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
------- |