR Part 60.50.

11 June 79

i t\ IX inlf
, p. 33i515


   Assuming lesj than O.b% sulfur in M'SW and 70% removal  of SO,, from
   stack gas.
   The estimates of residuals to landfill ~n Table Ib were derived by doing a
material balance on the ash content of the mixed-waste stream (see Table 10),
assuming  complete  combustion  for  all  MWP  options.   This  assumption  is
reasonable  beceuse in  actual  operation  combustion  levels  of  at  least  98
percent  are typically  achieved.   Ferrous material  recovery occurs  for  all
processes except modular incineration; thus this option sends somewhat larger
amounts  to  landfill.   In prepan.ir  Pl)F,  a  portion  of the  MSW will  not  be
burned  (up  to 25  percent),  which  increases  landfill  requirements  for this
option.

   Particulate  matter  produced  In pro-  or postprocessing  of the  waste  or
residual  was  not   included  because  it  is  insignificant  compared  to  that
produced  in processing.   Such particles  will  be  captured  in a  baghouse  or
routed into the process in the input air  stream.

   The  excess  air  assumed  in  burning'and  the standard cubic  feet (scf)  of
flue gas produced per pound of processed  waste are shown in Table 16.

-------
     TAr!Lr 15.   ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:  RESIDUALS TO
LANDFILL TONS/DAY FOR 1.000 TONS OF MI>:£D-t>'AST: GENER'.TEL

Mixed-Waste Processing Alternative
Source Separation
Option
Multimateria'l , high
Hultiinaterial , low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage containers
IJWCF
137
175
19C
196
147
PWCF RDFF
137 337
175 375
196 396
196 39b
147 2','
ril
163
211
238
?38
180

TABLE 16. EXCESS AIR
ASSUMED IN BURN
INC AND FLUE C^S
AMOUNTS RESULTING

Technology
Option
Excess Air (%)
Flue Gas
scf/lb
 Unprocessed waterwall               75               75
   combustion with ferrous
   recovery

 Processed waterwa.1                 50               65
   combustion with ferrous
   recovery

 Refuse-derived fuel with            5C               65
   ferrous recovery

     V-- incinerator                 50               65

-------
   The emission concentrations  (Fable  if)  for air pollutants were tdken from
the  literature  on   ths   various  recovery  techniques  and  f«")m  personal
communications  with  vendors  and  operators  (References  14  to  28),  using
considerable engineering judgment  in  view  of the wide  diversity  in  reported
results.
          TABLE 17.   EMISSION CONCENTRATIONS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS
                                         Emission Concentrations
                                       PartTculate    SO-      NO
            Technology Option            (g/scf)      (ppm)    (ppm)
         Unprocessed waterwall            0.17          38      145
           combustion with ferrous
           recovery
         •'"otessed wclarwall              0.07         241      lfi«
           combustion with ferrous
           recovery
         Refuse-derived fuel witii         0.06         241      144
           ferrous recovery
         Modular incinerator              0.16         168      156
   These  concentrations  were  cm verted to  tens per  day of  emissions from
a l.OCO  ton  pur  day  municipal  solid  waste  processing  plant  by  using
appropriate   equations   to   determine   particulate   and   gas   emissions
(Appendix B).

   Several assumptions were  made in u->inci published data to obtain the total
t'ir  pollution emissions  for  each  combined  alternative.   In all  cases,  we
assumed  that  900  Mg  (1,000  ton-)  MSW  per  day  were  available  from  the
collection area.   This  amount and  the amounts  remaining  after  applying the
various  source  separation options  were assumed to be  processed through the
various mixed-waste processing systems to produce steam, so the figures woi'.ld
be conparable.  Three air pollutants were calculated:   participates, SO., and

-------
   The pollutants  emitted  after  source  separation were ratioed on  the  nasis
of the heat content of the waste remaining to be processed,  (Table 18).

       TABLE 18.  HEAT CONTENT OF WASlt REMAINING TO 3E PROCESSED

Source Separation
Option
Multimaterial, high
Multin.aterial , low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage containers
Btu/day
7 71 x 109
8.55 x 109
8.48 x 109
8.96 x 109
9.19 x 109
MJ/day
8.13 x 106
9.0? x 106
8.94 x 106
9.45 x 106
9.69 x 106

   The air  amissicns  calculated  according to the methods given in Appendix B
for the various  recovery options are listed in Table 19.

   Data  on   the   composition   of  '--aste  water  pol'utdnts  resulting  from
mixed-waste   processing   facilities  are  limited.   The   total   amount  of
discharged water serves as an indication of the nagnitude of water pollution.
One can also  consider waste water quality and  nAuctions  in Teachability of
the  residual  solid   waste  from  the  processing  ;Jant  as  compared to  the
Teachability of  the raw waste.

   Again,  some assumptions were made.  Only water actually used in processing
the wastes  is considered.  The much larger boiler and cooling tower blovdowns
required in steam production an not included.

   The  residuals   to  water  were  determined  by  mass  inputs  of the  waste
remaining after  source separation, as follows:
                                      71

-------
             TAiiLE 19.  ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:  EMISSIONS TO
          AIR. TONS/DAY FOR 1.000 TONS OF MIXED-WASTE GENERATED

Source Separation
Option
Multimaterial , high


frjitimaterial, low


Newsprint, high


Newsprint, lew


Bc-verage containers


No source separation


Mixed-Waste Processing Alternative

(a)*
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
UWCF
1.53
0.43
1.17
1.69
0.47
1.30
1.68
0.47
1.29
1.77
0.50
1.36
1.82
0.51
1.40
1.82
0.51
1.40
PWCF
0.50
2.35
1.17
0.56
2.61
1.30
0.55
2.69
1.29
0.58
2.76
1.36
0.50
2.80
1.40
0.60
2.80
1.40
RDFF
0.47
2.35
1.17
0.52
2.61
1.12
0.52
2.69
1.11
0.55
2.76
1.17
0.56
2.80
1.20
0.56
2.30
1.20
MI
1.26
1.63
1.09
1.40
1.81
1.21
1.38
1.80
1.20
1.46
1.90
1.27
1.50
1.95
1.30
1.50
1.95
1.30
*  (a) Particles, (h) S02, (c) NO
                                 x
                                      72

-------
            Source Separation Option               Tons  Per  Day
         Multimaterial,  high	824
         Kultim.iterial,  low	931
         Newsprint, high	955
         Newsprint, low	985
         Beverage containers 	 941.
   After source separation,  the  quantity  of m'terial  sent an MWP  facility is
the same; hence the  ash content, as well  ai the water used  for  asn quenching
and sluicing,  is the same, except for modular incinerators.
   The  latter  will rfiqm,-o  several units,  perhaps as many  as  20,  to  handle
the  postulated waste   load.   As  a result their  water discharge was  set
slightly greater  than  for  the  other processes.  The waste  water discharges
are listed in Table 20.
              TABLE 20.   ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:   WASTEWATER
       DISCHARGED TONS/DAY FOR 1.000 TONS OF MIXLH-WASTE GENERATED

Mixed-Waste Processing Alternative
Source Separation
Option
Multimaterial, high
Mullimaterial , low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Peverage containers
UWCF
1,154
1,303
1,337
1,379
1,217
PWCF
1,154
1,303
1,337
1,379
1,317
RDFF
1,154
1,303
1,337
1,379
1,317
MI
1,195
1,350
1,385
1,428
1,364

   i t-N data  ~rfe available  on  the composition  of  water pollution  emissions
re-.'jKing  from  mixed-waste processing  facilities.   The  concentrations  of
pollutants  in   the  wastewater   from  the  various  mixed-waste  processing
alternatives and  from  landfills  are  estimated in  Table  21, which  has  been
derived from data compiled in Reference 26.

                                      73

-------
          TABLE 21.   WASTEWATER POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)

Mixed-Waste Processing Alternative
1JWCF PWCF RDF? MI
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Phenols
Phosphorus
Sulfate
Zinc
20
5
42
1,1000
0.13
0.02
5
.0
1
C.3
2
-50
'-1000
2
20
5
42
-1000
0.13
0.02
5
.0
1
0.3
2
-50
-1000
7
-0 20
5 5
42 42
-100 -1000
0.13 0.13
-0 0.02
5 'J
—0 1
-0 1
—0 0. 3
2 2
.5 -50
-25 -1000
-0 2
Landfill
Residue
NA
NA
27
NA
NA
1
NA
-0.01
0
2
NA
NA
12
0.1
Leachate
Direct
NA
NA
-300G'
-1000
NA
•N.5
NA
-1500
-1
-75
NA
NA
-2000
-200

Results—
   Any 01 the  source  separation options will extend the  life  of a landfill.
Low  newsprint  separation  will  extend  it  by  only  1.5 percent,  but  high
mulimmaterial  saparation will  extend  it  by  17.6  percent.   However,  much
greater  extensions  can be attained  by coupling  rcurce  separation with  the
mixed-waste processing alternatives,  wcich yield landfill  lifetime extensions
of  76.2  to  86.3 percent.   Obviously,  the processing,  not the  separating,
yields these  larger extensions, because  of the great reduction  in mass  and
volume that results  from combustion of the  waste.
                                      74

-------
   Source   seperaLicn   alone  will   cause  little   change   in  the   major
environmental  problem   of  landfills  namely,  pollution  nf   surface  ard
groundwater  resulting  from  leaching.   Mixed-waste  processing residuals  are
much less Teachable, so that the problem is greatly reduced.   These  residuals
typically  contain   less   than   0.1 purcent  putrescibles.    One caveat  is
necessary.  In the preparation of  RDF,  a portion of the MSW (which  may be as
large as  25  percent) will  not  be burned, and,  therefore,  the total residual
going to  landfill  will  not be  clean.  In this  case,  the leachate problem is
still  troublesome.   Encapsulating  this  unburned portion with  the residual
from burning in a correctly managed landfill  will materially reduce leaching.

   The  flue  geses  from  mixed-waste  processing contain solid  as well  as
gaseous  pollutants.   The concentrations  vary  considerably among processing
alternatives.   tnissicns  of  S02  will   be  lower   than from  coal-  and/or
oil-fired plants  with  equivalent  heat  capacity, because refuse  has  3 lower
sulfur level.  Chloride emissions can be as much as  2-1/4 to 7 times the 0.10
Ihs of chloride  ion  per million B*,u typical from coal(16,29), because refuse
contains  considerable  quantities  of  chlorinated   plastics.   The  chloride
emission  can  create significant,  corrosion  problems.   Although it  can  be
removed  from the  gas  stream by scrubbing,  its subsequent removal from the
scrubbing water can result in water pollution.   Chloride emissions to air are
not presently  believed  to  be an environmental  hazard even  in the absence of
controls.(30)  Trace elements  such as berylium, cao'mium, copper,  lead,  and
mercury have  been  reported  to  be present in the  flyash from MSW combustion,
at concentrations  higher than  in emissions from coal-only combustion.  It is
not known if  these  emissions are environmental hazards.(30)

   In general, participate  emissions are high  enough to present potentially
significant  problems  for  all  combined  alternatives  involving  mixed-waste
processing   facilities.   High   newsprint   source   separation  significantly
reduces particulate emissions for all alternatives.
   For larae  facilities,  an  applicable EPA standard for  particulates  may be
13 ng/J (0.03 Ib per 106 Btu). which is equivalent to 0.13 Mg (0.14 U>ns) per
day  in  the  Baselyn  case.   All   mixed-waste, processing  alternatives  will

                                      75

-------
require  particular?   emission  controls  to  meet   existing   and  proposed
standards.   Electrostatic  precipitators  or  baqhouses  are suitable  control
methods. Cyclones alone will probably not be suitable.

   Emissions of SO,, will  be low enough  because  of  the low sulfur content cf
the  MSW (approximately  0.2% sulfur)  that  only 70  percent removal  will  be
required if the utility  NSPS is assumed to apply.   The optimistic assumption
is that desulfurization  will  not be required.  However, the current approach
in EPA  seems  to be to require  scrubbing in  all  cases, so  that some minimal
S02 removal  may probably be needed.

   The  EPA  limit  of  N0v under  the  utility  NSPS,  which  is 0.27 gram per MJ
               5
(0.6 Ib per 10  Bi.u)  but which may  not apply  to these  processes, equals
2.50 Mg per day  (2.76 tons per day).   It appears  that  KOX  controls would
probably not be necessary if such a regulation were to be applied.

   Few  data ere available  on  the composition  of  water  pollution emissions
resulting from mixed-waste  procssing facilities.  Water quenching of the ash
is  usually  necessary  to  break  up  the clinkers   and  extinguish  burning
materials.   Thus,  water  pollution problems  ca.i occur,  but   they  should be
successfully handled  by  straightforward industrial  water treatment process.es
such as  those currently  applied at electric utility  plants  to very similar
waste  streams.   Most  operating  mixed-waste  processing facilities discharge
their  liquid  wastes  into municipal sewer systems.   Usually,  mixing the ash,
processing,  and  any  scrubbing  was1.ewatt-rs  suffices  for   neutralization
purposes.    Total   suspended   solids   are  reduced  by  settling  the  mixed
wastewater  before  discharge.   The settled  solids  are  periodically added to
the residue going tc landfills.(31)

   Solid waste emissions consist of bottom and fly ash.  Both can be disposed
of in  ordinary landfills  such as those used by electric generating plants.
The  great  reduction   in residue  volume  and mass   resulting  t.om  all  .ihe
mixed-waste  processing  alternatives makes  them  far  more  attractive  than
d'rect  landfill ing  of unprocessed vaste.  The probable reduction in residue
leaching  is  also  attractive.   The  reductions  resulting  from  the  various

                                      76

-------
source  separation  options  are much smaller than  from  mixed-waste processing
and do not reduce leaching.

   The  air quality  standard- that  the mixed-waste processing  alternative.;
must  meet  are still  unknown.   Hence,  actual emissions  from  an MWPF  are
difficult  to predict.  However,  considering the standards applying to utility
boilers  of over  2,636 MJ per  hr  heat input  (2.5 x  106 Btu/hr),  907 Mg/d
(1000 tpd)  yields  about 0.13 Mg  (0.14 tons) per  day of  particulate,  5.01 Mg
(5.52 tons)  per  day of  S02 and  2.92 Mg  (3.22  tons)  per  day   of  NOx-(29)
Alternatively,  the large incinerator standard yields  0.73 Mg  (0.8 tons)  per
day  of  particulates.(32)  For comparison,  9.7 x  10  MJ (9.2  x  10  Btu)  per
day  from  a three  percent sulfur coal of 2.56  x 10  J  per Kg (11,000 Btu per
Ib) would  emit 22.7  Mg (25 tons) per day  of  SO-  if uncontrolled.  Allowable
emissions  from such  a  coal  are  2.50  Mg  (2.76  tons)  of  SO.  per  day.   A
percentage  reduction with  a  floor, such as 0.27  gram  S00  per MJ (0.6 Ib SO,
      c
per 10  Btu), wnich is equivalent to 2.49 Mg (2.76 tons)  per day of SO-, will
require desulfurization.

   With  or without  source  separation  options,  the mixed-waste  processing
alternatives of  UWCF and  MI  will  require  particular emission  control.   In
view  of *.he fact that the waste contains  far less sulfur than  coal  or oil,
possibly no S02 emission controls  will  be needed; however, if the applicable
standard  reuuires a  70  percent  reduction,   then  desulfurization  will  be
necessary,  li  •>  sourco separation options  change the SO, emissions  by less
than  20 per.:ei/., which  is not significant.   Emissions of  NO  do not appear to
                                                           J\
be a  problem  for  any  mixed-waste processing  alternative  regardless of  the
source separation option.

   Inspection  of  Table 21 discloses  that  RDFF results  in the least surface
water pollution of the MWPF  alternatives while other  alternatives  cannot be
distinguished  from the  standpoint  of  concentration.   Since MI discharges the
post  wastewater   (see   Table 20),   it  is  probably   the  least  desirable
alternative, with  RDFF  being the most desirable.
                                      77

-------
   The  table  indicates that the  leachate  from  the residue of an  MWPF  has a
Riuch  smaller  impact on groundwater  than  does the leachate from  the raw MSW
when  it  is  directly landfilled.   Coupled  with its smaller  volume  and higher
density, the  residue  thus  will contribute much less pollution to groundwater
than will the  raw waste.

   Waste ./ater discharges  may  be the most difficult to control,  but relevant
data  are so sparse that it is premature to nuke any quantitative prediction?
at this time.  Disposal to municipal  sev/er is the current practice.

Conclusions

   The amount of residuals to be landfilled are greatly reduced by any of the
mixed-waste  processes.   On  the  other  hand,   thft  reduction  in  lardfin
requirements  due  to the  various source separation options are  quite small.
In  summary,  the   reductions  due  to  processing  will  significantly  extend
landfill life.

   The  foregoing  environmental  impact  analysis  shows  that  uncontrolled
particulate emissions  to  the  atmosphere  will present  a  problem.   Baghouses
and electrostatic precipitators will reduce the emissions to suitable levels.
Wet  particulate  control  (scrubber 1  should  be  considered in  view of  the
probable need for S0« control.

   Emissions  of  S0? to the  atmosphere may be excessive,  depending on site-
and   process-specific  control  regulations.   Since  the  probable  required
emission reductions are small,  standard scrubbing techniques will be suitable
means of control.

   All  mixed-waste  processing  facilities produce  minimal  NO   emissions.
Source separation effects are negligible.

   Considering  residuals  to   air   and  water,   no  mixed-waste  processing
alternative is  clearly superior   Multimaterial  separation (either  high or
low)  at  the source  is the desirable  source  separation alternative from the
viewpoint of environmental  ii.ipact.

                                      Vft

-------
   Additional d.ita on  water  pollutant-; are needed, both  in  water discharged
directly  and in  leachate,  before  an  assessment  can  be made  of  the  most
compatible  resource  recovery  system.   However,  it appears that  RDFF will  be
the most desirable option and MI the least desirable.

   The great  reduction in  volume,  mass, and Teachability of the residuals to
landfill  from all  the mixed-waste  processing  alternatives  as  compared  to
direct  landfilling  of  wastes makes  any  processing  alternative attractive,
coupled with any  form of source separation.

   From   environmental   considerations  alone,  no   mixed-waste  processing
alternative  is  uniquely  selected,  although  MI  and  especially  UWCF  are
favored.   The various forms  of  papur separation,  except  the  newsprint,
low-recovery  option,  are favored.   Any combinations  of  the  favored options
would also be suitable.

INSTITUTIONAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACT

Issues

   Because  it  changes the quantity  and quality of the waste  stream, source
separation  can  raise  significant  issues  for  several   different   types  of
private  firms involved  in  solid  waste   disposal.   For  an  operator of  a
mixed-waste  processing plant,  source separation offers both  potential risks
and benefits.  The most important risks  include:

o  Reductions  (or greater variability and  uncertainity)  in  t>ie  supply  of
   waste  delivered   to the  plant,  thus   affecting   its  ability to  operate
   efficiently

o  Lower profits  for  plant operators   hat  result either from reduced tippinq
   fees, reductions  in wastes delivered to  the plant,  lower revenues from the
   sale of recovered materials., or increased operating  costs
                                      79

-------
o  Difficulties  or Increased  costs  in  financing  the plant,  either through
   private capiv.al  or  the sale of bonds.

   Balanced aqa'nst these risks are several potential  benefits:

o  Removal of  unwanted  materials from the waste stream (for example, removal
   of  glass  by  source separation  can  lower  facility maintenance  costs  by
   reducing erosion)

o  The  possibility of  persuading additional  communities  to deliver  their
   wastes  to  the   facility  if  they  can  be  assured that  ongoing  source
   separation programs  can  continue;  thus, increased quantities of waste can
   be delivered to  the plant.

   Increasingly,    local    source    separation   programs   have   developed
relationships  with  private  companies  or individual  entrepreneurs.  These
companies  act  as  brokers  for the sale of  separated materials  to industrial
purchasers  and often partially  process the  material  prior  to  resale.   For
these brokers who  frequently act as catalysts  for  setting up local separate
collection  systems,  mixed-waste  processing plants  pose  a similar  range  of
potential risks and benefits.

   In  sone  ca^os,  when  a  mi:or  mixed-waste  processing  (MWP)  plant  is
proposed,  such  small,  local  coim, -ies and their much larger customers (e.g.,
recycled  newsprint and  paperboan'  ne-nufacturers)  are  frequently  concerned
that the municipality will redirect ,.11 wastes to the new MWP facility.  As a
result, local entrepreneurs  would los" their source of  supply  and  be forced
to cease  operations.   For example,  p-ivate entrepreneurs  conducting source
separation are  currently opposing construction of  a  major MWP  facility  in
Seatile, Washington.

   On  the  other  hand,  the  customers  for  the  energy  (steam,   RDF,  or
electricity) or materials  produced  by the mixed-waste facility m..y feel  that
source separation coulrf prevent the facility from producing required contract
quantities.   Si:ch   firms  and  MWP  plant  operators  may  desire  legislative

                                      80

-------
assurances  fron  the  municipality  that all  wastes  from  the  area will  be
directed  to  the  facility.  When  projects  are  financed  by revenue  bonds,
underwriters  may  also favor  such  assurances,  on the grounds that  they make
bond sales easier.

   In  this  context, source separation  is  part of the larger issue of "flow
control," that  is,  .the  ownership of wastes and the legal rights of political
jurisdictions to specify where and how their wastes a^e to be disposed.  This
issue  is  of  great  concern to private refuse haulers, who  may face increased
tipping  fees  at an MWP  plant,  or  private landfill operators,  who  fear that
they will be  forced out of business.  These groups may find themselves allied
with advocates of source separation against flow control legislation.

   A  recent  bill  in Akron, Ohio,  requiring  all  wastes  to be delivered to a
planned  MWP  facility,  is  now being challenged  i? court.    In  several other
cases,  the  political  controversy resulting from similar legislation must be
overcome  before a  successful  solution  tc a  regional  solid waste problem can
be implemented.

Objectives

   It  is important  to  determine  whether most  perceived  conflicts between
source  separation  and  mixed-waste  processing  systems  result  from  poor
coordination  or  from  inherent  contradictions  between  the  two  resource
recovery  approaches under particular circumstances.  Poor coordination can be
avoided  by  well-written contracts  that adequately share  risks and revenues
and by designing  MWP facilities that are compatible with source separation.
programs.   If,  however,  soi"e or  all   approaches  to source separation  ind
mixed-waste processing  are inherently  conflicting, public  officials will ^e
required to make difficult political decision on the relative merits of each.

   Five institutional  and technological  issues must be addressed by MWP plant
operators and other  interested private firms:
                                      81

-------
o  Can  a  reliable  supply ot  municipal  solid waste be  assured for  an MWP
   facility operator  if  source  separation is also rarrieJ out in the service
   area?

o  Can  an  MWP  facility operator maintain adequate  profitability with source
   separation?

o  How does source  separation  influence the cost of  private  financing of an
   MWP facility?

o  Will source  separation inhibit  recycled materials purchasers  and energy
   product consumers from committing themselves to product purchases?

o  Can  fnechani sms  be  identified  th.ii.  allow  coiitinualiun  and  reasonable
   expansion  of  existing  source  separation  programs   in  connection  with
   implementation of an MWP facility?

   To   address   these   questions,    implemented!  or   proposed  contractual
arrangements of waste flow  and profitability in several Co»e studies will be
analyzed.    Those  contract  provisions  and  approaches  that  might  serve  as
models  for  specific  combinations  of  mixed-waste  processing  and  source
separation  facilities   in   a  community  will  be   identified,  using  the
hypothetical Bai.elyn community as an example.

Approach:   Assumptions, Analysis, end Results

   Typical provisicns  of  a  contrrct betwetn oparatcrs of MWP facilities and
municipalities are:

o  Long-term contract! for the  del ivery of  ws«-*e  to oe accepted  at  a set
   charge ("tipping  fee'1)

o  Guaranteed annual, weekly, or iron^.hly tonnages to be deliver id

o  Guaranteed payment of  tipping fees whether or not  dclve;y is made

-------
o  Established flipping) fees thit cover aU  operatiny and maintenance costs,
   local property  taxes on  all  facilities ai.d  equinnsnt,  and -i  reasonable
   profit

o  Automatic annual  adjustment in dump fees that cover  inflation

c  Adjustments  in  flump fees  or  participation  in  revenue-* from  recovered
   products  to  account  for  sirnificant  changes  in  the  composition  of
   delivered wastes «,' it affect either *he cost of operations or the terms of
   the marketing ag "epients

o  Adjustments  in  dump  fees to  account for any  uncontrollable increases ir.
   operating and maintenance  costs beyond the annual rate of inflation

o  Deduction  of  the  cost  of maiketing (e.g.,  transportation costs)  from
   revenues  from the  sale  of  recovered products before cuch revenues are
   shared with other participants.

   It  is diffifult  to  determine  which factors are most important in epecific
contrac'.  agreements because  of   frequent  trade-offs  and compromises.   E^ch
case  is  unique,  and   the  institutional  area is  particularly effected  by
psychological  and  political  factors that cannot be  anticipated.   Tne  best
contract agreement  tor  a  given situation is probably not that  which is Most
technically equitable to  all  sides, but rather one that  is acceptable to all
parties  and   provides  a   mechanism  for  resolving  fMture  contingencies.
Moreover,  all  contract provisicns  are  interrelated, even though  they are
discussed separately here.

Assuronce of a Reliable Waste Stream

   Host,  if  not all,  municipal  contracts with private  operators of WP
facilities specify minimum daily o» weakly quantities that must be delivered.
These  contracts  reouire payment  for this trinimum amount even if  iv ;r. not
delivered  (Appendix C).  The specific wording of such "put or pay" p'-rvisicns
iii the  New Orleans  and  Kilwukee contracts are  also  included in Appendix C.
                                      33

-------
Ihe  quantities   specified   in   such  provisions  are  determined   by   each
community's minimum expected  waste  generation for a qiven  time  period.   The
contract is generally  fairly  '   g;  five years is the  minimum  time  ieported.
From the operator's viewpoint,  the  lengctf'of the contract  should correspond
to  the  lifetime  of   the  plant,  generally  between   2i.  and  25 years,   and
operators  usually attempt  to gain  as  long  a  contiact  as possible  during
negotiations.

   Minimum quantity provisions  are  generally acceptable to  communities  with
source separation  programs, as  long as the quantity specified  corresponds to
its  estimates  of  the  minimum  quantity  generated.   In  most  communities
(particularly  in  large  metropolitan  areas),   source  separation  currently
accounts  for  only  a   very  small  percentage  of  total  waste generated.   For
example,   in   Massachusetts,   source   separation   is   particularly   wen
established;  183  of the 351 cities  and  towns  in the  State have some form of
recycling program.  However,  lh»  average community  with a separation program
recovered  only  three  percent of  its  :otal  waste volume in  this  manner, and
this sample excluded the largest cities (Boston,  Worcester, and Springfield).
Although a few small  communities managed to recover as much as 24-25 percent
of  their  total  wastes  via  source  separation, the  total  materiel  recovered
statewide  in  1978 was  less than one percent  of all waste  generated  in the
state.(33)

   From  practical experience,  plant  operators  have  noted that  variations
during the year in the quantity of waste generated are larger than the amount
removed  by source  separation,  and,  as  a  result,   have generally  not  seen
source  separation  as   an   important  factor  in   negotiating waste  quantity
provisions.  Some operators have found communities reluctant to agree to long
term contracts specifying set minimum quantities when the possibility arose
that  source  separation  could become  more  profitable in  the  futura.   This
issue  arose  during  negotiations  for  deliveries   to the  RESCO  waterwall
incineration plant  in  Saugus,  Massachusetts,  and was  resolved  by a contract
provision that sets a 'base tonnage" Tor each community during  the first year
of  deliveries to  the  plant.  In subsequent years, each  community may reduce
its  base  tonnage  by   up  to  five  percent  per  year  and  may  deliver up to
10 percent less than the base tonnage:(34)

                                      84

-------
      "For example, if a community delivered 100,000 tons to RESCO during
      year one  of the contract,  its  ba»e tonnage for \ear  two  would  be
      100,000 tons.   If  during  the second year, the  community  started a
      source separation program it could deliver as little as 90,000 tuns
      without penalty and  could establish 95,000 as the base tonnage for
      year three.  Then,  in year  thrue,  it  could deliver  as  little  as
      85,500 tons  without  penalty.  This  downward ratrheting of the base
      tonnage  coupled with the  90 percent  minimum delivery  provision
      should  accommodate   a   reasonably   successful   source  separation
      program."

   The  op?rators  of  the  RESCO  facility see  source  separation  as beneficial
because  of  the removal  of glass.   Because substantial  waste  quantities are
available in this  area,  they were willing to agree  to  liberal  provisions on
waste  quantities  in exchange  for long term  commitments.   Th*!  same  general
mechanism could alsr  be  used  in other  situations with  a smaller rate  of
tiiinual  decrease permitted.  The  phasing of  reductions  in  waste quantities
over  a  period  of several  years  should allow  operators sufficient time  to
obtain  additional  waste  sources,  as  tney would  have  to  do if the population
of the area declined.

   Problems  with  assuring  adequate  waste  supplies  to  an MWP  facility are
probably  more   likely  to   result  from  plant  overdesign  than  from  source
separation.   In planning   for  a  number  of  proposed  facilities  (e.g.,  in
Newark,  New  Jersey  and  Memphis,  Tennessee),  it  has  been determined  that
initial  estimates  of waste generation were too  high.  In  other  cases  (as in
Akron,  Ohio),   facilities  have been  designed to  serve  a  region  to  achieve
economies  of  scale,  but   contractual  commitments  to   deliver  wastes  were
obtained from only part of  the service area.(35)  This issue may lead to flow
control  legislation   and  political   conflict  with  private   haulers   and
supporters of source  separation if ths service  area  cannot  be  expanded.  To
prevent  such situations  from occurring, plant  operators can size facilities
according to the most accurate and conservative  estimates of available  wastes
and provide capacity for subsequent facility expansion.

Assurance of  Adequate Profitability--
   The  potential impact  of source  separation on profitability is usually the
issue of greatest concern to the operator of an MWP facility.

                                      85

-------
   Plant revenues are  a  combination of tipping fees charged  for delivery of
waste to the  facility  and revenues from the  sale  of  recovered materials and
energy.   Because  tipping fees should  h-  at  low zs possible  to  compete with
private or  public landfills,  the  MWP plant  profit structure may be  set so
that  most   of the  profit is  derived from  selling  recovered materials  or
energy.   However, the components in the v/aste stream that are of the  greatest
value (such as aluminum) make up  only a  small percentage of  the  total, and
their variable quantity is less well known  than tne total.

   The  possibility  of  source  separation of such materials  introduces  an
additional   element of  uncertainity anH,  hence, risk for  the  operator.   As a
result, the contract  for the operation of the facility must adequately allow
for this increased risk to provide sufficient  profitability for the operator.

   Several  contractual approaches have been used for dealing with this issue.
One  method  is  to  simply provide for  renegotiated  compensation  (probably
through  increased   tipping   fees)   if   source    separation   oroyrams  are
subsequently   implemented.   This  approach  is  taken  in  New  Orleans  and
Milwaukee.   The  Connecticut  Resource  Recovery Agency  has a similar provision
in  the  contract  for  its  Bridgeport  facility,  but  the operator must also
demonstrate an operating loss  of a set size before it becomes effective (see
Appendix C).   Ihe New  Orleans  contract  states   that  "if  the quantity  of
recoverable  resources  in the  solid  waste  delivered   by  the  Ci>.y or its
delivering  agent  is  significantly  reduced as  a result  of laws or ordinances
passed by  the City  ...  the  City shall provide offsetting adjustments to the
corporation to compensate  for  the  Corporation's loss of  revenues."(35)  This
provision allows  the  operator  to keep tipping fees as  low as possible until
source   separation   significantly   affects    his   revenues.    Without   such
provisions, the  risk  would probably b? offset by  a higher requested tipping
fee  at  the onset  of the project.   Sucti provisions offer a  reasonable means
for  risk sharing  between public  and private parties,  while  avoiding two
extreme options:  legislation  forbidding  source separation and allocation of
all risks to the  private  sector (which woujd result in high bidding prices).

-------
   Another type of  contract  provision  intended to resolve this issue defines
a permissible maximum  for  materials  removed from the waste  stream  by source
separation.   When this maximum is reached,  the contract must be renegotiated.
                                       /-'
This  type of provision  is more  likely  to  be  used  where  source  separation
programs  exist  prior to an  MWP facility,  and greater  experience with their
impact is available.  Such provisions, based  on economic calculations by the
prospective plait operator,  are being  included in service agreements for the
proposed  Northeast  Project  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Solid  Waste
Disposal  in  North  Andover,  Massachusetts.    The proposed  source  separation
agreement is  included in  Appendix  C.   In  this  facility, which would employ
unprocessed  waterwall  combustion  and  ferrous  recovery,  removal  of  metals
alone  adversely  affects the operator's revenues.(36)   Glass  removal  has  a
beneficial effect that is explicitly provided  for by including incentives for
communities to remove it.

   These  provisions  were   set  after   substantial    negotiation   between
communities  engaged  in  source  separation  and  ttv plant  operators.   The
permissible maximum  quantities  allow  for  substantial   expansion of  existing
source separation programs.

   The specific  provisions of  this  contract  are  unlikely to be  applicable
el severe.   However,  several   features,  including  a  maximum  permissible
quantity  of  source  separation  of particular materials  according to  expected
revenue impacts, and an  incentive for  a compatible  program,  could  be useful
as a model for other communities.

   Ultimately, the profitability  of  an MWP  operator would  be  best  protected
by allowing the  operator to  act as a broker for the sale of source  separated
materials.  In this  manner,  off-setting  revenues would be available to cover
any losses from the sale of either recovered materials  or energy from the MWP
plant.  Several of the  larger  firms  marketing MWP systems are moving in this
direction.  However,  this  approach  could  become politically  controversial
unless  it can  be used  in  conjunction  with  a  means  of  paying  communities
differently according  to the quantity  and  quality of the wastes they deliver
to the plant.

-------
Assurance of Sufficient Financing--
   It  is  conceivable  that  source  separation  could  create  an  additional
uncertainty  that  would  increase the  risk of  default  on municipal  bonds  or
private  loans  by MWP facility  operators, and,  hence,  increase the  cost  of
financing such a facility.  This possibility was discussed during a series  of
interviews  with   private  operators  of HWP  facilities  and  public  agencies
involved in  such projects.  These interviewees agreed that,  rather  than being
reflected  in higher interest rates,  this uncertainty was usually accounted
for by a  higher  degree  of reliance on tipping fees by the plant operator tor
revenue,   as  opposed  to   revenues  fro.n selling  energy and materials.   When
combined  with  contractual  "put   or  pay"  provis jns   specifying  minimum
quantities  of  waste  that will   be  poid  for  regardless  of deliveries,  this
profit structuring  provides adequate assurance  for bondholders  or  private
investors that debt  service  charges will  be covered.  It  contracts cannot oe
obtained,  however,  there  may be pressure for  flow control  ordinances  that
would foreclose either source separation or disposal at private landfills.

   Though  data are  "I' mi ted  on  this  issue,  it appears  unlikely that source
separation would  have an  important effect on  interest  rates  for public  or
private financing of MWP  facilities.  Rather, the uncertainty  it creates will
result in  a  higher  tipping fee  for each ton of waste delive/ed to  the plant,
and, hence, higher total  disposal costs, unless munici  alines  are  willing to
share  in sc;ne of the  risks resulting  from possible changes   in  the  waste
stream.

Assurance of Markets  for Energy and Recovered Materials--
   Review  of current on-going  projects  for  mixed-waste processing  did  not
reveal any  situations  in which  source  separation programs  have inhibited
sales  of recovered  materials  from mixed-waste  plants.   Such  conflicts  are
probably unlikely, because  recovered  materials purchasers would also be able
to  purchase  the  source   separated  materials  in  this  approach, and,  hence,
should be indifferent to their source of supply.

   Energy  product  customers  could   conceivably   be   concerned  about  the
possibility  of source separation reducing the energy output of the facility.

-------
As with  the sale of materials  fr«.'  Mli'P nlants, no clear-cut cases  could be
identified  in which  energy  customer  concern  about  source  separation  has
become important.

   Existing  contracts  for  energy  product sales  indicate that customers  of
plants producing steam for  district  heating and industrial  use are likely to
be more  sensitive  to  reductions in the Btu  content  of the  waste  strc-aii  than
RDF purchasers.  Steam customers  require  a minimum quantity on a continuing
basis; lower-thsn-normal  steam generation  could  be a  major  problem.   There
are some  indications  that concern about the reliability  of steam deliveries
played a  role in development of Akron's flow control ordinance. On the other
hand,  RDF customers are  purchasing  a supplemental  fuel  that can  be used as
needed.    Because  alternative  fuels  must  be available  in  any case,  little
penalty   is  attached  to   lower  than  expected  RDF  deliveries.   Existing
contracts for RDF  deliveries  have not generally attached penalties  to lower
than  expected RDF  deliveries.   This  fact  is   significant  because utilities
generally do  iot accept  the risks associated with RDF use and transfer these
risks to  the mixed-waste processor. (37)

   Despite  the  potential  for  conflict  between  steam customers  and  source
separation,   such   problems   are   unlikely   to   interfere   with   project
implementation as   long  as projects  are  sized in  proper proportion  to  the
amount of waste that is reliably available.  If, however, this problem is not
taken int)  account,  in  the planning process, some potential purchasers could
prove reluctant to commit  themselves to buy such  energy on a long term  basis.

Assurance of Continuation  of Source Separation Program--
   Several  means  have  been  used  to  protect   communities  and entrepreneurs
engaged  in  source   separation  programs.   The state  enabling  legislation for
the Connecticut Resources Rerovpry  Authority includes a statement that local
source separation cannot be discouraged or pruhioitec. by the agency unless it
can determine that source separation increases  the total cost for solid waste
management  (Appendix C).   The provisions In the  proposed  Northeast project
contract  stating  maximum  permissible  amounts  of  source  separation  also
protect such programs, at  least until  the upper limit is reached.

                                      39

-------
'Iechnological  Ijsue:   liffect on Waste stream Quality

   Source separation not only changes the Btu content of the waste stream,  it
also  changes   its  physical  characteristics.    When glass  is  removed,  in
particular, this change  can be beneficial for the  operator  of  a~mixed-waste
processing facility.  Gl^ss  contained  in municipal  solid waste  is  the  major
cause  of  wear  to  shredders,  waste  conveyors,  and  other  waste  handling
equipment  in  the  MWP  plant.  In  addition, glass  not  removed during  air
classification  in making refuse-derived  fuel results in  lower  heating  value
and greater ash content, which has caused problems in boiler operation due to
slagging  of  the tube  banks.   Reducing  glass  inputs can thus  substantially
reduce facility  maintenance.

   In  several   instances  (most notably  the proposed  Northeast  facility  in
North Andover, Massachusetts) picspective operators  of mixed-waste processing
facilities  have  encouraged  communities  to conduct  active  glass  removal
programs.   The  beverage   container   recovery   option   and  hi^h-eft'iciency
multi-material  recovery  both  remove  significant  quantities  of glass from the
waste  stream,   -and  hence are  highly  compatible  with mixed-waste processing
options from an  engineering  standpoint.

Conclusions

   One of the  sample  contract provisions discussed in  this  section coupled
with  proper  facility  design  should  help  to  resolve  all  the  major issues
outlined  in  this  section:    assurance of  adequate  waste deliveries to MWP
facilities, assurance  of  adequate  profitability  for  MWP  plant  operators,
assurance  of  sufficient  financing,  prevention  of   inhibiting  customers for
energy and materials from committing tnemselves to the facility, continuation
of  pre-existing  source separation  programs,  and   impacts  on   waste  stream
quality.    Restrictive  flow  control  legislation should not   be  necessary.
However,  prospective plant operators may  have to  devote considerable time and
effort  to developing  satisfactory  contract  agreements.  Furthermore,  the
interests  of  K.WP   facility operators and other private entrepreneurs  may
sometimes  conflict  if  operators  propose  acting   as  brokers  for  source
separated materials.

                                      90

-------
   Cooperative arrangements  can  be achieved in many cases.  However,  it  may
be necessary  to  choose  between arrangements where (1) the MWP  facility is a
centralized storage facility  and  broker for the disposal  of  source separated
materials, or (2) where the MWP facility processes waste,  and another private
firm  acts as  a  broker tor  the  source  separated  materials.   In  the  latter
case,  problems  could   occur  if  source separation  affected the  operator's
revenues;  usually,  however,  only  same  municipalities   in  the  area  have
separation programs.  To  prevent inequities under these  circumstances, some
means  would   have  to  be  developed  to  ascertain  the  quality  of  the  waste
delivered by each community, or,  more feasibly, good  records  would have to be
kept on the materials  separated to allow for compensation  to  the MWP facility
operator.

   Because  no communities   have  yet  to  our  knowledge  had to  renegotiate
contracts with MWP operators because of changes in tl.e wasto  stream caused by
source separation,  little  or no  data are available on the most  equitable way
this should be accomplished.

   From  the  operator's  viewpoint,  th«  compatibility of  the  specific source
separation  and  mixed-waste   processing  options  outlined for  Baselyn will
depend largely on  whether  operators store and  sell  the separated materials.
If they do not, as has generally been the case to date,  the low newsprint and
low  multi-material  recovery options  '.hould  be the most  compatible,  as they
will  have  the  smallest  effect  on  revenues  and  would cause  the  least.
contracting   problems.     Beverage   container   recovery,   high-efficiency
multi-material   recovery,   and  high   newsprint   recovery  would   be  less
compatible, in direct proportion  to their effect on  the operator's revenues,
provided  they all   resulted  from  the actions  of  contracting municipalities.
However,  if   beverage   container  recovery  resulted  from  state or  national
action rather than  that of the municipality, the operator might or might not
be  protected  against  the  loss of tipping revenue equivalent to  the reduced
tonnage of beverage containers and ferrous material  revenues,  depending upon
the  contract  provisions.  These  results  occur where  contracts  a-e  poorly
written  and  financial   compensation  for changes ii.  the waste  stream due to
source  separation  may  not  be as  equitable.as  required by   the  operato-

                                      91

-------
However, such changes might  be  ottset by increased revenue from energy sales
If the  Btu content of the waste  stream is increased by removal  of  be"erage
containers.  Furthermore,  when well  written contracts provide adequate relief
in the  event of such changes,  the  four low and high recovery  scenarios  are
equally compatible.

   If  the  MWP   facility  operator  does  serve  as  a  broker  for  separated
materials,  h'igh newsprint  and  multi-material  recovery (in particular,  an
effective  glass removal  program in  combination  with  waterwall  combustion
options)  should  be the most compatible, because  they  will generate  higher
revenues with little increase in administrative costs over  the less efficient
programs.   For   beverage   container  recovery,  the  contract  considerations
discussed above would remain unchanged, as 90% of these containers would not
ruach the MWP facility.   It is interesting to note, however, that under these
circumstances any  beverage  containers  recovered  undamaged  would be  worth
their full  deposit price  to  the operator - which  could more than offset any
reduction  in  weight.  MWP facilities employing pre-processing  of the wastes
would  have  an   advantage  here.    It  is  possible  that   this   would  be  a
significant enough revenue source to justify hand picking  of wastes or other
changes in recovery methods.

   From  a  purely engineering standpoint, be-'erage container recovery is most
desirable for the plant operator because the high efficiency of glass removal
would  reduce  erosion  of  machinery  and  reduce  the   amount  of  facility
maintenance that is necessary.  High-efficiency multi-material recovery would
have a similar but smaller beneficial effect.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Issue

   A major  concern of  an  operator of an MWP facility is the effect of source
separation  on the  eccnomus  of  the  facility.  Source separation  w'll  affect
the  economics in two major  ways:   quality of MSW processed and  quantity of
steam produced.
                                      92

-------
Objective

   The objective  of this section  is to,determine whether  source  separation
adversely affects  the economics of the waste-processing  facility.-

Hpproach

   Net processing costs (total  costs niinus revenues)  were calculated for each
combination  of  source  separation  options  and  MWP   facilities.   The  net
processing cost  is, in  effect,  the  tipping  fee an operator must  charge  in
order  to break  even.   The  tipping  foe  must be higher in  order  to make  a
profit.

   The objective of this study is Lu determine Lhe interaction between source
separation  and  mixed-waste  processing   technologies,  not  to  compare  or
evaluate  the  different mixed-waste  processing  technologies.  Therefore,  the
net  processing costs  were  assumed  to   be  the same  for  each  technology.
Typical  cost  and  revenue  breakdowns were  then  made  for each  technology
(Table 22) by using cost figures provided  by EPA from available data.(38)

   The costs are based on a  1,000 ton per day p^nt;  they include capital  and
operating and  maintenance costs as  well  as  costs and  revenues from RDF  or
steam and ferrous  material.  Three  scenarios  were considered.  For the  fixed
service  area  it was assumed either  that a 1,000 tons  per  day  plant already
existed  or that a "correctly"  sized plant would process the amount of  waste
produced  by  each   source  separation  option.   For  the  expanded  service  area,
all plants were assumed to have 1,000 tons per  day capacity.

Results

   The net processing costs  for the various combinations of  source  separation
and MWP  processing technologies  are  listed in Tables  23 through 26.  In  all
cases, the  fixed   service area  1,090 tons per  day scenario  is  considerably
more  costly   than  the  expanded  service  area.   The  fixed  service   area
1,000 tons per day plant has  the same capital charge  spread over  fewer tons

                                      93

-------
   TABLE 22.   EHA ESTIMATES OF NET PROCESSING COST FOR HWP  ($/TON)*
Item
CostsT
Capital cost
O&M cost
Total
Revenues
RDF
Steam
Ferrous
Total
Net processing cost
Unprocessed
Combined
Waste
Combustion

19.00
11.00
30.00
17.00
17.00
13.00
Processed
Combined
Waste
Combustion

18.90
10.85
29.75
15.55
1.2G
16.75
13.00
RDF

8.45
11. 00
19.45
5.25
1.20
6.45
13.00
Modular
Incinerator

14.40
14.35
28.75
15.75
15.75
13.00

*  1,000 ton per day capacity; public ownership and funding via general
   obligation bonds; 20-year life and 7% interest rate;  $3.00 revenue
   per 1,000 pounds of steam; and net Ferrous revenue of $20 per ton.
   The cost figures were estimated by EPA from available data,   flverage
   or typical cost figures available in the published literature for the
   various MWP categories are relatively limited.
processed, resulting  in the  higher  cost per  ton  processsd.   The "correctly
sized"  plant  in a  fixed service  area  causes much  less  adverse changes  in
processing costs, ranging  from  a $O.S'3 a ton  increase  in costs for the high
newprint  option  to  a $1.41  reduction for  beverage  container  recovery  when
combined with  processed waterwall combustion.

   Differences  in   costs  for  different  source  separation  options  in  the
expanded  service area result  primarily from the effect of  source separation
on the  Btu content of  tiie waste  processing  stream.  The beverage  container
scheme,  which yields the  greatest  Btu enrichment  in  the waste processing
stream, also  results  in  the  lowest processing costs.  The beverage container
                                      •54

-------
                   TABLE 23.   NET PROCESSING COST FOR
                UNPROCESSED WATERWAI.L COMBUSTION ($/fON)
                         Fixed Service Area        Expanded Service Area
Source Separation Existing Plant     New Plant     New or Existing Plant
     Option         (1000 t/d)   (Correctly Sized)      (1000 t/1)
Multimatericl,
     high
                 ]340
Multimater ial ,
     low

Newsprint, high

Newsprint, low
1576
                                      13Z3
13§Z
                                       1322
Beverage
     containers
1312
No source
     separation
13oo
                                       13oo
13QO
                   TABLE 24.   NET PROCESSING COST FOR
                 PROCESSED WATER'ftrtLL COMBUSTION ($/TON)
                         Fixed Service Area        Expanded Service Area
Source Separation Existing Plant     New Plant     New or Existing Plant
     Option         (1000 t/d)   (Correctly Sized)      (lOO' t/d)
Kultimaterial,
     high
Multimaterial,
     low

Newsprint, high

Newsprint, low

Beverage
     containers
                      1576
                      1340
                                       13
                                          9
                 13


                 11-
                                         54
                                      13§3
No source
     separation
,,00
                                       13oo

-------
     TABLE 25.   NET PROCESSING COST FOR REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (S/TON)

                         Fixed Service AreaExp?nded Service frea
So-irce Separation Existing  Plant     New Plant     New or Existing Plant
     Option         (1000 t/d)    (Correctly Sized)      (1000 t/dj


MuUimateri&l,         Ift35             ,.43                 ,,29
     high             is~             ^~                 ^~

Hultimaterial,         ,.84             ,,50                 ,,09
     low

Newsprint, high       143-3-             13—                 13—

Newsprint, low        13—             13—                 13—

Beverage              1452             1327                 12.'J2
     containers       L'               "                   1Z

No source             ,,00             ,,00                 ,,00
     seoaration       13~             13~                 ^~
     TABLE 26.   NET PROCESSING COST FOR MODULAR INCINERATOR (S/TON)	

                         Fixed Service AreaExpended Service Area
Source Separation Existing  Plant     New Plant     New or Existing Plant
     Option         (1000 t/d)    (Correctly Sized)      (1000 t/d)
Multiir?terial.         ,Q31             ,,41                 ,,27
     l.igh             18~             13~                 12~

MuHiiiiterial,         ,,-94             ^22                 ,3§1
     low

Newsprint, high       15—             13—                 13—

Newsprint, low        13—             13—                 13—

Beverage              ,,12             ,,67                 ,,32
     containers       "              X1                   i-L~"

No source             ,^00             ,,0_0                 ,,00
     separation       ijr~             L*                   IJ
                                     9S

-------
and  high-efficiency  multi-material   options,   both  of  which  enrich  the
mixed-waste processing siream, were the only options which showed a lower net
processing cost than the no source separation option.

Conclusions

   Compared to  the expanded  service  area  scenario,  the fixed  service  area
scenario witn a  1,000 tons  per djy plant is  relatively  unattractive because
of  considerably   higher  costs   p'jr   ton  processed  resulting  from  plant
underutilization.  However,   if  fie  facility  is  correctly  sized  for  the
quantity of waste  available,  the impacts of  source  separation  are much less
negative and would  be positive for beverago container recovery.

   In the  expanded service  are;, the  only  source  separation  scheme that has
more  than  a  minor effect  on process.ing costs  is  the  removal  of beverage
containers.   In  this  case,  source   separation  affects  processing  costs
primarily  by  enriching  the   feed  stream's  Btu  content.   The  removal  of
beverage containers enriches the Btu content significantly (5.2 percent) and,
thus,  lowers  costs.   The other  options have  only  a  small  effect on  Btu
content and, thus, have only minor effects on processing economics.  In fact,
ii. these cases,  the  normal  variation  in Btu content that naturally occurs in
refuse will probably outweigh any effect of source separation.

SUMMARY

   Effective  wsste management  is  a complementary  combination  of  four  main
elements -  solid waste reduction,  materials recovery,  er.erqy  conservation,
and  pollution  control.   Source  separation  is a  viable resource  recovery
method  encompassing  the   elements   of  solid  waste  reduction,  materials
recovery,  and  pollution control.  Anotner viable method  of  resource recovery
is mixed-waste processing in which the elements of materials recovery, energy
conservation,  and  pollution control a^e  directly  involved.  Since  these two
methods of  resource  recovery  cover the, four main elements of effective waste
management,  a  compatible combination  of  the  two  methods  is  a means  for
optimizing waste management.

                                      9?

-------
   ihe  main  objective of  the  compatibility analysis  has been  to  determine
whether or not  the impacts of jointly operating particular source sepa-ation
options and  mixed-waste processing  options  are adverse  enough  to  seri usly
affect the viability of either.

   The  preceding  analysis  covered  each of the issues likely to be of concern
to  operators  of   mixed-waste  processing  facilities.   For  most issues  and
assumed  scenarios, the  impact of  all source  separation options  :s  either
positive  or  too small  to be important by comparison to other factors such as
the normal range of variation of solid v/aste.

   For  the issue  of the amount of Btu's  recovered as  steam, high-efficiency
multi-material source  separation  causus a moderate  level  of adverse impacts
(16-17 percent reduction) if a fixed service are:, and plant size are assumed.
If the  steam purchaser or purchasers have critical  requirements,  this level
of  reduction  could  cause  problems,  possibly  making  the  high-efficiency
multi-material  option  incompatible.   However,   this   problem   would   be
eliminated if the  service area could be expanded.  Furthermore, the projected
level of  impact can be regarded as  a  theoretical  maximum upper limit, as it
is very unlikely   that  in  actual  practice a large  region  would  have uniform
high-efficiency multi-material  source separation.

   For  the issue  of net processing cost,  relatively large cost increases are
expected  with the  high-efficiency  multi-material  option, assuming a fixed
service a^ea and  plant size, making  this  combination  possibly incompatible.
However,  either by reducing  the  size of  the  MWP plant or  be expanding the
service area, this  theoretical cost  increase can be eliminated.  Further-more,
tipping  fees could  be  increased.   G'iven  these factors,  we  feel  that with
proper  planning,  all  source  separation  options and  mixed-waste  processing
alternatives  are  scononn'cally coippatiole.   The fixed  service  area  and plant
size  scenario  essentially represents  a  situation in  which  the  MWP facility
has  been  designed  too  large  for the  amount  of  waste  securely  .available,
without considering the  possibility  of source separation.  The analysis also
indicates  that beverage container  recovery  could  also be  a  significant
economic  benefit  to a  mixed-waste  processing facility by  increasing the Btu
content of the waste stream.

-------
                                SECTION 5

                         THE MUNICIPAL VIEWPOINT


   Municipal officials  seek  to dispose of the community's solid waste in the
rn'ist  economical  and environmentally  acceptable  manner possible.   They  also
seek  to stimulate  local   employment.   As a  result,  they  consider landfill
requirements, property  tax revenues,  and overall costs  when  choosing among
various resource recovery options.

   This  cnapter  analyzes   the effects  of  various   combinations   of  source
separation  and   mixed-waste   processing  options  on  energy  conservation,
environmental quality,  institutions, and economics.

ENERGY AND MATERIALS CONSERVATION

Issue

   A major issue for municipalities is the effect of source separation on the
energy  used  in  collection  and transportation of  solid waste  and  recovered
material to an MWPF or to a  landfill.

Objective

   The objective of  this section is to  document this effect.

Approach

   An  energy analysis  was  performed  for the  different  source  separation
options  which  considered  the energy  expended  in  collection  of the  source

-------
separated  material  for  recycle and  transportation (Appendix  A, pages  159
to 166).    The  total  energy  content  of the  raw mi;:ed-waste  is  9200 x  10°
Btu/day.   The energy in 10  Btu/day required for collection,  preparation,  and
transportation of source  separated  and other waste is as  follows (expressed
as 106 Btu/day):

                                               Service  Area
Source Separation Option                Fixed                Expanded
MuHimateriul, high	386                   469
Multimaterial, low	322                   346
Newsprint, high	313                   328
Newsprint, low	285                   290
beverage containers 	  276                   293
No source separation  	  220

Results and Conclusions--
   The amount of  energy used  for collection  and transportation of source
separated materials and  remaining  mixad-waste is a relatively SIM 11  fraction
of the energy  available  in  the mixed-waste.  Source separation options range
in  energy  use  from  4.2%  of  the  energy  content  of  the  raw  MSW  for
multimaterial, high recovery, to 3.0% for beverage containers. Differences in
energy usage  for collection  and  transportation would have  an insignificant
impact on the selection of a source  separation option.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Issues

   A  municipality  may consider source  separation  or imxed waste  processing,
as a  means tc reduce  environmental problems  such  as overburdened landfills,
air  pollution  due  to  waste  handling,  and  truck traffic.   Source separation
can also cut dov/n on solid waste emissions and  refuse disposal costs.
                                     100

-------
Object ives

   This  section  has a  two-fold objective:  to  detc-rmine the  variations  in
landfill requirements and pollutant emissions for the various scenarios.

Approach

Assumptions--
   There  is  only  one  U.S.   EPA  emission  standard  which  may  apply  to
mixed-waste  processing  facilities  (MWPFs):   that  which  limits  particulate
emissions  from incinerators.    In  the  absence   of  other  standards,  the New
Source Performance Standards for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units were
taken as guides to permitted emissions, as discussed  in Section 4.

   The  sourct-«-oparated materials   from  the  five  Baselyn communities  are
assumed to  be  hauled 10 miles to a market; mixed-waste is hauled 25 mile;, to
a landfill (Sect'on  3).

Analysis—
   The reduction  in landfill  us? dee to  source  separation alone ranges from
0.7  percent for low newsprint  recovery to 17.6 percent  for  high multimedid
recovery.

   Modular  incinerators can achieve a 76.1 percent reduction in landfill use;
the  other  three  mixed-waste  processing  options an 80.3  percent reduction,
(Table 15).

   A  reduction of 76.2  percent  in landfill use  can be obtained by combining
low  newsprint  recovery with  modular incineration;  a  raduction as  great as
86.3  percent can  be achieved  by combining high multimaterial separation with
any of the other three alternatives.

   Mixed-waste processing yields  larger reductions  in landfill use than does
source  separation.   In  fact,  combination  of the  two yields  only slightly
larger reductions  than processing alone.

                                     101

-------
   An MWPF will probably he located close to its steam market so that haulage
uf the  MSW through  Baselyn  will  not  charge.   However, the  residuals  to be
land Tilled  'rum the  MWPF  are considerably less than the original MSW so that
total naulage will be reduced/  Since air pollution emissions from trucks are
generally taken as being  directly proportional to miles driven,  a reduction
in tonage hauled will result in a reduction in mileage driven and a reduction
in emissions.   These  reductions are  the same  as the  landfill  requirement
reductions.  Separating beverage containers can reduce  haulage  emissions by
3.6%, high  multimacerial  source  separation  c°n reduce  haul 'ge  emissions by
17.6%.  The largest  emissions  reductions arise as  a resuic  of mixed-waste
processing,  ranging   up   to  80.3%.  Combinations  of  source  separatirn  and
mixed-waste processing can  result  in  reductions  as  great as  86.3%.   These
haulage  emissions  reductions  may not  be too  important from  the municipal
viewpoint,  however,  s  .-ic-   haulage witiiin Baselyn changes very little wnereos
the main  reduction of  haulage  emissions occurs outside Baselyn,  enrcute to
the landfill.

   Emissions  from processing  will  be  as  given   previously  in  Section 4.
Particular and  SO,,  emissions  may require control,  but not  NO  emissions.
Unprocessed wat°rwall  and modular incineration ha
-------
   Air  pollution  may  be increased  by  the  operation  of an  MWPF, even  if
pollution controls are installed, unless the combustion of the MSW replaces a
dirtier  combjstion  of  fossil  fuels.   If  it is  assumed that Baselyn  meets
NAAQS,  no  offset  in  pollutant  releases will be  required and  increments  in
NAAQS concentrations are available.  THUS,  some  net increase  in air pollution
will result from the operation of an MWF'F.

   Ground water pollution will  be sligntly decreased by source separation and
greatly decreased by  an  MWPF.   Surface water pollution will  be  increased  by
an MWPF.

   In general,  municipalities will prefer to combine  source  separation with
mixed   waste   processing.    If   landfill  availability   is   the  overriding
consideration, however, mixed waste processing will be preferred.  Any source
sep.iration option except low newsprint recovery could be chosen.   Either UWCF
or  MI  mixed  waste  processing  alternative  could  be  chosen,  with  UWCF
preferred.

INSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL IMPACT

Issues

   Both  the  officials  dnd  citizens  of  r.  municipality are  likely   to  be-
particularly sensitive to the effect of changes  in solid waste collection and
disposal  practices  ori   local   government.   Either  source  separation  or
mixed-waste processing  (MVP) may require municipal  actions  with significant
financial,  legal,  employment, tax,  e.nd political  implications.  Particularly
in the current cMmate or heightened public concern over the  size and role  of
government,  any  proposal  requiring  additional   government  spending,  n?w
enforcement actions,  or  long-term legal  comrritments will  be  very closely
scrutinized.

   Since   municipalities   frequently  become   involved   in   financing  MWP
facilities  even if  they  do  not  intenc:  to  own  or  operate them,  they need  to
consider the effect of on-going  public or private source separation program?

                                     103

-------
on  MWP  facilities.    fr.e  municipality  should  be  able  to  demonstrate  to
investors that source separation will not jeopardize the MWP facility's waste
stream.

   Closely  related  to  this  issue  is  the  question  of  whether  municipal
legislation should be used to implement particular resource recovery options.
The decision  rests,  in  part, on  overall  administrative requirements.   While
public  attention  has focused on "bottle bills"  (beverage  containers deposit
legislation), it  is  less well  known that flow  control  laws have been passed
to  support  mixed waste processing and  that  anti-scavenger and  mandatory
separation  ordinances   have  been  passed  to  support  separate  collection
programs.   The   equity  and  administrative   workability   of  flow  control
                i
legislation have been disputed.

   Government and private employment are major  municipal  concerns.  Although
separate  collection  and operation  of MWP  facilities  may  cause  significant
shifts  in  sanitation employee  respons.ibilities  and necessitate  new hiring,
they  will  not  have  a  major indirect  effect on  employment in  the private
sector.  By  contrast,  beverage container deposit  legislation,  which induces
shifts  in  manufacturing  procedures,  has a  debatable  but  definite  indirect
effect on private  sector  employment.

   If  a major  private  facility,  such as  a  IMP plant,  is proposed  for a
municipality, the prospect of  large property tax  payments  may  be attractive
to  officials  and citizens.   The  desire  for  increased   tax  revenues  may
influence mui.i .pal attitudes toward resource recovery options.

   A  final common concern is whether municipal  decision-making  powers would
be compron sed by entering  into long-term commitments  with private companies
or  other governments,  such  as  regional  authorities  or  neighboring  towns.
Communities mjy   be  strongly attracted  to options  that allow  the  create.-,t
amount of local autonomy.
                                     104

-------
Objectives

   This section will address the following questions:

o  Will a different fvancing method or higher interest rates for a municipal
   MWP  facility be  necessary  if  the municipality  also  conducts a  source
   separation program?.

o  What (if any)  legislation  is generally necessary to implement mixed-waste
   processing  and  source  separation options?   What are  the  administrative
   obstacles?

>  What are the probable  effects  of each source separation and MWP option on
   municipal employment levels for solid waste collection ana disposal?

o  Would  resource  recovery  options  have  a  beneficial  effect  on community
   property tcxos?  How large would this effect be?

o  Whicn   resource  recovery   options   are   likely   to   require   greater
   intergovernmental  coordination  and thus affect local  political  autonomy?

   These questions cover  the  major issues of concern  to irunicipalities  with
one  very  important exception - the  indirect  effects  of  beverage container
deposit  legislation  on  local   employment.   This  issue   requires  special
attention,   since   impacts   on    employment   both  within   and   outside
municipalities,  regions,  and  states  must be considered.  Hence,  while  such
legislation  is  an important  municipal  concern,   it  will  be discussed  in
Section 6 in the context of the nation as a whole.

Approach,  Assumptions,  Analysis, and Results

   The  analyses of financing,  legislative  requirements, property  taxes,  and
local autonomy will be  essentially qualitative; they will be  baseri on typical
case  histories  of  communities that have  combined  mixed-waste  processing  and
iuurce  separation.  They  will  employ  "Baselyn"  as an example  to calculate

                                     105

-------
employment levels for eacii possible combination of tne five source separation
options with the  four  MWP optiois and landfill.  These calculations  will  be
made  for  1,000-tpd plants  operating  in both "fixed" and  "expanded"  service
areas.

Financing of Resource Recovery  , lioiis--
   Kunicipal capital  expenditures for source  separation programs  are small
compared  to  those  for  mixed-waste  processing.   A study  of  22  separate
collection  programs  by SCS  Engineers  for EPA  indicated  that most programs
began using  equipment  th:t.  they  already owned, such as  standard rear-loading
compactor trucks.(39)  However,  if new specialized  trucks are  purchased (as
assumed  in   our  source  separation options  :o  fully allocate  cost  to  the
options) new equipment for  Baselyn would cost $125,000 and  $50,000 for high
and low multi-.Tatarial recovery,  respectively  and $40,000 for high newsprint
recovery.   There  might be an opportunity to achieve  savings by  reducing the
number of  standard packer  trucks reqjired to  pick up  mixed-waste.  Capital
costs  for mixed-waste  processing facilities vary with  the  process involved,
but generally  range  between  $10,000  and $50,000  per ton of  plant capacity
(see  Table  27)  or $10 *o $50 million for a 1,000 tpd  plant.  Hence, even with
very  conservative assumptions about  the cost  of  source  separation,  source
separation options will require only a low percentage of the capital costs of
mixed-waste processing alternatives.

   The  most common  means  available  to  municipalities  to  finance resource
recovery  options  include:   1)  use  of  current  revenues   or  taxation,  2)
short-term  bank borrowing,  3)  general  obligation bonds, 4) municipal -evenue
i-onds,  and   5)  public-private bonding arrangements.   The first  two options
commonly  are used by  municipalities  to  finance small  capital  investments,
such  as  the purchase  of  collection vehicles.   The maximum a  community can
muster from current  revenues or  taxation is currently  estimated at $100,000
and from short-term bank borrowing (usually periods up to 5 years), $500,000.
Most  municipalities will  not need to use no re complex financing arrangements
                                         «
to  pay  for  source separation opiions.  Long-term  borrowing,  however, using
general obligation or revenue bonds, will be necessary to municipalities that
wish to own  or operate a mixud-waste processing  facility.

                                     105

-------
                                  IAII1C 27   PunilC FINANCING AlHANKtMtNlS AT URGE HHED-WASIE PROCESSING 'ACL-ITIES
Public Inslitullon/PioJccl
Illy of Hat) i son Wisconsin
200- • '0 ipd

Town of S> -fus. Massachusetts
(RESCO protect) - 1.500 Ipd
Connecticut Resources Recovery
Agency (Bi idyepoi t pioject) -
1,300-l.GOO (pd
New Orleans Industrial
Development Authority- 700 tpd
Monroe County, Hew >ork
(Rochester) - 2.000 Ipd


Ohio Waler Development
Authority (OWDA) - City of
/kion. Ohio

Nashville Tennessee
Metropolitan Government
(Metro) - 720 tpd

Tntal Airount
Financed (•illion 1) Facility Ownership
2 45 City


JO Prfvale-diC&CO)
after lord repayment
51 CRKA


7 Private - Waste

SO 4 County



56 City of IKrort



16 »••• Public non-prof \i
Corporation
(Mash- Ille Thermal
Trjnsfer Corp )
Financing Method Net Interest Coil*
»2 nil lion - General b.l*
Obligation (G 0 } bonds.
>45U.OOO-currenl revenues
Industrial revenue bonds 7. B838

Industrial revenue bonds


Industrial revenue bonds 7 !2

131.9 fillllon - Hour-re S 7494**
County G 0 bonds
IB S million - New York
State omnibus bond
$46 Billion - Bunlctpal 8 014
revenue bonds. 15 nil lion -
city G 0. bonds; IS Billion
Sumit County. G 0. bonds
Municipal revenue bonds 5 7


*    Average cost to nunlclpjlHiei (average interest rale paid to Investors is different due to wiitcrwrltlng lees)
"   Fur initial  issue uf $14 4 nil lion
"*  Subsequently increased to S24 million
*    Actual  bond  (nterest rale

Soun.es.  References 40 to 42

-------
   Because  interest  paid to  investors  by both  types  of municipal  bonos  is
generally tax-exempt, municipalities can  offer them at a low  interest  rate.
The types differ  in  \.he degree of risk assumed by the municipality.   General
obligation  ("G.O.")  bonds  commit  t>  "full  faith  and   credit"   of  the
municipality to repaying the principal  and interest of the loan,  requiring it
lo  use  its powers  of  taxation  if necessary.   Thase  bonos  require  voter
approval, and  are  often limited in amount by state statutes.  Revenue bonds,
however, commit only the stream of revenues from the particular project being
financed.   Sines  they  involve  greater  risk  for the  investor,  revenue  bonds
usually  pay  higher  interest  rates  (up  to  0.5  percent more than  general
obligation   bonds),   and   thus  incur  greater   financing  costs   to  the
municipality

   The  ability  of  municipalities  to  offer tax-free bonds has led to creation
of  a  variety   of  hybrid  public-private  financing arrangements,  including
"industrial  revenue  bonds,"   "pollution  control  bonds,"  and  "leveraged
leasing".  A •nunicipality or other public institution issues revenue bonds on
behalf  of a private  firm,  which backf.  the payment of principal and interest
with  its assets and project revenup*., and  eventually obtains  title to the
facility.   Industrial  revenue  bonds i-ave  interest  rates  up to  two percent
below  those of comparable  private  bonds but  higher  than general obligation
and municipal  revenue   bonds.   An  August 1978 comparison of financing costs
for a hypothetical $84 million bond is-;ue resulted in estimates that interest
rates  could be  7.0 percent  for  general obligation  bonds, 7.5  percent for
municipal revenue  bonds, *nd 7.75 percent for  industrial revenue  bonds.  When
the initial costs  of setting up each of these methods was taken into account,
the  effective   debt  service  rates  were 9.7  percent for general obligation
bonds,   11.2  percent   for  tnunicipl   revenue  bonds,  and  11.4   percent  for
industrial   revenue  bonds.(40)   In   choosing  a  financing  method,  then,
municipalities must balance costs with degree of risk and decide whether they
wish  to  own  the  facility.   Despite,  their  low  financing  :ost,  general
obligation  bonds   will  only  be chosen  hy communities  that  are relatively
certain  of  project  costs  .?.id  revenues.   Most   municipalities have  used
municipal revenue  bonds or mixed public-private bonding mechanisms to finance
MWP plants.

                                     108

-------
   Because u,e capital  costs  of source separation programs are  low compared
to HWP  options,  they  require  a change in financing method or  higher interest
rates only if project revenues are uncertain.  We evaluated 7  recent cases of
municipal financing of  MWP  plants  (see Table 27)  and  found that projects in
three   areas   (Madison,  Wisconsin;   Saugu=,   Massachusetts;   and   Greater
Bridgeport, Connecticut)  aid  not experience changes in financing  methods or
higher  interest,   rates  due to  source  separation.   In fact,  the  long-time
operation  of  a   newsprint  source  separation  program in  Madison  probably
substantially  improved  this community's  knowledge of  its  quantity  of waste
enabling  it  to  use  the less expansive  general obligation bonds.   Previous
experience in S.iugjs suggested little likelihood that source separation would
have a  significant adverse  impact on MWP facility revenues.  Saugus officials
discussed the  possibility  of state  beverage container deposit  legislation.
They concluded that although it woild cause at most a 10 percent i eduction i;i
waste tonnages,  it would enhance  the energy  content  of  the waste  and thus
would have  little e feet on revenues.  Hence,  source  separation options had
no  effect on  interest  rates  or  financing methods  (see  Table  27).   In the
Greater   Bridgeport  projects,   contract   agreements  between  the  regional
authority financing  the project and municipalities delivering  waste  to the
facility  defined  an  orderly  procedure  for  determining  possible  economic
impacts  due  to  source  separation.   Similar contract  agreements between the
city and  the  private  facility opo^aior were used in New Orleans (see Section
   In Nashville, municipal  financing  of source separation apparently did not
become an  issue.   In Rochester  and Akron,  the  major financing  problem was
that  private  haulers  did  not  makf contract  committments to deliver  mixed
waste to  the proposed MWP facility instoad of  to private landfills.

   The experiences  of these  seven  reoresentati ye cases  suggest  that source
separation had  no  identifiable  impact on financing costs.  Source separation
is  unlikely  to   adversely  affect  MWP  facility  financing  when  general
obligation bonds  are used,  because investors are concerned with the fiscal
health of  the municipality  rather  than that  of  ihe project.   If municipal
revenue  bonds  or  mixed  public-private  bonding  mechanisms  a*e used,  any

                                     109

-------
municipal reven.ies  fro-n  sale  of energ/ or recovered material - regardless ot
whether derived  from  s-ource  separation or mixed-waste processing  -  would in
all  likelihood  be  applied  to  the  project  debt.   It  is  unlikely that  a
municipality would initiate source separation unless resulting revenues  would
more  than  offset reductions  in revenues  frosi  the MWP plant.   If any  doubt
exists  as  to  its  use,  a Dona's  prospectus could  be worded  to  explicitly
commit  revenue from source separation to debt service.  Bondholders should be
indifferent  to  the source of  the  revenues  as  long as they  accrue  to  their
benefit.

   Among  the source-separation options  considered,  only  beverage container
deposit legislation would  reduce  inputs of waste  to  an MWP facility without
delivering  offsetting   municipal   revenues.    However,   beverage   container
deposit  legislation arfects  met.il5  and  glass,  which generally  make  up  a
fairly  small percentage of tue weight of the waste stream  and contribute less
to plant  revenues  thai: do enerjy sales (which  would  be  increased due to the
increased Btu content of the waste).  Hence, we consider the prospecc of such
legislation  unlikely  to have  a significant impact on the  cost of municipal
financing of proposed  facilities.   It may, however, contribute to an overall
climate  of   uncertainty  that  makes  municipalities  hesitant  to  commit
themselves to a major change from current disposal  practices.

Legislative and Administrative  Requirements—
   Municipal  ordinances  requiring  home  owners  to   separate  waste  before
setting them  at  the  curb and prohibiting  scavenging  of  separated materials
have frequently been passed in conjunction with separate collection programs.
In addition, public  relations  campaigns to explain the program to residents
are  commonly employed.   The  previously cited  study 01   separate  collection
program?  by   SCS   Engineers   concluded  that  well-enforced  anti-scavenger
ordinances and  active public  relations programs  are  necessary '.n  order to
achieve a  high recovery rate.  Municipalities  which  began source  separation
programs without  anti-scnvenger ordinances, such  as  Cincinnati  and Chicago,
suffered  substantial  losses  of  newsprint,  the  largest  revenue  source.
Hempstead,  New York,  reported losses  of  40 percent  of  its  newsprint when
pcper  prices were high;  enforcement of an  .existing  anti-scavenger ordinance

                                     110

-------
by   sanitation   inspectors   substantially  reduced   this   rate   of   loss.
Enforcement  of  anti-scavenger  ordinances  also proved  necessary in the  EPA
demostration programs in Marblehead and Somervilie, Massachusetts.

   I he  5CS  study  also  concluded that  municipalities  not conducting  active
publicity programs  Defore and  during  implementation of  separate collection
have  su'jst-'.iitially  lower oarticipation  rates.   Experience indicates  that
initially  successful programs  suffer  a  gradual  drop-off   in  participation
unless  publicity   is  continued   but   with  continued  publicity  they  can
experience   increases   in   participation.    Publicity  programs   are   an
administrative burden to  the  municipality,  but need not be  a substantial  one
if volunteer groups take an active role.

   A  recent survey  of  separate  collection programs  by EPA  found that  !i9
percent of  the  mandatory programs  had participation rates  of 50 percent  or
more while only 19 percent of the voluntary programs had such high rates.(43)
It is  reasonable to  conclude  that passing legislation  that requires  source
separation  serves  as  an  indication of municipal commitment  and,  other things
being equal, should tend to increase the participation rate.

   Ihis conclusion  is supported  by  evidence  from  West Orange,  New  Jersey,
whose  collection  increased  from an average of 83 Mg (92 tons)  per month  in
1976  to  180 Mg  (200 tons)  per  month  in  1977 after passage of a  mandatory
participation ordinance. (44)

   Experience   indicates   that  multi-material   separation  programs   are
substantially  more  complex  to  administer  than  newsprint-only  programs,
whether  voluntary  or  mandatory.   If  enacted  by  municipal   governments,
beverage container  deposit  legislation could  involve  substantial  legal  and
enforcement  efforts, due to  possible legal  •:hdllenges and  resistance  by
manufacturers and  retailers.   However, if  enacted by  state governments  (as
assumed  in  this   study),   such  legislation  would   place  no  additional
administrative  burden  on  the  municipality,   and would  reduce   its  waste
collection costs.
                                     Ill

-------
   Mixed-waste  processing   does  not  require  administrative   and  public
relations  efforts  to  deal  with  homeowners.   The  legislative  issues  of
mixed-waste processing are  questions  of  where wastes will be disposed.  In a
number of cases  (metropolitan areas  sue])--as Akron, Ohio,  and  Rochester, New
York), municipal  collection  serves only  part of the geographic  service  area
of  o  proposed  MWP facility,  the remainder  is  served by private  haulers.
Private  landfills  compete with the  municipal  landfill  for waste  collected by
private haulers, who are generally reluctant to enter into long-term delivery
contracts   To gain access  to privately-collected  waste,  the city and county
governments  in  these  two areas  have adopted  a  carrot-and-stick  approach.
They are charging low dumping fees  ($3.50 -  $4.00 per  ton) at the MWP plant
to  attract  private  haulers  and have   passed  restrictive  "flow  control"
legislation requiring all trash haulers  licensed to do business  in the area
to deliver  solid  waste  to the  facility.   Those ordinances  are beiny legally
contested.(45)  Even  if  upheld, further  administrative and  legal  efforts to
enforce  them may  reduce  or  eliminate  the  administrative  advantages  of
mixed-waste  processing.   The Akron  ordinance  has been  upheld in  Federal
District Court but is currently being  appealed.

   Mayor John  Ballard of Akron has  stated that the city's  ordinance is not
intended  to  apply  tc  source  separated  materials  such  as  commercially
collected waste  paper.(46)

      "Our  interpretation of  our ordinance is that it is directed at rubbish
   and garbage  that  is  mixed and co-mingled.  Once the trash  and garbar,e is
   co-mingled it  becomes part  of the trash stream and may  not  be  separated
   thereafter but must  be  dumped at the project  plant.   It was  never our
   purpose  to  interfere  with  pre-sorting:   that  is,  separating  papers or
   magazines or paper  board products so  that they do  not become part of the
   waste stream."

   Despite  this  interpretation, supporters  of  source  separation  often fear
that  loosely v.orded  legislation of this  type could  be  used   to  prohibit
municipal or private source separation programs.  This might well occur if an
M..'P plant  is proposed  that is larger than the  municipally controlled waste
                                     1J2

-------
supply will support.  Ihe need for flow control  legislation can be avoided by
designing  smaller  plants that correspond  to  the waste supply and  allow  for
current or potential  source  separation.   Plants can be  built in  a  modular
fashion so  that  they  can be expanded later if necessary (PS is coirnno.ily done
in Europe).  However, several  underlying  legal  issues of waste ownership  and
disposal remain unresolved.

   Another  legal   problem  that  municipalities   may  find   is  statutory
restrictions  on  the  length of  time  uver which  contrac*. agreements can  be
made.  A number  of  large cities  have time restrictions as short as one  year,
and  in  other  areas  legal  precedents  are   unclear.   New  state  enabling
legislation to  permit municipalities  10 enter into  long-term  agreements  (as
recently  passed  in  New York and  Connecticut)  may be  necessary.  In  the
absence of such legislation or locdl  lugal  expertise, some municipalities  may
see  source  separation  as  a  more   attractive  approach  than  mixed-waste
processing.

Employment--
   We estimated  the  net  impact of each combination  of  source  separation  and
mixed  waste  processing   (MWP)  options  on the   number of  people  directly
employed  in  solid  waste  collection  and  disposal.   We  also  estimated  the
impact of  additional  combinations  that assumed:   1) no source  separation  and
2) landfill   rather   than  processing  of  mixed-wastes.   To  account  for
off-setting charges   in  employment  levels  throughout  the  entire  system  of
solid  waste  collection   and  disposal  we  took   into  account  six  distinct
activities:

   o  collection of source separated materials
   o  collection uf remaining mixed-wastes
   o  operation of transfer stations
   o  administration
   o  operation of landfill
   o  operation of mixed-waste processing facilities.

-------
   For the firs', four activities (generally conducted by municipal employees)
we  used  the  efficiency levels  and assumptions described  in Section  3 and
Appendix  A.   For   high-efficiency  multi-material   separation,   employment
requirements  for  collection of  source- separated materials  are based  on an
average crew  productivity  of 5-7 Mg (6-8 tons) per day, crew sizes of 2 or 3
persons, and  separated  material  quantities of 25.3 Mg  (27.7  tons) collected
each  day  Ky  four  municipal  crews  (excluding privately  collected office and
corrugated paper)  in each  of  five Baselyn  communities.   For low-efficiency
multi-material collection,  similar  productivity  rates require only two crews
of  2-3  persons  each  in  each  community.   For  high-efficiency  ne^sp-int
recovery, two crews  of 2-3 persons  each are also assumed (see Table 2").  All
options  assume  collection  of  mixed-waste  by 3-person  crews  coliai  :nq an
average of 20  tons per day.

   Employment  levels  for   operation   of  public  or  private  landfills  were
estimated ur.i.ng data from  a standard engineering reference, Municipal Refuse
Disposal, which estimates  seven  personnel  required for a  1,000 tpd landfill
and  two  for a  200 tpd landfill ,(47)  along  with the calculated  residual to
landfill for  each  combination  of options.(47)  Employment levels for eacn of
the  five  HWP  alternative*  (which  may  be either  privately  or  publicly
operated) were estimated on the  basis of data acquired  during  our review of
actual  employment  at  similar  existing  facilities and  data  contained  in  a
recent  study  conducted  by  Franklin  Associates  for  the  American  Paper
Institute. (48)  The  esti,,utes  assume  operation at full  capacity  (1,000 tpd)
and no reductions  in facility  employment due to operating such  facilities at
less than full  capacity  in the fixed  service area scenario.  However, a wide
range in the  number  ot  employees for  modular  incinerators  is given for both
service  area  scenarios  (48-80  employees for  1,000  tpd  capacity).   Fewer
employees would be n^sded  to operate .3 large number of modules  (up to 20) at
a  single  location than  to  operate modules  at five  or six  locations.   The
latter arrangep<=.nt  is much more probable.

   The results  of  the analysis are shown, in Table 28 for  the  fixed  service
araa  and  Table 23  for the  expanded  service area.  The   lowest  employment
levels occur when no  source separation is con.bined with  landfill (167  and 2G4

                                     114

-------
                               TABU 28   01RECT EMPLOYMENT hCQUIREHENTS IN FIXED SERVICE ARFA (NO  OF EMPLOYEES)
Combinations of Source Separation (SS)
Mixed-Waste Processing (KWJ>)
Options



1
i
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS.
16
17
18
19
20
?1
22
23
24
2S
26
21
28
29
30


SS Option
No source separation
Nn source separation
No source separation
rio source separation
No source separation
High multinaterlal
High nullimaterlal
High inulliiHterial
High mullinalerial
High mu1tmuter
-------
                                       lAOLE 29   DIRCCI  tHPLOYMfNT RtOUIRrMCNTS IN EXPAKPfO SLRVICE  AREA
Conbiiidllons of Source Separation (SS)
MUbd-Wdslc Processing (HWP)
Opllons



1
3
4
s
e
7
8
9
10
11
I?
13
14
IS
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30


SS Option
Ho source separation
No soutce bupa atlon
No souice separation
No snurce separdtion
No suutce sepaiatlon
High njlli'Jterlal
High muitlmalerlal
High mul'.icjlorlal
Hl(|h mullimatcria)
High fflullinalerial
low nulllciilferiii
low aulllrMlerlal
low •uillinjlci lal
Low nulllaalii lal
Low oullinalei lal
High newsprint
High newsprint
High newsprint
Mi in npwsprlpl
Hlyl newsprint
Low newsprint
Low newspi fr,t
lo-t ncwspi int
Low newsprint
Low newsprint
Beverage container
Bevi'iage container
Beveraye container
Spvcratjc contatnei
Bcverd'jp container


IMP Option
Landfill
Pioccssccl walerwall
Refuse-derived fuel
Nodular Incineration
Landfill
Unprocessed walcrwall
Processed water-wall
Refuse-derived tuel
Modular Incinerator
Landfill
Unprocessed rfflterwall
Pioccsscd wa:eiwi1l
Ri fuSG-derlvcd fuel
Modular Incinerator
Landfill
Unprocessed walt-rvall
Piocesscd watei.iill
Rcfuse-.lcrived luel
Modular Incinerator
landfill
Unprocessed waLerwall
Processed waterwall
Refuse-derived fuel
Modular incinerator
landfill
Unprocessed walcrwall
Processed watcrwall
Refuse-derived frcl
Hoduldr Incfncratur
Cel lection
of
Separated*
Wastes
0
0
0
0
0
48-72
48-72
48-72
48-72
48-72
24-36
24-36
24-36
24-36
24-36
24-36
.4-36
24-36
24-36
T4-36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Collection
or
Mixed
Wastes
183
183
183
183
183
147
147
147
147
147
16S
165
165
165
165
IbO
180
18U
180
180
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
i«3
183
183
Operation
of
Transfer
Stations
12
12
12
1Z
12
12
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
12
0
n
0
0
Administration
of
Source
Separation
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0

Ops rat Ion
or
Landf 1 1 1
9
2
2
2
2
7
2
2
2
2
7
2
2
2
2
8
2
2
2
2
9
2
2
2
2
7
2
2
2
2

Operation
of HrfP
Facility
0
Sb
59
S9
59-80
0
Si
59
59
59- BO
0
ib
59
59
59- BO
0
55
59
59
59-80
0
55
59
59
S9-BO
O
&S
SO
59
59-80

Total
Cnployces
Required
IU4
2^2
206
2S6
256-277
217-241
2iS-^79
259-283
259-283
259-364
211-223
249-261
253-2G5
253-265
253-286
227-239
264-276
208 -IbO
-.?-780
268-301
264
240
244
244
244-265
ZOZ
240
244
244
244-265
Calculation based on number at crews required per day In «ach or 5 Baselyn coanunllles,  (set Section 3),  crew sljes or  2-3 persons, and  cooparatale
ivjrbi:r and productivity of ciew required In expanded service area

-------
for  tne  fixed and  expanded  service  areas,   respectively).   When  modular
incineration occurs at  a  single location and two-person collection crews are
used,  high  newsprint  separation  coupled  with  either refuse-derived  fuel.
processed waterwall or nodular incineration demands the most employees (233.5
in  the fixed  and 310  ^'n  the expanded  service area).  However,  if  modular
incineration is dispersed  by community and three-person crews are used,  the
highest employment (?64.5 to  364) would occur when  incineration  is  coupled
with high  multi-material or high newsprint separation.

   These differences are large enough to be economically significant.   Taking
into  accoint all   six activities  considered in  the overall system of v/aste
disposal  and  resource  recovery,   the  choice of  waste disposal  options  can
cause  increases of as much as 50 to 75 percent in the tctal number of people
employed.    Tor a   metropolitan  region  of 500,000  - 650,000 population,  ti.t
difference  in  jobs would  be comparable to  gain or  loss  of a  medium sized
manufacturing   plant.    If   these   jeople   were   directly   employed   by
municipalities, the differences  in annual  sanitation budgets could be in the
area of $1 -  1.5 million.

   However,  the  majority  of  the  increased  employment  will   be  at  the
mixed-waste  processing  facility,  which  would  in  most  cases  be  privately
operated.   Differences  in  waste collection employment  resulting  from source
separation  are at most 20  percent  (assuming  3-man crews).  This estimate
probably   represents  an   upper   limi-  as  it  does  not  include  possible
improvements in waste collection efficiency due to rerouting and  reassignment
in  manpower   in  conjunction  with  implementation  of  a  source  separation
program.   Furthermore,  most  municipal  collection  programs have   a  certain
number  of reserve forces  which could  be  used, thus,  new hiring  would  not
necessarily  be required.   A particularly  important variable is the  size of
the  collection crew.   The  sur'ey  of  separate collection  programs  by  SCS
Engineers   concluded that  while most such programs  employed  three-man crews,
this  crew  size  was   excessive.    Important efficiencies  could  have  been
                                         *
achieved by switching  to two-men crews (loader plus driver), or one-man crews
with  side-loading collection  vehicle1;.   Reassigning  crews cculd  reduce or
eliminate  the need for a municipality to hire additional employees  to  begin o

                                     117

-------
source  separation  program.   When two-man crews  are  assumed,  high-efficiency
multi-material  source  separation causes  an  increuse of only  6.7  percent in
personnel engaged in  solid waste collection.

   A smaller work  force  than assumed in our analysis is also possible at the
MWP  facility,  particularly  if  it is  privately  operated.   For  example,  the
600-1500 tpd RDF facility in Baltimore County, Maryland, operated by Teleciyne
National, employs  only 26  people.   However,  some facilities  in areas where
reducing unemployment  is a  key municipal objective will operate with larger
work forces than we assumed. The 700 tod RDF facility in Newark, for example,
is projected to have  100 full-time employees.

   To  be  consistent  with  assumptions  made  in  defining  source  separation
options,  our  analysis  does not  include one  possible additional  source of
employment:    intermediate   processing   of   source-separated   materials.
Contamination  of  separated materials  or incomplete  separation  of materials
(i.e.,  mixing  of  bottles  <;nd  cans)  Tay  necessitate  processing prior to
re-sale.   Private  recycling companies  in a  number  of areas,  including the
north  shore of  Massachusetts,  northern New  Jersey  and  Seattle  have  used
intermediate  processing,  but. sufficient  data are not  available to estimate
employment levels per ton processed.

Property Tax Eflects—
   In considering approval  of large new industrial facilities, municipalities
are  always  interested  in possible tax revenues.  Source separation options do
not  involve  land  improvements  cr new construction and  hence  do not generate
such  revenues.   While  privately-opsrated MWP facilities do  often pay taxes,
the  municipalities pay them tipping fees  and frequently finance  them.  Hence,
property taxes are open for negotiation as part of the financial arrangements
made between  the plant and the town.  Tipping fees may be reduced in lieu of
payment  of  property  taxes  or tipping fees may be increased it property taxes
are  increased  (as  i.i the proposed 140  tpd waterwall  facility at Pittsfield,
Massachusetts).  Property taxes  are  usually  not a major issue in a municipal
decision  as  to which  resource  recovery option to pursue; tax rates  are not
changed  by  construction  of  MWP facilities except as  a reflection of reduced
disposal costs.
                                     118

-------
Political Autonomy--
   One  of  the  major  attractions  to  municipalities  of  source  separation
options   is  that   they  do   not   require   long-term   legal   agreements.
Municipalities and  private haulers  of mixed-waste are  both reluctant to make
long-term   committments  for  waste   deliveries.    The  short-term  contract
committments required by recovered  materials  purchasers  seem less risky than
the  15  to  20 year  contracts common  for  MWP  facilities.  Moreover,  neither
source separation options nor beverage container deposit  legislation requires
joint  action  with  neighboring   municipalities   or  regional   authorities.
Furthermore,  no  mixed  waste  from  other  communities  need be  transported
through  the municipality on  its  way t3 a  regional facility with accompanying
noise,  air pollution,  and  traffic  congestion  -   often  opposed  by  IOLE!
residents.

   Regional MWP  facilities  serving more  than one  municipality at  a  single
sit°  are  assessed   in  this  study  (i.e.,  1000-tpd  plants  with  differing
tec'.rjlogies,  r.erving fixed  and  expanded  service areas that include che five
"Baselyn"   communities).    These   facilities   are  managed  by   d   single
municipality  or  regional  authority,  which  shares  costs  and  profits  with
participating  municipalities.   This   structure  usually   raises  difficult
questions  of  political  autonomy, which may require  considerable  negotiation
for  resolution.   Controversies  have  arisen at virtually  every MWP facility
serving  more than one municipality and increase  in  proportion  to the number
of municipalities involved.   Each municipality questions  whether the economic
advantages  of  sharing  labor  and  materials  out-weigh  the  political  and
administrative benefits of operating  an independent facility.  This question
is outside  the  scope of the pres. it study,  but deserves  further analysis due
to its frequent  importance in local decision-making.

Conclusions

   Implementing  either  source separation or  mixed-waste  processing  options
may  cause  institutional  problems  for a municipality,  but  these problems can
be solved with sufficient foresight and planning.   Source separation programs
may  be   difficult  to administer,  but  they  rarely  impede the financing  or

                                     119

-------
implementation  or  mixed-waste processing plants.  Many of  the institutional
problems of proposed mixed-waste processing pi ante are due to capacities that
are  larger  than  the  available  waste  supply.   More study  is  needed  to
determine   the   rela'ivo  morits   of   centralized  and   decentralized  MWP
facilities, and their  interaction with source separation programs.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Issues

   The primary  issue,  from  the munici^cl viewpoint,  is the  effect of source
separation  on  the economics  of  colle:tion,  transportation, and  disposal  of
mixed solid waste.

Objective

   The  objective  is   to  determine  if  various  source separation  scenarios
reduce or increase solid waste disposal  costs for municipalities.

Approach

   An  analysis  of the  source  separation  progrcim  costs  and  revenues  is
presented in Appendix  A.  In  this  analysis, two alternatives were considered
for  disposal  of  the  remaining mixed-waste:  landfiliing  and  delivery  to  a
mixed-waste  procussing  facility.   In  both  cases,  a constant  disposal  or
tipping fee of  $13—  per ton was assumed  for all  source  separation options.
Hov/ever, as discussed in Section 4, the tipping fee or net processing cost to
the  mixed-waste processing  facility is  not constant but  varies  for  each
combination  of  source   separation  option   arrl   mixed-waste   processing
alternatives.

   The  ne*  tocal  costs  for  material   recovery  and waste  disposal  wore
calculated  by  summing the  net processing cost for each  combination ana the
net collection costs (source separation program costs  minus the $'J— per ton
tipping fee; for the mixed-waste processing alternatives.   The  net total cost
for  the  different combinations were  :ompared  to  net total landfill  costs.
The landfill costs  are based on those g-iven in Appendix A.

-------
Results

   The net costs,  including  collection,  transportation and revenues,  for the
various  combinations   of  source  separation  and   nixed-waste   processing
technology«:S  are  listed  in  Tables 30  through  33.   Three  scenarios  were
considered:   a 1,000 ton  per day  plant already existing,  a "correctly" sized
plant,  both  serving  a  fixed  service  area,   and  an  expanded  service  area
feeding a 1,000  ton per day plant.

   Differences in net costs for different source separation options are small
and  result  primarily  from the  effect  of  source  separation  on  the  ent-gy
content  of  the  remaining waste  stream.   The  source  separation option which
most  enriches  the Btu  content  of  the waste  stream,  beverage  container
recovery, results in the lowest net cost.

   In all cases,  the  scenario  which assumes service  within  a  fixed area for
an  already  existing  plant is costlier  than  the  other two scenarios.   The
capital  cost  is  spr«ad  over  fewer tons processed,  resulting in a  higher tost
per  ton  processed.  Also in all  cases,  the  "correctly"  sized end expanded
service  area  scenarios   are  less  costly  than landfills  alona,  with  the
expanded area  scenario having the slightly lower cost.

Conclusions

   Compared to  tho  other two  scenarios,  the  fixed  sen ice area,  existing
plant  scenario   is relatively unattractive.   Its  plant  is under-utilized;
hence it proces.-os materials at a  higher cost oer ton.

   The effect of sour:e separation options  on  costs is moderate or relatively
small, at the most 9 percent for multi-material and processed wcterwall.  The
least  costly  source  separation  options  are   the  ones that enrich the  Btu
content  of the waste  processing  stream,  i.e.,  high-efficiency  multi-material
(assuming correct plant sizing) and beverage container  recovery.
                                     321

-------
    TABLE 30.   MET COST FOR UNPROCESSED WATERWALL  COMBUSTION  ($/TON)
                       Fixed Service Area
                                                  Expanded
                                                Service Area
                                   New Plant       New or
Source Separation  Existing Plant  (Correctly  Existing Plant
     Option          (1000 t/d)      Sized)       (1000 t/d)     Landfill
Multimaterial,
     high
                                                    35™
                                                                 38^3
Multimaterial,
     low

Newsprint, high

Newsprint, low
                        40*2


                        405?

                        38^
                                      39§4

                                      3821
                            3958

                            3822
                                                                 43^
Beverage
     containers
                                      3593
No source
     Separation
                        38**
                                      38^
     TABLE 31.   NET COST FOR PRESSED WATL-P.WALL COMBUSTION  ($/TQN)
                       Fixed Service Area
                                                  Expanded
                                                Service  Area
                                   New Plant       New or
Source Separation  Existing Plant  (Correctly  Existing Plant
     Option          (1000 t/d)      Sized)       (1000 t/d)     Landfill
Multimaterial,
     high
42^
                                      37^2
                                                    36

                                                                 38^
Multimaterial,
     low

Newsprint, high

Newsprint, low
                        40*5


                        40*8-

                        38*1
                                      39^

                                      38^
                                                                 43^
Beverage
     containers
                        37™
                                      36^
                                                    35§z
No source
     separation
                                      38^
                                     122

-------
	TABL1:' 32.  NET COST FOR REFUSE-DERIVED . UEL ($/TON)	

                                                  Exp'anaed
                       Fixed Service Area       Service Area

                                   New Plant       Nt-w o"*
Source Separation  Existing Plant  (Correctly  Existing Plant
     Option          (1000 t/d)      Sized)      (1000 t/dj.    Landfill
Multimaterial ,
high
Multimaterial ,
low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage
containers
No source
^operation
41§§
399Z
40^
38^
388§
38**
5~          b -         38~

Multimaterial,          .,07          .}035          .,94         .,,46
     low                41"~          '{9~          JdF"         42~

Newsprint, high         40—          :5S—          -0—

Newsprint, lew          JB—          38—          38—

Beverage                ,746
     containers

No source               -.85          .,4fa5          ,,.,8^
     separation

-------
SUMMARY

   Ihe major  question to  be  answered In evaluating issues  important  to the
overall  municipal   prospective  on  the  compatibility  of source  separation
options  and mixed-waste  processing  alternatives  is  whether  any  situations
exist where implemented  one  type would clearly interfere with the viability
of  thp  other.   The analyses  indicate  that  this would only be  the  case with
the  issue of  net  solid waste  collection  and  disposal  costs under a  fixed
service   area   ^nd   fixed   plent   :.ize   scenario.    In   this   scenario,
high-efficiency  multi-material  separation  moderately  increases  net cost for
all  mixed-waste processing  alternatives  (by  7-9  percent).   A?  previously
mentioned,  this  scenario may be  taken to represent a  situation whereby the
MWP  facility  has been designed with  too  large a capacity for  the  amount of
waste securely available.

   For  all  other   issues  considered   in  this  section,  none  of the  source
separation options  would  cause  any significant problem with the viability of
any  mixed-waste  processing alternative  (ot  vice versa),  and  hence they all
may be considered basically compatible.
                                     1L'4

-------
                                SECTION 6

                         THE NATIONAL  VIEWPOINT


   The primary national interests relating to resource recovery include:

c  Reduction of the  total  energy required to produce commercial  products by
   replacing part  of  the original raw materials with recycled materials

o  Reduction c.f fuel  imports by extensile energy  recovery from waste

o  Conservation  of  valuable   material   resources   by  recycling  recovered
   Materials

o  Improvement  of  national  environmental quality by a reduction  in landfill
   requirements, air  pollution,  and water pollution.

   In  this  chapter,  various  combinations of source separation  options  and
mixed-waste processing alternatives are analyzed in terms  of their effects on
environmental quality, net  energy  conservation, institutional  considerations
affecting national  interests, and economics.

ENERGY AND MATERIALS  CONSERVATION

Issue

   From  a national  viewpoint,  source  separation combined with  mixed-waste
processing provides an opportunity to:
                                     125

-------
1) Increase overalI  net energy efficiency
2) Increase national energy supplies
3) Reduce depletion  of scarce resources.

Objective

   The  objective of  this  section  is  two  fold:   to determine  recyclable
material  and energy  conservation potential  for  each source  separation and
mixed-waste  processing  option,  an-!  ;o project these  savings on  a  national
scale.

Approach

   The  net  enc-rgy  efficiency  includes  not  oi:ly  the Btu  recovery  of tr.e
mixed-waste  processing  facility  but also the energy credit for recycling the
source  separated material  less  the energy requirements  for  collection and
transportation of  the waste.  The  ne- energy  efficiency was calculated for
each  source  separation option and mixed-waste processing option.  In order to
project  these results to a national basis, the following  technique was used
to  estimate  the potential  market  penetration  for  mixed-waste  processing
facilities.

   A  1,000  t/d  facility  would  require  the  support of  a population  of
5-rO,000  (5 time;  Baselyn)  in  a  fairly  small  area.   Of  the  243 standard
metropolitan statistical  areas  (SMSA)  in the nation, 66 have a population of
540,000  or greater.(1)   Ihe 66 SMSAs  contain  46.5  percent  of the population
and should generate close to the same  percentage of solid waste produced in
the United Status (~150  x 10  t/y).  This amount of solid waste would support
191 1,000  tpd MWPF's which was used as the potential  national market.

Results

   Table  34, compiled   from  the  source  separation  profiles developed  in
Section  3,  shov/s the  quantity  of  material  available for recycling  in the
various  source   separation  scenarios,   for  both  fixed and  expanded service

                                     126

-------
        TABLE 34.  RECYCLED MATERIAL FOR A 1.000 T/0 SERVICE AREA
Source Separation
     Option
Component
Fixed Service Area
      (t/d)
Expanded Service Area
        (t/d)
Multi'material ,
high


Multi'material,
low


Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage
containers

Paper
Glass
Ferrous
Aluminum
Paper-
Glass
Ferrous
Aluminum
Paper
Paper
Glass
Ferrous
Aluminum
104
53
16
3
42
21
12
1
45
15
15
9
6
126
64
19 -
4
45
23
13
j.
47
15
48
10
6

areas.  The net energy  credit (i.e.  tne net energy saved by recycling glass,
metals, and papers)  as  a percentage of the  mixed  waste energy content is as
follows:
Source Separation Option
                                % Energy Content
                                 of Mixed Waste
Multimaterial,  high	15.7

Multi'material,  low	6.2

Newsprint, high	4.2
Newsprint, low	1.4

Beverage containers  	  b.4.
                                     127

-------
   Table 35  shnws  the projected  national  reduction in material use  and  the
amount of energy saved using source separation.
       TABLE 35.   NATIONAL RESOURCE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION DUE  TO
      SOURCE SEPARATION.  FIXED SERVICE AREA (EXPANDED SERVICE  AREA)
Source Separation
     Option
 Resource
 103 t/d
                                              Energy Saved
(1010 Btu/d)
          (10J BB1  oil/d)
Multimaterial,
     high
34   (41)
   28
(33)
47  (57)
I'lUI LI Mid LCI
low
Newsprint,
Newsprint,
Idl ,
high
low
Beverage
containers
15
9
3
11
(16)
(9)
(3)
(12)
11
7
2
10
(12)
(8)
(2)
(10)
19
12
4
16
(20)
(13)
(4)
(17)

   Of more  importance is the  net  energy efficiency, which  is  determined  by
adding together the energy recovered in mixed-waste processing and the energy
credit  for  recycled  material,  and  then subtracting  the  energy used  for
collection  and transportation.  Tablo  36 shows  the  net energy  efficiency
matrix  as  a  percentage  of  the energy  content  of the  mixed-waste  stream.
Because the  composition  of  the waste  stream  is  the same for both fixed  and
expanded service areas,  the  percentage of net energy efficiency  is the same
for both  cases (although the  total  amount of source separated material  and
energy  recovery  is different  in each  case).   Table 37 shows the  net energy
recovery,   expressed  as  equivalent barrels of  oil  per  day,  projected on  a
national basis for  both fixed and expanded service areas.
                                     128

-------
                    TABLE 36.   NET ENE3GY EFFICIENCY
                  (% of total  available in mixed-west*;)

Source Unprocessed
Separation Waterwall
Option Combustion
Multimaterial ,
high
Multimaterial,
low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Bev?rage
containers
66
60
61
61
67
Processed
Water-wall
Combustion
61
55
55
56
61
Refuse-
Derived
Fuel
60
54
54
54
60
Modular
Incinerator
62
56
56
56
62

TABLE 37. NATIONAL NET ENERGY RECOVERY WITH SS AND MWP
(10* BOEVd) FIXED SERVICE AREA (EXPANDED SERVICE AREA)

Source
Separation
Option
Multimaterial ,
Jiigh
Multimaterial ,
lew
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage
containers
Unprocessed
Waterwal 1
Combustion
195 (237)
183 (136)
183 (192)
183 (186)
201 (213)
Processed
Waterwall
Comoustion
180 (218)
163 (18C)
1G5 (173)
103 (171)
183 (194)
Refuse-
Derived
Fuel
177 (215)
165 (177)
162 (170)
162 (164)
180 (191)
Modular
Incinerator
183 (222)
171 (184)
168 (176)
166 (169)
186 (198)

*  BOE = barrels of oil equivalent
                                     129

-------
Conclusions

   Source separation can make a significant contribution to reducing resource
use and conserving energy.  On a national basis, energy demand can be reduced
by up  to approximately  50,000 bbl of  oil per day. The combining  of source
separation  and  mixed-waste  processing  ^as  an even  greater potential  for
energy  reduction.   In  terms of energy  conservation,  the  source separation
options  that  separate   and  recycle  metals  is more   important  than  those
separating  paper  and  newsprint  only.   The  energy recovery  for   paper  is
roughly the same wnether the paper is recycled or processed, while the energy
credit  for  metals can  only  be obtained by  source  separation ond recycling.
Therefore, source  separation scenarios, that maximize metal recycling are the
most  net  energj  efficient.   Nationally,  combined source  separation  and
fi:-;xed-waste  processing   has  the poter,*ial  to  reduce  energy  demand by  tr.e
equivalent of over 200,000 BOE  per day.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Issues

   The paramount national issues are  the reduction of the amount of waste and
provisions for proper solid waste disposal.

Objectives

   The  objectives  of  this  section  are  to  determine  whether  the various
scenarios will  reduce the amount of  solid  waste aid will  lead to its proper
disposal.  Additionally,  the environmental  effects  if  the various   scenarios
will be determined.

Approach

Assumptions--
   Since  Baselyn neets  the  National  Ambient  Air  Quality  Standards (Sectior.
3), if  overall  emissions from processing  rf  solid  waste do not exceed t-iose
from landfilling, processing  is to be preferred.

                                      130

-------
   Because  lanrifill  sites  are  becoming  more  difficult to  obtain  and  the
regulations governing them are becoming more stringent, any action leading to
a  reduction  in  landfill  requirements  should  be considered.  On  the  other
hand,  a  landfill  site may be current!/ available, whereas a new MWPF must be
built; thus,  considerable landfill  area would  be  required  for the immediate
future even if an MWPF is chosen.

   Those  materials  obtained by source separation  and  resource recovery,  and
recycled  rather  than  disposed  of,  represent  a  threefold  gain:   (1) an
immediate reduction in landfill requirements, (2) a reduction  in the need for
raw materials  ii  primary production, and (3) a reduction in ene-gy required
both for primary production and production of finished products.

Analysis--
   As stated in Sections 4 and 5, source separation will extend landfill life
from 1.5  to  17.6  percent, depending on the source separation option adopted.
Mixed-waste  processing  will  further  extend  landfill  life,  by  76.1  to
80.3 percent.   Scenarios  combining  both  source  separation  and  mixed-waste
processing will extend  landfill  life somewhat more, by 76.2 to 86.3 percent.
Clearly, processing extends  landfill  life more than source separation does.

   Source separation  will decrease  atmospheric emissions  from v/aste haulage
by 3.6  to 17.6%.    Mixed-waste  processing will  reduce  these  emissions  by as
much as 80.3%.  Combinations  of  source separation and mixed-waste processing
can  reduce   emissions  as  much  as  86.3%.   Consequently,  from the  national
viewpoint, the combinations  are to be prefirred.

   The emission  of pollutants  into the air by mixed-waste processing, even
though controlled  to  meet  regulation;-,,  will still  occur.   If an equivalent
amount  of  coal   is  burned  to yield  the  energy recovered  in mixed  waste
processing,  particulate  emissions will  be unchanged (both will be controlled
to the  same standards), but  S02  and N0x  emissions will  be  reduced  in  mixed
waste  processing.   Additionally,   emissions   occasioned  by  coal   mining,
processing,   and transportation  will be eliminated by  nixed waste processing
energy recovery.   Thus,  emissions  will be  reduced  nationwide, both  at coal
producing localities and  at localities where mixed-waste processing occurs.

                                     131

-------
   Existing municipal war.te  landfills  will  have less effect on ground water,
to  the  extent that  landfill  residual-s are reduced by  source  separation and
mixed-waste processing.   The  Teachability of. the  ,esiduals  from mixed-waste
processing is  also reduced.

   Mixed-waste processing  will  have a greater effect  on  surface  water then
th» equivalent combustion  of  coal.   This  will  only be  p^rti^lly offset by a
reduction in coal combustion.

Conclusions--
   On  balance,  it  would  appear  desirable  from  the  national   viewpoint  to
accept the  surface  water impacts  from mixed waste processing.   The gains are
a  reduction  in  air  pollution  and  haulage emissions due  to mixed  waste
P-'oceosing and 3 reduction in ground water pollution obtained by using source
separation,  or  mixed  waste  processing,  or  a  combination  of  the  two.
Multimaterial  separation and UCWCF o- MI again appear to  be the best choices.

INSTITUTIONAL/TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Issues

   Some  institutional  and  legislativs and  regulations)  tend  to favor
either the source separation or the mixisd-waste processing approach.
                                     132

-------
   finally, the question  ot  overcoming institutional barriers to the further
use of  mixed-waste processing for energy recovery has recently teen analyzed
in  some depth, and  has  received  significant  attention from  policy makers.
Recently, progress  has been  made in overcoming economic bditie^s  because of
the large price  increases,  and the scarcity, of  fossi'i  fuels.   There is new
some  concern   that  valuable   source  separable materials (notably  high-grade
papers)  will   increasingly  be  used  for  their  energy  content  in  waste
processing  systems,  and  thus not acr.ieve  their highest  potential  economic
value.   Hence  the  question  arises as  to  whether analogous  institutional
barriers  to increased  source separation  exist  that  merit  further federal
analysis and possible action.

Objectives

   This section will address lh« following questions:

o  Does  overall  employment,  considered  on  a  regional  onu  national  basis,
   increase  or   decrease  as   a   result  of  beverage   container  deposit
   legislation,  and  do  market  distortions  and  inequities  result  from
   enactment of different  legislation in different states and communities?

o  Is there a  difference  in  the affects  of mixed-waste processing and source
   separation   options on  railroad  freight rates  regulatrd by the  Interstate
   Commerce Commission (ICC) for virgin and recycled materials?

o  How  do  federal  tax  laws  and  regulations  influence  local  decisions  on
   resource recovery options?

o  Are  there   institutional   barriers  beyond  the ability  of  local  or state
   government   to  resolve, but  potentially soluble  by federal action,  that
   tend to make source sepa.able material  the captive product of mixed-waste
   facilities?
                                     133

-------
Hpproacn

   The  results  of  previous  studies  ->re summarized  and  from  this  summary,
conclusions are  developed about the institutional compatibility  of  specific
source separation and mixed-waste processing combinations.

Employment and Equity Effects of Beverage Container Recovery Legislation--
   This  issue can be  considered  on the  state,  regional, r.r  federal  level.
First,  we  will   discuss  the  documented employment  impacts  in  Oregon  and
Vermont, the  first  states  to enact such legislation.  Then we will comment on
the conclusions of  a  study by a task  force  of the  New York State Senate on
the probable  i IT pacts of  proposed  mandatory deposit legislation for  New York
State.   Finally,  we  will  present  estimates  of the  potential  impact  of
rational mandatory deposit  legislation.

   The Oregon bill, which  took effect in 1972,  required  a minimum five-cent
deposit  on  all   beverage  containers  sold  in  the  state.   As  a  result,
nonretui-nable bottles were largely replaced by returnable bottles,  which now
account  for 90»  of beverage sales.  The return  rate  for rpturnaole bottles
ranges  from  80   to  95 percent  and  for  cans  the   return  rate  ic  about
70 percent.   Employment  impacts showed  a  pattern  in  i/hich <.<  net  loss of
primarily  skilled  jobs in the beer end  soft drink  container  manufacturing
industries was offset by a larger net gain of less skilled jobs in the retail
and distribution  sectors  of  the economy.   One contract canning plant  in the
state  dosed  down,  with a net  loss of 75 to  252 jobs, excluding the retail
sector.  Increases  in  the number  of retail jobs were  less  well  documented,
but were estimated at 400, resulting in a net job gain of 148 - 3^5.(49)

   In Vermont, which enacted a five-cent minimum deposit law in 1973, initial
shifts in container types were much less marked; many brewers jimply labelled
non-returnable bottles  for deposit and disposed  of them  upon  return.   There
has been a  gradual  shift toward the use of returnable bottles.   Return rates
were  reported  in 1977  to  have increased* to 80  -  1J5 percent. (50)   By 1979,
state  officials  were  estimating rotes as high  as  97 percent  statewide.(51)
Dsta  en employment are somewhat incomplete.   Some soft drink distributors and
                                     131

-------
beer  wholesalers  reported  Increases   in  employment  to  handle  returnable
bottles,  while  no   significant   declines   in  sa^s  or  employment  were
experienced by  container  manufacturers. Jhis  is  probably due to the  small
population of the state and the previously mentioned slowness  of  the  shift  to
returnables.   Retail  stores  in  towns  near  the  state  border   experienced
Declines in beer and soft  drink sales  because  Vermonters  made  tewer purchases
in adjoining  states.

   The New York State study concluded  that net employment impacts  would  be  as
follows.(52)

      A  shift  to  a beverage  market  made  up of  80  to  90  percent
   refillable bottles would result in  an increase in employment of about
   5,200 jobs due to the labor intensive nature of  the  refillable  bottle
   filling and handling operations. The decrease in the  total  number of
   containers consumed each year  would  result in employment dislocation
   affecting approximately 1,200 workers.  How quickly  such dislocations
   would  be   assimilated  would  be dependent  upon  industry  and  union
   strategies, employment  turnover rates, and whether or  not  the  shift
   toward  refillable   bottles   was  gradual.   The  net   increase   in
   employment,  then,  would  be  over  4,000  jobs.   The  net increase  in
   payrolls in the  state  as  a result  of this  net increase in  employment
   would be approximately $35 million annually.

   Impacts in each  municipality would  vary, but the most widespread  would  be
increases  in  unskilled bottle-  and  can-handling  job3  at supermarkets and
convenience stores.

   For national  beverage container deposit legislation,  a similar pattern was
predicted  for  the  United  States  as u  whole.   A comprehensive  EPA  analysis
resulted  in  the conclusion  that  a nationwide  deposit  system would  cause a
decrease  of  82,000  in  employment  levels  in the container  manufacturing and
supply industries by 1980; however, these  losses would  be offset  by increases
of   164,000   in   the  beverage,   beverage   distribution,   and   retailing
industries.(53)  Table 38 summarizes the national employment impacts.

                                    135

-------
           TABLc 38.   NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LEVELS IN CONTAINER
           PRODUCTION AND USE*:   IMPACT OF DEPOSIT LE-'.ISLATICN
     	(In thousands of jobs)	

                  SoftMalt  WholesaleGlassMetal
                  Prink. Liquor   Beer           Container  Can  Metal
      Year        Inds.   Ind?.T  Distr.   Retail   Mfg.     Inds. Supp. Total
1975 baseline
1980 baseline
198C deposit
legislation
Net cnange
(1980 deposit
leaislation minus
1980 baseline)
102.
119

154
+35



19.8
23.6

31.9
+8.3



56.
67.

90.
+23.



2
1

2
1



13.
13.

111.
+97.



4
1

0
9



36.
40.

11.
-29.



5
7

0
7



42.0
55.5

21.5
-34.0



22.8
30.2

11.7
-18.5



293
349

431
+82




*  EPA analysis of data from Bingham, T.H, and P.P. Mulligan (Research
   Triangle Institute), "The Beverage Container Problem:   Analysis and
   Recommendations," U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Sept. 19/5:
   190 p. (Distributed by National technical Information Servict
   Springfield, Va., as "B-213 341); "Bott a Survey '71;  A Califi-m-•
   Supermarket Report on the Cost of Handling Returnable Soft Dritx
   Bottles."  Le Habra, Calif., Alpha Beta Acme Markets,  1971, IP ...;
   "Employment Dislocations Data," Research Triangle Institute, R:;»'.irch
   Triangle Institute ParK, N.C., 31 p., April 10, 1974.

   Container distribution employment only.
   At  present,  seven  states -  Oregon,  Maine,  Vermont,  Connecticut,  Iowa,

Micnigan, and Delaware - have adopted container deposit laws.  This patchwork

of  differing  legislation   may  in  the  long run  produce  additional  local

distortions  of  the type described in  Vermont  if federal  mandatory deposit

legislation is not passed.


Freight Rate Differentials—

   For a number of years, it has been debated whether railroad freight rates,

ragul.ited by  the  ICC  for commodities moved in interstate commerce, tended to

promote the  ust- of virgin  a: opposed t.o  recycled materials.  EPA analysis in

1972 indicated that no  consistent trend existed, and that rates for each r.ot
                                     135

-------
of  p •ira"'y  <'irgin  products  and  equivalent  secondary  products  had  to  be
examir,    individually. (50)   It  concluded  th^t existing  rates at  that lime
we»-e likely to discriminate against ferrous icr^p and glass culled, but could
favor use of scrap aluminum and wastepaper.

   In  Feoruary  1977,  the  ICC,  after  conducting  us  own  investigations,
ordered  rollbacks  in  freight  rates  for  several  recycled  commmodities,
including glass cullel, in several geographic regions.  At that time, the ICC
ruleii  against  lowering  the  rates  far ferrous  scrap  and wastepaper,  but
ordered further reduction of rates for other secondary materials.

   On April  16 1879.  the  ICC,  in a more  far-reaching judgment,  stated that
existing  rates  often  favored  raw  materials;  the  Commission announced  an
overall  guideline,  according to  v«hicii recyclable  commodities  should not ce
priced   at   more   than  ISO percent  of  actual  handling  costs.   Specific
reductions  ii> freight  rates  were ordsred  primarily for scrap metals, with
significant  reductions for  recycled aluminum and copper in all areas and for
ferrous  scrap  in  the  South.   In issuing its judgment, the ICC stated that it
considered  the rate levels necessary to encourage recycling.  This action and
the  1977 decision  on  glass  cullet  should  substantially  reduce freight rate
inequifies.(54)

   In general,  the  overall  ICC freight rate structure and its recent changes
will affect the choice between source  separation  and mixed-waste processing
options  as  follows:    they  will  probably  have  some   influ«-nce  on  which
materials are  ir.ost  economical  to r "over,  but little effect o.i the choice of
the  best way  to recover them.   Wnen  the  same  material  (e g. .  ferrous and
nonferrous  cans)  can  be  recovered  by either source  separation or MWP, ^oth
options  will  have  the same  freight  costs and  thus  neither wll  have an
advantage.   Hence,  although  the  recovery  of  recycled  material   would  be
encouraged  over  that of  raw material, this would not affect the economics of
the choice between source separation and
   The  current  ICC  freight   rate  structure  is  probably  more  balanced  now
 otween  virgin and  recycled  materials  than  it has  been in  the  past.   The

                                     137

-------
recent  cnanges  should  tei.d  somewhat  to  encourage  inullimalerial   source
separation options compared to the newsprint recovery programs that have been
mo«:t  common   xo  date.   Since  all  mixed-waste   processing  alternatives
considered (except MI)  include  ferrou; recovery,  none of them should  receive
a distinct advantage over the other mixed-waste processing and multi-material
source separation options.

Federal  Tax Laws  and Regulations—
   Taxes  and  tax shelters that  apply to production of  virgin materials  but
not  their  secondary  equivalents  could  use  varying  freight rates,  alter
relative production costs and thus encourage or discourage resource recovery.
Examples   of   such   "discriminatory"  (i.e.,   differential,  rather   than
undesirable  or  unfair) tax  treatment  includ."1  1) tax  credits granted  for
payment of  taxas to foreign  governments;  2;  percentage depletion  allowances
for  mineral production; 3) "expensing" (i.e., deferment of  tax payments) of
expenditures  for mining  exploration  and  development;  4) treating  earnings
from timber sales as capital  gains rather than income; and 5) state and local
taxes on  the  value of resources  produced.   All  but  the l?st provide  tax
benefits for virgin materials  compared with their recovered equivalents.

   A 1974  study  for  EPA concluded that discriminatory  federal  tax treatment
reduced the  cost of  production  of virgin material-,  compared wiLh recovered
equivalents  for  each  of  several  commodities examined:  aluminun, pulp  and
paper,  glass,   steel,   and  five  plastic   ?nd   rubber  product;.    Hence,
discriminatory tax  treatment consistently tended to  benefit virgin  material
production,(55J  compared  with   the   impact  of freight rates.  The  largest
percentage  steel  and   paperboard  manufacturers   experienced  the  biggest
impacts;  tax  benefits  of 2.8  to 4. } percent before  taxes  and   1.4  to  2.?
percent after taxes.

   Although these benefits are  significant,  the authors of the study did nol.
predict whether  or  not elimination  of  discriminatory tax  treatment  would
increase  use of  secondary  material.  The authors concluded that, in thp bhorl.
term, demand  for steel  would probably  increase  if  such  tax treatment were
eliminated, but  demand  for  other products would  not.   Long-term  impacts of

                                      133

-------
changes in federal lay policy were considered impossible to predict; however,
glass is  less  likely  to be affected than  other  products,  as most industrial
source glass cullet  is  already recycled and the  economies  of glass recovery
are  considered unfavorable.   According  to the  study,  price  instability  of
markets for  other recovered  material:,  has a  much greater  effect,  on demand
than  tederal  t-3x policy.   Specifically,  if tax  policies  were  the  critical
determinant  of demand  for ferrous  scrap, current  policies  would  tend  to
slightly discourage multimaterial  source  separation  options.  However, since
the  price changes  resulting  from discriminatory  taxation are  much  smaller
than  fluctuations  in  recovered  material  prices  (newsprint  prices,  for
example,  increase  or decrease  by as much  as  50-75 percent  within  a single
year),  they  apparently do  not have e  major  impact on the  local  choice  of
options.

Possible Institutional Barriers to Source Separttion--
   As discussed  in Section 5,  compared with  mixed-waste  processing, source
separation  may  involve more  effort  in  commui.icating  with  ho.neowners  and
altering collection practices, but fewer difficulties with capital financing,
length  of  contract  restrictions,  and political  autonomy.   Overall,  then,
administrative  capability  should  not impede   source  separation  programs.
However,  this  reasoning  does  not  explain  >/hy many programs  that  were
initially quite  successful (for  example,  Hcmpstead, New  York)  were dropped
several years after   their  initiation,  or why  these such programs  have
generally failed  to  significantly  reduce the quantity  of  material disposed.

   One  factor  that  plays  a role  in  inhibiting municipalities from beginning
such projects is  the short-term instability of prices for paper,  the mainstay
of  such programs.  Between  1974 and 1379, prices  for used newspapers varied
from  $5  per  ton  to $50  per  ton.   3elow  roughly  $lb  per  ton,  newsprint
recovery  is  no longer  economically  profitable.   While over  the  course of a
longer term  (such  as  one year), average paper prices are much more constant,
many  municipalities  face very  tight budgets  and are reluctant  to  risk even
short-term operuting losses from separatio/i programs.
                                     139

-------
   Long-term waste paper  contracts  wi^h fixed floor prices are usually cited
as  a  solution  to this  problem.   However, many  waste paper  purchasers  are
reluctant  to  guarantee  prices without assurance  z'\  long-term  deliveries  and
municipalities  may  be  reluctant  to  commit  themselves   for  long  periods,
particularly  if  they are  also considering mixed-waste processing.   Dealers
may not wish to guarantee accepting waste paper at low market prices if their
own storage capacity is limited and they anticipate problems in reselling the
material.  They  are  also  limited  by their own contracts  (usually  one year)
with  used  newsprint mills.   As  energy  prices are far more  likely  to remain
above a  fixed  floor  price and in fact  increase,  many municipalities seem to
favor  mixed-waste processing.  Once  t.hey  have taken  such a  major  resource
recovery project,  local source separation may seem less urgent.  Hence, there
are market and  institutional  forces that discourage negotiation of long-term
v.MSte  paper  contracts with  fixed floor prices  by  municipalities.   IL does
appear  quite  reasonable  to conclude  that  if the market  for waste  paper and
other materials  continues to  be so volatile, these  materials  will  sometimes
become  captured  products  of  MWP facilities.   Since most MWP systems have not
yet demonstrated an ability to recover waste paper as a material, the highest
economic value of wac'.e paper would not be recovered.

   In  essence,   municipal  source seperation  programs  face a  situation  not
unlike  that  ol   family   fanners,  or other   small  producers  of  commodities
subject  to  extreme  market  price  fluctuations,  who cannot long  sustain
operating  losses.   It  appears unlikely  that local  action can  remedy this
situation, as  waste paper markets  respond  to  fluctuations in  national  and
international demand.

   federal price supports for source separation programs have been discussed.
A  study prepared  for  the National  Commission  on Supplies  and  Shortages,  a
Congressionally  mandated body,  concluded  that  municipal  and  private paper
recycling  programs could eliminate-  sudden   spot  shortages in the  pulp  and
paper   industry.   As  one   o*  six  long-term   recommendations,  the  study
recommended a  policy  of  active stimulation of and,  if need be, subsidization
of paper recycling program*:. (56)
                                     140

-------
   A rerent study  conducted  for the Garden State  Paper  Company analyzed the
economics  of  paper  recycling.(57)   This  study  examined  these  economic
relationships as they are  affected by the average  relative  prices of energy
and waste newspaper.  The study concluded that source separation cf newsprint
is profitable  at or above  $15 per  ton  (in 1977  dollars).   This  study also
addressed the effect of  local  variables  such as costs of newspaper recovery,
landfilling, energy  recovery and  other  factors in determining  the  level  of
price support  that might be needed.  Additional  analysis of these  economic
relationships and  the marginal  increase  in demand resulting from waste paper
price supporl  programs,  other  mechanisms  for  subsidizing  source separation
programs and policy  alternatives  should  be considered before recommending a
particular federal  program.

   Mixed-waste processing  options :nay soon  benefit  from  federal  efforts  ;.o
support  the development of synthetic  fuels  and  other alternative  energy
sources.  Consequently,  an  evaluation of parallel  federal support for waste
paper recovery nify  be timely.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Issue

   From a na .ional  perspective,  the major economic issue is the potential  of
source  separation  ana  mixed-waste processing to reduce  solid waste  disposal
costs while  reducing *uel import needs.

Objective

   The  objective  is to  determine the potential material  economic impact  of
source separation and mixed-waste processing.

Approach

   National  cost  savings from  source separation  and mixed-waste processing
over  landfilling  from  the   expanded service area were  projected  from  the

                                     141

-------
difference  between  the  costs  of  tnu  two  scenarios.   Table  39 rhows  the
projected  national  savings  matrix.    Of  greater economic  impact  is  the
reduction  in  fuel  import costs  due to energy  conservation.  Table  40  shows
the projected  yearly cost  savings  din;  to the  reduction  ir.  energy required.
H  was  assumed  that the  energy conserved  was  originally  imported oil  at
$30 per barrel.
                TABLE 39.   PF.OJECTED NATIONAL SAVINGS FOR
              SOURCE SEPARATION AND MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING
                             ($ m'llion/yr)

Source Unprocessed
Separation Waterwall
Option Combustion
Multimaterial ,
high
Multimaterial ,
low
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage
containers
214
264
282
357
437
Processed
Waterwall
Combustion
1S7
263
289
340
417
Refuse-
Derived
Fuel
142
296
320
346
320
Modular
Incinerator
213
245
284
358
432

Conclusions

   Source  separation  and mixed waste  processing can reduce  net solid v/aste
disposal  costs  and even  more important,  reduce oil import  costs by  up to
$2.6 billion per year.

SUMMARY

   For the  issues  examined  in this section from a  national  perspective, all
source separation options result in positive or neutral  impacts (a beneficial
effect or  no  change)  when combined with mixed-waste processing alternatives,
and hence can  be considered compatible with them.
                                     14?

-------
  TABLE 40.   PROJECTED NATIONAL FUEL IMPORT COST SAVINGS ($billion/yr)
    Source
  Separation
    Option
Unprocessed
 Waterwal1
Combustion
Processed
WaterwaJ'l
Combustion
Refuse-
Derived
 Fuel
  Modular
Incinerator
Multimaterial.
     high
Multimaterial,
     low
    2.6
   2.4
                     2.0
 2.4
                1.9
   2.4
             2.0
Newsprint, high
Newsprint, low
Beverage
containers
2.1
2.0
2.3
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.2

   More materials ere  recovered  wit', -source separation tnan with mixed-waste
processing  alone.   Net  energy   efficiencies   (taking  into  account  energy
recovery in mixed-waste processing, energy credits for recycled material, and
energy used  in  collection and transportation)  is also higher, as are overall
energy savings  measured  in equivalent  barrels  of oil per day  on  a national
basis.  Pollution emissions  and  waste  delivered to  landfill  are  also lower
than with no  source separation.

   One  major   institutional   issue  examined  is the employment   impact  of
beverage  container  deposit  legislation.   Studies  of states  having adopted
such  legislation  suggest higher  net employment, as  did  an  EPA analysis of
potential impacts of  a nation wide deposit, system.   Hence,  this option would
be  beneficial   from  a national   perspective.   For  two  other  institutional
issues -  freight  rate  differentials  for recovered materials  and Federal  tax
laws  and  regulations  - source separation options and mixed-waste  processing
alternatives would  be equally affected by  current  Federal  policies.  Hence,
no   compatibility   issues  would  arise.   Federal   policies  to   encourage
development  of  mixed-waste processing  -  loan  guarantees and price supports
for  recovered  materials  - would  not  apply to source separated  materials.
                                     143

-------
there nay  be justification  for  evaluating the possible  benefits  of similar
price supports  for source separated materials.  However, when  local markets
exist  for   source  separated  materials,  it  is  unlikely that  any  Federal
policies favoring  mixed-waste processing  would adversely affect operation of
source separation programs.

   The   national   economic  impact  of   combining  source   separation  and
mixed-waste  processing  consists  of reductions in total  national  solid waste
disposal costs and fuel  import savings, as compared with no source separation
and landfill.

   The  analysis  for  these issues  suggest  two general  conclusions.  First,
source  separation  and  mixed   .ste  processing  are  compatible,  as neither
interferes   with the  viability  of  the  other.   Second,  combining tiie  two
approaches   results  in  a  greater  net  benefit  than  implementing  either
separately.   The  greatest  benefits  occur witn  the  most efficient  source
separation    prorjrans,   beverage   container  recovery   and   high-efficiency
multi-material recovery.
                                     144

-------
                                 REFERENCES
1.   U.S.  Dept.  of  Con.merce, Bureau  of the  Census,  Characteristics of the
     Population. Vol.  1, Part  1, June 1973.

2.   CFR 40 Part. 423.

3.   U.S.    EPA,   PoFt-Consumer Residential and Commercial Solid Waste ..  .
     Resource Recovery Division, January 1978.

4.   Helen  Hirshberger,  Yotmg-Guenther,  Co.,  Personal  Communication to RPA.
     March 1978.

5.   U.S.   Environmental    Protection   Agency,   Fourth Report to Congress:
     Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction, 1977.

6.   U.S.  EPA,  Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage
     Container Alternatives. 1974.

7.   Nollet, A.R.  and E.J.  Sherwin,  "Air Classify  First,  then Shred". ASME
     8th National Waste Processing Conf., Chicago, 111., May 1978.

8.   Hileman, G.P.  and F.B.  Pyle,  "Recycle Energy  for Central  Heating and
     Process Steam", presented to International District Heating Association,
     Pinehurst, N.C ,  June  1977.

9.   Shannon, L.J., et. al.,  "St.  Louis Refjjse Processing Plant:  Equipment,
     Facility,  and  Environmental  Evaulation",  U.S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, EPA-650/2-75-044, May 1975.
                                     145

-------
10.   "Resource  Recovery"  19/9  Sanitation Industry  Yearbook,   Ifath  tditicn,
     Solid Wastes Management, p.  46, December 30, 1978.

11.   Wilson, D.fi.,  ed., Handbook  of Solid Waste Management. MIT Press, 1977.

12.   SchuKz,  H. ,  et.  al..  "Character*zing  Combustible  Portions   of  Urban
     Refuse for Potential Use as Fuel", U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI  8944,  l'.)75.

13.   Hrchlinger, R.S., "The Relative  Value of Energy Derived  from  Municipal
     Refuse", Proc.  1976  National Waste Processing  Conference.  May 1976.

14.   An?.nth,  K.P.,  et  al,  "Environmental   Assessment  of Waste-to-Energy
     Process  Source  Assessment  Document", Report  No.   EPA 600/7-77-091  by
     Midwest  Research  Institute,  Kansas  City,  MO.,  for  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1977.

15.   Anderson,  L.L.  and  D.  A.  Tillman  (eds.),  Fuels  from Waste.  Academic
     Press, New York, N.Y., 1977.

16.   Bechtel  Corp.,  "Fuels  from Municipal Refuse  for  Utilities:   Technology
     Assessment", Report No.  EPRI 261-1,  Electric Power Research  Institute,
     Palo Alto. C?lif. . March 1975.

17   Chansky,  S.H. ,  et  al,   "Systems  Study of  Air Pollution  from  Municipal
     Incineration", by Arthur D.  LiUle,  Cambridge,  Mass, for National  Air
     Pollution  Control Administration, U.S.  Department  of Health,  Education
     and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio.

18.   Gilbert/Commonwealth,   "Comprehensive Solid  Waste  Management   Study  of
     Energy and Resource Recovery", for New  York Department of Environmental
     Conservation,  Wolf Road, Albany, N.Y., August 1976.

19.   HufTman, G.L.,  "Processes for the Conversion of  bolid Wastes and Biomass
     Fuel to  Clean Energy Forms" in Proc.  Conf.  on Capturing the Sun Through
     Bioconversion.   Washington   Center   for   Metropolitan   Studies,   1717
     Massachusetts  Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 10/12  March 1976.

-------
20.   Mif'v.ist  Research  Institute,  "Wa:,te to  Energy  Systems:  The  Status of
     PoJui.ant  Identification  and Applicable  Control  Technology",  for U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

21.   Wilson,  E.   M.  and  H.  M.   Freeman,  "Processing  Energy f*-om Wastes",
     Environmental Science and Technology,  10 #5(1975) 430-435.

22.   Oxlesey, R.A. and G.  L. Huffman,  "Pollution Abatement for Wastes-as-Fuel
     Processes"      in     Second National Conference on Interagency Energy/
     Environment R&D Program. Washington, O.C., June 1977.

23.   Galeski,  J.  B.  and  M.  P.   Schrag,  "Performances  of  Emission Control
     Device, or toilers Firing Municipal Solid Waste and Oil", Report No. EPA
     600/2-76-20^. oy Midwest Research Institute. Kansas  City, MO., for U.S.
     Environmpntal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1976.

24.   Hall, J.  L.,  ':*. al,  "Evaluation of the Ames Solid Waste Recoveiy System
     Part III:  Environmpntal Emissions  of the Stoker Fired Strain Generator,
     Volume  I:   Results   and  Discuss-ions",   U.S.   Environmental   Protection
     Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, undated.

25.   Shannon,  L.  J.,  et   al,   "St.  Louis/Union  Electric  Refuse  Firing
     Demonstration Air Pollution  Test Report", U.S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Washington, D.C., August 1974.

25.   Geswein,  A.,  Office  of  Solid   Waste   Management,  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection  Agency,  Washington,  D.C., personal  communication  on water
     consumption by small  incinerators, 18 April 1978.

27.   Ross Hofmann Associates,  "Evaluation of Small  Modular Incinerators in
     Municipal Plant*.", for U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
     D.C., 1976.

28.   Wilson,  E.  M. ,  et al,  "Engineering  and  Economic Analysis  "f Waste to
     Energy  Systems",   R.  M.   Parsons  Co.,  Report  No.  5-1b5-.   for  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, June l'J77.

-------
29.   Gordon, J.  G.,  ''Assessment  of  the  Impact  or  Resource  Recovery  on the
     Environment," by  MITRE Corporation, McLeon, Va.  for  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/8-79-001, August 1979.

30.   Freeman,  H.,  "Pollutants  from  Waste-to-Energy  Conversion  Systems,"
     Environ. Sci.  and Tech.. 12(1978)1252.

31.   Bristow,   W.,    Wheelabrator-Frye   Co.,    Hampton,    N.H.,   personal
     communication,  12 June  1980.

32.   CFR  40 Part  60  Subparts  D and  E, and  revision in  Federal  Register.
     25 July 1977, p. 37936.

33.   Massachusetts Bureau  of Solid  Waste Disposal,  "Report  on  Recycling in
     Massachusetts Cities and Towns," Coston, MA, 10  Ai.gust  197G.

34.   Duckett,  J.,   "The Saugus  Plant:   Energy  From Waste,"  NCRR Bulletin.
     National Center for Resource Recovery, Washington, D.C., Spring  1977.

35.   Albert, J.,  "Who's to  Take  the Risk of New Technologies  for Realizing
     Refusa's  Energy  Potential,"  National  Center  for   Resource  Recovery,
     Washington, D.C.

36.   Massachusetts   Bureau   of    Solid   haste   Disposal,   "Northeastern
     Massachusetts Resources Recovery Project," Boston, MA, 1978.

37.   Gordian Associates,  "Overcoming Institutional  Barriers to  Solid Waste
     Utilization  ai>  an  Energy Source',"  for Federal  Energy Administration,
     Office  of  Syifuels,  Solar,  and  Geothermal  Energy,   Washington,  D.C.,
     May 1977.

38.   Holloway,   Robert  J. ,   Resource  Ri-covery Division of  U.S.  EPA, Personal
     Communication to M. G.  Klett of Gilbert  Associates.

39.   SCS    Engineers,    Analysis of Source Separate Collection of Recyclable
     Solid Waste:  Separate Collection,    prepared   for    Resource   Recovery
     Division,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, August 1974.

                                     148

-------
40.  Vesilind,  P.  A.  and Warner,  "Getting  the  Legislative  Fundiny  and/or
     Financing i"or Resource Recovery, Solid Wastes Management, August 1970.

41.  Resource  Planning  Associates,   ^financial   Methods   for  Solid  Waste
     Facilities," U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-530/SW76C, 1974.

42.  Rofe,  R.,   "How  Investment  Bankers May Assist  in Financing  Resource
     Recovery Projects," Solid  Waste Management. February 1978.

43.  U.S.  EPA,  Report to Congress on Resource Recovery and Waste Reductions.
     SW-161, Washington, D.C.,  1975.

44.  Hirshberger, Helen, Young-Guenther Associates, personal communication to
     RPA, March 1978.

45.  Easterbrook,  G.,  "A Natural  Environment for Resource  Recovery", Waste
     Age, August. 1978.

46.  Ballard,  J.,  Remarks  delivered  at  meeting  of  the  American  Paper
     Institute,   Recycled   Paper   Board  Division,   September   21,   1978,
     distributed by Mayor's office, Akron, Ohio.

47.  American Public Works Association, Institute fur Solid Wastes, Municipal
     Refuse Disposal. Third Edition,  Public  Administration Service, Chicago,
     Illinois, '1970.

48.  Franklin    Associates,    Solid Waste Management and the Paper Industry.
     prepared for Soli^ Waste Council, American Paper  Institute,  1979.

49.  Task Force on Critical Problems of New York State Senate.

50.  U.S.   EPA,   Third Report to Congress   -   Resource Recovery and Waste
     Reduction. SW-161, 197S.

51.  'Jostun Globe. June 27, 1979.

                                     149

-------
52.   New York State Senate,

D3.   U.S.   EPA,  Fourth  Report  to  Congress  -  Resource Recovery and Waste
     Reduction. SW-600,  1977.

54.   Dawson, R.,  "Washington Wire", Waste Age. May 1979.

55.   Booz,   Allen,   and   Hamilton,   "An   Evaluation   of   the   Impact  of
     Discriminatrry  Taxation  on  the  Use  of  Primary  and  Secondary  Raw
     Material1,  prepared for U.S. EPA, June 28, 1979.

56.   National Commission on Supplies and Shortages, "Spot Shortage Conditions
     in 1973-74:  The  Pulp and Paper Induct-y Experience",  in The Commodity
     Shortages of U73-1974,  August 1976.

57.   Davis,   R.,   and   B. ,  MacOonald:    "What's  to   be   none   With  Used
     Newspapers'1?, Waste Age, July, 1977, p. 50.

58.   Estimates from the  Resource Recovery Division of U.S.  EPA, July 1979.

59.   U.S.   CnA, "Solid  Waste  Recovery Programs  in  Somerville and Harblehead,
     Mass.", Monthly Reports from January through December, 1977.

60.   Stevens, B.  J.  and E.  S.  $>avac, "The Cost of Residual Refuse Collection
     and   the   Effect   of   Service  Management",   The Municipa1 Yearbook.
     International City Management Association, Washington D.C., 1977.

61.   U.S.   EPA, "A Comparison  of the Energy Expenditures and Returns of Three
     Solid  Waste  Disposal  Alternatives",  prepared  by  RPA  for  Resource
     Recovery Division,  February 1978.

62.   Portland  Recycling  Team,   "Resource   Conservation   Through  Citizen
     Involvement in  Waste Management", 1^75.

S3.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Resource R.- overy Division.

                                     IbO

-------
64.  U.S. Department of Jransportation, ''Energy Statistics",  1975.

65.  U.S.  F.PA,"  Environmental  Impacts  of  Production  of  Paper,  Glass  and
     Rubbar Products".

56.  U.S. EPA, "impacts of Virgin and Recycled Steel and Ali'minu.M1', 19/4.

67.  U.S. EPA,  "Resource and Environmental  Profile  Analysis of Nine Beverage
     Container Alternatives", l'-)74.

-------
                               APPENDIX. A

                            SOURCE SEPARATION


PROGRAM ECONOMICS

   In  calculating  the  costs  and  effects  of  the  five  source  separation
options,  the  city  is  assumed  to  operate  all  programs  except  beverage
container  recovery.   For  each  source  separation  option,  two options  are
considered  for the  remaining waste:   disposal  to  the county  landfill  and
disposal to a privately operated mixed-rfaste processing  facility.

   Other assumptions based on the expedience of the Somervilie and Marblehead
programs include:

o  Source separated wcste is collected in four ton, compartmentalized trucks

o  Each truck 1«. operated by three persons

o  Each truck and  crew collect five to seven Mg (six to eight tons) per day.

   The  daily  quantities  of  materials  recovered in  Baselyn  are shown  in
Tablo 41.

Source Separation Program Revenues

   The revenue per ton  of  recycled material  has  been determined frc.ii current
national averages:(58)
                                     15?

-------
                                     TABLE  41.   SOURCE  SEPARATION  MATERIALS  RECOVERY

                                       Source-Separated Material*  in Mg(tons)/day
                                         and Percent of Total  Waste Generated
                             Newsprint     CorrugatedOfficeGlass  andTOTAL RECOVEREDRemaining Waste
            Source           and Other                                   Metals           WASTE            Waste
          Separation          Paper
Case        Option         Mg(tons)   %   Hy(tons)  %   Mg(lons)  %   Mg(tons)   X    Mg(tons)     %   Kg(lons)       X


1     High multimatenal   12 2(13.4) 67  5 0(5 5)  2.8  1.6(1  8)  0  9  13 1(14  4) 7.2   31 8(35.1) 17 6  149.6(164.9) 62.4
        recovery

2     Low multimaterial     7.5(83)4.2                               4.9(54)2.7   12.4(13.7)  6.9  169.0(186.3)931
        recovery

3a    High newsprint       8 2(  9 0) 4 5                                               8.2( 9 0)  4 5  173 2(191 0) 95 5
        lecovery

3b    Low newsprint        2.7(  3 0) 1.5                                               2 7( 3 0)  1.5  178.7(197.0) 98 "i
        recovery

4     Biiveiage container                                               10.6(11.7,90   106(11.7)  90  1708(188.3)91
        recovery
* Total waste generation is 131.4 Hg (200 tons) per Jay.

-------
 o  Newsprint anrl other household paper        $33/Mg ($30/ton)

 o  Corrugated pdper                          $33/Mg ($30/ton)

 o  Office paper                              $66/Mg ($PO/ton)

 o  Mixed glass and  cans                       $ll/Mg ($10/ton).
    Baselyn's daily revenues Trom source separation are  shown in Table 42.
          TABLE 42.   SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM QUANTITY AND REVENUES
	(Per Day)	

    Soi rce Separation       Newsprint      Glass and Metals        Totals*
          Option        Mg(tbns)  Revenue  Mg(tons)  Revenue  Mg(tonslRevenue


1.  High multimaterial 12.2(13.4)  $402   13.1(14.4)  $144   25.3(27.7)  $546
     recovery**

2.  Low multimaterial   7.5(8.3)   249    4.9(5.4)    54   12.4(13.7)   303
     recovery

3a. High newsprint      8.2 (9.0)   270                       8.2 (9.0)   270
     recovery

3b. Low newsprint       2.7 (3.0)    90                       2.7 (9.0)    90
     recovery

4.  Beverage container                    10.6Q1.7)         10.6(11.7)
     recovery***
*   Assuming 181.4 Mg (200 tons) per day collected waste.

**  Office paper and corrugated recover/ are privately operated and therefore
    no municipal revenues are generated.

*** The municipality receives no direct revenue in this program.


 Source Separation Program Costs


    Labor  and  equipment requirements  are  summarized  in  Table 43.   Baselyn's

 cost per Mg (ton) and per day for the source separation program are given for

 each option (see Table  44).
                                      134

-------
      TABLE 43.   EQUIPMENT AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS  FOR  SOURCE  SEPARATION*
                                           CollectionCrew
                                            Vehicles     Crews    Productivity
    Source Separation   Mg(tons) or Waste   Required**   Required    Mg(tons)
          Option        Recovered per day    per  day    per  day     day/crew
1.

2.

3a.

3b.

4.

High multimaterial
recovery
Low multimaterial
recovery
High newsprint
recovery
Low newsprint
recovery***
Beverage container
recovery
25.3(27.7) 4

12.4(13.7) 2

8.2(9.0) 2

2.7(3.0) 0

8.2(9.0) 0

4 6.3(6.9)

2 6.4(7.0)

2 4.1(4.5)

0 2.7(3.0)

0 0


*   Municipal program only
**  Each collection vehicle has a capacity of 3.6 Mg (4 tons) and can make
    two trips day.   Therefore, the daily productivity of a vehicle and crew
    is estimated to be five to seven Mg (six to eight tons).
    is operated by a three-man crew.
Kach vehicle
*** No additional equipment or labor required for source sepa»  tion.

1. Vehicle Costs(S9)

   a. Capital   costs:    For   Cases  No. 1   and  2,   the  cost   of   each
      compartmentalized  collection   vehicle  was  $25,000.   The  cost  is
      amortized over five  years  at nine percent per  year,  yielding an annual
      cost of $6,430 or a daily cost of $24.70.

      In Case  No.  3a,  flat-bed collection vehicles costing $20,000 each are
      used.  This  implies a daily amortized cost of $19.75.  For Case  No. 3b,
      modified  refuse  trucks  are used  to collect  newsprint.   The  additional
      roses ($500 per truck) are assigned in remaining mixed-waste costs.
                                     Ib5

-------
                 TABLE 44.   SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM COSTS
                        Mg(tons)  Collection          Admin   Total   Total
    Source Separation  Recovered   Vehicles   Labor   Cost    Cost   Cost, per
         Option         per day    per day   per day per day per day Mg(tons)
I.  High multimaterial 25.3(27.7)
     recovery

2.  Low multimaterial  12.4(13.7)
     recovery

3a. High newsprint      8.2(9.0)
     recovery
             $239


              120


              110
$700     $43    $982   $39($35)
 350      43     513    41(37)
 350
43     503    62(56)
3b. Low newsprint
     recovery*
2.7(3.0)
4.  Beverage container 10.6(11.7)
     recovery*
*The municipality incurs no direct costs in 'his program.



   b. Maintenance, operation and depreciation is $35 per day per truck.


2. Labor Costs


   The average cost of  wages and 25 percent fringe benefits  is  $175 p
-------
Disposal for Mixed-Waste


   Two  options  are  considered   for   disposal   of  Baselyn's  mixed-waste:

landfilling and delivery  to  a mixed-wa^te processing facility.  In  the  case

of  landfilling,  Basclyn  pays  for collection  of  the remaining  mixed-waste,

operation  of  tne  transfer   station,   transportation  *o  the  county-owned

landfill and a tipping fee. The cost breakdown is:
         Type

Collection Labor(SO),*
Collection Equipment(60),**
Transfer Station***
Tipping Fee at Landfill
Transportation to Landfill
Totals
Cast $/Hg (per ton)

$19.70 ($17.85)
  8.80 (  8.00)
  0.65 (  0.60)
 14.35 ( 13.00)
  5.50 (  5.00)
 49.00 ( 44.45)
                      % Tctal
                         18
                          1
                         29
                         11
                        100
*     Including fringe benefits.

'*    Including operating costs,  overhead and depreciation.

***   Assuming $15,000 per year labor including fringe benefits and
      $50/day equipment costs.


   For  disposal  to  the  mixed-waste  processing  facility,   the  labor  and

equipment costs  for  collection are the same.  The mixed-waste plant,  located

in Baselyn,  is owned and operated  by a private enterprise.
         Type

Collection Labor
Collection Equipment
Tipping Fee at MWPF
Totals
Cost $/Mg (per ton)

$19.70 ($17.85)
  8.80
 14.35
(  8.00)
( 13.00)
 42.85 ( 38.85)
% Irtal

   46
   21
   33
  100
To*al Solid Waste Program Costs


   The total solid waste  program costs for each source separation option are

shown  in  Table 45.   The net  program costs  (gross  costs less  revenues) are

given  for  two disposal  options.   The  lowest  net  program  _:>sts  are  for

multimaterial  recovery  and  beverage container  recovery.   The case with  no

source separation has the highest overall net costs.
                                     Ib?

-------
                                         TABLE  45   MATERIAL-RECOVERY AND WASTE-DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY
tn
cn
Daily Collection and Disposal  Costs

                             Source                                       Source
                           Separation         Remaining Mixed-Waste         Sep.    Net Total Costs Tor All Solid Waste

                                                                          Daily
      Source Separation                                  Landfill    HWPF    Rev           Landfill            HWPF
Case       Option         Mg(tons)    *     Mg(lons)        $         »       *      ***   $/Mg(ton)    $*«  */Mg(ton)


 0    No sourct              0         0   181 4(2UO)      8.890   7,770     0    8.890    4<)(44)   7.770    43(39)
        separation

 1    High Biiiltinateru'l  31.8(35.1)  982  149 6(164 9)   7.330   6.406    546   7.766    43(39)   6.842    37(34)
        recovery

 2    Low nultinaterial   12.4(13 7)  513  169.0(186.3)   8.281   7.238    303   8,491    47(42)   7.448    41(37)


 3a   Hiqh newsprint       8 2(9 0)   503  173.3(191 0)   8.490   7.420    270   8,723    48(44)   7,653    42(38)
        recovery

 2b   Low newsprint        2 7(3.0)    0   178.7(197.0)   8.757   7.653     90   8.667    48(43)   7,563    42(38)
        recovery

 4.   Beve,age container  10C(11.7)   0   170.8(188.3)   8,370   7.315     0   8,370    46(42)   7.315    40(37)
        recover>
          *    Landfill  anu mixed-waste  processing  facility  (MWPF) disposal  costs  assume a constant $13— tipping fee as
               presented on page 170

          **   Waste disposal  costs  plus source  separation coats  less  source separation revenues.

-------
ENERGY ANALYSIS

   This analysis  considers  the emrgy  expended in collection,  preparation,
transportation,  and treatment of  source  separated  and remaining  mixed waste.
Energy uses and savings were  computed on the basis nf joules  per Mg  (Btu  per
ton)  of  recovered  waste  or  remaining  waste,  depending  upon  the system
covered.

Collection

   In Cases No.  1, 2,  and  3a,  Baselyn1; vehicles use 512 x 10   joules of fuel
per Mg  (440 x  10  Btu per ton)  of  separated v»aste collected and 201 x  10
joules per Mg (173 x 10 Btu per ton) of remaining  mixed-waste collected.(61)
The difference is  mainly due to the fact that separated waste  is  delivered to
a materials processor 16 kilometers (10 miles) from Baselyn and the remaining
mixed-waste is delivered to the transfer station in Baselyn.   The mixed-waste
collection  vehicles  are also somewhat  more efficient  since  they can carry
larger loads than  any source separation vehicles.

   In Case  No. 3b,  mixed-waste  vehicles  are used for both newsprint  recovery
and mixed-waste collection.   However, the  newsprint  is then  taken  irom  the
transfer station  to the materials processor 16 kilometers (10 miles) away in
a 4.5 Mg  (5 ton)  flat-bed  truck.   The truck consumes  about 1.69  x 10 joules
per Mg-km  (3.5  x  10  Btu  per ton-mile)  when  empty and 2.53 x 10  joules  per
Mg-km (5.25 x 10   Btu per '.on-mile) when full. (62)  Therefore, about 101.7 x
106 joules  per  Mg (87.5 x 103 Btu per  ton)  are used  for the  32  km (20 mile)
round trip.

Preparation

   Preparation  of  remaining  mixed-webte  that  is  destined  for the county
landfill consists essentially of  compacting  the wastes into a 16 Mg  (18 ton)
tractor-trailer for transport to the landfill.  About 120 x 10  joules per Mg
(103  x  10   Btu  per  ton) are  used  in  this  process.(63)  For  wastes going
directly to the mixed-waste processing facility, no  other processing is used.

                                     1JS

-------
   beparated  cans  and  glass  are  mechanically  sorted  at  the  materials
processor  and  loaded onto  rail  cars for shipment  to  a manufacturer.   About
        C                        •}
134 x 10  joules per Mg (115 x 10  Btu per ton) are used in this process.(63)
Energy  used  for shredding,  baling,  and loading  separated  paper  products  is
about 593 x 106 joules per Mg (510 x 103 Btu per ton).(63)

Transportation

   Transportation  for  remaining  mixed-waste  consists  of  hauling by  16 Mg
(18 ton) tractor-trailer to the county landfill 40 km (25 miles) away.   About
256 x  10   joules  of fuel are used per  Mg of waste (220  x  10  Btu per ton).
If a mixed-waste processing facility i? used, no additional  transportation is
needed.
   Separated  paper,  glass   cullet,   and  metal  are  hauled   by   rail   to
manufacturers  320 km (200 miles)  away.   Rail  transport  consumes  24  x  10
joules per Mg-km  (33 x 10" Btu per ton-mile).(64)  A one-way haul is assumed,
so that 767 x 10  joules per Mg (6,600 x 10  Btu per ton) are used.

Treatment
   The  erergy  expenditures  for  treatment  of  remaining  mixed-waste  are
calculated  for  sanitary   landfilling.   In  the  landfill  system,  treatment
consists of  spreading and  covering  t.le waste  by a  bulldozer  that consumes
fuel at  tt
waste.(62)
fuel at the  rate  of about 70 x 10   joules  per Mg (60 x  10   Btu per ton)  of
   Less  energy  is  used  in  recycling  than  in  manufacturing  from  virgin
materials.  The energy savings  due  to recycled glass, metals, and  paper are
as follows:

                                             9                           3
o  Glass cullet to  new  glass  saves 9.2 x  10  joules per Mg (7,940 x 10  Btu
   per ton)  of  cullet.(65)

-------
                                                     g
o  Mixed paper to new corrugated paper saves 9.9 x 10  joules per Mg (8,490 x
     3
   10  Btu per ton) of recovered paper. (65)
                                                      q
o  Substituting scrap metal for pig iron saves 19 x 10  joules per Mg (16,340
   x 10  Btu per ton) of scrap.(66)
                                          q                             3
o  Recycling  aluminum  saves about 47 x  10   joules per Mg (40,450  x  1?  3tu
   per ton) of recovered aluminum.(67)

Energy Analysis Summary

   The net  energy  used  per Mg (ton) of  waste  handled was then multiplied by
the quantities of  waste  for each case to yield total energy  used per day  for
c-sch system (soo Tables 46 through 50).

   The total  energy  used  by each source separation  system (including energy
used  for remaining  waste)  is  shown in Table  51.   Total  energy used  for
handling  waste  with  no  source  separation  is over  117 billion  joules  (111
million  Btu)  per day for  land disposal.  This is equivalent  to the energy in
3.0 m   (19  barrels)  of  crude  oil  or  about 3,000  liters  (800  gallons)  of
gasoline per day.

   The  energy balance  for  each  source separation  case  shows  some  energy
savings.  In fact,  multimaterial  recovery shows a net energy  savings,  because
of the energy credit.  High multimaterial  recovery has the highest savings -
over 174  billion joules  (165 million Stu)  per day or 965 million joules  per
day  are  saved  if  the  remaining  waste  is  landfilled.   This  savings   is
equivalent to  over 4.5 m  (28 barrels) of crude oil per day.
                                     J51

-------
                            IABIE 46   tNEHC.Y [XPiNDlTURFS FOH SOURCE Si PARA TI ON CASE  NUHBtH  1  HIGH MULT 1HA1ERIAI  RECOVERY



en
ro

Waste Type
Recovered
Waste Paper
Ferrous
Mtftal
Nonferrous
Metal
Tola!
Remaining
Waste to
Landfill *
Regaining -
Waste to
Processing
Waite
Quantity
ng (ton)/d
18 8
(20 7)
2 5
(2 7)
10 1
(11 1)
0 5
(0 6)
31 8
(35 1)
149 6
(164 9)
149 6
(1*4 9)
Collection Preparation Tiansporiatlon
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Jqules/ng Joules/d Jqules/ng Joulcs/d Jqules/ag Joules /d
(10J Blu/ton) (10J Blu/d) (10J Blu/lon) (IB Blu/d) <1(T Btu/ton) (10J 8lu/d)
593 x 106 12 x 109
(510) (11.385)
134 x 106 33 x 107
(115) (310)
134 xlO6 13 x ID8
(115) (1.275)
134 x 10° 73 x 106
(115) (69)
512 « 106 16 x 109 14 x 109 77 x 106 24 x ID8
(440) (15.445) (13.040) (66) (2.315)
203 > 1C6 20 x 109 120 x 106 18 x 109 256 x 106 38 x 109
(175) (21.860) (103) OS. 995) (220) (36.280)
203 x 10S 30 x 109 120 x 10s 'HT*'i
-------
                             TABIE  47    ENfBCY  EXPtNOITORES FOB SOURCE SEPARATION CASE NUMBER 2 LOU HUl MKATCRlAl IUCOVCRY
Watte Type
Recent ed
WatlC Paper
Ferrous
Metal
Mass
Nonf errous
Metal
Trial
I—1 Reaainlng
t*> Watte 10
landfill
Rcmd l n 1 ng
Watte lo
Promising
Waste
Quantity
og (t«n)/d
7 4
(a i)
0 9
(1 0)
} 9
(4 3)
0 27
(0 3)
12 4
(13 7)
169
(166 3)
169 0
(186 3)
Col lerLion
Unit lolal
Joules/ay Joulcs/d
(10 Btu/lon) (10 Ulu/d)




SI2 x 106
(440)
203 X 106
(1«)
203 x 106
C'5)




G36 x 107
(6.030)
34 x 109
(32.600)
34 x 109
(32.600)
Prppaiatfon
Unit Total
Jqulcs/ng Joules/d
(10J Btu/ton) (10J Blu/d)
593 x 106
(!>10J
134 x 106
(IIS)
134 x 106
(us)
134 x 106
(lib)

170 x 106
(103)
120 x JO6
(103)
435 x 107
(4.130)
121 x 106
(115)
&22 x 106
(UD)
37 x 106
(35)
J04 x 107
(«,775)
20 x 10°
(IS. 190)
20 x 10s
(19.190)
transportation
Unit Total
Jaules/cig Joules/d
(10J Btu/ton) (10* Blu/d)




77 x la6 95 x 107
(66) (904)
256 x 106 43 x 109
(220) (40.985)

Trcalnpnt
Unit Total
Jaulcs/ag Joules/d
(luj Btu/ton) (10 Blu/a)
•99 x ID8
"(490)
•19 x 109
•(16.340)
•46 x 108
"(3.970)
•47 x 109
"(40.450)

70 » ID6
(60)

•73 x 109
•(68.770)
•17 x 109
'(16.340)
•18 x 109
•(17.070)
"13 x 109
'(12.135)
«1Z . 1010
•(114.315)
12 x 106
(11.180)

Totji
Joules/d
(103 Btu/d)




•13 x iO'°
•(1.206 1)
11 x !010
(1.039 6)
55 x 109
(571 9)
* Oenotfcs en energy return

-------
                              TABlt  48   CNtRCY  tmmmURtS FOR SCURCt SfPAHAT IOH CASE NUMBER 3a HIGH NEWSPRINT RECOVERY
Collection
Wjsle Type
Recovered
Newsprint
RcRidinl'i^
Waste '.o
Rema i n I ntj
Wa»f! 10
Processing
facility
• Denotes j

Waste
Quant i ly
np (ton)/d
8 2
(9 0)
173 3
(191 0)
173 3
(191 0)
Unit
Jjule*/au|
(10J Bin/ton)
512 x 106
(440)
203 x 10S
(175)
203 x 106
(175)
Tola'
Joule*/)!
(10J Blu/d)
418 x 107
(3.960)
3S x 10C
(33.425)
3b * 109
(33.42b)
Pi eparjclon
Unit
Joules/ing
(10 Btu/lon)
593 x ID6
rsio)
120 x 10*
(103)
120 x 106
(103)
total
Joulcs/d
(10J Btu/d)
484 x 107
(4.590)
21 x 109
(19.C7C)
21 x 109
(19.670)
Transportation
Unit
Joulcs/rg
(10 Btu/lon)
77 x 106
(bb)
256 x JO6
(220)

Total
Joules/d
(10J Btu/d)
627 x ID6
(594)
44 x IB9
(42.020)

Trealncnt
Unit
.*»jlrs/cg
(inj Olu/ton)
•99 x 108
•(8.490)
70 x 106
(60)

Total
Joules/d
(10J Btu/d)
•81 « 109
•(76.410)
•12 'x 109
•(11.460)

Total
Joules/d
(103 Blu/d)
•71 - 109
'(672 7)
11 , 10'°
(1.065 7)
56 x 109
(530 9)
in energy return

1ABIE 49
LNFRCY EXPkNDITURES (OR SOURCE SCIARATION CASE NUMBER
Collection
Waste l>pe
Recovered
Newsprint
Rcnuifning,
Wjste to
Remaining
Waste to
P roc PS s my
Facility
Waste
QutjnlH-
BXJ (ton) J
2 7
(3 0)
178 7
(197 U)
17B /
(197 0)
Unit
Joules/no,
(10 Btu/ton)
102 x 10G
(87.5)
203 x 105
(175)
203 x 105
(175)
Iota)
Joules/d
(JOJ Btn/d)
?74 x 107
(2GO)
36 x 109
(34.475)
36 x 109
(34.47&)
Preparation
Unit
Jqules/cg
(10J Btu/ton)
5" 3 x 106
(510)
120 x ID6
(103)
120 x 106
(103)
Total
Joules/d
(10J Otu/d)
161 x 107
(1.530)
21 x 109
(20.790)
21 x 109
(20.290)
3b LOW NEWSPRINT RECOVERY
Transportation
Unit
Joules/og
(lir Blu/ton)
77 * 106
(66)
2b6 x 106
(220)

Total
Joules/d
{'.3J Btu/d)
209 x 106
(198)
46 x 109
(43.340)

Ticatwnt
Uilt
Jcules/ng
(10 Blu/ion)
"987 x 108
•(8.490)
70 x 106
(60)

Total
Joules/d
(lO' Btu/d)
•27 x 109
•(25.470)
•12 x JO9
(11.820)

total
Joules/e
(103 Blj/J)
•2b x 109
•(214 8)
12 x 101P
(1.099 3)
58 x 109
(M7.*)
* Denote, an cneryy return.

-------
                                      TA31E 50   TNCRCY EXPEND11URFS TOR SOURCt  SEPAHA110N CASt  NUHBCB  4  BEVCBAGE CONTAINER HtCOVHY
in
Was to T>pe
Containers
i ertuus
H«tal
l.on(,-rou,
ioldl
Remaining
Vt>l* to
'.11 dim
Remain! nn,
Waste to
Processing
Collect lor
V^sle lirlt Total
Quaiitl'y Jo/ ...s/og Jnulus/d
r.ij (lcnl/ri (111 Btu/ton) (10 Btu/d)
? 0
C 2>
8 2
(9 0)
0 4!i
(0 M
10 G 102 x IO6
(11 7) (8-. 5)
171 7 203 x IO6
•(189 3) (175)
171 7 203 >. !06
(189 )) C/'j;


108 x lO7
(1.025)
34-1 x iO8
(33.130)
349 x IO8
(33, MO;
Preparation
Unit Total
Joiilo/ng Joulss/d
(10 Hlu/tnn' (10J Blu/il)


1)4 x IO6
,1.5)
120 x 10°
(103)
1 -0 x IO6
'103)


142 x IB7
(1.345)
206 x IO8
119.500}
206 x IO8
(19.300)
Transportation Ireatmint
Unit Total Unit Total Total
Jou)es/Bg Joules/d Joules/on. joules/a Jo|ilcs/d
(10J Blu'ton) (10J BtL/d) (10J 3t. i/ton) (10J Btu/d) tlllj Btu/d!


77 x IO6 8.'2 x 10S
(S6) (/70)
256 > IO6 439 x IO8
(2ri) (41.650)

••9 x IO9 "485 x IO8
•(16.340) '(44,120)
•462 x 107 '377 r IO8
•(3.470) *(35 '30)
•47 » !0S "213 x in8
•(40.450) '(^C.225)
•106 x IO9 '102 x IO9
•(100.C75) "(9*9.3;
70 x IO6 120 x IO8 112 x IO9
(60) (ll.-'OO) (1,0560)
555 x 16°
(52o 3)
                    an sn«rgy retu-n

-------
Watte Quii.ln.ies Enerj> Expended Joules/d (10" lilu/rt)
Recovered Renutnlmj

Illyh tullinaluna'
rucovLry
Low pu'ltigalerliit
recovery
High newsprint
Low newbpi 1 nt
Beverage container
recovery
«uj (ton)
11 8
(31 1)
1? 4
(1J 7)
8 2
(9 0)
2 7
(3 0)
10 6
(11 7)
X «9 (inn)
17 6 149 5
(1-4 9)
69 169 0
(186 3)
45 173 3
(191 0)
IS 178 7
(197.0)
£9 170 8
(188 I)
Sourer
X Sepf-4t*u.
32 4 "2 /I x 10U
•(2.S70 0)
93 1 «1 27 x 1011
'(1,206 1)
9-j 5 "7 03 x 1010
"(6?2 7)
99. S "2 48 x lo'°
V234 8)
r-» 1 -I 02 r 1011
*t969 3)
01 .pr .al to
Ldr.drlll
« 71 x 10lfl
(920 2j
1 10 x 1011
(1.039 6)
1 12 x 1011
(1.065.7)
1 16 x 1011
(1.099 3)
3.11 x 10il
(1.056 0)
Ol>pota1 to
ProreJSOr
4 83 x 1010
(4S8.S)
S 46 x 1010
(S17 9)
5.60 x 1010
(530 9)
5. 78 , 1010
(S47 6)
S.55 x 1010
(S26 3)
Iota) Energy E«peided
Joulei/d (1U3 Btu/d)
Including Source Separation
Oltposal to
landfill
"1 74 x 1011
•(1.649 8)
•1 76 x 1010
•(156 5)
4 15 x :010
(393 0)
9.12 x 1010
(864 S)
9 IS x 109
(85.7)
OltpOidl 10
Processor
•2 23 x 1011
•(2.111 5)
•7.26 x 1010
"(688 2)
•1 50 x 1010
•(141 8)
3.30 x 1010
(312 «)
-•4 67 x 1010
•(443 0)
* Denotes an enerjjy return

-------
                               APPENDIX B

                           SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
1.  tons per da, of particulate = f^ x fj* x 2*MJb x I'0™ tons

                      n
     x
                 2.oib
2.  tons per day of gases = EH x SSL x LfiMJb x 1,000 tons
                            10b   Ib       t          d
                 *
    Where M is the nolecular weight of the pollutant gas.

PARTICIPATES

   Consider participate emissions  fror.i  unprocessed v-.-'terwall combustion, for
which the emission concentration is 0.17 gr/scf, and 75 scf/lb of flue gas is
released:

n 17 2!  v 75 scf v 2.000 Ib v 1.000 tons     Ib        tons
"-1  icf x   Ib"   x    t     x     d      X7,000 grx  2,000 Ib

= 1.82 t|,d.

   Also, the heat Content for high multi -material source separation is 7.71 x
10  Btu/d vs. 9.20 x 10J Btu/d for no source separation; therefore,

1.8;. tpd x ^71 x 10r = 1.53 tpd
           9.20 x 10°

                                     167

-------
$02
   Consider S02  emissions  from modular incinerator*, for which  the emission
concentration is 168 ppm, and 65 scf/lb of-flue gas released.  After beverage
                                        g^
container  source  separation (9.19 x  3.0 Btu/d),  the tons per day calculate
to:

168 x 65 scf x ?.OOQ Ib x 1.000 t x   54    x    t     x 9.19 x 106 Btu/d
105     Ib        t          d      359 scf   2,000 Ib   9.20 x 106 Btu/d
= 1.9b tpd.
                                     168

-------
                               APPENDIX C

                            CONTRACT EXCERPTS
      PROVISIONS DELATED TO SOURCE SEPARATION IN CONTRACTS BETWEEN
   MUNICIPALITIES AND MWP FACILITY OPERATORS AND ENABLING LEGISLATION

1.  City of New Origan? - Waste Management,  Inc.

   Section 5.01  Delivery of  Solid Waste

   a.  The  City  shall   deliver  or  have delivered  to  the Corporation  each
      Operating  Day  commencing  the clay  following  the Completion  Date,  in
      accordance with  a schedule mutually  established  by  the City  and  the
      Corporation, a  minimum of five  hundred  and  fifty (550) tons,  but no
      more than  seven  hundred  and  fifty  (750) tons of  Solid  Waste,  with an
      average  cf  no  less than  six  hundred  and fifty  (650) tons  per day  six
      days per week  for any  consecutive four  (4) month  period,  the  first of
      which  shall  commence   on  the  day  after the  Completion  Date.   Such
      delivery shall  be made by t'ie City at its own expense to the Facility.

      The  weight  of  each  delivery  the  City shall  be  determined by  the
      Corporation  at  the  Facility  Site.   Detailed records  of  such  weight
      •hall be maintained by t'ie Corporation and may be reviewed by the City.
      0." City may verify the accuracy of scales and monitor the way in which
      '.he tonnage .'slivered is weighed.

   b.  The City or  its  delivering agent shall  deliver the Solid Waste in such
      form and under  such   terms  ana conditions  with  respect to  time  and
                                     169

-------
   manner  or'  delivery  as  are  agreeable  to  both  the  City  and  the
   Corporation.

c.  The City or  its  delivering  agent shall deliver  the  Solid  Waste to the
   Corporation  in  a sanitary manner  such that none is blown,  leaked,  or
   spilled  before  acceptance by  the Corporation,  and  shall  correct  any
   deficiencies in  the manner of  delivery which are caused by the City or
   its delivering agent.

d.  The  Corporation  may  refuse  to  accept the  delivery of (i)  any  waste
   which  is  not Solid Waste  as de-fined  in  Section 1.23,  (ii)  any  Solid
   Waste  not  delivered in the  form or under the terms and conditions  as
   defined herein,  or  (iii) any Solid Waste  delivered  in  excess of  seven
   hundred and fifty (750) tons per Operating  Day.

e.  The foregoing notwithstanding,  by mutual agreement between  the City and
   the  Corporation, the  maximum  daily  tonnage  and  the average  daily
   tonnage of Solid  Waste may be increased.

f.  Title  to  the  Solid  Waste  shall  vest  in the  Corporation  upon  its
   acceptance at the Facility  Site by the Corporation.  However, title to
   the  Unrecoverable  Waste  vestc.   in  the owner  of the Landfill  Site  in
   eccordanca with the  provisions of Section 6.02.

g.  If the  quantity  of  Recoverable  Resources  in the Solid Waste delivered
   by  the City  or its  delivering  agent is  significantly  reduced  as  a
   result  of  laws  or  ordinances  passed  by  the  City  or   acts  of persons
   subject  to  City control  or acts  of  law  violators,  the City  shall
   provide offsetting adjustments to the Corporation to compensate for the
   Corporation's  loss  of  recovery  revenues.   Baseline  data  from  which
   deviation  shall  be  measured  shall be  that  developed by Dr.  Stephen E.
   Steimle,  P.E.,   under   contract  to  the  City,  as  shown  in  Exhibits
   attached hereto  and made  a  part hereof.    To  a  reasonable extent, the
   City  shall  provide the  Faciliiy  vith  Solid  V.'aste   with  as high  a
   recovery potential as practicable.
                                  170

-------
2.  Connecticut Hesource Recovery Authority -  btate of  Connecticut  Enabling
   Legislation, Title 19,  19-524r,  Provision  10
   (10)  That it  being  to the  best interest  of  the state,  municipalities,
         individual  citizens and the environment  to minimize  the  quantity  of
         materials entering  the  waste  stream that would  require  collection,
         transportation,  processing, or disposal  by any level  of  government,
         it is the  intent  of this  legislation to promote  the  prosegregation
         of recoverable or recyclable materials  before  they become mixed and
         included  in  the  waste  stream;   and  that this  intent  shall  be
         reflected in the policv of th=  resources recovery authority and that
         no  provision  of  this  chapter  or action  of  this authority  shall
         either discourage  or prohibit  either voluntary or locally ordained
         solid wasto  segregation  programs or  the   sale  of such  segregated
         materials to  private persons,  unless  the   authority  has  determined
         based upon a feasibility  report  filed with the applicable municipal
         authority that the  reduced  user  fees charged to it should result  in
         its total cost of solid waste management including user fees paid  to
         the authority to be less without presegregation  than with it.

3. Connecticut Resources  Recovery Authority -  Occidental (OXY) Contract for
   Bridgeport, Conn.  MWP  Facility

   Section 401.   Intent

   In  entering  into  this  long-tern  Agreement, the  parties hereto recognize
   that is is impracticable to make provision  for every contingency which may
   arise during the term  hereof and the  parties hereby declare it to De their
   intention that this  Agreement shall  operate between them with fairness and
   without detriment tc  the  interests  of  either and that if in the course  of
   performance of  this  Agreement  unfairness  to either party  is  expected  or
   disclosed, then  the  parties  shall  use  their  best efforts  to  agree upon
   such action as may be  necessary to remove all  or  a portion  of the cause  or
   causes  thereof  in  accordance  with this  Article.   The parties  further
   recognize  that the  continued  operation  of  the System  is the  primary
   objective and  is of substantial and material  public importance.

                                     171

-------
In particular,  the  parties  recognize that a long-term Agreement  at  fixed
paymentb which includes escalation factors tied to specific indices and/or
which  does  not  protect against  material changes  in  the composition  of
Solid  Waste may  result at  some  point  in  time  in  an  inequity to  the
Company.  Therefore,  it is  the  purpose  of this  Section to provide  for
continued operation  of the  bystem without termination while providing  a
mechanism   for   protecting   the   Company  against  significant   economic
frustrations  that might result  over the  long-term pe,iod  involved  from
events  which  are  beyond   the   control  of  the  parties  and  could  not
reasonably  have  been   anticipated at  the  date  of  execution  of  these
contracts.

It is  not the  intent of this provision that there shall  bo any  adjustment
at a  result of  nm-cstimates,  errors in calculation, changes in the price
levels of Recovered Products or  ths development of alternative systems for
processing  Solid  Waste  and producing  Recovered  Product!;  that  might  be
materially more  or less  favorable.

Section 402.  First Condition of  Economic  Frustration.

The  Company  shall   furnish  to  the  Authority  prior  to  the  Commercial
Operation Date  an initial   operating budget showing  in  reasonable detail
the quantities and costs of the  labor, materials and services constituting
the Base Operating Fee and Base Labor Fee.

Sectior 403.  Second  Condition of Economic Frustration.

Within  120  c?ys  following   the  ond  of the  fifth, tenth,  fifteenth  and
twentieth  Contract  Years,  the   independent  auditors  then  servicing  the
Company shall issue an "Economic Frustration Certification" if an economic
frustration exists.  A copy of such Economic Frustration Certificate shall
be delivered to the Authority and  to the Company.  An Economic Frustration
Certificate  shal1  be  issued  if  the  Company  shall   have  incurred  a
cumulative  Net  Loss Before  Taxes of not less  than  Three Million Dollars
during the period of three  (3)  Contract Years immediately prior  to the end
                                  172

-------
of the five-year period involved ana shall  project a Net Loss Before
or  not  less,  than  One  Million  Dollars  for  each of  the  next  tvo  (2)
succeeding  Contract  Years.    If  Che  provisions  of  Section 406  become
operative  but  no  adjustment  has  been made  pursuant  to this  Article IV
either by negotiation or arbitration, then  at the end of any Contract Year
after  the  end  of  the  fifth  Contract   Year  an  Economic  Frustration
Certificate shall be  issued  if the Company shall have  incurred a  N°t Loss
Before Taxes  of  not less  ihan  Three  Million  Dollars in  the preceding
Contract  Year   or not  less  than Five Million  Dollars  in  the  two  (2)
preceding Contract Years.

Section 404.  Further Conditions  of  Economic  Frustration.

If the Authority has received an Economic  Frustration Certificate  pursuant
to  Section 403  above,   the  Company  may   undertake  to  claim  economic
frustration if  it first demonstrates to the Authority that the conditions
which occurred which  caused  the economic  frustration occured  as  a  result
of one of the following:

a. The actual increases  in  the Cost of Operation resulting from inflation
   not having  been properly  reflected  by  the  adjustment provided  by the
   indices applied in the Plan of Operation,  or

b. Either  the  Cost  of  Operation  or Net  Revenues  have been  materially
   affected  as   the   result  of  the composition of  Class  I  Solid  V/aste
   delivered  to  the  System  by  or  on   behalf  of  the  Municipalities
   significantly changing from the following composition:

   Constituent                         Weight (%)
   Paper, plastics and organics           54.4
   Glass                                   9.0
   Ferrous Metal                           7.6
   Non-Ferrous Metals                      0.8
   Moisture                               25.0
   Miscellaneous                           3.2
                                 Total    100.0

                                  173

-------
Section 405.   Exercise  by  tl'.t  Company  of  the  Provisions  of  this  Article

If the conditions  contained  in this Article IV hu^e been met, the Company
shall  gi.en  written notice to fie Authority setting forth  the manner in
vil.*ch  the Company has  been  economically  frustrated.   The Company  and
Authority  thereupon agree  10  negotiate   in good  faith over the changes
required  in   this  Agreement  in  onier to  reduce  or eliminate  the causes
giving rise  to  the economic frustration and to adjust tne amounts payable
by  or  to the  Company,  provided  that  no  such  changs  shall   cause  the
Authority  to be in violation of  any of  the provisions  of  the Municipal
Contract  cr  result in  the Authority being unable to pay Debt Service  from
the  aggregate Service  Payments  coll PCted under  such  Municipal Contract.
During  such   period  of negotiations  both the  Company and  the Authority
shall  continue  to  perform all of  their  obligztions  under this  Agreement.
Any such agreement  by the parties shall become effective  immediately.

Section 4P6.   Arbitration.

In the event  that  the Cnir-pany and  the Authority are unable to agree on the
changes  to Uiis Agreement in  accordance  with  Section 405 within  180  days
after  the   Company  has  notified  the  Authority  that  it   has  met  the
conditions specified  ii- this  Article, then the  Company  or  the Authority
may  demand arbitration pursuint  to  the  conditions  of  this  Section.  The
demand  for arbitration >-hall  be issued  under and pursuant to  Section 506
hereof.   The  costs of  the arbitration proceedings  shall  be  borne equally
by  tr.e Authority  and  "jy  the  Company and  any decision  by the  arbitrators
shall  be  retroactive  to  tlie date  of  the  demand  for arbitration.  The
arbitration  dr-rision may  provide  that the parties  execute an  appropriate
amendment  to this Agreement  in  order to effect the  provisions  of  this
Article IV provided that no such amendment shall cause  the Authority to be
in violation of any of the provisions of  the Municipal Contract or  result
in  the Authority  being  unable to  pay  Debt  Service  from  the aggregate
Service Payments collected under si-rh  Municipal Contract.
                                  174

-------
4.  Universal Oil Products (UOP) - Contracting Communities for Northeast
   Project, Nonh Andover, Massachusetts,
   Section IV, Part 11:   Delivery of Acceptable Waste

   To the extent  that  capacity is available,  except as provided in Exhioit 3
   which is attached hereto  and made a part  hereof,  and  except as otherwise
   herein provided, the Customer shall,  beginning on the Commencement Date of
   Operations  and for  the  term  of this  Agreement,  deliver all  Acceptable
   Waste that  the  Customer is  either legally obligated to  accept  or has the
   right to  dispose  of to the  Facility  or to any Transfer  Station  which is
   identified  o>i  Exhibit 4,  which  is .attached hereto and made a part hereof,
   for subsequent  delivery to  the Facility, all  without cost to the Company,
   and shall  p«y  to the Company  en the terms provided in  Section VI  hereof
   the Service Fee then in effect for such deliveries.

   Section VI, Part  5:    Change   in  Composition  or  Laws  or  Unforeseen
   Circumstances

   (i)   The Customer recognizes  that  tne  profit incentive of the Company is
         predicted upon recovery of certain marketable or usable fractions of
         the  Acceptable  Waste  and  that  changes in  the  composition  of the
         Acceptable Waste, especially  in  the  components of recognized value,
         could  disrupt  the  income  from  the  sale  of  energy  and  reclaimed
         materi.il and thereby reduce the revenues to the Customer and profits
         for  the  Company.   The Customer  agrees  therefore *!..«; in  the event
         the composition of  the Acceptable Waste changes from that descnoed
         in Exhibit 2, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, as a
         result of any change in any applicable law, ordinance,  regulation or
         for  any  other  reason, the  Coitioany  shall  have  the  right,  at its
         option, to request by  notice to the Customer that the Service Fee be
         adjusted as  provided in (iv) b»low.

   (ii)  The Customer also recognizes  that the Company has entered inlo this
         Agreement based upon  the  law and governmental regulations in effect

                                     175

-------
      as of the date of this Agreement.   If  such  laws  are  changed  so  as  to
      increase materially  the cost  of  operating the  Facility  or  performing
      the services contemplated hereunder,  or to reduce resource  recovery
      revenues, the  Company  would  suffer adverse financial  consequences.
      Accordingly,  the  Customer agrees  that in the event  there is any
      change in any federal,  state,  or local law, rules or regulations,  or
      there occur any other  acts of an;  such governmental  authority  which
      cause or result in  a  material increase in  the cost  of  operating the
      Facility  performing  the  services   contemplated   hereunder  or   a
      material reduction in  resource  recovery revenues, including but not
      limited  to,  any  laws  or  regulations  relating to the  protection  of
      the environment,  the Company  shall  have the right at its  option,  to
      request by notice to  the  Customer  ti.at the Service  Fee be  adjusted
      as provided in (iv)  L»eiuch  increases  in  costi
      and/or reductions in revenues.

(iii) The Customer and  the Company  further recognize that,  over  the course
      of a  twenty-year period,  the possibility  exists for the  occurrence
      of an unforeseen change  in  circumstances of  a continuing nature
      which could alter the financial  conditions  upon which this Agreement
      has been based and  entered  into by the Company, but which would not
      alter the need and desirability  of  continuance in  the performance  of
      the obiigations of the parlies.

      It is  explicitly  understooo  -hat such Unforasepn Circumstance does
      not  include  the  consequences  • f errors of  design,  '.onstruction,  or
      operation on the part  of  the detractor,   the Company, the  Operator
      or any of their wholly-owned subsidiary corporations.

      Accordingly,  the Customer and  the  Company agree that in the  event
      there should occur  any such  Unforeseen Circumstance having  a  major
      effect   in  altering   the  financial   conditions  ipon which   this
      Agreement was  based ar.d  entered 'into by  the Company, the  Company
      shall have  the ri jht,  at  its option, to  request by  notice to the
      Customer- that the Service  Fee be aojusted  as  provided  in  (iv)  below

-------
      so as t.o restore equivalent financial  conditions  for the performance
      of the Company's Obligations under this Agreement.

(iv)  In the event of  a  request by tlfe Company for an  adjustment pursuant
      to any  of  the  first  three paragraphs  nf  this  section,  it  shall
      provide   i!ata  and   anaysis  supporting  tne  requested  adjustment.
      Providing  the  Contract  Community  Representative  and the  Company
      cannot agree on  the  amount of  adjustment,  either party may call  for
      the   formation   of   an  arbitration  panel,  consisting   of  three
      arbitrators  (one of  such  arbitrators  shall  be  selected by  the
      Company,  while   the  second  arbitrator  shall  be  selected by  the
      Contract   Community   Representative,   and   the   two   so   selected
      arbitrators shall mutually select a third  abr'itrator), which  shall
      be requested to prepare for tne Company arid the Contract Communities
      a  report  of  findings  determining  whether or not  the Company  has
      suffeifirt  adverse financial  consequences.  If it  is  determined that
      them h-is been an adverse change in financial circumstances of  the
      Company  and  that such  change was due  to circumstances contemplated
      under this Section,  then such report shall  also determine the amount
      of sucn  change so as to place the Company in a position witn respect
      to financial consequences which shall  be substantially equivalent to
      that  in which the Company would have been  in the event such change
      had  nca  occurred.    Company  shall  cooperate with  such arbitration
      panel uy providing  the  necessary cost  data to enable the arbitration
      panel to  determine  the  appropriate  adjustment  to  be  made.   The
      findinj  of  such  arbitration  panel,  as to the-amount  of adjustment,
      shall  be  binding   upon  the  Company,   the  Customer  and  Contract
      Communities.  Notwithstanding  any  provision 01   this Section,  no
      finding  of  such  arbitration  panel  shall  in any way have  the effect
      of reducing  the  amount  of  A or  B  as set  forth in  Section VI  (2)
      above
                                  i/7

-------
5. City of Milw.tunee - Americology, Inc.  Contract - Claus0 for Re-negctiation

   "In the event any federal or state legislation or County or Cm' n^dinance
   is enacted  which substnatially affects or alters  any  component contained
   in the  composition of  solid  wastes or  which requires  the  separation ct
   solid waste l:y CITY households, CONTRACTOR or CITY shall nave the right to
   request  prompt contract  negotiations.   Notwithstanding the  enactment of
   such   legislation  or   ordinance,   and   subject   to  the   outcome   of
   renegotiations,  the enactment  of such legislation or  ordinance shall  not
   be cause for CONTRACTOR to abandon or fail to fulfill the Agreement in any
   manner whatsoever."
6.  Contract #L with City of New Orleans:   Section S.Ol.g - Recoverable
        .r?l! Quantity Baseline Data
   The  recoverable   resource  quantity  baseline  data   was   developed  by
   Dr. Stephen  E.  Steimle,  P.E.,  and  present  in  his  report Solid V.aste
   Composition Study dated September  1,  1972.

   Dr. Steimle  estimates  the  citywide composition of solid  waste,  for those
   materials sampled, in  Exhibit XI  on page 18 of his report.  This data has
   been extracted to  show the expected average quantities of the recoverable
   resources.   Ihese are presented in the following table.

                   Quantities of Recoverable Resources
   Hateri-I                   Percent Cciiposition of Solid Waste
   Ferrous Metals                             7.50
   Glass                                     10.37
   Aluminum                                   0.°2

   The study fount! nonferrous> -netal  (Deluding aluminum)  to  exist  only in a
   *race amo"nt.  In  addition the  report i;uotes a previous study which found
   pdper to  comprise  39.4 percent of solid waste on an  as-delive^eu basis.
   The  Battellc  ML-it  rial  Institute   (BMI)  study  Racovfiry a .id utilisation of
   Municipal Solid Waste  shows  a  range  for p-.per- of 3?  to  60 percent based

                                     178

-------
   upon a  largo  number of loca'i stutk3.  The New Orleans papei figure falls
   at  the  lowor er.d  of this  range.   Based  upon the EMI finding  of  7 to 15
   percent  new:.p mt,  the  baseline   newsprint  figure  for  New  Orleans  is
   estimated  ai.  8  percent,   because  tl s  percentage  of  nunferrous  metals
   (excluding  aluminum)  is  low,   lh;se  .nater'als  are Deluded from  the
   bdseline daUi for quantity of recoverable resources.

   The  method  of  computation  of  the  cata  for  quantity  o.~   recoverable
   resources shall  be an avarane ovor ?;»y consecutive four (4) month period,
   the  first  of which  shall  com  nee  on tht day  ut'ter  the Completion ' tt«.
   These averages shall  then  be compared tu the baseline c'ata.

   For  the purposes  of  Secti -n  VI  (.5) (i),  the  reference  composition of
   Acceptable W.-jsto  delivered by Contract Communities is:
Refuse Category
Paper
Glass
Ferrous metals
Nunfe,rcuc metals
Plastics
Leather, rubber
Textiles
Wood
      Nonfood product total
Food wastes
Yard wastes
Miscellaneous
      Total
'•'inimun Btu content
      % of Total
   (By Wat Weight)
         35.8
          8.4
          7.6
          6.0
          1.3
          1.4
          1.9
          2.3
% Moisture Content
   of Each Refuse
U+egoiy as Disposed
         23.1
          3.0
          5.5
          5.5
         13.0
         13.0
         20.0
         15.0
         59.3
         18.7
         20.4
          1.6
        100.0
4,200 (nHV)'pe: pout d
         63.0
         34.0
          4.0
         28.3**
*Weighted Average
""Contract #4 with UOP:   Section VI, P:rt 5,(i).
                                     179

-------
   Source Separation Agreement"

   Nothing in  this  Agreement shall be deemed  to restrict the rights of  any
   participating Contract  Community  *.c  practice  source  separation for  the
   recovery and recycling of waste materials  for «.h<: benefit of  the Contract
   Community or any charitable purpose.

   Recognizing  that  the  Service Fee  sach Contract Community pays  under  the
   terms of this Agreement is strongly affected by the value  of materials  and
   energy  recovered  and  marketed  by  the Solid  Waste Recovery Facility  and
   that  in  turn  the  materials  and  energy available  for  recovery by  the
   Facility  are reduced  by  source  s?gregation  programs,  it is  agreed  as
   follows:

   1.  The  Customer  pledges  to   agressively   support  enlaigement  of  the
      collection area  by  inclusion  of  additional  Contract Communities  as
      participants  under the same  terms  and conditions as this Agreement, if
      required  to attain  near full capacity quantities (17,000 or  more tons
      per  week) of  Acceptable  Waste, with the  tonnage  of  such  additional
      waste at  least equal to the  aggregate tonnage of all  source  segregated
      materials.

   2.  UOP  shall not  be  responsible  tor  marketing  or  handling  of  source
      segregated materials.

   3.  No adjustment in Service  Fee,  except as  provided in Section  VI (5)(i),
      shall be made as a consequence of source segregation programs removing:

      a. paper only  or glass only, or

      b. both paper  and glass, or
*  Agreement between Universal  Oil  Products (UOP) and Contracting Communities
   in Northeast Project of Massachusetts Bureau of Solid Waste (Ref. IV-4).
                                     180

-------
   c.  metals in  conjunction with effective  programs for removal  of  both
      paper ,ind glass, or

   d.  metal removal  up  to  an  aggregate tonnage  removed  by all  Contract
      Communities  of 175   tons  per  month,   excluding  tonnage  of  metal
      removed  in  conjunction with  affective  programs 'or removal  of  both
      paper and glass.

4.  Any  glass  removed  from  the  Acceptable Waste  stream  by  a  source
   segregation program shall not a*- ary time  be  returned to  the Acceptable
   Waste struam.

5.  Removal of  aggregate tonnages of metals under 3(d)  above,  in excess of
   175 tons per  month average for  a  period  of  six months or  more,  shall
   constitute  a   change   of   composition  under   Section VI   (5)(i),
   irrespective of any other aspect of Acceptable Waste composition.

6.  UOP  will   cooperate  with   Customer  and Customer  approved  citizen
   organizations'  source  segregating  interests  by  providing advice  and
   counseling  from  time  to  time  with  respect   to  establishing  source
   segregation programs  and marketing of segregated materials  at no charge
   to the Customer or Customer sponsored citizen groups.
                                  1S1

-------